After coming clean about Chicago’s $838 million shortfall, Mayor Lori Lightfoot talked about “exploring revenue options to address rampant congestion that solves the problems of traffic, pollution…while simultaneously bringing in a fair source of funding.”
But what exactly would or should a congestion fee look like Chicago? Would it follow the leaders by drawing a ring around the downtown area and slapping a hefty fee on every vehicle that crosses into the zone?
Or would it be done on a “dynamic, variable fee basis,” as Chicago transportation experts have suggested, based on type of vehicle, location, time of day, number of passengers and their ability to pay?
Those are just some of the questions that Lightfoot needs to answer as she dips her toe into the brave new world of congestion pricing 44 years after Singapore blazed the trail.
There are no easy answers. None of it can happen without years of study, politically volatile debate and a substantial capital outlay for surveillance cameras, sensors and transponders.
“Congestion pricing means different things in different cities. We don’t know what’s best for Chicago yet. That’s why we’re asking the city to analyze the different options,” said Kyle Whitehead, a spokesman for the Active Transportation Alliance.
Brooks Rainwater, director of the Center for City Solutions from the National League of Cities, called congestion pricing a “valuable tool in the tool box,” but only for cities with “robust transportation systems that are able to move people out of personally-owned automobiles.”
“It accomplishes incredible reductions in overall vehicles on the road while you’re able to find additional support for public transit within the city,” Rainwater said.
“The only cautionary note…is to make sure there’s a robust education campaign so people impacted understand….how funds collected will be utilized….If you’re utilizing the dollars from a congestion pricing scheme to support existing public transportation system, the end result will be a net positive for everybody.”
Singapore implemented the world’s first congestion pricing system in 1975 at a cost of $110 million.
According to a recent study by the National League of Cities, variable rates as high as $3 depending on time of day, road type and traffic conditions are imposed Monday-through-Saturday between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. Inner city traffic has declined by 24 percent, even with “massive population growth,” the study said.
In 2003, London jumped in with a fee that started at $6.15-per-vehicle and grew to $14.14 by 2014. It raised $3.9 billion in the first decade. Traffic congestion dropped by 30 percent in the first year alone. But it required an initial investment of $214 million.
Four years later, Stockholm spent $236.7 million to implement its “variable pricing” system. The investment was recouped in four years. Traffic volumes declined by 22 percent. Travel times during afternoon and evening rush were cut in half.
The maximum daily fee is $11.30. There is no charge on weekends, public holidays, the day before holidays, during evening and overnight hours and during the entire month of July.
In 2021, New York City is poised to become the first U.S. city to try congestion pricing for trips south of 60th Street.
There’s talk of weekday rates of $25.34 for trucks and $11.52 for cars to raise anywhere from $780 million to $1.4 billion-a-year.
But details are still being nailed down amid demands for exemptions. New Jersey congressman are already complaining that congestion pricing amounts to a “double tax” on New Jersey motorists who already pay hefty tolls on bridges leading into Manhattan.
That is the political minefield that Lightfoot is stepping into.
If she’s looking for a quick fix for the $838 million shortfall that she inherited, the best the mayor could hope for is to slap a higher, more equitable tax on ride-hailing vehicles now clogging Chicago streets.
Chicago’s currently imposed “72-cent flat, fixed charge per ride booking” on Uber, Lyft and Via “does not fully support the goals of equity and reducing congestion and green-house emissions,” transportation experts from the Metropolitan Planning Council and seven other groups wrote in a June 27 letter to Lightfoot.
MPC President Mary Sue Barrett, for one, wants the mayor to steer clear of a London model that, she claims, is “very dated thinking” and “doesn’t match Chicago’s reality.”
“It’s really complicated. You can’t just slap a circle around a city and say, ‘Everyone here is doing something good and everyone here should be penalized,’” Barrett said.
“One of the ideas our team…has looked at is a fee that is higher on solo trips….If you’re the only passenger in [a private vehicle or] that Uber or Lyft, you would pay a supplemental fee. That’s where the congestion pricing conversation has evolved to. It’s much more responsive and incentive based.”
Rainwater said it makes sense for Chicago to “get this right” before autonomous vehicles hit the streets, drop people off and “ghost through the city waiting for another ride.”
“If you think about pricing the streets beforehand, you could make it so that’s not the direction these vehicles go. Instead, they might have to park somewhere outside of the city and only come in when people are actually calling for them, rather than a constant churn,” he said.
