SAN JOSE, CA—A new study from the Mineta Transportation Institute outlines the symbiotic relationship between highway tolling and transit, and how each program needs the other. Transportation panelists examined the idea recently. In essence, public transit is an essential partner of congestion pricing programs, with one almost certainly supporting the other.

To move a congestion pricing proposal forward, “You must have serious congestion, and you must have good transit,” said former New York City Traffic Commissioner Sam Schwartz at a panel discussion on the New York City congestion pricing program earlier this year. The event was organized by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Mobility Initiative. Mr. Schwartz, popularly named “Gridlock Sam,” is also the CEO of Sam Schwartz Pedestrian Traffic Management Services, a consulting firm.

A recent report by the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University in California concluded roadway tolling—a form of congestion pricing—can serve the dual purpose of reducing traffic congestion and supporting transit options, if the programs are structured properly.

“Maximizing the impact of toll revenue investments requires prioritizing high-quality transit options that are fast, frequent, convenient and safe—ultimately making them competitive with driving alone,” reads the report, “Using Toll Revenues for Transit: It Can and Should be Done,” released in April.

In Virginia, high-occupancy vehicle lanes on major interstate corridors like I-95 and I-66 were converted to high-occupancy toll lanes, and a portion of the toll revenues was reinvested into transit projects. Since 2017, more than $150 million in toll revenues has been invested into 32 projects throughout the Northern Virginia region, according to the study. This includes $5.1 million in operating costs for a new commuter bus route, and the purchase of six buses for the service.

In the California Bay Area, tolls collected from the famed Golden Gate Bridge have been helping to support the region’s ferry and Golden Gate Transit bus system since the early 1970s, the report said. Tolls generally subsidize about 50 percent of the bridge’s transit costs, which include 150 buses and seven ferries.

But perhaps no other tolling operation is being more closely watched than the New York City congestion pricing program, which charges drivers to enter Manhattan below 60th Street. The plan went into effect Jan. 5, leading to 60,000 fewer cars a day in the congestion pricing zone, a 10 percent drop, said Will Carry, assistant commissioner for policy at the New York City Department of Transportation.

“This is quite a good result,” Mr. Carry said in comments on the MIT panel.

The program has seen its share of opposition from across the tri-state region, delaying its implementation and prompting New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to step in to renegotiate rates and other issues. The initiative has also drawn the ire of President Donald Trump, who has attempted to revoke its federal approval.

Despite these headwinds, congestion pricing is accomplishing what it sets out to do: reduce traffic, speed up travel times for buses and other vehicles, and generate funding for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which operates the region’s subway and bus network.

New York’s experience with congestion pricing so far “shows that it works, shows that it produces dramatic benefits that are quite widespread,” added Michael Replogle, former deputy commissioner for policy at the New York City Department of Transportation, at the MIT panel.

These results are almost certainly being eyed by other regions exploring congestion pricing concepts. In California’s Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has been exploring the idea of freeway tolling as a measure to discourage driving, and fund transit and other transportation improvements.

However, even though transit is a worthy cause to be supported by the tolls, it’s best to not focus on the money, said Matt Daus, partner and chair of the Transportation Practice Group at the law firm Windels Marx and former chair of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission.

“We should not be calling it ‘congestion pricing.’ I think, we should have called it ‘Move New York,’ or something like that,” Mr. Daus said during the panel. The narrative around programs like these, he said, “should be about metrics to reduce congestion.”

When setting up the rates and other policies around congestion pricing — or highway tolling — officials should look for an amount that’s going to discourage people from driving, and exempt taxis, ride-hailing, buses and other vehicles, Mr. Daus added.

“Put the environment first,” he said. “And have the money be second.”

That said, transit is an essential piece of any system that places a disincentive on driving, Mr. Daus stressed.

“You can’t legitimately tell people to get out of their cars if you don’t have a public transit system that’s safe, affordable and works on time,” he concluded.

About the report and author: Reprint courtesy Government Technology by Skip Descant who writes about smart cities, the Internet of Things, transportation and other areas. He lives in Yreka, CA.