Editorial: Congestion pricing a 'green' move or cash grab?

Boston Herald editorial staff, Boston Herald on May 4, 2026

Published in Op Eds

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

Congestion pricing, such as that being considered by Boston Mayor Michelle Wu to discourage people from driving their personal cars into the city, is supposed to be a “green” policy. Indeed, Wu’s proposal is a strategy to meet her net-zero emissions goal.

“The large volume of trips taken by private vehicles into the city of Boston congests our roads, renders bus service unreliable, and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions,” the climate action plan states.

But as New York City shows, the big “green” payoff comes in dollars.

As the New York Post reported, congestion pricing generated more than $562 million in net revenue in its first year — well above the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s $500 million projection for 2025 after expenses, according to the MTA.

MTA Chairman Janno Lieber said the program — which charges drivers a $9 base toll to enter Manhattan below 60th Street during peak hours — helped make 2025 “arguably the best year in MTA history.”

No kidding.

Six months in, N.Y. Gov. Kathy Hochul and the MTA took a victory lap. Fewer cars drove into the city, traffic injuries and pedestrian fatalities were down, transit ridership was up.

But the big bucks were the big win, and not everyone is happy about it. Some drivers pay more than $27 just to get to work in Manhattan each day. Working from home has never looked so good.

“How did they raise more than anticipated if there were supposed to be fewer cars?” asked Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-Staten Island/Brooklyn. “Because it was a scheme that was never meant to reduce congestion. It was always about revenue.”

Here in Boston, the idea of congestion pricing is tied to environmental benefits.

“While Boston’s primary transportation goal is to shift trips away from private vehicles and toward public transit, walking and biking, the city recognizes that cars will continue to play a role in mobility through 2030,” the city’s plan states. “To reduce emissions from those vehicles, Boston is committed to making electric vehicles a practical and accessible choice.”

Indeed, earlier this month the city’s website touted the installation of (EV) charging ports at curbside locations throughout the city.

On one hand, Boston wants to discourage drivers in the city; on the other, it’s actively encouraging the use of electric vehicles. So, will EVs be exempt from congestion pricing?

If the goal is fighting climate change, giving EV drivers a pass would make sense. But that would take some air out of a potential fiscal windfall.

As it did in New York, the idea of congestion pricing drew backlash in Boston.

“The economy of Boston is struggling,” City Council Ed Flynn said in a statement to the Herald. “We have a major spending problem. It’s irresponsible for the City of Boston to increase taxes on residents or businesses. We must be fiscally responsible, fiscally disciplined, accountable and transparent.”

As fee-paying New Yorkers can attest, money talks. Loudly.

_____