Charging a fee to use public streets is a new concept in the United States, right? Wrong.
A form of charging for congestion has been around in the U.S. since the first bunch of parking meters was ticking away in Oklahoma City in July 1935. By this time in history there were too many cars and too little curb space, so parking meters were invented to limit the length of time motorists could remain parked by charging a fee, thereby providing opportunity for others to use the space. 
Limiting the use of a public good with a fee for the benefit of all is similar to the congestion charging schemes of today in practice in London and Stockholm, who charge a fee to enter downtown. This congestion charging fee encourages transit use, biking, and carpooling, and in so doing, removes many vehicles from downtown, allowing traffic to move at a quicker pace, while improving air quality with fewer vehicles on the road.
As Cynthia Crossen of The Wall Street Journal points out, "many drivers believed that charging for parking was downright un-American. The "newfangled nuisances," "damn foolish contraptions" or "gypometers," opponents said, illegally infringed on the individual's right to free use of the public streets. They amounted to a tax on automobiles, depriving owners of their property without due process."
As cities in the U.S. decide whether they want a congestion charge to improve congestion in downtowns, we'll likely revisit the times of the first parking meters. As history repeats itself, a segment of the public will also call congestion charging "un-American", like parking meters were libeled. However, just as parking meters won acceptance and are now in major cities freeing up curb space for their more efficient use, I believe soon we'll have congestion charging too.
Below is my response to Commuter182's comments:
Point 1 - Toll roads are a different form of charging. Tolls simply charge users for use and have nothing to do with decreasing congestion as they are not variable charges based on levels of congestion.
Point 2 - Congestion charging also poses a large disincentive, similar to not paying a parking meter, to those who do not pay the congestion charge. London increases the fine over time to individuals who do not pay it within the designated period.
Point 3 - The poor already don’t drive to work as they can’t afford owning a vehicle. This group would greatly benefit from improved transit from the revenues associated with congestion charging. I’m glad we both share a concern for this.
Point 4 - I agree Metro is reaching capacity. Revenues generated by congestion charging would go towards improving and creating new transit service so that crowding is limited and more options are available to those who choose not to drive. Revenues would also be used to improve biking facilities so biking can become a good option for individuals.
Point 5 - Congestion charging is a form of transportation demand management and a public policy. Having fewer individuals driving single occupant vehicles is a public benefit as less pollution is made and congestion decreases, allowing necessary vehicle trips to be made easier. Charging more for transit customers is not a public benefit as this is a mode that should be encouraged. Driver should not be encouraged.
Posted by: Paul DeMaio | August 09, 2007 at 07:37 AM
There is a fundamental difference between parking meters and also toll roads versus congestion charging. The former two impose relatively low fees for using them, but threaten the user with a large financial disincentive, in the form of fines, if they violate the terms the usage, such as letting the meter run out or not paying at the toll gate.
Congestion charging, on the other hand, has the large financial disincentive up front. Though it won't be as high as a typical fine, it still needs to be relatively high in order to dissuade people from the roads. That is, after all, its goal.
As other posters have previously pointed out on this topic, these high fees will force (poorer) people off the roads and onto--what? The already overburdened Metrorail a la the Orange Crush? Those who are already playing human sardine now will surely welcome the new huge influx of fellow travelers.
Bikes? That's basically an enthusiasts' option.
Biking already costs neither fuel nor fares, just your own muscle and sweat; there are no further financial incentives needed. And yet, why isn't it much more popular? The 100 degree heat outside may offer some clues.
It has been said the money collected from congestion charging will be used to improve transit and other options. That depends on the option. To improve the aforementioned Orange Crush may require widening existing tunnels and stations to add at least another track. That is likely to cost a few $billion. And even if the money was raised, it will still take years to build. So things will get much more crowded or delayed for transit commuters before they get better under this scheme. Perhaps they can raise fares to limit the number of passengers so people can at least have some breathing room, let alone standing room. After all, raising fares is also a form of charging a fee to limit access to a scarce resource, for the common good.
Posted by: Commuter182 | August 09, 2007 at 12:45 AM