Oh dear. They’re talking about it again. Congestion pricing, as the Globe’s Jon Chesto reports. … I have nothing against congestion pricing per se – if it’s really about relieving traffic congestion. But when lawmakers start talking about “revenue streams” and “pilot programs,” my metro-west instinct senses what’s coming: sticking it to Mass. Turnpike drivers yet again and leaving out tolls on I-93, Route 1 and Route 2 etc. And once up and running the so-called pilot program would become a permanent program with future tolls adjusted to meet the T’s revenues needs, not congestion levels. … Gov. Baker was right to veto the last congestion pricing proposal that lawmakers passed, citing “equity” concerns and other problems.

Maybe someone should ask Gov. Healey her thoughts on congestion pricing amid all the current talk about “affordability”? Might as well ask GOP gubernatorial candidates as well, right? And what about Mayor Wu? I’m pretty sure owners of Boston’s struggling office towers might have an opinion or two as well.

Re NYC’s suspended congestion program: they actually had a rather robust traffic relief plan in place when it was briefly implemented. They wanted to raise money, sure. But they were also serious about reducing traffic in downtown Manhattan. I don’t see that same seriousness in Boston. Proponents here are more focused on the money, not the traffic.

Update — 12.1.25 — There’s a lot of great comments/suggestions on congestion pricing at Universal Hub, which picked up my post a few days ago.