For the rest of the country, it may be a punchline, but traffic in Los Angeles kills souls.
Statistically speaking, L.A. is the most gridlocked city in the entire world. Drivers spent 102 hours on average in congestion in 2017, costing the city’s economy $19 billion. In contrast, drivers in Moscow and New York, tied for second place, spent just 91 hours gridlocked. According to a poll conducted by the L.A. Times, Angelenos stress more about traffic than personal safety, finances, or housing costs. Economists at the Journal of Public Economics even found that extreme traffic in L.A. increases the city’s domestic violence rate.
The city has tried in vain to fix the problem, spending billions of dollars on the Sepulveda Pass to add two extra lanes to the 405 and connecting Downtown with Culver City with the Expo Line light rail. But these measures have had no effect on the traffic, all but confirming the dreaded Fundamental Law of Road Congestion, the economic theory that adding roadways proportionally adds traffic to a system.
In the long run, the combination of L.A.’s metro expansion and proliferation of ride sharing may reduce the number of cars on the road. And if L.A. gets smart, they could reform some zoning laws to allow the city to gain needed density. But given the city’s governance, I wouldn’t bet on that.
Luckily, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is finally considering congestion pricing as a last resort. The MTA is considering a variety of mechanisms, including tolls for drivers based on distance or entry points, and planning how to use revenue to expand the Metro system.
Angelenos, happy to vote for candidates and policies to spike taxes at every turn, will likely balk at this common-sense reform. Seventy-five percent of Angelenos drive alone to work, and the city’s culture — insular, frenetic, and desperate to be seen — has almost been built by hours traveling throughout the city alone, automobile bound.
But congestion pricing is far more fiscally responsible than a sales tax here and there. By forcing drivers to pay the social cost incurred by traffic, the city can both ensure that residents are paying for the services they use and fund more efficient and environmentally friendly new Metro lines. And the health benefits of congestion pricing cannot be ignored. A study in Stockholm found that a congestion tax reduced pollution by 5 to 15 percent, decreasing the local rate of childhood acute asthma. Rather than punish drivers, a congestion tax may just account for external costs not absorbed by the market.
Congestion pricing has proven effective in other major metropolitan areas such as London, Milan, and Singapore, and as it stands, there’s no other means of spending or taxing that the city’s been able to use to decrease traffic. Los Angeles would be wise to make a bet on congestion pricing. After all, could it possibly make its traffic even worse?
