Is Congestion Pricing Right for Car-Happy Los Angeles?
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 04.30.08
Image courtesy of DRB62 via flickr
Following its unceremonious defeat at the hands of New York State Assembly, congestion pricing is looking to make a comeback in -- of all places -- car-mad Los Angeles. The large chunk of federal cash NYC's nixing of the deal has freed up, roughly $354 million, would be used to put toll lanes on three freeways, initially. The catch is that existing carpool lanes on these freeways would be converted to toll lanes.
The benefits of congestion pricing in cities like London have been evident for a while now: Not only do they significantly reduce traffic (and car emissions) in dense, metropolitan areas, they also encourage commuters to take public transportation. Because such a scheme was perceived as proffering many of the same benefits to NYC, where grinding traffic in midtown forces most off the roads (and onto the city's excellent public transit system), many were dismayed by the State Assembly's failure to ratify the $8 fee.
Its implementation in Los Angeles, however, raises a whole host of other issues -- many of which have pitted firm (and often vocal) advocates of the NYC/London schemes squarely against Mayor Villaraigosa and county officials. A lot of the current brouhaha basically boils down to issues of equity: As Portfolio's Felix Salmon argues, the same arguments don't apply here because congestion pricing in NYC was primarily meant to dissuade wealthier residents from driving into midtown:
This is the big difference between NY and LA. In NY, it's the rich who drive personal vehicles during the working day in midtown: the poor don't. The other big difference is that in New York there are alternatives to driving, including public transport and bicycling. While there are indeed areas of New York City which are not well served by public transport, the residents of those areas generally don't commute to Manhattan.In New York, congestion pricing forces well-off drivers to pay for - and help ameliorate - the negative externalities which they impose on the population as a whole. On the LA freeways, there's a good chance that it would only serve to exacerbate those negative externalities for most local residents.
Economist Mark Thoma raises many of the same concerns in an incisive post on the subject:
In the past, I've wondered if policies that allow a certain segment of the population to "buy out" of constraints designed to reduce carbon emissions, traffic congestion, etc. will find much popular support. This is an objection to the imposition of toll roads in LA along those lines, i.e. based upon the notion of fairness.. . .
Economics analysis tells us that using a Pigouvian tax (or its equivalent) to solve these types of problems has desirable properties, and we can use the revenue from the tax to give rebates to lower income households so as to offset the losses from higher prices, tolls, etc., (see here). But when should you trade optimal for feasible?
For example, the connection between rebates given, say, once a year on tax forms and the frequent payment of the tolls, higher gas prices, etc., may not be direct enough to offset the perception of unfairness.
LAT columnist Tim Rutten provides perhaps the most devastating critique of the L.A. scheme, articulating that the plan would essentially "clear a highway for the well-off," while allowing "the middle class and working poor," to "inhale each other's $5-a-gallon exhaust fumes." He argues that the MTA has only decided to take up this issue now that there's "free money" available -- lambasting it for not taking the consequences of congestion pricing (particularly on the poor) into consideration.
As a longtime Angeleno, I know full well how difficult it is to get around without a car. The public transit system is, at best, inconvenient and -- even where it is fully functional -- limited in scope. Many of those who work in the city cannot afford to live there and, as a result, spend several hours a day commuting on Los Angeles' infernal freeway system.
While a congestion pricing scheme would help reduce traffic and provide some much needed funds for the city's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, it would primarily benefit a small minority of commuters; eliminating carpool lanes would also do little to stem the traffic flow, since they are already carrying close to the capacity (1,200 to 1,400 vehicles per hour during rush hour on lanes which have a capacity of around 1,650) -- that is, unless the city is willing to jack up prices enough that it scares off a large number of drivers back into the regular lanes.
While we'd all prefer to see less vehicles on the road -- especially in L.A. -- any proposed traffic-reduction scheme should carefully be evaluated under a rigorous cost-benefit framework. As Thoma noted, financial incentives like regular dividend payments (based on the proceeds of the congestion fee) to low- and middle-income drivers could help slightly ease the pain; on a whole, however, congestion pricing would still penalize these workers the most, and that may be reason enough to reject it.
Via ::Market Movers: The Problems of Congestion Pricing in LA (blog)
See also: ::Bloomberg Congestion Fee a No-Go, ::Wasting Away in Traffic
Simple solution: the carpool lane is free. You need 2+ people. The other lanes have a toll.
If the carpool lane gets busy, change one of the toll lanes to be another carpool lane.
"...eliminating carpool lanes would also do little to stem the traffic flow, since they are already carrying close to the capacity (1,200 to 1,400 vehicles per hour during rush hour on lanes which have a capacity of around 1,650) -- that is, unless the city is willing to jack up prices enough that it scares off a large number of drivers back into the regular lanes."
Why on earth would you *charge* someone to use a carpool lane, if they are in fact carpooling? I thought we were trying to REDUCE emissions, not increase them.
I remember something from a movie to the effect of: "A drink if you're thirsty will cure it, a drink if you're not will prevent it. Prevention however is better than a cure." Shouldn't L.A. rather focus its efforts on creating better public transportation rather than trying to patch an already awful congestion problem with an ill-contrived solution?
Silly, silly, silly.
The article is wrong. The NYC Council APPROVED "Congestion Pricing" it was the NY State Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver who correctly flushed it down the toilet. I am whole heartedly supportive of the environment and believe in public transportation, green (non-Internal Combustion) automobiles, and human propelled vehicles but this proposal was not about the environment of NYC but simply to keep the riff-raff out of NY. The white suburbs of NYC would for the most part not pay a single penny of the "Congestion Pricing" it would ONLY be paid by those coming in from areas with significant minority-populations of Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. The idiot mayor of NYC, Mike Bloomberg who essentially bought the office, wants NYC to be for the rich. The democracts like these types of proposals because it makes them appear 'green' and hooks up their buddies in the public services unions with big fat contracts. The republicans like it as the cities will experience depopulation as these tactics of "congestion pricing" are just a method to inflict the middle and poor class with higher costs of living and who will then flee the city, diluting the traditionally democratic vote.
Me Me, that is just plain silly. Your assertion that congestion pricing unfairly penalizes minorities is ridiculous! Everybody has to pay to play, regardless of whether you are coming in from an outer borough, upstate or New Jersey. And contrary to popular belief, the "white suburbs" (i.e., New Jersey) is already paying $8 tolls to get into Manhattan. It's the freeloaders from Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx that get in for free despite the availability of the extensive NYC subway/bus system. And I suppose it's the poor minorities who are unfairly penalized because parking garages in midtown cost $40 an hour. What it all boils down to is the notion that some people feel that public transportation is beneath them or it's too much of a hassle. Congestion pricing would have discouraged the "high and mighty" as well as helped to fund expanded public transportation services to the relatively underserved areas. In addition to cleaner air, the reduced congestion would mean quicker rides via taxi, more room for bicycles and hybrid buses and happier delivery people. And most importantly, it will enable ambulances and emergency personnel to reach their destinations faster.
I have been following this issue in L.A. and what I am confused about is how a "Toll Road" is now labeled as "Congestion Pricing".
If everyone who traveled into the area paid a fee for entering, that is congestion pricing. But if five lanes are free and one is pay per use - how does that make it congestion pricing? I loved Tim Rutten's article - Diamond Lanes - he clearly sees the big picture and calls out who are making the decisions and why.
Cheers - Eric - PickupPal.com
"many were dismayed by the City Council's failure to ratify the $8 fee."
It was actually the New York State Legislature that dropped the ball on this. The City Council passed it by a healthy margin. Alas, the right to impose fees lies with the State, and the bill was killed in a committee that has long been hostile to the city's plans, and it never even made it to the floor for a vote.
Jeremy -- The fear that carpoolers would lose their incentive to carpool seems like the primary argument against the conversion, but converting carpool lanes to HOT lanes doesn't necessarily mean that carpoolers would suddenly get forced out. A bunch of different pricing options are being looked at, with some of them being that the converted lanes would remain free for carpoolers. It may be more wise to advocate for a pricing structure that doesn't hurt carpoolers, instead of simply declaring that HOT lanes are unfair to drivers.