Traffic Lab: How Congestion Pricing Pays Off
Two experts explain how congestion pricing could help beat traffic — and help communities in the long run.
Sitting in standstill traffic during rush hour probably isn’t high on your list of favorite activities. But for many, it’s an unavoidable part of life, and definitely a waste of time, energy, and gas. What if you had the option to save that time and spend that gas money on something that could make the future (and your mood) better? We spoke with two experts who think congestion pricing could be the solution to our rush hour woes — and more.
Michael Manville is an associate professor of urban planning and development at UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs and Sam Schwartz (AKA “Gridlock Sam”) is a transportation and traffic expert and author of “Street Smart: The Rise of Cities and the Fall of Cars” and “No One at the Wheel: Driverless Cars and the Road of the Future.” We asked them to explain what congestion pricing is and how it could pave a better path forward. Pun very much intended.
Congestion pricing and how it works
In short, congestion pricing requires drivers to pay to use busy roads (not just at tolls entering or leaving cities). One goal is to encourage people to drive less frequently or to drive when costs are lower, during off-peak hours. One obvious challenge is that most of us are so used to having free access to roads that the mere suggestion of congestion pricing might sound like a switcheroo. But according to several experts, it’s just economics 101: a case of supply and demand.
“Congestion, at its root, is caused because the road is underpriced,” Manville explains. “It’s a hallmark economics lesson: when you have a good that lots of people want, and you hold its price down, you’re going to see a shortage. And that’s basically what’s happening on our road system every day.”
According to Manville, if the problem is an excessive demand for a limited resource, then “the solution is to correctly price the road.” The goal of congestion pricing isn’t necessarily to reduce the number of cars, it’s to “reduce the demand and increase the efficiency of cars,” Schwartz explains, “Congestion pricing is ideal because, at the same time, it also raises revenue for a transit system that sorely needs the funding.”
Finding the right price
One argument against congestion pricing is that it could disproportionately hurt lower-income drivers. But there are plenty of ways to make it more equitable. Setting the price based on time of day, for example, could help. According to Schwartz, people in lower-income brackets are more likely to work jobs with off-peak hours, so they wouldn’t be charged to drive late at night or early in the morning. Rush hour traffic proves that the road is more valuable at certain times than others. “It’s more valuable at 8:00 a.m., when people need to get to work or school, than it is at midnight,” Manville explains, “so logically, it should cost more to use the road at 8:00 a.m. than at midnight.”
Another option is to charge by usage. Rather than having drivers pay a flat rate, Schwartz suggests charging “based on how much of the street you use and how much time you spend in the central business district.” That way, if you’re only driving a block or two to get to work, you won’t be charged the same amount as someone spending hours driving around the city to multiple destinations.
Similarly, it makes sense for highways in big cities like Los Angeles and New York to cost more than those in the middle of the desert. Roads are the only utility that we don’t currently pay for. With proper congestion pricing, cities can lower the demand for roads at peak times and end up with a less-crowded road that works better for drivers.
For cities without reliable public transportation options, Schwartz recommends combining congestion pricing with high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. “Instead of trying to build our way out of this by adding lanes, you could move the same number of people in cars with…fewer cars.”
Signs of success
According to Manville, any downsides are “mostly political.” If anything, congestion pricing is a fairer system than what’s currently in place, which essentially forces people who don’t even drive to subsidize car-related services like road maintenance and parking through taxes (Schwartz notes that the word “subsidized” is rarely applied to how we fund road infrastructure, but when it comes to, say, public transit, it’s readily applied). With congestion pricing, the people who actually use the roads are asked to bear more of the cost.
The biggest obstacle? Getting people to give it a shot. According to Manville’s research, in every city that’s implemented congestion pricing, people have warmed to it quickly after experiencing less traffic and better-functioning road systems as a result.
Ideally, congestion pricing not only removes traffic, but also improves the roads themselves and routes much-needed funding to public transportation. Better public transit means people have more options for getting around, or simply smoother roads with fewer potholes and traffic jams. So, eventually, paying a small cost upfront leads to a big payoff in the long run.
For Manville, the real benefits “come from charging the price — not from collecting the money.” The revenue that comes from congestion pricing is just the icing on the cake. Incentivizing drivers to change their behavior will result in faster commute times, safer roads, and cleaner air — which makes congestion pricing totally worth it. Schwartz also emphasizes the importance of encouraging younger generations to “care about it, and do something about it. It’s your future!”
Learn more about congestion pricing in cities like New York, London, and Singapore.
