Chanaporn Tohsuwanwanich, Ellen Ohler, Ruhena Randhawa, & Natalia Ruvalcaba
THESIS
Los Angeles County should implement regressive congestion pricing in select regions of the city in order to reduce transportation congestion and the resulting carbon emissions.
BACKGROUND
Traffic across the United States costs individuals hundreds of lost hours annually, and Los Angeles has one of the nation’s highest congestion rates. In 2021, L.A. was ranked the sixth most congested urban area in the U.S., averaging 62 hours lost annually per driver.¹ This congestion costs L.A. drivers approximately $968 per person and $5.2 million total.² Moreover, these numbers are unusually low due to the COVID-19 pandemic; prior reports conclude that time lost per driver is closer to 82 hours annually and an estimated $1,774 per person, with some research noting that lost hours among drivers is closer to 100-110 per driver. High congestion levels have consequently increased carbon emissions, totaling over 30 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the city. Traffic greenhouse gas emissions are made exponentially worse as such levels increase with slower speeds and frequently fluctuating speeds. Steady and moderate rates, between 50 km/hour and 80 km/hour, are the best at producing the least amount of carbon emissions yet are currently unfeasible on L.A. roads.³ As a result of this congestion, L.A. remains one of the nation’s cities with the highest rates of carbon emissions and endures 60 percent more vehicle pollution than those in other regions of California.⁴ Public transportation serves as an alternative mode of transportation that would result in decreased carbon emissions, yet California’s transit ridership has been on a decline as of now.⁵
POLICY IDEA
Los Angeles County should implement zone-based congestion pricing to limit the number of vehicles in certain traffic regions during rush hours. At the beginning of policy enforcement, the prices should be a regressive toll model. The policy decreases traffic congestion and carbon emissions by incentivizing drivers to adjust the number, timing, and routes of trips.⁶ Furthermore, the revenue from congestion charges may help to cross-subsidize and incentivize the use of public transportation to further reduce carbon emissions from Los Angeles traffic.
POLICY ANALYSIS
Zone-based (Cordon) pricing charges individuals who cross into a city’s congested area during peak congestion hours. Fees can be fixed or can vary to produce desired traffic speeds. Disabled individuals and residents of the zone receive discounts. Additionally, public transit vehicles and registered vanpool vehicles are usually exempt. By discouraging the overuse of highways during rush hours, zone-based charges allow traffic to flow more freely. This, in turn, reduces the total number of cars on a roadway. As a result, the remaining cars burn less fuel by maintaining a steady speed.⁷ Given the large share that transportation contributes to Los Angeles’s carbon emissions, Cordon charges can significantly reduce the city’s overall emissions.
Concerns over the impact of regressive pricing on low-income individuals are largely unwarranted. Most drivers are not poor; low-income individuals are more likely to opt for public transportation, drive at non-peak hours, or travel in the opposite direction of congested roadways.⁸ Furthermore, the pollution that congestion creates disproportionately harms poor communities; it may, therefore, be in the interest of poor communities to reduce congestion. Lastly, the congestion pricing’s revenues can subsidize potential costs for low-income individuals.
Cordon pricing has already proved to be effective in multiple cities globally. For example, in London, the first year of Cordon charge implementation reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 16 percent, NOx emissions by 18 percent, and PM10 emissions by 22 percent (European Environment Agency, 2008). Similar trends have been observed in Stockholm (U.S. Department of Transportation, n.d.). Such prior zone-based charging practices could inform future Los Angeles policy.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
In order to ultimately enact cordon pricing legislation in Los Angeles County, committees should be established to examine factors pertinent to the policy, monitor the policy’s effectiveness, and suggest minor adjustments to ensure its long-term viability.
Committees should collaborate with transportation geographers and GIS analysts to establish Los Angeles congestion zones and hours. Traveler demographics, existing land use of potential areas, and availability of public transportation should help determine the pricing. Certain exceptions should be considered for vehicles carrying over a certain number of passengers to encourage carpooling and public transportation usage.
Committees should also consider any technologies necessary for cordon pricing implementation. Many options are available, such as automated number plate recognition (ANPR), dedicated short-range communication (DSRC), or satellite systems.⁹ ANPR and DSRC have been used in London and Singapore, respectively. However, further research is essential to produce optimal results for Los Angeles. Cordon pricing should be implemented in tandem with the improvement of public transportation. Revenue from congestion pricing can potentially cross-subsidize public transit systems.
References
1. INRIX. n.d. “INRIX: Americans Lost 3.4 Billion Hours due to Congestion in 2021, 42% below Pre-COVID.” Inrix. https://inrix.com/press-releases/2021-traffic-scorecard/.
2. Ibid.
3. “How to Reduce Fuel Usage and Limit CO2 When Driving | CarbonPirates.com.” 2017. CarbonPirates. April 13, 2017. https://www.carbonpirates.com/blog/reducing-carbon-emissions-driving/.
4. Reichmuth, David. 2019. Inequitable Exposure to Air Pollution from Vehicles in California. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/inequitable-exposure-air-pollution-vehicles-california-2019
5. Livesley-O’Neill, Will. n.d. “New Report: ITS Scholars on the Cause of California’s Falling
Transit Ridership.” UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies. www.its.ucla.edu/2018/01/31/new-report-its-scholars-on-the-cause-of-californias-falling-transit-ridership/.
6. De Palma, André, and Robin Lindsey. “Traffic Congestion Pricing Methodologies and Technologies.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 19, no. 6, Dec. 2011, pp. 1377–1399, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X11000362#b0595, 10.1016/j.trc.2011.02.010. Accessed 19 June 2019.
7. “Alternative Fuels Data Center: Techniques for Drivers to Conserve Fuel.” n.d. Afdc.energy.gov. afdc.energy.gov/conserve/behavior_techniques.html.
8. Manville, Michael. n.d. “Longer View: The Fairness of Congestion Pricing.” Transfers Magazine.
9. De Palma, André, and Robin Lindsey. “Traffic Congestion Pricing Methodologies and Technologies.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 19, no. 6, Dec. 2011, pp. 1377–1399, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X11000362#b0595, 10.1016/j.trc.2011.02.010. Accessed 19 June 2019.
コメント