UCLA v. USC: Can London-Style Congestion Pricing Work in the U.S.?

"Traffic policies have long focused on road building. But some now argue that opening toll-based express lanes or instituting extra fees for rush-hour drivers -- as London did in 2003 -- may drive people toward public transportation and make commutes more efficient. Are there unintended consequences of such policies? And how big a problem is congestion if -- in the end -- commuters still are willing brave the morning rush?

The Online Journal asked economists Peter Gordon, of the University of Southern California, and Matthew Kahn, of the University of California, Los Angeles, to discuss the costs of traffic congestion, the problem it poses -- or doesn't pose -- for cities and how policy options such as London's traffic congestion charges might play on this side of the pond."

A brief excerpt from the debate:

Matthew Kahn writes: "While congestion is annoying, is it destructive to long-run urban growth? Congested cities such as Boston, London, New York City and San Francisco all feature high home prices, and they continue to attract the skilled to live and work there."

Peter Gordon writes: "...We insist on free access to roads in most places, and as a result we actually rely on congestion to ration scarce road space. What strikes me as interesting is how comparatively little congestion we get in spite of both policy failures and growth in population, income and travel."

[Editor's note: While this article is typically only available to WSJ subscribers, the link below will be available to Planetizen readers for a period of five days.]