Who wants to reduce traffic congestion on local freeways, raise their hand?

Good. All of you.

What if I told you that charging you to drive on certain freeways during peak times will reduce or maybe even eliminate rush-hour gridlock, guaranteed — as guaranteed as a political speech during the Academy Awards. Who wants to pay to ride the freeways during peak hours?

Hmmm. I bet not that many hands went up.

Therein lies the dilemma of congestion pricing. In many cities, it has proven to lighten the load of local roadways — dramatically. It works. But there is a cost. Literally.

That’s part of what Michael Manville, assistant professor or Urban Planning at UCLA Lusk School of Public Affairs told a key LA Metro committee this past week. Read to the end to see what LA Metro CEO Phil Washington thinks of the idea.

Manville was asked to explain the theory behind congestion pricing and give examples, while he answered questions on the issues surrounding such a controversial policy. I’ve organized his talk into sub-topics and summarized what he said:

The premise.

Roads cost the same all the time: They are always free. And that’s bad policy.

That is unlike anything else in society, even in a free-market country like the United States. For instance, the cost of electricity varies by time of day. The cost of water varies by how much we use at what time of year. Yet, surface roads and freeways cost the same to use 365 days a year, 24/7.

Someone could be driving to the hospital to deliver a baby or going to buy a bag of potato chips. And the cost to drive the road is the same.

Hence, roads don’t have a true value. Congestion is really a road shortage. It is caused by a distorted price of the roadway.

The problem

Aside from the obvious — mind-numbing congestion that stops us on the east side from visiting the west side and vice versa. We’ve become fragmented.

(I’m a UCLA basketball fan but ask me in 30 years how many times I’ve seen them play at Pauley Pavilion? The answer is 1. Too much traffic is the reason.

Second, and perhaps less obvious, is the amount of time and energy we spend trying to increase the shortage of roads. I just described the Waze business model.

Third, shadow markets are created where the price of congestion affects the price of new housing (or limits the availability).

Driving the roads in Southern California is like Black Friday. We all drive at the same time to secure the best deal, the best job or get to the best restaurant. We experience long lines and frustration.

Our health is impacted. We are more stressed. Our families suffer because we spend less time with the ones we love.

The solution

Charging to enter the west side, the Civic Center or say, Century City is enacting a cordon type of congestion pricing. This would reduce peak time congestion. Those not driving to work would take other modes: 1. drive another time or route 2. drive as a carpool in a carpool lane 3. take the bus or train.

Driving into Central London costs $13. The result was a 36 percent reduction in congestion. Singapore and Stockholm added prices for peak hour driving and saw similar traffic relief.

A price high enough to deter say 5 percent can achieve a 20 percent reduction in volume.

Is it regressive? Lots of taxes are regressive, such as: gasoline tax, property tax, utility user taxes. The agency could do what utilities do and give breaks to low-income people.

The response

Phil Washington: “This is about re-imagining Los Angeles. It sends a message to the world that we are doing something about congestion.”

Steve Scauzillo covers public health, environment and green transportation for the Southern California News Group. He’s a recipient of the Aldo Leopold Award for Distinguished Editorial Writing. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @stevscaz or email him at sscauzillo@scng.com.