Metro to hold four virtual public meetings to provide details on Traffic Reduction Study

Metro will hold four virtual public workshops, from September 30 through October 6, to provide details on the agency’s Traffic Reduction Study. The approximately two-year study will focus on determining if, where and how a potential pilot program that includes congestion pricing and more high-quality transportation options could reduce traffic to make it easier for everyone to travel, regardless of how they travel. Ultimately a recommended pilot will be brought to the Metro Board, in partnership with one or more cities, for their consideration.

To date, efforts to ease traffic have not kept up with demands of long-term regional growth. While the COVID-19 pandemic has reduced traffic congestion for the moment, traffic is likely to return and get worse as our economy and growth get back on track. In fact, traffic is already returning. Over the summer months, the overall travel on our regional freeway system was back to 90 percent of what it was before the pandemic in January. The Traffic Reduction Study is an initiative under Metro’s strategic plan, Vision 2028, to make it easier to get around L.A. and plan for a future without chronic gridlock.

Workshops will publicly introduce and explain congestion pricing, describe Metro’s equity-focused study methodology and present next steps in the study process for future public input.

L.A. County residents interested in learning more about this study and have questions to ask are encouraged to register online for these virtual meetings. The content of all meetings will be the same. Participants will be able to join online or call in. Live translations in Spanish will be available. Meeting dates are as follows:

  • Wednesday, September 30, 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m. Click here to register for this meeting.
  • Saturday, October 3, 10-11:30 a.mClick here to register for this meeting.
  • Saturday, October 3, 12-1:30 p.m. (Spanish-only presentation). Click here to register for this meeting.
  • Tuesday, October 6, 6-7:30 p.m. Click here to register for this meeting

Those who provide emails at registration will receive meeting log-in details and reminder notifications. Participants will not be signed up to receive further communications from Metro. Personal information will not be used for any other purposes.

Special ADA and Title VI accommodations are available to the public for Metro-sponsored meetings. All requests for reasonable accommodations and translation must be made at least three working days (72 hours) in advance of the scheduled meeting date; please call the project information line at 213.393.3905 or California Relay Services at 711.

When used as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce traffic, congestion pricing can encourage some people to change the way they travel some of the time. This could include traveling at a different time; taking a different route; using a different mode, such as carpooling, transit, walking, biking and rolling; combining and reducing trips or; traveling to another destination.

As part of the study, Metro will engage communities historically marginalized in transportation decisions to ensure the recommended pilot would benefit these communities. Any potential pilot will require a close partnership with one or more cities. Metro will also seek to design the recommended pilot to support economic prosperity, environmental and economic justice and improved public health and safety. Upon completion of the study, Metro’s Board of Directors will decide if a pilot will be implemented.

For additional information on why Metro is pursuing a Traffic Reduction Study, please visit

For additional project information, please visit

6 replies

  1. “ That proposition would likely pass by a large margin.”

    Yet, we still have HOT lanes. Also, please feel free to correct me on this, but didn’t people technically voted for more HOT lanes when voting for Measure M as part of Freeway Expansions? If that is the case, they we also shouldn’t just jump to the conclusion that everyone in LA would just outright shoot this thing down by a vote.

    What I do think may happen is pricing would outright be removed in the area where “I have money so I’m entitled to anything” voice are most prevalent, but hey just re-enforcing the main issue that should be solved above anything else.

    Then again, the Purple Line and the Expo Line still won, while the SR-710 lost so I mean anything is still possible, but to think the Sam Yorty cult of yesteryear still have a loud voice in LA is just not smart these days.

    But I will agree, this will be a fight.

    So I ask, what would be your proposal?

    • HOT lanes are just part of the rest of the freeway. It’s an option, where you can choose to pay to potentially bypass traffic.

      Congestion pricing implements a mandatory charge. Mass transit is not an effective option for everyone.

      I’m not a traffic engineer, so I’m not going to provide a proposal. Only pointing out a likely result if certain measures are carried out.

  2. If congestion pricing is even moved to a test program, opponents will quickly organize a ballot proposition to prohibit any form of it.

    That proposition would likely pass by a large margin.

    Let’s have a serious discussion about what can be done about traffic, without resorting to measures that likely wouldn’t hold up.

  3. Don’t punish driving through regressive taxes like congestion tolls. Don’t implement gas taxes and punitive measures to make people so broke they can’t afford to drive. Anything you try to do to force people to change their behavior only makes traffic worse. Americans have the right to drive their cars no matter their income level. Stay out of the way and leave well enough alone, Metro!

    • Gas taxes will begin to no longer work. If all new cars sales are not gas by 2035, then the sale of gas will be down. There will need to be a different method to pay for road maint. Maybe taxing tires based upon their weight capacity and expected mileage. That would be a huge chuck at once, but it would be equitable (heavy vehicles would pay more.) Or combine it with insurance (it is a charge on top that goes to the state). The insurance company would verify miles driven during a previous 6/12 month period. Or put the charge with the registration.

    • I’m sorry but this argument just doesn’t hold any merit anymore. “oh it’s about me, me and me!” No it isn’t sadly, but considering how people in LA and OC are, it doesn’t surprise me this kind of response popped up. I pay taxes to fix and maintain roads I use but also don’t even use, so why shouldn’t I be able to do the same for transit lines I ACTUALLY use. If someone wants to use the “me” argument, well me pay taxes for those roads, so me also entitled to have a dedicated lane for only my bus to use.

      “Anything you try to do to force people to change their behavior only makes traffic worse.”

      That’s actually a good thing. More traffic even under congestion pricing means a surplus of money to expedite rail projects, better frequency and security on buses and trains and roads that are better maintained than what we have now. So if that’s the argument then by all means let’s expedite this plan then.