Free today at WSJ.com, economists Peter Gordon of USC and Matthew Kahn of UCLA 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." Pretty relevant to L.A. Excerpt:

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. We are a highly diverse nation. I don't like to commute, so I've spent a lot of money on a relatively small apartment that is in walking distance to UCLA. I know other faculty who actually seem to enjoy commuting. They choose to live in distant suburbs and happen to own nice cars with good stereos. If their commute is five minutes shorter each day, have they been made much better off?...

Peter Gordon writes: Matt, I agree that U.S. highway traffic problems are not as bad as elsewhere in the world. But many Americans have high expectations, and some of the nation's worst commutes have been getting the most attention. Still, traffic congestion -- where it exists -- is actually a no-brainer; in fact, it's necessary. 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.

Gordon's blog, Kahn's blog.