The local radio stations interviewed some of the experts proposing this scheme this morning. Apparently If you want to drive to a congested location, you’d have to first pay a fee. One concern is the fee would be unfair to those w/lower incomes, and would make the urban areas playgrounds for just the wealthiest residents. To address this concern, the proposal is to make the entrance fee proportional to the driver’s income. Seriously, I’m not makin this up! … lol …
I’m wondering how that would be done? Do they plan to require everybody to tattoo their income tax return on their foreheads? … lol …
Another concern is that given the Calif gov’t seems unable to keep folks from setting up massive tent cities on the public sidewalks in these areas, why would they think they would be able to implement restrictions on driver’s entrance to the same public urban areas?
I’m all in favor of reducing traffic congestion, but I’m thinking a pricing scheme based on driver’s income is problematic, unworkable. What if instead they
restrict entrance by license plate, odds enter on odd numbered days, evens of even numbered days?
restrict entrance by vehicle model year?
restrict entrance by vehicle mpg ratings?
And if done w/a fee somehow, what should be done with all the loot collected? Make public transit free? Give it to the homeless , provided they remove their tents from the sidewalks? Pay it to those purchasing EV’s, in the form of rebates?
All this will do is lighten the bank accounts of every driver in LA because there is no real alternative transportation. When you live in Palmdale so you can afford a home and work in Torrance, your choice is a 2 hour drive or a 3 1/4 train ride that may or may not have a stop close to your work.
They said on the radio that pre-Covid, the plan was to have a" fee to enter" plan already implemented by now. But Covid arrived reduced traffic to urban centers, and so the politicos deferred on the idea, and just starting to think about it again now.
There is never and end to it. Just look at what the UK is doing and it won’t be long before it creeps in here. I think they teach this stuff in the urban studies classes.
Maybe instead restrict the large buildings in the congested area but that would reduce the tax base so they don’t want that. Back in the late 70s or early 80s there was not a congestion problem in Minneapolis. We drive right through no problem. Then they started building the huge office buildings and the traffic was terrible. Now they want everyone to live downtown in glorified apartment buildings so cars can be prohibited. What will be the breaking point?
Exactly. Long distance commutes are what enabled the LA area to grow and thrive. When I was a high school kid in 1986 and had a job at the corner Chevron in Torrance, one of the mechanics lived in Lake Elsinore because that’s where he could afford a decent house. My aunt worked in Century City but lived in Irvine. Uncle Rudy drove to Industry from Victorville every day.
Most of the country has no idea what an LA commute is and also doesn’t understand public transportation is simply not an option.
Newsflash: Almost everything is unfair to those with lower incomes.
I’d rather find a way to take the worst 10% of drivers off the Interstate highways. Huge traffic jams of stand still cars going back hundreds of cars have been created by just a few cars that go to the end of a line and force their way in, making the whole line of hundreds of cars come to a stop. This actually wouldn’t be unfair to those with low incomes at all.
I believe it would make a huge difference for traffic and safety.
Just to burst some bubbles, and yes I realize there are other factor, but during a couple of the bus strikes, traffic was smooth. Take the half filled buses off the roads and made quite a difference. On I 35 going into Minneapolis they figured at the time there were 70,000 cars a day on the four lanes. The built a third northbound lane and for about a week, traffic was much improved. Then they turned that third lane into an HOV lane. The result was jammed traffic on the standard two lanes and hardly anyone using the HOV lane. Then they built a big transit paring ramp just south of there. It is never full. For anyone trying carpooling, it just doesn’t work out well.
Congestion pricing is being introduced for those who drive into Manhattan, South of
(I think) … 60th St.) The fee will be something on the order of $16, and–of course–that would be over-and-above the toll ($12.75 for cars) that a driver already paid to get into Manhattan.
My solution is to take public transportation into Manhattan, which I have been doing for more than 20 years. I began that practice because of… guess what?.. massive traffic congestion … and that congestion has certainly not gotten any lighter over the years–with the exception of the period of the height of the Pandemic.
In areas that don’t have the option of public transportation, local residents should loudly ask why they don’t have viable public transit.
The DC area has been doing this for years. Tolls are changed depending on time of day and traffic level. This is the case on I-66 between the Beltway at Tysons Corner and DC as well as the HOV lanes.
It is an occasional topic on tv sitcoms, since most are produced in LA. On a recent episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, Larry says he has discovered a secret route to bypass traffic congestion when he wants to get from the downtown LA area to the San Fernando Valley. He makes the mistake of telling someone, then no longer a secret, his “secret” route becomes as congested as the Hollywood Freeway… lol …
The thing is, London and Manhattan have options for public transportation. For my 45-60 minute commute in LA, if I want to use public transportation, it would probably take 4 hrs each way-that is if I ever make it as it is so unreliable. Give me good public transport and I wouldn’t torture myself by sitting in traffic.
+1
Many years ago, I had a friend in Manhattan who insisted that I should be able to commute to my teaching job in the NJ suburbs via public transportation. Of course, he was coming from a background of excellent public transit.
In my case, I would have to have taken 2 buses–which did not have coordinated schedules–and which did not have shelters for those waiting for their bus. Then, after the second bus dropped me off, it would entail walking for ~1.5 miles on a heavily-traveled road with no sidewalk or shoulders. That total trip would probably have taken me ~75-80 minutes. By contrast, my drive was ~18 minutes.
You and @galant answered this question with these…
This is not criticism, just accepting the reality of the situation… and I used that type example in my first post. 2 instances where the public transport trip, even when available, was unacceptably long. Cities used to be the centers of industry and white collar jobs and those that did not live in the cities commuted from the suburbs. Now industry is in the suburbs or exurbs.
Short of absolutely dictating where businesses can locate and where people will live in the US (and that horse has left the barn, nor we we ever accept that level of authoritarianism), mass transportation systems will never be convenient for most people. So you drive your cars.
The key word is viable! The mere existence of public transportation doesn’t necessarily mean that it is truly usable for many situations. In the suburbs, it isn’t practical for many situations, and it doesn’t even exist for some types of trips.
However, if I want to travel to Manhattan, I have at least 3 options for public transportation, and while they would take almost as long for me to reach Manhattan via those options than it would if I drove, at least there are several options. And, they are all cheaper than driving.
In 1980 I commuted to NYC from Long Island on the LI Expressway. The first day of the 1980 transit strike traffic was horrible. Then we found out the police were directing all cars with just one passenger off the road in Queens. From there on there was no traffic. I had 3 riders. From that day on traffic was fine, since people were basically forced to carpool. Funny how everyone found a way to make that work.
No argument there. I did the same thing when that transportation was available.
Viable clearly is the problem. But cities developed from about 1910 onward (much of the USA beyond the east coast) were greatly affected by the automobile which was not restricted to bus or rail lines. The horse was out of the barn and no amount of clever transportation planners could create a solution.
In many cases the operative factor isn’t money but time. I currently drive 37 miles to work. If I leave the house at 6:30 I’m at work in plenty of time to have a cup of coffee, the doors open and lights on by 7:45. If I wanted to use public transport, I’d have to drive to the train station at 4:40 to catch the 5:05am.
I’m not adding 2 hours to my morning commute, no matter how much money I save or how much better it is for the environment.
Exactly the argument I made with my father who was a transportation planner. He worked in the city but did not use the very bus system that he took public from a private operator! Time was his argument as well.
Interesting there are so many car haters on car talk. When we graduated, my friend took a job in Chicago. He bought a house in the suburbs. He explained how he got to work involving multiple modes of transportation that made my head spin, and he did it twice a day. Moved to Louisiana. I drove 60 miles to downtown Minneapolis and it took me an hour. The folks that took the bus from the suburbs took an hour. Of course they could read a book on the way and I could count cows and listen to the radio. The urban planners have finally concluded that they just need to eliminate cars and move everyone downtown whether you like it or not. Who is that old guy with a beard smiling in his grave?
… and that congestion has certainly not gotten any lighter over the years–with the exception of the period of the height of the Pandemic.