Toll lanes on LA freeways?

PostmodernProphet said:
which is exactly what I was talking about.......they don't interfere with traffic.....
Click to expand...

you just laughed at the idea there are toll roads without toll booths. How can that be exactly what you are talking about? And what does that have to do with what's being proposed in LA?
 
Emmanuel Macron said:
Get some goddamn public transit. No transit system in a highly populated area is going to work if you have each person in the pipe taking up an entire SUV/minivan + 2-3 extra car lengths of space.
Click to expand...

Make and model of the particular vehicles has no impact on the flow of traffic.
 
cawacko said:
Interesting. A lot of politics involved in this one but is your recollection being people were not happy with it?

In LA you can see how much was spent to expanse the freeways and public transportation with out success. If tolls don't work either that's not a good sign.
Click to expand...

The toll roads, or many of them in the So Cal area, are empty.
 
cawacko said:
you just laughed at the idea there are toll roads without toll booths. How can that be exactly what you are talking about? And what does that have to do with what's being proposed in LA?
Click to expand...

the claim that started my comments was that toll roads interfered with traffic.....I pointed out that technology permits taking tolls wirelessly through cell phones.....I find it suspicious that a toll road could operate without a way to insure collecting fees from those who are not so connected.....in Chicago they have I-Pass, but there are still lanes that go past booths......I've seen nothing about LA except a proposal there be toll roads.....are they to be payment optional toll roads?.....voluntary compliance?....
 
cawacko said:
I generally hesitate to post anything from the (UC)LA Times and especially a column coming from an UCLA person. I'll violate my principles here however. This article in on LA traffic but it is relevant to many cities across the country. How do we reduce the gridlock on our roads?

The author also addresses the criticism that gets brought up most of only rich people can use these lanes. I've bolded his response to that below.






Opinion There's only one way to fix L.A.'s traffic, and it isn't Elon Musk's tunnels. We need tolls — lots of them


Los Angeles is fed up with its traffic. Despite billions spent in herculean efforts to expand our roads, our freeways are as clogged as ever. We spent $1.6 billion to widen the 405 Freeway in 2014, and yet commute times through the Sepulveda Pass are the same. Perhaps even more frustrating, we’re spending billions more to get people out of their cars and onto Metro — and not only is our traffic problem unmoved, transit ridership is declining.

Things have gotten so bad that billionaire futurist Elon Musk recently promised to “just start digging” tunnels underneath L.A. With enough layers of tunnels, says Musk, any amount of cars could be provided for.

With all due respect to Mr. Musk, this plan encapsulates everything that’s wrong with how we think about traffic. Instead of building our way out of the problem, there is a proven solution to fighting traffic, one that’s much easier, more effective and less costly than our current approach. It’s putting a price on the use of our roads.

Nobody likes paying for anything they are used to getting for free, and freeway tolls are no exception. But why are we willing to pay for electricity, gasoline or air travel, but not for roads?

The reason that electrical power and air travel don’t fail every time they get crowded is that we raise prices to manage demand. If things cost more, people use less of them. We all accept that airline tickets are more expensive during the holidays. And yet we miss that this very same, simple system of pricing could solve our congestion problem. Roads are the only piece of infrastructure we allow to consistently fail due to overuse.

Since 2003, cities across the country have been experimenting with something called “dynamic tolling” as a traffic solution. This entails adding what are called High-Occupancy/Toll (HOT) lanes on freeways. In a HOT lane, carpools drive for free, while solo drivers have to pay. Tolls are usually collected via a transponder, without ever having to slow down. Two of these experimental HOTs are right here in Los Angeles on the 110 and the 10 freeways.

In these HOT lanes, congestion is basically a thing of the past. On one highway in Miami, for example, average speeds went from 20 mph to 62 mph. On a Minneapolis road, speeds of 50-55 mph are maintained 95% of the time. Here in Los Angeles, average speeds on the 10 and 110 are 45 mph in the general purpose lanes and 65 mph in the HOT lanes. And the free flowing lanes are benefiting transit riders, too. Transit usage jumped 10% following the opening of the 10 and 110 ExpressLanes. Despite a poor, under-publicized rollout by Metro, these facilities have created far more traffic relief than the 405 widening at a fraction of the cost.

Dynamic tolling works by varying the price of the toll lanes by time of day. It costs more when traffic is typically busy, and less when fewer people want to use it. Prices can range from $0.50 to around $8 per trip.

A free-flowing road also carries more cars than a congested road, so by keeping things moving, the price actually increases the capacity on the road. Minneapolis’ HOT lane, for instance, carried 33% more cars than it did when it was free.

The system works because when prices go up, it sends a signal to drivers that there are lots of other cars on the road. Just as with airfare, people respond to these signals.

People have more flexibility in their drive times than you might imagine. Roughly half of peak-hour trips are not commutes to work or school. With HOT lanes, when prices are high, people adjust accordingly. If it's worth it, they get in the lane and save time. If they don’t want to pay, they have that most American of options — choice: They could use the unpriced lanes, go at a different time, carpool, or take transit to avoid the cost.

Experts have pointed to tolls as a traffic solution for decades, yet building political support for road fees continues to be a challenge — the most common complaint being: "Oh, so only rich people can drive?"

This critique ignores the fact that working Americans often suffer the most severely from the impacts of poor mobility. Working-class parents who are late to pick up their kids from day care, for example, often pay severe financial penalties. Having the option to reach their destination quickly could actually save them money. In fact, experience with dynamic tolling in the United States has shown that people of all income levels use these lanes. This objection also ignores just how inequitable and dysfunctional our current system is. Tolls may disproportionately burden the poor, but so do sales taxes, gas taxes and every other way we pay for roads.

Moreover, if you're concerned about progress and justice, consider how corrosive the traffic problem is to our public life. Competing for space in unpleasant and unpredictable traffic erodes our hospitality. Clogged roads dim our civic pride and diminish our ability to imagine a better future for our city. How many opportunities — both individually and as a city — have we rejected because we were afraid of traffic? We miss out on sporting events, or we refuse to build housing, or we fight against bike lanes and other roadway safety projects that could save lives.

Is there another way besides tolls? Unfortunately, no. We’ve tried them all. We’ve tried keeping neighborhoods suburban. We’ve tried density. We’ve tried building billions of dollars’ worth of transit lines. We’ve tried widening roads at great expense.

Why are we so willing to try expensive, desperate policies, often with dire, unintended consequences, in order to solve traffic without pricing the roads? The bottom line is, when you give away something valuable for free, you create insatiable demand. Traffic is the result.

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Herbie Huff is a researcher and lecturer at the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/livable-city/la-ol-traffic-toll-lane-freeway-20170303-story.html
Click to expand...
There's a real serious, derp, derp, flaw in this nitwits argument that makes you suspect he's a USC grad. The people of LA who drive on the roads are not getting something for free. They pay for those roads via the taxes they pay. Those roads didn't just magically build themselves. Does the author have a plan for building and maintaining these roads by toll fees that will exclude tax dollars if the goal is to exclude low income taxpayers?

There is a fairness issue here. If the road system is going to be paid for by a toll system where those who use those roads pay for those roads via tolls is one thing but to exact taxes from the public to build and maintain roads then exclude lower income taxpayers vis-a-vis tolling is fundamentally wrong and unfair.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
There's a real serious, derp, derp, flaw in this nitwits argument that makes you suspect he's a USC grad. The people of LA who drive on the roads are not getting something for free. They pay for those roads via the taxes they pay. Those roads didn't just magically build themselves. Does the author have a plan for building and maintaining these roads by toll fees that will exclude tax dollars if the goal is to exclude low income taxpayers?

There is a fairness issue here. If the road system is going to be paid for by a toll system where those who use those roads pay for those roads via tolls is one thing but to exact taxes from the public to build and maintain roads then exclude lower income taxpayers vis-a-vis tolling is fundamentally wrong and unfair.
Click to expand...

How is the current system fair to anyone? Did you read the article?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
There's a real serious, derp, derp, flaw in this nitwits argument that makes you suspect he's a USC grad. The people of LA who drive on the roads are not getting something for free. They pay for those roads via the taxes they pay. Those roads didn't just magically build themselves. Does the author have a plan for building and maintaining these roads by toll fees that will exclude tax dollars if the goal is to exclude low income taxpayers?

There is a fairness issue here. If the road system is going to be paid for by a toll system where those who use those roads pay for those roads via tolls is one thing but to exact taxes from the public to build and maintain roads then exclude lower income taxpayers vis-a-vis tolling is fundamentally wrong and unfair.
Click to expand...

That's handled with fund accounting. Toll money goes to toll roads and you don't allow those roads to be funded from general revenue. However, there is no reason why gas taxes, which are user fees just like tolls, should not pay for part of the toll roads.
 
cawacko said:
How is the current system fair to anyone? Did you read the article?
Click to expand...
I read the article. I'm just pointing out that the authors argument is based on a false premise that driving on the roads of LA is a free ride.

Taxpayers paid for those roads and thus have paid for fair access. If LA wants to control gridlock via toll roads like Chicago has then let LA do what Chicago did. Let them forgo Federal and State highway tax dollars, issue bonds to finance the administration, construction and maintenance of those highways and charge tolls to retire those bonds. If they then wish to increase tolls to reduce the volume of traffic then that's eminently fair but to toll highways paid for by taxpayers is profoundly unfair and is subsidizing road use for the more affluent.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
That's handled with fund accounting. Toll money goes to toll roads and you don't allow those roads to be funded from general revenue. However, there is no reason why gas taxes, which are user fees just like tolls, should not pay for part of the toll roads.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Those are federal taxpayers dollars used to build, administer and maintain public roads. If LA desires to charge tolls for public roads let them forego Federal tax dollars and issue bonds. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
As long as taxpayers money is not used to administer, construct and maintain those roads then in high population density regions it may we'll be preferable and fair.
Click to expand...

Taxpayer money is a little vague. Tolls could be considered taxpayer money. Gas taxes too.

In some respect, this is a problem for funding of roads from any source outside of user-based fees. When general revenue funds are used to pay for non toll roads we are taxing someone who may/will/can not use those roads to pay for the roads.

A portion of property taxes and impact fees can be considered usage based as payment for road access. But other revenue streams should not be used for roads.

Of course, there are "public good" and "free rider" arguments about other benefits that might accrue to those non road users but those sorts of arguments can be stretched and abused to fit all sorts of economic goods.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I disagree. Those are federal taxpayers dollars used to build, administer and maintain public roads. If LA desires to charge tolls for public roads let them forego Federal tax dollars and issue bonds. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...

Why? The toll road users will have paid gas taxes just the same as non toll road users. There is no reason the user fees should not fund both.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Taxpayer money is a little vague. Tolls could be considered taxpayer money. Gas taxes too.

In some respect, this is a problem for funding of roads from any source outside of user-based fees. When general revenue funds are used to pay for non toll roads we are taxing someone who may/will/can not use those roads to pay for the roads.

A portion of property taxes and impact fees can be considered usage based as payment for road access. But other revenue streams should not be used for roads.

Of course, there are "public good" and "free rider" arguments about other benefits that might accrue to those non road users but those sorts of arguments can be stretched and abused to fit all sorts of economic goods.
Click to expand...
You're crazy. It isn't vague at all. The vast majority of tax dollars that pays for highway construction comes from the regressive federal gas tax.

Again you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Using toll roads can be an affective method for controlling gridlock but double dipping into federal tax dollars too is profoundly unfair.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Why? The toll road users will have paid gas taxes just the same as non toll road users. There is no reason the user fees should not fund both.
Click to expand...
Those gas taxes will not have paid for those toll roads. That is why. You seem to have a misunderstanding here. The Federal gas tax is not used to pay for toll roads. Toll roads, like those in Chicago, are paid for by issuing municipal bonds.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Those gas taxes will not have paid for those toll roads. That is why.
Click to expand...


???

Because you insist they should not be allowed to pay for the toll roads? That is circular nonsense, Mott.

Toll users pay gas taxes the cost of which accrues to anyone driving. That is, there cars do not stop consuming the gas that they paid taxes on while on toll roads. There is no reason those gas taxes should only go to non toll roads.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're crazy. It isn't vague at all. The vast majority of tax dollars that pays for highway construction comes from the regressive federal gas tax.

Again you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Using toll roads can be an affective method for controlling gridlock but double dipping into federal tax dollars too is profoundly unfair.
Click to expand...

And what's the option?

A monthly Long Island Railroad pass can cost as much as $485 a month.

http://web.mta.info/lirr/about/TicketInfo/Fares03-22-15.htm

Then tack on an additional $116 a month for a monthly subway pass.

$600 a month to take mass transit? How much of the gas tax is going towards keeping those costs down? Not to mention either the LIRR or the subway has infrastructure problems nearly every other day, making commuters late and costing them further.
 
This, by the way, is the gospel truth. Bicycle advocates have the ears of inner city liberal officials.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-intentionally-jamming-Manhattan-traffic.html

New York City officials call claims they are intentionally jamming up Manhattan traffic to boost cycling and public transport 'absurd'
Traffic is reportedly being 'engineered' to create traffic jams to get drivers to turn to public transportation and bikes instead
Effort is part of a plan started under former Mayor Michael Bloomberg and has continued under Mayor Bill de Blasio, sources said
Pedestrian plazas, protected bike lanes and ordering agents to focus more on writing tickets are part of the traffic slowing effort, sources said
A spokesman for Mayor de Blasio's office told Dailymail.com the claims city officials are 'engineering' traffic are 'absurd'

'The city streets are being engineered to create traffic congestion, to slow traffic down, to favor bikers and pedestrians,' a former high-level New York Police Department official told the Post.
'There's a reduction in capacity through the introduction of bike lanes and streets and lanes being closed down.'
Other efforts reportedly include implementing intersections where drivers have to wait for green arrows to turn onto avenues and having traffic agents focus less on directing traffic and more on writing tickets.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top