Is congestion pricing ‘gentrification of the roads’?
To the editor: I discover it abhorrent that Metro is contemplating “congestion pricing” on sure freeways and streets. That is nothing however gentrification of the roads, geared to profit the wealthy and rich on the expense of the much less rich.
Principally, the method is, “Get the much less rich out of the best way, the wealthy are coming by way of.” In different phrases, evict the much less rich from the roads.
I suppose paying for the roadways with their fuel taxes and license and registration charges is not any motive for the much less rich to anticipate to have the ability to use these roads with out paying much more, a lot extra as to verify they will’t afford it.
Different concepts needs to be checked out. As an example, through the OPEC oil embargo of the Seventies, driving was restricted based mostly on even or odd numbers in your license plate. Which may not completely handle the difficulty of favoring the wealthy, since they may actually have a number of vehicles. However the level is, the general public shouldn’t be offered with a take-it-or-leave-it method.
Kevin FitzMaurice, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Transportation economists have identified for 60 years that tolls are the one systemic answer to congestion.
If I get on the freeway at rush hour, I barely delay many different vacationers and pollute the air. These prices are actual, however I ignore them as a result of I don’t pay them. An excellent toll forces these prices inside my option to journey, and I solely take the journey if the profit to me exceeds the price I might in any other case pay plus the prices I impose on everybody else.
Best tolls cut back congestion however improve society’s whole internet advantages from street journey. Digital street pricing is the right street administration device.
Additionally it is the right street financing device. Decreasing reliance on gasoline means discovering alternate options to gas taxes. New toll revenues might be wanted to take care of our street provide.
James E. Moore II, Los Angeles
The author is a professor emeritus of transportation engineering at USC.
..
To the editor: I applaud efforts to cut back congestion. I’ve at all times thought it unfair to “tax” these of us who use strategies corresponding to carpool lanes, van swimming pools and public transit with further charges.
As an alternative, let’s cost single-occupant autos with some form of hardship charge, with help for low-income drivers.
And, as not too long ago proposed in a Occasions op-ed article, public transit needs to be free. Possibly single-occupant driver charges may make up the portion of Metro’s income that comes from fares.
Estaire Press, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: If Metro desires folks to get out of their vehicles and onto public transit, it wants to wash up its act.
Metro buses and trains are soiled and harmful. Some are rolling homeless shelters. No one with a sensible different would topic themselves to the grimness of using Metro.
How dare they contemplate congestion charges?
Thomas Lee, North Hollywood
