Toll lanes get nod

The California Transportation Commission just unanimously approved the plan in Los Angeles County to convert the carpool lanes on parts of the 10, 110 and possibly the 210 freeways to toll lanes.

Don't get too excited or outraged. Now it's the Legislature's turn to kick the tires of the proposal. And there's no predicting the ways of Sacramento.

-- Steve Hymon

Comments

[calwatch]

The HOV lane is crowded to begin with. Even if congestion pricing was not implemented, you would have to increment the number of passengers needed by one. But then the remaining capacity is unused. Why not sell it? Right now, both two and three passenger carpools on the 210 can travel at 30 mph or less. By implementing congestion pricing, you move the same number of cars, the three passenger carpools get to drive at 55 or 65 mph, and those who are in a hurry can pay a few bucks to fund transit improvements for those who can't even carpool right now.

[frazgo]

I totally disagree with the approach. It favors the wealthy. It does nothing to improve traffic flow in ANY city I have ever encountered it.

Civil Disobedience. Use it. Don't pay. Litigate the issue.

[MK Jaxn]

Buying a better seat at a concert is different than paying to get out of gridlock -- if it means buying your way into the carpool lane, an action that runs contrary to the reasons for HOV lanes to begin with...

"HOV lanes are seen as the next logical step in improving freeway efficiency to accommodate future increases in population and traffic." (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/aboutdist7/hov/hov_info.shtml)

"The central concept for HOV lanes is to move more people rather than more cars. Some HOV lanes carry almost half of the people carried on the entire freeway..." (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/faq/faq79.htm)

Somewhere along this road, have we not lost our way? Isn't the real issue here not so much what can be bought, but rather what price must be paid for our continuing over-consumption of fuel and polluting?

And if all that is just pie-in-the-sky green propaganda, then does anyone else see the contrary folly in this goofy plan?
#1: Take a lane on an already-congested freeway and, at the two times a day where it is the busiest, shut it down to general traffic;
#2: Restrict that lane to high occupancy vehicles so there is less traffic and less pollution;
#3: Okay, the plan's not really working as we hoped;
#4: Let's return that lane back to the way it was before we closed it down, and just let all cars back - NO, wait...
#5: Since we already have the lane closed, let's sell the right to drive in it - like its a private club lane.

There you have it: Like so many other things, it's going to all come down the dollar.
Well, at least we can all find solace in the fact that the revenue collected in this scheme will no doubt be well-spent and contribute a better Southern California -- the persons controlling the purse strings have always seen to that.

[calwatch]

You can still drive in the free lanes. They aren't going away. What is probably going to happen is that they raise the carpool requirements by one on the carpool lane (on the 10 it would go to 4 for a carpool, on the 110 and 210 it would go to three) and allow people driving to buy their way into the carpool lane. Lest anyone think this is unfair, people at the stadium and at the concert pay more to get better seats. I see no reason why people can't pay to get out of gridlock.

[SAMI J]

I travel the 210 every day to work, 6 sometimes 7 days a week. The price of gas is enough now I need to pay a toll? I understand we need revenue but I don't make enough to pay for gas and a toll every day. I switched to a Prius to save on gas...what is America coming to?