Well now Mr. Tarlow argument has a bit more substance.

I'm torn on the whole toll roads conversion thing. I think it really depends on the cost of the toll. I don't see the problem with reasonably priced toll roads ($2-5) if they go toward maintaining the "freeways" (ain't nothing free about them. But I have to read more about the impacts on the adjacent parallel arterials.

My guess is that it is a matter of market pricing: if the toll is too high, people are more likely to use the streets, but if it's the right price folk will still use the highways.

That said, how does it make sense to be charging for the carpool lanes? That's like taking away the toys of the good child to give them to the bad. If anything shouldn't we be charging for the single-occupancy vehicles and trucks, and allowing the carpoolers and hybrids to travel our highways "free?"

I agree that London style congestion pricing probably wouldn't work here because of the difference between our transit systems; but that's not what Metro is talking about.

I mean, really, we already "paid" for the Post Offices, but it still costs money to mail a letter. We "paid" for the Federal Building, but you can't just drop in any time you want to use the restrooms.

And the fact is, streets and parking represent a substantial charge upon the public every year, not just in repairs, but in lost tax revenues and in pollution. Free parking imposes a congestion charge in lost time as people circle the block looking for it, which echoes in increased fumes and noise.

Well, I suppose every city must have its Charles Tarlow, but it's a little surprising how often they end up arguing in favor of the automobile dealers.

Just look at the layout of our city: where the people live (of all economic levels) and where the jobs are.

I had a 3-4 hour daily commute on public transit from Leimert Park to Brentwood (24 miles round trip). That's insanity. But it's one I was willing to make because like a lot of people who live near me, I wanted a good job, and the majority of them just so happen to be located in places that lower and middle class folk can't afford to live.

Taxation has real impacts. When it's applied the means and impacts have to be considered in addition to the desired ends.

Congeston pricing in LA, is essentially the government saying: hey we know we screwed up this whole zoning thing, didn't really think much about that whole "community-thing" when rubber-stamping most of these developments over the past 30 years, have made residential development in the urban core very difficult and only began to recognize the mixed-use thing within the past 10 years, and yes we've barely made a dent in the whole rapid transit infrastructure thing, but we're going to have to tax you (at a high rate nonetheless) for taking the mode of transportation to which we have doomed most of you because of our failures.

And don't get me started on the actual logistical problems with congestion pricing in LA.

There are better ways of raising the revenue, and numerous policies that can be implemented to start addressing our mobility crisis.

And ubrayj02,

I have no problem with fees to enter LAX (the traffic impacts are the only negative impact). Lots of big city airports have fees. We could probably take out the bond tomorrow to extend the Green Line to the airport on one end and to Metrolink on the other, and repay it with the fees over the next couple decades.

This fellow who wrote that essay in City Watch, bemoaning how L.A. will be a city of haves and have nots - what freight train from the midwest did he fall off of?

L.A. has been a city of haves and have nots from its inception! If anything, congestion pricing gives local people a chance to charge for what they give away for free to people richer than themselves: clean air, quiet streets, thriving local retail facing the street, and fewer deaths and crashes from automobiles.

But in LA? No way. Again, it all goes toward the lack of a transit system that provides a reasonable alternative.