Free Public Transit.

.

Applying congestion-based tolls would be a more appropriate measure, that would not only generate revenues, but deter unnecessary traffic.

But most of the folks in the legislature only care about tax money, not making sense.

Long-term, clearly, we need to re-think our energy consumption and travel patterns and habits, as the current model is not sustainable or scalable.

Simply taxing fuels and cars, however, does not contribute to any solution.

Besides, when the press gets rough on Mike, Fred and I will be there to try and set the record straight :)

That's not the point at all. People in this city have no idea that we even have a public transportation system, so they can't seem to understand that this money isn't about punishing them for driving, it's about giving them opportunities to get out of traffic and get to work more cheaply and efficiently, while also, as a side benefit, helping to reduce greenhouse gases.

It's partially Feuer's fault for phrasing this as a global warming bill, but more fundamentally, people don't even understand that we the voters would have to vote to pass these fees, he's not trying to impose anything on anyone.

SoCal's sprawling design and intricate highway system makes private transportation the ideal way of navigating the region.

have they ever been on the 10, 405, 110, 5, 710, at any random time and stuck in traffic?

i'm sure when they were stuck in their car they were thinking to themselves, "this is definitely the ideal way of navigating the region."

what a load.

when i fly by suckers stuck sucking up fumes, on my bike, people are thinking "now THAT is the ideal way of navigation."

finally, i don't think objects (cars) stuck in sedintary states qualifies as navigation... its simply, existing.

Nice, I was thoroughly amused by that line.

that said, 'adults' have the WSJ op-ed page.

I have to disagree. I live in SoCal, I don't own a car, and it's not inconvenient. Actually it's great. I never sit in traffic. I never pay $4/gallon for gas. I don't spend $100/month on car insurance. I can do all my own vehicular maintenance. I never have to find a parking space. I do most of my food shopping at one of the 4 (four!) weekly farmers markets within easy biking distance and my local Trader Joe's. On weekends I ride downtown to go to cultural events, or up into the San Gabriel mountains on fire roads to get some exercise and fresh air. Owning and using a car daily would dramatically reduce my quality of life.

I do agree however that an additional $0.09/gallon, or $90/year registration fee alone is highly unlikely to result in a significant reduction in SoCal driving. Things that would actually make a difference? Charging drivers the true cost of their parking spaces instead of hiding the cost from them, and forcing non-drivers to subsidize parking through higher prices on just about anything you buy from a store with a parking lot or structure. Charging drivers the true cost of maintaining and expanding our freeway system through use fees (tolls!). Those aren't taxes. They aren't subsidies. They aren't government meddling in the transportation market. It's just asking drivers to pay for the services they demand, and I do not. It's only fair.

Either way, this article is very similar and just as stupid as the others, focusing the straw man that somehow this bill is meant to force people out of their cars for the sake of global warming.