Comments on: Metro Pushing HOT Lanes at Public Meetings http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/14/metro-pushing-hot-lanes-at-public-meetings/ Covering Los Angeles's livable streets movement Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:23:58 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Radical Transportation Engineer http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/14/metro-pushing-hot-lanes-at-public-meetings/comment-page-1/#comment-1975 Radical Transportation Engineer Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:44:07 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1031#comment-1975 In some areas it actually raises money to put into the infrastructure and sometimes into transit, which I would assume fpteditors would like. Instead of fighting it, you should lobby for set aside % for transit from funds raised. In some areas it actually raises money to put into the infrastructure and sometimes into transit, which I would assume fpteditors would like. Instead of fighting it, you should lobby for set aside % for transit from funds raised.

]]> By: Aaron http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/14/metro-pushing-hot-lanes-at-public-meetings/comment-page-1/#comment-1974 Aaron Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:39:13 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1031#comment-1974 fpteditors: Well, I think the thing that people need to realize is that engineers know that, once you have traffic, it doesn't go away. You can re-route it, you can give people alternatives, you can deal with localized structural deficiencies (badly designed or unsafe intersections, etc.), but you can't make it go away - you're simply moving it around, but demand will always increase faster than you would ever want to build capacity. Maybe moving it around is what you want to do - Phoenix built an additional highway to skirt truck traffic away from its downtown corridor in order to reduce pollution Downtown, and it seems to have accomplished the goal - the 10 through Downtown Phoenix is worse than it was 10 years ago, but the goal was, among other things, was to move truck traffic onto routes like the AZ-202 and AZ-101, and that limited goal has been accomplished. If they figure out a way to build out the AZ-202 along Pecos that doesn't piss off the Gila Indians or cut through South Mountain, they will probably succeed in removing Sonora-Los Angeles truck traffic from Phoenix. Same for Boston - they built the Big Dig not to make the city traffic-free, but to relocate the traffic jam elsewhere so as to make the heart of the City more pedestrian and transit friendly. So I don't terribly mind congestion pricing as a concept, because the goal is to re-order traffic via demand (for instance, congestion pricing in London encourages transit use as well as cabs, since cabs are usually either exempt from the congestion pricing or can spread the fee among dozens of fares per day), as well as to raise revenue for alternatives such as more reliable and frequent bus service as well as new rail projects. So congestion pricing on the 10 wouldn't really serve those purposes right now, especially if it was farmed out to a private company that ate a share of the profits. Congestion pricing in DTLA would serve those purposes if done in-house at LADOT, but would be politically infeasible. I guess the sum of all that is that I generally like the concept (I'm disappointed that NYC's congestion pricing died on the vine), but the way it's being proposed in LA is based on political expediency rather than reaching an end goal. Now if they put congestion pricing on the 10 beginning the day the Expo line to Santa Monica opens, I'd be all about that. fpteditors: Well, I think the thing that people need to realize is that engineers know that, once you have traffic, it doesn't go away. You can re-route it, you can give people alternatives, you can deal with localized structural deficiencies (badly designed or unsafe intersections, etc.), but you can't make it go away - you're simply moving it around, but demand will always increase faster than you would ever want to build capacity. Maybe moving it around is what you want to do - Phoenix built an additional highway to skirt truck traffic away from its downtown corridor in order to reduce pollution Downtown, and it seems to have accomplished the goal - the 10 through Downtown Phoenix is worse than it was 10 years ago, but the goal was, among other things, was to move truck traffic onto routes like the AZ-202 and AZ-101, and that limited goal has been accomplished. If they figure out a way to build out the AZ-202 along Pecos that doesn't piss off the Gila Indians or cut through South Mountain, they will probably succeed in removing Sonora-Los Angeles truck traffic from Phoenix. Same for Boston - they built the Big Dig not to make the city traffic-free, but to relocate the traffic jam elsewhere so as to make the heart of the City more pedestrian and transit friendly.

So I don't terribly mind congestion pricing as a concept, because the goal is to re-order traffic via demand (for instance, congestion pricing in London encourages transit use as well as cabs, since cabs are usually either exempt from the congestion pricing or can spread the fee among dozens of fares per day), as well as to raise revenue for alternatives such as more reliable and frequent bus service as well as new rail projects.

So congestion pricing on the 10 wouldn't really serve those purposes right now, especially if it was farmed out to a private company that ate a share of the profits. Congestion pricing in DTLA would serve those purposes if done in-house at LADOT, but would be politically infeasible.

I guess the sum of all that is that I generally like the concept (I'm disappointed that NYC's congestion pricing died on the vine), but the way it's being proposed in LA is based on political expediency rather than reaching an end goal.

Now if they put congestion pricing on the 10 beginning the day the Expo line to Santa Monica opens, I'd be all about that.

]]> By: fpteditors http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/14/metro-pushing-hot-lanes-at-public-meetings/comment-page-1/#comment-1971 fpteditors Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:10:37 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1031#comment-1971 What is good about congestion pricing? Doesn't it just move the bottlenecks around? What is good about congestion pricing? Doesn't it just move the bottlenecks around?

]]> By: Aaron http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/14/metro-pushing-hot-lanes-at-public-meetings/comment-page-1/#comment-1970 Aaron Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:08:02 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1031#comment-1970 It's a little concerning, in terms of the 110 - I worry that, if they open up the 110's lanes to paying customers, the Harbor Transitway will slow down noticeably. I don't get why the SGV has so much political power; the way it looks from the rest of the County, they just can't keep their bloody traps shut. It's a little concerning, in terms of the 110 - I worry that, if they open up the 110's lanes to paying customers, the Harbor Transitway will slow down noticeably.

I don't get why the SGV has so much political power; the way it looks from the rest of the County, they just can't keep their bloody traps shut.

]]>