Metro will recommend moving forward with congestion pricing, says CEO (apartments, house)

[ketch89]

So of the two reasons given:

1) Impassable roads, every day forever

2) The Olympics, one month in 2028

You see #2 as the reason for outrage? LOL

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by ketch89

So of the two reasons given:

1) Impassable roads, every day forever

2) The Olympics, one month in 2028

You see #2 as the reason for outrage? LOL

So there is a guarantee that a higher tax will eliminate traffic ?

It’s going to be like the plastic bag “ban” . Most people are still using plastic bags.

[ketch89]

Yes, it is guaranteed... So long as the price of driving is high enough. If there's still massive traffic at $5, you raise it to $10. There is a price point at which a significant percentage of people will start carpooling, taking transit, etc. In London it's about $14. In Stockholm it's about $4.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by ketch89

Yes, it is guaranteed... So long as the price of driving is high enough. If there's still massive traffic at $5, you raise it to $10. There is a price point at which a significant percentage of people will start carpooling, taking transit, etc. In London it's about $14. In Stockholm it's about $4.

We aren’t London or Stockholm though . There is a reason most don’t take the public transit in L.A. It’s because it takes two times or longer for most commutes .
Most people are going to just fork out the money and the cost of everything will go higher because businesses will pass the cost on to the consumer .

Like most of the ideas the bureaucrats here come up with , it’s a bad one .

[ketch89]

Originally Posted by jm1982

most commutes

We don't need "most commutes" to use transit. We just need more of them to. Things are not okay as they are. Deadlocked traffic is not an acceptable condition.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by ketch89

Yes, it is guaranteed... So long as the price of driving is high enough. If there's still massive traffic at $5, you raise it to $10. There is a price point at which a significant percentage of people will start carpooling, taking transit, etc. In London it's about $14. In Stockholm it's about $4.

Why?!?! None of us voted for this! And where were you in 1995 when this massive development started? Did you write a letter to Riordan at the time to express your discontent with the over-development of L.A.?

[ketch89]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Why?!?! None of us voted for this! And where were you in 1995 when this massive development started? Did you write a letter to Riordan at the time to express your discontent with the over-development of L.A.?

Who voted to build sprawling suburbs where no one can walk to anything? Walkable development is GOOD. People want walkable development. The highest price per square foot is found in dense, walkable areas. People are voting with their dollars.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by ketch89

Who voted to build sprawling suburbs where no one can walk to anything? Walkable development is GOOD. People want walkable development. The highest price per square foot is found in dense, walkable areas. People are voting with their dollars.

We're talking about congestion pricing, not walkable development.

[ketch89]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

And where were you in 1995 when this massive development started? Did you write a letter to Riordan at the time to express your discontent with the over-development of L.A.?

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

I've been against rampant growth since the Riordan administration?

So you're saying you're in favor of dense, walkable development? ...

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by ketch89

So you're saying you're in favor of dense, walkable development? ...

I'm in favor of people not trying to frame my arguments.