TTLA didn't provide a full enough scope when recently noting a new RAND study about congestion pricing.
The same day of that post, the L.A. Times ran this story, "L.A. County Considers Congestion Pricing for 110 and 10 Freeways."
Within the piece, writer Dan Weikel uses the below definition -- TTLA's emphasis added:
Like other tollways in Southern California, officials plan to use congestion-based pricing -- tolls that rise and fall in direct relation to the volume of traffic -- to keep individual motorists, carpools, van pools and buses in the high-occupancy lanes at a minimum speed of 45 mph, even during rush hour.
The next day, Tim Rutten, the great LAT columnist, cited the RAND study and weighed in against congestion pricing. Rutten's piece, and the two dozen reader comments it generated, is here.
There was also a map and more debate at Streetsblog Los Angeles.
And over at LAist, there's a list posted with dates, times, and addresses of upcoming public comment meetings around the county. Four still remain, including one tonight (Monday, June 15) in Carson.
Photo Credit: The image accompanying this post was taken by Flickr user biofriendly. It was used under Creative Commons license.
Subscribe to Think Tank LA's feed.
Common topics of interest to the diverse--and often divided--Los Angeles population are few and far between these days, but with the Lakers finally obtaining their fifteenth title this last Sunday, the debate over congestion pricing seems a likely candidate to take the lead this summer as the most unifying subject matter at parties throughout the city.
This is not to say the party-goers will be joyous. Indeed, while Londoners--for example--could rely on their already established subway system when their local government began to toll automobiles a few years back, many Angelinos today find themselves without an alternative to taking the freeways. For many, freeways hence remain no more than a necessary evil in dealing with our vast urban sprawl.
Freeway access no longer seems to be something the LA population simply wants, but something they need. In this way, isn't congestion pricing really preying on the weak, rather than detering the agressive?