Letters to the Editor: Is congestion pricing ‘gentrification of the roads,’ or the obvious traffic fix?

To the editor: I find it abhorrent that Metro is considering “congestion pricing” on certain freeways and streets. This is nothing but gentrification of the roads, geared to benefit the rich and wealthy at the expense of the less wealthy.

Basically, the approach is, “Get the less wealthy out of the way, the rich are coming through.” In other words, evict the less wealthy from the roads.

I suppose paying for the roadways with their gas taxes and license and registration fees is no reason for the less wealthy to expect to be able to use those roads without paying even more, so much more as to make sure they can’t afford it.

Other ideas should be looked at. For instance, during the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s, driving was limited based on even or odd numbers on your license plate. That might not totally address the issue of favoring the rich, since they will certainly have multiple cars. But the point is, the public should not be presented with a take-it-or-leave-it approach.

Kevin FitzMaurice, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Transportation economists have known for 60 years that tolls are the only systemic solution to congestion.

If I get on the freeway at rush hour, I slightly delay many other travelers and pollute the air. These costs are real, but I ignore them because I do not pay them. An ideal toll forces these costs inside my choice to travel, and I only take the trip if the benefit to me exceeds the cost I would otherwise pay plus the costs I impose on everyone else.

Ideal tolls reduce congestion but increase society’s total net benefits from road travel. Electronic road pricing is the perfect road management tool.

It is also the perfect road financing tool. Reducing reliance on gasoline means finding alternatives to fuel taxes. New toll revenues will be needed to maintain our road supply.

James E. Moore II, Los Angeles

The writer is a professor emeritus of transportation engineering at USC.

..

To the editor: I applaud efforts to reduce congestion. I have always thought it unfair to “tax” those of us who use methods such as carpool lanes, van pools and public transit with additional fees.

Instead, let’s charge single-occupant vehicles with some sort of hardship fee, with assistance for low-income drivers.

And, as recently proposed in a Times op-ed article, public transit should be free. Maybe single-occupant driver fees could make up the portion of Metro’s revenue that comes from fares.

Estaire Press, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: If Metro wants people to get out of their cars and onto public transit, it needs to clean up its act.

Metro buses and trains are dirty and dangerous. Some are rolling homeless shelters. Nobody with a practical alternative would subject themselves to the grimness of riding Metro.

How dare they consider congestion fees?

Thomas Lee, North Hollywood