Some freeway carpool lanes will become toll lanes

Full story: Whittier Daily News

More than 60 miles of Southland carpool lanes on three freeways will be converted into toll lanes under a contract signed Thursday by federal and local officials, according to the U.S Transportation Department.
Comments
1 - 20 of 37 Comments Last updated Nov 29, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
James C

Whittier, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 12, 2008
 
WOW this sucks. We paid to have them build now we have to pay to use them. This will service no one except the rich. The every day person will not be able to afford the fee they will charge on a daily basis. Look at the 91 frwy and what it costs during rush hour. I guess the people just have no say so about anything any more.

They say this will mean less traffic, yes only in the toll lanes but twice as much traffic in the regular lanes.
Good Neighbor

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 12, 2008
 
Secretary Mary Peters said: "Los Angeles' willingness to try something new will mean less traffic, better transit and a cleaner environment"

Can someone really explain how tolls will achieve what the secretary says?

Seems the only way to achieve those things are to a) have fewer cars on the road b) reduce rush hour congestion by somehow enticing people to travel off-peak hours c) hmm can't think of more.

Seems like carpool lanes are an enticement to remove cars from the road, but tolls? We can break the commuters into four groups... 1) carpoolers who will pay toll 2) won't pay toll 3) non-carpoolers who will pay toll 4) who won't pay toll

With carpool, you have groups 1&2 in these lanes. WIth toll you have groups 1&3 on the road. So, you'll either make things no better... or you will add cars to the road, because some of the carpoolers may stop carpooling because it can be a hassle to organize, and there would be no more speed incentive.

Sounds like another scam to bilk the public dry of money
frazgo

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Dec 12, 2008
 
James, what sucks is that as the freeways pack up avoiding tolls surface streets like Huntington, Duarte, Foothill will back up worse than they already are during rush hours as people attempt to escape the freeway jams.

Worse, this truly is something that benefits only the wealthy, "lexus lanes" was coined as those are the people that can pay for the privilege.

More freeways aren't the answer. Providing viable options is the answer. But wait that costs money and this option creates money that won't go back into transit. Nice increase towards general fund without solving any problems.
The Soothsayer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Dec 12, 2008
 
It is ridiculous that the San Gabriel Valley is always targeted to pay for something to benefit all of Los Angeles, but the San Fernando Valley is not. Proposition R showed a map of all the improvements in transportation services, but it also showed the San Gabriel Valley was not getting much. All the improvements were targeted for West Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley. Now they want to target us for "Toll Roads." How about "Toll Roads" for the 5, 170, 101 and the 10 all the way to Santa Monica? For Decades, Pierce College in the other valley gets the biggest budget, but ELAC lag in funding. It's about time the SGV stand up to the currupt politicians and tell them what is fair!
Blame Yourselves

Santa Fe Springs, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 12, 2008
 
Blame yourselves you vote these Knuckleheads into office on a consistent basis.
When are you dopey people going to wise up.
Such Pin-Heads you all are.
LA county is llameville

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 12, 2008
 
This plan is one of the worst plans I ever heard of. Look out people this is only the begining, soon enough all carpool lanes in socal will have toll fees. I just don't understand how local goverment pass these projects with such ease and no opposition... California is in horrible debt and this is just another way to screw people over, just like cameras at intersections that are popping up everwhere now, they will tell you its for your safety but what they won't tell you is that each cam generates on average about 1 million in revenue for the host cities, like Baldwin Park etc.... I think it's time for some politicians to be put in their place!
Good Neighbor

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 12, 2008
 
I'm with you on the toll road stuff, but..
LA county is llameville wrote:
.. this is just another way to screw people over, just like cameras at intersections that are popping up everwhere now, they will tell you its for your safety ...
I think cameras to catch law breakers is an EXCELLENT idea, regardless of whet it produces revenue or not. Red lite runners are extremely dangerous. A close friend's wife and two kids were killed by a red lite runner broadsiding the family minivan.

Plus, it's not your everyday Joe that is paying the fine (like toll roads), it's people who are breaking the law.. and they should pay!!

I think they should put cameras to catch litterers and thieves on public streets, too. Imagine how quickly you could recoup camera costs with the $1000 fine for littering, not to mention cleaner streets, less clean up costs, and better quality of life for residents.
Ingred

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 12, 2008
 
This is basically income discrimination and does not benefit the millions of SoCal drivers. You're pushing cars out into the regular lanes to make a shortcut for those who can afford to pay the toll.
JQ Public

Pleasanton, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 12, 2008
 
In every good septic tank, the scum rises to the top. This extremist Bush-Villaraigoza screw the motorist toll the carpoll lane proposal is about what you'd expect from the kind of decision making that has ruined our economy and endangers our country. It is a microcosm of the runinous arrogance those in power have for the rest of us.

These people will charge you to drive on the road you have already paid for, certain contractors will get sweetheart deals to run these toll systems, and politicians will get plenty of money to help them stay in office. This scheme is just another example of a sweetheart contracts for the few at the expense of the many political game. These are the policies that are not just unique to the incompetent Bushies and the extreme right. Antonio seems to love it too, maybe for the same reasons?

This kind of screw the public and take care of our "friends" politics is not a partisan problem, it may, based on Blago's recent performance, be a serious American problem.
LAcountyisllamev ille

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Dec 12, 2008
 
You have a very scary opinion there... I have friends that have wrongfully been ticketed, and fought successfully to not pay a fine from cameras that are setup to take pics earlier than they should... You sound like a jesus fearing republican... When it comes down to it the cities that generate money from intersection cameras really don't care about your well being, they care more about your pocket and what they can get from it... If you enjoy the tought of cameras everywhere then why not live in London where no one has privacy anymore?
Good Neighbor wrote:
I'm with you on the toll road stuff, but..
<quoted text>
I think cameras to catch law breakers is an EXCELLENT idea, regardless of whet it produces revenue or not. Red lite runners are extremely dangerous. A close friend's wife and two kids were killed by a red lite runner broadsiding the family minivan.
Plus, it's not your everyday Joe that is paying the fine (like toll roads), it's people who are breaking the law.. and they should pay!!
I think they should put cameras to catch litterers and thieves on public streets, too. Imagine how quickly you could recoup camera costs with the $1000 fine for littering, not to mention cleaner streets, less clean up costs, and better quality of life for residents.
JCB737

Arcadia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Dec 12, 2008
 
What a joke, this is a sham because we're already paying the taxes for our roads and highways. This may also worsen the congestion problems.
This will not help the environment either.
www.capsweb.org
Tom Joyce

Pleasanton, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Dec 12, 2008
 
Glad I did not buy a high mileage vehicle to qualify, now I can use the money to pay tolls.
It is a bad idea that has no chance to work as the high occupancy lanes are now stuffed and the other lanes move as fast or faster. It may help the state fill its coffers with the working public that are already over taxed.
My Opinion

Upland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Dec 12, 2008
 
What I expect will happen is that people will be forced onto streets along the freeways and into residential areas. The average joe cannot afford the toll. He will seek other ways to get to work and that will cause a whole lot of other problems. California is not looking to cut traffic. It is looking to get more money from average guy. Well, we just don't have anymore to give.
Good Neighbor

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Dec 12, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

LAcountyisllameville wrote:
You have a very scary opinion there... I have friends that have wrongfully been ticketed, and fought successfully to not pay a fine from cameras that are setup to take pics earlier than they should... You sound like a jesus fearing republican... When it comes down to it the cities that generate money from intersection cameras really don't care about your well being, they care more about your pocket and what they can get from it... If you enjoy the tought of cameras everywhere then why not live in London where no one has privacy anymore?
<quoted text>
a) when you are in public, you do not have privacy anyway.. because you are IN PUBLIC he he
b) RE: jesus fearing republican.. nice generalization. You have assumed too much, because you are wrong on both accounts.
c) RE: cities don't care about your well-being.. well, I'm not sure how you are ascertaining the true motivations of the cities, but the end result is good: you run red lite, you get caught, you pay. It becomes a deterrent to a potentially fatal misjudgement.
d) RE: living in London... well, if cameras watching out for wrong-doers was my only criteria for choice of where to live, then I probably would move to London. However, a person's choice of where to live usually includes more factors than that. I don't think having cameras in PUBLIC areas really invades a persons privacy. I think it's a good idea in areas of high crime.
LAcountyisllamev ille

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Dec 12, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

a) I agree in public there is no privacy, but putting up cameras everywhere in the public arena is completely draconian in nature! Maybe you can tell me where you live so i can follow you everywhere with a camera and see how you enjoy that... hehehe

b) That generalization is a result of the words that you typed that seems to be pro-patriot-act on your part.

c) People run red light regardless of traffic cams i've seen plenty of flashes from people who ran it in most cases that kind of behaviour is deterred, but to the city all you are is a ss number, your local politicians don't sit down and have meals with you, they figure out how to make more things illegal so they can get more money from you. It's really not that hard to figure out.

d) wrong doer? lol did you get that from George Bush's line of evil doers? LOL I don't believe you when you say your not a jesus fearing christian...
TripDave

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Dec 12, 2008
 
Well, that explains the construction along the 210 north side I have been seeing for months now.
Reaction? Boo.
Carpool OK
Pay to drive, NO
We already pay gas and vehicle and DMV taxes.
This will only create more congestion for the non HOT lane users.
And please don't feed us the "cleaner environment" BS. That's pure Hooey.
Same amount of cars = same amount of CO2's. In fact with less people using the HOT lane that means we will have more people stuck in bumper to bumper traffic creating even more pollutants.
What brainiac thought up this white elephant?
Just another way to stiff the public for money.
Fly Low to Avoid Radar

Inglewood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Dec 12, 2008
 
This seems like another way to make the state some badly needed funds at the expenses of those that can least afford it, The toll company will probably make the most off this since the will pay who ever operates a manned toll booth minimum wage and reap the benefits and the state will get whats left after "operating costs", As it is now most "Red Light"camera cities make very little if anything off the cameras and some don't make intersections any safer and may actually increase rear-end type collisions. I think this was not well thought out and will be repealed due to public outcry.
Crocker

Glendora, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Dec 12, 2008
 
This is nuts. STOP TAXING US TO DEATH!!!!!!
Fly Low to Avoid Radar

Inglewood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Dec 12, 2008
 
What we need is double decker type freeways with commercial traffic isolated from commuter traffic or the entire width of freeway going one way during peak traffic hours kind of like the way tunnel lanes work back east. A decent public transportation system that runs on dedicated lines to avoid collisions with other vehicle traffic would be nice.
Metro 490 rider

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Dec 12, 2008
 
Have any of you actually READ the proposal? I'm not talking about the bits and pieces you get from the media. An extra lane will be added to the 10 freeway (more capacity), more busses will be purchased to improve service in the corridor, El Monte and Union Station will be improved to better handle bus commuters, carpoolers can still use the lanes for free under the same terms that are in place now, and toll revenues are used to improve transit service in the toll corridors. Please read the actual project proposal instead of venting in ignorance. How many of you ride transit in the corridors along the 10 and 210? The actual riders of transit in the SGV will see a positive difference with this proposal. Drivers may for the first time actually consider carpooling when the lanes run consistently at 45 mph like they are supposed to - maybe some drivers may even hop on the new bus service in the improved corridors? We will not remove cars from the roads by doing the same things that we are doing now, getting people to carpool is the most effective way financially to reduce traffic. What if you are a single driver and need to get home early? Right now you have no choice - these toll lanes will give you the ability to choose a faster route home and contribute to better transit service in the SGV at the same time. What I pick up from this thread is a group of people who dismiss a proposal without even reading it. I ride transit by choice, and sometimes drive to work solo also, this program will give me more choices and improve service in the SGV.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••

Los Angeles News Video

•••
Los Angeles Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Los Angeles Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Los Angeles People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Los Angeles News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Los Angeles
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••