It's Gonna Cost $140 BILLION To Fix SoCal's Roads

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> Eric Spillman (KTLA) is reporting that roads in SoCal are in need of
> an estimated $140 BILLION in repair and upgrade work. California,
> however, has only budgeted about 1/6th of that amount.
>
> This is why I say we will NEVER be able to build our way out of road
> congestion; the money is simply not there, and it gets farther away
> with each passing day.
>
> The report also mentioned that the 91 freeway is backed up 12 hours
> per day(!!!) How long before the 91 backup becomes a 24/7 phenomenon?

Just make them all toll roads!

Dan J.S. wrote:
> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Eric Spillman (KTLA) is reporting that roads in SoCal are in need of
> > an estimated $140 BILLION in repair and upgrade work. California,
> > however, has only budgeted about 1/6th of that amount.
> >
> > This is why I say we will NEVER be able to build our way out of road
> > congestion; the money is simply not there, and it gets farther away
> > with each passing day.
> >
> > The report also mentioned that the 91 freeway is backed up 12 hours
> > per day(!!!) How long before the 91 backup becomes a 24/7 phenomenon?
>
> Just make them all toll roads!

That is actually a viable economically-sound solution. Market forces
are determined by supply and demand, quantity desired for the price
charged. As evidenced by numerous toll roads throughout the United
States, tolls could be implemented to help reimburse the costs of
maintaining these aging highways and fund expansion projects.

As for expansion in urbanized areas, that is not going to happen. You
are not going to see many 16-lane freeways such as Interstate 75 north
of Atlanta, because the right-of-way is extremely expensive and the
effectiveness after four-lanes in each direction dimishes quickly.
Having a dual car/truck split is also not an option due to its vast ROW
required.

Charge a toll, increase mass transit. That's your only two solutions
out of this.

In article >, Dan J.S. wrote:
> Just make them all toll roads!

Leased for a century to foriegn corporations.

Sherman L. Cahal wrote:
> Dan J.S. wrote:
>
>>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>>Eric Spillman (KTLA) is reporting that roads in SoCal are in need of
>>>an estimated $140 BILLION in repair and upgrade work. California,
>>>however, has only budgeted about 1/6th of that amount.
>>>
>>>This is why I say we will NEVER be able to build our way out of road
>>>congestion; the money is simply not there, and it gets farther away
>>>with each passing day.
>>>
>>>The report also mentioned that the 91 freeway is backed up 12 hours
>>>per day(!!!) How long before the 91 backup becomes a 24/7 phenomenon?
>>
>>Just make them all toll roads!
>
>
> That is actually a viable economically-sound solution. Market forces
> are determined by supply and demand, quantity desired for the price
> charged. As evidenced by numerous toll roads throughout the United
> States, tolls could be implemented to help reimburse the costs of
> maintaining these aging highways and fund expansion projects.
>
> As for expansion in urbanized areas, that is not going to happen. You
> are not going to see many 16-lane freeways such as Interstate 75 north
> of Atlanta, because the right-of-way is extremely expensive and the
> effectiveness after four-lanes in each direction dimishes quickly.
> Having a dual car/truck split is also not an option due to its vast ROW
> required.
>
> Charge a toll, increase mass transit. That's your only two solutions
> out of this.

The problem with market orthodoxy is it tends to apply abstract theory
to real-world situations regardless of whether or not the theory
actually fits.

In this case it does not. Charging a toll would do nothing to deter
trips on tolled freeways in SoCal because there is no alternative.
London's congestion charge works because there are MANY alternatives for
getting into central London. There really are no alternatives to the
freeways for commuting or other basic elements of daily life in the
SoCal metro area.

Tolls are not at all sound, and taxes are in fact more economically
sound in that they do not force those without an ability to pay to
shoulder the burden of infrastructure maintenance.

--
Robert I. Cruickshank
roadgeek, historian, progressive

"Robert Cruickshank" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>>
>> Charge a toll, increase mass transit. That's your only two solutions
>> out of this.
>
> The problem with market orthodoxy is it tends to apply abstract theory to
> real-world situations regardless of whether or not the theory actually
> fits.
>
> In this case it does not. Charging a toll would do nothing to deter trips
> on tolled freeways in SoCal because there is no alternative.

I have to disagree with you; just hypothetically speaking, if CA-91 went to
a $20 toll for a one way trip, you don't think that would decrease the
volume of traffic on that freeway?

OK, I know what you're thinking... "it would just shift trips onto I-10,
I-210, and various highways and surface streets..." sure, except what if we
applied tolls to *all* the freeways and highways?

You don't think the volume of people driving on freeways and highways would
drop -- significantly?

> London's congestion charge works because there are MANY alternatives for
> getting into central London. There really are no alternatives to the
> freeways for commuting or other basic elements of daily life in the SoCal
> metro area.

Sure there are! There are MANY alternatives, it's just that the "cost"
(time) isn't enough to deter many people!

First of all, with regard to "basic elements of daily life," most of SoCal
is so well built-up that you can accomplish nearly anything *without* a car
with regard to shopping, school, local recreation, etc. Most people
probably wouldn't *like* it, but walking or biking to a store or school is
almost always within range for a healthy person. You can shop for nearly
everything online these days, including groceries, so shopping for the most
part doesn't require *any* mobility.

For those trips that would require more range, capacity, or passengers, I'd
venture to say that again the vast majority of people live within range of
shopping, school, recreation without *having* to get on a freeway.

With regard to "freeways for commuting," the paradigm shift should perhaps
be that people should be looking for alternatives to *commuting*, rather
than alternatives to freeways for commuting... there are so many
alternatives that would significantly reduce freeway volume, from
telecommuting, actually *living* in the city you work in, working a 4-day
week (or shorter), carpooling, transit, etc...

>
> Tolls are not at all sound, and taxes are in fact more economically sound
> in that they do not force those without an ability to pay to shoulder the
> burden of infrastructure maintenance.

With regard to which are more economically sound, this may be true; I'll
confess my ignorance as to which is more efficient at paying for roads.

However, if SoCal were to *add* tolls to its taxes, rather than substituting
one for the other, wouldn't revenue *have* to increase?

brink

In article >, brink wrote:

> I have to disagree with you; just hypothetically speaking, if CA-91 went to
> a $20 toll for a one way trip, you don't think that would decrease the
> volume of traffic on that freeway?

> OK, I know what you're thinking... "it would just shift trips onto I-10,
> I-210, and various highways and surface streets..." sure, except what if we
> applied tolls to *all* the freeways and highways?

You're buying into the line of thought the corrupt governments want you
to buy into. That you should be paying to fix this. The real problem is
they (in general for the US) have been squandering tax dollars for decades
upon decades and building with substandard materials. No, the people
should not be submitting to an completely tracked and tolled system. Why
is the solution always more money and more power for government? Think
about it.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> The current automobile-centric system forces those without an ability
> to pay to own and maintain a personal automobile in order to survive.
> How much easier would a poor person's daily life be if he were not
> forced to pay thousands and thousands of dollars in automobile-related
> expenses every year?

transit without being funded by tax money is going to be rather
expensive. My guess is it's going to outpace owning a small reliable used
car.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:08:16 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:

> The problem is we'll never know. There are too many affected people
> who will never allow automobile subsidies to be repealed, even though
> they would love to see public transit subsidies go away.

You have been told many times and proven to you many times that there is
almost not subsidies for cars and cars are subsidizing transit big time.

After more than $7 billion of money spent on light rail, there was no
increase in the percentage of people using transit.

Transit is a problem not a solution.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:08:16 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>transit without being funded by tax money is going to be rather
>>expensive. My guess is it's going to outpace owning a small reliable used
>>car.
>
> The problem is we'll never know. There are too many affected people
> who will never allow automobile subsidies to be repealed, even though
> they would love to see public transit subsidies go away.

Using my own commute and chicago area transit ticket prices and todays
gas prices, a removal of subsidies wouldn't make my driving any more
expensive than it is now, and transit would go up signficantly, if it
even went that way, which it doesn't.

Making driving more expensive won't force me into the useless to poorly
operating transit system. About all it will accomplish is have me use my
other form of private vehicle more often. (My cannondale)

In article >, Jack May wrote:

> After more than $7 billion of money spent on light rail, there was no
> increase in the percentage of people using transit.
> Transit is a problem not a solution.

The problem is that transit is allows more control by government, and
with more control it's more messed up and less useful. They build it at
much greater expense than required, just like the roads and often run it
so that it isn't useful to anyone.