And it’s half of what Europeans pay. And how often do we have to show proof of a parkign spot b/f we’re allowed to purchase a car, like you do in Japan?
In the US, we have a very strange idea of what things should cost, relatively to, well, the entire rest of the industrialized world. And the cost of living in LA, while more expensive than most other parts of the US, is still relatively cheap compared to, say, London…
Well I’ve lived in London, Vancouver and now LA. The cost of living is comparable really (though food is much, much cheaper to buy in London…currently anyway)
The difference with LA, is that a car is basically a necessity. You do not need a car in London, or Tokyo because transit is cheaper, faster and more reliable. LA is the first city I’ve lived in for 12 years, where I had to purchase a car. The city has famously been built around the car. The transit infrastructure is not yet at a point where it is a credible alternative so I disagree with pricing people off the roads in order to force people to use it.
I’m in support of some form of road pricing on LA’s most congested thoroughfares. A freeway at its peak efficiency has a capacity of ~2,000 vehicles per lane per hour. If the density of vehicles is too high, then throughput (i.e., the number of vehicles passing through) suffers. Pricing is a way of managing demand so that the system can work at its peak efficiency.
When prices are too low (or the marginal cost of using a freeway is zero, as is too often the case), demand far outstrips supply and you have gridlock. I suppose one could also control demand with some sort of lottery, or perhaps with an even/odd numbered plate scheme like in China, but that seems to be an imprecise lever for managing demand compared to pricing something appropriately.
Or perhaps what we have today actually reflects the compromise that we as a society find to be most palatable: the ability to drive solo anywhere we want in a dense urban environment, during peak hours, without regard for price. It just results in congestion.
Taxes and the health care costs in LA and London are/were comparable for you? Lucky you. If that’s actually the case, then your financial situation most likely doesn’t mirror what most other Angelenos face.
The issue is the high gas prices are only partially due to taxes. California has amongst the highest gas taxes but PA seems to be a touch higher with several other states within a dime of CA’s taxes The high cost of gas is more due to the environmental regulations. IMO the smog in LA prior to the gas regulations was a giant health hazard that warrants the more expensive gas but that’s another debate.
So California doesn’t actually have some big pot of money to use on transit compared to other states.
But, and this is from a east coast public transit proponent, public transit isn’t a short term fix in LA. The county is 4x the size of Rhode island. What existing technology could effectively provide public transit to the whole of LA county even if money was no object. Maybe 20 years from now a giant subway system or musk’s underground tunnels. But that’s a generation away if we broke ground today. So the options are some sort of congestion pricing/HOT lanes etc… Or just throwing our hands up and saying I guess we can’t do anything about this traffic.
PA overtook everyone a couple years ago now. Our roads have never been better 
took them years to add that fast lane in 10 and it ends up jammed like every other lane. i for one would def op for alternative if i actually have a choice, seem like we are the only major city in the world without a subway systems.
Taxes and healthcare costs are only part of it though. Yes healthcare is ‘free’ in London but your taxes are higher, most people don’t have a vehicle due to good public transport and lack of space. I’d imagine property costs are higher in London as the population density is close to double (I’ve lived in London but not LA so I can’t compare).
Houston has a lot of the same transportation issues that LA seems to have. The longer they take to put in the proper infrastructure the longer they will lag behind, and the more it will cost to build. These days you’re going to need a very brave politician to bet there career on a massive public transportation project.
Obama could have had 1 trillion infrastructure project. Republicans barked at that idea. Trump floated that idea now but I dont think he will get a chance to do it and now Democrats dont care for it. Maybe 2020 we elect Bill Clinton and and put Newt in Congress so we can get some compromise. There is always hope.
Taxes never the answer. It will affect the poor or middle class more. I like the idea someone mentioned to change work hours or mandate teleworking. 2 days a week mandatory telework. But then there will be less taxes as there will be less driving. Then taxes have to go up to meet revenue projections. You give politicians more money and more bs they will find to spend it on but guarantee it will not make one dent on helping poor americans or homeless vets.
Yeah some major federal infrastructure money would be good right now! Tricky for the rest of the country to accept money going to big cities in ‘wealthy’ CA though.
I also think a huge part of the congestion problem in LA apart from the quantity of cars, is the truly diabolical quality of driving here. It really is the absolute worst and it’s hardly surprising that major routes get shut down and blocked because of serious RTA’s daily.
You spent any time on capital Hill recently? Obama used every ounce of political capital on ACA. After that he lost house in 2010 nothing major got done for 6 years. Trump talked about trillion dollar infrastructure plan but never even produced a blueprint. He could have introuced it when GOP had house and Senate but he didn’t bother. Problem then as now is GOP not Democrats. Your hear Chuck or Nancy railing against infrastructure spending?
It’s frustrating since Eisenhower’s highway plan was hugely expensive but also one of the main catalysts for huge American post war economic expansion. Now GOP is afraid of taking on even far less ambitious projects.
Ok fine GOP and Trump are bad. Obama is great. Politicians are cut from the same cloth. Still do not see how this tax will benefit the poor and middle class. If we dont think with them in mind we are not doing our job.
You can not like political reality as it exists but voting records in Congress don’t lie. Both sides have issues, liberal public unions make public transit projects horribly expensive (see MTA) and make running a functional public transit system difficult (WMATA). The Democratic machine that protects these unions is bad too.
And yeah, this tax is bad for poor and middle class people since this is a crappy way to fund infrastructure. Big infrastructure should be funded out of the general revenue of a state or country. Funding it on useage ends up being very regressive since poor people pay a far higher percentage of income in useage fees. But those same poor and middle class people are the ones disproportionatly enduring horrible commutes to find affordable housing increasingly far away for thriving urban centers. It’s really choosing between two bad options, one being ever worsening traffic and the other a regressive tax to fund infrastructure.
How about adding a tax for EVs, since they currently don’t pay gas tax?
This’ll get some people riled up, I’m sure 
Well I always say that if whoever you want to get in office wins, everything will be fixed. Politics are just a distraction from lease hacking.
I believe America itself was built around the independence of owning your own car, it was a rite of passage when I turned 18 back in '01, less so now in some of the more populous cities. I still have younger friends and my brother’s generation whose about 10 years younger than me who never owned a car and live in San Francisco. With Uber, the Muni, and Bart most of them don’t need it, and when they venture outside of city lines they rent a car from Turo.
For that I want to say I experienced the same issue living in Sacramento, on weekends I visited my family who lived in San Francisco, part of the issue, everyone wants to go where the lifestyle is at.
Just this weekend I took a trip with the kids to LA from OC, since we were new to the area we wanted to show the kids Hollywood, to feel like a tourist, but traffic in was pretty congested. I don’t think I’d be doing that trip too often and find other activities that involve less congested roads.
If people stopped worrying about the NIMBY and let cities build more housing that’s comparably affordable inside places like SF and LA most people who spend their time driving in on weekdays and weekends would already be living in those cities.
I agree, it’s not just a transit solution. There will always be those people who commute from Arcadia to Long Beach or whatever crazy commutes I’ve heard of here (a Union rep at work commutes from San Diego each day) It’s about tackling why people are on the 405 at 8am each day - probably because they can’t afford to live near where they work.
I do I think densifying cities is the key. I live in DTLA (on the edge of the really sketchy bits) but I love living there because I can walk to whatever I need. Making sure affordable housing can be built close to centers of work is an easy win for reducing congestion. Longer term solutions though.
Also I am fairly hypocritical because I could probably pay the same rent, live somewhere on the west side and cut my commute in half. But I don’t wanna.
Cali will be first to sell:
Suck…suck…SUCK…,