1. Alan Fishel has the story of the 91 wrong. The project did not go bankrupt, it was a political problem that the non-compete clause signed in the 1990's was unpopular, so the OCTA had to buy the operator out in order to make improvements to the 91. This type of non-compete clause is no longer a part of these agreements. The 91 is still paying for itself and generating a profit. This means in terms of revenue and congestion relief the OCTA is still better off, even with the embarrasing buyout, than if it had built four additional lanes with traditional funding.

---

2. Work trips represent only 30% of auto travel during peak time.

---

3. Add London to another "congestion pricing"-"success" story. That's why "Red" Ken Livinston got dumped as Mayor this week--more than any other issue. None of the promised money in London went to transit, it mostly went to the vendors who got the pricing contract-sort of like MTA's fare-gates on the trains?

---

4. Why is the San Gabriel Valley being tolled? This appears to me a simple case of picking on the region that has almost no say on the MTA Board. It must have been easy for Villaraigosa, Yaroslavsky, Gruel and friends to tell commuters outside their political boundaries to pay for using a lane that was already paid for by public monies. Why doesn't MTA try this experiment on the 405 or the 101? Those commuters are far more affluent and would have the ability to deal with this example of transit usury.

---

5. I welcome toll lanes...provided we build more lanes to accommodate the traffic we already have. I also welcome fare increases...provided we use them for better service and new rail projects and bus service. It's really all the same--is it just mindless taxing, or user fees that make sense to and benefit those who pay them?

---

6. If you got taxed to build freeways along with everybody else, then tolls beyond your means are iimposed, you are getting shafted. That is unless those tolls come back to you in the form of projects you *can* use (public transit perhaps?)

---

7. Peter had ought to be strapped to the outside of a Wilshire Redbus and have the spend a couple of days in rush hour between Santa Monica and Downtown L.A. After that I believe that he would see the picture in an entireley different light. He's good at crunching numbers; Robert McNamara was too.

---

8. All things being equal, it would make more sense to establish a toll amount, one or two dollars at every on ramp in the entire system. It would reduce the short freeway trips of a few miles and free it up for the longer trips. Short hops can be done on the surface streets. Once on the freeway, you can go anywhere on it. The trouble with all of our traffic problems is the fact that there's SIMPLY too many cars and too few square feet of freeway space. Sorry, but that's the cold hard fact. Like any commodity, if the price is too low, it gets rationed. In this case the commodity is actually "free", hence the extreme shortage.

---

9. Almost every comment has missed the point. The toll is needed not because it generates revenue, but because it provides a disincentive to using the toll lane. The only way to reduce congestion is to make it so people make different choices about when they drive, how often they drive, where they live and where they work. For it to really be effective, unfortunately, every lane will have to be a toll lane. Yes it is painful, but it's easier than building new freeways, which would only slightly postpone the problem anyway.

---

10. we need more 'day without an immigrant' days. remember that....all the freeways were clear. I got home from work so early, I had time to mow my own lawn, wash my own car, clean my own house and make my own dinner. problem solved. no new taxes needed.

---