Agreed. This sounds like a tax that will generate money for the govt and nothing else - it’s not like suddenly people are going to stop going places when the price goes up a tiny amount since there are no viable alternatives to driving in LA, either rideshare or private car.
Exactly. I could understand if the tax were tailored to the ostensible goals:
- No Uber taxes outside of rush hour, since they're not contributing to congestion then.
- Money is specially allocated to mass transit projects and subsidies for Uber pools/Lyft lines at rush hour where they are carrying multiple passengers.
But of course, that's not the proposal, it's just another golden goose.
Seems like the article is going out of its way to make public transit sound attractive with phrasing like "Metro’s sprawling bus network". Anecdotally, nobody I know in LA considers public transit as a realistic option and they routinely make jokes about how bad it is.
Anecdotally, everyone I know considers LA mass transit to be a viable option. This ranges from professionals like doctors and lawyers to the homeless.
I know a number of transplants from NYC, Chicago, and DC who ditched their cars after they moved to LA because it's possible to get everywhere worth going by Metro.
LA Public Transit is fine if you have a very specific set of routes (WeHo/Hollywood<->SFV, Pasadena<->SFV, Most anywhere<->downtown, etc); but it's terrible for one off/ad hoc routes or uncommon commutes.
