SIVACRACY.NET

It's great that you carpool so I am not knocking that, but what you complain about is part of a broader trend to convert public roadways to tollways. Personally, I think every road in America ought to be a toll road, including the road in front of my house. If you think about it, it's the fairest way to tax people for the consumption of the roadways and their automobiles. Such taxes can be used to subsidize worthwhile transportation initiatives as rail, better bus service, bike paths, sidewalks, pedestrian tunnels and pedestrian bridges. It will inhibit sprawl and encourage denser development where development already exists. The use of congestion pricing can encourage people to drive at offpeak times. Instead of railing against it you should be cheering it on.

Republicans have not been for states rights for about thirty years. Look at how they use the federal courts to get their way, look at "No child left behind", look at the 2000 presidential election. The only Republican left who believes in states rights is Ron Paul.

One other thought: it is certainly a raw deal if they charge L.A. carpoolers to use the toll lane. Here in Houston, where carpool lanes already utilize congestion pricing, the powers that be had the courtesy and foresight to allow carpoolers to continue to ride free.

I'm still forming my opinion about whether toll roads are a good idea or not. You seem to be saying that Bush is responsible for these proposed toll roads in CA and imply that toll roads are for sure going to happen. However, nowhere in the article you refer to does it say any such thing. As a matter of fact, it says the toll road idea is "far from a done deal." I do not support Bush or the current administration in any way, nor am I sure that toll roads are the best solution. I do, however, appreciate accurate commentary which I think is lacking here. I'm not trying to be rude but you said some compelling things in your post that you weren't able to back up.

The U.S. Department of Transportation is part of the Executive Branch of government and thus covered by the phrase "The Bush Administration." It's also fair to say that the Executive Branch often uses grant-writing as a way to enforce conservative ideology, as they have done with "faith-based initiatives."

It's true that it is thankfully far from a done deal and that I would encourage people to participate in the public comment process and lobby CalTrans as well as the MTA.

What is concerning is that the MTA has the plan in the current draft of its proposal, which must be submitted by December 31. In January, there will be opportunities to protest the decision in a "live chat" session with the MTA Chief Pam O'Connor, as described here: http://www.metro.net/news_info/press/metro_217.htm
But Internet "live chat" is a notoriously ineffective way for activists to get their voices heard. And MTA members honestly fear that they have no choice in the matter, if they want federal funds.

Of course, one article doesn't tell the whole tale. This is a local story that has unfolded over several months; the LA Times previously reported on how the MTA lost out on the last round of federal funding because of its stance on protecting carpool lanes.

I was uninformed (shamefully so) but must say your reply to my comment cleared things up for me so thank you for connecting the 'DOTs' for me - and in doing so you got to the heart of the matter more than your original post.