The bigger issue is that these people have paid taxes for years to pay for these roads which already exist and are now being told they can't use the road without paying 10x more money. A road they paid for in the first place. This isn't a toll road built which was funded privately and is trying to make a profit.
(and I do live in the area, FWIW)
Not just more occupants per vehicle but more efficient use of road space. You can fit 4 motorcycles in the space it takes for 1 car. Look at the biggest metropolises in the world and motorcycle use is significantly higher than in the U.S.
There is a wrinkle, though. They slightly expanded the HOV hours at the same time they added the tolls. So there are some small windows where you could have (legally) driven solo previously and would now have to pay.
The "single lane HOV" part was outside the beltway.
Americans get so upset about this because they've come to believe that free road usage and free parking are fundamental rights. They're not.
Tolling on congested roads -- and for that matter, for parking in dense areas -- is good policy.
This is such an odd portrayal of Americans. Americans (compared to the rest of the world) are routinely lambasted for being too concerned about the cost of government-provided services and infrastructure compared to the rest of the developed world. Besides, Americans grow up learning, "Driving is a privilege; not a right". I'm guessing you're basing your generalization on a handful of out-of-touch Americans.
And it's completely accurate. Americans think driving is a privilege? Please, then why are judges so reluctant to take away licenses from people for reckless driving or DUIs compared to other developed countries?
As a transportation and land use nerd, I've seen over and over again how people in the states react to parking being reduced: with fury. Especially when it's "their" parking (read: public parking that they've become used to). Take away a parking lane to make room for buses or bikes in a growing major city? WAR ON CARS!!
I'm an American too :). "Driving is a privilege" is covered on the first day of every driver's education course.
> Please, then why are judges so reluctant to take away licenses from people for reckless driving or DUIs compared to other developed countries?
Because the United States has comparably poor public transit infrastructure and the vast majority depend on driving for their basic livelihood.
> As a transportation and land use nerd, I've seen over and over again how people in the states react to parking being reduced: with fury. Especially when it's "their" parking (read: public parking that they've become used to). Take away a parking lane to make room for buses or bikes in a growing major city? WAR ON CARS!!
I've lived all over the U.S. and Europe and people definitely crab about inconveniences of all kinds. Americans are more attached to cars (and largely for good reason--there aren't better options in most places). I've never heard "war on cars".
Actions speaker louder than words. If driving was actually a privilege rather than a right, we'd be quick to revoke it on bad behavior, and we wouldn't enshrine car-first street and road design everywhere.
> Because the United States has comparably poor public transit infrastructure and the vast majority depend on driving for their basic livelihood.
You realize that right here, you're explaining why it's a right, not disputing that it is a right, yes? By your own admission now, we treat it as a right.
Yes, our very built environment enforces driving as a right. And whose idea was it to create communities where one was required to drive to live a normal life? Did we arrive in North America with wide roads and parking lots already laid out on the earth?
> Americans are more attached to cars (and largely for good reason--there aren't better options in most places).
Yes, we collectively decided to become attached to cars, because we saw them as a better way. And for some things they are, but there's a rather long list of negative side effects that have come along with our love affair.
> I've never heard "war on cars".
It most frequently pops up anywhere there's a serious movement to rebalance transportation towards a mix of modes, rather than focusing solely on private automobiles. Here's some examples:
- https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/warvauto.pdf
- http://www.economist.com/node/1155093
- https://mises.org/library/war-cars-war-workers-and-poor
- http://www.heritage.org/transportation/report/washingtons-wa...
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8Lo0ieyQtQ
- http://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-torontos-...
- http://www.qchron.com/opinion/editorial/war-on-cars-also-a-w...
Having lived in Seattle, it's definitely something that's popped up a lot recently as the city has been adding bike lanes and investing heavily in transit, e.g. https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/citys-vision-for-a-carl...
Non sequitur. That driving is the default mode of transit is an artifact of history and practicality. It is simultaneously true that driving is a privilege and it is impractical to overhaul the national infrastructure. Whether or not the punishments are as severe as you would like doesn't make it less a privilege.
> You realize that right here, you're explaining why it's a right, not disputing that it is a right, yes? By your own admission now, we treat it as a right.
Non sequitur. There's no logical way to read my sentence and arrive at your conclusion. Both are true: driving is a privilege and for historical, geographical, and economical reasons it is also the primary mode of transit.
> Yes, our very built environment enforces driving as a right. And whose idea was it to create communities where one was required to drive to live a normal life? Did we arrive in North America with wide roads and parking lots already laid out on the earth?
More non sequiturs. There's no way to get from "roads exist" or "humans built roads" to "driving is a right".
> Yes, we collectively decided to become attached to cars, because we saw them as a better way. And for some things they are, but there's a rather long list of negative side effects that have come along with our love affair.
I agree. But for most people and communities, they're the most practical solution to the transportation problem. As technology and population density change, public transit options may improve.