April 23, 2007
If I Can Make It There, It'll Make it Anywhere
You know that crazy idea Jake McGoldrick had for instituting tolls in downtown San Francisco as a way of easing congestion? And you know how it was quickly dismissed as yet another string of things that makes San Francisco what it is-- completely nutty? Well, New York's Mayor Mike Bloomberg just came up with the same proposal to ease congestion in New York.
Guess it's not that much of a nutty idea.
Now because it's New York, it's instantly taken more seriously because it's New York and everything is taken more seriously there (damn East Coast bias). In a way, it’s kind of like Jamba Juice--everyone thought it was some crazy only-in-California idea and now they're everywhere. Already, the New York Times has jumped in and said it's a fabulous idea and the New York Post, not known for it's liberal ideas, thinks it's well worth considering. A poll was also taken earlier which said that a majority of people in the city support it and just from comments on Gothamist, it looks like readers are in favor.
The idea, called congestion charging, was actually proposed a year ago but is now being championed by Mayor Mike. The idea is to charge commuters $8 ($21 for trucks) for driving into Manhattan and people could pay for it using the EZTrak system or their license plates could be photographed and sent an invoice. The whole plan is expected to bring in about $500 million annually into the city's coffers which would be used to help finance transportation related issues.
Here in SF, the idea is being studied and the results of the study should come out, hopefully, sometime soon.
|
East Coast Bias? On who's part? The people of New York? Perhaps if San Francisco woke up and faced the reality that it's not the only "progressive" city in the country, it might learn a thing or two about innovation, instead of resting on its laurels from the 1960s.
And New York has an innate, unfair advantage over every other city: It's the biggest in the country! By that fact alone, the actions of seven million people will reverberate far more than 750,000 people in SF.
But the toll is not a bad idea; London has been doing it for years. But the "progressives" in SF have a really hard time taking cues from other cities (Jake McGoldrick, in this case, is the exception).
While this might make sense in NYC, the congestion in SF isn't nearly as bad, even at rush hour. The people who think traffic is bad in the City have never seen the traffic in NYC. This is a bad idea in SF.
Horrible idea. Charge to drive to the neighborhoods. Downtown, SOMA, etc are NOT conjested. There is tons of parking and the roads are pretty empty!
Now... just try to find a parking spot near my house in the Mission any night of the week!
Downtown has tons of garages, aggressive enforcement, parking meters, etc. If anything there are not ENOUGH people downtown. Last thing we need is another tax pushing businesses out and down to San Mateo, San Jose, Mountain View, etc.
How about a tax to leave SF and head South on 101 in the morning? Let's do SOMETHING to get people downtown!
Considering the size of NYC, the traffic actually isn't that bad. LA, on the other hand, is horriffic, and the Bay Area is pretty close. Given that there are only two bridges that make SF accesible to the rest of the region, it's not a bad idea to try and cut traffic, and instead promote public transportation. Relative to size, the congestion in SF IS bad. Anyone who's ever waited on the Bay Bridge for an hour knows that. But people fear change, especially here.
Horrible idea. Charge to drive to the neighborhoods. Downtown, SOMA, etc are not conjested. THere is tons of parking!
Now... just try to find a parking spot near my house in the Mission any night of the week!
Downtown has tons of garages, aggressive enforcement, parking meters, etc. If anything there are not ENOUGH people downtown. Last thing we need is another tax pushing businesses out and down to San Mateo, San Jose, etc.
How about a tax to leave SF and head South on 101 in the morning? Let's focus on something to get people to come downtown... not drive them away!
Its taken seriously because Mayor Mike is a serious guy. Equally the rich single playboy, Mayor Mike somehow manages to keep his private life...private. He's known to be much the socialite, but you don't see pictures of him making an ass of himself in the morning papers. He knows when to keep it in his pants.
He's also a serious guy who has imposed an order and discipline on city management that is quantative-based and results oriented that makes Newsom's adminstration look like an episode of Romper Room.
Mayor Mike can point to things like, keeping a lid on crime while other cities seem crime spikes all the while NOT needing to plunger rape suspects a la Guiliani. Or the biggest construction of affordable housing in New York history. Or bringing development out of Manhattan and into distressed areas of the Bronx and Brooklyn. Or the cigarette ban which led to a reduction in deaths by heart disease as predicted by his adminstrations statistical models. Or the trans-fat ban which will also save lives. He also took a Giuliani budget deficit and turned it into a huge surplus, which he is giving back in part by a one-time property tax refund and also socking away prudently for a rainy day.
Van: The East Coast bias is *SFist*'s. This website is owned and operated by New Yorkers. (Gothamist).
It's no wonder NYkers support the idea.. most don't own a car. It's easy to support a tax you will never have to pay. It's not that NYkers are more progressive, they just have the luxury of passing the cost of this initiative to other people (suburbaniates who drive in). I'm a progressive, but it always cracks me up the selfless posturing some will engage in, in situations like this, when it's other people who will have to make all the real sacrifices.
As long as most SFers own a car, this idea will never fly here. Despite being ultra-left, progressive and shit, we (the city) would actually have to pay this tax ourselves along with the out-of-town commuters.
And I predict that the strongest supports of this measure on this blog are those that will never be personally inconvenienced by it. Fancy that.
I think that making motorists pay for the actual cost of driving, both in terms of road use and pollution, is a good idea for this or any city. Concord, Oakland, and other car-towns should also be looking at this.
Congestion pricing should not only be done for downtown, but as others have mentioned, most of the city.
Beware of the "double tax" that this program would hit us with. We already pay gas taxes to maintain our hardly maintained roads.
NYC actually has eight million people, with another million or so projected to move into the city by 2030.
I see your point, Survivor, but I do not fit into the narrowly-defined group of Non-driving New Yorker. I used to live in the East Bay and drove to the city on a regular basis, until I moved to the Mission and got rid of my car.
What's frustrating to me is the complete lack of imagination on the part of drivers coming to the city, who write everything off as non-workable, for fear that A, it will cost them, and only them, more money, and B, the refusal to change any habits or outlooks regarding driving -- to a place that they don't live in , where the inhabitants of their destination are ultimately the ones affected.
Would it kill anyone to hop on BART once in a while to get to downtown? And how much more would it cost? Certainly no more than getting on a train once in while, for which fuel and maintenance are a non-factor in terms of cost, therefore potentially saving money, and at the same time keeping more cars of the road. That's not such a bad thing.
And most people in Manhattan don't own a car, but many in the outer boroughs do. Even still, the reason why less New Yorkers own cars is because there is a reliable and efficient public transportation system in place -- and that's the point: By increasing the need for public transportation, the service itself, if planned properly, will get better, thereby making it easier to get to downtown. Alternative methods of transportation should be explored and embraced, not shot down because people will have to change their habits.
If you look at New York, there are literally thousands of suburbanites who don't drive into the city. Why? Because Metro North, the Long Island Rail Road and Path Trains are all effective alternatives to drive to Manhattan. BART has the potential to do the same, but until "progressives" outside of the city are willing to take a hard look at their own behavior, plausible and reasonable ideas like this will be written off as poppycock, tax-increasing alternatives, when, ultimately, the entire region could benefit.
New York City has a reliable transit system.This city needs to stop trying to take cues from other cities and work with what would work for this city.As we have seen with the crime camera idea from Chicago,we don't see a decrease in crime but more violent crimes have accrued.If this city was as progressive as it claims we pull of ideas of our owm to meet our own needs.
What London—where congestion charging has been used for years—and New York have in common, and San Francisco does not, is an safe and expedient public transport system—ergo, a public-friendly alternative to driving. Until San Francisco bothers to improve upon its derelict, nearly useless fascimile of one, it hardly has the right to financially manipulate people out of their cars and into a public transporation system that's poorly serving its existing users.
Forget congestion pricing (although I was very much heartened to hear of NYC jumping on this bandwagon). Charge a $475 bay bridge toll on weekends.
Of course it's a great idea, I think it got started in London. Market street should be closed to automobiles entirely. Good editorial in the recent SFBG about this...
On the off-chance that people think that repetition is indicia of a good idea, I'll bite - NYC has mass transit that works, we do not.
And, one quibble, maybe the NY Times editorial board supports the idea a congestion charge but a read inside the cover at the news section quickly shows that a lot of the politicians do not.
I said this earlier this month with respect to MUNI, until MUNI gets its act straight, the idea of a congestion charge in downtown SF is dead as a doornail.
And, finally, as another poster said, NY is sort of a unique city with a captive audience of businesses. The last thing downtown SF needs is another reason for more businesses to choose to relocate to either the East Bay or Peninsula.
Muni is the best transit system west of the Mississippi. 1/3 of San Franciscans don't own a car, proving that it is possible to survive just fine without one.
I think the congestion tax is a great one, but that we should only institute it in the city core, the part that is the most congested and the most dangerous to walk around in. We need to also find a way to slow traffic, but that is another topic.
1/3 of SFers don't own cars is because either it to costly or there is no place to park.
To those who complain about unfair tax burdens, boo fricking hoo. Its the drivers who wear down the roads, cause the congestion, cause the pollution. Its only fair they should pay the fricking tax. I'd also add, that over the last decade to decade a half, the user fees charged to cars (tolls, gas taxes, etc.) only cover about HALF the cost to maintain the road system. The other half has to come general funds - in other words, MY tax dollars. So us non-driving folks are already paying for YOUR car use. No reason why you shouldn't bear more of the burden.
As for MUNI, yes - its not the greatest. But its not as bad as the whiny San Francisco population would have you believe. I've made regular use of public transit in other cities, including Boston, New York and DC. Obviously, our system is not as comprehensive as New York's. However, I think it compares generally favorably (with some exceptions) to Boston and DC. DC has a far cleaner and modern system with the Metro, but I think MUNI/BART can get you to more areas. Boston, like MUNI, has its share of operational problems (it has a far shittier bus system and its old Green Line is about as slow and overcrowded on certain lines at the MUNI Metro) On the other hand, it has more street car and light rail lines getting you more places quicker. However, BART is a far better regional system than Boston's Commuter Rail.
All in all, its not a horrible system. (And anyone expecting the T-Third Street rail to start off without a hitch was dreaming. Give it some time and most of the kinks will get worked out.) For all those tooting NYCs horn, the MTA has been trying to get the 2d Avenue subway line built since Nixon was President. I think they are on their 28th groundbreaking or something.
Does MUNI have problems. You betcha. But one way to help MUNI is to increase demand for it.
That's right Jerry and if we can increase the cost of car ownership and make it harder to park, then we can get that number down to 1/2. As Dave pointed out, there are a lot of externalities to automobile ownership that need to be shifted back to the people creating the problem in the first place.
A congestion charge will turn downtown into a toll road for the privileged. In this way, it will benefit me, as I drive and park downtown every day. My work requires having a car at the ready, for those ready to pounce.
That, and I swore off Muni 5-6 years ago and haven't ridden it since.
You still need to give people a reason to decide to use MUNI or even a Bike.With dangers of riding a bike and the lack of a fluent transit,how can you justify this?Since MUNI relies on most of it's monies to come from parking a car it don't make no sense in trying to keep cars out of the city.
@Dave, we've had FOUR MONTHS to work the bugs out of the T, and nearly twenty YEARS to have a go at properly designing this thing.
Actulaly patrick, a congestion charge will turn downtown into a toll road for the privileged *and* Muni *and* bicyclists. Muni will run much faster with less traffic, benefiting everyone who rides Muni and making Muni much more attractive.
Hopefully, you wealthy people will run over fewer bicyclists and pedestrians, too, though I guess I shouldn't get my hopes up too much there.
East Coast Bias? On who's part? The people of New York?
Bias on behalf the media towards the East Coast I think, for saying this is a good idea when proposed by New York, but it was goofy liberal crazy talk when San Francisco suggested it.
It's not that NYkers are more progressive, they just have the luxury of passing the cost of this initiative to other people (suburbaniates who drive in)...As long as most SFers own a car, this idea will never fly here.
Exactly. There are so many faux progressives in the Bay Area, going on and on about the environment and yet completely refusing to entertain the thought of not driving everywhere they go. If folks want to get serious about these things, they'll need to make some sacrifices every now and then.
Muni is the best transit system west of the Mississippi. 1/3 of San Franciscans don't own a car, proving that it is possible to survive just fine without one.
Indeed, transit is not that bad. 1/3 of SF and 2/3 of the greater downtown area are car-less, so it is possible if you try.
the reason why less New Yorkers own cars is because there is a reliable and efficient public transportation system
I worry it's the chicken and the egg: transit needs riders to get funding and improve, but many won't ride until it's already improved. Proactive measures like this could jump start things though, by forcibly reducing congestion and funding transit.
it was goofy SF style b 1) doesn't fit 2) is not to SF 3)....where do you want to place this
touche` Austin
NoeValleyJim -
I make sure to only run over bicyclists on the last Friday of the month, when it's really my civic duty.
I almost never run over pedestrians. Word has it among us wealthy that if we run over too many of them, there will be some sort of uprising.
you can't charge people to drive into SF because its so much bigger than NY. i know Sfist doesn't want to hear this but some people *need* to drive because they come in from Oakland to the Richmond or the sunset or wherever. Sf needs to either have affordable housing so people that work in Sf can also live in SF or they can't do this. most commuters can't afford it.
Once I sold my car - amazingly I could afford to move to the City!
Wow. The best transit system west of the Mississippi... Kind of like the the most liberal police force in Burma.
I grew up in the Bay Area, and lived in Chicago and New Haven for seven years apiece. The problem the Bay Area has with mass tranit is a lot like the problem New Haven has with it - we live in a region dominated by low-density sprawl. Time was, we prided ourselves on how well-planned this area was; that was the last little bit of good planning evaporating. The Bay Area stopped good planning after WWII. We never rebuilt most of our communities has high occupancy areas, but instead let the Pombos and their predecessors grease water projects for subdivisions to hell and back again.
We tore out the Key System and other excellent light rail systems and brought the price of cars down.
The fetish and expectation of single-family detached homes for all -- and the decision to go ahead and build out that fetish even here in the desert -- means public transit is Fucked From The Get Go. Population density's too low. Not enough people live near stations to put riders on trains; not enough businesses are located near stations for them to be good ways to get to and from work or to go shopping.
Transit in SF works as well as it does (it's not bad, as long as you only ever want to be in San Francisco *and* you're making bank or only riding on weekends) because SF is high density. Forced to be by the Bay, not through "good planning."
Berkeley, Oakland, Hayward, Richmond - there was a time when that area had a shot at being part of an integrated transit system. Not because of planning so much as because of the hills and because no one had put 24 inch fresh water pipes out in Contra Costa. We bulldozed under and around the hills, we quietly bought off the East Bay utility district to put water farther and farther from our existing infrastructure, and now we have a corridor out to Pittsburgh with half million dollar houses in it.
Woooo us! We've created mass transit that can't be self-sustaining, the most energy and resource intensive dwellings we possibly can, and we've filled them with pasty Americans watching Al Gore with their knitting circles and cluck cluck clucking.
Congestion fee in SF? Go for it. It probably is pretty pointless to do in SF (as opposed to London) but why not. But lets focus more on getting people heading back into the cities around the bay with good transit access to SF.
From Oakland, transit to SF is close to reasonable, but you quickly start getting to 8 to 10 dollar per day commutes via BART. Compare that to New York or Chicago, where your daily commute is going to be three bucks over comparable distances.
If a congestion fee helps do that, great. If a ten dollar a gallon gas tax does it more effectively, then that's the way to go. At fifty cents a mile in taxes alone all of a sudden, mass transit and high fuel efficiency will be the new black. There will continue to be people who want to drive sport utes. Let them!
Oh, one last point: for you KNUCKLEHEADS who think it's *cars* that are tearing up your precious streets? It's not, it's the trucks delivering containers full of tchatchkes that do far more damage to the roads than cars do.
That ten a gallon fuel surcharge? That's also going to put real ooomph behind the "only buy it if it's made close to you" school of economic though.
Noe Jim makes a good point about Muni trips being faster with less cars clogging the streets.
Although couldn't we just have more bus only lanes? Or make Pine or Bush or Sutter or Geary, bus and bike only? Pick just a couple arteries of the city and make them bus/bike only and leave the other 99% to cars. That would clear up the roads for Muni to work more quickly and get bicyclists out of the car lanes that inflame both sides.
you can't charge people to drive into SF because its so much bigger than NY..
While I'd agree the outer East Bay (Concord, Livermore, etc.) are a bit far from The City, the example of Oakland to SF is less than the length of Manhattan. And as pointed out by another commenter, NY also has Metro North, LIRR and PATH, which go farther than BART's reach does.
But even though I'm no fan of AC Transit, I don't think most *need* a car at present to get from Oakland to The Avenues.
The Bay Area stopped good planning after WWII. We never rebuilt most of our communities has high occupancy areas..
Indeed. But while nothing can fix that overnight, instituting congestion fees, raising gas prices and improving transit could be a start.
Congestion fee in SF? ...probably is pretty pointless...
Why, there's no congestion? If I recall correctly, the Bay Area has the second worst commutes in the country. Yes, most of it is freeways outside The City, but a lot of those people are driving into downtown, where the charges would be incurred. It seems like it might be beneficial and worthy of study, not deserving of media calling it stupid outright.
..it's the trucks delivering containers full of tchatchkes that do far more damage to the roads than cars do..
True, and there should be incentives to deliver goods by alternative means as well. But cars are the primary users of the roads, that are subsidized by local taxpayers.
..couldn't we just have more bus only lanes..
Maybe if police start enforcing them.
Re: Post #29 Posted by: roustabout
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!
We have a winnner.