SFist: Congestion Pricing

yatdave

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:13:12 -0800

@Belgand: I went to the hearing at the library yesterday. One of the factors driving the idea is that some fund or another is expected to go bankrupt in the near future. So while yes, they want the scheme to reduce congestion, and yes, they hope it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, etc., they also are certainly looking at it as a new source of revenue.

Belgand

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:58:24 -0800

Well, on the other end of this BART is also thinking about implementing congestion pricing. It seems they really want to just plain screw people no matter how they get around. One of the fundamental problems with the idea of congestion pricing is that it goes after people for driving or riding transit when they don't really have a choice. If you live in Marin (I do not, never have, and would never want to live in Marin, but it seemed an obvious example) and work in the city you don't really have a lot of other options. You can't choose to come into town at a different time because it's often not your choice. I think it's patently crazy to drive around town most of the time and definitely to go anywhere even remotely near downtown in a car, but this is not the way to encourage it. This just feels like a massive cash grab more than anything.

jameth

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:36:47 -0800

I live 4 blocks from work in downtown SF. I don't own a car. If I need to run errands, I use public transportation during off-peak hours, thus guaranteeing timeliness and a seat. No problems here!

murphstahoe

Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:52:56 -0800

refusing to pay would be the same as not paying parking tickets. DMV registration encumbered, car booted, eventual warrant or impact to your credit, whatever SF does with that.

stellargirl2012

Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:15:49 -0800

What would happen if it was instituted and as a resident you refused to pay? Just wondering. I am moving to the city this weekend and will be living within the zone. If enough people refused would it make a difference?

Brock Keeling

Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:47:25 -0800

good point, aj. i love cars and think they're an important part of california culture -- because they are -- but i support congestion pricing. then again, i refuse to drive a car in the bay area, so...grain of salt.

aj

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:06:25 -0800

You don't have to be a car hater to support congestion pricing. You just have to think the economics make sense.

usc0cat

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:34:03 -0800

@bennyinsf: totally agree. My drive to San Mateo is about the same, if not shorter, than when I used to bus to the financial district. What happened to other ideas of generating revenue for Muni...such as enforcing payment. I wish I had a simple fix, like just picking up and moving. Choosing where you isn't exactly like choosing btw a bagel and cereal. We should have policy that increases livability of a city...not driving people out of it. :(

SFBurke

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:42:11 -0800

This solution seems like complete overkill compared to the problem. It is unclear why the entire northeast corner of the City needs to be cordoned off in order to impact congestion in a very small part of the City. I am just outside of the zone and would end up paying a lot to travel in many places that aren't that congested. Indeed, even in the financial district congestion is often not that bad. I used to drive there occassionally without much problem (though I usually took BART because that was cheaper and almost as easy). As far as I can tell most congestion in the evening is caused by people trying to get onto the Bay Bridge -- maybe we should just increase the toll on that. As others have mentioned, this seems like a typical City anti-car measure that punishes drivers without providing an altnernative. There are obviously a few car-hating posters on this board, but they do not reflect the feelings of the majority of people who live and work in the City who find using a car to be their most desirable alternative.

yatdave

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:58:31 -0800

@SFHope: If you're comparing the cost of driving in general (not just to work) vs. the cost of going completely carless and taking public transport everywhere, then yes, the costs you mention should be included. But for a fair comparison, you also need to include the cost of lost personal time in the public transit case. In my case, that'd be a minimum of an extra 2 hours/day. And my time ain't free...

usc0cat

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:52:29 -0800

SFHope

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:29:07 -0800

IMHO a short term and relatively inexpensive improvement would be to dig a cut and cover subway between Church/Duboce and the Sunset Tunnel. The N would continue unimpeded and the J would come out a portal on Church somewhere around the Blockbuster. The Church/Duboce intersection is a bad bottleneck of traffic where cars and the 22-Fillmore badly delay the N and J. Even if you didn't underground the whole length of Duboce, just undergrounding that intersection would speed up both the N and the J significantly.

bennyinsf

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:07:35 -0800

I have to agree that the city really needs to IMPROVE . . . change that . . . have a REAL mass transit system in place before it enacts a congestion pricing scheme. We need more trains, trains that run on time, with better coverage throughout the city. Whoever created our current subway/train system really didn't plan for the volume of ridership that we have and congestion pricing isn't going to help. Why should it take 45 minutes to go three miles from Cole Valley to downtown? You can drive from SF to Cupertino in that much time. I know it's nearly impossible and wouldn't happen in my lifetime, but having additional subway lines so that the J, K, L, M, N lines don't have to all converge into one line from Van Ness to downtown would be a start. The result is when one train fails, it blocks the whole system. I think running the J and N on one set of tracks and the K, L, M on another set of tracks would be a good plan. Since the J and N both go under at Church Street it makes sense to keep them separate from the K, L, and M which continue together all the way out to West Portal. Everyone probably agrees that there should be an underground portion to Geary Boulevard and even one that runs North/South under Van Ness. If not underground, there is probably a way to create an elevated train system that can take people along Geary and Van Ness from one end to the other quickly. San Francisco really needs to think big about building and improving its infrastructure and congestion pricing is a mini step in the wrong direction.

wanker

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:36:09 -0800

Jeez - I had to register to comment on this cr*p. You can't just keep adding more fines to get people to ride public transportation without supplying the proper alternatives. If I could ride Stockholm's public transit every day to work, I would (note it takes 15 minutes for me to commute 6kms to an office in Stockholm when I'm there with trains running every 5 minutes). Unfortunately I'm stuck with the N-Judah where a 3.5 mile commute to 2nd and King takes longer than a 25 mile commute on CalTrain. This is all about adding more to the city budget collections while hiding behind a virtuous goal (reducing driving). Murphstahoe - here's some other viable options for ya: * flood the council meetings and let the council know what you think * drop or drastically reduce all of the low income assistance programs so we can get buy with the same budget and/or use it to improve the public transportation in the city * recall the supes who support this and/or vote the Daly/Ammiano/Peskins out! * make the whole city subject to congestion pricing (sorry Mission district...) since much of the light rail problems emanate from delays outside the subway * Only make delivery trucks subject to congestion fines

SFHope

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:35:53 -0800

@yatdave Er, dude, the biggest cost of owning a car isn't the gas, it's all the other stuff. Insurance, maintenance, repairs, etc. The average U.S. citizen spends $8000 a year on their car. I calculated for that much money I could easily take a cab to and from any destination that wasn't convenient from transit and still save money. http://investopedia.com/articles/pf/08/cost-car-ownership.asp

bottombracket

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:34:12 -0800

Sacred cows make the best hamburgers.

joshb

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:15:44 -0800

Jesus, so many inane comments. Thank god for murphstahoe. Congestion pricing is charging people for the cost to the city of the behavior they're choosing to participate in. There is no such thing as a free commute. Live in a neighborhood where it's faster to drive through the congestion zone than taker a bus? Must be nice. I wonder if you ever asked the people whose neighborhood you're plowing through how they felt about that? Maybe they'll appreciate getting their streets back. Just saying, it's not all about you. Live in the zone and pissed about paying? Don't drive! I'm sorry that driving costs money, but that doesn't mean someone else should pay for it. Driving is a choice. It used to be a subsidized choice, but that's becoming less true. And the world, and this city, will be a better place for it whether you drive or not.

murphstahoe

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:41:52 -0800

There are definitely too many stops on many MUNI lines, this is well documented. 99% of MUNI riders think there should be less stops where they don't ever get on or off. That's the rub, the city pays someone to study why MUNI is slow, the study shows there are too many stops and points out some that should be removed, the supervisor hears from their residents that they don't want their stop removed, gridlock. Hopefully the TEP will come over the top on this foolishness. Nonetheless, traffic is what really slows MUNI down - unless of course you don't count double parked cars as "traffic". And if you think buses slow traffic down, imagine if you took the 80 people off the 49 and put them in cars on Van Ness....

mamcart

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:20:28 -0800

"The extra cash would help increase transit service, but much more importantly it would reduce auto traffic on transit corridors, reducing delays and INCREASING the total amount of service to be provided. For the 700K daily Muni riders this would be a huge improvement." Uh, no. The extra cash would not help increase transit service. Firing Nathan Ford and getting adults to run Muni are the only things that are going to get people on Muni. And I'd further like to point out that I think buses are the vehicles slowing down traffic: They stop at nearly every block, they cannot for the life of them figure out an efficient way to let people board, and what particularly galls me is that I'm seeing more and more buses simply stop in the street (not pulling into their bus stop areas). That wastes perfectly good parking spaces and it blocks the traffic behind them. There is no way I'll support this. Of course the supervisors don't care and they'll pass it anyway. They want to think they live in an important city like London.

aj

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:11:42 -0800

This is less of a gimmick than you think. The #1 cause of Muni delays and slow running times is traffic congestion. Less traffic, however it is accomplished, means faster service. Wi-Fi, on the other hand, is cute but pretty darn useless.

yatdave

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:47:00 -0800

@murphstahoe: Sure! Piece of cake! Problem solved! Thanks for your input!

missiondweller

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:41:49 -0800

We don't need more gimmicks. This is a gimmick like Wifi on buses etc. What we need is a reliable muni system and roads re-paved now and again, not just an occassional pothole fill. These guys cannot provide a competent basic city government so they're trying to distract us with the latest gimmick. How much money have they wasted already on this "plan"?

murphstahoe

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:35:21 -0800

viable options 1) Move 2) New job 3) Deal with costs associated with transit 4) Suck it up and pay If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

yatdave

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:29:24 -0800

@aj: As a once-in-a-while toll, no, it's not a lot of money. But if you can't avoid that toll for whatever reason and have to pay it each way every workday, it adds up. The typical $6/day fee equates to about $1500/year. If you get the proposed resident discount, that's still $750/year. So it's potentially a lot of money. Commuters need to have viable options to avoid that fee.

aj

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:29:21 -0800

@murphstahoe - it's true, I am the first to admit it.

murphstahoe

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:26:26 -0800

@aj - I can't help you. You are doomed.

yatdave

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:02:38 -0800

I think Karst has it right on all counts.

aj

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:56:10 -0800

There already is a parking tax, though the meters are priced way below market at present since they still assume you have to pay with coins. The city is looking at changing that in some areas, charging more so there's always a free space. In the grand scheme of things $3 isn't a lot of money - it's less than a cab ride and less than parking anywhere except on the street. But it had better be easy to pay. One of the problems (perhaps intentional?) with London is that you have to pay IN ADVANCE, and if you forget you have to pay a penalty. Contrast Singapore where you just get a bill for your usage, like our FasTrak.

manys

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:54:00 -0800

But it will RUIN BUSINESS IN SF! Do you hear that? ALL BUSINESS WILL LEAVE SAN FRANCISCO. I swear I'm not being hysterical!!!!!1 No lie, IT WILL HAPPEN.

Karst

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:49:45 -0800

I still don't understand why they don't just implement a huge downtown parking tax for all meters and garages. That avoids the necessity for expensive license plate reading cameras, eliminates court costs for people fighting tickets, people driving through the edges of the zone aren't affected, and it's far simpler to change the size of the congestion area over time. This would have the same end effect of reducing car trips into downtown, no? That said, there needs to be more carrot and less stick in this plan. Namely non-imaginary improvements in MUNI. This is not a regressive tax -- it's only paid by those rich and/or foolish enough to drive downtown during rush hour. The idea that it will hurt business is 1,000,000,000 percent wrong. Businesses in London's congestion zone grew business faster than those outside the zone because it now sucks less for shoppers and everyone else to be downtown. Here's the report. Graph of how much better businesses in the central zone did versus the rest of London is on page 192. However: all locations performed more strongly post charging, with the central London charging zone significantly outperforming other locations, as shown in Figure 9.2. It is likely that certain underlying factors, not replicated elsewhere in London, have boosted the performance of firms located in the charging zone and this effect has been stronger than any impact of charging. In any case, congestion charging did not hurt.

yatdave

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:47:05 -0800

@ag: Honda Insight. At 65 mph, I actually get about 64 mpg. If traffic slows me down to 60 mph or so, I easily get 70+ mpg. Of course, SF city driving isn't anywhere near that, but on nice flat 101, it's pretty easy to do without much effort. No crazy hypermiler techniques, though I do generally stick to the slower lanes. It's amazing how your habits change when you've got a little meter telling you how you're doing. :)

Rah

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:23:25 -0800

^San Francisco isn't a bedroom community. The weekday population of SF grows by 250,000 people (compare that to San Jose, where it drops by 50,000). Anyways, I agree that this is a bad idea. SF is no London, and all this serves to do is further make SF inaccessible to people.

mushmouth

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:20:17 -0800

First of all you are NOT get 60 mpg unless you are driving a motorcycle. Secondly your economics of the car isn't taking into account the cost of ownership, insurance or maintenance. Adding those up I found that it was much cheaper for me to take a taxi EVERYWHERE I drive than to own a car. With commuter checks that $7.25 is pre-tax which puts it down to $5.00 a day. Third, maybe you should think about living a little closer to where you work or working closer to where you live. One of the recipients of the toll money would be public transit to make it better for all.

aj

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:17:34 -0800

oh, and yatdave, what kind of car do you have that gets 60 mpg?! Are you one of those slightly annoying yet virtuous left lane hypermilers?

Akit

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:17:08 -0800

I don't like this idea of congestion pricing. The map provided by the Chron shows that the western "border" is Divisadero. So I can go to Kaiser without hassle, but if I just want to go to Japantown a few blocks away(which IS NOT congested), I have to pay a fucking fee? What the hell is our city government folks smoking today?

aj

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:16:11 -0800

Bicycle+caltrain works great if it's not raining, AND you have at least an extra 30 mins each way, AND there was no dumbass crossing in front of the train, AND there's room in the bike car, AND you don't need to be too well dressed at the other end, AND you don't have a carpool alternative. Believe me I've tried. The real problem is that SF is both a city with a big downtown AND a bedroom community for Silicon Valley, and not just for the Google gazillionaires who anyway get free bus service to and from their favorite Mission cafes. For a few years SF seemed to try to attract tech companies, but the likes of Chris Daly and the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition sent them screaming for the hills. So the workers go where the jobs are. But -- back to the main issue at hand -- congestion pricing. The main reason this is being debated is because traffic causes big delays for mass transit. The extra cash would help increase transit service, but much more importantly it would reduce auto traffic on transit corridors, reducing delays and INCREASING the total amount of service to be provided. For the 700K daily Muni riders this would be a huge improvement.

Schtu

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:13:47 -0800

Population Greater London = 7,355,400 Population City of San Francisco = 764,976 There in lies the rub. San Francisco is not dense enough to support congestion pricing. Plus the proposed map cuts the Castro in half....

wsanders

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:12:07 -0800

Tell you mom to stop driving on the sidewalk. There is absolutely no way you can drive into the financial district from ANYWHERE in 30 minutes. Between 3 PM and 6 PM it can take 30 min to drive to the financial district from the Moscone Center!

reaubhat

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:08:36 -0800

I commute to Redwood City from Noe Valley all the time and it is not a problem at all. Selfishly, I'd probably drive if I had a car to save an hour a day, but I'm not fooling myself into thinking that it is "unrealistic" to take public transport. It takes a little longer, but I get to read the paper, send some emails (thanks fancy-phone), and self-righteously feel like I'm not a drain on society. Maybe I'll have a car someday and I'll use my train-riding years to justify my car driving. What a jerk!

OnlyatBrandeis

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:47:27 -0800

An hour twenty between San Francisco and Sunnyvale, are you serious? My mom regularly makes it from Palo Alto into the city in half an hour. Congestion pricing only works in cities that have comprehensive and user friendly public transportation systems. Have you seen the London underground? It's great, easy to use and has amazing coverage including going far outside the city center. San Francisco just doesn't have that. I've lived in the Bay Area nearly all my life and still find muni intimidating and it's not a personal public transportation issue; I take the DC metro every day.

wsanders

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:38:33 -0800

Congestion pricing in London is a huge scam, it costs as much money to implement as it takes in in tolls, and there is a huge grey market in fake license plates. On the other hands, it works. But count on SF government to implement it with a totally inadequate bureaucracy, so scamming it becomes yet another way of life in SF, just like residential parking permits and handicapped parking.

ocelotsyeah

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:36:14 -0800

fuck no!

murphstahoe

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:32:59 -0800

@usc0cat and aj - bicycle+Caltrain = QED. Noe Valley is not "served by Caltrain", yet I manage to get to Sunnyvale daily, in 1:20, during which I read the paper, eat breakfast, check SFist, and get in a workout. The trend towards SF being the most unaffordable city is an unfortunate side effect of this pesky little thing called "economics". It's a great place to live, people want to live here, more people move here, increased demand for a finite set of things, prices go up. If we try to continue to do things the same way, the only result is that the city will be affordable only to the "Trendy Google Professionals" (tm). We need to change how we live, sometimes the crazy government has to be involved to do so.

yatdave

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:32:36 -0800

@murphstahoe: My problem with public transportation to work is similar to usc0cat's. Pac Hts to Mountain View. Here's the comparison: For a one-way commute by car: TIME = typically 1 hour, faster or slower depending on traffic COST = $1.70. (I get about 60 mpg.) FLEXIBILITY = I work whatever hours I want. For a one-way commute by public transit: TIME = 2 hrs 15 mins. (Bus to train to CalTrain + 20 min walk) COST = $7.25 FLEXIBILITY = Tied to the train Schedule. It's a no-brainer, really. To make matters worse, it just occurred to me that a resident exemption wouldn't help me anyway - I actually live about 50 yards beyond the described zone, but would have to pass through it anyway.

spysea

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:29:59 -0800

Business is SF will be fine? Can I have what your smoking...?

periqueblend

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:25:17 -0800

No. businesses in SF like london will be fine. everytime new legislation is passed people always say this but its not true. I think the last thing was the health care for restaurant workers, then there was the increase in the parking meter fee. There is a shitload of money in this town, and the 80/20 rule is all they need. however, it sounds like there is a lot of thinking left to be done, especially concerning the other options they would have you use.

aj

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:21:23 -0800

This will be a total non starter if commuters out of the city get charged. Unless of course Caltrain magically builds service to most neighborhoods. But there is definitely merit to the idea of charging for driving into the downtown area where there are many thousands of bus commuters stuck in traffic while a relatively small number of cars are trying to get through (e.g. on Market, Mission, Montgomery, Sansome, etc.). The key is to use the congestion charge to pay for MORE mass transit, which has been a success in London. If transit service is left as it is it won't work (though it will be faster due to reduced congestion).

spysea

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:09:34 -0800

This idea will KILL business in SAN FRANCISCO... period, who thinks of this stupid sh*t... DAVID

usc0cat

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:04:20 -0800

Can we please stop this trend toward making SF the most unaffordable city? We're not there yet but damn close. If you want to reduce traffic and encourage public transit, let's focus on making a system that is actually useful. I live in the Haight and work in San Mateo. To get to work via transit, I would have to: 1. Walk to bus stop. 2. Take TWO buses to Caltrain 3. Take Caltrain 4. Catch a shuttle that only runs a few times a morning (so if anything gets off schedule, I'm stuck) A 22 mile communte ends up taking 1.5-2 hours. I assume there's thousands of people with the same problem.

murphstahoe

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:55:49 -0800

@melmelish - There are some other things that are regressive besides congestion pricing. For example - "everything". Everything that costs penny one, is regressive. There is no proposed charge to enter the public space - there is a charge to DRIVE into said public space. My mindset (certainly not shared by all) is that "other people driving" is very regressive in that they get benefit but produce a great cost on everyone else (including people that are driving but themselves). There are costs to society of driving that are being subsidized by everyone. The subsidy is accrued the most by the wealthiest, at the most cost to the poorest. Cars are regressive. This tactic of subsidizing driving has great impact that we should reduce to everyone's benefit. Including but not limited to reducing the amount of dollars available to subsidize public transit. I will absolutely agree with yatdave that is seems a bit in poor form to charge residents of the toll area, given that they made the choice to live there based on a variety of factors and this changes that equation. While yatdave should hopefully be given alternatives to driving (and he hasn't specified where he lives and works so perhaps he's just being a wussy when he says transit isn't realistic for him), his case is different than from those coming outside the zone into the zone - public transit is reasonably well established for that trip, including massive parking garages at various BART stations, if you happen to live in La Honda or something like that.

SFJoe

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:52:50 -0800

A little Robitussin will fix that right up.

SFX

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:49:16 -0800

exactly. this is a far too typically SF-style "solution" to a complex problem: make it more difficult to drive, but offer no alternatives, i.e. improved bus/rail service, flexible work schedules, increased park/ride options. another hassle for the rank and file, another reason for business to leave the city. and of course, yet another way for gavin to pad his gubernatorial resume.

willnick

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:46:33 -0800

I use muni every day and it's freaking packed. If all those people actually got out of their cars muni and bart would implode. Does the mayor's SUV get an exemption?

melmelish

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:27:37 -0800

The problem with congestion pricing is that it is regressive, affecting people who have lower incomes far more than people who make the big bucks. It's all good and well to want to discourage downtown driving, but it shouldn't be done without regard to the whole income equity piece. Basically, you are charging an entry fee to a public space, restricting access based on ability to pay.... Anyway, until Muni is a little bit less of a disaster, the whole idea is bad even without considering at the equity part.

yatdave

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:23:33 -0800

"residents of the toll zone would pay half" Are you freakin' serious? I live in one of these zones but work outside of the city. I don't go anywhere near downtown, but do need to get on the freeway. And given where I live and work, public transit simply isn't a realistic option for me. I understand the arguments for congestion pricing and it sounds like a good idea for encouraging people to use viable alternatives. But there have to be actual viable alternatives for everyone it will impact. So unless they open up routes to the freeways or provide full exemptions for residents in the congestion zones, there's no way I'll support this.