Keeping Drivers at Bay: San Francisco mulls congestion charge
Boris Johnson for Mayor of... San Francisco? Our favorite municipal chief executive may be taking his time in dismantling the congestion charge in London, but his services may soon be needed in the City by the Bay, as local bureaucrats there contemplate instituting a new charge for motorists wishing to enter – or leave – the city's downtown core. Driving in San Francisco is already quite an ordeal, and it's listed as the second most congested city in the United States. Motorists already have to pay tolls to cross the bridge and exorbitant parking fees, but the new initiative in the notoriously environmentally-friendly haven in Northern California (a similar initiative to that which failed in New York), could achieve its purpose of deterring motorists from driving downtown altogether. Mayor Gavin Newson is in favor of the plan – which would involve charging cars $3 on the way in as well as on the way out – as is County Transportation Authority director Jose Luis Mosovich, who likens Hurricane Katrina, the economic crisis, global warming, and yes, even terrorism to the city's burgeoning traffic crisis.
[Source: Los Angeles Times | Photo: Panoramio]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
pmiddle5 2:40PM (1/02/2009)
Traffic is only bad at rush hour when people are trying to get in and out of the city. It is mostly commuters that are causing this. Why charge them money to come to work??
The traffic problems of SF are bad because of poor urban planning. The public transport of SF is horrendous to because of poor planning. Charging people more money is not going to help fix these problems.
If no one has noticed, people are driving less because they have less money. Like that extra federal gasoline tax they were talking about the other day and the Cali petrol "fee", these things are not really going to help.
If you want people to drive more and help the economy make it cheaper, dont raise the price. You raise taxes when things are prosperous and it can be afforded not when you want to scare away a recession
Reply
Epyx 2:48PM (1/02/2009)
I agree with everything until you get to the part when you say it is OK to raise taxes.
This tax would be very regressive and hit the lowest income people the most while doing nothing to address the problem.
Epyx 2:52PM (1/02/2009)
...also I bet this falls into the same competing justification trap.
1. Tax reduces congestion by people choosing other methods of transportation thus reducing the number of cars on the street.
2. Raise revenue to fund public transportation or fund anything.
You cant have both. Just like the gas tax or using cigarette taxes to fund healthcare. They are at conflict with each other.
Sea Urchin 3:08PM (1/02/2009)
Well gas tax is needed to maintain roads. Tax tax funds Highway fund
pmiddle5 4:16PM (1/02/2009)
while I do not necessarily believe that these sorts of taxes should ever be raised, according to the practice of economics that would be the appropriate time to raise them.
pirate 3:37PM (1/02/2009)
I thought DC metro had the 2nd worst traffic in the nation (behind LA of course)...
Reply
Epyx 3:40PM (1/02/2009)
I cant speak to the others but I think Chicago is much worse than DC. Mostly because of all the toll booths. DC sucks but it moves.
elpepe 2:57PM (1/02/2009)
soooo... the worse the service gets, the higher the price. Yah that makes sense..... :\
the city should be paying the drivers for such poor service and for making them waste hours and hours in traffic. Time is money.
Reply
BenS 3:03PM (1/02/2009)
...does this mean they will actually repave complete sections of the streets instead of haphazardly filling in the potholes?
/not holding his breath
Reply
Epyx 3:13PM (1/02/2009)
No, but I bet the legislature votes a cost of living increase despite the majority of the constituents not getting the same from their employers AND being asked to pay more taxes.
Lemmiwinks 3:19PM (1/02/2009)
If they'd just let people make a right turn off of Market onto the damn Octavia on-ramp, a third of the people clogging up Van Ness wouldn't need to...
Reply
ckm 7:06PM (1/02/2009)
YES! I'd like to shoot the dumbass who thought that was a good idea.... Most people just drive 3-10 blocks out of the way to get on the freeway... Oh and there used to be TWO lanes on the Van Ness 101 on ramp, now there is only one, WTF?
Lemmiwinks 9:38PM (1/02/2009)
You can thank those loveable bicyclists for that. They don't wish to be forced to look both ways before crossing Octavia. The turn lane is already there... it's not like they stop to walk their bikes at any other intersection.
EEL 5:41AM (1/03/2009)
my apologies for jumping to post.
enact such laws and critical mass will no longer be the last friday of every month. instead it will eventually be everyday.
sadly, it will just lead to the cyclists being taxed just in case they fart while biking down market st.
RLQ 6:10PM (1/02/2009)
SF politics are the worse next to Berkley.
Reply
Level 3:36PM (1/02/2009)
What I hate the most is how everyone is jumping on the band wagon and using the theories of what is causing global warming to manipulate a way to make more money on individuals. In my opinion it's one of the biggest scams out there right now which got excellent marketing coverage by Al gore.
I'm not a scientist but I have read a lot of articles on the matter, I'm not one to jump on any bandwagon. I read 100's of papers and draw my own conclusion.
I'm not a tool and I don't buy into the cars causing global warming etc...Perhaps next time there should be real serious studies performed, because right now it's nothing more then a popularity contest. There are tooooo many anomalies out there...
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-178
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question782.htm
Reply
Sea Urchin 3:49PM (1/02/2009)
Well let me ask you this, have you ever noticed that something white come out from the back of the car when it is in motion.....some people call them emissions. Well there are billions of cars out there and they all pollute, so global warming or not something needs to be done to make sure that air stays clean. Just because you do not see all the dirt cars produce doesn't mean they are clean.
As long as you do not buy into cars causing global warming i wanted to ask, do you buy into a myth that dumping raw sewage and chemicals into ponds can lead to bad things? Because i wanted that liberal issue gone for a while now.
Level 4:29PM (1/02/2009)
No Sh*t Sherlock that cars due cause smog, but theres a big difference from a contributing factor to the source of the global warming issue.
2nd Keep it withing the subject which in this case is Cars being the No1 factor in causing global warming not chemicals being dump which in that case is irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Coal burning, particularly in the United States and China is the biggest culprit but burning coal to generate electricity is needed and there's no way to manipulate to make more money on coal. but there is on cars.
""Oil and gas by themselves don't have enough carbon to keep us in the dangerous zone [of global warming] for very long," said Pushker Kharecha, a scientist and colleague of Hansen at NASA GISS. "
Marketing and image is everything in America and Vehicles like the Toyota Prius have become a badge of environmental pride.
3rd have you done your homework unbiasedly or are you like the rest of the tools? Fact of the matter is the scientific world is in limbo because there are soooooooo many contributing factors, People with 10 PhD's are still in limbo but Im supposed to believe a politician or an actress? or Al gore??? Thats America for you....
The North/South poles shifting yearly rip so much havoc on the climate which have nothing to do with CO2, but CO2 gets blame for it then pass the blame down to the car.
Inform yourself of every contributing factor first before you join the bandwagon.....
havoc 3:36PM (1/02/2009)
this city has the WORST traffic and drivers of any city i've been to. not to mention bikes sharing the road (and ignoring pretty much any traffic sign), motorcycles splitting/sharing/squidding, pedestrians that either stand in the road so you can't tell where they are going or are standing there becuase they think it makes the bus come faster, horrible light timing for traffic flow, AND the need to have 4-way stops about every other block.
try driving from ocean beach to the wharf
congestion charge? you can't be serious.
mass tranist? you can rely on it, as long as you don;t have anywhere to be at any given time (really, do buses and LRVs need to have a stop every other block... or in some cases EVERY block?)
how about removing street cleaning and garbage pick-up during rush hour?
how about making it illegal for ANYONE to double park during rush hour?
how about TURN LANES with TURN SIGNALS (like the revised right-hander at Masonic by the panhandle)...
Reply
ckm 7:11PM (1/02/2009)
Boy, you haven't been to many cities. SF traffic is not that bad and anyone who 'drives to the wharf' (???) is either a tourist or, more likely, a bridge and tunnel person that is part of the problem.
Here's a hint, no one in SF goes to Fishermans Wharf, it's a tourist trap.