The Traffic Tax - Take our Poll
San Francisco is studying a London-style plan to charge drivers a fee when they travel to high-traffic areas, like downtown San Francisco, or Doyle Drive during peak commute hours. But is congestion pricing a boon for public transportation? Or the death of downtown?
Take our poll to share your opinion.
You may listen to the "The Traffic Tax" radio report online, as well as find additional links and resources.
Amy Standen is a Reporter for QUEST and Radio News at KQED-FM.
latitude: 37.7871, longitude: -122.412
Limit deliveries to non traffic hours, raise the tax on charter buses and tourist vans to pay for double parking enforcement, leave the working stiff alone.
I usually take the bus or BART or the casual carpool form the east bay into SOMA. For the few times I need to have a car in SF after work, I would be fine with paying.
Most folks pay already to go downtown. They pay a parking garage. Some folks find parking meters or park with a sticker for the disabled (the illegal use of some of those is another issue). It would be interesting to see how folks would respond to paying more or less than a parking garage fee (and of course, those fees vary form block to block downtown).
In London, it is interesting to note the traffic levels seemed to have increased just outside of the traffic zone, and real estate prices have increased within the zone (if you live within, you get a pass to drive there).
linda magellan is the problem. the report said she DRIVES to work (presumably in the Union Sq area since she represents the US Business Assn.)maybe she has a really good reason for driving to work, but the report did NOT explain this. Union Square has got to be one of the best-served locations for public transit in the Bay Area. it's really hard for me to imagine what her 'good reason' would be.
for the record, i commute by bicycle and BART from East Bay to Financial District. Congestion pricing can't come SOON ENOUGH for me.
The traffic in San Francisco has never come remotely close to that of London (let alone Rome or Paris or New York). Plus, Londoners have the advantage of the Tube and a relatively efficient public transportation system.
While San Franciscans have BART; we have pretty pathetic public transportation compared to cities like London, New York, Rome, etc. I say this as a San Francisco Native who has commuted in and around San Francisco for 15 years.
Punishing people who work down town with a driving tax is foolish. Using the argument that the traffic will get worse over the next ten years is even more foolish. We saw the biggest boom ever in the late 90's and early 2000's; is it really going to get a lot worse than that? If so, wait until it does. Its not like this "solution" is dependant on anything all that time consuming to implement.
I find it lazy on the part of the San Francisco City to propose a fee to drive into San Francisco while they have spent the last 50 years doing almost nothing relevant to improve the public transportation in the city. To this day there are still areas of the city incredibly difficult to get to when relying solely on public transportation.
Improve public transportation, make it economical (BART is outrageously expensive compared to driving) and efficient and more people will use it.
I'd pay a fee if that's what it takes, but we need to be doing much more with other options as previous commentators have noted. Incentives work better than disincentives.
Hearing George Bush say "we will rebuild New Orleans" without any mention of the possibility of improving on the old model made my blood run cold.
In my experience driving in downtown, the key congestion issues are with getting from downtown streets to freeways and bridges. The city streets near the freeways get completely backed-up. As another comment noted, the actual traffic within the city doesn't approach the problems of New York or London.
To that end, why not focus congestion pricing on the freeways and bridges coming into downtown? Specifically, add a congestion surcharge at peak hours on the Bay and GG bridge, and add a drive-thru collection point of the same surcharge on 101 and 280 from the South.
Adding a fee to just have a car downtown at peak hours doesn't seem to address our problem. We would be copying someone else's solution without thinking.
p.s.–I live in the East Bay, so this isn't self-serving.
It makes sense to charge people who drive on congested downtown San Francisco streets. It makes no sense to charge the 6% of those driving into downtown San Francisco who use Doyle Drive.