Toll to drive downtown?

http://sfexaminer.com/articles/2005/..._ne01_toll.txt


Toll to drive downtown?
Supe suggests fee to drive in congested area.
By Justin Nyberg
Staff Writer
Published: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 10:46 AM PST


San Francisco would become the first city in the nation to charge
drivers just for driving in its chronically congested downtown under a
sure-to-be controversial proposal being aired today.
Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, chair of the San Francisco Transportation
Authority, will ask the agency to study a downtown toll zone -- whereby
drivers would need to purchase a daily pass to drive in The City's most
congested streets -- as a potential solution to the Municipal
Transportation Agency's woeful budget problems.
"The key issue here is if we can kill three birds with one stone --
relieve congestion, clean up the air, and give money to Muni -- we would
have hit a home run," McGoldrick said.
Modeled on similar "congestion charging" zones in London, cameras would
record license plates and tickets would be issued for motorists who
failed to purchase a pass. The intent is for drivers to pick other
routes, avoid coming downtown or switch to Muni, which would travel more
efficiently in the faster flowing streets.
"When you have a situation where traffic is not moving, Muni is not
moving," McGoldrick said. "If we are ever going to get Muni to move, we
are going to have to get those cars out of there."
Traffic in downtown San Francisco streets has been an intractable
problem since the day the Bay Bridge opened in 1936. Several downtown
streets are consistently rated "F" by the Department of Parking and
Traffic for low travel speeds at rush hour.
The study would determine the size of the toll zone, how much money it
would generate and how much congestion it could eliminate.
McGoldrick's proposal comes at a politically opportune time, with Muni
considering a controversial 25 cent raise in fares, and transit
activists mounting an increasingly vocal campaign to shift Muni's budget
difficulties away from the people who ride the buses.
Several long-term solutions to Muni's budget deficit have also been
floated over the past few months, including the creation of a downtown
"assessment district," which would essentially impose an additional tax
on property owners. But that would have to be approved by two-thirds of
the voters in that district and, if it were to pass, the money would not
be seen for at least a year.
Additional longer term options include other taxes -- including an
environmental impact fee for vehicles driving in The City; a local
vehicle registration fee; an increase in the parking tax; a special
parcel tax on properties within The City; and a local gas tax. All of
those options would require approval by San Francisco voters, the Board
of Supervisors or the California Legislature.
Sean Comey, spokesman for the American Automobile Association in San
Francisco, said a downtown toll zone would unfairly punish commuters who
can't take public transit. "I don't think its going to get too much
further than concept," he said.
Lee Blitch, president of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, worried
the extra expense and hassle to get to downtown could hurt business.
"We are trying to get out of the recession, but go back into it," Blitch
said.
Staff writer Marisa Lagos contributed to this report.

Street
Avg. evening speeds
Congestion rating
First Street between Market and Harrison streets
2.6 mph
F

Fourth Street between Market and Harrison streets
9.8 mph
D
Fifth Street between Market and Brannan streets
6.3 mph
F
Sixth Street between Market and Brannan streets
4.4 mph
F
Third Street between China Basin and Market Street
7.3 mph
E
Source: Department of Parking and Transportation
Email:

--
54% of New York City households do not own cars

M A R T I N K R I E G : "Awake Again" Author
http://www.bikeroute.com/AwakeAgain
Bent Since '83, Car Free Since '89, '79 & '86 TransAms********
Coma, Paralysis, Clinical Death Survivor*
Can You Change it with Love?*
N A T I O N A L B I C Y C L E G R E E N W A Y

Cycle America wrote:

http://sfexaminer.com/articles/2005/..._ne01_toll.txt

London is the most recent and well-publicized example of this, but other cities
like Hong Kong have been doing it for a long time. Despite the tolls they're
still gridlocked -- apparently using a motor vehicle is still valuable enough.
So this isn't the answer. I've read that bike sales went way up when London's
tolls started though.

Matt O.

"Cycle America" wrote: (clip)Toll to drive downtown? (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
One of SF's main industry is tourism. Lest's see whether such a program
produces enough income to offset the losses to the city's hotels,
restaurants and retail businesses.

It seems to me that the people who benifit are the more weathier people
and the one who get screwed are the average joe. So the people who can
afford to pay will and those who can't have to look for alternative
transportation. This is not a solution but a workaround to a
complicated and expensive problem. In London the traffic was reduced
by 30% but there is still gridlock, it's just more predictable now. Of
course 30% is significant but at the expense of average tax payers.
There has to be a better solution that would accomodate all social
classes.


--
BanditManDan

Leo Lichtman wrote:

One of SF's main industry is tourism. Lest's see whether such a
program
produces enough income to offset the losses to the city's hotels,
restaurants and retail businesses.

I don't even bother renting a car whenever I visit SF on business. The
transit system is a little bit confusing for outsiders like me what
with multiple transit providers and modes, but I've still managed to
figure out how to get where I need to go. I have to admit the trains in
SF are about the most unpleasant I've been on, very much fitting the
stereotype that only mentally ill people and criminals take transit.

I've walked between the Moscone Center to Fisherman's Wharf. I carry a
little bag of candy bars for the panhandlers and I've wandered around
late at night without getting mugged.

I've played tourist in Chicago several times with my family, taking
Amtrak into Chicago from downstate then transit and walking to the
museum areas.

RFM

"Cycle America" wrote in message
...

http://sfexaminer.com/articles/2005/..._ne01_toll.txt


Toll to drive downtown?
Supe suggests fee to drive in congested area.
By Justin Nyberg
Staff Writer
Published: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 10:46 AM PST


San Francisco would become the first city in the nation to charge
drivers just for driving in its chronically congested downtown
under a
sure-to-be controversial proposal being aired today.

Greetings from London.

The charge is generally reckoned a success here. The charge zone is
to be expanded westward in a few years time. There is talk of the
charge being raised from five pounds per day to eight pounds. There
are demands to make the rather cumbersome ways of paying simpler, but
TfL (Transport for London) reckons that simplifying the system would
increase traffic enough to require increasing the charge by ten more
pounds to compensate. They've chosen a nice way of hassling the rich
more than the poor, I guess.

Traffic went down by about 15%, as planned, but the amount of money
coming in is not as great as expected. Those sneaky delivery people
didn't use random vehicles when delivering, but stuck to the one
vehicle that had paid the toll for the day.

Motorcycles don't pay a charge. The cameras can't take pictures of
their plates.

There are one or two streets still usually congested. The Strand is
one. I suppose taking a couple of lanes away to make bus lanes and
wider sidewalks might have been a factor. Oxford St is also pretty
crowded. Except at night cars are not allowed onOxford St at all,
only buses, taxis, and bikes. I guess that makes it the one street
where the congestion charge couldn't help it.

Edinburgh has plans to introduce a scheme, cost two pounds. They've
just been holding a referendum about it. Counting is still underway.
The result is expected to be close, but defeat is reckoned to be more
probable than passage.

There may not be any city yet in the US with a congestion charge, but
Manhattan, with all those bridge tolls, is not far off something
similar

Jeremy Parker
London

"Matt O'Toole" wrote
London is the most recent and well-publicized example of this, but other
cities
like Hong Kong have been doing it for a long time. Despite the tolls
they're
still gridlocked -- apparently using a motor vehicle is still valuable
enough.
So this isn't the answer. I've read that bike sales went way up when
London's
tolls started though.

Matt O.

London is apparently less gridlocked than before, which is progress of a
sort. Bike sales did go up, bicycle travel is up, more people are walking,
and more people are using mass transit / taxis. It's not a complete
solution, but it's an improvement over the previous situation.
--
mark

"BanditManDan" wrote
It seems to me that the people who benifit are the more weathier people
and the one who get screwed are the average joe. So the people who can
afford to pay will and those who can't have to look for alternative
transportation. This is not a solution but a workaround to a
complicated and expensive problem. In London the traffic was reduced
by 30% but there is still gridlock, it's just more predictable now. Of
course 30% is significant but at the expense of average tax payers.
There has to be a better solution that would accomodate all social
classes.


--
BanditManDan

The average joe can't afford to park in SF anyway.

The $9 or $10 that motorists pay is a pittance compared to the time that was
wasted sitting in traffic. Think of a tradesman (plumber, electrician,
appliance repairman, etc.) trying to get from one job to the next. If $10 a
day would knock an hour or two off of the time spent travelling between
jobs, how much more could he earn with that hour or two saved? Ditto
delivery people, business people travelling to meetings, etc.
--
mark

mark Wrote:
"BanditManDan" wrote
It seems to me that the people who benifit are the more weathier
people
and the one who get screwed are the average joe. So the people who
can
afford to pay will and those who can't have to look for alternative
transportation. This is not a solution but a workaround to a
complicated and expensive problem. In London the traffic was reduced
by 30% but there is still gridlock, it's just more predictable now.
Of
course 30% is significant but at the expense of average tax payers.
There has to be a better solution that would accomodate all social
classes.


--
BanditManDan

The average joe can't afford to park in SF anyway.

The $9 or $10 that motorists pay is a pittance compared to the time
that was
wasted sitting in traffic. Think of a tradesman (plumber, electrician,
appliance repairman, etc.) trying to get from one job to the next. If
$10 a
day would knock an hour or two off of the time spent travelling between
jobs, how much more could he earn with that hour or two saved? Ditto
delivery people, business people travelling to meetings, etc.
--
mark
Good point. I just don't like paying fee's to use roads that my tax
dollars built and paid for.


--
BanditManDan

So tell me, was there an increase in cycling as a means of
transportation?


--
BanditManDan