San Francisco could soon be first US city with a congestion charge
The city by the bay could soon be the first American city to get a congestion charge, and if current plans go forward it will be complex. San Francisco is currently debating a plan that would charge motorists not only for entering the congestion zone, but also for leaving it. The charges would also only happen at certain times of day, currently set for 6-9 am and 3-6 pm. The problem is that whenever you do something like this the boundaries are arbitrary. There are bound to be people caught out on the wrong side of the line. One example is engineer David Milner who lives in the city but works in Mountain View south of the city. His home is just outside of the proposed zone, but he would have to pass through it to get to the freeway to get to work.
While the principle behind congestion charging is a good one, the plan being proposed in San Francisco seems overly convoluted and unfair. At this point it's not known if the plan will go ahead as proposed, be modified or killed outright.
[Source: Los Angeles Times]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jeff 11:02AM (1/02/2009)
can anybody tell me about that street in the photo? Is it possible that it was once a wide street just going straight up the hill, and then turned into a switchbacking road with some pretty landscaping?
Reply
slk23 11:11AM (1/02/2009)
Lombard St.
According to the article on Wikipedia, the turns were added in 1922 to make climbing the hill easier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombard_Street_(San_Francisco)
why not the LS2LS7? 11:23AM (1/02/2009)
On another note, you cannot go up that section (the only curvy section) anyway. It's one-way down and has been for a long time (>30 years at least).
It's also not the steepest section of road in San Francisco anyway, even if it were straight.
So basically, it's like that just for show.
Stan Wellaway 11:21AM (1/02/2009)
The longer it takes for US cities to get around to introducing congestion charging (over 70 cities in Europe are moving that way) the more likely it is that zero-emission vehicles will be available in numbers - ready to take advantage if, as in London for example, they are exempted from charges.
Still some way to go with cars of course, but in the field of commercial delivery fleets there is no excuse. In the past year, Smith EV have shipped around 400 highway-capable all-electric trucks and vans and have a full range of sizes available. Check out the Case Studies page at their website http://www.smithelectricvehicles.com
With air quality such an issue in SF, any scheme should surely be skewed in favour of zero-emission vehicles where available. Smith is commencing US production of them using US workers, and last month indicated a West coast facility would be their first outlet.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 11:41AM (1/02/2009)
air quality is not an issue in SF.
SF has relatively few people and strong winds. The air never gets a chance to become noticeably polluted within the city limits, instead all their pollution blows into Oakland and then Sacramento.
Stan Wellaway 1:49PM (1/02/2009)
wntLS2LS7 - I stand corrected. Having checked the latest BAAQMD stats I see only five Spare The Air alerts so far this winter across the whole area.
why not the LS2LS7? 11:30AM (1/02/2009)
SF isn't very congested anyway. Unlike London, it doesn't have many people. What they need is some decent roads. They never allowed 101 to be connected through the city to the Golden Gate, and they actually removed a major expressway after the 1989 earthquake.
Reply
slk23 11:58AM (1/02/2009)
And the city is much better off without the Embarcadero Freeway. It was a wart on the face of the waterfront and shouldn't have been built in the first place. Getting to North Beach from the Bay Bridge is a little more difficult now but that's a small price to pay. S.F. is actually doing a fairly good job with traffic flow while reviving areas that were previously dominated by hulking freeway structures. For example, the Octavia Blvd. exit from Hwy 101 much better than the old Central Freeway (removed after the Loma Prieta quake). The neighborhood is attractive and thriving and vehicles move through it better than ever.
Driving in S.F. is not too bad, as long as you stay away from certain areas during rush hour. I really don't see a need for a congestion charge. It sounds like more posturing by local pols, trying to act like S.F. is on the same level as London, N.Y., etc. I live right across the bay from S.F. and while it's a nice city, it's not London in just about every category. It certainly has no where near the same level of vehicle congestion.
why not the LS2LS7? 3:47PM (1/02/2009)
I wasn't referring to the Embarcadero, I was referring to the Central Freeway.
I'm sure knocking down the Central Freeway made certain areas look at lot better. That's not the point. I could make lots cities look better by knocking down freeways. The issue is whether you can get anywhere, and the answer is no. You can say only a few areas are backed up at rush hour, but I would go the other way. Only a few entires into and out of the city aren't backed up at rush hour.
You think 19th street would look like that if there was another way to approach the Golden Gate or any other place N of GG Park?
I do agree a congestion charge isn't necessary though. I'm not sure what areas you would even want to cover.
Doesn't the city make enough off parking tickets anyway? Maybe if they want to improve the place they could try putting a little money toward law enforcement so you can park your car overnight without it getting broken into.
slk23 4:08PM (1/02/2009)
LS2LS7:
I haven't missed the Central Freeway at all -- its absence seems to have made little difference, at least in my experience. But it's been 19 years since it was last functioning, so it's a little hard to remember. At this point traffic moves reasonably well through that area and removing the freeway structure has improved life in the neighborhood. That is a great benefit. Neighborhood livability should not be sacrificed for traffic flow; a balance should and can be achieved. IMO the Central Freeway went too far and caused more harm than benefit. I'm glad it's been scaled back.
Also, one could build dozens of freeways all over the city and they'd just become congested before long. Freeways have their place, but in a dense environment like S.F. it makes more sense to increase public transit. I'd love to see BART and MUNI expanded, while lowering fares to make them more competitive with driving (in particular BART).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Freeway
.
why not the LS2LS7? 6:51PM (1/02/2009)
Yeah, traffic moves in that area, because people have adjusted to not driving through there. Again, it isn't about whether a neighborhood looks better. It's about does the traffic flow properly. If there were better access through that area to other areas, who would benefit? What are the overall benefits to that area and other areas?
San Francisco seems very interested in making money from people entering their town. They are big on tourism, with different parking fees for locals and out-of-towners (through their permits) and hotel taxes. So if they want people to come into their town, it'd be great if they'd stop removing ways for people to do it.
I would love to see San Francisco have better mass transit, but to be honest, the relatively low density of the city means it'll be difficult to make that work well. And they aren't even trying. San Francisco seems to think that no matter what they do to discourage people, they will have plenty of business and plenty of tourism. So far, they're right. But I'm not so certain I'd be as confident as them.
slk23 7:13PM (1/02/2009)
LS2LS7:
The point is not just about making a neighborhood look better. It's about the overall quality of life for the residents. Did you walk around the Embarcadero or Hayes Valley before Loma Prieta? The freeways there were horrible and a blight. Those areas are vastly improved without them, and somehow life goes on for motorists. They manage to get across town and traffic is about the same as it always was. Traffic does flow. Tearing down those freeways was a very, very good thing. I'm saying this as someone who does drive into S.F. on occasion. You seem to very car-centric in your thinking.
However, I do agree with your comments on the motives and general attitudes of those who run S.F. They take the tourists and their money for granted. Someday they will find that S.F. has gained a bad reputation for being dirty and dangerous.
Throwback 11:46AM (1/02/2009)
Isn't the purpose of a congestion charge to reduce congestion? Does Tesla "congest" less than a Lotus Elise? Why should a EV be exempt from a congestion charge? If the purpose is to promote low/no emissons cars, then call it a polltuion tax.
Reply
Doug 1:22PM (1/02/2009)
A congestion charge doesn't make a lot of sense for SF. I think a more interesting idea is to make Market street a pedestrian mall, allowing traffic for only bikes and buses.
Reply
jpm 2:56PM (1/02/2009)
Being a bay area resident, I can only imagine that the city of SF sees this congestion charge more as a money making opportunity than for curbing congestion and promoting green cars.
BTW, the mayor Gaven Newson is a worthless jackass.
Reply
roz 6:03PM (1/02/2009)
Yes on congestion charges - but on the highways - not in cities and certainly not in SF.
Congestion charges on a city tend to move economic activity out of the city - that is exactly the wrong thing for SF. We want more activity in the dense, transit served areas, not less. Moving marginal activity out of London is not a big deal. Moving it out of SF is a problem because it means that overall more auto trips will result as businesses migrate to areas less well served by transit.
If SF truly wants to reduce congestion a better way would be:
1) increase parking fees in the core of the city
2) put satellite parking structures next highway exits - they actually could be built to have exits and entrances that go right on the highway.
3) make transit connections between parking and core biz and shopping very easy
4) get transit cards like translink into service so that all transit (and parking) is paid with one card.
5) reduce transit rates to 20% of current rates for measurement and to avoid abuse (pay for it with parking increases)
these 5 measures would get people out of their cars, yet promote better use of the city.
Reply
Chris M 6:02PM (1/02/2009)
SF isn't big enough or congested enough to make such a scheme practical, it sounds more like posturing ("Look, we're just like London!").
The city does have very good public transit, one of the best public transit systems in the US. It also has a severe shortage of parking, and what is available is costly - that alone discourages drivers much more than a "congestion charge" could. With good transit and poor parking, car ownership in the city is well below average, but there is still enough car owners living there that this scheme will never make it, politically, unless they exempt the residents from the charge.
San Francisco relys too much on tourism to do anything to discourage visitors from coming there.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 6:58PM (1/02/2009)
There's no way a city where I cannot catch a train out of town after going to the bar district (because both BART and CalTrain stop running before midnight) is one of the best mass transit systems in the country. It's a complete washout for most purposes. Ask anyone who lives in SF and works in the South Bay. Google is right next to CalTrain, but they still run dedicated buses to SF for their workers.
The only time I ever find mass transit in SF useful is when I am going to the convention center area.