Congestion Pricing and San Francisco

Here's the difficulty (0.00 / 0)

with congestion pricing.

Congestion pricing is a traffic issue, not a global warming issue.  It's only a global warming issue insofar as cars pollute, but what happens when we stop polluting?  Do we maintain congestion pricing as a method of keeping traffic down?

For the time being, if we're interested in reducing pollution it seems that taxing carbon is the way to go.  That can encourage fuel-efficient or alternative energy vehicles as a transitional phase, and encourage use of public transportation where possible.

---

by: Dante Atkins @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 14:19:36 PM CST

It's both (0.00 / 0)

SF's congestion pricing WILL happen if for no other reason than Arnold's determination to eliminate state funding of public transit makes it necessary.

And that's not a bad thing. Congestion pricing deals with both traffic AND global warming. We're not going to "stop polluting" anytime soon, even in my wildest SUPERTRAIN dreams. Carbon taxes and congestion pricing will be an ongoing part of climate solutions for the rest of our lives.

In the event that somehow the problem goes away and the global warming issue is resolved, the congestion fees would need to stay to not only fund SF's considerable public transit needs (Transbay Terminal extension, Geary Blvd light rail/subway, similar solution for 19th Avenue, etc).

SF fared better than most other American cities during the great transit apocalypse of the 1950s and 1960s, but only because neighborhoods organized the nation's first Freeway Revolt, and even then SF still became more dependent on the car than most realize.

London, one of the world's most transit friendly cities, also found the need to implement congestion pricing several years ago, primary as a means of traffic mitigation. Reducing carbon emissions has become another reason for maintaining the system but wasn't the initial reason for it.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 14:35:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As a resident of Los Angeles (0.00 / 0)

the only thing I can say would be that trying to do that in LA would be like a paradigm shifting without a clutch.

We don't have the public transit infrastructure necessary for congestion pricing...but I guess the other way to look at it is that you would be encouraging people to take those options wherever possible, and for those where it's not possible, it would be funding a realm of further  public transit development...but still.  It would be interesting to prognosticate.

---

by: Dante Atkins @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 14:46:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

to add to your point... (0.00 / 0)

...la is geographically enormous, as opposed to the very compact city of san francisco.

---

by: fake consultant @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 14:49:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It'll happen there too (0.00 / 0)

LA isn't in as good a position as SF or London, but it could be workable depending on how you drew the zones. I recall it having been discussed earlier in the year and I think it's safe to say that within 10 years it will materialize.

Further public transit development IS coming to LA, thank god, with the passage of Measure R, and hopefully with a President Obama committed to a serious investment in transit. LA has a better mass transit system than is usually realized, although much of it is already heavily used (the Red Line most days resembles something you'd see in NYC or London).

Still, we have to consider that the choices aren't between the status quo and an LA (or SF) congestion fee. It's between paying a lot of money to continue the automobile-centric transportation system and economy and reaping diminishing returns, or paying a lot of money to build our way to a more sustainable and prosperous future.

The cost and disruption of a congestion charge is much less than the cost and disruption of staying on our present course.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 14:57:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Geary light rail (0.00 / 0)

Since I lived off it I could be biased, but I see no reason for it whatsoever.  The 38 Geary is fine, it comes frequently and would be speedier if traffic subsides from congestion pricing.  Light rail is on Judah, a similar corridor, and I would argue that Geary is far better to get around on.  That would be duplicative and waste of money when 19th would be much more practical.

6 years removed from the city, I could be completely wrong.

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 14:48:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well... (0.00 / 0)

...I won't say you're "completely wrong" but most transportation activists, and planners within the SFMTA, believe Geary LRT is desperately needed. It's likely to be the next major mass transit project in the city (aside from the Transbay Terminal).

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 14:52:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting question (0.00 / 0)

If you took most of the traffic off of Geary to allow the 38 to flow freely, I don't think LR there would be imperative. However, if we can't manage Geary, it does become important.

Anyway, it certainly will be more useful than the Central Subway.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 15:00:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That damn Central Subway (0.00 / 0)

Most transportation activists would like to see it canceled and the funds redirected to the Downtown Extension for Caltrain/HSR to reach the Transbay Terminal, and to prioritize the Geary corridor.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 15:03:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's important to the Speaker (0.00 / 0)

Speaker Pelosi has taken a pretty active interest in the Central Subway. For good or ill, without her, I can't imagine it would be going forward.

Goes to show how one person can shape history I suppose.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 15:09:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd be more swayed (0.00 / 0)

if you asked not transportation activists and planners but people who actually lived there.  In four years I never had a problem with the 38 Geary.

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 15:20:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Right (0.00 / 0)

Some of the activists do live along the corridor, served by the busiest bus line in the western United States:

An outbound 38-Geary bus begins its westward journey at the Transbay Terminal, but a mere three or four stops later, the long, articulated bus may already be standing room only. By the time the bus reaches Union Square, even standing room is in short supply, as passengers continue to crush into the bus like sardines in a tin can. And a few blocks after that, in the Tenderloin, the bus will be packed to bursting. Operators sometimes stop the bus halfway up the block, safely outside the reach of a corner bus stop - letting passengers off in the middle of the street to avoid accepting any new ones. But these would-be riders at the stop are weary of waiting, perhaps having already seen previous packed-to-bursting buses skip their stop, and they will do their best to rush over and crush in anyhow. As more passengers pack themselves in, dwell times at each successive stop lengthen, slowing the bus to near-glacial speeds as it swims through the obstacle course of clogged downtown streets. Anyone who rides on Geary regularly can tell you that these buses need help - pronto.

The planners have conducted several studies on the Geary corridor, pursuant to the November 2003 Rescue Muni proposal that voters approved, identifying Geary as "the key east-west corridor" to be improved. The planners' studies, which are extensive and include surveys of folks who live there and use the route daily, showed the need for a mass transit solution. Planners are focusing on bus rapid transit, which is an inferior solution to light rail but recognizes the need to provide true mass transit there.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 15:28:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

that's better (0.00 / 0)

I remember it being congested on occasion (particularly at Polk/Van Ness, where I would transfer from points south), but not as bad as described.  I'm willing to believe it has degraded.

That said, one option would be to improve service on the 1 California line, which was so horribly bad that I would refuse to use it even when my destination was closer to California than Geary.  In general, I think improving bus services with more buses, increased frequency, extra bus lanes on the parts of routes that are the most congested, and the like would be a good use of this money as a bridge until longer-lasting solutions can be built.  Yglesias had something on this today.

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 16:49:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ahem... (0.00 / 0)

the 38 Geary line is  'temporary' measure. sure over 50 years old, but still "temporary".

The B geary line was dismantled because BART was supposed to go to Ocean Beach via Geary, and it was determined that "duplication of service" was redundant.

Ah well.

--
www.gregdewar.com

---

by: gregdewar.com @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 15:31:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

it is possible to induce desired behavior... (0.00 / 0)

...not just by raising some prices--but by lowering the perceived cost of other options.

for example, imagine if bay area transit systems were funded as public utilities, rather than through the farebox and grant money.

raise the sales tax an appropriate amount, and charge nothing at all--at the farebox--to use transit.

in theory this could cause the perceived cost of transit to go down while the costs and irritation of driving remain high.

if this leads to more tansit use during peak hours that also achieves the "reduction of congestion" goal.

---

by: fake consultant @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 14:48:06 PM CST

I'm all for that funding model (0.00 / 0)

Although public utilities do still charge the user a monthly fee, I think your basic concept is sound.

The problem is we don't have enough mass transit capacity, and live in a state where it's becoming extremely difficult to fund new capacity. A congestion charge helps fund that while also providing a stick to make sure that there's no backsliding. I thought the Tom Friedman quotes David excerpted were quite good on that point.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 15:00:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

doesn't work (0.00 / 0)

nice idea but you'd cripple the system with riders and the sales tax (a regressive tax) won't make enough to pay for the cost of running a mass transit system.

--
www.gregdewar.com

---

by: gregdewar.com @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 15:32:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wearing the economist hat or the marketing hat (0.00 / 0)

I think you have the right idea here on a number of counts.

There are a few problems we're trying to solve here:

• There is too much traffic congestion downtown;
• There are other congestion related issues, like lack of parking;
• We'd like people to drive less for other reasons, like reducing our carbon footprint.

There are a couple ways to do the policy analysis, at least.  I'll call the first the "economist's approach", which says that people want services, and face some "price" for that service, and decide how much of the service they want.  So the key things you care about are "costs" and "prices": the policy goal is to figure out what those costs are or should be (not all costs are direct; some are indirect "external" costs that somebody pays, just not the person who decides to buy), and what the "right price" is.

The other approach is a sort of marketers' analysis, which asks a different question: who wants to buy a service, and why does this person want to buy it?  So instead of talking about cost and price, you start out by thinking about what groups of people you have, and what their different motivations are.  This approach isn't incompatible with the economist's approach (it's somewhat complementary in practice), but since you ask different questions, you tend to get different answers.

So if we're talking about congestion, the alternate approach points out that we have different motivations to go downtown: some people work downtown, some people shop downtown, some people live downtown, some people go downtown for services.  These are distinct (although overlapping) groups of people.  They need different things.  Some need full day parking; some come downtown with very little, but need to lug a lot of stuff back home.  Some people go downtown with just themselves, and go to places like restaurants or doctor's offices where they go back the same way.  If you want to discourage each of these separate groups from taking their cars, you have the option of different strategies for different groups.  This is called a market segmentation approach.

Congestion pricing is an economist's approach to the problem.  It's a variation on something called "peak load pricing".

But if you put on your marketing hat, you might make it cheaper and easier to get taxis to bring people home with their shopping or have delivery services to get rid of the shoppers; subsidized day care down town to get more working parents to take transit to work with their kids, or more "park and ride" solutions with special support for large employers.

I'm not convinced that the economist's approach is better here, especially since (as Dante points out) there are income distribution effects of congestion pricing, and also because unless your downtown is somewhat compact (as is SF, London or Manhattan, and as LA is not), it gets harder to implement congestion pricing.

That, and the fact that the computer technology to implement CP keeps a very nice and accurate record of your comings and goings.  Coming from a market segment of the severely paranoid about these things, that gives me the willies.

---

by: mbayrob @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 16:47:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Tough (0.00 / 0)

As I explained to Dante, those commenters better get used to it, because congestion pricing WILL come to SF. If they don't want it, take it up with a governor hellbent on destroying public transportation by starving it of funding.

What this shows to me is how deeply anti-tax Hooverism has taken root in California. Most San Franciscans will benefit directly and significantly from a congestion charge. MUNI would get desperately needed cash infusion and long-needed projects, like mass transit along the Geary corridor (which you'd have found useful when living in the Richmond), would be possible.

The "regressive tax" claim is complete bullshit. LA chose a  sales tax, which is a less progressive option, to pay for the Subway to the Sea. Making those who insist on driving within SF's urban core (the charge would NOT apply to the entire city) pay for transit is a fair AND progressive thing to do.

SF's working class population relies primarily on mass transit to get around. They could really use more buses, more trains, and more streetcars, without having to pay more fares or sales taxes for it.

And SF, almost alone among American cities that are not NYC, already has considerable transportation options to allow people to avoid paying the charge.

This is where anti-tax Hooverism's roots in the 20th century sprawlconomy are most evident. Kudos to SF for plowing ahead anyway. That's what I call leadership.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 14:50:27 PM CST

Not *complete* bullshit (0.00 / 0)

You're generally right, and certainly, I don't think congestion pricing is a stupid thing to do.  And people who finance public transportation with sales taxes aren't in any position to talk about the regressiveness of CP.

But as I pointed out above, transportation to the downtown is not really the same good for different people. For getting people to work or to a government office, public transportation is a "close substitute" for driving, and tilting the scales towards it won't have big welfare effects.  Getting bags of Christmas gifts back from the stores is something else, and even a poor person will want to do this -- big welfare effects.

So the redistributional effects aren't a reason not to do CP.  But a well implemented policy on CP will explicitly take these effects into account by helping people move packages back and forth, or by giving people limited compensation for the cost of CP.

---

by: mbayrob @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 17:00:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

three quick points... (0.00 / 0)

...we don't have to be "locked in" to a sales tax.

it would also be possible to impose a household based fee, as is done for garbage collection or sewers.

as for the regressive nature of these fees: wouldn't any congestion pricing fee that is not income based also be a regressive tax?

as to the question of whether such a fee could raise enough money...of course it could. determine the budget you need, divide by households in the area (or local taxable sales), and you have the amount you need.

if an anticipated crush of riders is the problem, phase the farebox reductions in over time as you "ramp up" capacity. this may require upfront borrowing for equipment--but you have a steady source of revenue that can service the required bonds.

---

by: fake consultant @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 22:27:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Tax incidence and substitions (0.00 / 0)

as for the regressive nature of these fees: wouldn't any congestion pricing fee that is not income based also be a regressive tax?

It would depend upon how right Robert is when he says that poorer people are already using public transit.

It's already pretty expensive to drive downtown, if only because parking is very costly.  So if that's already pushing poorer people out of the "market", the congestion pricing isn't going to influence their behavior much, and the incidence of a congestion tax won't fall on them.  If they don't pay it, it isn't so regressive.

Sales taxes, though, are very hard for poorer people to avoid, since more of what they buy turns out to be things with the tax.

I don't totally buy Robert's argument, but in all likelihood he's right that a sales tax is worse.

---

by: mbayrob @ Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 00:43:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

SF Congestion pricing (0.00 / 0)

Many years away from SF, and returning on many times a year, I believe that SF should go beyond only congestion pricing. (Congestion pricing is 'good' for people coming from Marin,the Peninsula or East Bay, and if for business they will 'bury' that into business expenses, anyway).

There should be higher auto registration fees (state and city/county) for autos registered in SF. Parking permits required over the whole city.

I take the train to SF whenever possible, then BART and MUNI in SF, as parking is awful just about anywhere, and driving around SF is difficult with the city's "love' of stop signs at EVERY corner it seems. What next, speed bumps every 50 feet?

---

by: BeauMec39 @ Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 10:32:56 AM CST

For those of us who walk in SF (0.00 / 0)

and there are a lot of us, the stop signs in the residential neighborhoods are really important.  I know it slows down cars as they drive through our neighborhoods, which must be really pesky for people who don't live here and just want to drive through.

---

by: jsw @ Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:27:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]