San Francisco is considering charging a $3.00 toll, both ways, to drivers at their border with Daly City. Right, that’ll do it. :rolleyes:
Anyway, I’m wondering what if Daly City says “good idea” and passes a measure to immediately enact a toll equal to double any toll San Francisco charges. I promise you that San Fran does not want peninsula (that’s what they call it) to stop going to their city and spending money and working there.
Idiots!
Peace,
mangeorge
London did something similar, to cut down on congestion. I’m not sure how well it worked or how popular it was.
The news story mentioned that. I didn’t hear if they said what the impact is.
Maybe Sauselito, Oakland and Emeryville could do the same thing: No one leaves “The City” without forking out to someone.
Yes, London has a congestion zone within the central city area. The charge is 8 GBP (over $12 USD) for non-exempt non-discount vehicles (those who live within the congestion zone get a 90% discount.) Chicago was considering it a few years back, but nothing came of it.
It’s called congestion pricing, and as noted, it already exists in London. I’m furious NYC did not implement it when it had the chance (forgoing vast quanitites of badly-needed federal funding for improvements to public transit, I’ll add).
The idea is to keep cars out of the city. Not the people. The people, you see, have other ways of entering the city, other than their precious cars.
I’d be all in favor of a large one way toll for those leaving the really big city nearby.
But these same cities invite them in with their money or to do sometimes menial jobs that residents don’t want to do.
Come on in, buy stuff and/or clean our toilets, then go away. But don’t take up our parking spaces, heavens no.
Comgestion is self limiting anyway.
In San Francisco the mass transit systems are at least as congested as the roads.
Exactly where do you get your belief that it’s toilet cleaners who can afford gas, insurance, and parking daily in the City? Maybe the Bay Area is ENTIRELY different from everywhere else, but in my experience, in urban areas, poorer people usually can’t even afford a car much less paying $20 a day for the privilege of parking. If they can afford a car, they save it for important errands – inf act for a toilet cleaner to blow their minimum wage job on $20/day parking is the height of stupidity. Why do you think toilet cleaners are stupid?
I’m not mangeorge, but I’d always assumed that the answer to that question was, “because they’re toilet cleaners.”
SF’s toilet cleaners are largely union. Not highly paid, but not minum wage either. Why do you think it’s stupid for toilet cleaners to own a car? Many of them are clever enough to car pool and live nowhere near public transit.
Do city dwellers assume commuters should subsidise their conveniences?
The part I don’t like about tolls is once again it says “If you’re rich we like you.”
A better way would be to somehow restrict everyone somehow. Of course it’d probabaly be impossible so a toll is the only way to do it. But it still smack of “rich people are always welcome and poor people are welcome if they can measure up to a richer standard”
But I guess there’s no way around it, so I can also see the other side, even though I don’t care for it.
The stupidest part of the plan is the tolls would only be on the freeways into the city. It’s only going to increase traffic on surface streets along the border.
It would only add to my long list of reasons to avoid SF at all times.
A city is generally happier for everyone who lives there or uses it if motor vehicle traffic is kept moderate. Of course public transportation infrastructure (including pro-pedestrian and bicycle design throughout) must be well supported.
I think if I were in the area I’d prefer to see a one-way (entry only) toll set much higher than $3, but with an exemption or flat-rate pass for certain classes of commercial driving. People who are just transporting themselves, and can use public transportation most of the time, should be encouraged to.
Indeed. That and the two-way feature means it’s just a highway toll, not a motor vehicle entry or use fee.
Which is how the problem will limit itself. Cities are built up to require more traffic than they can possibly support. That is known up front, and shouldn’t be allowed. If left alone, traffic and population will eventually fall back to what the city can handle. No toll needed. If cities want to grow, they can prepare for that growth before they build.
Chevron (wisely) moved their corporate headquarters out of San Francisco because that prestigious address was no longer worth the cost.