Congestion Charges in San Francisco

CJC's picture

This film on congestion pricing discusses the benefits of implementing such schemes in busy urban areas like SF.

Is congestion pricing the answer to San Francisco's traffic problems, creating a nicer, cleaner city, or are these charges simply another case of government over-step and an attempt to raise funds for cash-strapped city coffers? 

What does San Francisco think?

verso2's picture

Not the answer--at least not now

Take a look at the cities that use congestion charges: London is the one most often cited, for example, by former supervisor Jake McGoldrick. Notice the web of Tube lines criss-crossing the central city and extending well out into suburbia; plus the extensive system of commuter trains; plus the bus system. To sum it up, if we impose a congestion charge in London, drivers mostly have ways of getting to their destinations on some form of mass transit. Now look at San Francisco: we have an anemic BART system that serves mostly to funnel workers in and out of Downtown. We have a cash-strapped MUNI system that does not have spare capacity; and we have CalTrain, itself under threat. For San Francisco, congestion charging would simply be a tax, since the capacity to serve drivers diverting to transit in response to the congestion charge simply doesn't exist.

Paid for by Phil Ting for Assembly 2012. FPPC ID# 1343137