San Francisco Congestion Charge Bill

[theroadwayone]

http://www.sfexaminer.com/congestion-pricing-revival-state-bill-allow-sf-charge-cars-downtown-entry/

The short version: A bill is being proposed by the state that would allow San Francisco to charge a congestion fee.

What's your take on this?

[Rothman]

Just what SF needs:  To become even more unaffordable.  Washington Post is reporting that there is an exodus starting from SF to the Midwest to take advantage of cheaper property.

[hotdogPi]

How do congestion charges work, anyway? Define a 1mi×1mi area (or any other size and shape) and put electronic toll booths on any road that enters that area, with tolls varying based on congestion?

[J N Winkler]

There are many ways to do a cordon-based congestion charge.  In London it is a flat charge per day, enforced by video cameras with automatic numberplate recognition, and you buy cover for your vehicle for any day it is driven inside the zone (not necessarily crossing the zone boundary) online, at newsagents, etc.

[kkt]

Redundant.  The most congested core of S.F. is so bad no one would drive in there without a good reason anyway.

[oscar]

http://www.sfexaminer.com/congestion-pricing-revival-state-bill-allow-sf-charge-cars-downtown-entry/

The short version: A bill is being proposed by two state legislators the state that would allow San Francisco to charge a congestion fee.

FTFY. In particular, Caltrans' views (if any) aren't mentioned. Also, the bill hasn't yet gone to legislative committees, making it more speculative at this point that it'll go anywhere.

[jrouse]

http://www.sfexaminer.com/congestion-pricing-revival-state-bill-allow-sf-charge-cars-downtown-entry/

The short version: A bill is being proposed by two state legislators the state that would allow San Francisco to charge a congestion fee.

FTFY. In particular, Caltrans' views (if any) aren't mentioned. Also, the bill hasn't yet gone to legislative committees, making it more speculative at this point that it'll go anywhere.

Caltrans' views wouldn't be sought given that the bill affects local jurisdictions.  We generally don't comment on pending legislation anyways.

[Max Rockatansky]

Seems like another reason to just keep sticking to 35 and Great Highway (while I can) to sneak onto Lombard Street the back way.  San Francisco must be hell bent on pricing people out of visiting the city in a car no matter what.

[ZLoth]

Sounds like a strong invitation to STAY AWAY.

But, then again, what do you expect from a stronghold of the Anti-Car Alliance?

[SP Cook]

The JOB of government is to provide the infrastructure that the majority wants, not to interfere with the Market by artificially jacking up the price of one choice over another. 

Of course this is California and basic economic laws are not understood by those in charge. 

[jeffandnicole]

Redundant.  The most congested core of S.F. is so bad no one would drive in there without a good reason anyway.

You know that's the exact purpose of the bill, right?  To keep the area from getting terribly congested by encouraging only those with good reasons to enter in the first place.

As mentioned, it's an idea that's been talked about in the US but never implemented.  The closest we have are varying prices based on time of day (ie: NJ Turnpike, DE Route 1) or minimum standards (ie: variable pricing on I-95 Express Lanes in VA to keep the average speed at 45 mph or above).

What would the fee in this case be used for?

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

http://www.sfexaminer.com/congestion-pricing-revival-state-bill-allow-sf-charge-cars-downtown-entry/

The short version: A bill is being proposed by the state that would allow San Francisco to charge a congestion fee.

What's your take on this?

What are they planning to do... designate every lane as HOV?

[AlexandriaVA]

I wonder how many people who opposed congestion tolls also oppose socialized healthcare.

In both cases, the government offers a service for "free" and then you wind up with shortages (long wait times, or traffic jams) because there's no incentive to not use the service.

I don't mean to touch a political third-rail, but I do see it as analgous. The argument that "taxes built our roads, why do we have to pay for them" is no different than "taxes paid for [our nationalized healthcare system], why do we have to still pay copays"?

Perhaps even a better example is net neutrality...should everyone be stuck at the same speeds, or should people who are willing to pay more get higher speeds?

[jp the roadgeek]

This idea is being floated in The Peoples Republic of Connecticut by Fearless Leader Malloy.  He wants to implement this on every highway in the state.  No ideas about how to cut 6 figure pencil pushing administrative positions; just give the big middle finger to travelers, most of whom are taxpayers to the state.  This is on top of a proposed 7 cent gas tax hike.  He'd rather build and fund a $600 million busway that 10 people use than cut spending.  But I digress... 

[J N Winkler]

I wonder how many people who opposed congestion tolls also oppose socialized healthcare.

In Britain, when the London congestion charge was under discussion, the answer would have been "Not many"--the NHS has broad support while the congestion charge was seen as jacking up the price to use existing infrastructure without any guarantee of improvements in return.  (The revenues were to be hypothecated to transport generally, not to road improvements, and in London street improvements are often designed to favor pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-motorized users at the expense of cars.)

In both cases, the government offers a service for "free" and then you wind up with shortages (long wait times, or traffic jams) because there's no incentive to not use the service.

I don't mean to touch a political third-rail, but I do see it as analogous. The argument that "taxes built our roads, why do we have to pay for them" is no different than "taxes paid for [our nationalized healthcare system], why do we have to still pay copays"?

It is not true in either case that there are no price or cost signals to the users, even if the service is provided free at the point of use.  Socialized healthcare systems tend to have fairly aggressive gatekeeping--you get the healthcare you need, not necessarily the healthcare you want--and any provision beyond this comes at a direct cost to you, which you can elect to meet by buying private insurance.  Similarly, with free access to the roads you are aware up front that you must bear either the cost of any recurring congestion or the (often higher) costs of alternatives that allow you to avoid the congestion.

It is frequently possible to have well-managed social provision (meeting user needs with minimum rationing) for the same cost as badly managed social provision (not meeting needs for a substantial proportion of users, and failing to meet the needs of those it does serve without widespread rationing).  The deeper problem with the San Francisco congestion-charging proposal is that it represents a further retreat from systematic attempts to address quality-of-life problems without resort to rationing.  In the short run, a congestion charge does nothing to address the issues of an artificially constrained housing supply and mass transit that, owing to balkanization of providers, is expensive, infrequent, inconvenient, and not provided along networks of appropriate density.  In the long run, a congestion charge is one way to address these problems simply by making San Francisco a much less attractive place to live and do business.

The bottom line here, as I see it, is this:  if you are even talking about having a congestion charge in the first place, you have already given up on navigating to a no- or minimum-rationing scenario.  Notwithstanding the economic arguments for charging, direct fees are effectively lifestyle bonsai.

[kalvado]

I wonder how many people who opposed congestion tolls also oppose socialized healthcare.

In both cases, the government offers a service for "free" and then you wind up with shortages (long wait times, or traffic jams) because there's no incentive to not use the service.

I don't mean to touch a political third-rail, but I do see it as analgous. The argument that "taxes built our roads, why do we have to pay for them" is no different than "taxes paid for [our nationalized healthcare system], why do we have to still pay copays"?

Perhaps even a better example is net neutrality...should everyone be stuck at the same speeds, or should people who are willing to pay more get higher speeds?

Maybe not exactly the same.
Especially with congestion pricing, where there is a much wider set of obstacles in play. Full consideration includes entire city management profile, such as (but not limited to) affordable housing, construction permitting - for new houses, businesses and roads, minimum wage, property taxation etc. San Francisco area issues are way bigger than plain congestion.
Unlike road capacity, wired (not wireless, which is a different story) net capacity doesn't have that hard limits, and definitely should be exposed to market conditions.

[AlexandriaVA]

No analogies are perfect, I understand. Just wanting to maybe have people view the issue from a different perspective.

Why are roads publicly-owned but railroads largely privately-owned?

Public roads have no profit motive, goal is to move as many cars through...this creates no effective rationing system during peak periods and areas...it costs $0 to drive into SF during rush hour, just as it costs $0 to drive on I-80 at midnight.

Clearly demand is different during those two periods.

You can keep building lanes, but you're left with overcapacity during other non-rush periods...costs to taxpayers in form of maintenance, foregone land use.

[kalvado]

No analogies are perfect, I understand. Just wanting to maybe have people view the issue from a different perspective.

Why are roads publicly-owned but railroads largely privately-owned?

Public roads have no profit motive, goal is to move as many cars through...this creates no effective rationing system during peak periods and areas...it costs $0 to drive into SF during rush hour, just as it costs $0 to drive on I-80 at midnight.

Clearly demand is different during those two periods.

You can keep building lanes, but you're left with overcapacity during other non-rush periods...costs to taxpayers in form of maintenance, foregone land use.

Big box stores have strong profit motive, goal is to sell as many goods as possible...this creates no effective rationing system during peak periods and areas...it costs $2 to buy a loaf of bread during weekend shopping rush, just as it costs $2 to buy same bread at weekday midnight.
You can keep building stores, but you're left with overcapacity during other non-rush periods...costs to shoppers in form of maintenance, foregone land use.

[kalvado]

No analogies are perfect, I understand. Just wanting to maybe have people view the issue from a different perspective.

Why are roads publicly-owned but railroads largely privately-owned?

Public roads have no profit motive, goal is to move as many cars through...this creates no effective rationing system during peak periods and areas...it costs $0 to drive into SF during rush hour, just as it costs $0 to drive on I-80 at midnight.

Clearly demand is different during those two periods.

You can keep building lanes, but you're left with overcapacity during other non-rush periods...costs to taxpayers in form of maintenance, foregone land use.

Big box stores have strong profit motive, goal is to sell as many goods as possible...this creates no effective rationing system during peak periods and areas...it costs $2 to buy a loaf of bread during weekend shopping rush, just as it costs $2 to buy same bread at weekday midnight.
You can keep building stores, but you're left with overcapacity during other non-rush periods...costs to shoppers in form of maintenance, foregone land use.

Public transportation have weak to none profit motive, goal is to get as much taxpayer money as possible...this creates no effective rationing system during peak periods and areas...it costs $2 to ride subway during commute rush, just as it costs $2 to ride subway during  weekend night.
You can keep digging tunnels, but you're left with overcapacity during other non-rush periods...costs to taxpayers in form of maintenance, foregone funds use.

Do you need more of similar examples?

[AlexandriaVA]

No analogies are perfect, I understand. Just wanting to maybe have people view the issue from a different perspective.

Why are roads publicly-owned but railroads largely privately-owned?

Public roads have no profit motive, goal is to move as many cars through...this creates no effective rationing system during peak periods and areas...it costs $0 to drive into SF during rush hour, just as it costs $0 to drive on I-80 at midnight.

Clearly demand is different during those two periods.

You can keep building lanes, but you're left with overcapacity during other non-rush periods...costs to taxpayers in form of maintenance, foregone land use.

Big box stores have strong profit motive, goal is to sell as many goods as possible...this creates no effective rationing system during peak periods and areas...it costs $2 to buy a loaf of bread during weekend shopping rush, just as it costs $2 to buy same bread at weekday midnight.
You can keep building stores, but you're left with overcapacity during other non-rush periods...costs to shoppers in form of maintenance, foregone land use.

and would be met with a giant *shrug* because overcapacity is a problem for the owners of the company, not the general public. Also, companies cut down on overcapacity all the time...retail stores are shutting down left and right.

As to your fixed prices example in retail stores, are you high? Stores run sales and discounts all the time. Just about an hour ago, I was at the grocery store and I got some bread for cheap because there was excess inventory from this morning.

Likewise, why do stores run "limit to purchasing X amount of units" when they do steep discounts? Because rationing is occurring...otherwise people would hoard up on underpriced goods and resell them at prevailing prices.

I'm not going to debate this issue if you haven't even taken an econ 101 course.

[AlexandriaVA]

Please let me know what the respective prices are on identical flights taking place on both Christmas Eve and August 5th. And then put on your thinking cap as to why the flights have different prices.

[jeffandnicole]

I think we can go back and forth here and come up with tons of examples for each approach.   What works in one industry may not work in another.  Hell, what works in one industry may not even be legal in another.

If Wonder Bread to raise the price of a loaf 20 cents, they can do it without input from anyone.  If Home Depot wants to raise the price of a hammer by a dollar, go for it.  If the local gas station raises their price 5 cents a gallon, people grumble but that's it.  If Metro wants to raise the bus fare by a quarter, they must undergo public hearings, detail it in their budgets, explain how the money will be used, get bashed by the media, etc, etc. 

So, in many ways, there isn't a good apples=apples comparison, because of how different the pricing structures are and how revenues are used.

[kalvado]

Please let me know what the respective prices are on identical flights taking place on both Christmas Eve and August 5th. And then put on your thinking cap as to why the flights have different prices.

Good thing you start to analyze things.
Now lets think about it for a second. There are two major factors at play here:
1. human circadian cycle
2. Demand elasticity.

First one is fairly simple: many, if not most, working people work daytime Monday to Friday. Yes, there are night shifts, weekend duties etc - but working during the day is fairly standard proposition.
So you can do only that much to smooth out transportation infrastructure use during the day. Demand for beds at 1 AM is much higher than at 1 PM - and reverse is true for offices. Of course, if you're driven by hate to certain lifestyle, you can focus that argument on highways - but it would equally apply to buses and subway. Probably more so to public transportation as there is a significant flow of cargo traffic around the clock.
And, as I mentioned, mere fact that your reasoning is driven by hate makes your statements irrational - try to look at things from different perspective, and you may better see the flaws in your arguments.

I'll leave analysis of the second factor to you. You correctly mention increased prices on high-demand dates established by airlines. You may also mention an outcry when Uber introduced  "surge pricing". And dinner prices in restaurants are often higher than lunch ones - although offering is different. Try drawing analogies between these cases and commute to work, and you may  see another aspect of a situation. This may become a good term paper for your Economics 201 class next year.

[kalvado]

I think we can go back and forth here and come up with tons of examples for each approach.   What works in one industry may not work in another.  Hell, what works in one industry may not even be legal in another.

If Wonder Bread to raise the price of a loaf 20 cents, they can do it without input from anyone.  If Home Depot wants to raise the price of a hammer by a dollar, go for it.  If the local gas station raises their price 5 cents a gallon, people grumble but that's it.  If Metro wants to raise the bus fare by a quarter, they must undergo public hearings, detail it in their budgets, explain how the money will be used, get bashed by the media, etc, etc. 

So, in many ways, there isn't a good apples=apples comparison, because of how different the pricing structures are and how revenues are used.

We can talk about monopoly as a factor. There may be 5 suppliers of bread a local grocery, and 3 stores within easy reach. Besides, one can always choose to eat cakes instead. Gas may be a bit more limited in terms of availability (most gas stations sell bread as well), and many people have limited transportation option so getting or not getting gas is not a choice. City public transportation is public-owned monopoly is most cases.

[bing101]

Sounds like a strong invitation to STAY AWAY.

But, then again, what do you expect from a stronghold of the Anti-Car Alliance?

Well for some of you can park your car at the Bart Station in some areas before entering San Francisco or leave your car at the Vallejo Ferry Terminal if you need to work in the city but for others? What choice do they have.  How about one solution get a certain number of companies to move their headquarters out of San Francisco city proper and move it to other parts of California or the nation.  How much congestion will get reduced in San Francisco. The Congestion Charge Bill is not going to work the way they want it though.