San Francisco Congestion Charge Bill

[Scott5114]

I wonder how many people who opposed congestion tolls also oppose socialized healthcare.
[...]
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"?

I can choose to not drive in downtown San Francisco. I have, in fact, not driven in downtown San Francisco every day of my life. I can choose to spend my money and time in other, less congested cities like Oklahoma City, or Kansas City, or if I must visit San Francisco, take a taxi or Uber or something.

I cannot choose whether or not to use healthcare. If I have a sudden condition, say, a heart attack, time is of the essence and I do not have the luxury of weighing my options to choose the doctor that provides the best value. My options are pay the nearest doctor whatever they demand, or don't, and potentially die.

Even for non-emergency situations, pricing on medical procedures is often opaque and varies based on whether or not you have insurance and what kind, the particulars of the procedure, the phase of the moon, and so on. There is often no way of getting a price ahead of time, even if you directly ask. (Unlike a car mechanic, there's no "getting an estimate"). This means that competition between doctors is more on terms of availability and quality of care, which insurance networks they are in, etc. Choosing a doctor on price is nigh impossible.

Thus the argument for socialized healthcare is that it is a bad fit for capitalism to begin with, and that it is too important that being priced out of the market is not an acceptable option. (That is, that lack of money should not determine whether one lives or dies.) Broadly speaking, these are not arguments that apply to transportation in the context of congestion charges.

[kalvado]

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.

And, honestly speaking, that should be THE way to go as certain areas - SF, NYC - are busting on all seams from the overpopulation (which is not a problem by itself, but) related issues - transportation being one of them, water supply, trash removal, housing availability, vulnerability to epidemics and terrorist attacks..
So I would say anything that leads to deflating the bubble is good. Congestion charge, however, is more of a nuisance than a true solution. It does not solve underlying issues - it only makes them worse by trying to accommodate more people in same limited, aging and overly complex infrastructure.

[kkt]

The core of S.F. that I envision might be part of the congestion charge zone is probably the downtown core north of Market and east of Van Ness.  The big S.F. area tech companies you're thinking of -- Apple, Google, Honeywell, what's left of HP, etc., are all down the peninsula toward Redwood City and San Jose.  (Back when they were startups, they didn't want to pay for S.F. real estate.)  The congested core is mostly tourist areas - Chinatown, North Beach, the Marina, Fisherman's Wharf.  A congestion charge might impact the hotels there.

Most of the financial district is in there too.  But their employees are mostly taking BART or Muni or Caltrain already.

[Henry]

This has to be the craziest idea I've ever heard, but maybe it could work! Probably retaliation for having all those freeways cancelled many years back.