Rush Hour Fees

Calvin · 08-06-2008, 03:04 AM

San Francisco may be the first city in the U.S to impose a rush hour fee to reduce traffic and pollutions.

Quote:

Adolfo Cabral lived and worked much of his life in San Francisco until housing prices forced him a decade ago to move across the Bay to western Berkeley. He's not happy San Francisco is considering a plan to charge him — and thousands of other commuters — a fee to drive into the city's most congested downtown areas during rush hours.
"San Francisco's housing prices chased me out of town," said Cabral, who drives in a car pool to a job in the financial district. "Now, they want to tax me for driving back in. I don't like the idea of government sticking their hands in our pockets every time they need a solution to a problem caused by poor planning."
To fight gridlock, smog and global-warming gases, San Francisco is considering becoming the first city in the nation to impose congestion-management fees during rush hour to drive into and possibly out of the busiest downtown areas.
Fees from $1 to $4 are being examined in an 18-month study of congestion pricing by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, an agency governed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The money would be invested in public transit and other congestion-reducing measures.
"We're trying to manage a scarce resource, our roads," said Tilly Chang, the transportation authority's deputy director for planning. "There are power and gas rates that also put a premium price on use during peak demand. Why not roads, too?"
Congestion fees for drivers have reduced rush-hour traffic in London; Rome; Stockholm, Sweden; and Singapore by 20 percent to 30 percent, according to an authority report.
The authority held four public meetings on the plan in the past 10 days in San Francisco, Oakland and San Rafael. Initial recommendations are due in the fall, with a decision expected next year by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
Under one option, the city would hire FasTrak to electronically collect fees in a four-square-mile area with the Financial District, Civic Center and South of Market neighborhood. Those without FasTrak would be identified by a license plate photograph and billed.
Under another option, fees would be collected from drivers entering the city during rush hour. The fees would be in addition to bridge tolls.
Planners have yet to pin down details of the plan, including whether the fees would be collected for driving into and out of pay zones in both morning and afternoon rush hours. Also to be determined is whether car pooling vehicles, motorcycles or low-income drivers would be exempt.
Chang said authority managers believe people living within fee zones should get some exemption, but not a free ride.
The millions of dollars in annual money from the fees could be spent to expanded public transit and possibly make it easier to walk and ride a bicycle.
The notion of paying to add parking spaces at filled BART lots at suburban stations is also "on the table for discussion," Chang said.
Skeptics of the plan question if it is fair, workable and effective.
Some question if it's right to charge fees on a public road.
"(A road) was supposedly for the benefit of all," George Coleman of Danville wrote in an e-mail. He suggests the fee proposal amounts to selling off a public resource without a public vote.
In a workshop on the plan last week in Oakland, Ipeleng Kgositsile of Oakland said she is concerned the fee could put a burden on low-income residents.
Transit officials say they are considering a discount for low-income people, who account for about 5 percent of the trips in and out of downtown during rush hour.
Mark McComb, a Piedmont accountant who commutes by motorcycle into downtown, said it would be unfair if any congestion fees did not exempt motorcycles.
"They should be encouraging people to use motorcycles to reduce congestion and pollution," McComb said.
Transportation Authority officials said San Francisco's downtown has some of the worst traffic in the Bay Area with traffic limping along at 10 mph or less on many streets.
More than half the trips in and out of downtown are in private motor vehicles, transit planners said.
Some San Francisco business leaders worry that the congestion fees will hurt local business, discouraging people from traveling into San Francisco.
"We feel drawing an arbitrary line around part of the San Francisco to charge a fee doesn't make sense," said Jim Lazarus, a vice president of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
If fees are to be charged, it makes more sense to charge congestion fees on major bridges rather than single out one part of one city, he said.
State Assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, said he's convinced that congestion pricing is eventually going to catch on in major cities.
"It's more of a question of when, not if it will happen," said DeSaulnier, chairman of the Assembly Transportation Committee. "Having said that, I think it's too early to do it in San Francisco."

San Francisco may charge drivers - Inside Bay Area

Foxrac · 08-06-2008, 11:18 AM

lol, that seems stupid law, IMO.

Gas price is too expensive so enough and US dollar is fairly weak, it's bad news for anyone who get job in SF and live in suburb area.

I'm glad about not from SF, anyway.

Reba · 08-06-2008, 11:27 AM

It seems very unfair.

***Jolie77*** · 08-06-2008, 06:31 PM

I agree, It's unfair.

While I can understand that city of San Francisco wants to reduce the congestion during the rush hour but I don't see any solution to this if they are to charge drivers for using the roads during the rush hours. Sure, the roads in SF are congested but there are also alternative transportation such as BART, City Bus, and all that. There's already tolls on the Bay Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge and other bridges in the bay area. By charging more would only bring burden to these drivers shelling extra cashes.

Oceanblue7 · 08-06-2008, 06:56 PM

There is already tolls here in the southland. There is talk about putting them somewhere near Pasadena, CA. I don't know if the law passed to do so, wait and see. Its all just a money maker.

DVDFreaker · 08-10-2008, 05:25 AM

What a stupid idea

***~SG~*** · 08-10-2008, 08:37 AM

Wow this is unfair.

Phillips · 08-10-2008, 08:55 AM

Oh Jeez

Byrdie714 · 08-10-2008, 04:52 PM

Chances are high that they are adopting asimilar practice that is being done in London, England where they limit cars into the downtown core of London due to rush hour.

I think it's a good idea, afterall, San Francisco has one the most efficient transportation systems in the country. It's a waste to see many people not utilizing it.

sequoias · 08-10-2008, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

Chances are high that they are adopting asimilar practice that is being done in London, England where they limit cars into the downtown core of London due to rush hour.

I think it's a good idea, afterall, San Francisco has one the most efficient transportation systems in the country. It's a waste to see many people not utilizing it.

Yep, that's correct. They try to push people into mass transit rather than driving there to work, what's the point going there by car while they already have excellent mass transit system. That's my 2 cents in my views of using transit.

Foxrac · 08-11-2008, 08:53 AM

Reba is gonna give me a some homemade cookies.

For me, it seems not everyone could use mass transit, some people have to drive for good reason, such as their preference to use car over mass transit, business and others, I would agree about residents in city of SF that has great public transportation but suburb is somewhere like mixed, some of them are not, however most suburb are accessible by BART, some people considered as more cost as use car due fare zone and parking fee.

It will going be too much because of high gas price and toll on bridges, it would bad news for people who from suburb (out of SF city limit) and have drive to work in SF, overall, congestion fee wouldn't gonna help and unfair, IMO.

For my preference, I prefer to drive to work over ride the bus.

Byrdie714 · 08-11-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacman

Reba is gonna give me a some homemade cookies.

For me, it seems not everyone could use mass transit, some people have to drive for good reason, such as their preference to use car over mass transit, business and others, I would agree about residents in city of SF that has great public transportation but suburb is somewhere like mixed, some of them are not, however most suburb are accessible by BART, some people considered as more cost as use car due fare zone and parking fee.

It will going be too much because of high gas price and toll on bridges, it would bad news for people who from suburb (out of SF city limit) and have drive to work in SF, overall, congestion fee wouldn't gonna help and unfair, IMO.

For my preference, I prefer to drive to work over ride the bus.

SF metro area has an comprehensive transit system.

But choosing to ride the car to work and pay for the rush hour fees--go ahead but don't expect sympathies from me.

Afterall, owning and driving a car is a luxury. You got to roll with the punches in terms of the fees that is being imposed on one.

Jiro · 08-11-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

Chances are high that they are adopting asimilar practice that is being done in London, England where they limit cars into the downtown core of London due to rush hour.

I think it's a good idea, afterall, San Francisco has one the most efficient transportation systems in the country. It's a waste to see many people not utilizing it.

and failed in London. It was repealed by new mayor - a true Detroit gearhead. The best solution I can think of for SF is to have a parking lot as big as Wal-Mart or airport next to major highways (several miles away from SF) and then use monorails/buses to transport people to SF

Reba · 08-11-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

...Afterall, owning and driving a car is a luxury. You got to roll with the punches in terms of the fees that is being imposed on one.

A luxury? For some people it's the only way to earn a living.

Chevy57 · 08-11-2008, 04:05 PM

I had been there last three years. City of San Francisco was beautifully but cost of living was very expensive. Many beautiful Victoria houses was very expensive over $500s to one millions dollars

Gas price is very high. That's stupid that pay fee for rush hour traffic.

Foxrac · 08-11-2008, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

SF metro area has an comprehensive transit system.

But choosing to ride the car to work and pay for the rush hour fees--go ahead but don't expect sympathies from me.

Afterall, owning and driving a car is a luxury. You got to roll with the punches in terms of the fees that is being imposed on one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

A luxury? For some people it's the only way to earn a living.

I said not everyone could use transit mass in SF metro, BART has fare zone and parking fee and could cost more as using car to work, also most businesses who are heavily on vehicle should be work without any stress and cost alot for them, it could hurt the business.

I'm strongly disagree with you about have car is luxury, that's silly thing to say like that, varies of people have to drive to work, also some workplaces require people to drive, it's depends on company's policies, I have drive to work due poor transit service in my area and that's not luxury.

I have agree with Reba.

Byrdie714 · 08-11-2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

A luxury? For some people it's the only way to earn a living.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacman

I said not everyone could use transit mass in SF metro, BART has fare zone and parking fee and could cost more as using car to work, also most businesses who are heavily on vehicle should be work without any stress and cost alot for them, it could hurt the business.

I'm strongly disagree with you about have car is luxury, that's silly thing to say like that, varies of people have to drive to work, also some workplaces require people to drive, it's depends on company's policies, I have drive to work due poor transit service in my area and that's not luxury.

I have agree with Reba.

Not if one works for a company that provides transit passes to utilizing the transit system. Many companies are encouraging their employees to take mass transit to cut down on costs of paying gas, parking, etc.

It would be foolish not to take up on it.

Reba · 08-11-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

Not if one works for a company that provides transit passes to utilizing the transit system. Many companies are encouraging their employees to take mass transit to cut down on costs of paying gas, parking, etc.

It would be foolish not to take up on it.

If it's available to employees that's great. Why should those who don't have it available be penalized?

Byrdie714 · 08-11-2008, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

If it's available to employees that's great. Why should those who don't have it available be penalized?

For those companies that don't have it, no sweat, because most transit systems offer discounted monthly passes to use the transist system.

Reba · 08-11-2008, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

For those companies that don't have it, no sweat, because most transit systems offer discounted monthly passes to use the transist system.

Some people either don't have transit systems available, or they have job schedules that are incompatible with public transportation, or they have jobs that require them to drive vehicles other than for commuting. Transit systems don't solve commuting problems for everyone.

I do support using public transportation whenever possible because it lightens the traffic load for everyone. It just isn't for everyone, and people shouldn't be penalized if they don't use it.

sequoias · 08-11-2008, 06:47 PM

In Seattle metro area, there is tons of park and ride transit centers all over the area. They simply park for free up to 24 hours then take the bus to urban centers to work. It is growing with popularity lately and some of the park and ride centers are going to link with light rail station. I dont recall seeing any park and ride transit centers for buses in sf bay area, only for bart/buses intergrated together.

Byrdie714 · 08-11-2008, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Some people either don't have transit systems available, or they have job schedules that are incompatible with public transportation, or they have jobs that require them to drive vehicles other than for commuting. Transit systems don't solve commuting problems for everyone.

I do support using public transportation whenever possible because it lightens the traffic load for everyone. It just isn't for everyone, and people shouldn't be penalized if they don't use it.

That is understandable is a small-medium size cities, but this is San Francisco that we are talking about.....

I'll admit, my public transist system sucks but it's better than nothing.

Remember, I choose to live in the sticks.

But in cities where the masses are--they need to be on the transit system.

Byrdie714 · 08-11-2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sequoias

In Seattle metro area, there is tons of park and ride transit centers all over the area. They simply park for free up to 24 hours then take the bus to urban centers to work. It is growing with popularity lately and some of the park and ride centers are going to link with light rail station. I dont recall seeing any park and ride transit centers for buses in sf bay area, only for bart/buses intergrated together.

The other option is to use the Flex-Car.

Calvin · 08-12-2008, 04:11 AM

Yeah I'd support the public transit system too. Fortunately, I do not work in downtown S.F area so that's one thing I'm not going to worry about the rush hour fees. There is a transit bus that goes to the town where I work but unfortunately, the last pick up would be about 9:30 or 10pm while I get off between 10 to 11pm. So the public transit bus is out of question for me and I have to drive to work and home but it's only about 15 miles one way which is not too bad. I'd only hope that future there would be more transit system to help public from point a to point b in downtown area and less vehicles crowding the downtown like New York.

08-06-2008, 11:18 AM	#2 (permalink)
Foxrac o_O Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 14,350	lol, that seems stupid law, IMO. Gas price is too expensive so enough and US dollar is fairly weak, it's bad news for anyone who get job in SF and live in suburb area. I'm glad about not from SF, anyway. __________________ God bless America

08-06-2008, 06:31 PM	#4 (permalink)
*Jolie77* Love all, trust a few. Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Kentucky, USA (The Bluegrass State) Posts: 5,537	I agree, It's unfair. While I can understand that city of San Francisco wants to reduce the congestion during the rush hour but I don't see any solution to this if they are to charge drivers for using the roads during the rush hours. Sure, the roads in SF are congested but there are also alternative transportation such as BART, City Bus, and all that. There's already tolls on the Bay Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge and other bridges in the bay area. By charging more would only bring burden to these drivers shelling extra cashes. __________________

08-06-2008, 06:56 PM	#5 (permalink)
Oceanblue7 Patriots Rock! Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Gillette Stadium Posts: 4,446 Blog Entries: 8	There is already tolls here in the southland. There is talk about putting them somewhere near Pasadena, CA. I don't know if the law passed to do so, wait and see. Its all just a money maker. __________________ Ps.103:12 He washes our sins away into the ocean

08-10-2008, 08:37 AM	#7 (permalink)
*~SG~* Super Moderator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 4,011	Wow this is unfair. __________________

08-10-2008, 08:55 AM	#8 (permalink)
Phillips Lets ride horses! Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Spaceship Posts: 7,195 Blog Entries: 3	Oh Jeez __________________ *Enjoy life today, Yesterday has past and Tomorrow may never come.*

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

08-06-2008, 11:27 AM	#3 (permalink)
Reba Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 17,287	It seems very unfair.

08-10-2008, 05:25 AM	#6 (permalink)
DVDFreaker Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: In The Middle Of Nowhere Posts: 3,120	What a stupid idea

08-10-2008, 04:52 PM	#9 (permalink)
Byrdie714 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Pacific County, Washington Posts: 5,163	Chances are high that they are adopting asimilar practice that is being done in London, England where they limit cars into the downtown core of London due to rush hour. I think it's a good idea, afterall, San Francisco has one the most efficient transportation systems in the country. It's a waste to see many people not utilizing it.

08-11-2008, 08:53 AM	#11 (permalink)
Foxrac o_O Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 14,350	Reba is gonna give me a some homemade cookies. For me, it seems not everyone could use mass transit, some people have to drive for good reason, such as their preference to use car over mass transit, business and others, I would agree about residents in city of SF that has great public transportation but suburb is somewhere like mixed, some of them are not, however most suburb are accessible by BART, some people considered as more cost as use car due fare zone and parking fee. It will going be too much because of high gas price and toll on bridges, it would bad news for people who from suburb (out of SF city limit) and have drive to work in SF, overall, congestion fee wouldn't gonna help and unfair, IMO. For my preference, I prefer to drive to work over ride the bus. __________________ God bless America

08-11-2008, 04:05 PM	#15 (permalink)
Chevy57 Premium Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ohio Posts: 2,283	I had been there last three years. City of San Francisco was beautifully but cost of living was very expensive. Many beautiful Victoria houses was very expensive over $500s to one millions dollars Gas price is very high. That's stupid that pay fee for rush hour traffic.

08-11-2008, 06:47 PM	#21 (permalink)
sequoias Subaru rules! Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The Evergreen State Posts: 12,859	In Seattle metro area, there is tons of park and ride transit centers all over the area. They simply park for free up to 24 hours then take the bus to urban centers to work. It is growing with popularity lately and some of the park and ride centers are going to link with light rail station. I dont recall seeing any park and ride transit centers for buses in sf bay area, only for bart/buses intergrated together. __________________

08-12-2008, 04:11 AM	#24 (permalink)
Calvin Premium Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: California Posts: 1,792	Yeah I'd support the public transit system too. Fortunately, I do not work in downtown S.F area so that's one thing I'm not going to worry about the rush hour fees. There is a transit bus that goes to the town where I work but unfortunately, the last pick up would be about 9:30 or 10pm while I get off between 10 to 11pm. So the public transit bus is out of question for me and I have to drive to work and home but it's only about 15 miles one way which is not too bad. I'd only hope that future there would be more transit system to help public from point a to point b in downtown area and less vehicles crowding the downtown like New York. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode