Field report: San Francisco congestion pricing workshop

Can San Francisco convince the California state legislature to authorize what New York’s wouldn’t—congestion pricing? The city’s transportation planners think it’s possible, and are holding community meetings throughout the area to study the possibility.

This isn’t the narrow variable-rate tolling plan for Doyle Drive, an approach road to the Golden Gate Bridge, that will just raise money to rebuild the road. This is a real London-style cordon pricing idea, which would charge a fee on all cars entering a congestion zone at peak hours.

Planners are evaluating two options: a small cordon around downtown, South of Market, and the Civic Center area (the most congestion part of San Francisco and also the best served by transit) and a “gateway” system to charge anyone entering or exiting the city. The limited number of roads in and out of San Francisco make it logistically simpler to charge at the perimeter than around a smaller and more complex downtown congestion zone, but commuters who drive from outer residential neighborhoods within San Francisco would get a literal free ride.

Livable City, SF’s advocacy organization for walkable and bikeable neighborhoods (including parking reform) posted a schedule of meetings, and the South Bay’s meeting happened to take place while I was in the South Bay. After discovering that the Adobe Building in Mountain View is actually not an office of nearby software maker Adobe, but rather an old and historic building actually made out of adobe, I joined about 10-15 citizens of the Bay Area to provide feedback on SF’s plans.

Since congestion pricing still lies in the uncertain future and San Francisco is a fair drive from Mountain View, this meeting drew mostly transportation adficionados and local urban planning students. At least at my table, all supported congestion pricing, and our discussion revolved around how, rather than if, to make it a reality. We placed dots on lists of the best transportation improvements to fund with congestion pricing revenue (Caltrain electrification was a popular choice) and preconditions to achieve before starting the program (the idea of ensuring money goes to a clear set of transit improvements, rather than the general fund, garnered many dots).

Opponents of New York’s system played up the equity issue for low-income drivers to kill that plan, and San Francisco planners were ready for the topic. Only 5% of the drivers likely to be affected by congestion pricing are low-income; others don’t own cars, take transit, and/or work outside the congested areas. Still, SF planners are considering discounts for low-income drivers as high as 80% off; one participant in the meeting advocated for free transit passes rather than toll discounts, to reward those who commute by transit instead of making it easier to drive. Planners are also considering some discount (possibly 50%) for residents of the congestion zone, some partial rebate for drivers who already pay a bridge toll to reach San Francisco, and fleet discounts for commercial truckers or casharing companies.

San Francisco’s official “transit first” policy calls for prioritizing transit over other modes, and congestion pricing would further that goal. Still, as these meetings continue and a congestion plan nears reality, the NIMBYs will appear in greater numbers. If area legislators can get past bogus equity arguments and optimize our transportation system for people rather than vehicles, San Francisco could become the first U.S. city with a real congestion pricing system.