31–40 of 228 posts
In addition to the obvious improvements to pedestrian safety with less vehicles on the road. Air quality in these areas is going to improve vastly. This needs to be implemented in every major metropolitan area.
https://www.sfcta.org/downtown
I'm guessing that Uber and other car based services all threatened to stop funding their re-election campaigns if they did it.
Some numbers don’t make sense here… They’re saying a 7% reduction is 43k cars, which infers 550k daily trips into the city. But they think they can make $500M/year. At $9 per trip, that’s only 150k tolls daily. (500M / 365 / $9). In any case, I’m glad it seems to be working. Congestion pricing has the potential to do a lot of good in this country.
Some numbers don’t make sense here… They’re saying a 7% reduction is 43k cars, which infers 550k daily trips into the city. But they think they can make $500M/year. At $9 per trip, that’s only 150k tolls daily. (500M / 365 / $9). In any case, I’m glad it seems to be working. Congestion pricing has the potential to do a lot of good in this country.
You infer, they imply.
When I see things like: > Bus speeds also increased after the tolls were turned on. The Manhattan-bound B39 bus, which crosses the Williamsburg Bridge, ran 28% faster compared to a similar January week last year. Other buses like the SIM24 and and the M50 saw increases in speeds, as well. I wonder how much cherry picking there is. Did they give the B39 because it's the most improved? Or for some other reason (especia…
In fact, I anticipate the city to expand dedicated bus lanes and bus frequency to take advantage of the reduced car traffic. Bike lanes too. Mass transit should steadily improve over the next year as enhancements made possible by less cars are deployed.
[flagged]
This comment is a good example of the type of narrow minded progressive thinking that has held back good public policy like congestion pricing and carbon taxes. Both of these programs are criticized as being regressive. The criticism neglects to take into consideration the society wide benefits like more efficient bus travel or cleaner air that preferentially help the less well off.
I guess the question becomes, should those poorest suffer for the betterment of all future generations? I would personally say no.
[flagged]
[flagged]
this is totally true - subsidizing the rich by the poor I always thought congestion pricing was always mis-priced, and it should be tied to income/wealth. The only way to do this is to let the poor apply and get free electronic tokens and get that missing 43k back. fyi - my MD can easily manage a 10x the mid-town tolls
[1] https://www.sfmta.com/press-releases/sfmta-completes-citywid...
[2]https://thehill.com/changing-america/resilience/smart-cities...
[3] https://sf.streetsblog.org/2014/11/03/study-quantifies-how-u...
[flagged]
You could have progressive congestion pricing based on the value of the car. I didn't look at it, but what I think you're saying is that this is a regressive pricing control. I think that's an important point: regressive taxes/fines shouldn't be used to control behavior as it disproportionately impacts the less affluent* But a progessive scheme is more involved - it might require using the value of the car for exampl…
For example, my partner needs radiation for her cancer and the hospital is located in the city. There is no other option than to drive. I feel like this type of policy negatively affects people in this situation, with no other alternative.