Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
On Tuesday, the authority will present its report on the city’s congestion woes to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which oversees Muni. It will also update the MTA on its study of congestion pricing, which the authority believes could reduce car trips and boost Muni ridership as well as speed up the buses.
Congestion pricing — a charge on drivers using certain busy roads — is a controversial idea being explored by a number of cities and has been implemented in London.
On a daily basis, 1 million trips are taken to the downtown and South of Market area, 50 percent of them by car. About 300,000 of the trips are made by public transit, according to the report.
“A lot of our streets are at capacity,” said Zabe Bent, a planner with the authority. “If we don’t turn this around, it will be very difficult to have our system running smoothly.”
The authority is hoping to showcase the effectiveness of congestion pricing by implementing it along Doyle Drive, the heavily trafficked roadway connecting San Francisco to the Golden Gate Bridge. A $1 to $2 toll on Doyle Drive — collected electronically with no toll booth — would remove 10 to 12 percent of the traffic trips during peak hours by causing people to take public transit or drive during off-peak hours, according to the report. The authority hopes to install the toll, which must be approved by the Board of Supervisors, by early 2009.
The authority is also studying congestion pricing for downtown San Francisco, looking at such ideas as charging drivers a toll for use of the Embarcadero, Harrison, Van Ness and Broadway streets or entryways into The City from the Bay Bridge. Recommendations are due out next summer, and the authority will begin holding community meetings on downtown congestion pricing beginning in October.
Congestion pricing for the downtown is expected to be a hotly debated issue. Nathan Nayman, director of San Francisco’s Committee on Jobs, an advocacy group for large downtown companies, said congestion pricing in the downtown area would cause people to shop elsewhere. The real problem is The City’s lack of enforcement of existing laws, which allows rampant illegal double parking in the downtown area, Nayman said.
1 million: Total daily trips
532,000: Daily car trips to downtown
304,000: Daily transit trips to downtown
$80 million: Cost of excess fuel in 2005 due to congestion
$150 million: Projected cost of excess fuel in 2030 due to congestion
32 minutes: Average Bay Area trip
17 minutes: Time spent in traffic during average Bay Area trip
Source: San Francisco County Transportation Authority



Comments from Examiner Readers
8:19 PM MST on Mon., Sep. 17, 2007 re: "S.F.’s busiest streets may charge toll"
Report as inappropriate
8:17 PM MST on Mon., Sep. 17, 2007
re: "S.F.’s busiest streets may charge toll"
Report as inappropriate
6:08 PM MST on Mon., Sep. 17, 2007
re: "S.F.’s busiest streets may charge toll"
Report as inappropriate
3:11 PM MST on Mon., Sep. 17, 2007
re: "S.F.’s busiest streets may charge toll"
Report as inappropriate
2:36 PM MST on Mon., Sep. 17, 2007
re: "S.F.’s busiest streets may charge toll"
Report as inappropriate
1:05 PM MST on Mon., Sep. 17, 2007
re: "S.F.’s busiest streets may charge toll"
Report as inappropriate
11:48 AM MST on Mon., Sep. 17, 2007
re: "S.F.’s busiest streets may charge toll"
Report as inappropriate
11:45 AM MST on Mon., Sep. 17, 2007
re: "S.F.’s busiest streets may charge toll"
Report as inappropriate
11:18 AM MST on Mon., Sep. 17, 2007
re: "S.F. panel touts toll to tame traffic"
Report as inappropriate
8:15 AM MST on Mon., Sep. 17, 2007
re: "S.F.’s busiest streets may charge toll"
Report as inappropriate
8:08 AM MST on Mon., Sep. 17, 2007
re: "S.F.’s busiest streets may charge toll"
Report as inappropriate
6:05 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 30, 2007
re: "S.F. panel touts toll to tame traffic"
Report as inappropriate
12:02 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 30, 2007
re: "Supe: New York-style traffic toll could help S.F."
Report as inappropriate
9:03 PM MST on Sun., Jul. 29, 2007
re: "S.F. panel touts toll to tame traffic"
Report as inappropriate
1:54 AM MST on Sun., Jul. 29, 2007
re: "S.F. panel touts toll to tame traffic"
Report as inappropriate
2:59 PM MST on Sat., Jul. 28, 2007
re: "Supe: New York-style traffic toll could help S.F."
Report as inappropriate
1:03 PM MST on Sat., Jul. 28, 2007
re: "S.F. panel touts toll to tame traffic"
Report as inappropriate
12:06 PM MST on Sat., Jul. 28, 2007
re: "S.F. panel touts toll to tame traffic"
Report as inappropriate
10:24 AM MST on Sat., Jul. 28, 2007
re: "S.F. panel touts toll to tame traffic"
Report as inappropriate
8:32 AM MST on Sat., Jul. 28, 2007
re: "S.F. panel touts toll to tame traffic"
Report as inappropriate
7:58 AM MST on Sat., Jul. 28, 2007
re: "S.F. panel touts toll to tame traffic"
Report as inappropriate
2:15 AM MST on Sat., Jul. 28, 2007
re: "S.F. panel touts toll to tame traffic"
Report as inappropriate
11:16 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 27, 2007
re: "Supe: New York-style traffic toll could help S.F."
Report as inappropriate
5:42 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 27, 2007
re: "S.F. panel touts toll to tame traffic"
Report as inappropriate
3:10 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 27, 2007
re: "Supe: New York-style traffic toll could help S.F."
Report as inappropriate
2:00 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 27, 2007
re: "S.F. panel touts toll to tame traffic"
Report as inappropriate
12:48 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 27, 2007
re: "S.F. panel touts toll to tame traffic"
Report as inappropriate
11:31 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 27, 2007
re: "S.F. panel touts toll to tame traffic"
Report as inappropriate
11:16 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 27, 2007
re: "S.F. panel touts toll to tame traffic"
Report as inappropriate
8:39 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 27, 2007
re: "S.F. panel touts toll to tame traffic"
Report as inappropriate
11:46 AM MST on Wed., May. 2, 2007
re: "Supe: New York-style traffic toll could help S.F."
Report as inappropriate
1:08 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 27, 2007
re: "Supe: New York-style traffic toll could help S.F."
Report as inappropriate
12:23 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 27, 2007
re: "Supe: New York-style traffic toll could help S.F."
Report as inappropriate
Seven said:
I'm guessing there will be no toll on 19th Ave because it's a state highway.
161 agree | 132 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
If they tax cars East of Powel, North of Market and South of Columbus, the average Joe living and going about business without a special pass has no need to be in that area at working hours... so who cares?
165 agree | 137 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Are they going to put a toll on every street that leads to downtown? If not then everyone will just avoid those tolls. I understand London - the streets are tiny - not here - just lots of silly folks with power.
180 agree | 149 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I'd rather sell the naming rights to the streets rather than charge a toll to drive there if San Francisco is that hard up for cash.
149 agree | 126 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
CT said: even more reason people will not like the City
157 agree | 121 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
HA HA HA said:
So if you live on a toll street, you have to pay a toll whenever you go home?
162 agree | 126 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
JM said:
then they will wonder why the "sudden" spike in traffic in the roads next to the newely commishioned "toll" roads. LOL. San Fran is joke.
184 agree | 129 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
carl glovier said:
my god. is daly still in office?
179 agree | 145 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
It's annoying how every time there's a proposal out there that'll help fix Muni (this scheme, bus-only lanes, etc.) people scream that the city cannot possibly infringe on private automobiles until...they fix Muni. And so the impasse, and so the system crumbles.
171 agree | 141 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The person below conecting this to global warming needs to disconnect from the media feeding tube and get real. If Weatherman can not predict the weather on masonic and geary how can they tell us the weather for the entire planet!!!!!!!!
169 agree | 129 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
America the free???
149 agree | 129 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Who saids san francisco has bad traffic? The traffic in downtown is just a normal flow for any big city's downtown. The bridge toll is already expensive, now we are going to put toll for going to downtown???
180 agree | 104 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Clean streets, less crime, a safe environment for the City's children, the freedom for anyone to walk anywhere without being preyed upon, good schools and safe parks - thats where the dollars should go that support the ridiculous organization called the San Francisco Transit Authority that propsoses a toll to drive downtown. Unfortunately, none of our public officials will stand up and say that.
155 agree | 128 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
You need to fix MUNI first before anything.....You force all those people onto a broken transit system and it will be chaos.....
166 agree | 143 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The politicians and the bureaucrats stay up all night conjuring ways to make the poor tax payers part with their money while they get bloated with pay increases.
156 agree | 159 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Global Warming will create mayhem in the world. Temperatures will continue to rise even after the 5 degree world surface increase expected by 2100. Our grandchildren, beset by rising tides and displaced refugees, will ask, "What on earth were they thinking?" We absolutely have to get out of our cars and onto transit. The congestion fees will create a better transit system. It works in London, Singapore, Stockholm and next NYC. Must we wait until another Katrina or similar catastrophe to see the light?
201 agree | 164 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Question the integrity of this page! An overwhelming majority of comments are clearly against a toll on downtown traffic. However, the agree/disagree data does not reflect the same comportment. Is it possible one cannot win for losing? i.e. is the manipulated agree/disagree data going to be used by a corrupt wing of the" Transportation Authority" as evidence of close/divided public opinion on this issue? Don't bet against it.
197 agree | 164 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
James, San Francisco said:
I think a toll for driving in our congested city is a great idea. However, given the awful performance of our public transit system, what alternatives would people have for getting to and from the downtown area where the toll would be levied? I'm trying to live in the practical world here and want to make our city much, much greener!
180 agree | 160 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Walter E.Wallis said:
Just send me a check for $5 a day and I promise never to drive to frisco. This decision is stupid in so many ways. Hey, frisco, the car is here, get used to it, stop running customers off. There is so little one can get in frisco that is not availble elsewhere cheaper and more convenient.
204 agree | 168 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
It is not the amount of cars in the city, it is the horrible drivers in this city that causes traffic delays. This combined with the delivery trucks and idiots that stop in a lane of traffic to wait for friends to come down from their homes backs us up. also if the city would time the stop lights properly you would see improvement. Why does this city do everything backwards?? Why do the hard working tax payers need to spend another dollar to fix something that sould already be handled in the existing budget? it is almost time to move out of san francisco and let the homeless drug addicts take over. Then lets see what kind of tax revenues the city will take in every year.
157 agree | 162 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Knot2brite said:
The transportation "Officials" aren't STUDYING the idea, they're getting ready to implement it, and from what I've heard they'll want to use FASRAK type transponders on vehicles to collect the money. Ultimately the government will simply force drivers to pay for every inch they drive, this idea of a downtown toll is is just another step in that direction. Fastrak transponders are already being used to collect money from commueters in Southern California to allow them to drive in the commute lanes. Don't be fooled by the government's rationale that this is about reducing congestion, it's about M-O-N-E-Y, as in the GOVERNMENT wans more, more, more of hardworking taxpayers earnings!
153 agree | 163 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Born, Raised and Educated in San Francisco said:
Of course the toll should extend to include bicyclists who will no doubt benefit the most from having less cars on the streets of SF. Double the toll on Critical Mass days. Then the City will have enough money so that the politicians will be able to fund all those progressive programs, build a few hundred shelters and just give money away to whomever fits their progressive profile as being poor and helpless. Maybe, just maybe, the progressives will leave a couple of bucks to help pay to fill a pothole or two. One can only dream.
197 agree | 188 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Former S.F. Resident said:
To the Examiner Reader who wrote:Comparing San Francisco traffic to that of New York or London is ridiculous. THANK YOU! Your comment hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, SF Supervisors McGoldrick and Daly are obsessed with adopting legislative proposals from across the pond - the traffic toll & Question Time. Perhaps both supervisors could do the city a big favor and move to Great Britain.
192 agree | 187 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Me said:
I agree with the SF Resident about how SF residents are excluded. It seems that all we have is special interests running this city. I have been here 33 years when I first moved here in 1974, I loved it, never thought I wnated to leave, but now man i'm ready to pack my packs and head back to wide-open space of Minneapolis. Sure its cold there but at least they get things done, unlike here. Its sad, SF had a charm to it at one time, no more. Everywhere there is a vacant lot they are putting up million dollar condos (and i'm not sure the average SF resident can afford one). Highrise for more businesses. What businesses, they are leaving the city to head elsewhere because of a friendly business enviroment.
196 agree | 189 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
As a San Francico resident, it is astounding the proposal includes no exclusion for SF residents. What we need are candidates for Supervisor and Mayor who stand up and advocate the interests of those of us who live here. Most of the beureaucrats, psuedo environmentalists, and phony sounding City planners who advocate this plan probably live outside of San Francisco in the first place. Maybe they can get Ed Jew to push the idea for them on the Board since no one has had the spine to remove him while he takes care of his, well, his problems determining whether or not he is a San Franciscan.
226 agree | 200 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
We are a family of four trying to stay in SF. Our daughter is almost 5 and our son is almost 2. My wife works downtown and therefore we found a convenient pre-school downtown for our daughter. Driving her to pre-school is the most efficient use of time if mommy and daddy want to make it to the office on time. Charging SF families to transport their children to and from daycare and/or schools near their downtown places of employment is even more ASS-in-9 than fooling around with a staff member's wife. This will be just another reason to abandon Baghdad by the Bay to the extremists.
229 agree | 188 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The real problem in this article is where are we going to put over 100,000 additional residents in San Francisco? Every garage is being converted to another illegal apartment, creating more parking congestion in neighborhoods by doubling the number of cars, and replacing covered parking with more residents. Maybe add another 60-story monstrosity that is being built on Rincon hill, with 1 parking space for every 4 units. That is what is causing the congestion in San Francisco.
197 agree | 199 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
A Downtown toll would reduce congestion. C. of C. might whine it will hurt business--but that's taking the backward REPUBLICAN view that only middle-class suburbanite types buy anything in SF. As SF goes greener, new customers and thinking WILL prevail.
225 agree | 198 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I lived in SF for 29 years. I moved to the suburbs to get away from "the homeless", the insane leftard government, and the general decline of a once-great city. Go ahead and impose your toll. I can live quite happily without ever visiting downtown SF. San Francisco is vastly overrated. It has a view of itself that is delusional, as the city "leaders" would find out if they ever talked to the middle class that has already left town. We here in the burbs stand ready to welcome the businesses of SF that will flee once this toll is imposed.
185 agree | 211 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Noe Valley Fan of London's Program said:
The trick is that the city has to be willing to use the money generated to boost public transportation into and out of the city center. You can't fritter the money away on other programs and still expect the ban to have a positive impact -- which is what SF usually does.
212 agree | 161 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
If Congestion Pricing saves a life! then it's worth it! San Francisco is choking!
257 agree | 235 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
RICHARD BEST said:
Regulating traffic volume in the congested core of cities by toll and otherwise is essential and long overdue. It should be combined with a green mass transit alternative making cars burdensome and obsolete for urban mobility. Singapore has had such a program for years and the downtown is pleasant and uncongested during rush hours. San Francisco like Manhattan is a natural to adopt similar and better approaches. It is hard to believe we need a $1million dollar study of the obvious. Our many high paid bureaucrats need to implement a program now that will be flexible and adaptable to needs. If they can't, they should be replaced with those who can. They will not get it right the first time or the tenth time, but with public oversight and control such a program can be modified and made to work. Multiple green alternatives to cars, both private and public, must be included so that everyone is attracted and not just compelled to use them. The possibilities are endless and exciting.
272 agree | 245 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Comparing San Francisco traffic to that of New York or London is ridiculous. Both of those cities are at least 10 times larger than SF and suffer from far worse traffic issues. The supervisors need to focus on real issues like a grossly understaffed police department and one of the worst public transit systems in the country. The supervisor seem very adept at pushing both business and people away from San Francisco.
273 agree | 249 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree