London's traffic tactic piques interest in S.F.

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | June 4, 2005 | Rachel Gordon

[nickcarraway]

A program to combat traffic congestion in central London, in which drivers pay for the right to drive down the busiest streets during peak hours, has caught the fancy of city officials in San Francisco who are looking for ways to ease downtown gridlock and raise revenue to pay for public transit.

"It's certainly an idea worth looking at,'' said Supervisor Jake McGoldrick. "Traffic is getting worse, and we could use more money for better transit.''

At McGoldrick's urging, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, which is governed by San Francisco's 11 supervisors, has applied for a $1.3 million federal grant to conduct a study.

The study would determine how such a program could work, including looking at potential boundaries, pricing schemes and uses for the extra revenue, such as expanded bus service and new bike lanes. City officials also must determine whether state permission would be needed to impose the charge.

Officials expect to hear in July if the money for the study has been approved. If it is granted, the research would commence in the fall and could take three years to complete, said Tilly Chang, the transportation director's deputy director for planning.

London Mayor Ken Livingstone, in San Francisco this week for the United Nations' World Environment Day conference, said congestion charging zones, as they're known in his city, have a proven track record since he introduced them two years ago.

Congestion has been reduced, independent analyses show. Plus, Livingstone said, carbon monoxide pollution is down, and more people are taking the bus. The city also has more and newer buses funded by the increased revenue from the special fee. Congestion has decreased in central London by 30 percent, with 50,000 fewer cars entering the area each day.

[MadIvan]

London Mayor Ken Livingstone, in San Francisco this week for the United Nations' World Environment Day conference, said congestion charging zones, as they're known in his city, have a proven track record since he introduced them two years ago.

He's lying. Transport in London is so thoroughly dismal it was one of the factors that pushed me out of living there altogether.

Red Ken is a certifiable lunatic. Under no circumstances listen to him.

Regards, Ivan

[QueenBee3]

SF has the worst traffic. The city makes NO sense. There is no grid, no names that mean anything and hills all over. It makes driving in LA look like a breeze. I couldn't wait to get back to driving my big old SUV down Ventura Blvd after a week of SF public transportation.

[Americanexpat]

The tax payer have already paid for the right to drive down public streets. The friggin politicians have found another way to get into our wallets.

[goldstategop]

You can say one thing for sure about San Francisco's liberal politicians. They have never met a tax they haven't liked.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[martin_fierro]

Somehow I believe the Board of Stupes and Mayor would be exempt from this fee. Just a hunch.

[endthematrix]

...if you drive a car, I’ll tax the street...

TAXMAN!

[goldstategop]

I have a better idea: let's tax liberal politicians for stupid ideas.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Southack]

A little more traffic on New Bond street might save me some money next trip. My wife hit Asprey's and lit up the sales staff's smiles while torching my wallet! Put some more traffic there and perhaps I'll have some time to douse the flames in between Tiffany's and Asprey's...

Just kidding. Great city. Lousy mayor. Churchill's War Rooms are a particular favorite.

[familyop]

Let's rush R&D for nuclear/hydrogen powered personal vehicles and market them in a hurry. That would solve much of the problem.

[Dallas59]

When will they start to tax sex?

[1FASTGLOCK45]

goldstategop wrote:
You can say one thing for sure about San Francisco's liberal politicians. They have never met a tax they haven't liked.

-->Don't forget also "They never met a gun restriction they haven't liked" you can throw that in the pork barrel as well.

[Eärendil]

When will they start to tax sex?

Ever heard of alimony, child support--and divorce lawyers' legal fees?

[Dallas59]

DOH!

[bill1952]

We would have more money than God.

BTW, I'm quite sure that the loons in charge there see Livingston as a kindred soul, but is this anywhere near being legal in the US?

After all, they are public roads, and I'm sure they were built with public money.

[bill1952]

Yeah, but that's taxation of marriage.

I've heard rumors that there is sex outside of marraige. 8^)

[Eärendil]

Yeah, but that's taxation of marriage.

And I've heard rumors that there can be children out of wedlock, which can lead to the imposition of court-ordered child support.

[bill1952]

And we could call it "the stupid tax."

"Okay, congressman, that will be be 20 bucks, stupid tax." "Never heard of it? 40 bucks."

[bill1952]

Still not a tax on sex, but I see your point.

IMO, child support is a very good thing and not any type of tax.

[Eärendil]

IMO, child support is a very good thing and not any type of tax.

There are two fundamental problems with the way child support is administered in our society:

1. The amount to be paid is based on the income/wealth of the father when he is well to do (a very tax-like arrangement,) but on the needs of the child when he is not (which often requires a father to pay far more than he can afford, and far more than he would have to pay were he married to the mother of his children)
2. Fairness requires that the parent able to contribute the greatest amount to a child's needs should be the custodial parent, if willing. But of course, that is not how things usually turn out. Whatever happened to 'no taxation without representation'?