Dick Spotswood: Marin should have a say in San Francisco’s downtown toll plan

NEW YORK, N.Y. >> The city of New York will soon begin America’s first congestion pricing experiment. The idea is motorists will pay tolls to drive into the most crowed parts of Manhattan. Theoretically, revenue generated will be directed to upgrade Gotham’s crowded and deteriorating subway. London, Stockholm and Singapore already have programs where electronically collected tolls are charged when cars and trucks enter their city centers.

Unsurprisingly, New York’s move is spurring tax-friendly San Francisco to consider adopting the concept.

The leader is prolific state Sen. Scott Wiener. The San Francisco Democrat had a similar bill die in committee last year. Now with New York’s lead, Wiener will likely gain traction this time. While the drivers’ tax will only apply to San Francisco, there are significant implications for Marin and suburban Bay Area commuters. Now’s the time to get ahead of the notion before its parameters are fixed.

San Francisco politicians love telling suburban communities how they should be run but are furious when the suburbs point out that the big city’s government is — to be polite — less than efficient. Like suburban New Yorkers are now doing, we need to demand from California’s Legislature a say in how congestion pricing is implemented and where the money goes.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with congestion pricing. California has long charged tolls to finance bridge construction and operate transit. Unlike Eastern states, it has avoided toll roads. That may be changing. We may soon see a North Bay toll road to finance improving the congested and sinking Highway 37 from Novato to Vallejo. California — the largest and most prosperous state in the union — has seen its infrastructure deteriorate and fail to keep up with its stunning growth because no one wants to pay for it.

Congestion pricing is designed to discourage downtown driving and, crucially, generate revenue. In New York, the street toll may be $12 to $14 for cars and $25 for trucks. The presumption is that former in-city motorists and suburban commuters will shift to transit. That makes sense in Manhattan where subway, bus and ferry coverage is comprehensive. That’s unlike San Francisco, whose municipal railway route map is only “good” while city-suburban transit is merely “adequate.”

One worry is San Francisco won’t actually increase transit funding even if congestion pricing is implemented. Money is fungible. New revenue can easily replace what’s now spent, allowing the cash to fund higher priorities including the city’s unfunded public employee pension liabilities. It’s happened elsewhere. That’s one reason taxpayers are understandably cynical.

Suburban commuters are “stakeholders” that the Legislature should respect if congestion pricing is authorized. Traffic studies can easily indicate the origin of vehicle trips whose destination is downtown San Francisco. I’ll venture 40 percent of cars and trucks entering the downtown toll zone will be from suburban communities and Oakland.

The equitable remedy is for net congestion pricing revenue to be distributed accordingly.

Sixty percent of auto tolls can be spent by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors ostensibly for transit improvements. The 40 percent the Legislature should reserve for suburb-to-city transit might be allocated one-third each to mitigate northern, southern and eastern commutes into San Francisco.

Devote one-third for bond funding to expand ferry service from Marin and Contra Costa to a new terminal at booming Mission Bay. Divert one-third for bonds to pay for electrifying Caltrain. After Gov. Gavin Newsom effectively killed high-speed rail, the Peninsula needs new funding for Caltrain’s long-anticipated green effort to boost capacity and travel times. For the East Bay’s benefit, spend one-third cleaning and patrolling BART’s filthy crime-ridden stations in San Francisco.

Share this: Print

View more on Marin Independent Journal