Parking

Golden Gate congestion pricing out, performance parking in

by David Alpert   •   August 20, 2008 11:48 am

After New York rejected congestion pricing, At the same time they offered money to New York for congestion pricing, USDOT also dedicated funds to San Francisco for a limited congestion pricing experiment on Golden Gate bridge approach road Doyle Drive. But according to the SF Chronicle, Golden Gate transportation officials wouldn't agree to make the tolls truly market priced, and USDOT won't give them the money for a mere $1 toll hike.

Instead, SF will implement market-based parking pricing on major bridge approach roads, like Lombard and Van Ness. We don't have all the details, but I doubt just pricing the main roads will help much. The idea is to reduce congestion on those roads by discouraging circling for parking, but if side streets are underpriced, people will still circle and still use the main streets amidst the circling.

The Bay Area's proposal calls for $145 million in federal funds, with $47 million for Doyle Drive reconstruction, $20 million to set up the SF Park congestion-based parking program, $13 million for regional ferry improvements, and $58 million for the SF Go program to synchronize traffic signals along many of the city's busiest boulevards.

Moscovich said federal officials have agreed to everything but the traffic signal money. In their letter to Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, Bay Area officials pitched that program as an effective way to reduce congestion and attract more riders on public transportation.

This time, it's the SF officials who are right, though the Chronicle article is misleading. Synchronizing traffic lights isn't the right approach and just speeds up traffic. That might speed buses a bit, but it'll make driving even more appealing. But SFgo is about more than "synchronization". It allows timing signals to help pedestrians or bicycles instead of just for cars. And it'll provide signal priority for buses, which really is a great way to speed transit and reduce congestion.

Correction: The SF money wasn't New York's reallocated—SF was offered money in the first round, like New York.

Also, the Chronicle article claims that USDOT doesn't want to fund signal priority, but the existing agreement between SF and USDOT includes signal priority. I'm trying to find out if the Chronicle article is wrong or what.