Progs support congestion pricing advocate to lead SFCTA
Matier and Ross (below in italics) provide us with an item about replacing the head of the San Francisco County Transportation Agency (SFCTA) that spends Prop. K sales tax money for city transportation projects---and for overpaid administrators---$228,368 a year! They tell us that "progressive" supervisors support Tilly Chang for the job, probably because for years she's been dedicated to pushing the ultimate anti-car plan, the punitive, unpopular congestion pricing idea on San Francisco that will charge city residents a fee for driving downtown in their own city.
Eeny, meeny...: Deciding on a replacement for recently departed $228,368-a-year county Transportation Authority chief Jose Luis Moscovich has produced plenty of political hand-wringing and indecision down at City Hall.
The authority, one of the few agencies that the Board of Supervisors has direct control over, can influence spending on big transportation projects such as the Doyle Drive replacement.
Three finalists are in the hunt, the authority's deputy director Tilly Chang (whose strength is planning); Municipal Transportation Agency finance director Sonali Bose (who knows financing); and Stephanie Wiggins, an executive with the Orange Country Transportation Authority (who has experience in project management).
Progressives appear squarely behind Chang; moderates are leaning toward Bose. Others see outsider Wiggins as a possible compromise.
After failing to reach a consensus before their August break, the supervisors are scheduled to resume private deliberations Tuesday.
Eeny, meeny...: Deciding on a replacement for recently departed $228,368-a-year county Transportation Authority chief Jose Luis Moscovich has produced plenty of political hand-wringing and indecision down at City Hall.
The authority, one of the few agencies that the Board of Supervisors has direct control over, can influence spending on big transportation projects such as the Doyle Drive replacement.
Three finalists are in the hunt, the authority's deputy director Tilly Chang (whose strength is planning); Municipal Transportation Agency finance director Sonali Bose (who knows financing); and Stephanie Wiggins, an executive with the Orange Country Transportation Authority (who has experience in project management).
Progressives appear squarely behind Chang; moderates are leaning toward Bose. Others see outsider Wiggins as a possible compromise.
After failing to reach a consensus before their August break, the supervisors are scheduled to resume private deliberations Tuesday.
Labels: Anti-Car, City Government, Congestion Pricing, SFCTA, Tilly Chang, Traffic in SF
posted by Rob Anderson @ 12:15 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
Shocking, just shocking. Driving is a right, not a privilege, and it should be free. Who cares how well it works in London. Next they'll be charging for other free drives, like going over the Golden Gate Bridge.
Good that you mention London and the Golden Gate Bridge, since the system recently installed on that bridge is a trial run for the Congestion Pricing scheme City Hall is planning to install in downtown SF. That polls show that the people of SF oppose Congestion Pricing doesn't mean anything to City Hall. Just like the Bicycle Plan, the people of SF are going to get it anyhow.
Pivot to public opinion when the facts are that congestion pricing is a success in a city that could not continue to build and build infrastructure and support a heavy diet of personal vehicles.
Transit infrastructure is a utility and if there's not enough of it you have to regulate it. I'm sure most people in San Francisco would love to have free water and electricity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge
Yep, and they're getting the Van Ness rapid bus lane too. You and Mary failed to stop that. Another fail! Delights me no end.
It's fun to cherry pick isolated case studies about how some idea worked in another city and focus on that exclusively, rather than focusing on this city. Not to mention what people in this city are saying.
If the city must have congestion pricing to support all the building that is going on, what happened to the option to not continue building?
If the city must have congestion pricing to support all the building that is going on, what happened to the option to not continue building?
There are two choices.
1) Congestion pricing or some other option to alleviate problems caused by more building.
2) Housing prices go up by another 100%
Pick your poison.
Yes, it's ridiculous to compare London, with more than 8 million people covers more than 600 square miles, with SF, which has 800,000 people and covers only 47 square miles.
San Francisco has a chronic self-esteem problem. It wants to be like Copenhagen and Amsterdam on bikes, and now it wants to be considered like London on congestion pricing.
"Yes, it's ridiculous to compare London, with more than 8 million people covers more than 600 square miles, with SF, which has 800,000 people and covers only 47 square miles."
So you're saying congestion pricing is a good idea in London? Why?
"So you're saying congestion pricing is a good idea in London? Why?"
I don't know about London. I just think it's ridiculous to compare the traffic problems of a city of 8 million with a city of 800,000.
"Yep, and they're getting the Van Ness rapid bus lane too. You and Mary failed to stop that. Another fail!"
Yes, still another stupid project that will damage the city. Another victory!
You conveniently forget the amount of commuters (350,000 per day) and tourists (129,499 a day). Population doesn't mean jack when you're talking about traffic mitigation.
I never hear of any solutions, just more bitching about any kind of improvement plan from NIMBYs, which is only as good as what's available. I suspect that's what got is into this mess over the last few decades. Just a bunch of assholes bitching and never putting any effort into meaningful change.
"You conveniently forget the amount of commuters (350,000 per day) and tourists (129,499 a day). Population doesn't mean jack when you're talking about traffic mitigation."
Where do you get those numbers? The MTA used to say that 35,000 vehicles drove into SF every workday. Of course population means something when you're talking about a city that's ten times the size of SF.
"I never hear of any solutions, just more bitching about any kind of improvement plan from NIMBYs..."
People making traffic policy in City Hall should adopt something like the medical profession's Hippocratic oath: First do no harm---or at least don't do anything to make traffic worse than it has to be, which the Van Ness BRT will do. Ditto for the Bicycle Plan, the Masonic Avenue project, UC's massive housing development on lower Haight Street, and the Market and Octavia Plan.
First do no harm---or at least don't do anything to make traffic worse than it has to be, which the Van Ness BRT will do.
I guess in your world people who take the bus down Van Ness don't count. You're worse than the fucking bike coalition when it comes to screwing over MUNI riders. At least the SFBC didn't try to stop the BRT.
I wonder the same thing as Jesse, why Rob doesn't offer any solutions. How about knocking over some buildings and building some free parking lots?
We could pave over Golden Gate, just imagine how many parked cars that could hold. That would ameliorate the problem of people driving around looking for parking. Another idea, widening roads to accomodate more traffic to alleviate congestion. People love their cars and besides, they're not going to take Muni because it's too slow. They're going to walk or ride a bike; it's too dangerous. Let's stop trying to change people and accept reality here.
Commuters: http://www.spur.org/files/spur-reports/SPUR_The_Future_of_Downtown_SF.pdf
tourists: http://sfced.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SF-Tourism-Overview-06.24.13.pdf
I've lived in San Francisco for about 10 years, and I not only blame "city officials" but I blame anyone who has lived here for the past 30-40 years that got us in this mess. SF ditched public transportation for car-centered approaches and built up a dependency on car infrastructure and parking. It's no wonder that any kind of change is though of as "harm". Look at the changes they want to make to the 5 and 5L - getting rid of a slight amount of parking and some traffic lanes is looked at as harm. These are the same people that get in the way of any changes and maybe they're the small vocal minority.
City transit infrastructure evolve and changes, and I know the transition to cars from public transportation and walkable/bikeable close communities did not come without a fight. It didn't come from happenstance.
I'm going to be responsible for the next 30-40 years and what this city looks like in terms of infrastructure. I don't view Van Ness, Geary BRT, or even the Central Subway (although a shitshow) as "harm" in the long term.
You're idea of harm, to me, is like saying someone has cancer and you want to fix it, but you just don't want to use any kind of invasive procedures.
*sigh* Jesse..where to begin..first of all cars are not cancer. I could not drive my kids to school with cancer. I could not go through the drive through of McDonald's with cancer. See the difference? Oh, I couldn't expect elitists like you with your organic coffee and fixie bicycles to understand that.
You've got a lot to learn, clearly. Now, with that out of the way, let's discuss some commonsense, fiscally responsible, proposals such as paving Golden Gate Park and turning it into a parking lot.
"I could not drive my kids to school with cancer. I could not go through the drive through of McDonald's with cancer."
But it is pretty well documented that driving through McDonald's will give you cancer.
Post a Comment
<< Home