Josh Wilson: Bike guy

When I read the pro-congestion pricing op-ed in the Chronicle last month, the byline, Josh Wilson, was vaguely familiar. Seemed like he was one of the original Critical Mass participants and advocates.

Sure enough a search quickly confirmed that notion. Wilson is a Critical Mass pioneer who contributed a chapter to Chris Carlsson's book, Critical Mass: Bicycling's Defiant Celebration, wherein he rhapsodizes about his "bicycle salvation" and the bullying Critical Mass demonstration on the last Friday of the month that makes it harder for working people to get home (see also this).

The Chronicle surely knows who Wilson is, since he's contributed pro-bike, anti-car op-eds before, like the one on the Idaho stop---which is no stop at all---in 2015: Why the 'Idaho Stop' is safe cycling).

That makes the Chronicle's description of Wilson disingenuous: "Josh Wilson is a San Francisco freelance writer." A writer, however, who writes mostly about salvation---his and ours---via bicycles.

Wilson's congestion pricing op-ed is a complete muddle, with this sort of thing:

One solution is to build around transit rather than automobiles, but that process is bogged down in the eternal battle between preservationists and pro-density developers. We need to raise the stakes while they get their issues sorted out.

That's nonsense, since "preservation" has nothing to do with SF's transportation issues, which are about Muni and traffic congestion. Of course development and transportation are intimately related, but Wilson provides nothing to clarify the issue.

Wilson proposes congestion pricing for 19th Avenue and Van Ness Avenue:

Two other corridors in San Francisco that would benefit from a use fee are 19th and Van Ness avenues. These well-traveled, rough-and-tumble urban throughways are also integral links in two major highway systems — California Route 1, and U.S. Highway 101. They are full of traffic that is often “just passing through,” and that brings no real benefit to the city and its residents, but takes its toll in pedestrian safety, pollution and degraded quality of life.

But then he backtracks with another muddle about something called "zone pricing":

A poorly conceived plan could be a nightmare. Making 19th and Van Ness avenues simple toll roads would merely push the traffic out into the surrounding neighborhoods. 

A better solution would be “zone pricing,” a concept that has already been kicking around SFMTA planning offices for a number of years. Under a well-implemented plan, residents along both 19th and Van Ness avenues — or any major crosstown corridor — could enjoy discounts or even waivers, and would certainly benefit from improved public transit and reduced pollution and traffic hazards.

How does zone pricing differ from congestion pricing? Wilson can't really say. Giving local residents discounts/waivers when they use those busy streets hardly addresses the huge political problem that would be created by billing the thousands of motorists traveling North/South through San Francisco. What would prevent Marin County and San Mateo counties---and even San Francisco---from doing that? The answer: Common sense.

The problem anti-car zealots like Wilson have: Congestion pricing is overwhelmingly unpopular even in San Francisco according to annual public opinion polls.

As I've pointed out before, the SF Chronicle has a soft spot for the bicycle fantasy, as it tries to be with-it by appealing to young people in the city. It even endorsed Critical Mass after the demo was marred by violence.

See also More bike puffery by the Chronicle and The Chronicle's high-minded rhetoric, and The Chronicle's story on Masonic Avenue #1.

Alas, the SF Examiner is no better.

Later: Can't find anything about "zone pricing" on the SFMTA's site, but the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) is the city department that takes the lead on congestion pricing. See also Tilly Chang's quest for Congestion Pricing.