CA: Congestion pricing has hit New York, could it be coming to downtown S.F.?

For any motorist who flinched at the new $8 Bay Area bridge toll, the notion that San Francisco could take a cue from New York — and charge fees to to drive downtown during rush hour — might be triggering.

It horrified Jesse Hassinger, a visitor from Oakland who was ducking out of the parking garage at Fifth and Mission streets on Wednesday morning.

"Cars are good for commerce, mobility, getting to a show. Public transportation right now is questionable."

Other drivers said they'd grudgingly open their wallets.

Ari Mandel, a business traveler from Long Island, drew a breath as he considered the trade-off: a few dollars to access vital roadways, which would raise money for transit and infrastructure.

"I hate to say this as a driver, but this s— costs money," Mandel said, gesturing toward the busy artery of Mission Street. "Yeah, nobody likes to pay taxes, but this is expensive" to maintain, he continued.

Five years ago, discussions of congestion pricing were in full swing at San Francisco City Hall. Some city officials favored the intervention, hoping to unclog busy streets in SoMa, North Beach and Chinatown while nudging people toward public transit. The concept intrigued Mayor London Breed and board directors of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, who set aside $500,000 to study it.

Pandemic lockdowns hobbled that effort, thinning traffic to the point that a local toll no longer seemed reasonable. But now the calculus has changed again. A new mayor is taking office; the economic recovery is underway; and as of this week, New York City rolled out fees of up to $9 to drive at peak hours through the core of Manhattan. On Tuesday, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson told reporters he may contemplate similar fees for the city's famously snarled loop.

All of these developments beg the question: Will San Francisco revive its congestion pricing discourse?

Possibly, though some political leaders are reluctant to reignite the debate. While spokespeople for SFCTA were not immediately available to comment, the agency's website indicated that staff had put the congestion pricing study on pause.

At the time SFCTA began that work, San Francisco was contemplating the surcharges in four areas: downtown, the entry and exit points to Treasure Island, the 500-foot curvy stretch of Lombard Street and a set of proposed express lanes on Highway 101 from San Mateo County.

Of the four proposals, Treasure Island and 101 are the most likely to move forward, said San Francisco Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, who serves as the SFCTA board chair. Downtown remains the most controversial.

Still, New York's example has emboldened congestion pricing enthusiasts like Janice Li, a BART board director and former staffer at the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. She's long been convinced that with a little imagination and political will, cities can win over the public.

"I'm hopeful," Li said. "If we're thinking about equitable ways to fund our infrastructure, congestion pricing has a very clear rationale," she added, noting the mechanics of the system. Fees to use heavily-traveled roads would boost public transit. Better transit, in turn, could help wean people off cars.

Some leaders, including Mandelman, voiced skepticism, even if they embraced the general philosophy.

Asked whether San Francisco might adopt downtown tolls any time soon, Mandelman paused a long beat, then spoke carefully.

"It's a conversation that could be restarted," he said. "But I'm not hearing a hue and cry to start it now."

Mandelman said he sees the potential benefit of charging people to drive downtown if the fees vary to address income disparities, and if the money goes toward buses and rail. At the same time, Mandelman is leery of inhibiting shopping or tourism, with so many businesses still reeling from COVID.

Such fears seem valid to Stephen Martin-Pinto, a firefighter and two-time Board of Supervisors candidate from San Francisco's Sunnyside neighborhood. In 2019 Martin-Pinto joined the SFCTA's policy advisory committee, which sought to draw up a designated toll zone, recommend fee levels by income and hear feedback from the public.

Martin-Pinto said he came in with an open mind. Over several months of dialogue, his opinion of the plan soured.

"On the surface it seemed like a good idea," he said. "It would reduce traffic, it would reduce pollution. Then when we got down in the weeds, I had some doubts. Would it really reduce traffic, or just divert it somewhere else?"

He cited other concerns about the impacts on businesses and the unfair burden on low-income drivers, or workers who need their vehicles.

And then there's the complexity of the process. Any attempt to test-run congestion pricing in California would require passage of a bill in the state Legislature. Assemblymember Richard Bloom, D- Santa Monica, tried pushing such legislation in 2018, for two congestion pricing pilots in Northern California, and two in Southern California.

It died at its first hearing, felled by opposition from the Automobile Club of Southern California and the California Trucking Association, among other business and labor groups.

Yet, public opinion might turn as roads get more choked in San Francisco. At the time the County Transportation Authority began studying congestion pricing, data the agency had gathered showed that Uber and Lyft caused a dizzying 62 percent rise in traffic from 2010 to 2016. An influx of self-driving cars traffic could exacerbate that problem.

Transit advocates contend that if the public could picture a future with congestion pricing in place — and see how much it would improve their lives — their economic anxieties would melt away. Businesses don't actually need people to drive and park in front, Li said; they can draw customers who walk or bike or take the bus. But they may have to see that to believe it.

Perhaps New York City will provide the model.

___
(c)2025 the San Francisco Chronicle
Visit the San Francisco Chronicle at www.sfchronicle.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.