4 ms·

I am not at all a fan of surge pricing or toll roads. The janitor (or journeyman plumber, if you want to be pedantic) has every right to sit in gridlock beside

I am not at all a fan of surge pricing or toll roads. The janitor (or journeyman plumber, if you want to be pedantic) has every right to sit in gridlock beside the stock broker. There will never be meaningful accumulation of political capital to address public transit issues so long as the wealthy can avoid it with a trivial fee ($6.50 in this case, with unspecified income discounts).

JohnWhigham 5y ago
If you read the article, the janitor probably wouldn't be paying the congestion fee since it's income-based.
- bin_bash 5y ago
  46k is low enough I bet some janitors would be included
  - derwiki 5y ago
    Maybe some but not most https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-janitor-salary-SRCH_IL.0,13_IM759_KO14,21.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-janitor-sal...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jcims 5y ago
It's bald-faced gentrification. Doesn't matter, the anti-car crowd on HN will support it because cars bad, especially those with vested interest in SF real-estate value, because money good.
- leetcrew 5y ago
  I don't really see how. the income phase out is close to the median individual income for SF. I also have a hard time seeing how it will meaningfully reduce congestion when roughly half the residents are fully exempted. seems more like a slightly obfuscated tax.
  - jcims 5y ago
    It boils down to who is most likely to change their behavior because of the fee. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/16/bay-area-report-great-for-tech-professionals-but-worst-for-service-workers/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/16/bay-area-report-great... >In San Francisco and the East Bay, disposable income for police, firefighters and security workers ranked last in the country, with $1,800 left over annually after living expenses. Workers in transportation, food service, maintenance and personal care all fell short of being able to afford basic needs. Assuming these folks make it out of the lowest income bracket, the least they will pay is ~$2. That's over 1% of their disposable income for the year. These are the folks that are going to stop driving downtown at rush hour, unless of course their job requires it...then they're fucked. There are lots of folks in SF earning $1800/day of disposable income...it's not even going to cognitively register that they are paying anything.
- dnissley 5y ago
  Isn't gentrification when a poor area is made more expensive due to wealthier people moving in? Is gentrification in SF even possible?
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Cars bad indeed. We are getting this in Manhattan and it's going to be great. SF should too. > especially those with vested interest in SF real-estate value, because money good. This is just calling us NIMBYs ad-hominum. More walking means less space wasted on parking which means more units which means floor area prices go down. Land area prices go up with better utilization so yes it's not even bad for landlords, but historically landlords are lazy fucks who rather minimize costs than maximize profits.
bluGill 5y ago
That depends on how wealthy you need to be to not care. If only billionaires can ignore the costs, then there will be plenty of demand for transit (or more likely to get rid of the fees...). While if the fee is so low most people choose to just pay it, then it won't make a difference. Of course the people who most need to ignore it are those like plumbers who have a job that can't be done via transit.
- triceratops 5y ago
  For plumbers and the like, it's another cost of business and will be passed on to customers. They'll adapt, and no one will go out of business because everyone has to pay the tax.
  - jb775 5y ago
    Except the ones that do go out of business and aren't talked about.
    - triceratops 5y ago
      If every business's costs go up by the same amount, and they're all passing the costs on to customers, why are any of them going out of business? Are some businesses able to plan better and reduce the amount they pay in tolls? Do some choose not to pass costs on? Definitely. But you can say that about any cost of doing business - labor, materials, licensing, insurance.
      - jb775 5y ago
        Because not all business costs go up by the same relative amount and not all of them are able to easily pass the costs onto customers.
        triceratops 5y ago
        I think I addressed both of those points already.
helen___keller 5y ago
There are some interesting proposals out there that are ostensibly more equitable - for example, plate based restrictions (see bogota[0] and beijing[1]), although these can still be avoided by owning multiple cars. Maybe the most fair would be like one of these systems except person-based rather than plate-based, however that's not something that can or should be implemented because it would require identifying every driver on the road. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_y_placa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_y_placa [1] https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1098345.shtml https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1098345.shtml

JohnWhigham 5y ago

If you read the article, the janitor probably wouldn't be paying the congestion fee since it's income-based.

bin_bash 5y ago
46k is low enough I bet some janitors would be included
- derwiki 5y ago
  Maybe some but not most https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-janitor-salary-SRCH_IL.0,13_IM759_KO14,21.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-janitor-sal...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jcims 5y ago

It's bald-faced gentrification. Doesn't matter, the anti-car crowd on HN will support it because cars bad, especially those with vested interest in SF real-estate value, because money good.

leetcrew 5y ago
I don't really see how. the income phase out is close to the median individual income for SF. I also have a hard time seeing how it will meaningfully reduce congestion when roughly half the residents are fully exempted. seems more like a slightly obfuscated tax.
- jcims 5y ago
  It boils down to who is most likely to change their behavior because of the fee. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/16/bay-area-report-great-for-tech-professionals-but-worst-for-service-workers/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/16/bay-area-report-great... >In San Francisco and the East Bay, disposable income for police, firefighters and security workers ranked last in the country, with $1,800 left over annually after living expenses. Workers in transportation, food service, maintenance and personal care all fell short of being able to afford basic needs. Assuming these folks make it out of the lowest income bracket, the least they will pay is ~$2. That's over 1% of their disposable income for the year. These are the folks that are going to stop driving downtown at rush hour, unless of course their job requires it...then they're fucked. There are lots of folks in SF earning $1800/day of disposable income...it's not even going to cognitively register that they are paying anything.
dnissley 5y ago
Isn't gentrification when a poor area is made more expensive due to wealthier people moving in? Is gentrification in SF even possible?
Ericson2314 5y ago
Cars bad indeed. We are getting this in Manhattan and it's going to be great. SF should too. > especially those with vested interest in SF real-estate value, because money good. This is just calling us NIMBYs ad-hominum. More walking means less space wasted on parking which means more units which means floor area prices go down. Land area prices go up with better utilization so yes it's not even bad for landlords, but historically landlords are lazy fucks who rather minimize costs than maximize profits.

bluGill 5y ago

That depends on how wealthy you need to be to not care. If only billionaires can ignore the costs, then there will be plenty of demand for transit (or more likely to get rid of the fees...). While if the fee is so low most people choose to just pay it, then it won't make a difference. Of course the people who most need to ignore it are those like plumbers who have a job that can't be done via transit.

triceratops 5y ago
For plumbers and the like, it's another cost of business and will be passed on to customers. They'll adapt, and no one will go out of business because everyone has to pay the tax.
- jb775 5y ago
  Except the ones that do go out of business and aren't talked about.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    If every business's costs go up by the same amount, and they're all passing the costs on to customers, why are any of them going out of business? Are some businesses able to plan better and reduce the amount they pay in tolls? Do some choose not to pass costs on? Definitely. But you can say that about any cost of doing business - labor, materials, licensing, insurance.
    - jb775 5y ago
      Because not all business costs go up by the same relative amount and not all of them are able to easily pass the costs onto customers.
      - triceratops 5y ago
        I think I addressed both of those points already.

helen___keller 5y ago

There are some interesting proposals out there that are ostensibly more equitable - for example, plate based restrictions (see bogota[0] and beijing[1]), although these can still be avoided by owning multiple cars. Maybe the most fair would be like one of these systems except person-based rather than plate-based, however that's not something that can or should be implemented because it would require identifying every driver on the road. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_y_placa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_y_placa [1] https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1098345.shtml https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1098345.shtml