4 ms·

Do SF and other municipalities collect fees that compensate the public for these kinds of externalities? It seems absurd that companies performing driverless re

Do SF and other municipalities collect fees that compensate the public for these kinds of externalities? It seems absurd that companies performing driverless research can hobble public services and infrastructure without providing some form of compensation, ideally directed towards improving those services.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
michaelt 4y ago
In any other locality, the compensation would be a bunch of highly paid tech jobs, paying fat stacks of tax and pulling money from all over the world into the local economy - both from the jobs directly working on the cars' software, and by bootstrapping a technology hub. Of course, in the case of SF you could argue they have far more highly paid tech jobs than the city can support already, and no need to bootstrap a technology hub....
- woodruffw 4y ago
  This isn't a strong argument for externalities: no municipality in the world would (should?) accept toxic waste being dumped in its water supply just because a small fraction of its tax base is paid handsomely to do so. Put another way: the value proposition for SF (and other tech cities) exists above and prior to these companies being allowed to treat the city's streets as a testing ground.
  - michaelt 4y ago
    Cities allow road users to mess up traffic all the time. Got a large vehicle that blocks multiple lanes while turning? No problem. Heavy 18-wheelers that fuck up the road surface? We're pro-business. Trash collectors need to stop to collect trash? Of course they do. Customers trying to parallel park block a complete lane of traffic, in addition to the lane of on-street parking? No worries. Taxis want to stop traffic to pick up customers? Sure thing. Delivery drivers want to double park? Well, you gotta deliver somehow, just make it quick. Parked vehicles blocking the cycle lane? Well you'll just have to go around. Slow cyclist in a narrow street? They've got every right to be there. Hire scooters all over the sidewalk? Yeah, that happens. I'm not sure the comparison to toxic waste dumping is really warranted.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      At least in NYC, nearly all of these have corresponding taxes, levies, or outright bans. For example, the city charges additional taxes against both taxi operators and riders to compensate the public for the congestion they induce[1]. Similarly, 53’ trailers are outright illegal in NYC (because they destroy the road surface, as you mentioned, and can’t navigate the city safety). Enforcement is currently poor, however. The point is this: using city streets to trial-run experimental technology is something new and distinct, and it isn’t immediately clear to me why the public shouldn’t be compensated for the bother. [1]: https://www.tax.ny.gov/bus/cs/csidx.htm https://www.tax.ny.gov/bus/cs/csidx.htm
AlexandrB 4y ago
The idea of fining the companies involved is proposed near the end of the article: > As driverless cars keep racking up the miles, San Francisco transit advocates propose a variety of measures to lessen their impact. Jaime Viloria of Equity on Public Transit, a grassroots group of riders in the Tenderloin neighborhood, says companies operating autonomous vehicles should be fined for causing delays.
- Ajedi32 4y ago
  Seems fair. If a manually driven car were to block a streetcar like that surely that would result in a fine? This shouldn't require any sort of special treatment for self driving cars one way or the other.
  - bradleybuda 4y ago
    Haha, not in San Francisco, no. We've stopped enforcing traffic laws. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article/sfpd-traffic-tickets-17355651.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article...
  - vuln 4y ago
    What if a manually operated car mechanically breaks down, runs out of gas, or causes an accident are you going to give them a “traffic delay” fine?
    - stingrae 4y ago
      that is an edge case.
      - vuln 4y ago
        Not really. In the Tidewater area of Virginia, the area with the most per capita tunnels, AT LEAST once a day someone runs out of gas or breaks down in one of the 7 tunnels causing 30 minute -hour delay. Definitely not an edge case.
    - 4y ago
firstlink 4y ago
[flagged]
- Fatnino 4y ago
  Because the government then uses those fees to build or upkeep a public good and the public is spared from having to pay the taxes to do so.
  - kjksf 4y ago
    When exactly did that imaginary, completely made up "sparing of taxes" ever happened? This is San Francisco. The only thing I ever hear from politicians is an additional tax, on top of all the other taxes. But prove me wrong: when in the last 10 years did San Francisco "spared" or lowered taxes? San Francisco has a budget of $14 billion dollars. Paris, France: €4.4 billion euro. The issue is not lack of money but mind boggling, ineffective, corrupt spending of the money.
    - Fatnino 4y ago
      Taxpayers are "spared" when a new tax doesn't get added on top because a project got it's funding elsewhere. I can't speak for the city level taxes in sf because I don't pay those, but I know that in California sometimes taxes can expire and the voters don't renew them.
- i80and 4y ago
  I know you're being inflammatory to make a point, but calling this "fascistic" is really out of line and dilutes the concept.
  - chihuahua 4y ago
    That horse left the barn a long time ago. Over the past several years, the word "fascistic" (and "fascist", obviously) has become so overused that now it just means "something I don't like." Just like "awesome" now means "pretty good."
grandmczeb 4y ago
The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Tax is designed for exactly this purpose. https://sftreasurer.org/business/taxes-fees/traffic-congestion-mitigation-tax-tcm https://sftreasurer.org/business/taxes-fees/traffic-congesti... https://www.sfcta.org/funding/tnc-tax https://www.sfcta.org/funding/tnc-tax
vuln 4y ago
Fines? For stopping traffic? Hahahahhahaha. You can steal ~899$ worth of shit and the cops don’t show up. Open air drug markets, people shitting in the streets, thousands of homeless people. But yeah let’s pontificate about fines for someone disrupting traffic. You gonna fine the person that runs out of gas, causes an accident or just mechanically breaks down?
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >You gonna fine the person that runs out of gas, causes an accident or just mechanically breaks down? I'm much more interested in fining the crap out of the people who don't have an "excuse" for their bad traffic performance.
  - vuln 4y ago
    Who is the judge of the “excuse”? What you’re talking about is a two tiered justice system. Just because xyz conglomerate causes an issues “zomg fine them1!1!1!1” but when it’s someone that runs out of gas or mechanically breaks down “well they’re poor so it can slide”. This doesn’t work. You’ll waste more money prosecuting and collecting the fines from xyz conglomerate. If the poor person gets the fine too then it puts them in an even worse position. How do we know the poor person didn’t run out of gas intentionally hoping some Good Samaritan offers a couple gallons or road side assistance helps with a couple gallons paid for by tax payers.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      You're making this more complex than it actually is: the scenario in question is a self-driving car that's already known to the local government and is explicitly being used for testing/research purposes. It's difficult to imagine an innocent or unlucky citizen who would be ensnared in a fine structure designed to disincentivize traffic problems caused by experimental self-driving cars.
- lm28469 4y ago
  I think you read to fast or are projecting. OP clearly refers to a fee on autonomous car companies using public infra as a testing ground. Causing traffic jam is but a tiny part of it

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

michaelt 4y ago

In any other locality, the compensation would be a bunch of highly paid tech jobs, paying fat stacks of tax and pulling money from all over the world into the local economy - both from the jobs directly working on the cars' software, and by bootstrapping a technology hub. Of course, in the case of SF you could argue they have far more highly paid tech jobs than the city can support already, and no need to bootstrap a technology hub....

woodruffw 4y ago
This isn't a strong argument for externalities: no municipality in the world would (should?) accept toxic waste being dumped in its water supply just because a small fraction of its tax base is paid handsomely to do so. Put another way: the value proposition for SF (and other tech cities) exists above and prior to these companies being allowed to treat the city's streets as a testing ground.
- michaelt 4y ago
  Cities allow road users to mess up traffic all the time. Got a large vehicle that blocks multiple lanes while turning? No problem. Heavy 18-wheelers that fuck up the road surface? We're pro-business. Trash collectors need to stop to collect trash? Of course they do. Customers trying to parallel park block a complete lane of traffic, in addition to the lane of on-street parking? No worries. Taxis want to stop traffic to pick up customers? Sure thing. Delivery drivers want to double park? Well, you gotta deliver somehow, just make it quick. Parked vehicles blocking the cycle lane? Well you'll just have to go around. Slow cyclist in a narrow street? They've got every right to be there. Hire scooters all over the sidewalk? Yeah, that happens. I'm not sure the comparison to toxic waste dumping is really warranted.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    At least in NYC, nearly all of these have corresponding taxes, levies, or outright bans. For example, the city charges additional taxes against both taxi operators and riders to compensate the public for the congestion they induce[1]. Similarly, 53’ trailers are outright illegal in NYC (because they destroy the road surface, as you mentioned, and can’t navigate the city safety). Enforcement is currently poor, however. The point is this: using city streets to trial-run experimental technology is something new and distinct, and it isn’t immediately clear to me why the public shouldn’t be compensated for the bother. [1]: https://www.tax.ny.gov/bus/cs/csidx.htm https://www.tax.ny.gov/bus/cs/csidx.htm

AlexandrB 4y ago

The idea of fining the companies involved is proposed near the end of the article: > As driverless cars keep racking up the miles, San Francisco transit advocates propose a variety of measures to lessen their impact. Jaime Viloria of Equity on Public Transit, a grassroots group of riders in the Tenderloin neighborhood, says companies operating autonomous vehicles should be fined for causing delays.

Ajedi32 4y ago
Seems fair. If a manually driven car were to block a streetcar like that surely that would result in a fine? This shouldn't require any sort of special treatment for self driving cars one way or the other.
- bradleybuda 4y ago
  Haha, not in San Francisco, no. We've stopped enforcing traffic laws. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article/sfpd-traffic-tickets-17355651.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article...
- vuln 4y ago
  What if a manually operated car mechanically breaks down, runs out of gas, or causes an accident are you going to give them a “traffic delay” fine?
  - stingrae 4y ago
    that is an edge case.
    - vuln 4y ago
      Not really. In the Tidewater area of Virginia, the area with the most per capita tunnels, AT LEAST once a day someone runs out of gas or breaks down in one of the 7 tunnels causing 30 minute -hour delay. Definitely not an edge case.
  - 4y ago

firstlink 4y ago

[flagged]

Fatnino 4y ago
Because the government then uses those fees to build or upkeep a public good and the public is spared from having to pay the taxes to do so.
- kjksf 4y ago
  When exactly did that imaginary, completely made up "sparing of taxes" ever happened? This is San Francisco. The only thing I ever hear from politicians is an additional tax, on top of all the other taxes. But prove me wrong: when in the last 10 years did San Francisco "spared" or lowered taxes? San Francisco has a budget of $14 billion dollars. Paris, France: €4.4 billion euro. The issue is not lack of money but mind boggling, ineffective, corrupt spending of the money.
  - Fatnino 4y ago
    Taxpayers are "spared" when a new tax doesn't get added on top because a project got it's funding elsewhere. I can't speak for the city level taxes in sf because I don't pay those, but I know that in California sometimes taxes can expire and the voters don't renew them.
i80and 4y ago
I know you're being inflammatory to make a point, but calling this "fascistic" is really out of line and dilutes the concept.
- chihuahua 4y ago
  That horse left the barn a long time ago. Over the past several years, the word "fascistic" (and "fascist", obviously) has become so overused that now it just means "something I don't like." Just like "awesome" now means "pretty good."

grandmczeb 4y ago

The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Tax is designed for exactly this purpose. https://sftreasurer.org/business/taxes-fees/traffic-congestion-mitigation-tax-tcm https://sftreasurer.org/business/taxes-fees/traffic-congesti... https://www.sfcta.org/funding/tnc-tax https://www.sfcta.org/funding/tnc-tax

vuln 4y ago

Fines? For stopping traffic? Hahahahhahaha. You can steal ~899$ worth of shit and the cops don’t show up. Open air drug markets, people shitting in the streets, thousands of homeless people. But yeah let’s pontificate about fines for someone disrupting traffic. You gonna fine the person that runs out of gas, causes an accident or just mechanically breaks down?

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>You gonna fine the person that runs out of gas, causes an accident or just mechanically breaks down? I'm much more interested in fining the crap out of the people who don't have an "excuse" for their bad traffic performance.
- vuln 4y ago
  Who is the judge of the “excuse”? What you’re talking about is a two tiered justice system. Just because xyz conglomerate causes an issues “zomg fine them1!1!1!1” but when it’s someone that runs out of gas or mechanically breaks down “well they’re poor so it can slide”. This doesn’t work. You’ll waste more money prosecuting and collecting the fines from xyz conglomerate. If the poor person gets the fine too then it puts them in an even worse position. How do we know the poor person didn’t run out of gas intentionally hoping some Good Samaritan offers a couple gallons or road side assistance helps with a couple gallons paid for by tax payers.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    You're making this more complex than it actually is: the scenario in question is a self-driving car that's already known to the local government and is explicitly being used for testing/research purposes. It's difficult to imagine an innocent or unlucky citizen who would be ensnared in a fine structure designed to disincentivize traffic problems caused by experimental self-driving cars.
lm28469 4y ago
I think you read to fast or are projecting. OP clearly refers to a fee on autonomous car companies using public infra as a testing ground. Causing traffic jam is but a tiny part of it