3 ms·
Right. Which is why the only sane way to deal with traffic is to ramp up the tolls until the utilization falls below 90% or whatever the threshold is. I don't
by thrownaway2424 14y ago
Right. Which is why the only sane way to deal with traffic is to ramp up the tolls until the utilization falls below 90% or whatever the threshold is. I don't care if the rush hour toll on the Bay Bridge is $50. It will cost less, overall, than having thousands of people stuck in traffic for hours.
- MereInterest 14y agoOr, you know, investing in infrastructure where it is needed.
- hnriot 14y agoI think you're exaggerating somewhat disingenuously. I commute over the bay bridge and it generally flows well, "stuck for hours" just isn't realistic. It's already $5-$7 which seems quite enough given that I already pay local taxes which are supposed to be for infrastructure.
- Nitramp 14y agoAs there's no alternative in public transport (that I'm aware of), if you charge $50 to cross the bridge, you will make it impossible to work in SF for people living North and earning below a certain threshold. So these people will either have to move, or find a different job. That seems like a somewhat extreme outcome. Offering attractive alternatives to commuting by car might be a better way to reduce congestion on the roads.
- thrownaway2424 14y agoPublic transport (BART + AC Transit) already carries the majority of transbay traffic, so I don't understand your claim that there is no alternative to driving.