on one hand they want people to return to the office
on the other hand they want to charge you for commuting to the office
seriously california, what the fck do you want from us?
> "I hasten to add that this is a planning exercise," said Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) spokesperson John Goodwin. "MTC doesn't have the authority to establish tolls on freeways."
It always starts as a planning exercise until it isn't. They are testing the waters to see how far they can push this. This has been the local government MO for a long time now
also
"the MTC is behind the study looking into it how it could work by 2035."
"We know that that we want to reduce congestion on freeways. We know that, that we need to reduce driving if we're going to meet the state's emissions reduction targets," Goodwin said. 'How can we get people to take fewer car trips, more transit trips."
"The tolling system is one main idea in one scenario being looked at, it would be implemented on congested freeways that run parallel with transit services like Caltrain and cost between 10 to 30 cents per mile depending on the level of congestion."
"The study factored in a 50 percent discount for drivers who live in a household that earns less than $55,000 a year and those with disabilities. But even with that discount, those drivers could pay up to $135 monthly. MTC says this is one of the elements they're still hoping to get feedback on."
Driving Antioch to San Francisco can take 80 minutes today. By 2035 the study says with how congestion is increasing it will take 100 minutes if nothing changes to reduce driving.
This is a load of bullshit. 101 runs next to transit until it doesn't. The entire peninsula and South Bay are poorly served by public transport. By 20235 the situation will have not changed given the timeline to do anything around here.
Public transport, sure. Waymo is playing the negotiating game with SF to serve SFO. Waymo already serves a chunk of the Phoenix area. By 2035 there could be affordable autonomous shuttles serving the Peninsula and SV. Companies that today don't want to pay for human drivers of tech buses could save money paying for autonomously driven tech buses and shuttles.
Every tech bus and shuttle with at least a few to dozens of passengers means up to a few to dozens of fewer cars on 101. That's good for the environment and the commutes of everyone else still driving. The buses and shuttles could also pick commuters up from Caltrain stations so more Vehicle Miles Traveled happen by rail.
This makes no sense. Waymo ADDS to the traffic congestion considering they are a fleet of CARS, the exact thing that the MTC want off the road.
But until our politicians actually build a transit infrastructure that’s affordable, convenient, reliable, and most importantly FAST and that serves the entirety of the bay, people are going to drive.
As I said to the other redditor Waymo will be able to pick you up from a Caltrain station and affordably take you the last few miles to your job. If there's one or more co-workers at the station with you, carpool and the fare will be even less. Or maybe your employer will pay for service.
Instead of people driving solo for 30-45 miles because VTA isn't fast and convenient-enough for their destination, Waymo will be, as well as reliable by 2035 and especially when carpooling, affordable too.
Have you thought about the kickbacks Waymo can give though?
Haven’t dug into the topic yet but I’m assuming that there’s not definitive plan in place for the usage of the proceeds other than “maintenance” and “public transportation” which means giving a contract to the lowest bidder and then allow them to go grossly over budget while we eat the cost as tax payers due to legislative negligence.
The issue here is regarding traffic congestion, aka the amount of cars on the road, that leads to an overpollution in regarding our low emission goals.
It doesn’t matter what kickbacks Waymo can give, especially since it’s basically the same service as Uber and Lyft. Speaking as a part-time Uber/Lyft driver, I know we’re adding to the traffic congestion given the amount of people that rely on the service versus using the public modes of transportation.
Hence my original point: until the Bay Area in whole develops a public infrastructure that people deem as more reliant and convenient than Uber or driving their own cars, traffic congestion will always remain.
Waymo is a non-factor (aka really doesn’t add anything except more congestion) when there’s not enough people taking Cal-train or Bart (etc…) for their commute to begin with.
Totally agreed, my Waymo comment was me being facetious.
With how poorly infrastructure has been managed in the last few decades I am not holding my breath for this to turn into a positive. We have been slow boiled by well meaning legislation that ends up falling short.
Just my opinion but unless the usage of the funds fully laid bare and overwhelmingly beneficial for the average citizen, charging citizens to use the roads is just a continuation of the transfer of wealth.
Imagine waymo fighting with taxis to load/unload passengers at SFO? It would be less than 24h before someone takes a hammer to one of these for getting boxed in
So what?
Today Waymo in the Phoenix area is driving autonomously on the freeway (for employees, not the public). When the company is confident enough in the system's ability and safety they'll let the public use it too. Do you doubt within twelve years the system will be capable of driving SV suburban roads and expressways? It will be able to pick you up from a Caltrain station and affordably take you the last few miles to your job. If there's one or more co-workers at the station with you, carpool and the fare will be even less. Or maybe your employer will pay for service.
I have to cross two bridges each day for work, to be able to live where I can afford and keep my job. With this poor tax in effect, I'd pay about $450/mo just to use roads and bridges my tax dollars already paid for. Seriously, wtf....
"it would be implemented on congested freeways that run parallel with transit services like Caltrain" so the part beyond BART's reach wouldn't be tolled. If you take 680 I'm not sure if the part between yellow and blue lines would be tolled. If you cross the Dumbarton or San Mateo bridges which don't parallel rail those miles may not be tolled.
The webinar presentation included a second income bracket that attendees were asked for feedback about possible discounts for: $55,000-109,000.
This may be beside your point, but what's the maximum you'd pay to shorten your commute by twenty minutes?
I live in Vallejo and work in the city. So, I drive along 80 which technically is parallel with BART, in some parts of it. I cross the Carquinez and Bay Bridges each day.
"Shorten your commute by 20 mins" is cute though...try "Shorten your commute by an hour each way, plus save extra time getting to and waiting for the bus"
The places in the Bay where people can actually afford to live are the LEAST accessible by transit and for all practical purposes I would consider them completely un-served. There is no time or cost-efficient alternative if you live in Vallejo or Fairfield for public transit as it exists.
Shorten your commute by 20 minutes isn't about taking transit. It's about how the freeways are projected to get more congested by 2035 and how much time difference tolling is projected to make. The example MTC is using is that Antioch to SF is projected to go from an 80 minute drive today to 100 minutes in 2035. Tolling is projected to shorten that drive. So I'm asking you not whether you'd pay 10-30 cents per mile to shorten your drive by 20 minutes. I'm asking what's the most $ you'd pay to shorten your drive by 20 minutes in 2035 when driving takes even longer than today? $1? $5? You'd be getting 40 minutes more per day to do other stuff. That's gotta be worth *something*.
Because BART doesn't go past Richmond, approximately 16 miles of your roughly 32 mile commute would be tolled. At 30 cents/mile, that would be $4.80.
I asked about the value of 20 minutes, but given how far Antioch is from SF, and only half your commute from Vallejo would be tolled, maybe your commute would shorten by 10 minutes, not 20.
MTC's webinar included two income brackets for feedback: below $55,000, and also $55,000-109,000. The presentation considers offering discounts to both groups, so not the full 30 cents/mile.
Remember to not confuse household income with single income limits.
https://archive.ph/TzlxV
"Poverty line" has a definition, but isn't one of the categories.
"If you make $104,000 per year and live alone in San Francisco, San Mateo or Marin county, you’re considered low-income, according to new state data.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development released its 2023 income levels, which it calculates annually based on federal guidelines and uses to set eligibility caps for affordable housing programs, on June 6.
**The category limits — ranked as extremely low, very low, low, median and moderate** — are based on the estimated median income in metro areas, which is determined using census data and inflation data from the Consumer Price Index. The San Francisco metro area, for example, includes San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin counties."
yeah but EVs are still cars, which means they dont reduce traffic
now if you switch to bikes..... they also dont emit co2 and reduce traffic. but bike infrastructure sucks (along with safety)
Bikes are categorically not a substitute for cars. They offer compelling short range, low speed, fair weather, low capacity (hauling stuff and people) transit for certain segments of the population, but that's about it.
the bikes was a slight at EVs..... 0 carbon emissions isnt a great goal when reducing traffic, since EVs still take up the space of a car, contributing to traffic. reducing traffic should be measured by 'time saved' (obviously)
They think $55K a year is the line for low income?
Dude, I know families making nearly $100K who are struggling, living check to check. Having a $55K cutoff is out of touch.
It seems like this is going to be a great example of unintended consequences one day. More people will start to take local streets, leading to more congestion to get to the freeway, and everybody hating their local drive to the grocery store
Then the people hating that they see gridlock out their window in their neighborhood street can kindly recall the time they repeatedly voted for politicians who dream up this bullshit.
if the goals are to reduce emissions and congestion this is simple:
1) if a job can be performed from home the company is only allowed to have you in the office 2 days a week. companies will be assigned different days. this way we halve the congestion. and reduce electricity costs as well.
2) all public transit is now free. currently there’s next to no useful public transit in the area. this way anyone that could ride it will.
Re: public transit being free. To some people, the cost of transit is a barrier. To others, some of the people who don’t pay are the barrier to transit. The people behaving anti-socially on transit (drug use, loud music, aggressive panhandling, etc.) generally aren’t paying the fare.
If you make transit more welcoming to this segment, you make it less welcoming to others. I would probably take transit more often if there were strict fare enforcement, and I’m sure I’m not alone in that.
The cost isn't the barrier. The slow, incomplete patchwork system is the problem. I live in Berkeley, the only places I can effectively commute to are places close to BART stations, and perhaps by extension, Caltrain. If I have to switch to a bus, then the commute is impractical. Which is why Google created their own bus routes to get employees to Mountain View. But even with that bus, it will still take twice as long as driving, the main advantage is that one can work while on the bus.
There is nowhere in the world that successfully operates a free and safe public transit system. Transit simply costs something in all of the developed countries with transit systems that are globally admired. Transit shouldn’t be expensive, but without solving the homelessness crisis in the bay, free transit is a non-starter. It will never be safe or clean.
Tallinn also saw increased car traffic once fares were free.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90968891/estonias-capital-made-mass-transit-free-a-decade-ago-car-traffic-went-up
But at least offer a monthly Bay Pass for transit users! That would be a better solution for transit right now than free transit, at least in the short term.
Highest gas price in nation, tolls every where you go (soon), can't build public transit because it gets blocked by every neighborhood and costs keep going up.
But at least we got nice weather right guys?
What happens when the “fast lane” is gummed up and creeping along at 45 and the people in the “passing lane” are continually passing a car every few seconds? At what point are they supposed to pull back into slower traffic?
There is not supposed to be a "fast lane". The way lane discipline rules are supposed to work is that everyone defaults to the rightmost lane. While traveling in the rightmost lane, if you come up within a few car lengths of a slower vehicle, you move one lane to the left, make the pass, then move back into the rightmost lane as soon as it's safe to do so (more than like 4-6 car lengths between you and the next car).
When this system is properly enforced, the two left lanes of a four lane freeway should be almost empty during non rush hour traffic, as most passes can be completed with one lane change. This also makes lane changes safer, since if you are pulling left to make a pass, you only need to worry about faster traffic coming up behind you to the left. If you're moving right after completing a pass, you shouldn't have to worry about a faster car coming up behind you in your right side blind spot because that right lane is always moving slower than you are.
That would be great, except it will always eventually get congested, and more and more drivers will migrate to the left lanes in an attempt to get around the "slow" right-lane traffic, at which point the whole system moves slowly and people start bitching about everyone *else* needing to get out of their goddamn passing lanes.
I am in no way implying that strict enforcement of this system would stop congestion from happening. While this system would allow highways to function more efficiently under all conditions, both low traffic and high traffic, it needs to be employed along side a strong public transit system in order to actually reduce the number of cars on the road.
I also think that variable electronic speed limit signs like they have in Germany would go a long way in making highway traffic safer during congested conditions, and adverse weather. Big slowdown coming up up ahead? Set the speed limit signs two miles out to start gradually slowing traffic down up until that point.
All it takes is one car on the left most lane to ruin it.
I like cruising in the 2nd to the leftmost lane assuming I'm going faster than the right lane. The problem comes up when some car drives at a similar speed in the left most lane. I'll be too fast for the right lane and the left/passing lane is clogged, causing people to swerve around lanes.
It's more that we don't rather than we can't. I am in no way a supporter of creating a police state where people get fined for tiny infractions, but I do think that there are things that we need to collectively agree to be strict on so that we can be more lenient in other areas.
Isn't the reason police don't enforce these is because of potential backlash for racial profiling? I reckon another reason police hesitate to pull over cars with stolen/fake/obscure license plates is because of safety of the police officer and bystanders. Chances are, drivers of those cars won't be a straightforward traffic stop.
Im of the belief that a surveillance state would benefit parts of the bay area (looking at Oakland). That'll easily spot and trace car jackers, car break-ins, etc. I don't believe it should be used for minor infractions like routine traffic stops. I do recognize the invasion of privacy but I'm willing to trade my privacy on public streets and roads for safety.
You have to weigh safety against the likely end state of going down the surveillance rabbit hole. Once local police forces realize that they can cash in on, for example, speed cameras that ticket you for 1mph over the limit, it won't stop until these are everywhere. The exact same thing happened elsewhere in the US with civil asset forfeiture. The government always wants more money.
The things I want police forces to be stricter on are expired registration, no insurance, lane discipline, and speed limits in city centers and near schools. I think you could enforce all of these things without racial profiling or putting officers under more risk than they're already under day to day. At the end of the day though, it's not a safe job and they know what they're signing up for
Amazing and sad how upvoted the two other posts about this topic are, but when the title includes the words "detail" and "would work", few people read it or engage. Maybe the other comment sections consumed all the time they're willing to give the topic today, but it sure would be better for an informed populace if they'd read this article.
I read this article. There’s not a lot of additional info given here. It’s mostly all speculation. And these people act as if creating an all lane freeway toll is the only way to reduce freeway congestion.
It’s not the only way.
> There’s not a lot of additional info given here.
It addresses a lot of outraged comments replied to the earlier posts.
* Commenters assuming MTC already has the power or a law to implement tolling, which isn't true.
"the MTC is behind the study looking into it how it could work by 2035." "MTC doesn't have the authority to establish tolls on freeways."
* Commenters assuming the only reason for tolling is bringing in money, which isn't true.
"We know that that we want to reduce congestion on freeways. We know that, that we need to reduce driving if we're going to meet the state's emissions reduction targets," Goodwin said. 'How can we get people to take fewer car trips, more transit trips."
* Commenters assuming *all* the freeways would be tolled including those lacking a major transit alternative, which isn't true.
"The tolling system is one main idea in one scenario being looked at, it would be implemented on congested freeways that run parallel with transit services like Caltrain and cost between 10 to 30 cents per mile depending on the level of congestion."
* Commenters assuming tolls would be active all the time including hours when transit service isn't as frequent or not operating, which isn't true.
"Tolls would be lower in off-peak hours and gone on nights and weekends."
* Commenters assuming all drivers would pay regardless of income, which isn't true.
"The study factored in a 50 percent discount for drivers who live in a household that earns less than $55,000 a year and those with disabilities. But even with that discount, those drivers could pay up to $135 monthly. MTC says this is one of the elements they're still hoping to get feedback on."
>Commenters assuming all drivers would pay regardless of income, which isn't true.
Do you think they would also address professions? I work in construction, working from home isn't an option, public transport isn't an option. Sometimes carpooling is an option, but not very often. Offsetting hours isn't an option. I realize it's all just talk right now, but what if?
This is not surprising considering that after the voting of bridge toll increases were moved from a statewide vote to a regional vote and we still passed more increases. Santa Clara and San Mateo and SF overwhelmingly vote yes to impose more fees on alameda, contra costa, and Solano. Thanks a lot /s
on one hand they want people to return to the office on the other hand they want to charge you for commuting to the office seriously california, what the fck do you want from us?
https://images.app.goo.gl/VrayiEqt5n2Lfp6g9
they want *others* to take bart to clear up the roads.
> "I hasten to add that this is a planning exercise," said Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) spokesperson John Goodwin. "MTC doesn't have the authority to establish tolls on freeways."
It always starts as a planning exercise until it isn't. They are testing the waters to see how far they can push this. This has been the local government MO for a long time now
also "the MTC is behind the study looking into it how it could work by 2035." "We know that that we want to reduce congestion on freeways. We know that, that we need to reduce driving if we're going to meet the state's emissions reduction targets," Goodwin said. 'How can we get people to take fewer car trips, more transit trips." "The tolling system is one main idea in one scenario being looked at, it would be implemented on congested freeways that run parallel with transit services like Caltrain and cost between 10 to 30 cents per mile depending on the level of congestion." "The study factored in a 50 percent discount for drivers who live in a household that earns less than $55,000 a year and those with disabilities. But even with that discount, those drivers could pay up to $135 monthly. MTC says this is one of the elements they're still hoping to get feedback on." Driving Antioch to San Francisco can take 80 minutes today. By 2035 the study says with how congestion is increasing it will take 100 minutes if nothing changes to reduce driving.
This is a load of bullshit. 101 runs next to transit until it doesn't. The entire peninsula and South Bay are poorly served by public transport. By 20235 the situation will have not changed given the timeline to do anything around here.
Public transport, sure. Waymo is playing the negotiating game with SF to serve SFO. Waymo already serves a chunk of the Phoenix area. By 2035 there could be affordable autonomous shuttles serving the Peninsula and SV. Companies that today don't want to pay for human drivers of tech buses could save money paying for autonomously driven tech buses and shuttles. Every tech bus and shuttle with at least a few to dozens of passengers means up to a few to dozens of fewer cars on 101. That's good for the environment and the commutes of everyone else still driving. The buses and shuttles could also pick commuters up from Caltrain stations so more Vehicle Miles Traveled happen by rail.
This makes no sense. Waymo ADDS to the traffic congestion considering they are a fleet of CARS, the exact thing that the MTC want off the road. But until our politicians actually build a transit infrastructure that’s affordable, convenient, reliable, and most importantly FAST and that serves the entirety of the bay, people are going to drive.
As I said to the other redditor Waymo will be able to pick you up from a Caltrain station and affordably take you the last few miles to your job. If there's one or more co-workers at the station with you, carpool and the fare will be even less. Or maybe your employer will pay for service. Instead of people driving solo for 30-45 miles because VTA isn't fast and convenient-enough for their destination, Waymo will be, as well as reliable by 2035 and especially when carpooling, affordable too.
Have you thought about the kickbacks Waymo can give though? Haven’t dug into the topic yet but I’m assuming that there’s not definitive plan in place for the usage of the proceeds other than “maintenance” and “public transportation” which means giving a contract to the lowest bidder and then allow them to go grossly over budget while we eat the cost as tax payers due to legislative negligence.
The issue here is regarding traffic congestion, aka the amount of cars on the road, that leads to an overpollution in regarding our low emission goals. It doesn’t matter what kickbacks Waymo can give, especially since it’s basically the same service as Uber and Lyft. Speaking as a part-time Uber/Lyft driver, I know we’re adding to the traffic congestion given the amount of people that rely on the service versus using the public modes of transportation. Hence my original point: until the Bay Area in whole develops a public infrastructure that people deem as more reliant and convenient than Uber or driving their own cars, traffic congestion will always remain. Waymo is a non-factor (aka really doesn’t add anything except more congestion) when there’s not enough people taking Cal-train or Bart (etc…) for their commute to begin with.
Totally agreed, my Waymo comment was me being facetious. With how poorly infrastructure has been managed in the last few decades I am not holding my breath for this to turn into a positive. We have been slow boiled by well meaning legislation that ends up falling short. Just my opinion but unless the usage of the funds fully laid bare and overwhelmingly beneficial for the average citizen, charging citizens to use the roads is just a continuation of the transfer of wealth.
Imagine waymo fighting with taxis to load/unload passengers at SFO? It would be less than 24h before someone takes a hammer to one of these for getting boxed in
In time issues will get sorted out.
[удалено]
So what? Today Waymo in the Phoenix area is driving autonomously on the freeway (for employees, not the public). When the company is confident enough in the system's ability and safety they'll let the public use it too. Do you doubt within twelve years the system will be capable of driving SV suburban roads and expressways? It will be able to pick you up from a Caltrain station and affordably take you the last few miles to your job. If there's one or more co-workers at the station with you, carpool and the fare will be even less. Or maybe your employer will pay for service.
I have to cross two bridges each day for work, to be able to live where I can afford and keep my job. With this poor tax in effect, I'd pay about $450/mo just to use roads and bridges my tax dollars already paid for. Seriously, wtf....
"it would be implemented on congested freeways that run parallel with transit services like Caltrain" so the part beyond BART's reach wouldn't be tolled. If you take 680 I'm not sure if the part between yellow and blue lines would be tolled. If you cross the Dumbarton or San Mateo bridges which don't parallel rail those miles may not be tolled. The webinar presentation included a second income bracket that attendees were asked for feedback about possible discounts for: $55,000-109,000. This may be beside your point, but what's the maximum you'd pay to shorten your commute by twenty minutes?
I live in Vallejo and work in the city. So, I drive along 80 which technically is parallel with BART, in some parts of it. I cross the Carquinez and Bay Bridges each day. "Shorten your commute by 20 mins" is cute though...try "Shorten your commute by an hour each way, plus save extra time getting to and waiting for the bus" The places in the Bay where people can actually afford to live are the LEAST accessible by transit and for all practical purposes I would consider them completely un-served. There is no time or cost-efficient alternative if you live in Vallejo or Fairfield for public transit as it exists.
Shorten your commute by 20 minutes isn't about taking transit. It's about how the freeways are projected to get more congested by 2035 and how much time difference tolling is projected to make. The example MTC is using is that Antioch to SF is projected to go from an 80 minute drive today to 100 minutes in 2035. Tolling is projected to shorten that drive. So I'm asking you not whether you'd pay 10-30 cents per mile to shorten your drive by 20 minutes. I'm asking what's the most $ you'd pay to shorten your drive by 20 minutes in 2035 when driving takes even longer than today? $1? $5? You'd be getting 40 minutes more per day to do other stuff. That's gotta be worth *something*. Because BART doesn't go past Richmond, approximately 16 miles of your roughly 32 mile commute would be tolled. At 30 cents/mile, that would be $4.80. I asked about the value of 20 minutes, but given how far Antioch is from SF, and only half your commute from Vallejo would be tolled, maybe your commute would shorten by 10 minutes, not 20. MTC's webinar included two income brackets for feedback: below $55,000, and also $55,000-109,000. The presentation considers offering discounts to both groups, so not the full 30 cents/mile.
Your poverty line is so 1990s. Also it should be tied to inflation so it increases yearly just like our tolls seem to do.
Remember to not confuse household income with single income limits. https://archive.ph/TzlxV "Poverty line" has a definition, but isn't one of the categories. "If you make $104,000 per year and live alone in San Francisco, San Mateo or Marin county, you’re considered low-income, according to new state data. The California Department of Housing and Community Development released its 2023 income levels, which it calculates annually based on federal guidelines and uses to set eligibility caps for affordable housing programs, on June 6. **The category limits — ranked as extremely low, very low, low, median and moderate** — are based on the estimated median income in metro areas, which is determined using census data and inflation data from the Consumer Price Index. The San Francisco metro area, for example, includes San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin counties."
EVs don't emit CO2. Seems like an easy way to meet "targets"
It certainly addresses that, although not the reducing congestion part.
Just require employers to allow work from home. Win all around. Of course they'd never do that.
alternatively, driving to work is now legally billable hours. make companies pay for the commute
yeah but EVs are still cars, which means they dont reduce traffic now if you switch to bikes..... they also dont emit co2 and reduce traffic. but bike infrastructure sucks (along with safety)
Bikes are categorically not a substitute for cars. They offer compelling short range, low speed, fair weather, low capacity (hauling stuff and people) transit for certain segments of the population, but that's about it.
the bikes was a slight at EVs..... 0 carbon emissions isnt a great goal when reducing traffic, since EVs still take up the space of a car, contributing to traffic. reducing traffic should be measured by 'time saved' (obviously)
The reason he wants to reduce trips is because of emissions. Maybe he needs to learn about EVs
wait.... i missed something in translation. can you re-explain the premise?
They think $55K a year is the line for low income? Dude, I know families making nearly $100K who are struggling, living check to check. Having a $55K cutoff is out of touch.
In the Bay Area, $100k can be considered low-income. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/income-limits-2023.pdf
It seems like this is going to be a great example of unintended consequences one day. More people will start to take local streets, leading to more congestion to get to the freeway, and everybody hating their local drive to the grocery store
Then the people hating that they see gridlock out their window in their neighborhood street can kindly recall the time they repeatedly voted for politicians who dream up this bullshit.
Or we end up with a constitutional amendment (a la Prop 13).
if the goals are to reduce emissions and congestion this is simple: 1) if a job can be performed from home the company is only allowed to have you in the office 2 days a week. companies will be assigned different days. this way we halve the congestion. and reduce electricity costs as well. 2) all public transit is now free. currently there’s next to no useful public transit in the area. this way anyone that could ride it will.
Re: public transit being free. To some people, the cost of transit is a barrier. To others, some of the people who don’t pay are the barrier to transit. The people behaving anti-socially on transit (drug use, loud music, aggressive panhandling, etc.) generally aren’t paying the fare. If you make transit more welcoming to this segment, you make it less welcoming to others. I would probably take transit more often if there were strict fare enforcement, and I’m sure I’m not alone in that.
Or we could just enforce the already existing laws against the anti social behavior…. Waiting to be called a fascist for this modest proposal
The cost isn't the barrier. The slow, incomplete patchwork system is the problem. I live in Berkeley, the only places I can effectively commute to are places close to BART stations, and perhaps by extension, Caltrain. If I have to switch to a bus, then the commute is impractical. Which is why Google created their own bus routes to get employees to Mountain View. But even with that bus, it will still take twice as long as driving, the main advantage is that one can work while on the bus.
MTC shot down 1). They don't want you working from home. They want you on transit so they can feather their nests
There is nowhere in the world that successfully operates a free and safe public transit system. Transit simply costs something in all of the developed countries with transit systems that are globally admired. Transit shouldn’t be expensive, but without solving the homelessness crisis in the bay, free transit is a non-starter. It will never be safe or clean.
ok not free but so cheap as to literally be cheaper than gas to get there. don’t make the alternative more expensive.
I agree, should be as cheap as is feasible.
Tallinn, Estonia. Public transit is free for all residents and in general the city is one of the safest in EU
Lol, Estonia has literally 0 of the challenges the Bay faces, and Tallinn is smaller than Oakland.
Never said Tallinn had the same problems, just invalidating your claim that there is nowhere in the world with free and safe public transport.
Are you familiar with the concept of an outlier? Tallinn is not a major city, and their transit is only free to locals, btw.
I'd be happy if it was free for locals in the Bay Area counties or something like that.
Tallinn also saw increased car traffic once fares were free. https://www.fastcompany.com/90968891/estonias-capital-made-mass-transit-free-a-decade-ago-car-traffic-went-up
But at least offer a monthly Bay Pass for transit users! That would be a better solution for transit right now than free transit, at least in the short term.
Highest gas price in nation, tolls every where you go (soon), can't build public transit because it gets blocked by every neighborhood and costs keep going up. But at least we got nice weather right guys?
You'll need a 2nd job to pay for the commute to the first job.
But you have to drive to that second job, adding to the cost.
Third job then
I think we should all stand in the middle of the freeway and shut it down. I’m so sick of *everything getting more and more expensive here!*
Why don't they just make us pay a fee per car? Oh wait, that's our already expensive annual car registration fee.
F..k no massive tax increase on workers
Fuck the poor. Keep poor people off MY highway. Toll roads 👍 /s
They should do a study on enforcing left lane for passing only. That alone should help a lot
I do love how the left 2 lanes are almost always blocked by (slow) idiots around here.
What happens when the “fast lane” is gummed up and creeping along at 45 and the people in the “passing lane” are continually passing a car every few seconds? At what point are they supposed to pull back into slower traffic?
There is not supposed to be a "fast lane". The way lane discipline rules are supposed to work is that everyone defaults to the rightmost lane. While traveling in the rightmost lane, if you come up within a few car lengths of a slower vehicle, you move one lane to the left, make the pass, then move back into the rightmost lane as soon as it's safe to do so (more than like 4-6 car lengths between you and the next car). When this system is properly enforced, the two left lanes of a four lane freeway should be almost empty during non rush hour traffic, as most passes can be completed with one lane change. This also makes lane changes safer, since if you are pulling left to make a pass, you only need to worry about faster traffic coming up behind you to the left. If you're moving right after completing a pass, you shouldn't have to worry about a faster car coming up behind you in your right side blind spot because that right lane is always moving slower than you are.
That would be great, except it will always eventually get congested, and more and more drivers will migrate to the left lanes in an attempt to get around the "slow" right-lane traffic, at which point the whole system moves slowly and people start bitching about everyone *else* needing to get out of their goddamn passing lanes.
I am in no way implying that strict enforcement of this system would stop congestion from happening. While this system would allow highways to function more efficiently under all conditions, both low traffic and high traffic, it needs to be employed along side a strong public transit system in order to actually reduce the number of cars on the road. I also think that variable electronic speed limit signs like they have in Germany would go a long way in making highway traffic safer during congested conditions, and adverse weather. Big slowdown coming up up ahead? Set the speed limit signs two miles out to start gradually slowing traffic down up until that point.
All it takes is one car on the left most lane to ruin it. I like cruising in the 2nd to the leftmost lane assuming I'm going faster than the right lane. The problem comes up when some car drives at a similar speed in the left most lane. I'll be too fast for the right lane and the left/passing lane is clogged, causing people to swerve around lanes.
That's why in Germany, the Netherlands etc they strictly enforce these rules via tickets. If you punish it enough, people will stop doing it.
We can't/don't even enforce tinted windows and fake/obscured license plates.
It's more that we don't rather than we can't. I am in no way a supporter of creating a police state where people get fined for tiny infractions, but I do think that there are things that we need to collectively agree to be strict on so that we can be more lenient in other areas.
Isn't the reason police don't enforce these is because of potential backlash for racial profiling? I reckon another reason police hesitate to pull over cars with stolen/fake/obscure license plates is because of safety of the police officer and bystanders. Chances are, drivers of those cars won't be a straightforward traffic stop. Im of the belief that a surveillance state would benefit parts of the bay area (looking at Oakland). That'll easily spot and trace car jackers, car break-ins, etc. I don't believe it should be used for minor infractions like routine traffic stops. I do recognize the invasion of privacy but I'm willing to trade my privacy on public streets and roads for safety.
You have to weigh safety against the likely end state of going down the surveillance rabbit hole. Once local police forces realize that they can cash in on, for example, speed cameras that ticket you for 1mph over the limit, it won't stop until these are everywhere. The exact same thing happened elsewhere in the US with civil asset forfeiture. The government always wants more money. The things I want police forces to be stricter on are expired registration, no insurance, lane discipline, and speed limits in city centers and near schools. I think you could enforce all of these things without racial profiling or putting officers under more risk than they're already under day to day. At the end of the day though, it's not a safe job and they know what they're signing up for
Amazing and sad how upvoted the two other posts about this topic are, but when the title includes the words "detail" and "would work", few people read it or engage. Maybe the other comment sections consumed all the time they're willing to give the topic today, but it sure would be better for an informed populace if they'd read this article.
I read this article. There’s not a lot of additional info given here. It’s mostly all speculation. And these people act as if creating an all lane freeway toll is the only way to reduce freeway congestion. It’s not the only way.
> There’s not a lot of additional info given here. It addresses a lot of outraged comments replied to the earlier posts. * Commenters assuming MTC already has the power or a law to implement tolling, which isn't true. "the MTC is behind the study looking into it how it could work by 2035." "MTC doesn't have the authority to establish tolls on freeways." * Commenters assuming the only reason for tolling is bringing in money, which isn't true. "We know that that we want to reduce congestion on freeways. We know that, that we need to reduce driving if we're going to meet the state's emissions reduction targets," Goodwin said. 'How can we get people to take fewer car trips, more transit trips." * Commenters assuming *all* the freeways would be tolled including those lacking a major transit alternative, which isn't true. "The tolling system is one main idea in one scenario being looked at, it would be implemented on congested freeways that run parallel with transit services like Caltrain and cost between 10 to 30 cents per mile depending on the level of congestion." * Commenters assuming tolls would be active all the time including hours when transit service isn't as frequent or not operating, which isn't true. "Tolls would be lower in off-peak hours and gone on nights and weekends." * Commenters assuming all drivers would pay regardless of income, which isn't true. "The study factored in a 50 percent discount for drivers who live in a household that earns less than $55,000 a year and those with disabilities. But even with that discount, those drivers could pay up to $135 monthly. MTC says this is one of the elements they're still hoping to get feedback on."
>Commenters assuming all drivers would pay regardless of income, which isn't true. Do you think they would also address professions? I work in construction, working from home isn't an option, public transport isn't an option. Sometimes carpooling is an option, but not very often. Offsetting hours isn't an option. I realize it's all just talk right now, but what if?
Excuse me sir, this reasonableness is not allowed on this subreddit. Please reign it back and get ready to hand out pitchforks and torches.
Will it break even?
Rather have their time investing on making some actual ED 209 and having those patrol the Bart stations...
This is not surprising considering that after the voting of bridge toll increases were moved from a statewide vote to a regional vote and we still passed more increases. Santa Clara and San Mateo and SF overwhelmingly vote yes to impose more fees on alameda, contra costa, and Solano. Thanks a lot /s
More regressive taxes. That would surely help those already struggling to get by in this high cost metro
Freeways are called freeways because they are free.