Community input last week on freeway tolling highlighted the uphill battle officials face in winning over commuters on the ease of using public transit and in enacting pricing policies that are both politically viable and compliant with the state’s greenhouse gas reduction targets.
The two public webinars hosted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Nov. 7 and Nov. 8 were part of the Next Generation Bay Area Freeways Study, an initiative started in 2022 that explores ways to reduce the number of highway vehicles and incentivize public transit usage.
While large-scale regional tolling would not occur for at least another decade, the study has still managed to garner strong feedback from Bay Area residents.
“We know going in that the very concept of pricing freeways is unpopular,” Metropolitan Transportation Commission spokesperson John Goodwin said. “People don’t like this idea … and based on feedback from the webinars, it’s still not a popular idea.”
The plan laid out during the webinars would entail a per-mile tolling structure between 10-30 cents on all freeway lanes with parallel transit service, such as BART or Caltrain. Because the aim is to disincentivize driving rather than generate revenue, tolls would not be in place during off-peak hours or on the weekends, according to staff.
The presentation also showed pricing options for low-income drivers and requested feedback on potential subsidies and exemptions. Preliminary results from participants indicated strongest support for either a full exemption or $30 monthly cap for those making below $55,000 a year.
Recommended for you
Staff also asked participants who drive to work what conditions would most incentivize them to consider taking public transit instead. The most popular response in one webinar indicated that there aren’t any factors that could make them seriously consider commuting via transit. Other popular responses showed that individuals would be more inclined to do so if there were more expansive transit routes and increased route frequency.
The stark feedback puts leaders in a tough spot, as the region is required to work toward a 19% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 2005 and 2035, per Senate Bill 375. Without a significant decrease in the number of vehicles on the road, the Bay Area is unlikely to meet the goal. Modeling predictions have shown that implementing freeway tolls alone would likely reduce emissions by about 3%.
“If we are serious about meeting the state targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then we also have to be serious about driving less, because the transition to electric vehicles isn’t going to happen fast enough to meet those targets,” Goodwin said.
The freeways study’s projected completion date is in the first half of 2024, and the findings will be presented to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Board of Directors.
“It’s important to note that this is a planning exercise, not a policy proposal. The MTC does not have the authority to impose tolls on freeways. That would require a change in state law,” Goodwin said.
This is hilarious, MTC spokesperson John Goodwin saying, “We know going in that the very concept of pricing freeways is unpopular.” Um, yes, what part of the “free” in freeways is hard to understand? Meanwhile, we have tolls on these same freeways that force folks to slow down and create more carbon emissions… We have trains and transit running at 100% capacity even though there are only enough riders to account for 50% (if even that) usage… contributing even more carbon. To me, it doesn’t sound at all that the MTC is looking to reduce emissions – it sounds like the MTC is looking for more money from the taxpayer ATM to pay for their ever increasing pensions and benefits. Ultimately, the bottom line is that as long as there’s a final mile issue, public transit will never be good enough. People have places to go and people to see, on their schedule.
Streets were always built for either one of two things: Commerce or Military. And throughout history good streets, roads, bridges often cost tolls. Then the "car-socialists" came along and pretended free driving is an "Equity" issue. But these leeches really just wanted highways to be free, so they called them 'Freeways'. Since then they expected to create air pollution for free, carbon emissions for free, parking for free, and many more car-socialism policies.
More people fit into a few Caltrain and Bart trains for cheaper than all of Bay Area highways combined. It would be cheaper and better to make Caltrain, SamTrans, Bart free and change 'freeway' users into toll-road users instead.
... if we just had better management in charge of these public transit organizations and the county, that would be a great way to go. Unfortunately "car-socialists" seem to be in major decision-making decisions and on public transit boards as well.
Where did you get the idea that car owners should now subject to the whims of bureaucrats? It should be the other way around. They are public servants and should make life amenable for us, including keeping our infrastructure spruced up. They don't get to call the shots, we are! They should all be fired if they keep this social engineering going. All of these regional boards should be dismantled and new charters should be established, with the understanding that they are there to serve us, not their presumptuous positions that they know better. I commuted for years with BART but needed to get to the BART station by car. BART is now a filthy mess and unreliable. Who in his/her right mind wants to put up with such a menace? Have you even tried the MUNI lately? The same, surly personnel, filthy slobs taking up many seats, and many non-paying riders. Wake up, our public transit systems need a lot of work before they are ready for your pipe dream.
You are correct, American bureaucrats are killing the public transportation systems, and these bureaucrats are car-people. The Bay Area has some 28 Transportation Agencies with little synchronization between their schedules - of course we should merge them down to more manageable numbers. It's funny how SamTrans people and County politicians call BART leadership incompetent now - talking about the pot calling the kettle black.
But still, why should car drivers NOT pay for all the infrastructure they are getting basically for free. Capitalism clearly requires a pay-per-use system. If you have a larger car, creating more pollution, making more damage, you should absolutely pay more to account for that damage.
If you promote Universal Free Car Care the only logical step is to also promote Universal Health Care to pay for and fix all the damage done by cars and drivers.
Easygerd, California and the Federal government do have a pay-per-use tax in the form of a gas tax. Larger vehicles pay more because they are not as fuel efficient, consequently they buy more gas. California has the second highest per gallon gas tax in the United States at .51 cents per gallon. Larger heavier vehicles do pay a higher vehicle license fee as well. On the other hand, electric vehicles use the same roads and freeways, and cause the same wear and tear as gasoline powered vehicles, yet they don't pay a gas tax. The proper decision is to charge electric vehicles $600 per year to cover the wear and tear they cause to California's roads and freeways.
We buy gas by the gallon but spent gas tax by the miles driven. Currently you pay ca. 3-4 cent per mile in gas taxes. You have to drive 10-20 years to just pay for the $5-10k it costs the city to repave the street in front of your house or rental home. Right from the start everybody is years behind in paying their infrastructure debt to society and basically can never make up for it.
A speed hump cost $5000, a STOP sign cost $2000, a traffic light cost $500,000 - to pay for all of this the gas tax would need to be at least 20 cent per mile and that doesn't even include the air pollution and carbon emissions and the costs resulting from that.
Or in other words, the US pays the smallest amount of gas tax compared to advanced economies, but has some of the highest infrastructure costs, because the US can't build stuff anymore.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(6) comments
This is hilarious, MTC spokesperson John Goodwin saying, “We know going in that the very concept of pricing freeways is unpopular.” Um, yes, what part of the “free” in freeways is hard to understand? Meanwhile, we have tolls on these same freeways that force folks to slow down and create more carbon emissions… We have trains and transit running at 100% capacity even though there are only enough riders to account for 50% (if even that) usage… contributing even more carbon. To me, it doesn’t sound at all that the MTC is looking to reduce emissions – it sounds like the MTC is looking for more money from the taxpayer ATM to pay for their ever increasing pensions and benefits. Ultimately, the bottom line is that as long as there’s a final mile issue, public transit will never be good enough. People have places to go and people to see, on their schedule.
Streets were always built for either one of two things: Commerce or Military. And throughout history good streets, roads, bridges often cost tolls. Then the "car-socialists" came along and pretended free driving is an "Equity" issue. But these leeches really just wanted highways to be free, so they called them 'Freeways'. Since then they expected to create air pollution for free, carbon emissions for free, parking for free, and many more car-socialism policies.
More people fit into a few Caltrain and Bart trains for cheaper than all of Bay Area highways combined. It would be cheaper and better to make Caltrain, SamTrans, Bart free and change 'freeway' users into toll-road users instead.
... if we just had better management in charge of these public transit organizations and the county, that would be a great way to go. Unfortunately "car-socialists" seem to be in major decision-making decisions and on public transit boards as well.
Where did you get the idea that car owners should now subject to the whims of bureaucrats? It should be the other way around. They are public servants and should make life amenable for us, including keeping our infrastructure spruced up. They don't get to call the shots, we are! They should all be fired if they keep this social engineering going. All of these regional boards should be dismantled and new charters should be established, with the understanding that they are there to serve us, not their presumptuous positions that they know better. I commuted for years with BART but needed to get to the BART station by car. BART is now a filthy mess and unreliable. Who in his/her right mind wants to put up with such a menace? Have you even tried the MUNI lately? The same, surly personnel, filthy slobs taking up many seats, and many non-paying riders. Wake up, our public transit systems need a lot of work before they are ready for your pipe dream.
You are correct, American bureaucrats are killing the public transportation systems, and these bureaucrats are car-people. The Bay Area has some 28 Transportation Agencies with little synchronization between their schedules - of course we should merge them down to more manageable numbers. It's funny how SamTrans people and County politicians call BART leadership incompetent now - talking about the pot calling the kettle black.
But still, why should car drivers NOT pay for all the infrastructure they are getting basically for free. Capitalism clearly requires a pay-per-use system. If you have a larger car, creating more pollution, making more damage, you should absolutely pay more to account for that damage.
If you promote Universal Free Car Care the only logical step is to also promote Universal Health Care to pay for and fix all the damage done by cars and drivers.
Easygerd, California and the Federal government do have a pay-per-use tax in the form of a gas tax. Larger vehicles pay more because they are not as fuel efficient, consequently they buy more gas. California has the second highest per gallon gas tax in the United States at .51 cents per gallon. Larger heavier vehicles do pay a higher vehicle license fee as well. On the other hand, electric vehicles use the same roads and freeways, and cause the same wear and tear as gasoline powered vehicles, yet they don't pay a gas tax. The proper decision is to charge electric vehicles $600 per year to cover the wear and tear they cause to California's roads and freeways.
We buy gas by the gallon but spent gas tax by the miles driven. Currently you pay ca. 3-4 cent per mile in gas taxes. You have to drive 10-20 years to just pay for the $5-10k it costs the city to repave the street in front of your house or rental home. Right from the start everybody is years behind in paying their infrastructure debt to society and basically can never make up for it.
A speed hump cost $5000, a STOP sign cost $2000, a traffic light cost $500,000 - to pay for all of this the gas tax would need to be at least 20 cent per mile and that doesn't even include the air pollution and carbon emissions and the costs resulting from that.
Or in other words, the US pays the smallest amount of gas tax compared to advanced economies, but has some of the highest infrastructure costs, because the US can't build stuff anymore.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.