The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) and its bureaucratic allies are getting ready to make a daunting road ahead for everyday users of San Francisco’s downtown streets. They want to burden drivers with congestion pricing, which is meant to drive them out of their cars in favor of public transit. The idea was already rejected by the public just a few years ago.
Why is congestion pricing being reconsidered today? It’s been on the table since 2008 when the Board of Supervisors first commissioned a study. In 2021, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) — comprised of the Board of Supervisors at the time — held public workshops on the plan, which was met with significant opposition.
By the summer of 2026, SFMTA is projected to face a $320 million budget deficit. The SFCTA board recently brought up congestion pricing at their meeting on March 25. During that meeting, Chair Myrna Melgar shared that she, along with Supervisors Matt Dorsey and Chyanne Chen, took a trip to New York to learn about congestion pricing.
One of the handful of groups the three supervisors met with on their trip to New York was Partnership for New York City. Coincidentally, the Partnership for San Francisco was recently announced and formed by Mayor Lurie, who, with several influential and successful executives, will attempt to reenergize and bring people back to downtown and Union Square.
Behind the scenes, I would not be shocked if the newly formed alliance will contribute to a formal decision on whether congestion pricing will be implemented.
Congestion pricing would burden hard-working baristas, restaurant servers, security guards, hairdressers, construction workers, and others, many of whom barely stay afloat today.
During the March 25 SFCTA meeting, Melgar stated that traffic is down and business is up since congestion pricing went live in New York on Jan. 5; however, listen to a West Village restaurant owner interviewed on April 7. He might be forced to close due to a 10–50 percent increase in the cost of goods in cooking ingredients, thanks to a $9 fee that distributors must pay to deliver them to the restaurant, a $10 fee charged twice a week. While this is coming from one restaurant owner, the reality is that every person or business paying a fee will result in customers getting charged to cover the cost.
At the same meeting, Supervisor Dorsey mentioned that what makes an attractive program in today’s Lower Manhattan environment is different from the current situation in San Francisco – the obvious has never been clearer.
There is little to no traffic in downtown San Francisco today due to a lack of conferences, visitors, empty storefronts, and an office vacancy rate of 36.5 percent. Yet, one of the four goals of congestion pricing is to reduce traffic. For context, the San Francisco weekday (workday) population has been down by 160,000 people since 2019. Back to a 2010 level — great recruitment tactic to bring back office workers!
SFMTA and the SFCTA board continue to contradict their values of equity and equality. They don’t understand. Or choose to ignore what’s best for the majority of San Franciscans.
Congestion pricing would burden hard-working baristas, restaurant servers, security guards, hairdressers, construction workers, and others, many of whom are barely staying afloat today.
Other than being motivated to reduce automobile traffic, and continue the war on cars. Congestion pricing is the easy way out to combat a steadily projected increasing budget deficit; however, SFMTA doesn’t need more taxpayer money. SFMTA’s current budget is an increase of $260 (inflation-adjusted) million compared to 2010, when we had roughly the same population as today.
Stop with the pet projects, SFCTA board and SFMTA. Stop trying to squeeze more dollars out of hard-working San Franciscans. Lastly, take accountability and show fiscal responsibility. Get back to the basics! Every day, San Franciscans are pleading to you to focus solely on a reliable, clean, and safe Muni system.
The Voice welcomes submissions of unsolicited op-eds and letters to the editor. Acceptance and publication is solely the prerogative of The Voice; no payment is offered for op-eds and letters to the editor. Any opinions expressed in op-eds and letters to the editor are those solely of the writer(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Voice of San Francisco, its staff, contributors, sponsors, or donors. Send op-eds and letters to: Editor@thevoicesf.org.
