San Francisco Taxi with Photoshopped Blue Angels in Sky

It’s been a long time since I’ve taxi blogged.

I drove last Saturday for the first time in a few weeks. I’ve been working dispatch phones and doing VidSF work instead of driving over the past few weeks.

Novel-length post after the break.

• I love the feeling of getting back on the road after such a long time off driving. The routine of adjusting my mirrors, seat, radio (yes, NPR), dispatch radio, logging into the VeriFone, all while driving down Selby Street on my way to the Mission to start hunting for early weekend fares (or the super late-night drunks). Paradise.
• This past weekend was so incredibly packed with events that it was tough to get a car. The cashier had vancab available. Not my favorite vehicle (that’d be the indisputable champion Toyota Camry Hybrid followed closely by the Ford Escape Hybrid), but I’ve logged so many hours with Chrysler’s Dodge Caravan that I’ve come to embrace its shortcomings, such as the notoriously frustrating sliding door handle. Businessmen and grandmothers alike scorn this poorly designed lever. Daimler surely had no say on this one.
• I drove around for at least a half-hour before finding my first fare — a radio call from a lower Pac Heights hotel. I was surprised to find a very young Asian woman waiting for me. She quickly jumped in the cab and handed me a Google Maps itinerary. She was heading out to Visitacion Valley to take her SATs.

  As we flew down Gough to the 101 I thought back to my trip to take my SATs. How did I get there? What was I thinking? What was I listening to? 1989 Honda Accord, how much I hadn’t prepared, NPR’s Weekend Edition. I had an odd satisfaction knowing my fare would also have echoes of Scott Simon while filling in bubbles.

  I was surprised at the minivan traffic congestion as we neared Phillip Burton High School. I guess parents want to drive their kids to life-changing events, not wanting to risk Muni. I wanted to tell her she’ll do great and get a 1600, but I realized that they don’t score like that anymore and I felt old.

• Many dozens of minutes later I found a gaggle of male yuppies at Union and Larkin heading to the President’s Cup at Harding Park. I started to appreciate the vancab — room for 6 with luggage.

  I over’ed the dispatcher, Larry, to see if he knew the approved drop point. Working the dispatch phones earlier in the week I remembered the SFMTA’s DPT had planned out approved drop points. Larry gave me his best guess for cross streets and I plotted a course in my head. I love the fog in the Sunset on a weekend morning.

  As we approached the park I saw an armada of tiny, blue, three-wheeled vehicles. Gosh, I thought, my DPT friends from the SFMTA will surely be glad to see me and my passengers, especially now that San Francisco taxis are regulated under the same agency. I’m diligently performing my duties as an essential part of our City’s diverse transportation infrastructure.

  To my surprise, or maybe not, my DPT friends were not friendly, nor did they successfully direct me to a designated zone for dropping off my passengers. The first DPT officer waved me forward out of annoyance as I slowed to ask where I should drop, as did the second. Unfortunately, this process continued until I was about to clear any reasonable walking distance for my passengers. I was unable to do a u-turn because of the concrete median on Lake Merced Blvd, and the street had no shoulder. As traffic flows very quickly around tight curves, I did not feel it prudent to stop in a thru-lane.

  I was thus left with no other alternative than to pull perpendicularly into an exit-only curb-cut. As my passengers paid and exited the vehicle (at a reasonably quick pace given the fast card processing magic of VeriFone Transportation Systems) DPT officers approached me from all sides and started to yell. Oh my, a “SPECIAL” Muni shuttle, with no passengers on board (is that what “SPECIAL” means?) was approaching the exit-only curb-cut at a deadly 2 miles per hour, striking fear in the hearts of parking enforcement professionals in the immediate area.

  Look, SFMTA, let’s make a deal here. If you bank the City $495,533,925 from a transferable medallion scheme, can you use a small portion of that to actually administer the entity from which that revenue is generated? Specifically, please plan for drop-off and pickup points for taxis and inform your salaried employees of these plans. It will make the lives of your residents, taxi drivers and dispatchers much easier. Thanks.

• I picked up a fare from California and Polk heading to Noe Valley. White female, mid-30′s, eccentric in dress and speech. She jumped in the front seat, presumably as a silent protest against Chrysler’s sliding door handle design, and started a conversation about her friend in her late 40′s who decided against better judgment to embark on a career change to become an MD. Her friend will in her late 50′s before practicing. Wow.
• My vancab scored me a number of fares for which I’d otherwise be ineligible had I been driving my favorite sedan hybrid. Yes, the math usually works out such that despite gas savings on the hybrids, I’d make more money with a vancab, especially on the weekends because of the group fares. (And yes, I’m spelling vancab as one word. Deal with it.)
• On the way back from an airport run I scored thanks to the vancab, I picked up an RV park call. For the uninitiated, it’s near Candlestick Park on the way back from SFO. Nirvina in cab-land is scoring a 3rd and Gilman returning. (It’s called as 3rd and Gilman on the radio.)

  I arrived to find an older German couple. They had just picked up the rental RV and were heading to the Wharf to meet up with the kids. Herr Doctor and wife hadn’t realized that everyone else in the Bay Area was also trying to head up to the piers at the exact same time.

  My previous fare had a good chuckle on the way out to SFO. He had asked where all those heading north into the City would park. I joked that they were already parked on the 101. Ha! This didn’t seem nearly as funny heading inbound with my new deutschen frienden.

  I was impressed by my ability to bypass traffic. I headed inbound from Candlestick on Bayshore, jumped on 101 which flowed okay between Army and the underused 7th Street off-ramp. We headed up 7th to Leave, then Hyde. Had it been a race, I would have won.

  Herr Doctor gave me a $10 tip on a $22 fare. Danke schoen.

• Around 1pm we passed a supersaturation threshold where overall demand for taxis significantly outstripped supply.* As I’ve written before on this blog, I have a split personality on this issue. It’s bliss from the perspective of my personal earnings and fare-induced highs, but the palpable frustration from potential taxicab customers tempers my mood.

  It’s grossly irresponsible for the United State’s second most dense city to have such poor peak-time point-to-point transportation solutions. Unfortunately, SFMTA’s transferable medallion scheme will not address this service and security issue. For shame.

• *Caveat: A predictable and frustrating phenomenon occurs with geographically concentrated events such as Fleet Week. Immediately approaching (~30 min pre) and just after the beginning (~15 min post) the majority of fares are heading toward the geographically concentrated event, such as the Marina or Fish Wharf in this case, resulting in hundreds of taxis stuck in traffic as tourists circle for parking that isn’t there.

  If one was to look at raw analytics of demand vs. available taxicabs at times like these, you’d see a very odd result: perhaps 25-50% of the on-road fleet is vacant while there is demand for 125%+ of the fleet size. Taxi fleet efficiency alone is an incredibly convincing argument for a congestion charge, which the SFCTA is diligently pursuing to the best of its abilities.

  I encountered a few empty cabs who refused to take passengers to the Marina. This is, of course, de jure illegal, but very rational behavior on the part of the cab driver. I took 3 fares to the Marina in the course of two hours and spent 15+ minutes each time trying to battle traffic back to find fares. I could have earned double if I implemented this illegal policy. What would you do if you had to pay rent?

• During this supersaturation period I picked up a fare that, thank heavens, wasn’t heading toward the Marina.

  A very stressed woman in formal attire was heading back to her downtown hotel from a church in Pac Heights to pickup the ring for a wedding that was to start in 15 minutes.

  We flew inbound on California as we discussed my interest-level to wait for her to fetch the ring from her hotel and return. I was frank in explaining that it is not in my financial interest to wait for her to get her ring, but, of course, I’d be happy to do that for her.

  The City and County of San Francisco’s Department of Weights and Measures calibrates the meter on behalf of the SFMTA to register $.50 per minute = $30 per hour for wait time. However, in a period of supersaturation I can get another flag drop and earn ~$60/hr. (Keep in mind this is revenue, not profit, as it does not include my costs for the vehicle, medallion rental/lease, gasoline, etc.) Sure enough, while waiting for her return at the hotel on Nob Hill I had to fight off a European backpacker knocking on my window for a cab, frustrated at my denial to provide him with transportation solutions.

  We flew back even faster on Pine and scored all greens from Pine/Mason to Pine/Steiner. Passing thru Van Ness, Franklin and Gough on a green is rare enough, and then to jump on the outbound Pine green wave starting at Octavia is a very improbable occurrence. (Ask my transportation planning friends at the SFCTA.) Luck was on her side.

  She gave me $30 for a $14 fare. Generous, yes, and also a prime example of price variance during fixed supply. While not “fair” per se, it’d sure be market efficient if there was an easier way of determining the price premium a potential fare was willing to pay during periods of supersaturation.

  If only there was a way to know one’s desire to pay a premium before engaging in the transaction. Hint, hint.

B2B cuts through many varied City neighborhoods, starting with SOMA, briefly touching the edge of the Tenderloin on the way through Hayes Valley, Western Addition, straddling the panhandle around NOPA/Upper Haight and concluding through Golden Gate Park which separates the westernmost Richmond and Sunset districts.

Here’s a map:

B2B is more than a run. It attracts a large party crowd drawn primarily from the City’s ample yuppie supply. Party goers slowly trail the legit runners dressed in costumes and fueled solely by alcohol despite the race’s early start time.

Last year I ran the race (unofficially) to see what all the hoopla was about. It was a blast. I woke up late but caught the race halfway through the City around Hayes Valley. I continued to run westward past and through the crowds of partiers. I was amazed at two things: a) the size of the crowd, and b) the important streets which the City closed completely during this event. Returning this year as a cab driver on the race day, I was hit hard by the impact of point b.

Between 8 and 10am the north and south ends of the City were completely severed save for Park Presidio on the far west side of the City and (eventually) the Embarcadero on the far east side of the City. This caused a great deal of frustration for non-race goers attempting to go about their normal Sunday business.

• Having worked a number of City event days in the past, I knew a van would be a big asset. I was lucky to get a van as I requested from the cashier.
• Before the race began, therefore before street closures, my passengers were a mix of hung-over partiers returning to their places after spending a night with a ‘special friend’ and folks going to work annoyed at the lack of Muni service on some key lines. (A normal Sunday crowd.)

  Soon after 6am I started taking a number of people from their homes to other homes for ‘pre-partying’ and soon after I took many more groups to the start of the race course. Between 6 and 7am the City’s aggregate demand for cabs exceeded available supply. Demand did not return below supply at any point during my shift — an exceedingly rare event for a Sunday day shift.

• After the race began, I was ‘stuck’ on the north side of the City. Given the extremely high demand for cabs, either side would be an okay side to be ‘stuck’ on. But, the north side of the City holds the majority of housing for the yuppie contingency, so this was a good place to be.
• While stuck on the north side of the City, I picked up an older lady with very limited English from the St. Francis Hospital. She asked me to go south of Market a few blocks further south than would be possible given the race street closings.

  I did my best to clearly explain to her that this would simply not be possible. I even used a nice visual aid provided by the cab company — a map of the race route like above. This didn’t phase her. Oh well, I thought, as soon as we get closer she’ll get the picture.

  We crossed Market on 5th and approached Mission at which point the crowds and street closure at Howard was plainly visible, if for no other reason than the haze of red brake lights blocking our path.

  I stated the obvious, “This is as far as we can go. I’ll have to let you out here.”

  She was not happy. “I need to go to Folsom!” I first tried polite reasoning which soon escalated into more blunt statements. “Look, lady, it’s not going to happen. You have to get out here and walk the rest of the way.” (It was just 2 blocks south.) I figured her sole human form would have a significantly higher chance of crossing the path of running humans than a blue hulk of taxi metal crashing through police barriers.

  She protested for about a minute. I’ll let you know that a minute is a very long time in a City where there were hundreds of street hails calling out to me at this very second. (Like Superman’s super-ability to hear dames in distress, I could hear calls of ‘Taxi’ crying out in pain across the City.) She finally accepted her fate and I moved on.

• I found my next street hail in less than 10 seconds. A nun urgently needed to get from 5th and Mission to 30th and Mission, far south of our present location, to be the church representative for some sort of concrete pouring on a construction project.

  Despite her niceness and her lifelong dedication to God, her reasoning skills were questionable which became more and more evident as we attempted to get around the race. “You want me to drive the entire length of the race course until we find an opening?” I said. I thought, this may not be a good idea.

  “I think the only opening right now is Park Presidio on the far, far west side of the City.” I thought, do you have an understanding of the cost of this circuitous cab ride? About 3 minutes into the ride she revealed she only had $10 to pay me. By this time we were at Van Ness.

  What was she thinking? In retrospect I don’t think she was thinking very clearly at all. I had to call this off. We stopped near the race path at Hayes. I suggested she attempt to walk across the race path and hail a cab or find a continuing Muni line at that point.

  She thanked me and paid me for the fare. I was on autopilot — the meter read a fare and I accepted payment for that fare. In retrospect I feel quite shameful that I took her money. Obviously, the best thing for her to do would have been to take BART. Why didn’t I think of that before? She seemed very clear in her intent to have me find a magical break in the race that was obviously not there.

  I should have been more forceful in my initial questioning of her questionable plan. I should not have accepted her payment. She should not have asked to go on a cab ride significantly above her ability to pay. We’ll do it better next time.

• Continued on the next post…

The NY Times reports on the sad news that the New York State Assembly vetoed New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to charge drivers to enter Manhattan during peak times.

While I do not understand the legal wrangling between agencies such that state representatives vetoed a local city measure, I do understand the underlying strong fear expressed by residents and elected officials of the outer boroughs and suburbs.

Their expressed fear is this: a congestion fee is a tax upon working class people living in outer New York City suburbs imposed by rich, elite Manhattan residents. This is a grave mistake in reasoning that shall cost New York City residents, visitors and commuters dearly for years to come.

Ignoring politician spin, a congestion fee is effectively a progressive tax as vehicle commuters to New York City are on the whole extremely wealthy. (A progressive tax, in theory, is a ‘good thing’ in this case as, on the whole, it taxes the wealthy more than low income residents.)

Low and middle income residents have much higher rates of public transit ridership. The congestion fee proposal under question would have improved public transit with ALL revenues from congestion fee collections going toward public transit. Further, properly pricing the limited resource of New York City roadways would immediately and directly reduce the level of congestion, significantly improving the surface transportation infrastructure including but not limited to taxicabs and busses.

So, by vetoing this bill, regional politicians were able to serve the needs of their extremely high income residents, while snubbing low and middle income residents’ access to effective transit improvements via a congestion fee. And, the regional politicians get a nice lie to tell these low and middle income residents, saying that they kept an unjust tax from hitting their wallets!

Great! Politics at work!

Links:

• New York Times article
• Hippie blog post

• It was slow Monday and Tuesday in the City.

  I am learning, albeit slowly, to let go of the natural feelings of elated success or critical failure that come from a high or low earning day. This is important.

  While there are many factors over which I have control — the areas of town where I roll around seeking street fares or radio fares, the speed with which I drive, the choice of van or car, whether or not to sit in hotel or airport taxi queues — the most important factor that determines my earnings is outside of my control: demand for taxicabs during a given shift.

  I think it is a natural human thought process shortcut to overly attribute successes or failures of a given activity to yourself.

• On a rather quiet Tuesday morning I ambled around in the Marina around 9:30 after the morning rush was over. I answered a radio call in the deep Marina near Broderick and Chestnut.

  I searched out the address and was surprised and happy to realize it was the same elderly lady I had picked up a few weeks ago. She regularly heads out to the UC hospital on the other side of town for continuing physical therapy related to a leg injury.

  Her injury makes it difficult for her to descend the many stairs in front of her apartment. I accompany her down the stairs with patience while we start to converse. She is blessed with an endlessly spunky wit.

  Occasionally people make requests to stop and pick something up. Sometimes it’s a quick trip to the ATM, absolutely necessary and in my own interest, of course. Sometimes it’s a quick stop to get something and return back to where we started, that’s good too as it’s a quick double fare.

  But, sometimes it’s a frustrating waste of my time. I earn less while sitting in place than in motion, even as the meter ticks up for idle time. I accept quick shopping requests (“I just want to grab a water, newspaper, cigarettes, etc.”) with apprehension, sometimes denying them depending on a variety of variables (remaining distance to end destination, total fare, politeness of request, their understanding of my time and perceived willingness to tip appropriately, current City demand for taxis).

  So, when this nice lady asked to stop to get a cup of coffee I was torn. I couldn’t say no, she was too nice. And, the City wasn’t busy at all. And, she was actually a lot of fun to hang out with. And, there was a surreal sense of humor in the whole situation. And, she has a really hard time walking right now so the least I can do is help her get a cup of coffee.

  She takes a few minutes to get down the stairs and climb in the cab. We head around the corner to the ‘coffee shop’ which turns out to be a liquor store which also serves coffee and donuts in the morning. Wow, not what I expected, especially considering San Francisco is the coffee shop capital of the world.

  She tells me, “Just ask for Margaret’s coffee and they’ll know how to make it.”

  I head in and ask Robert behind the counter, “Can you help me get Margaret’s special coffee?” For the record, Margaret’s special coffee is 1/3 half and half and 2/3 coffee. I also get her a chocolate donut per request. I am smiling throughout this experience, finding humor in every element from her innocent, yet absolutely clear breakfast demands to Robert’s deep rooted understanding of Margaret’s more than 20-year history of coffee needs.

  Freshly caffeinated, Margaret directs me on our previously worn path toward the UC hospital via the Presidio. As before, it was pleasant and relaxing. I quizzed her throughout the trip about her past — where she was born, what brought her to the City and the evolution of her life in the City.

  She didn’t have any paratransit scrips left, so she wasn’t able to tip as much as she would have liked paying in cash. The difficulty with which she parted with an extra dollar after paying the fare was tip enough.

  Thanks, lady. Hope to see you again.

• The Muni Metro broke down around 10 am Tuesday morning. It didn’t last very long, but it was long enough to instantly increase demand for taxicabs.

  At moments like these I (and stranded City residents) realize the amazing service provided by a properly functioning City taxi fleet: it is a last resort safety net, always around 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, providing emergency transportation solutions. Wow.

  Somewhat related, I took a break and went in for coffee and a bagel at It’s a Grind, one of my favorite neighborhood coffee chains. I chatted a bit with one of the employees and they complained a bit about the morning rush.

  Complaints? About the morning rush? Wow, what an opposite (literally opposite) view on the morning rush compared to mine. As I am paid directly on performance, a fare, which could otherwise be called ‘work’, is a desirable item. A fare may be ‘work’, but I view it as money in my pocket. Contrast that to an hourly worker at the coffee shop who gets paid regardless of how many customers come in the door. Each additional customer is more work, no additional pay.

  In the world of hourly compensation additional customers are a pain. Weird.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) is a bureaucratic whale, containing, in separate stomachs, the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) and the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) public transit system.

Recently, the SFMTA crunched some numbers and said, “Uh oh, we won’t have enough money to cover our costs over the next two years.” Fair enough. Next step, “We need more money.”

Ideas? The Examiner and the Chronicle report the SFMTA has publicly discussed two classes of options: increasing transit fees and increasing parking fees.

Are these ideas justified? Most definitely yes — these fee increases are justified and necessary.

But, I believe the SFMTA needs to increase some fees significantly MORE than has been suggested. If we’re smart and look at the dirty details (below) we can find some fees that we can significantly increase. This has a multiple benefits — controlling traffic congestion, reducing total personal vehicle miles driven and rationing limited road real estate while ALSO generating significant revenue for the cash-strapped SFMTA. Win, win, win?

• Increasing transit fees: Monthly Fast Pass (unlimited bus pass) cards cost $45 per month and are priced below market. $1.50 each way to work plus 2 weekend trips per day makes a frequent Muni rider pay $90 per month if they pay per trip. The SFMTA’s analysis of neighboring communities’ monthly pass prices is wise and on par. An increase to $60 per month is more than reasonable given the value offered by the pass. At $60, the Fast Pass is still a bargain for regular transit users.
• Increasing parking fees:
  • Parking meters are priced at $.25/10 minutes = $1.25/hour = $12.50/day. This is below market value compared to garages. This could be increased.

    Idea: Why is Sunday meter collection or extended metered hours not discussed? Meters are not collected on Sundays. Meters are not collected after 6pm. Not only is this lost revenue but it causes inconvenience for City residents struggling to find spaces in highly trafficked commercial corridors at peak times. (This is the reason we have meters in the first place — to ration limited spaces. These spaces are still in high demand after 6pm and on Sundays in many metered commercial corridors. Just look at the Mission on Sunday afternoons; it’s a zoo.)

    Idea: Why aren’t meters priced based on demand? If meters had variable pricing, the City could collect significantly more revenue on Friday and Saturday nights, in addition to busy Saturday and Sunday shopping times on commercial corridors. This is a significant revenue opportunity lost that also serves City residents and visitors who are more than willing to pay market price for convenient parking.

  • Yearly residential permits are priced at $60/year = $5/month. Residential City parking permits are SEVERELY undervalued and could easily be doubled without approaching the true market cost of parking. Yearly residential permits should be priced $120/year immediately, with a yearly increase after that.

    At $120/year this is still an amazing bargain: I can park in my neighborhood ALL YEAR LONG for only $120? Remember, monthly private spaces cost as much as $250 per MONTH.

    People may complain, but even at $120/year this would result in no fewer permits purchased. Not until we pass $200/year will quantity demanded of yearly permits even begin to see a dent. Assuming about half of SF has a residential parking permit, just doubling this permit results in about $30 million incremental revenue per year.

• Congestion fees: Why is this not discussed as a revenue source? (Answer: The City can’t implement fast enough to be included as a revenue source for this 2-year projected shortfall.)

  Let’s change this. The City should implement congestion pricing within the next year.

  Variable City congestion pricing serves double duty as a significant revenue generator for the SFMTA AND as a traffic and transit speed increaser. It increases the speed of its public surface street-shared transit system and increases the convenience and utility of currently congested streets for frequent City street ‘power-users’ like delivery vehicles, taxis and persons with an absolute need for personal vehicle use.

So, SFMTA, go along with your plan, but let’s instead double yearly residential parking permits and let’s introduce congestion pricing immediately.

Dear Mayor Newsom

You didn’t have to spend City taxpayer money on private consultants. Anyone could have told you: Just like any other shared and limited public resource, public transit needs user fees.

Offering ‘free’ Muni is a destructive proposal. Muni rolling stock is not unlimited. Removing user fees distorts a natural and effective form of limiting the number of people that use Muni resources.

Muni needs to increase its quality of service. Removing user fees would decrease the quality of service. It would result in more crowded buses, leading to lower frequency and lower average system speeds.

Here’s the real Muni solution: increase quality (frequency, speed, reliability, cleanliness) on critical lines such as 38-Geary, N-Judah, or 14-Mission. Enforce real transit-only lanes that enable high speeds with true signal pre-emption. Prepare Muni to operate faster than a personal vehicle for trips on these ‘primary’ lines. Then, the City can increase user fees to $2 or even $2.50 for these primary lines.

Our residents don’t want free Muni. City residents are more than willing to pay for an effective transit system. It’s up to the City to provide an effective transit system and price it properly, not make a crappy transit system free.

Don’t get me wrong — I’m happy you’ve figured this out by now. It’s just silly that this advice cost tax payers $20,000+. I would have been glad to provide this advice for a bit less. Let’s say $10,000.

Let’s look on the bright side. At least you’re open to new ideas. Just talk to me next time and I’ll charge you half the rate of the consultants, and I’ll give you better ideas faster.

kfarr

On a recent episode of KQED’s Forum, Dave Iverson discusses the possibility of congestion pricing in the City with two main guests: Ken Cleaveland, director of government and public affairs with the Building Owners and Managers Association and Zabe Bent, senior transportation planner with the San Francisco Transportation Authority.

To some degree, Ms. Bent and Mr. Cleaveland both live in their own respective fantasy lands. Mr. Cleaveland is in car fantasy land. He believes we can continue adding cars ad infinitum to City streets. Whereas, Ms. Bent is in SF Transportation Authority fantasy land as she believes Muni is a world-class public transit system. Despite these extreme views, or perhaps because of them, this is a great discussion.

Ms. Bent doesn’t do a great job explaining why the City needs congestion pricing. Indeed, the City DOES need congestion pricing. Here’s why:

Congestion pricing is not a tax, as Mr. Cleaveland insinuated multiple times. Congestion pricing is a user fee. Are user fees really so bad? No. User fees can be very useful to ration extremely limited shared resources. Our downtown City roadways are extremely limited shared resources.

Most private goods and services are paid in full via user fees at time of consumption. Take McDonald’s: you pay $1.00 for a hamburger when you want a hamburger. If you paid McDonald’s like you currently pay for roadways, every citizen of the United States would pay a monthly McDonald’s hamburger ‘subscription fee’. Here’s where the silly comes in: anyone, at anytime, can stop by a McDonald’s and eat as many hamburgers as he or she pleases.

As you can imagine, there would be a number of problems with the national compulsory McDonald’s hamburger subscription plan.

What if someone is a vegetarian? They’re still required to pay the hamburger fee, yet they eat no hamburgers.

What if someone eats 400 hamburgers per day? They pay the same fee as everyone else, yet they consume vastly more resources than others.

What happens during the lunch rush? McDonald’s couldn’t possibly keep up with the extreme demand for hamburgers during lunch. Remember, these hamburgers would seem ‘free’ at time of consumption. Since hamburgers are ‘free’ at time of consumption, demand for these hamburgers is very high. A very natural method of rationing, the queue, begins to develop. Long lines start at McDonalds before the lunch rush, perhaps as early as 10am and last until 3pm. The dinner rush starts an hour or two later. It may take as long as 2 hours just to get your hamburgers. At some prime McDonald’s locations there may be queues at all hours of the day. If your time is valuable, you will seek alternatives to these hamburgers.

Most people would agree that a compulsory McDonald’s hamburger subscription plan would be absurd. Why, then, do we price our roadways in this fashion?

First, most people don’t think of it this way, since our roadway ‘subscription plan’ is mixed into a number of other payments in the form of local, state and federal income, sales and property taxes. Most importantly, it would be impractical to operate on a pure user fee model with all roadways. We can’t erect tolls, even automatic ones, at the foot of every person’s driveway, nor would we want to.

But, we have a glaring need to restrict uncontrolled usage of limited downtown roadways, a defined area around which we could erect automatic tolls. A user fee is an excellent method of rationing usage of this scarce resource.

Where else do we have user fees? User fees exist on ALL alternative forms of ground transportation in the United States, save for walking and biking. By not charging user fees for our roadways, but charging for all other forms of transportation, the government is effectively subsidizing the use of personal vehicles.

It’s time to put the personal vehicle on par with all other forms of transportation in the US.

If the hamburger example was hard to swallow, let’s focus on a more concrete aspect of congestion pricing. Uncongested roads have HIGHER throughput than congested roads. (Source)

Variable road usage fees will increase the efficiency of our streets. This allows those who need the roadways the most to pay for that right. Without user fees, vehicles that have a very high, nearly inelastic demand for the roadway (delivery vehicles, taxis, busses, emergency vehicles) have no way of paying for this priority. The rich can resort to helicopters, but that doesn’t work for the rest of us.

Naturally people complain about this proposal — we don’t like paying for things we expect to be ‘free’. But, our roadways are not, and never have been, ‘free’. We’ve simply been pricing them incorrectly in highly congested urban areas. It’s time for congestion pricing in San Francisco.

Links:

• KQED’s Forum Episode
• PDF about “HOT Lanes” — variably priced highway lanes
• Illustration of congestion fee collection technical implementation
• A photo of congestion fee roadway marking warnings in the United Kingdom

PS. Yes, gasoline taxes are a good attempt at a roadway user fee. But, they don’t do anything to limit usage of particular stretches of roadways.

What if each City cab were to have a bright green light which, when lit, indicates fares are half of the normal price? During off-peak times I can cruise for nearly as long as an hour without a fare. When it’s dead at 4 in the morning I’ll often drive by people stuck waiting for the MUNI. God knows when a bus will finally show, but the regular cost of a cab is still too much for them. What about half-price? Would that be enough to convert some people to take a cab?

Conversely, what if each cab were to have a bright red light which, when lit, indicates fares are double price? (Or, perhaps 150% of the regular fare.) At peak times it can be nearly impossible for people to hail a cab. Doubling the price would significantly cut down on demand for cabs. At this price some people would consider other options including, but not limited to, splitting cabs with strangers to save money.

Would this result in higher incomes for cab drivers during both peak and non-peak shifts? Or, would it just ‘even out’? Would this result in higher economic utility (usefulness) for customers? People may grumble at the double or 150% fare, but those that ‘really’ need a cab would be much more able to find one during peak times. And with half-price fares in the wee hours of the morning, MUNI exiles would have a safe and quick way home.

Right now we have neither variable pricing nor variable supply of taxicabs. Drivers get screwed at off-peak times, while customers get screwed during peak-times. Of course, variable pricing for taxicabs is just a thought experiment — I think it would prove too difficult to implement. But, it’s an interesting alternative to the more realistic option of variable supply, known as ‘peak medallions‘, which I strongly support.