I've not verified but https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/money-crunch-push-sf-transit-major-parking-change-20113851.php claims:

Following New York City’s lead, a congestion pricing proposal that would charge drivers during peak hours is also on the table. This move could add another $10 million to 20 million to the SFMTA’s budget, but it would need state approval and wouldn’t come into effect for at least five years.

NO seems likely because the bridges provide a similar effect, while not counting for this market.

@DanHomerick all of the tunnels and some of the bridges (not the ones connecting only to Brooklyn or Queens) into Manhattan also were and are tolled. Some of the tolls are credit toward the congestion fee. It isn't super clear the presence of tolls on the Golden Gate and Bay bridges make a congestion fee less likely. They could be leading indicators the other way!

(I think NO is likely because extremely sadly 2030 is soon when it comes to implementing what is a no-brainer given car brained SF and the slowness of implementing anything whatsoever, and because 20% is larger than the most obvious/previously proposed zone covering the northeast corner (not quadrant) of SF.)

@traders unfortunately I messed up writing this and wrote metropolitan area rather than my intention, the official city boundaries. See map

Ways to resolve this: if people bet on mistaken interpretation, if you agree, I'll just change the description. If you would agree to compensation or to be bought out at a fair price, I can do that to get your approval and then change description.

If not I can NA. There is benefit to this if the replacement market used a more precise definition than 20% land area, such as perhaps a minimum size (directly comparable to Manhattan's size) or if possible a density weighted coverage area (hard to find and calculate reliably)

Please let me know.

@Ernie I'm fine with a change

@MichaelBlume @MikeLinksvayer

@Ernie I'm fine with the change too.

The plan must have a large area (at least 20% of the SF metropolitan area)

This makes no almost certain. The area covered would have to be nearly 500 square miles, over 10x the size of SF itself. http://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US41860-san-francisco-oakland-fremont-ca-metro-area/

@MikeLinksvayer oh damn you're right. I mean the area of the city proper not the whole metropolitan area.

@Ernie cool. 20% is still pretty unlikely. Early proposals so far such as https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/Downtown%20Congestion%20Pricing%20Study%20Board%20Update%20July%2013%2C%202021.pdf#page=4 have been a lot smaller than that, I'd guess no more than 10% of the area of the city proper. Unless we consider the sfh areas of the city to not be part of the city proper, which would be fine with me. :)

Would it be sufficient for the bridge tolls to be higher during certain times of the day?

@WilliamGunn no, the description gives an outline of it having to at least be a zone

@Ernie Sure, but where would this be assessed?

@WilliamGunn Just increasing bridge tolls would not effect 101 coming up the peninsula, and there are lots of roads like that. The idea I'm going for is a zone which is monetarily restricted, so half of it can't be open as usual.

@Ernie Ok, so also tolls on 101 & 280 Northbound? Just trying to get a sense of how you think this would be implemented.

@WilliamGunn from the maps of Manhattan it looks like there is also a borderline at 60th Street where every street is monitored for people crossing.

In SF you could do something similar by combining lines of land monitoring with control of the bridges to create a zone.

@Ernie Oh, wow, they literally did just put cameras on every street in the NYC implementation. I somehow thought the solution would have been less dystopian and ugly, but I don't know why. Urban planners have not been shy about their disregard for aesthetics.

@Ernie You might want to specify a certain region, like north of market, east of Van Ness or something. That's where they'd put it, I reckon, and I don't know if that's 20% or what.

@WilliamGunn yeah I mean if they do something we can evaluate how much of the city is covered. 20 % may not be right but that's what people are betting on. If I specify an area myself that makes the claim super unlikely to YES

@WilliamGunn I figured that's why you were asking 😁 yeah. Actually though I think license plate cams are common. My town San Mateo just signed a new deal to have 44 of them, up from 20 or so. They're used to track down people with open warrants and grab them when they're just out shopping or whatever and not expecting it. I like that harm reduction result but yeah it also means they know where we are quite a lot of the time.

That said, with phones, satellites and similar, it seems hard to stem the tide. Not that it's okay, just that resistance would need a good plan to keep any of many failure modes from happening

@ZviMowshowitz FYI. Thanks for your inspirational article https://thezvi.substack.com/p/nyc-congestion-pricing-early-days