Supervisor Jake McGoldrick: Fixing SF's Water System

On February 22, I requested a hearing to review the SF Public Utilities Commission's (SFPUC) revised plan to fix the Hetch Hetchy water system, San Francisco's primary water supply. The hearing will provide an opportunity for the SF Board of Supervisors to make inquiries regarding the SFPUC's recent request for an additional $717 million in costs to retrofit and maintain the system.

The SFPUC's revised plan calls for $717 million on top of the $3.6 billion that has already been identified for the project. Where are we going to get that money? Are the San Francisco ratepayers and taxpayers going to have to foot the bill again? I want to understand why there are significant cost increases.

Two years ago, San Francisco voters were told that San Francisco's water system was in peril and that we needed to pass a bond measure to keep the system from collapsing.

Today, the SFPUC is still in the planning stages and construction has not begun on its regional water projects. Meanwhile, the SFPUC's private consultants have driven up the costs of the project by failing to provide adequate pre-construction management.

Another concern is whether the SFPUC is proposing cost increases in order to expand, rather than to retrofit and maintain the water system, despite a decrease in City water usage through conservation efforts.

Ensuring that Proposition A bond monies are used for what the voters intended is a priority. At the hearing, I will ask SFPUC management how the revised plan will impact San Francisco water customers. I would like the SFPUC to prioritize its water projects by identifying and beginning work on the most urgent projects and I want the original $1.6 billion allocated for the project to go towards seismic upgrading. Our water system needs to be protected in case of any natural disaster. 

Congestion Pricing Study
I recently asked the Transportation Authority (TA) to move forward with an application for federal funds to lead a feasibility study for a congestion-pricing program in San Francisco.

You have probably heard of the congestion-pricing program in London, where people are charged electronically for driving in the most congested areas of the city. San Francisco could have something similar, but I caution that this is not a one-size-fits-all solution. We need to analyze the situation in San Francisco and see how congestion pricing can work here. 

As a Congestion Management Agency, we are taking a serious look into the possibilities for congestion pricing. The intent would be to give people incentives to leave their cars at home and take public transportation. We would also be looking at reinvesting in transit services and other transportation improvements through funds collected by the pricing mechanism. 

The London congestion-pricing program has resulted in 30 percent less congestion within the charging zones and decreased the disruption of bus routes due to traffic delays by 60 percent. It has also generated $150 million of revenue annually due to an increase in bus ridership. All of the revenues are invested in the London Transport System to expand and improve service. 

What does this mean for San Francisco? It means we could generate a significant amount of money to fund our public transit system and begin to address long-term operating deficits. We could reduce traffic delays and improve travel time reliability. Not only does this allow for greater transit efficiency, it also generates economic benefits to help local businesses. 

Instead of getting mauled at the mall, folks can go to downtown San Francisco, where they will have a safer and more pleasant experience with fewer cars, efficient public transit and cleaner air. The downtown area could become the preferred alternative over shopping malls. 

I believe this system will create a vibrant downtown retail district.  Look at London, Rome and Singapore. Congestion in London was costing the business industry about 2 million pounds per week (about $3.9 million). That has changed significantly. 

The idea is to have a two-year process, which starts with a feasibility study that could eventually lead to the implementation of a pilot program, if we find congestion pricing to be one item on a menu of solutions to improve Muni.

Jake McGoldrick is a San Francisco supervisor representing District 1.