Of course people who do business in or with the city contribute to the economy here - I’m talking about the damage that rush-hour drivers do that they don’t pay for. Mass Transit riders do very little if any damage - same for bikers and walkers. But rush-hour car drivers are very different. They have to start paying their fair share.

If there is research that exists proving that decongestion pricing is bad for the economy, I’d love to see it — it would directly contradict the studies I’ve seen, including one by one of our local authorities, SFCTA.

These ‘non residents’ coming into your city through the charging boundaries are bringing commerce, vitality and employment.

If they are crossing the city and exiting again without stopping, then you have a point, but most people will enter because they work, shop, visit family or socialise. All these activities bring vitality into the city and putting a barrier to this will damage the economy.

The experience from across the globe shows that congestion charging damages economic viability. Why would you want to put a barrier up around your city which says people are not welcome?

You say these visitors are costing you money and they should pay for the harm they do. What exactly is this cost to the economy of the city as a whole and who is paying it today?

If you attribute this cost directly against those people driving into the city, then estimate the value of their activities I think you will find the economic value from these people who visit the city far outweighs any perceived cost to you as a resident.

These people you condemn for congesting your city are the residents of the city. These people work, live and play in San Francisco and make their journey’s at times necessary for them.

Charging for congestion is a daft idea which assumes those people on a congested road can, will or want to change their lives to avoid paying a charge. Most of these people already consider time lost through congestion and will re-time or re-route their travel plans to suit. Nobody sits on a congested road for pleasure and everyone will avoid congestion if at all possible.

Your proposal to add another cost through a charge is simply punishing people for making a journey - one which is almost always necessary. Those supporting ideas like this always believe it is the other person who pays or the other person who will not be on the road if a charge comes in, a selfish attitude.

I completely support cycling initiatives, but the argument should not be between drivers and cyclists, it should be about providing the facilities needed for all. Cycle paths, better road junctions and cycling facilities at major destinations should all be supported.

Penalising one group (drivers) for making a transport choice when other groups who are responsible for some of the congestion (cyclists and buses) is wrong.

Congestion charging in London has been an abject failure with many businesses going bust and no decrease in journey times inside the charging zone. Indeed traffic speeds have fallen since its introduction. This is why the new mayor recently held a public consultation on the issue and found it was rejected by a huge majority of business and residents. Half the charging zone will now be scrapped.

Don’t make the same mistakes. Congestion charging is an expensive and damaging policy.