​Grateful to our host Kiersten Mailler at uCity Square.

Confirmed ​Speakers: Lauren Cristella, President & CEO of the Committee of Seventy and Seth Bluestein, from the City of Philadelphia Office of the City Commissioners.

​Organizers are Jeff Friedman, Kelsey Hubbell, Cat McManus, Ed.D., Eryn Santamoor and Rosetta Lue. Here’s the registration link to register. Please and thank you!

Earlier this year, Philadelphia explored a new, locally controlled $1 per‑trip fee that did not require state legislative approval. City Council had full authority to enact it. Had it passed, the City could have directed the revenue toward local transportation priorities - leadership opted to send the windfall to the School District.

That opportunity for new revenue shouldn’t be abandoned. It should be redesigned.

Ride‑sharing fills real gaps and that’s exactly why the fee should support mobility

Uber and Lyft provide real utility in Philadelphia. They help late‑night workers get home when transit service drops off. They offer flexible mobility in neighborhoods with infrequent buses. They serve people who need reliable point‑to‑point travel when walking or biking isn’t feasible or for those who have access to a motor vehicle but often find driving inconvenient, costly or unsafe (e.g. impaired driving). Benefits matter, but utility doesn’t erase the costs.

The externalities are large, visible, and paid for by everyone else

National research shows that transportation network companies (TNCs like Lyft and Uber) increase vehicle miles traveled, largely through deadheading (when cars are cruising around without passengers). More cars on the road mean slower buses, clogged curb lanes and streets, and higher emissions.

When private mobility services degrade public mobility, the public ends up subsidizing the consequences. A modest per‑trip fee is one of the clearest tools cities have to rebalance that equation, ensuring greater fairness and equity.

Philadelphia sees roughly 35-40 million rideshare trips per year. A $1 city fee could generate $35-40 million annually - dedicated revenue for bus lanes, safer intersections (daylighting!), smart curb management, electric vehicles and supportive infrastructure, etc.

Fairness requires a clear nexus between the fee and its purpose

The earlier City proposal faltered because it lacked a clear connection between the fee and the public costs and transportation aspirations it should have been calibrated to address. Funding transportation with a rideshare fee is not only logical - it’s standard practice in other cities and the political logic works better.

Philadelphia should revisit the idea with three improvements:

• A clear transportation nexus - revenue dedicated to transit operations (e.g. SEPTA), bus lanes, Vision Zero, and smart curb management (PPA is working assiduously on this issue through its “SmartPass” program.)

• A well-communicated and phased implementation to avoid cost shocks.

• Transparent reporting and oversight so residents see exactly where the money goes and that it’s effectively and efficiently spent. Tracking spending and impact could become a component of the City’s PhillyStat 360 program.

Philadelphia and SEPTA need new transportation revenue and a locally controlled rideshare fee - designed with fairness, clarity, and purpose - is one of the most straightforward tools the City has to strengthen mobility for everyone.

The policy logic is simple: e‑commerce has exploded and the public costs of that shift land on local streets and neighborhoods. Delivery vans double‑park on narrow blocks, block bus stops, slow traffic, and create hazardous conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. They add pollution, noise, and wear to roads not designed for constant commercial traffic. A package fee creates a direct nexus between the burden and the funding of solutions; simply asking the delivery economy to help fund the transportation systems it depends on.

Based on statewide parcel‑volume estimates, Pennsylvania could raise with a $0.25 fee around $180–$220 million per year and with a $0.50 fee about $360–$440 million

And because the SEPTA service region accounts for roughly 42–45% of all deliveries, our metro would generate with a $0.25 fee around $75–$100 million and with a $0.50 fee about $150–$200 million

Package delivery fee dollars could fund a wider, more ambitious (possibly audacious) set of interventions across Philadelphia - not just decongestion tools like dedicated smart loading zones, redesigned curb space, and targeted street upgrades in neighborhoods overwhelmed by delivery vans, but also the next generation of mobility improvements. A package delivery fee could fund bus rapid transit corridors, build barrier‑protected bike lanes, expand Indego (Philadelphia’s bike share program), and grant or rebate programs that make electric bikes (cargo bikes too!) and other mini‑mobility options affordable for residents, small businesses and last-mile package delivery operations. It could also support fleet electrification in communities that absorb the brunt of diesel idling and particulate pollution. The fee would let the region reinvest in the streets and transit systems the delivery economy strains - turning constant disruption into cleaner air, safer travel, and a more connected, modern transportation network for the people who live, work and play here.

This isn’t about punishing online shoppers or the package delivery industry - it’s about aligning costs with impacts and basic fairness. A small fee on the delivery economy could provide Pennsylvania with a sensible, sustainable way to fund the transportation network that keeps the Commonwealth (and the Philadelphia metro) moving more smoothly.

Source Document: https://www.ifo.state.pa.us/releases/856/Retail-Delivery-Fee-Presentation/

This first session manifests a simple concept: go new places, learn old things, and meet the people who shaped the civic infrastructure Philadelphia is still building on.
It’s a cross‑generational, cross‑sector conversation - part reunion, part discovery, part “oh wow, I didn’t know you were the one who did that.”

Grateful to our host Kiersten Mailler at uCity Square. uCity Square exists at the intersection of world-class universities, research institutions, academic medical centers, and dynamic neighborhoods. Their mission is to facilitate collaboration that stimulates breakthroughs, drives inclusive economic growth, and expands our diverse and vibrant community.

Speakers: Alex Hillman leader of Indy Hall (e.g. invented co-working in the City plus so much more); Archna Sahay, formerly the City of Philadelphia’s Director of Entrepreneurial Investment who has maintained a formidable presence in the tech and innovation space; and Andrew Buss, architect of much of the City’s internal innovation infrastructure.

Organizers are Jeff Friedman, Kelsey Hubbell and Cat McManus, Ed.D.

RSVP Link Here.

Pennsylvania’s Local Use Fee - a flat $5 surcharge on annual vehicle registrations adopted at the county level - has not changed since its creation in 2013. While it provides a dedicated revenue stream for local transportation projects, its impact has eroded as construction costs have risen and infrastructure needs have grown. Pennsylvania now has one of the lowest local vehicle fees in the nation, far below that of neighboring states.

Across Pennsylvania’s neighboring states, vehicle registration costs are consistently higher, and most states rely on substantial state‑level or regional surcharges to fund transportation. Pennsylvania stands out for having only a $5 county‑optional Local Use Fee, paired with a relatively modest state registration cost of $39–$48 — the lowest overall burden in the region.

New Jersey does not impose a local vehicle fee, but its state registration charges range from $35.50 to $84, and it adds a $250+ annual EV surcharge (we should be encouraging the shift to electric, not penalizing it), making its total costs far higher than Pennsylvania’s. Delaware similarly has no local fee, but its $65 state registration cost is still well above Pennsylvania’s. Maryland is the most expensive neighbor, with a typical annual registration cost of about $237, plus an additional EV surcharge - a structure that exceeds Pennsylvania’s combined state and local fees. New York layers regional surcharges on top of its ~$60 state registration fee, particularly in the “Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District”, where these add‑ons function much like local vehicle fees and significantly increase the total cost of ownership.

Bottom line: Pennsylvania’s $5 Local Use Fee is dramatically below regional comparables - far lower than the local or regional surcharges used in neighboring states and paired with one of the lowest state registration fees in the Northeast.

Why it Matters

• Aging Infrastructure: Counties face rising costs for road and bridge maintenance, safety improvements, and municipal allocations.

• Stagnant Revenue: The $5 cap has limited county governments’ fiscal power over a decade of inflation.

• Limited Local Flexibility: Counties cannot set a fee that reflects their needs - the statute fixes the amount at $5. The Pennsylvania General Assembly should provide counties with greater flexibility.

• Regional Disadvantage: NJ, MD, and NY all rely on significantly higher state or regional vehicle fees; PA’s local fee is an outlier on the low end.

  • Bottom Line: We deserve nicer things and we need to invest more to get them.

This Would be Good

Using 2024 PennDOT statewide registration totals and historical county shares, Philadelphia is estimated to have roughly 1.18 million registered vehicles. If registrations remain flat, the current $5 Local Use Fee would generate about $5.9 million every year - a static revenue stream that does not keep pace with rising transportation costs and future aspirations.

Under the proposed phased increases, annual revenue would grow substantially. Raising the fee to $10 in 2027 would double collections to $11.8 million, generating $5.9 million more than the status quo. Increasing the fee to $20 in 2028 would produce $23.6 million, which is $17.7 million more than holding the fee at $5. A further increase to $30 in 2029 would yield $35.4 million, representing a $29.5 million annual gain over the current level. By 2030, a $40 fee would generate $47.2 million, or $41.3 million more than doing nothing. And at $50 in 2031, annual revenue would reach $59 million, a $53.1 million increase compared to the baseline.

Across the six‑year period, maintaining the fee at $5 would produce only $35.4 million. Under the proposed schedule, Philadelphia would generate $182.9 million, creating an additional $147.5 million in dedicated transportation funding.

Conclusion: Modest, incremental adjustments to the Local Use Fee unlock transformative local revenue capacity.

Even Better

Under a differentiated Local Use Fee, charges would vary based on both vehicle size and fuel type rather than applying a single flat rate to all vehicles. Small electric vehicles would pay the lowest fee at $5, reflecting their minimal impact on road wear and emissions. Small gasoline vehicles would pay a modestly higher $15, acknowledging their higher environmental footprint. Mid‑size vehicles would fall into the middle tier, with electric models charged $20 and gasoline versions $30. Larger SUVs and trucks - which impose significantly greater infrastructure and environmental costs - would face higher fees: $35 for electric models, $50 for gasoline models, and $60 for diesel vehicles, the highest‑impact category. This tiered structure creates a clear incentive for residents to choose smaller, cleaner vehicles while ensuring that heavier, more polluting vehicles contribute proportionally more to the transportation system they impact. It’s difficult to estimate the structure and revenue potential of a differentiated Local Use Fee as there isn’t a publicly available baseline breakdown of how vehicles fall into the proposed seven fee-buckets.

Where there is a political will, there is a way.

Over the past several decades, the distribution of income and wealth has shifted dramatically toward the top. Since the late 1970s, income growth for those at the top has far outpaced that of everyone else, with the share of income going to the top 1% roughly doubling over that period. At the same time, wealth has become increasingly concentrated: the top 1% now controls roughly 30% or more of total U.S. wealth, while the bottom half of the population holds only a few percent. This concentration has pushed inequality metrics higher, including the “Gini coefficient” - a standard measure of how evenly income is distributed, where 0 represents perfect equality and higher values indicate greater inequality - which has risen markedly over time. These trends mark a clear break from the postwar era, when economic growth was broadly shared and incomes rose across the distribution.

This is not a marginal imbalance; it is a structural divergence.

Above a very high threshold of wealth, society should require a mix of taxation and structured giving to democratically accredited institutions and programs. The wealthy would retain real discretion over where resources flow, but within guardrails set by democratic processes. A meaningful share should be directed locally, reconnecting concentrated wealth to the communities and systems that helped generate it.

The idea is straightforward: extraordinary success should not result in unfettered accumulation. It should come with extraordinary responsibility.

This is not about punishing wealth or dampening ambition. It is about recognizing that past a certain scale, wealth’s primary function shifts - from personal consumption and status to public stewardship and long-term social resilience.

Like most new ideas that become normalized, cultivated food is moving through its own “three stages of truth” (HT Arthur Schopenhauer): first dismissed as impossible, now criticized as dangerous or strange, and ultimately accepted as obvious once people actually try it.

Cultivated food is grown in clean, controlled environments that eliminate / mitigate variability. No surprise disease outbreaks, weather fluctuations, or feed shortages. None of the vagaries that throws traditional production off schedule and drives prices up. Steady, predictable, and easier to plan around.

Cultivated food can produce the same taste and nutrition (or better) as factory farming while using less land, water, and energy. As these benefits become clearer, I think a lot of people will just see cultivated foods as a simple, modern upgrade to what they’re already consuming.

There are many examples of how society “swaps in” better products or systems and then quickly treats them as normal, in particular the “electrification of everything” or EV adoption:

• LED bulbs replacing incandescents - cheaper to run, last longer, no one misses changing bulbs every few months.

• Heat pumps replacing oil and gas furnaces - quieter, cleaner, lower operating costs same HVAC comfort/experience.

• Induction cooktops replacing gas - faster, safer, cleaner air.

• Streaming replacing DVDs - convenience wins, nostalgia fades.

• Smartphones replacing cameras, maps, MP3 players - consolidation beats bulky legacy hardware.

• Digital payments replacing cash - speed and ease override old habits (I never have any cash on me).

Interesting background video from CBC News on the cultivated meat piece:

The City could enforce the fee using acoustic traffic sensors and automated license-plate recognition at major intersections and corridors.

Estimated Revenue: Philadelphia experiences heavy daily vehicle traffic, with some streets carrying hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day.

Using conservative assumptions:

• Estimated vehicle trips in Philadelphia per day: 2 million

• Average horn honks per vehicle trip: 0.5

• Total honks per day: 1 million

• Fee per honk: $0.25

Estimated daily revenue: 1,000,000 x $0.25 = $250,000

Estimated annual revenue: $250,000 x 365 approx. = $91.25M annually

Even under a lower-use scenario of only 250,000 daily honks, the City would still collect roughly $22.8M annually.

Cities face challenges - technology change, infrastructure gaps, resource scarcity, service delivery pressures, stakeholder concerns - that are nonlinear and move faster than traditional procurement cycles. An unsolicited proposal process gives municipalities an orderly and transparent way to:

• Learn about innovations not explicitly requested

• Test ideas through pilots before committing resources to full programs

• Notably, engage startups, nonprofits, and universities that rarely respond to formal RFXs

U.S. cities such as Denver and Reno have adopted formal unsolicited proposal policies to encourage innovation while preserving competitive safeguards and ethical standards.

This type of policy solves a fundamental challenge in the GovTech and CivTech ecosystem. Entrepreneurs often have transformative technologies - along with new personnel and process models - but lack a formal way to initiate a solution‑oriented conversation with government. Without an unsolicited proposal process, vendors with novel ideas are left trying to advance informal discussions that have no recognized procurement pathway to move forward.

Envisioned Role: Director of Safe, Small, and Electric Mobility

The Director of “Safe, Small, and Electric Mobility” would lead a citywide effort to rebalance streets away from oversized, high-speed vehicles, gas-powered vehicles and toward safer, cleaner, and more space‑efficient vehicles. This role would sit at the intersection of transportation planning, public health, climate action, and street design. The mandate: fewer cars overall, better cars remaining.

Key responsibilities would include setting and advancing policies that reduce vehicle size, and speed across the city. This includes expanding low‑speed zones, prioritizing car‑free and car‑light districts, and coordinating congestion pricing, parking reform, and curb management to discourage unnecessary driving.

Simultaneously, the role would focus on transforming the remaining vehicle fleet. Responsibilities would include developing standards and incentives that favor smaller, lighter vehicles (micromobility and mini-mobility, not just traditional “cars”) and accelerate the transition to electric-powered conveyances for both private and commercial use. This includes working with fleet operators, delivery companies, and city departments to pilot and scale compact electric vehicles suited to urban environments.

The Director would partner with neighborhoods, advocacy groups, and businesses to ensure changes improve daily life, especially for residents most impacted by traffic violence and air pollution. Clear public communication, transparent metrics, and regular reporting on safety, emissions, and street space reclaimed would be core duties.

Ultimately, this role would serve as the city’s champion for streets designed around people rather than cars - safer, quieter, cleaner, more economically viable, and more equitable by design.

It struck me that, under the right conditions, anonymous peer‑to‑peer (P2P) communication can surface concerns early, avoid conflict, and create a safe and smooth path to resolution that would otherwise be inhibited by fear, awkwardness, power asymmetry or time and resource consuming local government intervention. Anonymity lowers the social and societal costs of speaking up.

P2P anonymity networks can obscure identity without eliminating individual responsibility; communities can discourage anti-social and self-destructive activity while preserving privacy of individuals lodging the grievance[s].

Local governments and community partners can create processes and supportive technology that would enable anonymous P2P communication in the space before a 311 or 911 complaint or call is issued (with appropriate automated and manual moderation and oversight). Besides harmonizing neighbors and neighborhoods, this could also conserve precious governmental resources by allowing civic challenges to resolve before they encumber resource constrained local governments.

A few examples:

One year after implementation, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Congestion Relief Zone (CRZ) tolling program has been a resounding success. 21 million fewer vehicles entered Midtown Manhattan between January and October 2025, with a 7.1% reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Commute speeds into the zone rose sharply, and traffic speeds within and around the CRZ also improved. Bus performance rebounded, with higher speeds and an 8% ridership increase. The program exceeded its $500 million revenue target, funding significant MTA infrastructure upgrades.

Oklahoma City has been administering Metropolitan Area Projects Plan (MAPS) for years, a citizen-approved public works funding initiative financed by a temporary sales tax - and has raised billions - to support a portfolio of local projects including parks, convention centers, transit enhancements, and cultural facilities.

Hawaii’s Governor Josh Green, M.D., has signed Senate Bill 1396 into law as Act 96, establishing the nation’s first climate impact fee. The bill addresses the critical need to build resiliency against the impacts of climate change by providing a stable source of funding for environmental stewardship, hazard mitigation and sustainable tourism. It's projected to generate $100M annually and took effect at the beginning of 2026.