Golden Gate officials approve financing plan including sidewalk access toll (San Francisco: how much, upkeep)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Tolls aren't being collected to cross the bridge - except for a very few cyclists, perhaps. It's an admission charge to a park feature attraction.

I don't condone it. But it's no different than Sonoma or Mendocino or other counties charging for parking and day use of their facilities. While I think public parks should be mostly free - with exceptions for certain fees like camping where costs become very hard to manage - my point is that there's nothing unique about San Francisco charging in this regard.

Charging pedestrians and cyclists to cross a bridge is pretty unique and unheard of. I think the only place I read that does that is the international border bridge in El Paso. Even NYC with their ridiculous bridge tolls don't do this.

Existing tolls already cover maintenance and these tolls is to help pay for things not even that related to the bridge. So in that sense it's not really the same at all.

[Pretzelogik]

San Fran. levies a tax for breathing. Homeless are exempt.

[Tulemutt]

What do all the following (and many other famous locations / features have in common?
Statue of Liberty.
Empire State Building.
St. Louis Gateway Arch.
The Golden Gate Bridge. (soon)
and, of course, let's not forget The Gates of Hell.

A price of admission.
Nothing new or unique.

Have fun. Add to the list.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Pretzelogik

San Fran. levies a tax for breathing. Homeless are exempt.

Yeah? I'm sitting at the Marina Green right this minute by my boat. No one's collecting as far as I can see.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

Charging pedestrians and cyclists to cross a bridge is pretty unique and unheard of. I think the only place I read that does that is the international border bridge in El Paso. Even NYC with their ridiculous bridge tolls don't do this.

Existing tolls already cover maintenance and these tolls is to help pay for things not even that related to the bridge. So in that sense it's not really the same at all.

As I wrote previously: it's not a crossing toll. It's an admissions fee to a world famous attraction. The pedestrians and cyclists aren't commuting.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

What do all the following (and many other famous locations / features have in common?
Statue of Liberty.
Empire State Building.
St. Louis Gateway Arch.
The Golden Gate Bridge. (soon)
and, of course, let's not forget The Gates of Hell.

A price of admission.
Nothing new or unique.

Have fun. Add to the list.

And how is one of them different from the rest?

Answer: One is public infrastructure and the rest are not.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

As I wrote previously: it's not a crossing toll. It's an admissions fee to a world famous attraction. The pedestrians and cyclists aren't commuting.

It's also public infrastructure as are other famous attractions that don't charge an "admission fee" (lol).

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Yeah? I'm sitting at the Marina Green right this minute by my boat. No one's collecting as far as I can see.

Not yet..... Lol

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

And how is one of them different from the rest?

Answer: One is public infrastructure and the rest are not.

Really not a distinction at all. The GG bridge is not a functional infrastructure for walkers and cyclists. It is for drivers. They commute. And they pay a toll for commuting the infrastructure. You're not suggesting that public infrastructures be free of tolls are you?

Pedestrians and cyclists are accessing the GG bridge as an attraction. Lots of public attractions charge for that. I'd prefer they didn't. But my point remains: there is nothing unique about SF going this route.

Originally Posted by sav858

It's also public infrastructure as are other famous attractions that don't charge an "admission fee" (lol).

Some do and some don't. The list I started above can be expanded. Nothing unique about SF in this regard.

Originally Posted by sav858

Not yet..... Lol

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Really not a distinction at all. The GG bridge is not a functional infrastructure for walkers and cyclists. It is for drivers. They commute. And they pay a toll for commuting the infrastructure. You're not suggesting that public infrastructures be free of tolls are you?

Pedestrians and cyclists are accessing the GG bridge as an attraction. Lots of public attractions charge for that. I'd prefer they didn't. But my point remains: there is nothing unique about SF going this route.

Some do and some don't. The list I started above can be expanded. Nothing unique about SF in this regard.

It's a piece of public infrastructure that also happens to be an attraction as well, just as there are others out there like it. SF is deciding to start charging pedestrians and cyclists to use it, that is how SF is very unique in that regard. Nothing you listed would fall under public infrastructure btw. Also the fact that this toll would go to help paying for things not even directly related to the maintenance and costs of the bridge makes it an even more ridiculous "admission fee". If you want to try to spin it and pretend the GGB is Disneyland or the Space Needle go right ahead but I highly disagree.