Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And you're showing me this because.....? I'm already aware of the attractions they offer that they charge for, neither charge you to just walk across it. I actually already addressed being able to go to the top of the Syndey Harbor Bridge a few posts ago too.
Quote:
And 10 million visitors annually walk or desire to walk across the Bay Bridge from Oakland? Learn something new everyday! Not.
And that matters because...? But back to the question you refuse to answer, would it then be unique if they charged a pedestrian/bike toll on the Bay Bridge since it doesn't get 10 million visitors?
Quote:
Sydney and London charge for their best, available, essential experience. Now GG Bridge will resume the toll for its best, available, essential experience as it did for its first 33 years.
Well there is an elevator that goes to the top so seems like a better experience is available.
Quote:
If you don't equate a hike across the GG Bridge with "going to the top of the STL Arch, ESB, Statue of Liberty, etc.." then it makes sense you won't pay to walk it. Apparently you think it didn't make sense to many tens of millions of visitors who gladly did pay for the experience in the past. And you want to call them "ridiculously stupid", eh?
No it made sense back then considering they were still paying the construction bonds for the bridge during that time period. But guess what happened to coincide with the bridge bonds being paid off?
Quote:
As for me having trouble with people not accepting things the way I see them - um, geeze not really a problem most of the time. But for you I make a special effort to educate. And I note you have as many posts in response as I do to yours, eh? You having trouble? Nothing uniquely obstinate about me, sav. I can give you LOTS of examples of others here who do the same. And, regardless, obstinance doesn't prove or disprove the points debated. Logic and relevance do.
Carry on. Next!
Yeah well keep telling yourself that, you tend to get a little catty and personal. But I guess that comes along with doing your "civic duty" I suppose LOL.
Speaking of relevance, one would think the fact no other bridge or something similar charges people the pleasure just to walk or bike across/around it would be relevant.
The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District's Board of Directors Friday approved a financial plan to reduce its 5- and 10-year deficit projections, including a proposal to charge bicyclists and pedestrians for access to the bridge's sidewalk.
What took these geniuses so long? After all govt robbing the public more and more for less and less service is the motto of this entire state! San Francisco, the heart of app industry, is after all the capital of monetizing everything that people used to take for granted....
What took these geniuses so long? After all govt robbing the public more and more for less and less service is the motto of this entire state! San Francisco, the heart of app industry, is after all the capital of monetizing everything that people used to take for granted....
Ah, another voice from the writhing masses of the specially abused California Bay Area citizenry who believes California is unique in monetizing that which people used to take for granted. It's just the Bay Area / California that does these kinds of things, eh?
And you're showing me this because.....? I'm already aware of the attractions they offer that they charge for, neither charge you to just walk across it. I actually already addressed being able to go to the top of the Syndey Harbor Bridge a few posts ago too.
I show these as repetitive examples of how you overlook the obvious: that each is an "attraction", ones that identify their respective best experiences for the public, and capitalize on those. The view from the London Bridge is not remarkable. The history in the inner spaces and historical construction / architecture is what has captured the public's imagination for generations. The view from the Sydney bridge is impressive, but not nearly so as our GG Bridge. It is the architecture of the bridge design in the urban setting that is held in awe. And they have capitalized on that with a "climb" experience not available on the GG Bridge. In all three bridge cases, the fascination is with the engineering - but that is not solely because they are bridges. Many feats of engineering command awe. This isn't about bridges. That's the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
And that matters because...? But back to the question you refuse to answer, would it then be unique if they charged a pedestrian/bike toll on the Bay Bridge since it doesn't get 10 million visitors?
Except I did answer. The answer is your question is not a valid question. You present a scenario that has no potential reality. It doesn't matter. It's fiction. I don't get why you would even ask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Well there is an elevator that goes to the top so seems like a better experience is available.
Ah. Think so? Consider the following description of the experience:
Quote:
Passing through a door at the south tower, the three of us scrunched ourselves in an elevator purported to be phone booth size. No way to get four people in, no way to move an arm to scratch an itch. It is a hand-operated elevator, and designed for the bridge in the 1930s.
The climb is over 700 feet, about 75 stories, stopping at a landing. At the landing we climbed up a fixed ladder of 20 rungs up to a small hatch. And then pulling ourselves up through the hatch there was ...
Sound like this is an experience available to a significant, profitable tour venture? The feature of the bridge, as I have said again and again, isn't that it is a bridge. In London it is history and architecture. In Sydney it is engineering / architecture. In SF it is the unparalleled view from magnificent architecture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
No it made sense back then considering they were still paying the construction bonds for the bridge during that time period. But guess what happened to coincide with the bridge bonds being paid off?
Now this is another one of your failed parallels. You do seem to often have trouble, like many people who post on the forum, with foundational premises, illogical syllogisms, and false conclusionary positions. The fact that people were willing to pay for the experience of walking the bridge in the past has absolutely zero to do with any construction bonding. The public pays for experiences because the experiences have personal value to them. Not solely to contribute to paying of bonds.
And the fact that the fee was lifted when the bond was paid off similarly has nothing to do with the value of the the public's pleasurable experience - that they were willing to pay for by the ten's of millions for 33 or so years.
Furthermore, this says nothing about the viability of reinstating a fee. See my previous mention of the bridge in the Seattle area that ended its toll when its bonds were paid off, but which has now returned to charging tolls to pay for ongoing maintenance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Yeah well keep telling yourself that, you tend to get a little catty and personal. But I guess that comes along with doing your "civic duty" I suppose LOL.
Question: do you ever look in the mirror when you make the comments you do - particularly the ones you conclude with your cute little "lol's"? And, btw, the "civic duty" comment was a wisecrack asking if that was what you thought YOU were doing in your posting habits - not referring to my own reasons. Guess you didn't grasp that (LOL).
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Speaking of relevance, one would think the fact no other bridge or something similar charges people the pleasure just to walk or bike across/around it would be relevant.
As I keep pointing out, the fact that the fee is charged for walking across a bridge is irrelevant. The fee is for a level of special experience that happens to occur in this case on a bridge. And there is nothing unique about places all around the world capitalizing on what the public considers spectacular experience - and is willing to pay for.
I show these as repetitive examples of how you overlook the obvious: that each is an "attraction", ones that identify their respective best experiences for the public, and capitalize on those. The view from the London Bridge is not remarkable. The history in the inner spaces and historical construction / architecture is what has captured the public's imagination for generations. The view from the Sydney bridge is impressive, but not nearly so as our GG Bridge. It is the architecture of the bridge design in the urban setting that is held in awe. And they have capitalized on that with a "climb" experience not available on the GG Bridge. In all three bridge cases, the fascination is with the engineering - but that is not solely because they are bridges. Many feats of engineering command awe. This isn't about bridges. That's the point.
Oh okay, yet you continue to overlook the obvious that walking across a bridge is the not the same as climbing one or getting the tour of the inside. The fact that the GGB doesn't offer any experiences like that doesn't mean walking across it somehow makes it the same thing.
Quote:
Except I did answer. The answer is your question is not a valid question. You present a scenario that has no potential reality. It doesn't matter. It's fiction. I don't get why you would even ask.
No you didn't, saying "I don't like the question and am not going to answer it" is not an answer. Not sure why you think it has no potential in reality at all. A walkway has been proposed for the SF portion of the Bay Bridge and a toll has been floated to pay for that so it's not out of line to think pedestrian and bike tolls on other bridges could be implemented to help pay for something like that.
Quote:
Ah. Think so? Consider the following description of the experience:
Sound like this is an experience available to a significant, profitable tour venture? The feature of the bridge, as I have said again and again, isn't that it is a bridge. In London it is history and architecture. In Sydney it is engineering / architecture. In SF it is the unparalleled view from magnificent architecture.
I'm sure a little retrofit could make it more user friendly. Despite not being as dramatic I think the view from both bridges is part of the popularity and attraction of the bridge. It's not the majority of people who visit those bridges tour the inside or do the climb.
Quote:
Now this is another one of your failed parallels. You do seem to often have trouble, like many people who post on the forum, with foundational premises, illogical syllogisms, and false conclusionary positions. The fact that people were willing to pay for the experience of walking the bridge in the past has absolutely zero to do with any construction bonding. The public pays for experiences because the experiences have personal value to them. Not solely to contribute to paying of bonds.
And the fact that the fee was lifted when the bond was paid off similarly has nothing to do with the value of the the public's pleasurable experience - that they were willing to pay for by the ten's of millions for 33 or so years.
Furthermore, this says nothing about the viability of reinstating a fee. See my previous mention of the bridge in the Seattle area that ended its toll when its bonds were paid off, but which has now returned to charging tolls to pay for ongoing maintenance.
LOL, so catty and condescending with the first two sentences there, not really a good look on someone your age.
The fact that people were even charged for the "experience" to begin with has everything to do with construction bonds and it was no coincidence that "admission fee"(lol) stopped when they were paid off.
I never said anything about people's willingness to pay a fee or the value. Just saying back then the fee was being paid back then to help pay for the bridge. Today a pedestrian and bike toll won't be, it will go to buses and ferries. The bridge itself produces a $40 million surplus according to the most recent budget.
Quote:
Question: do you ever look in the mirror when you make the comments you do - particularly the ones you conclude with your cute little "lol's"? And, btw, the "civic duty" comment was a wisecrack asking if that was what you thought YOU were doing in your posting habits - not referring to my own reasons. Guess you didn't grasp that (LOL).
Not sure why I would need to. Do you ever look in the mirror when you make personal and condescending comments about other people? You should as you might get a kick out of the irony there. Well you said "participate similarly in this forum out of a sense of civic responsibility" so I thought you were saying that is why you post. And considering how obsessed you are with defending CA in this forum from anything and one that happens say something negative it wouldn't surprise me one bit if that is what you thought you were doing LOL.
Quote:
As I keep pointing out, the fact that the fee is charged for walking across a bridge is irrelevant. The fee is for a level of special experience that happens to occur in this case on a bridge. And there is nothing unique about places all around the world capitalizing on what the public considers spectacular experience - and is willing to pay for.
Well it's not irrelevant for those that don't equate the GGB to Disneyland or Gettysburg LOL.
Bikes are vehicles that are subject to the rules of the road. Why should they get a free pass to go on the bridge with out paying their fair share? Makes more sense to me than the Hov lanes, which charge a fee to use the fast lane during off peak hours, and have little to no effect on the traffic congestion here.
Bikes are vehicles that are subject to the rules of the road. Why should they get a free pass to go on the bridge with out paying their fair share? Makes more sense to me than the Hov lanes, which charge a fee to use the fast lane during off peak hours, and have little to no effect on the traffic congestion here.
Why should cyclists pay a vehicle fee on the GG bridge if cyclists don't have a dedicated bicycle lane nor can bicycles be ridden in a vehicle lane? Cyclists can't even travel across the bridge fast like a vehicle because of having to be careful of the pedestrians, and cyclists have to walk the bicycle around the towers. Give one of the motor vehicle lanes on the GG bridge to cyclists THEN maybe charging cyclists a vehicle toll could make sense.
Well good morning sav. For today's installment we'll cover "overlooking the obvious". Good topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Oh okay, yet you continue to overlook the obvious that walking across a bridge is the not the same as climbing one or getting the tour of the inside. The fact that the GGB doesn't offer any experiences like that doesn't mean walking across it somehow makes it the same thing.
What is obvious, from the start, is that this fee is not being levied for "walking across a bridge". As there are no residential or commercial districts anywhere near either side of the bridge, the walkways are not, and never were, for "walking across a bridge". They are and always were a visitor experience. This goes exactly to the debate you and I are having. You claimed there is something uniquely Bay Area distasteful about leveraging a world-famous visitor attraction experience. It has been a proven world-famous visitor attraction experience since 1937. And one ten's of millions of people were willing to pay to enjoy for over forty years. Just as people are willing to pay for lots of unique visitor attraction experiences lots of place all around the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
No you didn't, saying "I don't like the question and am not going to answer it" is not an answer. Not sure why you think it has no potential in reality at all. A walkway has been proposed for the SF portion of the Bay Bridge and a toll has been floated to pay for that so it's not out of line to think pedestrian and bike tolls on other bridges could be implemented to help pay for something like that.
No, I didn't say I didn't like the question. I said it was stupid and irrelevant. And it is. Adding a walkway to the Bay Bridge would attract very few visitors, if any. It would cost more than pedestrian and bicycle tolls could likely ever for. People float all kinds of ideas that fail to be realistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
I'm sure a little retrofit could make it more user friendly. Despite not being as dramatic I think the view from both bridges is part of the popularity and attraction of the bridge. It's not the majority of people who visit those bridges tour the inside or do the climb.
No. A "little retrofit" could not cost-effectively make that elevator a viable visitor attraction. You are flailing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
LOL, so catty and condescending with the first two sentences there, not really a good look on someone your age.
You are very amusing with these accusations. For one thing, there was nothing "catty" about my comment. It is a fully truthful observation of your inability to debate this topic logically. It is a critical observation that relates to the discussion. As have been my other similar comments. This differs, for example, from your repetitive personal remarks about me that do not relate to this conversation. For example about how I fill pages of the forum with rhetoric - ignoring, of course humorously, that you are responding as much as I am.
But there's also another curious question that arises here: your statement fully infers that there is something about (my) age that makes a difference. Do "catty" comments look better on a younger person, such as, say, yourself?
You know, our history of debating a couple topics in the manner we do started with you responding to a post I made on another topic a long while back. Your response had nothing to do with anything I addressed at you, nor was it "catty" toward another person. I vaguely recall it had to do with me observing different ways people could invest money other than real estate. Your remark aimed at me was supercilious and condescending. And you have continued to throw similar my way in every exchange since.
I continue to suggest you use a mirror. Meanwhile, I don't mind mud-wrestling if that's your game. And it certainly appears to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
The fact that people were even charged for the "experience" to begin with has everything to do with construction bonds and it was no coincidence that "admission fee"(lol) stopped when they were paid off.
I never said anything about people's willingness to pay a fee or the value. Just saying back then the fee was being paid back then to help pay for the bridge. Today a pedestrian and bike toll won't be, it will go to buses and ferries. The bridge itself produces a $40 million surplus according to the most recent budget.
Again, your inability to structure a logical sequence is apparent. Among other things, it doesn't matter what the fee collections will pay for. The question, in this discussion, is whether there is anything unique about charging for a unique visitor attraction experience. And the answer is: no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Not sure why I would need to. Do you ever look in the mirror when you make personal and condescending comments about other people? You should as you might get a kick out of the irony there. Well you said "participate similarly in this forum out of a sense of civic responsibility" so I thought you were saying that is why you post. And considering how obsessed you are with defending CA in this forum from anything and one that happens say something negative it wouldn't surprise me one bit if that is what you thought you were doing LOL.
You continue to pretend you are clean. Read above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Well it's not irrelevant for those that don't equate the GGB to Disneyland or Gettysburg LOL.
If you don't feel there is anything unique about the GG Bridge experience, don't go there. But to argue that ten's of millions of people visit it for no special reason challenges the reader to question your level of intellect.
And now, I am happy enough to have covered the issue of whether there is anything uniquely foul about the Bay Area capitalizing on a proven, world-class visitor attraction.
You are welcome to the floor to add your closing arguments and insults.
Well good morning sav. For today's installment we'll cover "overlooking the obvious". Good topic.What is obvious, from the start, is that this fee is not being levied for "walking across a bridge". As there are no residential or commercial districts anywhere near either side of the bridge, the walkways are not, and never were, for "walking across a bridge". They are and always were a visitor experience. This goes exactly to the debate you and I are having. You claimed there is something uniquely Bay Area distasteful about leveraging a world-famous visitor attraction experience. It has been a proven world-famous visitor attraction experience since 1937. And one ten's of millions of people were willing to pay to enjoy for over forty years. Just as people are willing to pay for lots of unique visitor attraction experiences lots of place all around the world.
Okay well your opinion on what you think it was intended for has been expressed already but that's all it really is. It's a walkway meant for people to walk along it whether it's to get exercise, take in the view, or just get to the other side. Yes and none of those attractions involve paying to walk across a bridge and usually involve something more in-depth rather than just walking around it, in front of it, across it, etc...
Quote:
No, I didn't say I didn't like the question. I said it was stupid and irrelevant. And it is. Adding a walkway to the Bay Bridge would attract very few visitors, if any. It would cost more than pedestrian and bicycle tolls could likely ever for. People float all kinds of ideas that fail to be realistic.
No it's not but you probably don't want to answer it as you might have to admit something that you don't' want to.
Well the idea has already been implemented and built on the eastern span of the Bay Bridge so it's puzzling why you find such a proposal so unrealistic when it already exists on half of the Bay Bridge system. It wasn't cheap but they built it and it is used. Considering how adamant some groups are about the western span getting a walkway and it being discussed, it's a very real possibility whether you want to admit that or not.
Quote:
No. A "little retrofit" could not cost-effectively make that elevator a viable visitor attraction. You are flailing.
I didn't realize you were an enginner and knew the inner workings of the span so well....
Quote:
You are very amusing with these accusations. For one thing, there was nothing "catty" about my comment. It is a fully truthful observation of your inability to debate this topic logically. It is a critical observation that relates to the discussion. As have been my other similar comments. This differs, for example, from your repetitive personal remarks about me that do not relate to this conversation. For example about how I fill pages of the forum with rhetoric - ignoring, of course humorously, that you are responding as much as I am.
Yes it was and your opinion on my abilities or logic is completely irrelevant to the conversation as no one aside from you even cares. And I realize I am responding to this thread as much as you and I was clearly referencing your general posting habits vs mine, but yes either way it's pretty off topic.
Quote:
But there's also another curious question that arises here: your statement fully infers that there is something about (my) age that makes a difference. Do "catty" comments look better on a younger person, such as, say, yourself?
No, I just wouldn't expect them from someone your age. But perhaps I'm mistaking cattiness with the effects of senility, either way again off topic.
Quote:
You know, our history of debating a couple topics in the manner we do started with you responding to a post I made on another topic a long while back. Your response had nothing to do with anything I addressed at you, nor was it "catty" toward another person. I vaguely recall it had to do with me observing different ways people could invest money other than real estate. Your remark aimed at me was supercilious and condescending. And you have continued to throw similar my way in every exchange since.
I know I've done that in the past and I try not to but I wasn't the one that began with the little personal remarks on this thread, you were. My mistake for even addressing it though.
Quote:
I continue to suggest you use a mirror. Meanwhile, I don't mind mud-wrestling if that's your game. And it certainly appears to be.
Likewise.
Quote:
Again, your inability to structure a logical sequence is apparent. Among other things, it doesn't matter what the fee collections will pay for. The question, in this discussion, is whether there is anything unique about charging for a unique visitor attraction experience. And the answer is: no.
Well when there are no other examples for a fee being charged currently for such an experience, walking across a bridge, then I do think it is unique.
Quote:
You continue to pretend you are clean. Read above.
Not at all, I'm just not the one that started with the catty personal remarks.
Quote:
If you don't feel there is anything unique about the GG Bridge experience, don't go there. But to argue that ten's of millions of people visit it for no special reason challenges the reader to question your level of intellect.
And now, I am happy enough to have covered the issue of whether there is anything uniquely foul about the Bay Area capitalizing on a proven, world-class visitor attraction.
You are welcome to the floor to add your closing arguments and insults.
Later slick.
I never claimed there wasn't something unique or special about walking/biking across the GGB or that people don't visit for a reason and I'm really confused where you even got that from. Speaking of "intellect" and on top of that "insults"....ahh the irony...lol
But perhaps I'm mistaking cattiness with the effects of senility, either way again off topic.
Perfect, sav. You continue to rise above the fray with class.
Odd that senility doesn't seem to destroy sharp observation of relevant facts and execution of logical analysis.
Nice day for a walk to enjoy the rain. Hope I can find my way back to the boat. I get so confused.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
