Golden Gate officials approve financing plan including sidewalk access toll (San Francisco: 2014, closing)

[pch1013]

I'd be surprised if it brought in more than the cost of collecting it.

It would be a lot simpler to apply a surcharge to every bicycle rental -- since many, if not most, of those bike-renting tourists end up crossing the bridge (and creating traffic jams as they fail to master basic cycling concepts like "when you stop, get the &*() out of the way!").

And FYI, there is a historical example of a bridge charging a pedestrian toll: a certain big red one in San Francisco. From 1937 to 1970 there were coin turnstiles for pedestrians.

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by HelloAaron

Golden Gate bridge is some ridiculously huge tourist attraction. It'd bring money into the city that it desperately needs... now how will it go about being used is the question...

The city has a $7bn + budget. It doesn't "desperately need" any more revenues. What it "desperately needs" is some common sense in conducting its affairs and not catering to special interests, but to its people. For once.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

The bridge is definitely NOT infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians. Never has been.
The Hoover dam was NOT built as a tourist attraction.
Neither was the Gettysburg battlefield.
Or uncountable other places / things that came to inspire wonder and awe.
In fact, the Statue of Liberty and the arch were built as monuments, not specifically to attract tourism, as well.

Things change. The first subway tunnel in NYC was only used two years. Pure infrastructure. No tourism. It fell into disuse and was abandoned and forgotten until recently. Voila! Guess what? It has been now reopened as a tourist attraction - where people are charged a fee to visit. Whaddayaknows.

Pedestrians can walk up to the bridge-end viewpoints for free. Like other attractions. They now just can't cross the "viewing deck" itself without paying a fee. Like at other attractions.

You know, seriously, trying to make this unique by specifying the feature's details as somehow being a classifier of universal note is - well, ridiculous. The foundation for the issue is that this fee does NOT interfere with or change any public commute. It is a tourist fee for access to the viewing deck of a world famous attraction. And there is nothing unique about that.

No the Hoover Damn wasn't built as a tourist attraction and it doesn't charge to cross either, so what exactly is your point? Getty Battlefield? That isn't infrastructure nor was it "built" in the traditional sense, again no seeing the point of that example. Monuments are built with the intention of being visited, either way it's not really comparable imo.

Not seeing how your NYC subway tunnel example is relevant at all seeing as it was abandoned and there was no use for it and it was specifically reopened for tourism. You're really reaching with your "reasoning" lol. And I'm sure the admission fee paid for that actually pays for the costs to maintain and operate the tunnel/station people are visiting.

What's ridiculous is this notion that the GGB is the same thing as the Space Needle, St Louis Arch, Empire State Building, etc..just because it's a tourist attraction. It's not just tourists crossing the bridge as pedestrians and cyclists either, a lot are locals. I guess when SF decides to start charging people to walk down a public sidewalk/roadway there will be nothing unique about that either since it's where a lot of tourists frequent.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by pch1013

I'd be surprised if it brought in more than the cost of collecting it.

It would be a lot simpler to apply a surcharge to every bicycle rental -- since many, if not most, of those bike-renting tourists end up crossing the bridge (and creating traffic jams as they fail to master basic cycling concepts like "when you stop, get the &*() out of the way!").

And FYI, there is a historical example of a bridge charging a pedestrian toll: a certain big red one in San Francisco. From 1937 to 1970 there were coin turnstiles for pedestrians.

That's what I was thinking, how would they even collect this and how much would that cost. I'm just surprised that they aren't raising the regular tolls like they always do.

I read the Brooklyn Bridge used to charge pedestrian tolls too but stopped long ago. I just was wondering if there were any present day examples of that, of which I could not find any besides the international bridge in El Paso.

[capoeira]

Originally Posted by 3rdGen SFan

I'm betting eventually even the beaches & parks will have fences around them with tolls to enter if the money-gluttons get their way.

It has already happened! On Aug. 25 Pacifica starting charging $8/day to park at Linda Mar Beach. There is a big parking lot by Linda Mar Beach on Highway 1 and it used to be free. Even if someone wants to stop for just ten minutes for a couple of pictures on the beach there is a $4 parking fee.

City of Pacifica - Parking for Linda Mar Beach

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

No the Hoover Damn wasn't built as a tourist attraction and it doesn't charge to cross either, so what exactly is your point? Getty Battlefield? That isn't infrastructure nor was it "built" in the traditional sense, again no seeing the point of that example. Monuments are built with the intention of being visited, either way it's not really comparable imo.

Not seeing how your NYC subway tunnel example is relevant at all seeing as it was abandoned and there was no use for it and it was specifically reopened for tourism. You're really reaching with your "reasoning" lol. And I'm sure the admission fee paid for that actually pays for the costs to maintain and operate the tunnel/station people are visiting.

What's ridiculous is this notion that the GGB is the same thing as the Space Needle, St Louis Arch, Empire State Building, etc..just because it's a tourist attraction. It's not just tourists crossing the bridge as pedestrians and cyclists either, a lot are locals. I guess when SF decides to start charging people to walk down a public sidewalk/roadway there will be nothing unique about that either since it's where a lot of tourists frequent.

This is fun now. The only one "reaching" here is you. There aren't any locals crossing that bridge on foot in any practical function. It is a visitor attraction, if you prefer the term rather than tourist.

The obvious point of all my varied examples is: they all charge for the experience of the visit. Because none of the visits are for practical functions of daily living such as commuting. It doesn't matter whether they were built to be tourist attractions. Once they become that, they become a potential source of revenue.

Absurd to declare anything unique or out of bounds about this decision. This kind of attempt to raise revenue is common everywhere in the world.

[Tulemutt]

Questions to ask, answer, ponder:
1) is the GG Bridge a visitor / tourist attraction?
2) do people commute across on foot or bicycle?
3) have there ever been fees charged before for visitors to use the walkways?

WAS A PEDESTRIAN FEE EVER CHARGED TO ACCESS THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE SIDEWALKS?

From May 1937 to December 1970, a pedestrian toll (sidewalk fee) was charged and collected using a coin turnstile. By Board of Director Resolution No. 7159, authorized on December 15, 1970, the pedestrian toll was eliminated.

4) is it unusual for visitor attractions anywhere on the planet to charge fees?

There are over 10 million visitors to the bridge each year. There is nothing difficult, tricky, or expensive about charging / collecting a fee from each. This is the age of automation. Parking meters. Fastrack. Etc. Why would this be different?

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

The city has a $7bn + budget. It doesn't "desperately need" any more revenues. What it "desperately needs" is some common sense in conducting its affairs and not catering to special interests, but to its people. For once.

This has nothing to do with the city of SF. The Golden Gate Transportation District -- which runs the bridge, along with buses and ferries -- is a completely separate entity from both SF and Marin County.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by pch1013

).

And FYI, there is a historical example of a bridge charging a pedestrian toll: a certain big red one in San Francisco. From 1937 to 1970 there were coin turnstiles for pedestrians.

Wow. Speaking of memory problems with age

I am now remembering I actually paid myself in the late 60's to walk across.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

This is fun now. The only one "reaching" here is you. There aren't any locals crossing that bridge on foot in any practical function. It is a visitor attraction, if you prefer the term rather than tourist.

The obvious point of all my varied examples is: they all charge for the experience of the visit. Because none of the visits are for practical functions of daily living such as commuting. It doesn't matter whether they were built to be tourist attractions. Once they become that, they become a potential source of revenue.

Absurd to declare anything unique or out of bounds about this decision. This kind of attempt to raise revenue is common everywhere in the world.

When you start bringing up examples like Gettysburg its pretty clear who's "reaching" here lol. Not everyone going there is going simply for the view. People, probably locals more so, cross it for leisure/exercise as well.

So what the walkways aren't full of commuters? If they were would the toll somehow be absurd or unique to you then? Well then I guess watch out Lombard St, Hollywood Walk of Fame, the view from Twin Peaks, Golden Gate Park, Central Park, etc..because there is nothing unique about charging someone the pleasure of setting foot in any of those places since the Empire State Building charges admission .

If it wasn't so absurd one would think you would be able to provide a direct, present day example of where else this is done or how it's common which you have yet to do. Given all the bridges in the world you think there would be some examples right? I'm not buying the whole Space Needle/ESB/STL Arch angle. So you don't have any examples of public infrastructure where something like this is done?