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.
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?
Really. You can't be as dense as you appear. I brought up Gettysburg in response to your comment that the bridge wasn't built to be a visitor attraction. What difference does it make why something was built or why it existed back in history? What is relevant is what it has become.
One would think your claims of unique burden and hardship wouldn't be so absurd if you could name another bridge that attracts 10 million visitors a year from around the world desiring the experience to walk across - that doesn't charge a fee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
FYI, "hundreds" of cyclists commute across the bridge every day.
Tuttlemut, this is a very slippery slope you are on. And I am not even stretching to say - where does this end? So, so far this year, we have had Lombard St. closed for public access, because locals complained. http://sf.streetsblog.org/2014/05/23...s-for-granted/
We are going to start charging for GG Bridge. So what's next? Fisherman's wharf will start having tolls, too? That's a tourist destination. Alamo Sq? Tourist Destination, too much traffic, better charge tolls. Market St. - tourist destination - tolls.
You can't just use "oh it is a tourist destination, we should charge tolls" argument in a city that is one large tourist destination. In one year, we have increasingly limited access to two public infrastructure points. I don't want this trend continuing. I believe in such things as public goods. I believe being able to walk across the bridge for free with my child even if I can't afford it.
Read a book called What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets by Michael J. Sandel about how more and more free activities are disappearing becoming the purview of people with money.
I am tired of being nickel and dimed at every step. Oh and how the hell does a bridge, that cost $1.5 bn in 2012 dollars to build, need $230 mn per year to operate? Even if you ignore the transportation, the bridge ITSELF needs $100 mn per year. How about some accountability on the expense front? Why is the solution to everything to find new sources of revenues? Why is that each year I pay more and more and receive less and less? Have you driven on the streets of SF? There are parts that are literally worse than my 2nd world homeland. My alignment was off the charts after two years of driving in the city on a brand new Honda Accord.
Really. You can't be as dense as you appear. I brought up Gettysburg in response to your comment that the bridge wasn't built to be a visitor attraction. What difference does it make why something was built or why it existed back in history? What is relevant is what it has become.
Geeze, no need for the insult just because I find your examples pretty absurd and not comparable. Yeah you brought it up and it's really reaching to equate them just because they both get tourists. It's also a bad example simply because Gettyburg was developed as a historic site/attraction to attract people or else it would just be an empty overgrown field today.
Quote:
One would think your claims of unique burden and hardship wouldn't be so absurd if you could name another bridge that attracts 10 million visitors a year from around the world desiring the experience to walk across - that doesn't charge a fee.
I've already mentioned the Brooklyn Bridge and Sydney Harbor bridge several times. Even the one example of public infrastructure you provided, the Hoover Dam, doesn't show how this is common given they don't charge pedestrians or cyclists, or even motorists, to cross it.
Quote:
Great. A couple hundred cyclists out of 10 million visitors.
Give the cyclists commuter passes. Or put them on Fastrack.
Good grief.
I'm just trying to understand this rational that "oh it's just tourists" so it's okay to charge, when in reality it's not just tourists. I guess acknowledging that it's used by cyclists for commuting kind of negates your whole Space Need/STL Arch/ESB/etc..angle or something? If anything you'd think that would be the one's that should be charged since they're "commuting".
We are going to start charging for GG Bridge. So what's next? Fisherman's wharf will start having tolls, too? That's a tourist destination. Alamo Sq? Tourist Destination, too much traffic, better charge tolls. Market St. - tourist destination - tolls.
You can't just use "oh it is a tourist destination, we should charge tolls" argument in a city that is one large tourist destination. In one year, we have increasingly limited access to two public infrastructure points. I don't want this trend continuing. I believe in such things as public goods. I believe being able to walk across the bridge for free with my child even if I can't afford it.
Read a book called What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets by Michael J. Sandel about how more and more free activities are disappearing becoming the purview of people with money.
I am tired of being nickel and dimed at every step. Oh and how the hell does a bridge, that cost $1.5 bn in 2012 dollars to build, need $230 mn per year to operate? Even if you ignore the transportation, the bridge ITSELF needs $100 mn per year. How about some accountability on the expense front? Why is the solution to everything to find new sources of revenues? Why is that each year I pay more and more and receive less and less? Have you driven on the streets of SF? There are parts that are literally worse than my 2nd world homeland. My alignment was off the charts after two years of driving in the city on a brand new Honda Accord.
Apparently you didn't read my earlier posts. The ones where I several times said I don't like or approve of this pedestrian toll?
What I have been sparring with sav858 about is his position that this kind of fee is somehow uniquely a San Francisco, California kind of hi jinks and failure. It isn't in the slightest. This is, unfortunately, what people in a position to develop revenue do all around the world. We have an attraction that brings 10 million visitors annually to gawk from and amble across. And it charged for the pedestrian experience for 40 years before. Anything with that draw and power is going to be a target for avarice and greed. Anywhere.
I am surprised that the toll was ever removed - not that it is being reinstated.
We have on this forum a large community of complainers who feel compelled to paint a picture of this state and the City as uniquely depraved. It's not San Francisco or California we're observing here. It's human nature and the current state of civilization. The trend has been for a long time to maximize everything under the sun to financial opportunity. And, as you said, quality of life be damned to not only the back seat, but frankly the bumper hitch at best.
As for your reading suggestion, you are preaching to a guy who lives on a small boat and spends little more than what his Social Security check provides for. In spite of having done very well financially in investments.
Real life is afloat. Fishing. And not from no yacht.
Apparently you didn't read my earlier posts. The ones where I several times said I don't like or approve of this pedestrian toll?
What I have been sparring with sav858 about is his position that this kind of fee is somehow uniquely a San Francisco, California kind of hi jinks and failure. It isn't in the slightest. This is, unfortunately, what people in a position to develop revenue do all around the world. We have an attraction that brings 10 million visitors annually to gawk from and amble across. And it charged for the pedestrian experience for 40 years before. Anything with that draw and power is going to be a target for avarice and greed. Anywhere.
I am surprised that the toll was ever removed - not that it is being reinstated.
We have on this forum a large community of complainers who feel compelled to paint a picture of this state and the City as uniquely depraved. It's not San Francisco or California we're observing here. It's human nature and the current state of civilization. The trend has been for a long time to maximize everything under the sun to financial opportunity. And, as you said, quality of life be damned to not only the back seat, but frankly the bumper hitch at best.
As for your reading suggestion, you are preaching to a guy who lives on a small boat and spends little more than what his Social Security check provides for. In spite of having done very well financially in investments.
Real life is afloat. Fishing. And not from no yacht.
Good for you! Living within your means is the best way to go. I will re-read some of your older posts. I am glad you don't approve of the toll
Geeze, no need for the insult just because I find your examples pretty absurd and not comparable. Yeah you brought it up and it's really reaching to equate them just because they both get tourists. It's also a bad example simply because Gettyburg was developed as a historic site/attraction to attract people or else it would just be an empty overgrown field today.
I've already mentioned the Brooklyn Bridge and Sydney Harbor bridge several times. Even the one example of public infrastructure you provided, the Hoover Dam, doesn't show how this is common given they don't charge pedestrians or cyclists, or even motorists, to cross it.
I'm just trying to understand this rational that "oh it's just tourists" so it's okay to charge, when in reality it's not just tourists. I guess acknowledging that it's used by cyclists for commuting kind of negates your whole Space Need/STL Arch/ESB/etc..angle or something? If anything you'd think that would be the one's that should be charged since they're "commuting".
That you fail to grasp the similarities is what has me wondering.
You continue to try to define the GG Bridge as a category, rather than a unique experience. In fact you are attempting to categorize all my and your examples so. You are suggesting that things must all conform limited classes as you define them.
What is comparable - the only relevant comparable - is that all the places mentioned are *visitor attractions that draw immense numbers of people willing to pay for their visit.
I have also clearly stated several times that I don't think it's okay to charge for this. I don't agree and don't like it. I do, however, find it predictable and not unique to California or the City.
As for a couple hundred cyclists commuting across a tourist attraction that hosts 10 million visits annually - why would the powers that be give up the opportunity for probably $20 million or more a year in revenue because of a statistically insignificant number of cyclists? Of course they wouldn't. They might find a way to exempt them. But if one is hell bent on that kind of revenue opportunity, it's an obvious no-brainier to go forward with the toll. Your attempt at logic suggesting that the cyclists should be tolled and not the tourists is a laughable failure of premises.
That you fail to grasp the similarities is what has me wondering.
You continue to try to define the GG Bridge as a category, rather than a unique experience. In fact you are attempting to categorize all my and your examples so. You are suggesting that things must all conform limited classes as you define them.
What is comparable - the only relevant comparable - is that all the places mentioned are *visitor attractions that draw immense numbers of people willing to pay for their visit.
I have also clearly stated several times that I don't think it's okay to charge for this. I don't agree and don't like it. I do, however, find it predictable and not unique to California or the City.
As for a couple hundred cyclists commuting across a tourist attraction that hosts 10 million visits annually - why would the powers that be give up the opportunity for probably $20 million or more a year in revenue because of a statistically insignificant number of cyclists? Of course they wouldn't. They might find a way to exempt them. But if one is hell bent on that kind of revenue opportunity, it's an obvious no-brainier to go forward with the toll. Your attempt at logic suggesting that the cyclists should be tolled and not the tourists is a laughable failure of premises.
I'm pretty amazed at how you fail to see the obvious differences and instead treat anything that attracts tourists as all the same. The ability to attract tourists isn't the only the relevant thing to consider at all and it's very simplistic.
I wasn't really suggesting cyclists be tolled but just found the whole point of whether they were commuting or not irrelevant and a lame attempt to equate the bridge to other tourist attractions.
If you can find another famous piece of public infrastructure that charges for something like this, the simple act of walking/biking across, I would be interested in hearing about it. Otherwise you really don't have any relevant counter examples and this type of "toll/fee" is would definitely be one-of-a-kind today.
I'm pretty amazed at how you fail to see the obvious differences and instead treat anything that attracts tourists as all the same. The ability to attract tourists isn't the only the relevant thing to consider at all and it's very simplistic.
I wasn't really suggesting cyclists be tolled but just found the whole point of whether they were commuting or not irrelevant and a lame attempt to equate the bridge to other tourist attractions.
If you can find another famous piece of public infrastructure that charges for something like this, the simple act of walking/biking across, I would be interested in hearing about it. Otherwise you really don't have any relevant counter examples and this type of "toll/fee" is would definitely be one-of-a-kind today.
No. I'm more amazed with you than you are with me. By far.
Exactly what other relevant thing is there to consider? Keyword: relevant.
Here's the definition of infrastructure:
Quote:
in·fra·struc·ture noun \ˈin-frə-ˌstrək-chər, -(ˌ)frä-\
: the basic equipment and structures (such as roads and bridges) that are needed for a country, region, or organization to function properly
Now then. The bridge is infrastructure. But it's walkways are not. They were never designed, intended, nor built to serve the definition of infrastructure. They were built as fluff. A platform to marvel at the beauty of both the infrastructure and the environment it spans. And an admission fee was charged to traverse the walkways right from opening day, 1937 (until early 70's).
But only in California would we find such a travesty, you say?
Bull tweet and apple butter.
One could properly even argue that parks everywhere are public infrastructure - as they are vital to society's functional well being. And obviously, parks across America from the Atlantic to the Pacific certainly are often fee-based. There are plenty of free parks as well of course. So what determines whether they have fees or not? Hmmm? Popularity? And are popular fee-based public parks limited to SF or California?
Here is your original comment:
Quote:
Wow, leave it to the Bay Area to come up with something this stupid.
Are you seriously suggesting that Nebraska wouldn't do the same if the bridge were theirs?
Are you seriously suggesting that the Bay Area is uniquely stupid and was so as far back as 1937?
Is that what you really think people should believe?
Do you seriously maintain that other places wouldn't consider the same?
By the way all, you know about the new fee to visit the arboretum at GG Park, right? Yes. It sucks. Just like in other places around the country that think they can get away with the same. It's not the Bay Area, or California. It's just people.
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.
.
