Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-27-2014, 10:32 PM
 
781 posts, read 741,144 times
Reputation: 1062

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by capoeira View Post
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
I am new to California, but back in New England it's very common to charge $10-15 a day to park at the beach.

It will be sad to see the Golden Gate have a toll. I hope New York doesn't get any ideas and charge admission for the beloved Brooklyn Bridge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-27-2014, 11:29 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,977 posts, read 32,535,299 times
Reputation: 13625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
No. I'm more amazed with you than you are with me. By far.
Really mature response.... Actually you're probably right though as I'm used to seeing you continue arguing to no end in thread after thread on this forum when someone doesn't see it your way. I'm sure this will continue until you get the last word lol

Quote:
Exactly what other relevant thing is there to consider? Keyword: relevant.
Here's the definition of infrastructure:

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).
Ok well in your OPINION they aren't infrastructure and built as fluff apparently. I think most professionals/people would see walkways and sidewalks as part of infrastructure and you can find them defined as infrastructure as well. Not all walkways/sidewalks on bridges are fluff and designed to take in the view either obviously.
Quote:
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?
Parks are definitely are public infrastructure and if you want to use that as a comparison it's sure a lot better than what you've tried to use so far. Not sure if any local/municipal parks charge but state and national one's do, at least for vehicles and parking, not sure if any actually charge pedestrians or cyclist though.

Quote:
Here is your original comment:
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?
I personally don't think a state like Nebraska would. Do you seriously think that every place has the same tax and spend mentality as the Bay Area? Hell look at San Diego in the same state. They stopped charging tolls in 2007 when the Coronado bridge was paid off and currently it's still free to cross. Now a place like NYC I can see doing it and I hope SF doesn't give them any ideas. So I guess I should clarify my original comment that 'leave it to the Bay Area to be the FIRST to come up with something this stupid'.

You say this isn't unique because it's tourists that use the walkways mainly so therefore the same as the Space Needle, ESB, etc... So if they decided to charge tolls for the walkways on the Bay Bridge, Carquinez Bridge, and Benicia Bridge would it then be "unique" since tourists aren't the one's crossing them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2014, 08:19 AM
 
Location: On the water.
21,673 posts, read 16,211,923 times
Reputation: 19765
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Really mature response.... Actually you're probably right though as I'm used to seeing you continue arguing to no end in thread after thread on this forum when someone doesn't see it your way. I'm sure this will continue until you get the last word lol
Ah. You cause me to wonder if you have a sense of humor, sav. T'was a lighthearted comment of jest. But then you have added another of your cute "lol"'s at the end so perhaps you do grasp that. In any case, I gather you participate similarly in this forum out of a sense of civic responsibility, and not simply for the entertainment. In which case I do apologize for being such a burden, forcing you to engage the repartee.

Now then, moving back to the searing issue of whether the bridge is infrastructure, and infrastructure with a valid argument for charging fees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Ok well in your OPINION they aren't infrastructure and built as fluff apparently. I think most professionals/people would see walkways and sidewalks as part of infrastructure and you can find them defined as infrastructure as well. Not all walkways/sidewalks on bridges are fluff and designed to take in the view either obviously.
Parks are definitely are public infrastructure and if you want to use that as a comparison it's sure a lot better than what you've tried to use so far. Not sure if any local/municipal parks charge but state and national one's do, at least for vehicles and parking, not sure if any actually charge pedestrians or cyclist though.

I personally don't think a state like Nebraska would. Do you seriously think that every place has the same tax and spend mentality as the Bay Area? Hell look at San Diego in the same state. They stopped charging tolls in 2007 when the Coronado bridge was paid off and currently it's still free to cross. Now a place like NYC I can see doing it and I hope SF doesn't give them any ideas. So I guess I should clarify my original comment that 'leave it to the Bay Area to be the FIRST to come up with something this stupid'.

You say this isn't unique because it's tourists that use the walkways mainly so therefore the same as the Space Needle, ESB, etc... So if they decided to charge tolls for the walkways on the Bay Bridge, Carquinez Bridge, and Benicia Bridge would it then be "unique" since tourists aren't the one's crossing them?
As I've said, I don't like park fees. But, this bridge is both infrastructure and park, and very expensive to maintain. Now jump to the underlying realities of the bridge again. The bridge spans two points in a very critical infrastructure function. Yet, the points at their respective ends are neither residential nor commercial in nature. Never were. Never will be. The distance is too great for practical pedestrian, or bicycle, commute to residential and commercial areas. The practical infrastructural character is: motor-vehicular. Yet, again, the location is smashingly scenic!

What did the bridge designers and builders think about that? Well, they clearly added the sidewalks as access to a scenic attraction. And. They. Charged. For. That. Pedestrian. Scenic. Access. From. Day. One.

What we have are two types of public infrastructure in one. Practical commerce and and public pleasure.

And there is nothing unique about the Bay Area charging a toll for either one. Both are done all across the nation and around the world.

Remember, in your specious attempts to define this to a gnat's arse: the public access to, under, and all around both ends of the bridge is free, and full of spectacular viewpoints. Only the actual walk / pedal across the span is being tolled. Yeah, just as you can walk around and across the Hoover dam and the Arch and lots of other attractions - but you will pay for the most central of each respective attraction's experience: tours inside the workings of the dam, tram to the view inside the top of the arch. Etc.

And to hammer this a bit more, yes, many municipal parks all across the nation and around the world charge fees for a variety of public access experiences. I just linked an item about the new charge to pedestriate (gotta love my new word there!) your way through the arboretum in Golden Gate park. And if you want to jump up and down pointing out how that is -AGAIN- yet another example of the Bay Area sinning uniquely against its citizens, I suggest you pause and look up how many special attractions, from arboretums, to zoos, aquariums, museums, beaches (note the comment of the other poster from the east coast above), campgrounds are similarly managed everywhere. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2014, 09:03 AM
 
Location: On the water.
21,673 posts, read 16,211,923 times
Reputation: 19765
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
I personally don't think a state like Nebraska would. Do you seriously think that every place has the same tax and spend mentality as the Bay Area? Hell look at San Diego in the same state. They stopped charging tolls in 2007 when the Coronado bridge was paid off and currently it's still free to cross.

So if they decided to charge tolls for the walkways on the Bay Bridge, Carquinez Bridge, and Benicia Bridge would it then be "unique" since tourists aren't the one's crossing them?
Now that I've had a nice breakfast, I am immaturely motivated to deflate several other fallacious claims you just made.
1) Nebraska would leap at any opportunity to leverage an attraction such as the GG Bridge.

2) Even if we were to accept the Bay Area and California as "tax and spend" mentality entities (which I do not. For example the state has one of the nation's lowest public employees to citizen ratios), a "tax and spend" mentality has zero to do with tolling the bridge walkways to raise revenue for critical maintenance. What would "they" be spending frivolously on in maintaining the bridge?

3) And the Bay Area stopped charging tolls to walk the GG Bridge in the early 1970's until now, almost 45 years later. A floating bridge between Seattle and Bellevue in Washington stopped charging tolls when that bridge was paid off about 20 or so years ago. Guess what? They just started charging again to help pay for maintenance. The Coronado bridge has been toll-free for seven years? So what?

4) Why would anyone pay for the fun of walking across the other bridges you suggest? No one will walk across for free as it is. It is a non-comparable experience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2014, 09:28 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,977 posts, read 32,535,299 times
Reputation: 13625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
Ah. You cause me to wonder if you have a sense of humor, sav. T'was a lighthearted comment of jest. But then you have added another of your cute "lol"'s at the end so perhaps you do grasp that. In any case, I gather you participate similarly in this forum out of a sense of civic responsibility, and not simply for the entertainment. In which case I do apologize for being such a burden, forcing you to engage the repartee.
Oh that's sad if you feel that is what you're doing lol.

Quote:
Now then, moving back to the searing issue of whether the bridge is infrastructure, and infrastructure with a valid argument for charging fees.
As I've said, I don't like park fees. But, this bridge is both infrastructure and park, and very expensive to maintain. Now jump to the underlying realities of the bridge again. The bridge spans two points in a very critical infrastructure function. Yet, the points at their respective ends are neither residential nor commercial in nature. Never were. Never will be. The distance is too great for practical pedestrian, or bicycle, commute to residential and commercial areas. The practical infrastructural character is: motor-vehicular. Yet, again, the location is smashingly scenic!

What did the bridge designers and builders think about that? Well, they clearly added the sidewalks as access to a scenic attraction. And. They. Charged. For. That. Pedestrian. Scenic. Access. From. Day. One.

What we have are two types of public infrastructure in one. Practical commerce and and public pleasure.
What does it even matter whether they're commuters or not?

Quote:
And there is nothing unique about the Bay Area charging a toll for either one. Both are done all across the nation and around the world.
Well if that was the case then you'd think you would be able to provide one current example of where charging cyclists and pedestrians a toll to cross a bridge is done. Sure if you want to treat the GGB as something like Disneyland then it's not unique I suppose but all I was asking for was an example of another bridge/road, etc.. doing this. No one has been able to provide an example though.

Quote:
Remember, in your specious attempts to define this to a gnat's arse: the public access to, under, and all around both ends of the bridge is free, and full of spectacular viewpoints. Only the actual walk / pedal across the span is being tolled. Yeah, just as you can walk around and across the Hoover dam and the Arch and lots of other attractions - but you will pay for the most central of each respective attraction's experience: tours inside the workings of the dam, tram to the view inside the top of the arch. Etc.
Ok well if they started taking you up the elevator to the top of the GGB I obviously would have no issue charging for that. Just like they charge you to climb the Sydney Harbor Bridge. But like the Hoover Dam they don't charge you just to walk across it. They don't charge you to walk the base of the Statue of Liberty but they do to go to the top.

Quote:
And to hammer this a bit more, yes, many municipal parks all across the nation and around the world charge fees for a variety of public access experiences. I just linked an item about the new charge to pedestriate (gotta love my new word there!) your way through the arboretum in Golden Gate park. And if you want to jump up and down pointing out how that is -AGAIN- yet another example of the Bay Area sinning uniquely against its citizens, I suggest you pause and look up how many special attractions, from arboretums, to zoos, aquariums, museums, beaches (note the comment of the other poster from the east coast above), campgrounds are similarly managed everywhere. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum.
Do any charge you just to walk across the park itself? The GGB doesn't offer any special attraction like going to the top.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2014, 09:37 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,977 posts, read 32,535,299 times
Reputation: 13625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
Now that I've had a nice breakfast, I am immaturely motivated to deflate several other fallacious claims you just made.
1) Nebraska would leap at any opportunity to leverage an attraction such as the GG Bridge.
Ok well in your opinion feel free to believe that, I don't think they would "leap" to do such a thing.

Quote:
2) Even if we were to accept the Bay Area and California as "tax and spend" mentality entities (which I do not. For example the state has one of the nation's lowest public employees to citizen ratios), a "tax and spend" mentality has zero to do with tolling the bridge walkways to raise revenue for critical maintenance. What would "they" be spending frivolously on in maintaining the bridge?
Tolls already cover maintenance. This is to help their overall deficit, a lot of which I assume is caused by the transit services they run. That is why I said earlier it's a ridiculous toll because it would help pay for things not even directly related to the bridge or walkway itself.

From briefly looking at the budget someone else posted, the bridge division currently produces a $40 million surplus each year. So looks like "critical maintenance" for the bridge and walkway is already covered and then some.
Quote:
3) And the Bay Area stopped charging tolls to walk the GG Bridge in the early 1970's until now, almost 45 years later. A floating bridge between Seattle and Bellevue in Washington stopped charging tolls when that bridge was paid off about 20 or so years ago. Guess what? They just started charging again to help pay for maintenance. The Coronado bridge has been toll-free for seven years? So what?
So not everyone looks at bridge tolls as a way to pay for things not even related to the bridge itself.

Quote:
4) Why would anyone pay for the fun of walking across the other bridges you suggest? No one will walk across for free as it is. It is a non-comparable experience.
Well walking or biking across a bridge, seems pretty comparable to me. So let me ask again and hopefully this time you can actually provide an answer, if they decided to charge tolls for the walkways on the Bay Bridge, Carquinez Bridge, and Benicia Bridge would it then be "unique" since tourists aren't the one's crossing them?

Since according to you, it's tourists that don't make this toll unique. If you removed the tourists, that then would make the toll unique correct?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2014, 09:48 AM
 
Location: On the water.
21,673 posts, read 16,211,923 times
Reputation: 19765
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Oh that's sad if you feel that is what you're doing lol.
Uh no. More humor whizzed by you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
What does it even matter whether they're commuters or not?
It doesn't matter - to me. I got the impression that you, like a couple other posters, were objecting that walking and biking should be encouraged rather than driving - thus the tolls would be a deterrent to a non-polluting lifestyle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Well if that was the case then you'd think you would be able to provide one current example of where charging cyclists and pedestrians a toll to cross a bridge is done. Sure if you want to treat the GGB as something like Disneyland then it's not unique I suppose but all I was asking for was an example of another bridge/road, etc.. doing this. No one has been able to provide an example though.
Simple: the GG bridge is a unique experience - for all the reasons I have repeated. Name the other bridges that people walk / bike across from nowhere to nowhere just for the view and thrill. The bridge in Sydney? Perhaps. That proves what that they don't charge? There is something special about bridges that makes them not comparable to other attractions when being a pedestrian attraction is the ONLY pedestrian function? Come on, that's just silly. Of course the pedestrian experience of the bridge in this case is comparable to other kinds of attractions. It. Is. A. Primary. Recreational. Experience. In this case it happens to occur on a fabulous bridge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Ok well if they started taking you up the elevator to the top of the GGB I obviously would have no issue charging for that. Just like they charge you to climb the Sydney Harbor Bridge. But like the Hoover Dam they don't charge you just to walk across it. They don't charge you to walk the base of the Statue of Liberty but they do to go to the top.

Do any charge you just to walk across the park itself? The GGB doesn't offer any special attraction like going to the top.
There is no elevator experience on the GG Bridge. If there was, that might well supplant the walking toll. Or perhaps be in addition. Hoover Dam's most intense experience is the inner workings. GG Bridge's most intense, available experience is walking across. Each different attraction has its individual character and a pay-to-play experience to go with it. Some have more than one pay-to-play level.

This really couldn't be more obvious. Perhaps you are being intentionally obtuse? Because it is fun to have this repartee experience - for free! (Until, of course, the Bay Area figures out a way to toll CD Forum posts, right?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2014, 10:07 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,977 posts, read 32,535,299 times
Reputation: 13625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
It doesn't matter - to me. I got the impression that you, like a couple other posters, were objecting that walking and biking should be encouraged rather than driving - thus the tolls would be a deterrent to a non-polluting lifestyle.
I don't think anyone ever suggested that, certainly not me, or even started talking about commuters vs tourists except you.

Quote:
Simple: the GG bridge is a unique experience - for all the reasons I have repeated. Name the other bridges that people walk / bike across from nowhere to nowhere just for the view and thrill. The bridge in Sydney? Perhaps. That proves what that they don't charge? There is something special about bridges that makes them not comparable to other attractions when being a pedestrian attraction is the ONLY pedestrian function? Come on, that's just silly. Of course the pedestrian experience of the bridge in this case is comparable to other kinds of attractions. It. Is. A. Primary. Recreational. Experience. In this case it happens to occur on a fabulous bridge.
Syndey Harbor, Brooklyn Bridge, London's Tower Bridge, Oakland span of the Bay Bridge, etc..

Quote:
There is no elevator experience on the GG Bridge. If there was, that might well supplant the walking toll. Or perhaps be in addition. Hoover Dam's most intense experience is the inner workings. GG Bridge's most intense, available experience is walking across. Each different attraction has its individual character and a pay-to-play experience to go with it. Some have more than one pay-to-play level.
Well then I guess the GGB will be the only bridge that currently offers the pay-to-play experience of walking across it, such a one of a kind and special bridge in more ways than one.

Quote:
This really couldn't be more obvious. Perhaps you are being intentionally obtuse? Because it is fun to have this repartee experience - for free! (Until, of course, the Bay Area figures out a way to toll CD Forum posts, right?)
Or perhaps I just think it's ridiculously stupid to equate this to going to the top of the STL Arch, ESB, Statue of Liberty, etc.. I know you have trouble accepting that a lot of people don't see things as you do, perhaps you should work on that. Probably would help cut down on the number of pages in a lot of threads too lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2014, 11:33 AM
 
Location: San Francisco
136 posts, read 196,271 times
Reputation: 191
In order to prevent raising taxes on rich people, it has become necessary to nickel and dime everyone else.

Sorry. But this is your American and it's what you asked for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2014, 11:37 AM
 
Location: On the water.
21,673 posts, read 16,211,923 times
Reputation: 19765
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Syndey Harbor, Brooklyn Bridge, London's Tower Bridge, Oakland span of the Bay Bridge, etc..

Well then I guess the GGB will be the only bridge that currently offers the pay-to-play experience of walking across it, such a one of a kind and special bridge in more ways than one.

Or perhaps I just think it's ridiculously stupid to equate this to going to the top of the STL Arch, ESB, Statue of Liberty, etc.. I know you have trouble accepting that a lot of people don't see things as you do, perhaps you should work on that. Probably would help cut down on the number of pages in a lot of threads too lol.
As you often say: lol. Here's a link to buying tickets to London's Tower Bridge:
https://www.gammabookings.com/TowerBridgeBookings/

And, lol, again, a link to the Sydney Bridge Climb:
BridgeClimb Sydney - For The Climb of Your Life | For The Climb Of Your Life

And 10 million visitors annually walk or desire to walk across the Bay Bridge from Oakland? Learn something new everyday! Not.

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.

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?

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!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:17 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top