Golden Gate Bridge Considers Charging Pedestrians, Cyclists

[bing101]

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201410230900


Ok then


"Bicyclists and pedestrians might have to pay a toll to cross the Golden Gate Bridge starting in 2017, as the bridge district struggles to chip away at a $33 million deficit. On Monday, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District released a 45-point plan to keep itself solvent, part of which includes sidewalk fees." From the KQED Talk Show Forum.[/size]

[nexus73]

Raise the gas tax a few pennies in the region's counties, eliminate all bridge tolls in the SF Bay Area and that will eliminate the bureaucracies that are running those bridges and adding to the expenses.  Remove all toll booths for smoother traffic flow.  CalTrans can handle the admin work for the maintenance of the bridges.

Rick

[NE2]

They can pay for the wear and tear they cause. That'll be on the order of 1/100 of one cent.

[J N Winkler]

I hope this idea dies--the Golden Gate Bridge is one of not very many attractions in the San Francisco Bay Area that cost visitors on foot nothing.  The justification for charging, if any is offered in the face of the opposition that is sure to arise, would be congestion rather than wear and tear.

[andy3175]

I wonder if all pedestrians and cyclists would now have to walk or bike around with a Fastrak or equivalent in tow, since the GGB moved to all electronic tolling?

[J N Winkler]

I wonder if all pedestrians and cyclists would now have to walk or bike around with a Fastrak or equivalent in tow, since the GGB moved to all electronic tolling?

CAPUFE bridges across the Rio Grande that collect toll from pedestrians have coin-operated turnstiles.  At the Golden Gate, some combination of turnstile, oversize-luggage gate, coin slot, credit-card reader, and contactless RFID card reader could be used.  The design would have to provide for deep queues given the large numbers of people that take weekend leisure walks and rides on the bridge.  I don't know how an ORT equivalent could be made to work short of compulsory RFID implants.

[TheStranger]

CalTrans can handle the admin work for the maintenance of the bridges.

Keep in mind that CalTrans has nothing to do with the Golden Gate Bridge at all, but rather a completely different governmental agency (Golden Gate Highway and Transportation District) that operates a ferry and bus service as well.

[nexus73]

CalTrans can handle the admin work for the maintenance of the bridges.

Keep in mind that CalTrans has nothing to do with the Golden Gate Bridge at all, but rather a completely different governmental agency (Golden Gate Highway and Transportation District) that operates a ferry and bus service as well.

I knew that.  One of the objectives of my suggestion is to remove other bureaucracies and their associated expenses.  Why duplicate admin costs?

Rick

[TheStranger]

I knew that.  One of the objectives of my suggestion is to remove other bureaucracies and their associated expenses.  Why duplicate admin costs?

I always have interpreted the district's existence as "only those counties that contributed to the bridge being built have the responsibility of maintaining/funding related projects" - thus unlike CalTrans projects, people from outside SF and the North Bay do not have their tax dollars going to the Golden Gate Bridge et al.


Fixed quoting. --roadfro

[nexus73]

Look for a whole new paradigm T.S., not some small changes.  See all those toll bridges in the SF Bay Area region?  Then maybe you can see the situation as a whole and solve it as a whole.  The entire system of freeways, expressways and bridges covers an entire region.  Raise the gas tax the few pennies needed in that region to maintain the bridges under the aegis of CalTrans, which is the State of California's transportation agency.  Sounds logical to do that (CalTrans) doesn't it? 

Or go ahead and throw more money into those special tolling districts that buy lots of admin and office personnel, raise the tolls, find something else to toll (pedestrians, bicyclists) and keep on with the same old way of doing things. 

Your call.

Rick 

[TheStranger]

Look for a whole new paradigm T.S., not some small changes.  See all those toll bridges in the SF Bay Area region?  Then maybe you can see the situation as a whole and solve it as a whole.  The entire system of freeways, expressways and bridges covers an entire region.  Raise the gas tax the few pennies needed in that region to maintain the bridges under the aegis of CalTrans, which is the State of California's transportation agency.  Sounds logical to do that (CalTrans) doesn't it? 

I'm actually not making an argument either way so much as stating why this exists (and the logic behind it being separate all these years, which isn't inherently better or worse IMO).  Not to mention that public trust in CalTrans here isn't particularly high after what has happened with the Bay Bridge east span.

[nexus73]

Look for a whole new paradigm T.S., not some small changes.  See all those toll bridges in the SF Bay Area region?  Then maybe you can see the situation as a whole and solve it as a whole.  The entire system of freeways, expressways and bridges covers an entire region.  Raise the gas tax the few pennies needed in that region to maintain the bridges under the aegis of CalTrans, which is the State of California's transportation agency.  Sounds logical to do that (CalTrans) doesn't it? 

I'm actually not making an argument either way so much as stating why this exists (and the logic behind it being separate all these years, which isn't inherently better or worse IMO).  Not to mention that public trust in CalTrans here isn't particularly high after what has happened with the Bay Bridge east span.

Unlike you, I see a fragmented admin system as being inherently worse than a single admin setup.  Every dollar spent on admin is one less dollar for building and maintaining infrastructure.  There is already a gas tax collection system in place. 

Mistrust of CalTrans does not mean that they can't be the admin for those currently tolled bridges.  CalTrans already handles the other non-toll bridges in California's highway system. and how many problems have come from that?  I do not recall seeing any massive scandals in regards to bridges other than the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge.  CalTrans is the designated agency for highway transportation so if not them, then who? 

Rick

[Henry]

Please tell me this is a joke 

[vdeane]

I don't know how an ORT equivalent could be made to work short of compulsory RFID implants.

The pedestrians would have a FasTrak superglued to their foreheads.  To catch people without FasTrak, it would be mandatory to have a licence plate number tattooed onto their butts and chests and have it on display at all times.  Cameras would take photos of all people without FasTrak and mail a bill.

[Alps]

Here are a few points:
The bridge is CLOGGED with peds and bikes. I visited it on a weekday midday, not particularly close to sunrise, sunset, lunch, etc., and there were at least hundreds of people on the bridge.
Because of that, all of the nearby parking is wiped out with hundreds of cars. Most of it charges, including at the bridge's own welcome center. Imagine that you have to pay just to stop at the welcome center?! I managed to find a spot up the hill at the old fort.
I'm thinking a two-tiered system. Locals can buy an annual pass, maybe $50, and have unlimited bike or ped use of the bridge. There would be one-day passes for tourist use, $5. In exchange, the parking areas would revert to free use. Most of the parking off-site is not managed by the bridge authority, so they now get the revenue that currently goes elsewhere. Many of the people using the bridge have parked in that area, so they're just paying someone else with the same money. I am all for this. Before you cry about any sort of right to cross for free, there are plenty of metro crossings where there is no free alternative, and you have to take a ferry or subway to get there. So what's the big deal after all?

[NE2]

Or you could just charge more for parking. Durr.

[Alps]

Or you could just charge more for parking. Durr.

Most of the parking off-site is not managed by the bridge authority, so they now get the revenue that currently goes elsewhere.

Durr.

[jeffandnicole]

Most bicyclists aren't going to park nearby and bike across. Personally, I'd charge the bicyclists only, since they tend to demand to have dedicated lanes to themselves, but want to ride thru red lights and stop signs, and want their own parking spots that take away from cars. So go ahead and charge them. They want to be a part of the highway network; don't expect a free ride from everyone else.

[NE2]

Or you could just charge more for parking. Durr.

Most of the parking off-site is not managed by the bridge authority, so they now get the revenue that currently goes elsewhere.

Durr.

Why are you complaining about the bridge being clogged if your actual concern is revenue?

PS: fuck you, Jecole.

[Alps]

Or you could just charge more for parking. Durr.

Most of the parking off-site is not managed by the bridge authority, so they now get the revenue that currently goes elsewhere.

Durr.

Why are you complaining about the bridge being clogged if your actual concern is revenue?

PS: fuck you, Jecole.

I'm not complaining about it. I'm noting that it's heavily used, and thus a good source for revenue generation.
PS: user insults are generally punished with bans

[NE2]

I'm noting that it's heavily used, and thus a good source for revenue generation.

[Alps]

I'm noting that it's heavily used, and thus a good source for revenue generation.

Cue more pro- vs. anti- bike rhetoric.

[J N Winkler]

Here are a few points:

The bridge is CLOGGED with peds and bikes. I visited it on a weekday midday, not particularly close to sunrise, sunset, lunch, etc., and there were at least hundreds of people on the bridge.
Because of that, all of the nearby parking is wiped out with hundreds of cars. Most of it charges, including at the bridge's own welcome center. Imagine that you have to pay just to stop at the welcome center?! I managed to find a spot up the hill at the old fort.

I have walked across the GGB on a Saturday, when foot and cycle traffic can be expected to be at its highest, and I wouldn't characterize it as clogged.  There were definitely hundreds (perhaps even a thousand), but it is a very long bridge and the sidewalks are quite wide.

I didn't take a car for this foot trip--I went from Oakland by BART and then took a GGT bus to the tollbooth stop.

(I parked near the old fort as part of a separate trip last month, this time by car, but only to arrange toll payment on my phone.)

I'm thinking a two-tiered system. Locals can buy an annual pass, maybe $50, and have unlimited bike or ped use of the bridge. There would be one-day passes for tourist use, $5. In exchange, the parking areas would revert to free use. Most of the parking off-site is not managed by the bridge authority, so they now get the revenue that currently goes elsewhere. Many of the people using the bridge have parked in that area, so they're just paying someone else with the same money. I am all for this. Before you cry about any sort of right to cross for free, there are plenty of metro crossings where there is no free alternative, and you have to take a ferry or subway to get there. So what's the big deal after all?

There is one practical problem.  Why should the third-party parking lot owners transfer their property, or the revenue stream arising therefrom, to the bridge district?

Also, metro tunnels are not comparable.  When you pay to use them, you are also paying for mechanical transport from one end to the other.  When you cross the GGB as a pedestrian or bicyclist, you are supplying your own power and enhancing your own muscular strength and cardiovascular fitness, which all people should be doing.  Why disincentivize them from doing so by charging them?

[GaryV]

You mean I have to PAY to commit suicide?

[NE2]

You mean I have to PAY to commit suicide?