The Golden Gate Bridge is known as one of the major landmark of San Francisco. What if someone told you that you have to pay walk or bike across the bridge? Would you do it? If the toll on the Golden Gate Bridge is approved, it would aim for July 2017 to start charges. I personally think they should not put a toll on the bride. Why should people who bike be tolled for not polluting the air? If the toll were to be approved I believe there would be less people would be biking. Although I do believe people would be willing to pay to go on the bridge but for those that bike daily on the bridge it isn't fair to them. What do you think? Would you pay the toll each time you wanted to go on the bridge? Do you think its fair that pedestrians should pay sidewalk tolls since cars pay the bridge toll?
This is absurd. Like said in the article, its public property. People who are walking or biking should not be charged because they aren't polluting the air. By tolling them, it discourages people from doing these environmentally clean activities. Moreover, if people believe they will get tolled either way, thy may be inclined to simply drive/use public transportation and save themselves the effort. This would only increase pollution. So what if we get more money? You can't buy fresh air.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Joy that this is discouraging people from doing environmentally friendly things. It is actually encouraging people to drive. I also believe that less people will want to walk across the bridge since now they would be charged. Yes that would mean more money but exactly like Joy said, "You can't buy fresh air."
ReplyDeleteI do not believe this is fair for pedestrians to pay sidewalk tolls. It's definitely going to discourage them from walking and/or biking across this bridge. Its popularity will go down substantially in my opinion because who wants to pay just walk across and/or bike across a bridge. It's not like when you pay a toll as you drive across it, in that case you are paying to take a giant metal machine across it and also for access to other regions which we seem accustomed to by now since tolls for cars are regularly paid while traveling. Biking and walking cause no threat to the environment like cars do with their pollution and they also cause less wear and tear damage to an already aging bridge. With the lack of bikes and walking this toll could potentially bring it would basically push many to only use the bridge when in a car, hence more pollution of the air with more cars in the picture.
ReplyDeleteCharging people to be environmentally helpful is a terrible idea. Although the bridge is a tourist attraction, trying to squeeze more money from them would be going too far. I can see where is this idea is coming form though. To maintain and keep a nice bridge takes money. However, doing a project like this would reduce the amount of income rather then increase it. Hopefully this rule will not get passed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what everyone else has been saying, that adding a toll to the sidewalks of the bridge would discourage people from being environmentally friendly. Charging the cyclists and pedestrians is going too far even though it would obviously provide a greater income from bridge tolls. Walking or biking across the bridge is something everyone should be able to enjoy without having to pay. For the people that commute across the bridge by bicycle that would resort to driving across the bridge if the toll is enacted would increase already present traffic, making it an inconvenience for everyone crossing the bridge. Not to mention, it would increase pollution. There's a reason they haven't been able to enact this toll before. The public didn't think the toll was fair, and I agree with them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what has been stated above: that it is not fair to require pedestrians to pay sidewalk tolls. Pedestrians who choose to bike or walk across the bridge, rather than drive across it help decrease air pollution. They should not be forced to pay the fee by choosing to be more environmentally friendly. This would like decrease the amount of people who choose to bike / walk, which would ultimately cause an increase in air pollution. It is understandable to charge a fee for people who go on tours and would like to further explore the bridge and the city of San Francisco. However, it is unfair to require pedestrians, who choose to transport to work in a more environmentally friendly manner, to pay the same fee as those who drive.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the stated claims above; it is unjust to require bikers and pedestrians crossing the bridge to pay a toll. Bikers and those who walk across the bridge promote a more eco-friendly way of transit, rather than polluting the air with their cars. Forcing pedestrians and bikers to pay a toll to cross the bridge would discourage them from doing being eco-friendly and would more likely encourage them to go back to the use of cars. With more people turning towards the use of cars as their mode of transportation, this would lead to more pollution going into the air. Taxing people to cross the bridge on foot and by bikes is ridiculous because it discourages those who are being environmentally friendly.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I also feel that it would be ridiculous to charge the pedestrians, it makes sense. As long as the money only goes to bridge maintenance and the toll is not too high (maybe a dollar or a few cents), I think that this could be reasonable. Paying a dollar or less wouldn't discourage the pedestrians too much from being environmentally friendly because it would still be way less than the driving toll. Tons of people cross the bridge everyday, so it is understandable as to why they would require these types of fees.
ReplyDeleteI believe that charging pedestrians and cyclists actually makes sense. The toll is implemented not for environmental reasons, but simply to charge for usage of the bridge. Therefore, cyclists, pedestrians and drivers all should pay in order to cross the bridge. However, the price should be significantly lower for cyclists and pedestrians. Because they do not take up as much space and they cannot carry passengers, they should not have to pay the full price.
ReplyDeleteIt is not fair because people chose to bike or walk instead of driving to avoid pollution, spending money on gas, and simply just because they cannot afford a car. Putting a toll would be defeating the whole purpose of what these people do. It will also discourage people from not polluting the air and getting exercise
ReplyDeleteI believe that charging people would have positives and negatives,because they promote people to ride their bike to school and walk to work, and charging them would be hypocritical, because this makes them not want to bike or walk, because either way you would have to walk. While charging people would be good, because it gives more money for repairs and advancements to the bridge. The bridge needs a lot of help to stay in its glory, with annual rust repair and repainting, and there is also a big debate about putting in a center divide to stop many deadly accidents because of how dangerous it is to drive in the center lane on the bridge.
ReplyDeleteI think it's not fair because if they choose to drive it's their choose, they wanna paid its okay. But it's not fair for pedestrian to pay to go a cross the bridge or the cyclist. I also agree with Bianca when she said to avoid pollution, spending money on gas and probably because they can't afford a car.
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is fair that they might make a toll for pedestrians and bikers. I slightly disagree with some of the opinions above about this being environmentally unfriendly because I know you already have to pay a toll if you are driving across the bridge. This means that if they were to pass this proposed toll, you would have to pay to cross the bridge regardless of what your choice of transportation is. They wouldn't be discouraging anyone from doing environmentally friendly acts. I actually believe the opposite because I believe that the toll for walkers and pedestrians would get a lower toll than cars, resulting in people choosing to bike or walk rather than drive.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with what others have saying that its unfair for people having to pay to just walk across or bike for the Golden Gate Bridge. They do this because they might not have the money to afford cars or care for the environment
ReplyDeleteI believe that the golden gate bridge should not have a toll charging people that are exercising and for tourists that have never beem on the bridge. The golden gate is a iconic landmark that is one of the most well known bridges/location in San francisco which makes the city unique. Everyone now a days only care about one thing and that is money. The city knows that thousands of people everyday walk, bike, skateboard etc on that bridge and they are making an attempt to rob the citizens that go on the bridge because of the bridge's reputation. Passing this law will be a big mistske and will cause riots and commotion throughout california.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jason. People should not be charged to walk on this landmark. I agree some people will pay to walk on the bridge, like tourist. But locals that have been living in S.F their whole life would not pay to go on that bridge. So I think if we start charging people then it would bring in some money, but it would also cause a lot of problems with the locals.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the people above. The Golden Gate Bridge is public property, and the people who walk or ride their bikes should not have to be charged. What they are doing is environmentally friendly and helps their physical being. Because they walk or ride bikes instead of driving cars or taking public transportation, they do not pollute the air. By charging people, the individual may also become discouraged to walk across the bridge because either way they will get charged, and instead they would drive because it is easier/takes less effort. Ultimately, I think that ones who walk or ride their bikes should not be charged to cross.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the Golden Gate Bridge is for everyone to enjoy. It makes sense for drivers to pay a toll for crossing the bridge, but those who are biking and not polluting the air should not be charged. It is public property and it should continue to be for everyone without charge. If we start charging people for this, where else will we be charged to walk? Parks? Downtown? The idea is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what most people have been saying. It doesn’t make any sense to penalize the people who are trying to be environmentally friendly. Many people go on jogs everyday across the bridge or ride there bike across it to go to work, and now they’re going to have to pay to? Ludicrous. I see how people could argue that this is a good thing because the city needs the money. But in retrospect with all the pollution that the cars are/will be doing, if we keep discouraging people to do environmentally friendly activities than in only a matter of time S.F. will be nothing but a waste land.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what most people are saying. It does not make sense that they are making people pay to ride their bikes and to walk on the Golden Gate Bridge. It is not right for them to charge people and many people use that bridge to exercise. I feel that it is okay for them to charge people crossing the bridge in a car but not to walk and bike on the bridge.
ReplyDeleteThey really cross the line here when it comes to that. Not only would charging a fee put more cars on the bridge, causing more traffic and congestion, but like the article says, it is inconsistent with the city's efforts to be a bike-friendly city. It really is ridiculous. It's almost like charging people to see the Lincoln Memorial or the Washington Monument, or any other historical site/monument. It's even more absurd because the bridge is more than just a tourist attraction. It actually serves a purpose to the public and there are actually people who use it regularly.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways, I do believe they should be tolled because they are going the same direction cars do and people who drive and it would be equal. But in this situation, justice over powers equality. Its a longer process getting over the bridge biking/walking then driving how many miles per hour. I agree with Vivian how she brings up that cars are the ones polluting the air. People walking/biking aren't doing anything. This is a tradition and historical landmark and people should be able to walk across without paying. If you start charging people, less and less people will come visit the landmark.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't really make sense to put up a toll. I understand they want money but this is only going to enrage people and a lot of people are going to be angry. In the long hall its not worth it.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely not. Its ridiculous that the city is finding any way to get money from people just walking. They should be just having cars pay since a lot of the work on the bridge will most likely be for the roads, safety of the cars, etc. People walk on the bridge for enjoyment or to exercise, if they start having to pay just for walking on the bridge, wheres the enjoyment in that?
ReplyDeleteIt is really ridiculous that they are considering to charge the pedestrians and bicyclist who ride/walk this bridge. Sure it's a very major landmark of SF but it is not fair. Not fair that people have to pay in order to cross a bridge. You're paying to walk? That is not the right thing to do. This is America, where you need to pay to walk on a bridge. This should not be "considered by the state.
ReplyDeleteThe city should not charge pedestrians to cross the bridge. Why would someone want to pay to walk? It makes no sense. Cars are already charged in order to pay for the expenses for the bridge, but why would we need to start charging pedestrians after all these years? This should definitely not happen.
ReplyDeletePedestrians and cyclists should not be charged to cross the bridge. Discouraging environmentally friendly choices is the worst thing we can do, especially in the state our environment is in right now. I know a lot of people who would say "what's the point" to biking if they had to pay a toll just as if they were driving. Also, most people that walk are just walking to enjoy and sightsee, and it would take from what could be their only experience ever in San Francisco. Tolls should continue to be limited to cars only.
ReplyDelete