Assemblyman Phil Ting can be all over the map politically, and it's probably not a coincidence that he's championing this issue right before the election, but the petition on his site opposing what he says is the Golden Gate Bridge Directors' plan to impose a toll on bicyclists and pedestrians deserves support:
http://www.resetsanfrancisco.org/golden-gate-bridge-petition/
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
There are costs involved in maintaining the bridge. Why on earth should we be opposed to a measure that forces those who actually use it to pay the costs of maintaining it, whether the user be motorist, bicyclist or pedestrian? While I am generally opposed to taxation, I don't have any such problem with user fees.
Just who do you think should bear the cost of maintaining the bridge???
The toll revenue is more than sufficient to maintain the bridge. The reason the board needs more revenue is because its bus and ferry operations lose so much money.
Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
If they were going to reduce the charge to motorists at the same time as they create a new charge for bicyclists and pedestrians in a way that was revenue-neutral, that would be one thing. Not that I think cyclists and pedestrians should be charged anywhere near as much as motorists, since they don't cause anywhere near the wear and tear on the bridge that motor vehicles do, but I would not be opposed to a modest redistribution of existing fees.
But of course that's not what they're trying to do. This would be a straight-up tax increase, a net transfer of resources from the voluntary sector to the coercive sector (government). As Richard notes, they collect more than enough money to maintain the bridge. According to their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report ( http://goldengate.org/organization/documents/CAFR-fy13.pdf ), last year the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District took in around $102 million in bridge tolls. Their operating expenses for the bridge were less than half that, around $46 million (see p. 27). Meanwhile, the district has 773 employees, of which 165 are bridge employees (see p. 73). Presumably some portion of that $46 million went toward non-employee costs -- buying paint, tools, vehicles, parts, and so on -- but $46 million divided by 165 comes to over $278,000 per employee. Where is all that money going, I wonder?
The cost of building the bridge, of course, was paid off long ago...
The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco was built over a four and a half year period between 1933 and 1937. It is the second largest suspension bridge in the United States. The bridge cost $37 million, but was funded by municipal bonds that cost an additional $39 million dollars in interest. The entire cost of the bridge was paid for by tolls before the final bonds were retired in 1971. A rough estimate of the $76 million the bridge cost (including interest) in 1933 is over $1.2 billion in 2007 dollars.
(from http://historical.whatitcosts.com/facts-golden-gate-bridge.htm )
In fact, according to campaign promises made to get voters to support the bond issue that paid for building the bridge, it was supposed to be FREE of tolls by 1970 -- over forty years ago!
"Voters in the six newly-formed Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District counties went to the polls on Nov 4, 1930 to approve a major bond issue during the depths of the Depression to fund construction of the Golden Gate Bridge. Promises made during the campaign were amusing. This 1930 campaign brochure promised that tolls on the proposed bridge would drop to 25 cents a car by 1960, and transit across the span would be free by 1970. The 'yes' vote was 145,697, and 47,005 voted 'no.' The bridge also replaced the profitable Sausalito ferry, but the District, later, raised tolls to support an expensive, and unprofitable, bus and ferry system."
(from http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist10/strauss.html )
So, I think our position ought to be: Don't talk to us about any cyclist/pedestrian toll increases until you've cut vehicle tolls by at least an equivalent amount. In the meantime, if you need more money, try cutting salaries and benefits, and reducing subsidies to the unprofitable bus and ferry systems you operate, or figure out how to operate them more efficiently (perhaps by contracting out the operations to private companies).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. - There's also a Chronicle article about this: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Golden-Gate-Bridge-considers-charging-bicyclists-5837982.php
Someone quoted in the Chronicle article had a similar thought to mine about it being fair for bicyclists to pay some toll, just not as much toll as drivers:
"Some observers have said that bike riders and walkers should pay their fair share because cars pay tolls to cross the bridge and bus riders pay fares. Peter Mulvey, a musician and songwriter from Milwaukee, touring with his fold-up bike, said he could live with that 'in principle, as long as it’s proportional. And since a car probably puts 50 times more wear and tear on bridge as a bike, that would be, what, about a dime?'”
And this from "Jym" in the reader comments:
"The point about tolls being proportional to wear and tear is well-taken, but the guesstimate of it being about 50 times as much is away off. Cars do about 16,000 times as much damage as bikes, and that's a conservative estimate based on AASHTO standards. This figure has been known for decades. It has been brought to the attention of the bridge's Transportation District the last few times they floated this stupid proposal. The _Chron_ could have consulted local experts about it, but instead they asked a random person. The random person did have the right idea, but could not reasonably be expected to actually know the proportions."
Nevertheless I still do not support bicyclists and pedestrians being required to pay even 1¢ to cross the bridge, unless and until motorist tolls are reduced or taxes are cut by an equal or greater amount. Otherwise we are just feeding the government Beast!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Leslie,
If I kidnap you, lock you in my basement, and feed you, should you pay for the meals? Hey, it’s a user fee.
Warm regards, Michael
Michael:
You analogy of kidnapping vs. providing a bridge puzzles me!
I have no choice in a kidnapping, but I do have a choice about using the bridge or going north.
My point was that somebody has to pay for maintaining the bridge and it is logical and reasonable to charge people who actually use it.
Les
I guess as usual we are not going to agree on this point.
I find all this talk about "proportional damage" to be irrelevant and nonsensical. If not for the automobiles, there would surely not be a bridge for the pedestrians and bicyclists to use. The latter are indebted to the former for making it desirable to provide a bridge.
Bicyclists and pedestrians are using a structure which costs something to maintain. Somebody has to pay those costs and I can see no rational or fair reason why cyclists and pedists shouldn't bear some of that cost. I would agree that the cost should not be great, but it should not be zero either.
Les
Someone quoted in the Chronicle article had a similar thought to mine about it being fair for bicyclists to pay some toll, just not as much toll as drivers:
"Some observers have said that bike riders and walkers should pay their fair share because cars pay tolls to cross the bridge and bus riders pay fares. Peter Mulvey, a musician and songwriter from Milwaukee, touring with his fold-up bike, said he could live with that 'in principle, as long as it’s proportional. And since a car probably puts 50 times more wear and tear on bridge as a bike, that would be, what, about a dime?'”
And this from "Jym" in the reader comments:
"The point about tolls being proportional to wear and tear is well-taken, but the guesstimate of it being about 50 times as much is away off. Cars do about 16,000 times as much damage as bikes, and that's a conservative estimate based on AASHTO standards. This figure has been known for decades. It has been brought to the attention of the bridge's Transportation District the last few times they floated this stupid proposal. The _Chron_ could have consulted local experts about it, but instead they asked a random person. The random person did have the right idea, but could not reasonably be expected to actually know the proportions."
Nevertheless I still do not support bicyclists and pedestrians being required to pay even 1¢ to cross the bridge, unless and until motorist tolls are reduced or taxes are cut by an equal or greater amount. Otherwise we are just feeding the government Beast!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I agree with Starchild that the best political strategy is to side with those who don’t believe pedestrians and bicyclists should pay…to leverage the message that the whole scheme needs to be reconsidered. That should be our real objective.
Mike
To reconsider what? It's too late to reconsider building the bridge.
I agree with Starchild that the best political strategy is to side with those who don’t believe pedestrians and bicyclists should pay…to leverage the message that the whole scheme needs to be reconsidered. That should be our real objective.
Mike
Reconsider having the people who use the bridge subsidize the busses and ferries.
Mike
Thank you, Les.
Try building a bridge from SF to Marin, or start a ferry service for the same trip, and see how much of a choice you have.
Warm regards, Michael
Yes... and if statist promises to pay Social Security or pension recipients should be honored -- not a position I personally hold, but I seem to recall some Libertarians seeing validity in such claims -- then shouldn't more libertarian promises to ELIMINATE bridge tolls by 1970 (i.e. ASAP, at this point 44 years late) also be honored, rather than adding additional tolls on new categories of users?
The basic point as I see it remains that NOBODY should be paying toll on the bridge in 2014. As soon as they distract us from that and get us arguing about WHO should pay, the statists win! After they impose this new tax on pedestrians and bicyclists, then next round they try to raise the toll for motor vehicles again. At which point the pressure to tax drivers will be greater than it would have been otherwise, because too many walkers and cyclists will say, "Hey, we had to pay more, now it's your turn!" Does anyone doubt that is EXACTLY how it will go? Rinse and repeat. Divide and conquer.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I remember when the toll was 25 cents, although to be fair, it had to be paid in both directions, so essentially it was 50 cents. Now it's $6 if the car has a device and $7 otherwise.
And there would be a cost to the bridge district of hiring employees to collect the toll from pedestrians and bicycles. That can't be automated.
Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
That the cost of collecting this user fee for cyclists and pedists to use the bridge is probably only legitimate argument against that I have heard.
I believe I had a valid point that we (Libertarians) should be opposed to tax levies and increases, but....not necessarily opposed to user fees. Bicyclists and pedestrians are after all USING something that costs money to maintain. SOMEBODY has to pay those costs.
Once again, I do NOT understand your comment. No one is proposing a tax. What is proposed is a user fee!
The government des not allow private parties to build bridges! SO F******G WHAT! Do you think that, if a private party had been allowed to build the GGB, that private party would not be charges persons, including bicyclists and pedestrians, who use it???
Tepid Regards
Les
Thank you, Les.
Since the Govt prohibits competing bridges and ferrys, the bridge stands as a rights violation so fees for using it are illegitimate. Returning to my analogy, if I kidnap you, lock you in my basement, and feed you, is it legitimate for me to charge you for the food? Why not?
Warmly, Michael
Once again, I do NOT understand your comment. No one is proposing a tax. What is proposed is a user fee!
The government des not allow private parties to build bridges! SO F******G WHAT! Do you think that, if a private party had been allowed to build the GGB, that private party would not be charges persons, including bicyclists and pedestrians, who use it???
Tepid Regards
Les
Les,
You’re right, if there’s a bridge, somebody has to pay the cost.
Since the Govt prohibits entrepreneurs from building bridges and paying the costs, why should the rest of us be penalized with a tax for the Govts arbitrary, destructive actions?
Warm regards, Michael
That the cost of collecting this user fee for cyclists and pedists to use the bridge is probably only legitimate argument against that I have heard.
I believe I had a valid point that we (Libertarians) should be opposed to tax levies and increases, but....not necessarily opposed to user fees. Bicyclists and pedestrians are after all USING something that costs money to maintain. SOMEBODY has to pay those costs.
I remember when the toll was 25 cents, although to be fair, it had to be paid in both directions, so essentially it was 50 cents. Now it's $6 if the car has a device and $7 otherwise.
And there would be a cost to the bridge district of hiring employees to collect the toll from pedestrians and bicycles. That can't be automated.
Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
Michael:
I find it hard to compose an answer because I find your analogy to a kidnapping to be totally incomprehensible.
Perhaps it was a violation of rights when the government built the bridge. It is not clear to me what difference that would make. It is here. Those who use it should pay the maintenance costs. Your claim that user fees are not permissible because building the bridge was a violation of rights is the most ludicrous non sequitur I have seen in long time. I suppose that, if Libertarians thought it was such an egregious violation of rights to build the GGB, they should avoid it using on the grounds that it would be sinful to profit such a rights violation.
Warmly, Les
Les,
I know you find my analogy to kidnapping ridiculous, yet if you follow it to the bitter end you may understand what I’m getting at. Try to regard it as a thought experiment and answer the questions: is it legitimate to charge the victim for the food? Why not?
Thank you for persisting.
Warm regards, Michael
Michael:
I find it hard to compose an answer because I find your analogy to a kidnapping to be totally incomprehensible.
Perhaps it was a violation of rights when the government built the bridge. It is not clear to me what difference that would make. It is here. Those who use it should pay the maintenance costs. Your claim that user fees are not permissible because building the bridge was a violation of rights is the most ludicrous non sequitur I have seen in long time. I suppose that, if Libertarians thought it was such an egregious violation of rights to build the GGB, they should avoid it using on the grounds that it would be sinful to profit such a rights violation.
Warmly, Les
Thank you, Les.
Since the Govt prohibits competing bridges and ferrys, the bridge stands as a rights violation so fees for using it are illegitimate. Returning to my analogy, if I kidnap you, lock you in my basement, and feed you, is it legitimate for me to charge you for the food? Why not?
Warmly, Michael
Once again, I do NOT understand your comment. No one is proposing a tax. What is proposed is a user fee!
The government des not allow private parties to build bridges! SO F******G WHAT! Do you think that, if a private party had been allowed to build the GGB, that private party would not be charges persons, including bicyclists and pedestrians, who use it???
Tepid Regards
Les
Les,
You’re right, if there’s a bridge, somebody has to pay the cost.
Since the Govt prohibits entrepreneurs from building bridges and paying the costs, why should the rest of us be penalized with a tax for the Govts arbitrary, destructive actions?
Warm regards, Michael
That the cost of collecting this user fee for cyclists and pedists to use the bridge is probably only legitimate argument against that I have heard.
I believe I had a valid point that we (Libertarians) should be opposed to tax levies and increases, but....not necessarily opposed to user fees. Bicyclists and pedestrians are after all USING something that costs money to maintain. SOMEBODY has to pay those costs.
I remember when the toll was 25 cents, although to be fair, it had to be paid in both directions, so essentially it was 50 cents. Now it's $6 if the car has a device and $7 otherwise.
And there would be a cost to the bridge district of hiring employees to collect the toll from pedestrians and bicycles. That can't be automated.
Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
Michael:
I have been thinking about this analogy. The more I think about it, the more inappropriate the analogy seems.
Les