Bikes 'n Bridges: When Government Loses Its Focus

Let's play a game. It's called "Which one of these examples is not like the others?" Here are your three options:

1. San Francisco and Berkeley are both vying to become the first cities in the United States to pass a soda tax; the resulting revenue will go towards nutrition and physical education programs.
2. Healdsburg's City Council passes a law changing the legal age to purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21, citing studies that say 9 out of 10 smokers pick up their habit before age 18.
3. Golden Gate Transit District's Board of Directors considers implementing a toll from every bicycle and pedestrian that crosses the Golden Gate Bridge to help balance their budget.

Full disclosure: I believe that government can improve people's lives if programs and fees are implemented in a tactful manner, supported by appropriate studies. When I look at the above three examples, I can clearly see how the first two examples have the potential to produce tangible, health-oriented outcomes. I cannot see such an outcome with the third. And the worst part is, it could even discourage healthy behavior.

Let's review our Econ 101 for a moment (GGTD Board, I hope you're paying attention to this). When government wants to influence the market by reducing the demand for a product, they can affect its price by imposing taxes or restrictions, thus reducing demand for the product.

• In example 1, the government wants to reduce soda (sugar) consumption and increase healthy behavior among citizens. 
• In example 2, the government wants to impose a restriction based on age, thus reducing consumption, and potentially reducing health care costs in the long run. 
• In example 3, the government wants to impose a fee that would reduce bicycling and walking across the bridge, and would close the $ gap between auto tolls and bike/ped tolls. This may encourage bridge users to use another form of transportation.

Background on Golden Gate Bridge and their governing body

The Golden Gate Bridge, an iconic landmark of San Francisco and a must-see for tourists, pulls in 10 million visitors a year. Commuters, tourists, and casual users have a chance to cross by car, bus, biking, and walking. The bridge is maintained by an agency called the Golden Gate Transit District (GGTD). For some reason, it is the only bridge in the Bay Area that isn't managed by the Bay Area Toll Authority (am I the only one who thinks this is weird?!). Each year, the GGTD has collected income from drivers, buses, and ferries, while bicyclists and pedestrians have been able to cross the bridge free of charge. Drivers were hit with a $1 increase this past April (total of $6 with Clipper, $7 without), with plans to gradually increase the toll to $7 ($8 without), by July 2018. Public transit fares rise annually by 5%. These fees help cover rising costs, but according to GGTD officials, they aren't enough to close a 5 year, $33 million deficit. In a 45-point plan released this Monday, one of which was the potential for bicycle/pedestrian tolls on the bridge.

Just imagine the effect this would have! Which modes of transportation would people switch to? The car seems like a rational choice for would-be bikers/pedestrians headed towards Marin. The agency has been making excellent progress in recent years at reducing automobile usage while building greater revenue streams. It would be a shame to see them undo that environmentally-friendly work with this new toll. See the chart below (I've appropriately used grey for the cars and green for money).



Data obtained from GGTD's website

And just to emphasize the decreasing car usage, along with a regressed forecast, I'll add this one in too:

In conclusion:

A recent Center for Disease Control and Prevention study (via BikePedInfo) showed that regular moderate intensity exercise along with a healthy diet may reduce risk of Type 2 Diabetes by 40-60%. To me, the choice is simple. There are many ways to fix a projected deficit. Discouraging people from participating in a healthy lifestyle is not one of them. I have a few alternatives:

• Impose a POS fee for all bike purchases in the SF/Marin county bike rental shops. This would target the tourist demographic but would shelter locals from the fee.
• Look at the other 44 topics that you proposed and give those a harder look, including long term solutions to the the issues that you've been having with your transit workers lately.
• Call Jerry Brown. I hear he knows how to balance budgets while keeping the environment in mind.