CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Doyle Drive plan may hit brakes
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
)
The City is awaiting approval from the state Legislature to charge a toll on Doyle Drive.
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - A $158 million federal grant for fighting Bay Area gridlock could be lost if the state Legislature does not meet a spring deadline to give a city agency the authority to impose a toll on the heavily trafficked and aging Doyle Drive.
The Bay Area received the funds through the federal Urban Partnership Program. Grantees were required to include some form of congestion pricing — which penalizes drivers for using key thoroughfares during peak driving hours — in order to qualify for the funds.
Of the $158 million awarded to the Bay Area, $35 million is to help defray the $810 million cost to seismically upgrade Doyle Drive, the southern approach to the Golden Gate Bridge. Another $12 million is for electronic tolling equipment for Doyle Drive — the congestion-pricing component of the Bay Area grant proposal.
The grant carries with it a number of conditions, including that the legal authority to collect tolls on Doyle Drive must be in place by March 31, and tolls must be collected starting no later than Sept. 30, 2009.
For The City to charge a toll on Doyle Drive, it would need approval from the state Legislature, and city officials have expressed concern that this would not happen in time to meet the federal government’s deadline.
Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who chairs the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, the agency taking the lead on the Doyle Drive toll project, wrote a letter to the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District this month asking the agency to consider acting as the toll authority.
“Our main goal in respect to this alternative is to demonstrate compliance — in order to avoid the loss of $158 million to the Bay Area,” McGoldrick wrote.
On Friday, however, the attorney for the Bridge District ruled that the agency did not have the authority to impose a toll on all users of Doyle Drive without state approval.
José Luis Moscovich, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority’s executive director, said he was not “terribly concerned” that the grant money would be lost.
“I think we’re well on our way [toward] getting this done,” he said. “We’re focused on the positives of getting this done.”
Moscovich said that if they run out of time, the Transportation Authority would ask the Bridge District to “reconsider” acting as the tolling authority, adding that the initial legal opinion is not necessarily the “last word” on the matter.
The toll for use of Doyle Drive would be about $1 to $2 and would be collected electronically, with no toll booth, Moscovich said. The new toll, which would help fund the Doyle Drive improvements, would be in addition to the existing toll to cross Golden Gate Bridge, for those drivers coming into San Francisco.
Comments from Examiner Readers
9:48 AM MST on Sat., Dec. 15, 2007 re: "Doyle Drive plan may hit brakes"
Report as inappropriate
11:09 PM MST on Mon., Dec. 10, 2007
re: "Doyle Drive plan may hit brakes"
Report as inappropriate
2:20 PM MST on Mon., Dec. 10, 2007
re: "Doyle Drive plan may hit brakes"
Report as inappropriate
1:12 PM MST on Mon., Dec. 10, 2007
re: "Doyle Drive plan may hit brakes"
Report as inappropriate
11:10 AM MST on Mon., Dec. 10, 2007
re: "Doyle Drive plan may hit brakes"
Report as inappropriate
9:55 AM MST on Mon., Dec. 10, 2007
re: "Doyle Drive plan may hit brakes"
Report as inappropriate
7:07 AM MST on Mon., Dec. 10, 2007
re: "Doyle Drive toll and grant funds may hit brakes"
Report as inappropriate
Employee of CCSF said:
A new toll (aka tax) or user fee for commuters is a bad idea. This toll targets only Northbay drivers or bridge users. We have no vote on this toll idea. Look at the numbers...$200./ month, $2400./ year to drive to work across the GGB and Doyle drive. Outragious.. Let the $158 million go. It is too expensive. This is whole state obligation to fund.
42 agree | 32 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
It's a nutty idea. There's no way residents should agree to a toll for taking Doyle Drive from Lombard Street to Park Presidio.
59 agree | 51 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
e said:
"penalizes" is such a loaded word, and exposes the journalist's view point. Congestion pricing is about getting people to pay their fair market share the scarce resource of city road space.
64 agree | 60 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Charles of Marin said:
A toll on Doyle is just another reason not to visit the "Nut Farm" just south of the Golden Gate. It doesn't want to be part of the United States anyway. Also the inmates are crazy and many dangerous. I think I will just stay north of the bridge and spend my money here!
71 agree | 64 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Wouldn't it just be easier to increase the bridge toll by two dollars during rush hours? Same amount of money collected, same desired goal of reducing traffic during rush hour, minor cost to implement. Yeah, I know that it doesn't meet the specific objective of Doyle drive, but it does address the rush hour bridge traffic. It could be an intermediate step to a future toll road or may be effective on its own. Certainly it is worth exploring how we can leverage existing infrastructure instead of investing in a whole new one.
56 agree | 74 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gerald Cauthen said:
You should do a sequel contrasting the current relatively unobtrusive 68-foot wide elevated section with the 148 foot wide mostly surface-level freeway replacement. The Presidio will provide a nice 90- second view for the drivers speeding through. But those trying to enjoy the Presidio will be confronted with a noisy river of fast-moving cars cutting off the Park from its waterfront areas. Some improvement! All that's needed is the existing structure, seismically upgraded and fitted with a median barrier.
67 agree | 39 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Responsible Taxation said:
I also understand that the new tolls on Doyle will be for commuting hours only. To me, this makes sense, is fiscally and socially responsible, and doesn't punish the weekenders and tourists that our city relies on. On the other hand, although I'm pro-affordable housing on the whole, I feel the proposal that Daly introduced needs to be scaled down, funded by a sales tax where EVERYONE is responsible, and the beneficiary breakdowns need to be broader, say 100% for 80% AMI, this will capture all subcategories below 80% AMI.
53 agree | 69 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree