Change my location 
|
|
Article History There are updates to this article.
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District's Board of Directors postponed voting today on the controversial proposal regarding a toll to pay for reconstruction of Doyle Drive.
District spokeswoman Mary Currie said the board voted 10-8 to continue a vote on the issue but no date was set for that vote. Board members did not agree on how the Doyle Drive reconstruction should be financed, Currie said.
The San Francisco County Transportation Authority wants to get legislative authority to implement and collect a toll so it can qualify for $158.7 million in federal funding for the $810 million project. The Transportation Authority asked the District to support its efforts to get the legislative approval.
The District's Board of Directors today considered a resolution that neither supported or opposed the toll and the District insists it does not have the authority to grant anyone the right to collect tolls.
The resolution states any toll must be imposed on all users of Doyle Drive, not just motorists who enter San Francisco across the Golden Gate Bridge.
The resolution also states the toll must be collected at other locations other than the Golden Gate Bridge and that toll revenue should also be used to provide alternatives to single-occupant automobiles on Doyle Drive.
Currie said the board members did not vote today on an alternate resolution proposed by First Vice President Al Boro. That resolution opposes the use of tolls to pay for the Doyle Drive project and it states financing the Doyle Drive project is the state of California's responsibility. Boro's motion was introduced but the motion to continue the matter took precedence, Currie said.
Some opponents of the toll claim Marin and Sonoma County commuters will pay two tolls to enter San Francisco, one to cross the Golden Gate Bridge and one to travel on Doyle Drive.
The District board's resolution states only six percent of daily traffic downtown to downtown San Francisco enters from the Golden Gate Bridge corridor.
San Francisco Police Commissioner Joe Alioto Veronese urged the District's board to oppose any toll that primarily affects Marin and Sonoma counties' commuters. He said the toll plan poses "a significant risk of legal challenges."
Veronese is a Democratic candidate in the State senate's District 3 that includes San Francisco, Marin and Sonoma counties.
Mike Kerns, chairman of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and a District board member, said he's against a toll on Doyle Drive because it would affect Marin and Sonoma county commuters and that the state should pay for reconstruction of Doyle Drive, a state highway.
Kerns said the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which also is seeking legislative authority for a toll, intends to asked for an extension beyond March 31 when the authority to collect the toll must be in place. He said he hopes the Bay Area's federal representatives can help find other federal funding for the Doyle Drive reconstruction.
— Bay City News
 Not ranked |
 EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
ARTICLE HISTORY 
Comments from Examiner Readers
9:10 PM MST on Sun., May. 11, 2008 re: "Marin leaders set to reject toll on Doyle"
Report as inappropriate
12:56 PM MST on Sat., May. 10, 2008
re: "Marin leaders set to reject toll on Doyle"
Report as inappropriate
12:52 PM MST on Sat., May. 10, 2008
re: "Marin leaders set to reject toll on Doyle"
Report as inappropriate
8:29 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 24, 2008
re: "Marin leaders set to reject toll on Doyle"
Report as inappropriate
7:09 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 24, 2008
re: "Marin leaders set to reject toll on Doyle"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
McGoldrick is out of office under term limits as a SF stupidvisor this November. I don't know if this applies to his position with the Bridge. He has been an advocate for a rail project all through Geary Blvd in SF Richmond district that has been severely opposed by both business and residents. Presently, there are three lanes in both directions for most of the Blvd and the 38 Geary muni bus efficiently moves in both directions. McGoldrick's plan would eliminate a lane in both directions and street curb parking as well. He and Newsom who proposes a similar plan for Van Ness Ave are nothing but gangsters who will collect bags of cash from the unions and construction companies that would do the job. McGoldrick barely beat a recall of his Stupidvisor position, even as a lame duck. Don't trust him or anything that they propose on the SF side. Where is the Speaker of the House and all the other earmarks, and ChinaFi, and Ms.Green Boxer. They make a lot of noise and accusations, but meat?
4 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Pay us for 'Our Water' from Northern California. Tit for tat, or they can go find a way to suck up more water from ?'their'? source...the Muddy Colorado..let'em chew on that.
1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
San Francisco, North Bay & Peninsula Drivers didn't have to pay to repave Highway 101 in the south end of San Francisco(The State paid for it..from Candlestick Park to Ceasar Chavez exit), so why do we have to pay to rebuild Doyle Drive (the north end Highway 101 from The Marina to The Bridge)??? We are told that it is a seismic issue that we HAVE TO FIX...but as I recall, THE STATE dealt with the Seismic issues of the overpasses involving the interchange of Highway 101 and 280 and Alemany Blvd. in the north part of S.F. So what gives???...do you think that maybe this is just way/ruse/smokescreen for San Francisco to get "free" money from The Feds???? I DO!! But true to The City (which I live in), what is "free" for 'San Francisco' is usually/always? 'funded' by SF residents. And like other cancers, SF Govt. has found a way to find and spread into another 'host'. If The State (Ahhnold)wants Nor. Cal. to pay for 'their' infrastructure, then 'let Them in the South' pay us for
6 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gretchen said:
Why not just raise the bridge toll to $7 or $8? Is there a compelling reason to charge a Doyle Drive toll plus a bridge toll? If the goal is to divert traffic to 19th Ave, is a toll the best way to do it? Just shut down a couple lanes and cause people to change the route they take. Of course that doesn't raise money to pay for Doyle Drive road work, so then I'm back to asking why you can't just use bridge tolls and raise that toll instead of implementing a new and separate one?
97 agree | 77 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
On its face, this toll sounds both impractical and excessive -- it's going to be on top of already stopping and paying to cross the bridge??? Reporters, what about a story to explain how this is supposed to work, and why anyone thinks it's a good idea? Assume an extra toll: why build a separate infrastructure to collect it, which will be expensive in itself, slow traffic, and send drivers onto alternate routes that aren't intended for heavy traffic? And it's already expensive to cross the bridge: commuters may have no choice, but won't many of us take fewer pleasure trips that involve crossing the bridge? This affects businesses both north and south. Sure, if one can afford any discretionary excursion, it's irrational to be bothered by an extra dollar or two, but it's a fact that the last bridge-toll increase has already caused me to cross much less often.
71 agree | 75 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree