Change my location 
|
|
Article History There are updates to this article.
)
A proposed toll on Doyle Drive would help fund seismic upgrades to the Golden Gate Bridge's southern approach.
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - After a heated exchange between San Francisco and Marin County politicians Friday, the agency that oversees the Golden Gate Bridge held off on taking a position on a proposed toll on Doyle Drive, the southern approach to the famous span.
A toll is being proposed as a revenue source to help fund the seismic upgrade of Doyle Drive.
The idea of the toll didn’t sit well with Marin County’s representatives on the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Board of Directors. Imposing a toll on Doyle Drive would be a matter for the state legislature, but advocates of the project want to show local support for the initiative by securing the board’s approval.
An estimated 80 percent of the road users during peak times are from the North Bay, said San Francisco District 1 Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who sits on the board.
Toll supporters are up against the clock because funding for the Doyle Drive rebuild is within a $159 million federal grant that is contingent upon San Francisco implementing the toll, a form of demand-based pricing, by March 31.
Marin board member Al Boro introduced a resolution opposing any tolls on Doyle Drive, prompting a spirited debate.
“I think it is vitally important for the bridge to go on record opposing this idea,” said Charles McGlashan, a bridge board member from Marin. “It’s an unfair tax on the people of the North Bay.”
Being a state road, he said the cost of fixing it should fall to the state, McGlashan said.
McGoldrick criticized the bridge board for not taking “responsibility” to fix up the road.
Since the vote to support a toll on Doyle Drive had already been postponed from a previous meeting, McGoldrick requested an indefinite continuance on the matter Friday, which was approved by a narrow 10-to-8 vote.
He said more time will give transit officials time to lobby the federal government to postpone the March 31 deadline, but also time to seek additional funding that would make a toll an easier sell since it would decrease the number of years it would be imposed.
The estimated cost to rebuild Doyle Drive is increasing with time. The cost is projected at more than $1 billion, according to the most recent estimate by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, up from a previous estimate of $810 million.
 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