SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Marin County officials are poised today to send a strong message against a planned toll along Doyle Drive, part of a proposal to raise money to rebuild the seismically unsafe San Francisco-side approach to the Golden Gate Bridge.

The plan to add a toll on the southern approach to the iconic span — that would be in addition to that already required to cross the bridge — has provoked the ire of those in the North Bay, who are the majority of bridge users during peak times.

The proposal calls for a $2 toll for users of Doyle Drive and comes as the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Board is considering an increase to the bridge’s toll from $5 to $6.

The Transportation Authority of Marin, a regional board representing the county, is scheduled to vote today on a resolution opposing any toll on Doyle Drive. The vote follows a recent decision by the Golden Gate Bridge board, made up of San Francisco and North Bay members, to postpone taking a position on the matter, after Marin board member Al Boro, who also sits on the TAM, argue that since it’s a state road, the state should pay for it.

Time is running out since key funding for the Doyle Drive rebuild is part of a $159 million federal grant that is contingent upon San Francisco obtaining the legal authority from the state legislature by March 31 to collect tolls on Doyle Drive.

San Francisco District 1 Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who sits on the board, said the toll is the only way to raise needed money to fully fund the $1 billion road project.

McGoldrick said the odds that the county transportation authority would get the needed state approval in time are about “50-50,” but said that efforts are currently underway to try and postpone the deadline. Work is also being done to secure additional funding, he said, that could decrease the proposed Doyle Drive toll to $1.

jsabatini@examiner.com

Comments from Examiner Readers

12:56 PM MST on Sat., May. 10, 2008 re: "Marin leaders set to reject toll on Doyle"

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.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

12:52 PM MST on Sat., May. 10, 2008 re: "Marin leaders set to reject toll on Doyle"

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

2 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:29 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 24, 2008 re: "Marin leaders set to reject toll on Doyle"

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?

77 agree | 62 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:09 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 24, 2008 re: "Marin leaders set to reject toll on Doyle"

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.

60 agree | 65 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate