SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Opinions about a toll increase on the Golden Gate Bridge span great divides, but all sides will have a chance to voice concerns during a forum Thursday.

Drivers who use the Golden Gate Bridge could face a $1 toll increase late this year and potentially another $1 increase during peak hours.

The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District raised bridge tolls in 2002 from $4 to $5 to help close a $454 million deficit.

Since then, cuts to bus and ferry service, coupled with layoffs, employee health care cuts and other reductions have shrunk the deficit to $91 million, which would be erased by boosting tolls again, according to district spokeswoman Mary Currie.

If approved by the board, motorists could be paying $6 as soon as late 2008, Currie said. The topic will be discussed during an “open house” in San Francisco on Thursday.

Many locals have already offered their two cents’ worth.

“The response is all over the board,” Currie said. “Of those who are opposed, the biggest reaction is that this will cause a financial hardship and we should reduce our spending further.”

However, the board meets March 13 to weigh another fee. San Francisco needs to adopt a congestion-pricing toll for Doyle Drive users in order to secure a $158 million federal grant to help pay for the $1.01 billion replacement of the roadway, according to Tilly Chang, deputy director for planning for the San Francisco County Transportation Authority.

The transportation authority has raised $640 million for the project, but needs to raise another $160 million to $370 million. A $1 bridge toll during peak traffic times could close that gap, Chang said.

The district must decide by March 31 whether it will be the agency to collect such a toll, Currie said.

bwinegarner@examiner.com

Comments from Examiner Readers

9:57 AM MST on Thu., May. 8, 2008 re: "Fog surrounding toll increases may start to lift"

Examiner Reader said:
The state should take ownership of this bridge, the GGB board is trying to fill their pockets for years.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

1:12 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008 re: "Peak hours cost peak prices"

Examiner Reader said:
The usual anti-tax, anti-fees lobby will whine and cry about increased tolls for Doyle Drive. That is until, of course, there's a major seismic event which cripples beyond use or collapses Doyle Drive. Then, of course, they will blame the government for doing nothing beforehand. We can't have it both ways.

1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:31 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008 re: "Commuters await price for congestion toll"

Examiner Reader said:
Hmmm New York was smart enough to say no to the congestion tolls for Manhattan.

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

Report as inappropriate

4:29 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008 re: "Commuters await price for congestion toll"

Examiner Reader said:
"If congestion-based tolling is necessary to secure the grant money, what about LOWERING non-peak-hour tolls by, say, 25 cents? Result: congestion-based tolling without further discouraging those of us who already think twice before taking our discretionary income across the bridge, either direction."

0 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:37 PM MST on Mon., Mar. 17, 2008 re: "Peak hours cost peak prices"

Examiner Reader said:
If congestion-based tolling is necessary to secure the grant money, what about LOWERING non-peak-hour tolls by, say, 25 cents? Result: congestion-based tolling without further discouraging those of us who already think twice before taking our discretionary income across the bridge, either direction.

4 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:09 AM MST on Mon., Mar. 17, 2008 re: "Peak hours cost peak prices"

Gladwyn d'Souza said:
This traffic does more than just go down Doyle Drive. In San Mateo County cities like SSF double in population during the day while Redwood Shores sees a factor of twenty increase. And we lose bicycle access, on Ralston over 101, because traffic coming to Oracle and EA caused the interchange to be reconfigured, to allow more on ramps ramps from Oracle, so much so that the interchange has become the number one location for bicycle car collisions in Belmont. So what does Supervisor McGoldrick mean by regional cooperation? This is an example of how Caltrans uses regional ignorance to keep CMAs like SFTA and CCAG in their car trance.

2 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:14 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 14, 2008 re: "Congestion fare zooming ahead"

Examiner Reader said:
When Doyle Drive is paid off, can we reverse the toll back to 0? I don't think so. Liberal taxes are driving people away. I already bought a home in Nevada. Maybe its time to get out of this hellhole. The next earthquake is coming anyway and everyone is going to die... JK

3 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

3:07 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 29, 2008 re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"

Grant Gilligan said:
I was hit head on on the bridge. I was not even in far left lane. The woman next to me died and had no air bags. My friend and I survived the 100+ mile an hour impact. I drive across the bridge 5 times a week. I welcome the barrier!

22 agree | 22 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:56 PM MST on Sat., Feb. 9, 2008 re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"

Examiner Reader said:
So, will this barrier extend along Doyle Drive as well? The yellow tubes are hazardous (in addition to preventing the crossover problem) - they are frequently knocked loose and thrown about (very comforting on a motorcycle; there's already plenty of junk on CA highways).

31 agree | 30 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

4:33 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 8, 2008 re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"

Examiner Reader said:
I rather enjoy risking a drive across the Golden Gate Bridge as is. I believe such beauty is cleary worth taking my chances. Sometimes I even hazard a quick glance to one side or the other, to catch a glimpse of either the amazing Pacific Ocean or San Francisco's unique cityscape. I've been doing it for 31 years now without a scratch on me or my car.

38 agree | 34 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:18 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 8, 2008 re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"

Walter E.Wallis said:
Using new high strength steel, towers could be strengthened at the same time the roadway was widened, allowing 3 lanes each way and a premanent divider. Move the walkways either up or down and gain an emergency lane.

50 agree | 37 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:57 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 8, 2008 re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"

Ian H said:
.64 fatalities per million miles traveled didn't sound so bad ... until I looked up the national average, which is 0.0098 fatalities per million miles traveled. In other words, drivers are 65 times more likely to be killed driving across the Golden Gate Bridge than the average US roadway. The Examiner should make a little extra effort to put its statistics into context. I'm in favor of the barrier now.

34 agree | 42 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate