SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - In addition to a proposed $1 toll increase, fares for drivers crossing the Golden Gate Bridge during peak traffic times would receive an additional boost under a separate motion before bridge officials today.

The resolution, passed unanimously by the bridge’s finance subcommittee Thursday, would meet federal guidelines for some form of congestion-related tolling on Golden Gate Bridge or Doyle Drive — a mandate required by the federal government for Bay Area officials to retain $158.7 million awarded to the region by the Department of Transportation in August 2007, according to Golden Gate Bridge General Manager Celia Kupersmith.

At Thursday’s meeting, Golden Gate Bridge officials remained adamant that any revenue generated from the congestion pricing go toward improving the district’s public transit needs — not toward improvements for Doyle Drive.

“The resolution’s language clearly states that we will dictate how to use the revenue,” said Al Boro, mayor of San Rafael and member of the bridge’s finance committee. “I think the consensus here is that the best way to deal with congestion is to direct the funding into increased services for our ferries and buses.”

The district doesn’t have any preliminary ideas about how much tolls will increase during peak times, or when those peak times will take place, bridge spokeswoman Mary Currie said.

“We’re going to begin a very technical analysis of the situation,” said Currie. “We should present our first findings to the public within 30 to 45 days.”

The resolution requires that a public hearing is held in June, and that the pricing increase is implemented no earlier than September and no later than September 2009.

Tilly Chang, deputy planning director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority applauded the finance committee’s decision to approve congestion pricing.

“It’s a much-needed show of regional solidarity,” Chang said.

Chang and her colleagues at the SFCTA had been advocating for a $1 or $2 toll on Doyle Drive to help make up the $370 million still needed for the rehab project, but North Bay politicians decried the move as a “Marin commuter tax.”

Separate from the congestion-pricing resolution, Golden Gate Bridge officials are still seeking another increase that would raise FasTrak prices from $4 to $5 and cash tolls from $5 to $6, a funding boost they hope will cover a $91 million projected revenue shortfall over the next five years.

wreisman@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