SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Crossing the Golden Gate Bridge in the future may be more than just a scenic excursion — it could be a financial endeavor costing you $8.

The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation board of directors voted Friday to approve a toll that would fluctuate based on the amount of traffic on the bridge, or so-called congestion pricing. The toll could tack as much as $2 during peak times to cross the bridge, according to Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who sits on the bridge’s board of directors.

At what time of the day the variable pricing will be implemented and how much the increase will raise the $5 toll remains to be seen, although bridge officials should have a better idea after 30 to 45 days of technical analysis, district spokeswoman Mary Currie said.

The toll — which can be implemented no earlier than September and no later than September 2009 — will likely be the second increase drivers will see in the near future.

The bridge district has also proposed to raise cash tolls from $5 to $6, and FasTrak tolls from $4 to $5, a revenue source bridge officials hope will make up a $91 million shortfall projected over the next five years, Currie said. The $1 hike could be imposed as early as June, but likely wouldn’t take effect until January, bridge General Manager Celia Kupersmith said in a meeting earlier this year.

Even though the congestion pricing will raise money for the bridge district, McGoldrick left Friday’s meeting upset that the funds from the toll will not go toward a specific project in The City.

An amendment — introduced by San Rafael Mayor Al Boro and narrowly approved by the bridge’s board — specifically stipulates that no revenue generated from the variable toll increases would go toward rebuilding seismically unstable Doyle Drive.

“In 24 hours, the bridge board has shattered the idea of regional cooperation,” McGoldrick said, referring to the fact that the resolution was unanimously passed Thursday by the bridge district’s finance committee without the amendment.

Secured funding for the Doyle Drive rebuild is at $640 million — $370 million short of the project’s total costs of $1.01 billion.

Bridge district Director Charles McGlashan said it’s unfair for bridge commuters to pay tolls to fund a state highway.

wreisman@examiner.com

Funds secured to help relieve city’s gridlock

By agreeing to tack on what could be an extra $2 for drivers crossing the Golden Gate Bridge during peak traffic times, bridge district officials helped the region secure $158.7 million in federal funding.

The grant, administered by the Department of Transportation’s Urban Partnership Program, was to be awarded to the region only if a regional agreement was reached on implementing some form of congestion-based tolling for Doyle Drive or Golden Gate Bridge by March 31.

Of the grant funding, $78 million will go to the Municipal Transportation Authority to improve traffic congestion in San Francisco — including $58 million for SFgo, The City’s signal priority system. The remaining $20 million will be directed toward improving current parking methods.

Mayor Gavin Newsom said he was happy that the region secured the government grant, but a little concerned that an amendment tacked on by the Golden Gate Bridge’s board of directors will preclude any revenue generated by the increased tolls to go toward the Doyle Drive rebuild.

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