
|
Los Angeles City Guides
|
Article History SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - In two weeks, Golden Gate Bridge officials are expected to reveal how much a new congestion-based toll increase will cost drivers coming into The City.
A proposed second toll on Doyle Drive is still in the works, but with less certainty on the timing.
The congestion toll could add as much as $2 during peak times to the current $5 price to cross the bridge, Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who sits on the bridge’s board of directors, said last month.
The City is also still exploring funding scenarios for a needed seismic rebuild of Doyle Drive, the southern approach to the Golden Gate Bridge — including a toll, ranging from 50 cents to $1 — according to Joe Arellano, a spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom.
“This is definitely not a closed issue,” Arellano said.
The toll, which North Bay officials have called a “Marin commuter tax” could generate $160 million for the $1 billion retrofit project.
In March, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District board approved a congestion based toll plan by a March 31 deadline in order for the region to receive $158 million in federal funds contingent upon The City incorporating some form of variable pricing project based on traffic.
North Bay officials included an amendment to the plan, however, preventing any of the added toll revenue from being used for the seismic rebuild.
As a result, San Francisco transportation officials will have to seek state legislative support for a toll on Doyle Drive, but finding local politicians to back the proposal has been difficult.
Two Bay Area politicians — state Sen. Carole Migden and Assemblymember Mark Leno — have voiced opposition to tolls on Doyle Drive. Adam Keigwin, a spokesman for state Sen. Leland Yee, whose district includes San Mateo and San Francisco, said the senator had no plans to introduce toll legislation for Doyle Drive.
Marin County Supervisor Charles McGlashan, who sits on the Golden Gate Bridge District’s board of directors, said any legislative attempt to create tolls on Doyle Drive would be met with fierce resistance from North Bay residents.
Tilly Chang, deputy planning director for the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, said she remained confident that an agreement could be reached on funding for the plan by this summer.
Postponing the Doyle Drive rebuild will come with new costs; construction prices are increasing 6 to 8 percent annually, according to Ken Simonson of the Associated General Contractors of America, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.
Not ranked |
EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
ARTICLE HISTORY |
Sports
Business |
Real Estate Family Movies and Books Venues, Sports and Music Concerts, Artists and Tickets Be Inspired - Quotes and Stories |
Comments from Examiner Readers
10:06 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 11, 2008 re: "Bridge tolls expected to increase by September"
Report as inappropriate
9:57 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 10, 2008
re: "Fog surrounding toll increases may start to lift"
Report as inappropriate
1:02 AM MST on Mon., Jun. 9, 2008
re: "Crossover crash shuts down Golden Gate Bridge traffic"
Report as inappropriate
9:57 AM MST on Thu., May. 8, 2008
re: "Fog surrounding toll increases may start to lift"
Report as inappropriate
1:12 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008
re: "Peak hours cost peak prices"
Report as inappropriate
12:31 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008
re: "Commuters await price for congestion toll"
Report as inappropriate
4:29 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008
re: "Commuters await price for congestion toll"
Report as inappropriate
6:37 PM MST on Mon., Mar. 17, 2008
re: "Peak hours cost peak prices"
Report as inappropriate
9:09 AM MST on Mon., Mar. 17, 2008
re: "Peak hours cost peak prices"
Report as inappropriate
11:14 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 14, 2008
re: "Congestion fare zooming ahead"
Report as inappropriate
3:07 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 29, 2008
re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"
Report as inappropriate
12:56 PM MST on Sat., Feb. 9, 2008
re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"
Report as inappropriate
4:33 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 8, 2008
re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"
Report as inappropriate
11:18 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 8, 2008
re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"
Report as inappropriate
10:57 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 8, 2008
re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"
Report as inappropriate
Mark Winshel said:
When the Bay area's various major bridges opened they had extremely low tolls, and such as for instance 15c or so, and which the politicians solemnly insisted would soon disappear, and therefore within a few years or less make the bridges totally free. But then the politicians insisted that due to to unforseen circumstances they needed a short one time extension of the toll before they became totally free. And then still later they needed to again extend it "just one more time." And then finally they stopped the charades of pretending that the bridge toll was just a temporary thing, and then they even started to raise the tolls, so now they have finally reached about five dollars or so, and obviously in the coming years the tolls will continue to keep on going up. In other words, the most permanent thing on earth is a temporary tax.
1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
nonprofit gypsy said:
I absolutely agree, take control away from GGB board. They are not practicing ethical oversite ofour resources!
3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Has there been any more news of the condidtion of Grace dammann, the driver of the Honda CRV that was hit on the Golden gate Bridge 17 days ago?
1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The state should take ownership of this bridge, the GGB board is trying to fill their pockets for years.
8 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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.
8 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Hmmm New York was smart enough to say no to the congestion tolls for Manhattan.
6 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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."
6 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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.
9 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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.
7 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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
8 agree | 9 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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!
34 agree | 33 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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).
42 agree | 41 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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.
52 agree | 45 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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.
59 agree | 50 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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.
45 agree | 54 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree