SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - The Golden Gate Bridge toll could climb to as much as $7 by next year — nearly twice as much as the seven other Bay Area bridges.

It currently costs $5 to cross the iconic span and a $1 increase is expected to be authorized in July. In addition, a $1 congestion fee is making it way through the approval process, which would target commuters during peak drive times in attempt to reduce the number of cars on the road during those time periods.

FasTrak holders, who currently pay $4, will also be hit with the $1 toll increase, but would be charged either 50 cents or $1 under the congestion-based pricing recommendations.

The congestion fee would be added during the weekday commute times of 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m., as well as on weekends and holidays from 3 to 7 p.m., according to recommendations approved by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District’s finance committee Thursday.

The toll increase and the congestion fee could go into effect as early as September, but, according to dictrict spokeswoman Mary Currie, the $1 base increase would likely go into effect around January 2009; it might not be until September 2009 before the variable toll is in place. The Bay Area’s seven other bridges, all administered by the California Department of Transportation, charge a $4 one-way toll.

The $1 toll increase is expected to help reduce a five-year $90 million projected budget shortfall for the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. The congestion toll is a condition of a federal grant that secured $159 million for regional tranportation projects aimed at reducing congestion.

The bridge district projects to make $3.8 million annually in variable toll revenue if a 50-cent increase is attached to FasTrak card holders. If the FasTrak cost goes up by $1, then the bridge would get $5.2 million annually.

The full board will vote on the toll recommendations today, and if approved, a public input process will begin, culminating with a June 11 hearing in San Rafael, according to Currie. By July the board could vote to finalize both toll-increase proposals.

Susan Deluxe, an artist based out of Tiburon, said the toll increases will keep many Marin County residents from visiting San Francisco.

“This really makes us feel unwelcome to The City,” Deluxe said. “A lot of my friends don’t have services performed in San Francisco anymore. And no one wants to work in San Francisco, because beyond the gas and parking issues, you’ve got this problem of increasingly exorbitant toll prices.”

wreisman@examiner.com

Hike won’t aid Doyle Drive

A traffic-based toll could rake in more than $5 million per year from Bay Area drivers, but none of that revenue will go toward upgrading Doyle Drive, the seismically unstable southern approach to the bridge.

Bridge officials first approved the toll plan in March as a way to secure a $158.7 million federal grant that required a congestion-based toll in the Bay Area. Of that grant, $58 million is earmarked toward the Doyle Drive rebuild, but the rehabilitation project still remains $370 million short of its $1.01 billion in project costs.

Mayor Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Transportation Authority officials were planning for some of the variable-toll revenue to go toward improving Doyle Drive, which has a two rating out of 100 on the Federal Highway Administration’s structural safety index.

The Marin County members of the bridge board cried foul, however, since the toll would affect the residents they represented, but would go to replace a San Francisco roadway.

At the bridge district’s March meeting, the directors approved an amendment stating that all funding from the variable toll would go solely toward improving the district’s public transit fleet, which includes buses and ferries. The amendment was approved by a 10-8 vote, with all dissenting votes coming from San Francisco board members.

— Will Reisman

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