Change my location 
|
|
Article History There are updates to this article.
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Two separate Golden Gate Bridge toll increases that could cost drivers $7 to cross into San Francisco are in the works — and another talked-about toll could boost the total cost to $8, warned transportation officials.
It currently costs cash-paying drivers $5 to cross the Golden Gate Bridge, and a planned $1 increase to the toll will likely go into effect in January 2009.
Additionally, a separate proposed toll increase would add $1 for drivers crossing during busy travel times. That fee, aimed at reducing traffic congestion, is expected to be implemented sometime between this fall and September 2009.
However, funding from neither of those tolls will benefit Doyle Drive, the southern approach to the bridge which has just a two rating out of 100 on the Federal Highway Administration’s structural safety index.
City officials are looking for $370 million to help rebuild the seismically unstable 72-year-old Doyle Drive, a project that is currently estimated to cost $1.01 billion.
Another $1 toll, on Doyle Drive — which would generate $160 million — could be the only way to make up the shortfall, according to Tilly Chang, the deputy planning director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority.
The total cost of a trip from the North Bay to San Francisco could be $8 for cash-paying drivers during peak times.
“We’re looking exhaustively at other options beside a toll,” Chang said. “But in the end of the day, a toll may be the only option, and it’s a reasonable option.”
North Bay politicians have decried the toll proposal, calling it a “Marin commuter tax” because it would only levy fares on southbound drivers. The bridge district’s board of directors shot down a proposal last year to implement a toll to help pay for Doyle Drive due to such concerns, but subsequently approved the congestion-based toll in order to help the region secure a $159 million grant that came on the condition that such a traffic-reducing measure was in place.
Without the support of the bridge district, San Francisco officials are having talks with state legislators about approving toll authority for Doyle Drive.
San Francisco Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who also sits on the bridge’s board of directors, said it was worth adding a toll on Doyle Drive for the rebuild effort, because if the span collapsed, “it would be an economic disaster.”
Marin County Supervisor Charles McGlashan, said a third toll would be too much.
“Ask the workers who live in the canal in San Rafael and work in San Bruno if they can afford an $8 toll,” McGlashan said.
 Not ranked |
 EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
ARTICLE HISTORY 
Comments from Examiner Readers
9:10 PM MST on Sun., May. 11, 2008 re: "Marin leaders set to reject toll on Doyle"
Report as inappropriate
12:56 PM MST on Sat., May. 10, 2008
re: "Marin leaders set to reject toll on Doyle"
Report as inappropriate
12:52 PM MST on Sat., May. 10, 2008
re: "Marin leaders set to reject toll on Doyle"
Report as inappropriate
8:29 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 24, 2008
re: "Marin leaders set to reject toll on Doyle"
Report as inappropriate
7:09 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 24, 2008
re: "Marin leaders set to reject toll on Doyle"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
McGoldrick is out of office under term limits as a SF stupidvisor this November. I don't know if this applies to his position with the Bridge. He has been an advocate for a rail project all through Geary Blvd in SF Richmond district that has been severely opposed by both business and residents. Presently, there are three lanes in both directions for most of the Blvd and the 38 Geary muni bus efficiently moves in both directions. McGoldrick's plan would eliminate a lane in both directions and street curb parking as well. He and Newsom who proposes a similar plan for Van Ness Ave are nothing but gangsters who will collect bags of cash from the unions and construction companies that would do the job. McGoldrick barely beat a recall of his Stupidvisor position, even as a lame duck. Don't trust him or anything that they propose on the SF side. Where is the Speaker of the House and all the other earmarks, and ChinaFi, and Ms.Green Boxer. They make a lot of noise and accusations, but meat?
4 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Pay us for 'Our Water' from Northern California. Tit for tat, or they can go find a way to suck up more water from ?'their'? source...the Muddy Colorado..let'em chew on that.
1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
San Francisco, North Bay & Peninsula Drivers didn't have to pay to repave Highway 101 in the south end of San Francisco(The State paid for it..from Candlestick Park to Ceasar Chavez exit), so why do we have to pay to rebuild Doyle Drive (the north end Highway 101 from The Marina to The Bridge)??? We are told that it is a seismic issue that we HAVE TO FIX...but as I recall, THE STATE dealt with the Seismic issues of the overpasses involving the interchange of Highway 101 and 280 and Alemany Blvd. in the north part of S.F. So what gives???...do you think that maybe this is just way/ruse/smokescreen for San Francisco to get "free" money from The Feds???? I DO!! But true to The City (which I live in), what is "free" for 'San Francisco' is usually/always? 'funded' by SF residents. And like other cancers, SF Govt. has found a way to find and spread into another 'host'. If The State (Ahhnold)wants Nor. Cal. to pay for 'their' infrastructure, then 'let Them in the South' pay us for
6 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gretchen said:
Why not just raise the bridge toll to $7 or $8? Is there a compelling reason to charge a Doyle Drive toll plus a bridge toll? If the goal is to divert traffic to 19th Ave, is a toll the best way to do it? Just shut down a couple lanes and cause people to change the route they take. Of course that doesn't raise money to pay for Doyle Drive road work, so then I'm back to asking why you can't just use bridge tolls and raise that toll instead of implementing a new and separate one?
97 agree | 77 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
On its face, this toll sounds both impractical and excessive -- it's going to be on top of already stopping and paying to cross the bridge??? Reporters, what about a story to explain how this is supposed to work, and why anyone thinks it's a good idea? Assume an extra toll: why build a separate infrastructure to collect it, which will be expensive in itself, slow traffic, and send drivers onto alternate routes that aren't intended for heavy traffic? And it's already expensive to cross the bridge: commuters may have no choice, but won't many of us take fewer pleasure trips that involve crossing the bridge? This affects businesses both north and south. Sure, if one can afford any discretionary excursion, it's irrational to be bothered by an extra dollar or two, but it's a fact that the last bridge-toll increase has already caused me to cross much less often.
71 agree | 75 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree