CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
$1 price increase to take toll on shortfall
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Within six months it may cost $1 more to cross the Golden Gate Bridge, and another toll increase is looming on the horizon.
If approved this week, the $1 toll increase would bring cash fares up to $6 and FasTrak prices to $5, with the new rates likely to go into effect by January. The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District said revenue from the toll increases would go toward offsetting a five-year, $91 million projected budget shortfall.
But the future of another proposal, a congestion-based pricing plan, is currently in limbo.
In May, the district offered two pricing options for the morning and evening commutes, which would target commuters during peak drive times in an attempt to reduce the number of cars on the road during those time periods.
One scenario would add $1 for both cash fares and FasTrak users, while the other scenario would add $1 to cash fares, and 50 cents forFasTrak users.
If that change were to win approval, it could cost as much as $7 to cross the iconic span.
The bridge district agreed to the variable-pricing study to meet the requirements of a $158.7 million federal grant, which would be awarded to the Bay Area only if a congestion toll was put in place.
However, the U.S. Department of Transportation disagreed with the bridge district’s method for their two congestion-based toll options.
As a result, the federal government is holding out on releasing most of the regional grant money until it completes its own congestion-pricing study for the bridge.
“The bridge district congestion-pricing study wasn’t as comprehensive as we hoped,” said Tyler Duvall of Department of Transportation. “It was unclear if it would meet the performance objectives we set out for the bridge.”
The bridge district will wait until the federal study is completed before moving further with the variable toll proposal, bridge spokeswoman Mary Currie said.
On Thursday, the district’s finance committee will vote on whether to move the $1 toll increase to a full board meeting. The board could make their final decision Friday.
Toll proposals
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District officials are looking at various options for tolls.$5 Current cash toll
$4 Current FasTrak toll
$1 Proposed increase to regular toll
Congestion-pricing proposals
Option 1: $1 cash, 50 cents FasTrak during peak commute times
Option 2: $1 cash, $1 FasTrak during peak commute times
Source: GGBHTD
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!
4 agree | 3 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?
2 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.
9 agree | 5 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 | 8 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 | 7 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."
7 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.
11 agree | 7 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.
9 agree | 7 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 | 10 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 | 46 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 | 51 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.
46 agree | 54 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree