CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
Multimedia News
One toll hike may not be enough
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
The toll hike approved last week means cash-paying drivers will shell out $6 to cross the Golden Gate Bridge, and that price could soon rise to $8.
Citing the need to make up a projected five-year, $91 million operating budget shortfall, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District agreed to a $1 increase on cash and FasTrak tolls. The new rates may take effect in September.
A separate proposal by the bridge district to raise cash tolls by $1 during busy travel times is currently under discussion.
Separate from the bridge district — but still affecting drivers crossing the iconic span — is a third plan to charge another $1 fee on the seismically unsafe Doyle Drive. That plan is currently being considered by San Francisco transportation officials.
“We are still investigating many options to rebuild Doyle Drive, including congestion pricing,” said Joe Arellano, spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Because the toll on Doyle Drive would only affect southbound drivers, North Bay politicians have strongly opposed the idea, calling it a “Marin commuter tax.”
The extra fare on Doyle Drive is the only way to generate much-needed funding to rebuild the aging expanse, said Tilly Chang, deputy director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, which is leading the effort to restore the 72-year-old structure.
The Doyle Drive project has a current price tag of $1.01 billion, although the SFCTA is investigating ways to reduce the cost. So far, $640 million has been identified for the rebuild.
“We’re looking at a whole host of options to make up the shortfall,” Chang said. “But a Doyle Drive toll is the most effective possibility to raise funds.”
A $1 toll on Doyle Drive would generate about $18 million a year, Chang said. Any plan for a toll on the approach would have to be approved by state legislators.
Golden Gate Bridge district officials will meet Wednesday with technical advisors from the U.S. Department of Transportation to discuss the components of a congestion-reducing toll.
Earlier this year, the bridge district submitted two proposals for higher tolls during peak travel times. One option would charge both FasTrak and cash users an extra $1, while the other would increase cash prices by $1 and FasTrak costs by 50 cents.
The Department of Transportation, which required that the bridge district implement a congestion toll in order to save the Bay Area region $158 million in federal grant money, balked at the proposal, saying it would not affect driver behavior enough to reduce traffic.
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