News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Lawmakers in California approved a bill that could raise Bay Area bridge tolls

Started by bing101, September 17, 2017, 07:49:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bing101

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/09/16/lawmakers-approve-bill-to-raise-bay-area-bridge-tolls/

Congestion pricing is one of the proposals here to justify a toll hike.


MOD NOTE: Changed thread title. –Roadfro


myosh_tino

You're title is a bit misleading.

What state lawmakers have passed is a bill that allows the MTC to put a regional measure on the ballot to hike bridge tolls by as much as $3.  Ultimately, the decision to raise tolls lies with the voters in the seven Bay Area counties.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: myosh_tino on September 17, 2017, 09:45:50 PM
You're title is a bit misleading.

What state lawmakers have passed is a bill that allows the MTC to put a regional measure on the ballot to hike bridge tolls by as much as $3.  Ultimately, the decision to raise tolls lies with the voters in the seven Bay Area counties.

Today's media would've said "You won't believe which bridges will be raising their tolls by $3!"

mrsman

I think it would be a bad idea to raise tolls by $3 in one sitting.  If there is a revenue need, the toll should be raised more gradually, like $1 every 6 months until it is $3 higher. 

Henry

Just watch: Once the hikes are approved, there's going to be a whole lot of taking the roundabout way through San Jose just to avoid the tolls. (Or they could ride BART if they don't want to drive the long way.)
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

kurumi

Quote from: Henry on September 18, 2017, 09:42:05 AM
Just watch: Once the hikes are approved, there's going to be a whole lot of taking the roundabout way through San Jose just to avoid the tolls. (Or they could ride BART if they don't want to drive the long way.)

Here's that shortcut before the toll increase:
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

hotdogPi

How common are bikes across the bridges? I assume they're still free.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

nexus73

Getting rid of the toll booths that act as choke points and the toll agencies, which are just another layer of bureaucracy, strikes me as a better solution.  Raise the gas tax in the metro counties as much as is needed to maintain and replace the bridges instead!

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

kkt

Quote from: nexus73 on September 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
Getting rid of the toll booths that act as choke points and the toll agencies, which are just another layer of bureaucracy, strikes me as a better solution.  Raise the gas tax in the metro counties as much as is needed to maintain and replace the bridges instead!

Rick

The bridges are expensive to build and maintain.  Tolls on the bridges encourages people to work near where they live.

Plutonic Panda

I don't like that as an excuse. To encourage people is a nice way of saying we're going to fine you if you live where you want to live. If people want to live in the other side of the bridge they should be able to and not be subject to fines to work on the opposite side. I'm against tolls except for trucks.

jeffandnicole

The tolls aren't a surprise to anyone moving there. It's just one of the many considerations one should make when looking for a home and/or employment. Should we claim parking fees are a fine as well and raise everyone's taxes just to provide free city parking?

compdude787

Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
Getting rid of the toll booths that act as choke points and the toll agencies, which are just another layer of bureaucracy, strikes me as a better solution.  Raise the gas tax in the metro counties as much as is needed to maintain and replace the bridges instead!

Rick

The bridges are expensive to build and maintain.  Tolls on the bridges encourages people to work near where they live.

So you think people should have to move every time they get a new job? That's ridiculous.

kkt

Quote from: compdude787 on September 18, 2017, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
Getting rid of the toll booths that act as choke points and the toll agencies, which are just another layer of bureaucracy, strikes me as a better solution.  Raise the gas tax in the metro counties as much as is needed to maintain and replace the bridges instead!

Rick

The bridges are expensive to build and maintain.  Tolls on the bridges encourages people to work near where they live.

So you think people should have to move every time they get a new job? That's ridiculous.

So do you think people who chose to live near where they work should be paying much higher taxes to subsidize an intrinsically expensive commute for those who don't?

nexus73

Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 04:00:31 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on September 18, 2017, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
Getting rid of the toll booths that act as choke points and the toll agencies, which are just another layer of bureaucracy, strikes me as a better solution.  Raise the gas tax in the metro counties as much as is needed to maintain and replace the bridges instead!

Rick

The bridges are expensive to build and maintain.  Tolls on the bridges encourages people to work near where they live.

So you think people should have to move every time they get a new job? That's ridiculous.

So do you think people who chose to live near where they work should be paying much higher taxes to subsidize an intrinsically expensive commute for those who don't?


If one adds X amount of cents per gallon to the gas tax for the counties in the Bay Area, then that does the job of covering the region which generates the majority of traffic on those bridges. 

Despite living in downstate Oregon, I would be happy to pay more gas tax if government was efficient in the use of the funds to see the majority of it go to the I-5 corridor since that is where the most people live.  It is also where the most jobs are and the transportation backbone that sees goods as well as tourists come and go to us out here in left field.  We who live here do need various projects taken care of but nowhere as much as the most populated part of Oregon does!  Besides, when I leave home to go to Capital City, Springfield and Shelbyville, it sure would be easier if the urban roads are up to snuff.

No matter how one argues the case, one thing is undeniable.  Every layer of bureaucracy adds costs without adding pavement or maintenance.  Tolls do such, thus they must be opposed.

Parking meters on the other hand are about churn.  If some is not generated, there will be less parking for those who come and go, which is an important consideration in downtown districts that are active.  Sometimes one mixes in lots, free and paid as well as public and private parking.  Those are city planner deals which respond to the demand for parking at a particular time or particular era.  No need for meters when the demand for parking spaces is low after all!  Go the other way as some neighborhoods in PDX illustrate and then conditions rise to the Something Must Be Done level.  One then chooses the best of bad alternatives sometimes while reminding themselves that doing nothing is even worse!

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 04:00:31 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on September 18, 2017, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
Getting rid of the toll booths that act as choke points and the toll agencies, which are just another layer of bureaucracy, strikes me as a better solution.  Raise the gas tax in the metro counties as much as is needed to maintain and replace the bridges instead!

Rick

The bridges are expensive to build and maintain.  Tolls on the bridges encourages people to work near where they live.

So you think people should have to move every time they get a new job? That's ridiculous.

So do you think people who chose to live near where they work should be paying much higher taxes to subsidize an intrinsically expensive commute for those who don't?
Yes I do. Just like those who have long commutes subsidize the expensive transit infrastructure that they likely will never use.

sparker

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 19, 2017, 03:13:25 AM
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 04:00:31 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on September 18, 2017, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
Getting rid of the toll booths that act as choke points and the toll agencies, which are just another layer of bureaucracy, strikes me as a better solution.  Raise the gas tax in the metro counties as much as is needed to maintain and replace the bridges instead!

Rick

The bridges are expensive to build and maintain.  Tolls on the bridges encourages people to work near where they live.

So you think people should have to move every time they get a new job? That's ridiculous.

So do you think people who chose to live near where they work should be paying much higher taxes to subsidize an intrinsically expensive commute for those who don't?
Yes I do. Just like those who have long commutes subsidize the expensive transit infrastructure that they likely will never use.

Considering the price of housing in the Bay Area, there's not much incentive to live near work unless the yearly household income exceeds about $350K or so (houses are being bid up to much more than their listing prices).  There's a reason why Tracy, Manteca, and other exurbs exist in their present form and why so many make the commute -- and the ACE rail line is essentially "sold out", so the alternative is the drive.  The area keeps attracting new workers -- but not all can afford to live close-in.  It's best not to consider the housing/commute/transit market to be fully fungible -- at least in this region.  And it's likely that the toll hike will be spread out over 3-5 years; doing it any other way would invite a backlash that would be felt at all legislative and administrative levels.  And while it's true that local transportation circles are dominated by the desire to reduce regional driving, those entities are answerable to the folks in their respective jurisdictions -- and the notion of sticking it to those folks in the name of such a concept has its limitations.  They're agencies -- not the dictatorship of the proletariat!   


Plutonic Panda

Quote from: sparker on September 19, 2017, 05:30:39 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 19, 2017, 03:13:25 AM
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 04:00:31 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on September 18, 2017, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
Getting rid of the toll booths that act as choke points and the toll agencies, which are just another layer of bureaucracy, strikes me as a better solution.  Raise the gas tax in the metro counties as much as is needed to maintain and replace the bridges instead!

Rick

The bridges are expensive to build and maintain.  Tolls on the bridges encourages people to work near where they live.

So you think people should have to move every time they get a new job? That's ridiculous.

So do you think people who chose to live near where they work should be paying much higher taxes to subsidize an intrinsically expensive commute for those who don't?
Yes I do. Just like those who have long commutes subsidize the expensive transit infrastructure that they likely will never use.

Considering the price of housing in the Bay Area, there's not much incentive to live near work unless the yearly household income exceeds about $350K or so (houses are being bid up to much more than their listing prices).  There's a reason why Tracy, Manteca, and other exurbs exist in their present form and why so many make the commute -- and the ACE rail line is essentially "sold out", so the alternative is the drive.  The area keeps attracting new workers -- but not all can afford to live close-in.  It's best not to consider the housing/commute/transit market to be fully fungible -- at least in this region.  And it's likely that the toll hike will be spread out over 3-5 years; doing it any other way would invite a backlash that would be felt at all legislative and administrative levels.  And while it's true that local transportation circles are dominated by the desire to reduce regional driving, those entities are answerable to the folks in their respective jurisdictions -- and the notion of sticking it to those folks in the name of such a concept has its limitations.  They're agencies -- not the dictatorship of the proletariat!
I generally agree here.

My issue is what I see the urbanist and transit advocates take issue with isn't whether one uses a car or train but the underlying push by the powers that be to get people to live closer to where they work. That's how I see these "live, work, play" developments.

I get that would be cheaper and better for the environment but you can make that argument for a lot of things. I certainly don't need these agencies "suggesting" how I live let alone deciding that induced demand(which I think is bullshit anyways) is enough of an argument to neglect the freeways and decide adding lanes isn't an option. Meanwhile while I sit in traffic spending 3 hours to go 7 miles I keep hearing they are expanding transit and reducing lanes to "encourage" people to use alternative forms of transportation but it is becoming evident no one wants to do that. Perhaps those that do are the anomaly.

I think pretty soon Metro and other agencies are going to have face the reality that traffic won't be solved by this magic solution they've come up and they will need to again put a focus on widening freeways and building new ones. What else can be done?

Kniwt

Quote from: 1 on September 18, 2017, 11:28:58 AM
How common are bikes across the bridges? I assume they're still free.

Still free for the bridges that allow them: Bay Bridge east span to Treasure Island, Golden Gate, Dumbarton, Carquinez (aka Zampa), Benicia, and Antioch.

Not allowed on the west span of the Bay Bridge or the San Mateo Bridge.

Coming to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge sometime in 2018.

Bikes are often at or above capacity on the Golden Gate, due mostly to tourists on rental bikes, especially on weekends and holidays. (It's a very dangerous place for even an experienced cyclist to ride due to everything going on.) More folks are using the new Bay Bridge path for recreation, but bike traffic on the other bridges is generally very light. I don't think I've ever seen a bike on the Antioch Bridge.

mrsman

Quote from: kurumi on September 18, 2017, 11:20:45 AM
Quote from: Henry on September 18, 2017, 09:42:05 AM
Just watch: Once the hikes are approved, there's going to be a whole lot of taking the roundabout way through San Jose just to avoid the tolls. (Or they could ride BART if they don't want to drive the long way.)

Here's that shortcut before the toll increase:


That makes a good argument for some type of toll or HOT lanes for the facility.  Have any been considered?

sparker

Quote from: Henry on September 18, 2017, 09:42:05 AM
Just watch: Once the hikes are approved, there's going to be a whole lot of taking the roundabout way through San Jose just to avoid the tolls. (Or they could ride BART if they don't want to drive the long way.)

Considering the perpetual state of congestion on CA 237 between US 101 and I-880 -- which now extends into off-peak times -- such a "detour" may not prove to be a viable option.  Essentially most arterials within the 101/880/237 "triangle" experience such congestion around peak hours (particularly Montague Expressway and Tasman Ave. -- the latter goes through the middle of the Cisco "campus"; one really doesn't want to be on that facility about 4 - 4:30 pm when pretty much every Cisco employee hits the road for home.  Bottom line -- there is no efficient commute path through northern San Jose from 5:30-9:30 am and 2:30-7 pm -- period!.  Plan your trips through that area accordingly!

Duke87

What I find intriguing is the idea that the agency responsible for these bridges needs legislative approval to raise the tolls. Over on this coast, our toll road operators generally have authority to implement toll hikes unilaterally.

Do the Bay Area bridges help subsidize other things, or is their toll revenue purely for self-subsistence?
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

jrouse

Quote from: mrsman on September 20, 2017, 04:32:36 PM
Quote from: kurumi on September 18, 2017, 11:20:45 AM
Quote from: Henry on September 18, 2017, 09:42:05 AM
Just watch: Once the hikes are approved, there's going to be a whole lot of taking the roundabout way through San Jose just to avoid the tolls. (Or they could ride BART if they don't want to drive the long way.)

Here's that shortcut before the toll increase:


That makes a good argument for some type of toll or HOT lanes for the facility.  Have any been considered?

237 currently has HOT lanes between 880 and Great America Parkway and they are scheduled to be extended westward to 101 by 2019.

sparker

Quote from: Duke87 on September 20, 2017, 08:14:47 PM
What I find intriguing is the idea that the agency responsible for these bridges needs legislative approval to raise the tolls. Over on this coast, our toll road operators generally have authority to implement toll hikes unilaterally.

Do the Bay Area bridges help subsidize other things, or is their toll revenue purely for self-subsistence?

Except for the Golden Gate Bridge, which is a fully independent entity, all the other bridges over both the Bay and the Carquinez/Suisun strait are owned and operated by Caltrans; hence the legislative supervision in the case of toll levels.  While Caltrans itself will likely field most of the calls objecting to any rate hikes, one can be assured that the local state assemblyperson or senator will have to deflect a good deal of flack on their own -- appropriate, since they're the ones who legislated the hike!  In CA, blame is usually spread out over multiple parties (even Jerry Brown's office will get vociferous complaints about this!).    :eyebrow:

theroadwayone

I remember watching a segment of People Behaving Badly, just before "congestion pricing" on the Bay Bridge, where he says, "The Bay Bridge is about to implement congestion pricing; I'd just wish they implement safety pricing: the more hazardous you drive, the more you pay. That would certainly end our budget woes for sure."

Plutonic Panda

New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn't that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won't happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.

http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.