Heh...I remember when there was a twenty cent toll on the present bridge. Reading the Wiki article, it states that the toll was imposed after the second span was completed and the first span upgraded, in 1960. The toll was removed in 1966 'after construction costs were paid off.' I even remember the state highway officials getting all puffed up about how costs had been paid off way in advance of expectations.

So, now they are saying that the bottleneck created by the current bridge demands another bridge. Wait...wait...isn't this coming from the same people who assert that internal combustion engine usage is on an inexorable downward trend? If that's the case, then I think we should just scrub any new bridges and allow the traffic to come down to where the bottlenecks disappear.

Of course, if we are to take the philosophy of 'those who use it should pay for it' (user fees, big with the trendoids), then reinstallation of tolls would be a great step. Mebbe they could save the tolls to build replacement spans when the current ones need repair? What an idea! Planning ahead for replacement! Not only that, but tolls would probably reduce the number of crossings, thereby reducing the bottlenecks. Win-win!

This from the first person commenting in the article. Sounds familiar, very familiar!

Wood Berry · Top Commenter
Where was the public input ? How long are taxpayers going to let governmental agencies such as the bridge district, MTC and ABAG conduct their business as if they are private companies with no accountability ?

Lots and lots of stolen license plates on the horizon!

The answers you seek can be found at http://www.licenseplateflipper.com/

I don't know why the WSTC is acting like they can raise tolls. Legally, they can't anymore. Per the passage of I-1185 in November, they no longer have that authority, but rather, the state legislature.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4048.asp