Comment by Richard Butterworth on April 23, 2009 at 2:32am

Mayor, with all due respect to the people in other cities, who cares whether they appreciate the idea of Coronado locals getting a free pass for the bridge or not.?They dont pay the enormous property taxes that Coronado residents do. If they wanted to pay 5 thousand a year or so, then perhaps I would listent to their concerns. I think the Coroando residents already pay more than their fare share of taxes. Further, it is their choice to use Orange and totally destroy the setting of City as they drive through to I.B. To suggest a Coronado resident drive through I.B to get to Coronado is not practicle, so that door does not swing both ways. Lastly, and I have been saying this for years, the tunnel will not alleviate traffic through down town Coronado by as much as one vehicle. The only people that are effected by 3rd and 4th are those that live on the 100-300 blocks of the island, (such as myself). Therefore, the billion dollar tunnel, and yes it will end up costing that much, will not even positively effect the majority of Coronado residents. If money is to spent, then it must be for the good of the majority. A tunnel under Glorietta or Orange, connecting the Strand would be the best place for the tunnel. Do you know of the story of the debacle as to how the bridge was placed where it is today? Perhaps we could avoid a similar story. History doesnt necessarily have to repeat itself.

Comment by Lynne Keepers on April 23, 2009 at 7:24am

I'm amazed that the idea of encouraging the Navy to have it's folks park on the other side of the bay and bus or ferry them across isn't paramount in our thoughts. I agree that third and fourth streets are just a small amount of time of inconvenience. What would be nice is to create a one lane each direction downtown with angle parking like other small-town villages. It would definitely discourage the passthrough drivers and give us the much needed parking for all of the visitors that we hope will come and spend money in Coronado.

Comment by Charles W. Hayes on April 23, 2009 at 9:05am

I am against the toll for two reasons:
1. Those who benefit from the tunnel should pay for it, and more importantly
2. The tunnel should not be built at this location. If we look out 50 or more years, what will be the technology of our defense systems? Will we have carriers? Will North Island become civilian? I believe a tunnel under the bay from, say the Laurel street area to North Island would better serve our needs both for the immediate and distant futures. Like the bridge, it can be financed by bonds, the feds and maintained by tolls on the direct users.

Comment by Dan Orr on April 23, 2009 at 9:17am

Mayor Tanaka, traffic in Coronado is a lot like the weather: Everyone talks about it, but no one does anything about it. It's a free country (still I think, new administration to the contrary notwithstanding) so as long as we have two million people to the north of us and that beautiful beach to the south of us, we're going to have traffic problems. No tunnel will solve that. It is my considered opinion that the construction of the tunnel to NASNI was predicated on someone ELSE paying for it (i.e. EARMARKS). Fellow Coronado citizens, ask yourself this question: Is the traffic to North Island SO bad that we would tax ourselves to pay for it's construction? I figure the cost per citizen, including children, would be $4000-$5000 for every $100,000, 000 the project costs. At that, I'm wait three minutes to cross Third Street.

Comment by Mayor Casey Tanaka on April 23, 2009 at 9:39am

I am delighted to see so many people sharing their thoughts on tolls and the tunnel. I am anxious to see our citizens vote on this issue as soon as we finish the Environmental Studies that we are so close to completing. A couple of thoughts about a tunnel under the bay; San Diego would need to be a partner with us as it would impact them on their side of the bay. I don't think there is anything we could do to interest them to partner with us on such a project. Second, a tunnel under the bay would be many times more expensive than one under Fourth Street and it would have to be under the Aircraft Carriers and their channel. This would result in a tunnel that daylights somewhere in the middle of NASNI or perhaps its airfield. A transbay tunnel would be a tough nut to crack!

Comment by stacy renshaw on April 23, 2009 at 11:16am

If the toll were for the maintaince of the bridge but even then only reinstate the $1.00 tolland definatly add FASTRAK. Frankly any toll at this point will only cause transportaion to increase on the strand and we have all seen what that has done to the city when the bridge is closed beacuse of a suicide attempt 3hr back ups or during summer holiday traffic.The strand takes a beating. where does the money come from to maintain the strand then???Unless the city is going to add an additional lane both ways on to the strand or add a toll coming into coronado from the strand. If the Navy opposes the tunnel what is there solution since they are the ones bringing all this "extra" traffic onto the island with the additional carriers. Maybe to aliviate traffic the navy should look into stagering there shifts. Case in point 1984 LA Olympics several corporations in surounding areas of event venues had carpool and stargered work shifts. It worked out great less traffic jams and everyone was on time to work and the events.

Photo Star Comment by SBGrad on April 24, 2009 at 6:59am

As a few others have said, bridge tolls are a regressive tax that hit lower income workers. We get taxed enough, we don't need the bridge tax coming back. Today's Union Trib even had something to say about the bridge toll/tunnel scheme and it wasn't very complimentary to the City Council.

My advice for the entire City Council, raising taxes is a surefire way to guarantee that I won't be supporting any re-election bids.

Comment by Bill Bry on April 30, 2009 at 12:26pm

THE BIG BRIDGE TOLL: MATHEMATIC REALITY AND A DIM FUTURE
FOR CORONADO

Mayor Tanaka,

While Coronado residents surely appreciate the zeal with which the Council undertakes to solve traffic congestion problems, I invite your attention to this example of the potential increase in financial burden that a bridge toll would impose on just one Coronado family of four (4).

Conclusion - Given that the proposed toll for an average Coronado family would cause them to be burdened with a very real and immediate increase to their annual family expenses of possibly $7,000, one must ask if the Council has considered the real impact to residents. Does the Council consider that Coronado families are so well compensated that $7,000 is to them a trivial amount? Is the Council too far distanced from the day-to-day lives of the average Coronado family?

If it is their intent to:

- Drive the family atmosphere from Coronado

- Reduce revenues to schools and local businesses

- Shift the character of the town to that of a place more appealing to retirees and families without children

- Push tourism revenues away that are generated from summer concerts in the park, visits to the beach, celebrations at July 4th, Christmas, and Halloween

- Drive down the demand for property and potentially, property values, by limiting the base of prospective buyers

- Depress property rental values, discouraging landlords from upgrading properties resulting in an increasingly degraded condition

- Potentially force the schools out of business due to loss of student base causing the system to be forced under SDUSD

…then the proposed new bridge toll should accomplish that handily.

Council also owes it to taxpayers to consider the city’s exposure to legal action by a class of affected Coronado families and businesses.



Opinion

If the proposed tunnel is so vital a need to cure Coronado’s traffic woes, then one might also ask, why was the $1 toll ever taken off of the bridge? Had Coronado been collecting tolls and investing those monies all along, wouldn’t we be closer to our goal now?

Having not given the subject detailed study but just observing that Coronado has limited additional space for population expansion, are we not then approaching a peak in the traffic volume? If that is so and we are muddling through today, is there a compelling reason to dump such an immediate and fiscally crushing burden on residents when it might be spread out over a much longer period? Start charging $1 today and keep at it over the long haul.

Consider that imposition of a burdensome toll that, while changing the entire character of the town, would by itself force a reduction in traffic thereby making the tunnel wholly unnecessary. A response that is out of phase with requirements is a classic overreaction, characteristic of large bureaucratic organizations.

Any toll more than $1 portends a vision of Coronado as a retirement community shared by wealthy couples without children, with a challenged, increasingly slum-like, rental property infrastructure.

The big toll and in my own humble opinion, the tunnel, are really bad ideas for Coronado.

PLEASE RECONSIDER THE BIG* TOLL.

(* BIG TOLL being anything greater than $1.)


REAL LIFE BRIDGE TOLL MATHEMATICS - 2009


Schedule During the School Year – 36 Weeks

Spouse A - 5 trips per week to and from work off-island. Vehicle is required during work hours which begins and ends at varying hours. Toll avoidance could only be avoided by purchasing a second car and leaving it on the San Diego side.
2 trips on weekends because he is forced to make off-island shopping trips for home improvement items, major shopping etc. not available on-island.

Spouse B - In response to demands of family needs is required to make the following weekly round trips:
Ballet Lessons: 3-5 No other Coronado residents to carpool with. No equivalent ballet program on-island.
Children programs with school/scouts/church: 2 No other Coronado residents to carpool with. No equivalent service available on-island.

Child A – Attending school at a San Diego area college and working a minimal wage part-time job:
School: 5-8 trips at variable hours between 7 A.M. and 6 P.M.
Work: 3-5 trips at variable hours between 7 A.M and 11 P.M.

Child B – Not driving…yet.

20-27 weekly trips per family.

Schedule During Non-School Year – 16 Weeks

Spouse A – Same 7 trips
Spouse B – 3 – 5 for Ballet. No tutor.
Child A – 5 for work


15– 17 weekly trips per family


Equation and Results for Total Yearly Financial Burden

Yearly Cost of Crossing the Bridge = [(Weekly Trips School Year) x 36 Weeks x Toll] + [(Weekly Trips Non-School Year) x 16 Weeks x Toll]



Minimum Cost at $3 Toll - $2,880
Maximum Cost at $3 Toll - $3,732

Minimum Cost at $5 Toll - $4,800
Maximum Cost at $5 Toll - $6,220

Minimum Cost at $10 Toll - $9,600
Maximum Cost at $10 Toll - $12,440




Anecdotal Real Life Daily Bridge Usage From “Just Last Week”

7 A.M. 2 round trips to drop a car off with a dealer for specialized maintenance
8 A.M. Spouse A departs for 1 daily trip to work across bridge
9 A.M. College student departs for 1 daily school and work trip
10 A.M. Spouse B departs for medical appointment – 1 trip
3 P.M. Spouse B departs with Child B for ballet lessons – 1 trip
4 P.M. 2 more round trips as Spouse A travels to reclaim car from dealer
6:30 P.M. 1 more round trip to reclaim Child B from ballet lessons

Total trips for one typical family day: 9
Toll burden at 3, 5, and 10 dollars: $27, $45, or $90 for just one (1) day!

Comment by John McMahon on April 30, 2009 at 2:05pm

A toll is a tax. Taxes should be put to a peblic vote!

Comment by Mayor Casey Tanaka on April 30, 2009 at 5:24pm

I appreciate the comments, but I also want to restate a couple of points that I have made previously:
1. The Council is following the mandate of the public's vote in 1998 to pursue funding for a tunnel. That doesn't mean a tunnel is a fait accompli. It just means we are doing the leg work to cost out a potential project and to scope out ways one could pay for such a project.
2. Any next step including tolls or a major step toward a tunnel will be preceded by another public vote. We are gathering as much info as possible to allow the public to be as fully informed as possible, prior to such a vote.
3. Any discussion about how expensive a toll might be to any constituency should also consider the likelihiood that a carpool lane would be free. If a toll is a hardship, all the more reason to consider carpooling.
4. If there is no major traffic mitagation project like a tunnel, then there will be no need for a "Big Toll." A small one might be worth considering, but a small toll is a seperate and distinctly different issue apart from a larger toll for a major traffic project.

Comment (keep it clean & on topic)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page