Coronado's Most Read Newspaper & Community Website

Coronado Bridge and Corridor to NAS North Island Toll

In 2002 SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments) removed the toll on the Coronado Bridge because enough money had been collected to pay for the Bridge and future upkeep on the bridge. Since then the Coronado Bay Bridge has been toll free.

Now the Coronado City Council wants to build an underground tunnel to relieve traffic congestion between the bridge and N..A.S. North Island. To pay for the tunnel the Council wants to charge a $1.25 toll each direction to cross the Coronado Bridge. This toll can increase to $2.50 each direction. Toll readers would be placed at the Bridge entrance and exit in both directions near Glorietta Bay.

I support the military and their families and I'm proud to share the Island with the men and women who travel to and from North Island Naval Air Station however if the proposed tunnel is primarily for use by N.A.S. North Island then the logical place for the toll readers would be at the entrance and exit of N.A.S. North Island for those drivers who will be the users of the new tunnel. Most residents won't be using the tunnel so why are we paying a toll for something we won't be using?

A tunnel project is costly. Routing traffic to First Avenue and Glorietta Bay around the perimeter of Coronado to relieve cross traffic, accidents and congestion makes more sense and saves dollars. To charge a toll for a bridge already paid for so that the money can be used to pay for a proposed new tunnel sounds like an elaborate sceme to bring back the toll?

Start thinking outside the box. Identify the real problem and look for multiple solutions. Why is the tunnel the only solution? In my opinion tunnel vision is being employed here. When people put their heads together someone will come up with a solution that will knock their socks off.

0 members like this

Comment by kaye on July 14, 2009 at 9:26am: The traffic already goes straight from the bridge right down 3rd to the base. How much more direct can you get? And leaving the island is just as easy out 4th. This tunnel is a waste of money & would adversely impact tourism.

Comment by Rich S on July 14, 2009 at 10:56am: I believe the Navy is not on board with the tunnel, they. As for rerouting traffic, I know a lot of service members already use the first ave entrance, as well as the back entrance as well.

If it is the city that wants the tunnel, and the navy does not, then service members should not foot the bill for it. If I am incorrect about who wants the tunnel, please inform me because I would like to know.

Comment by Jim Desai on July 14, 2009 at 11:00am: Would a graduated toll such as this would make sense?

Car with 5 Passengers..............Free
Car with 4 Passengers.............. $0.50
Car with 3 Passengers.............. $1.50
Car with 2 Passengers.............. $2.50
Car with 1 Passenger. .............. $5.00

Comment by Patricia Cooley on July 14, 2009 at 9:01pm: Does John Scheck know how to spell corridor?

Comment by Mayor Casey Tanaka on July 15, 2009 at 8:42am: SANDAG removed the tolls in 2002, not the courts. The authority to add a toll (up to a $1.50) still remains with SANDAG while the ultimate authority over the bridge rests with the State and its legislature.

Obviously, there are people on both sides of the tunnel issue. Some like it and some don't. Those who favor a tunnel want to add traffic capacity to our grid and desire to underground some of the 30,000-50,000 cars that transit our city streets on a typical weekday. Another goal of a tunnel is to get North Island commuters from the bridge to their base in an expedient, non-stop way. This could take some of the strain off of the intersections at 3rd and 4th and Orange Avenues.

It will certainly be one of my goals to get this issue onto the ballot for Coronado voters to weigh in on sometime in 2010.

Comment by Jim Desai on July 15, 2009 at 11:09am: Cure v/s Bandaid

We have already spent $12 Million on the tunnel idea. Before we spend any more money, we need to ask ourselves whether this is a solution or a temporary postponement of the issue.

How many lanes will be needed in this tunnel. What happens if the tunnel is built, and then we find out we need more lanes? Tunnel Expansion?

What happens if Navy traffic falls off? Do we have another Brian Bent Pool on our hands? Possibly 100 times bigger? Are we then talking tax or the usual push it off on the next generation via debt? How is the debt going to be serviced? etc. etc. etc.

Casey, If the major goal of the tunnel is to avoid the Orange Street traffic light, then it would be a lot simpler to take Orange street above or below the 3rd & 4th streets for a few feet.

Perhaps the money saved could be used for better purposes. For example we could put up a satellite in geostationary near space orbit, and it could keep an eye on our abandoned construction lots, and send you automatic emails. Ha! Ha! Just kidding Case.

Comment by John Scheck on July 15, 2009 at 11:38am: The Mayor is correct in the fact that it was not a court order that stopped the toll on the Coronado Bridge. SANDAG removed the tolls in 2002 but threats of lawsuits were known and in my opinion SANDAG didn't want to go there.

The tunnel proposal as I read it states that the toll charged to cross the bridge will be used to build the tunnel not for the maintenance or upkeep of the bridge. Why are people being asked to pay a bridge toll for a project that does not involve the bridge. Placing the toll readers at Glorietta Bay will tag everyone entering and exiting the bridge. If bridge tolls can be used to relieve surface street traffic in Coronado then tolls collected from 1985 after the bridge was paid for till the time the bridge toll was stopped should have been set aside for the project.

According to the 10news.com story dated April 4, 2001: Coronado Council Weighs Bridge Toll Alternatives", the article stated, "Currently about 75,000 cars per day cross the bridge, the Union-Tribune reported. Toll collection began when the bridge opened in 1969. Bonds used to build the bridge were paid off in 1985. Since that time, toll revenue has gone in part toward two tunnel studies, which are due out next month." Sixteen years of collecting tolls from 1985 after the bridge was paid off to the date the story was written in 2001 should have brought in a tremendous amount of revenue for future improvements. According to the story quoted from 10news.com part of the revenue went toward two tunnel studies. 75,000 cars a day times $1 per vehicle multiplied by 16 years. You do the math. So why are we now being asked to pay for a tunnel that should have been paid for by the revenues earned since 1985 and placed in reserve earning interest to cover this project?

Comment by Jim Desai on July 15, 2009 at 2:47pm: Putting aside the financial issues for a moment, I don't think most Coronadans estimate the magnitude of the hassles involved in constructing a tunnel in a coastal region.

No matter what the experts tell you now; there will be guaranteed water incursions, shoring collapses, extra concreting,............ and the whole thing will take twice as long and cost much more than initial estimates. I doubt many of the businesses in Coronado will be able to stand the strain of the disruption.

Comment by anne pilgrim on July 17, 2009 at 8:40pm: You forget that adding a toll to the bridge will cause a lot more traffic coming from the south. Military personnel that live between the bridge and the strand will end up choosing the strand over the bridge because of the cost. Palm traffic is already horrific and instead of confining traffic down third and fourth, it will be spread throughout the city. I remember how much worse the traffic could get on Orange when there was a toll. I'm sorry-but the traffic that exists is nothing like traffic that exists in other parts of the county. It can take at least two or three light changes just to get off the 805 and onto Sorrento Valley Road in the morning! If you live in Coronado and work off the island-aren't you going against traffic most of the time anyway? Truthfully I think the Tenth Street intersection is much more annoying than the Third and Fourth Street intersections! I think the most important thing to remember that you live in one of the most beautiful cities in the world-people spend thousands of dollars to visit a place that you get to live in daily-so in the scheme of things, having a small corridor of traffic during a few hours a day is a small price to pay for living in paradise! Sorry if I've spelled anything incorrectly Patricia, but I'm an admitted horrible speller and there's no spell check on this site.