Coronado’s ‘Residential Character’ at Stake : Plan to Lower Bridge Toll Raises Ire

After the first of the year, commuters will pay only 75 cents to cross the Coronado Bridge if the state Transportation Commission accepts a recommendation it will receive this week.

Although that might be viewed as good news by the 35,000 commuters who cross the 11,000-foot expanse over San Diego Bay daily, the mayor of Coronado characterized the 48-page Department of Transportation report on the bridge’s future as a major double-cross.

“I am very upset about the whole report,” Mayor R. H. Dorman said. “I feel they didn’t listen. The things they are recommending is just to stack more cars on city streets.”

The cause of Dorman’s ire is a Caltrans suggestion that bridge revenue be used to widen 4th Street and Pomona Avenue in Coronado but not to construct the tunnel to North Island Naval Air Station that has long been sought by Dorman and other Coronado officials.

Dorman, who has long complained that Coronado has suffered all the impacts but none of the benefits since the bridge was constructed in 1969, accused Caltrans of inflating the costs of the proposed tunnel to make it seem unfeasible.

He said city officials would be adamantly opposed to the street-widening alternative in any case.

“The basic fundamental issue is whether a little city has the right to keep its residential character,” Dorman said.

The current $1.20 bridge toll--highest in the state--will soon be lowered because the $50-million construction bonds have been paid off since April--17 years ahead of schedule.

Caltrans’ report on the amount of the new toll, and how bridge revenue might be spent, is scheduled to be discussed during a commission meeting in Sacramento on Thursday. But Caltrans and commission spokesmen said no action will be taken until after a public hearing Aug. 28 in San Diego.

Dorman said the Transportation Commission, which will conduct the hearing, can count on a vocal contingent from Coronado.

Caltrans’ report recommends two alternative toll schedules, with construction and improvement programs that correspond with each.

Under either alternative, the basic toll would be 75 cents. But the daily cost for commuters who purchase monthly passes would be 12.5 cents higher--62.5 cents instead of 50 cents--under the more-expensive plan that calls for the road improvements unwanted by Coronado leaders.

Under the cheaper alternative, toll revenue would be used only for bridge operations, maintenance, repairs and improvements.

Depending on which plan is adopted, toll revenue will range from $5.9 million to $7.7 million a year during the next decade, and practically all of it will be spent on proposed projects.

The report, released this week, contains no estimate of what the toll would have to be if the tunnel Coronado wants is to be financed with bridge revenue. But the report estimates $65 million in construction costs for a two-lane tunnel and $87 million for a four-lane tunnel.

Dorman said the state estimates are high. A Japanese engineering firm has told city officials it could build a two-lane tunnel for about $42 million, he said.

Coronado’s disenchantment over plans for lowering the toll could place it in a David and Goliath struggle with more politically powerful San Diego.

Although the toll bridge and its early payoff have made an unprecedented success story, officials across the bay have had their share of disappointments.

When they learned that the bridge would be paid off early, local officials throughout San Diego County began developing a wish list on how they would spend the $7.7 million in annual revenue. But that list--which included trolley extensions, a new ferry crossing and road projects--had to be considerably shortened after Gov. George Deukmejian signaled that he would veto legislation extending the toll after the construction bonds are retired if the money would be spent on wide-ranging transportation projects.

In September, Deukmejian signed into law a toll-extension bill, authored by Sen. Jim Ellis (R-San Diego), that limited expenditures of toll revenue to “bridge operation, maintenance, rehabilitation and improvement, and improving the approaches to the bridge.”