SAN FRANCISCO — A taxpayers association, on behalf of three plaintiffs from Vallejo, Vacaville and Lodi, is challenging a recently approved $3 bridge toll increase in state court — a move that could potentially delay or eliminate the measure.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed the suit Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court against the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA). It challenges the notion that Regional Measure 3, which voters approved last month, is a “fee” requiring only a simple majority to pass, rather than a “tax,” which requires two-thirds voter approval.

The suit asks that the toll be invalidated.

The measure passed with 55 percent of the vote across all nine Bay Area counties, according to the most recent election results. It would increase bridge tolls by $1 on Jan. 1, followed by subsequent $1 increases in 2022 and 2025, raising an estimated $5.4 billion over the next decade to pay for nearly three-dozen transportation projects in the Bay Area.

That’s not a fair increase for the drivers who will be footing the bill for public transit or bicycle and pedestrian projects, which together account for roughly two-thirds of the planned projects, said Timothy Bittle, a lawyer for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. There’s no evidence those projects will result in fewer car trips, he said.

“I don’t think all that money can be quantified as a traffic reduction expense,” Bittle said.

But, proponents of the toll increase argue investing in mass transit and alternatives to driving is the only way to reduce traffic for drivers. More than two-thirds of Bay Area drivers commute alone in their cars to work, and as more people continue to take jobs in the Bay Area, traffic has only gotten worse, said Jim Wunderman, the president and CEO of the Bay Area Council, an organization that represents businesses in the region and one that helped campaign for the measure.

“Getting commuters and others out of their cars and into mass transit, including BART, Caltrain, local buses and ferries, provides a direct and powerful benefit to everyone who uses the region’s seven state-owned bridges,” he said in a statement. “Regional Measure 3 will effectively add greater capacity to our bridges by … improving and expanding critical regional mass transit systems and providing other good alternatives like bicycling and walking.”

Bittle also cited Prop 26, which voters approved in 2010, as another argument supporting the suit. It broadened the definition of a tax to include many payments previously considered to be fees, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Fees that benefit the public broadly — rather than providing services directly to the fee payer, such as garbage fees or state park entrance fees — would be considered a tax under Prop 26, the analyst’s office said.

So, while previous toll increases might have counted as a fee prior to Prop 26, Regional Measure 3 is a tax under the new law, Bittle argued. And, previous toll increases may have been more directly connected to bridge improvements and the highways connected to them than the most recent measure, he said.

“We didn’t have Prop 26 before,” he said. “And, this measure is almost entirely going to be spent on public transit that the toll payers aren’t using.”

Related Articles Why cameras didn’t deter Monterey Road dumping: Roadshow

Privacy problem with FasTrak? You’re ignoring a bigger issue

Coronavirus fallout: VTA could slash bus service to 1980 levels

Santa Clara: Crash injures one, knocks out power to hundreds

Roadside litter isn’t Caltrans’ fault. It’s yours. Wunderman said he’s confident the suit will be dismissed or defeated in court. Regional Measure 3 was written with guidance from the state’s Office of Legislative Counsel, as well as the commission’s outside law firm, Orrick, said Randy Renschler, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which oversees the toll authority. He noted that the taxpayers association also supports the repeal of SB1, the gas tax and registration fee increases the legislature approved last year.

“We oppose their path of obstruction as our highways and transit systems must be maintained and improved in order to support the Bay Area’s high wage economy that benefits Bay Area families,” Rentschler said. “We have every intention to follow through with the direction the legislature and the voters have provided to gain congestion relief so badly needed to maintain the quality of life so valued by residents.”