Comments on: MTC to Award $1.3 Million for Bay Bridge West Span Bike Path Study http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/ Covering San Francisco's livable streets movement Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:33:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Jan http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-6290 Jan Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:15:21 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-6290 The western span pedestrian/bike path would be fantastic, unique in the country. It will become a tourist attraction comparable to the Golden Gate. And I don't understand marcos' point: the bottom line is that _PATH is cheaper than NO PATH_. Without the path we are spending _more_ due to the necessity of bridge access by the maintenance crew. The only thing left to discussion is the technical details of the construction. The western span pedestrian/bike path would be fantastic, unique in the country. It will become a tourist attraction comparable to the Golden Gate.

And I don't understand marcos' point: the bottom line is that _PATH is cheaper than NO PATH_.

Without the path we are spending _more_ due to the necessity of bridge access by the maintenance crew.

The only thing left to discussion is the technical details of the construction.

]]> By: edie gilbertson http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-5315 edie gilbertson Fri, 08 May 2009 05:42:02 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-5315 I got bumped tonight on Caltrain at Millbrae. I had to wait for the next train because the first train (6:15 pm to PA) that came by had their limit of bikes. Caltrain should add more bike cars during rush hours. -EG I got bumped tonight on Caltrain at Millbrae. I had to wait for the next train because the first train (6:15 pm to PA) that came by had their limit of bikes. Caltrain should add more bike cars during rush hours.
-EG

]]> By: Colin http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4710 Colin Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:41:46 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4710 This is fantastic news. Not only will it be a great tourist attraction, a great recreational path, it will continue to decrease vehicle miles driven, reduce BART peak congestion, it should also decrease the socio-economic isolation that faces West Oakland. BRAVO! Now lets make sure it gets built! everwhereatonce.blogspot.com imagining urban futures engaging urban landscapes exploring urban histories This is fantastic news. Not only will it be a great tourist attraction, a great recreational path, it will continue to decrease vehicle miles driven, reduce BART peak congestion, it should also decrease the socio-economic isolation that faces West Oakland. BRAVO! Now lets make sure it gets built!

everwhereatonce.blogspot.com

imagining urban futures
engaging urban landscapes
exploring urban histories

]]> By: marcos http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4660 marcos Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:37:14 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4660 We're almost through fighting to reduce dependence on LOS as a metric for impacts of projects. And the suggestion here is that we need to spend nine figures to not impact on Bay Bridge LOS due to lane closures, to buy into a pricey capital project that won't always do even that--there are times when lanes must be closed for a variety of reasons. Towards the notion of reclaiming space from autos to bikes and peds, the best way to resolve this is to take a reclaim a lane from the bridge that used to be dedicated to transit for bikes and peds. If one construes BART to be part of the Bay Bridge corridor, then congestion relief on that corridor would best be achieved by enhancing transit, like the 30th infill Street Station. If transit is more attractive and the bridge is more likely to be slower due to maintenance, then that changes the gradient to make transit more attractive to driving. I've arrived at the conclusion that, counter intuitively, every dollar spent to make transit more attractive does more to make cycling and walking safer than every dollar spent on a bicycle project. -marc We're almost through fighting to reduce dependence on LOS as a metric for impacts of projects. And the suggestion here is that we need to spend nine figures to not impact on Bay Bridge LOS due to lane closures, to buy into a pricey capital project that won't always do even that--there are times when lanes must be closed for a variety of reasons.

Towards the notion of reclaiming space from autos to bikes and peds, the best way to resolve this is to take a reclaim a lane from the bridge that used to be dedicated to transit for bikes and peds.

If one construes BART to be part of the Bay Bridge corridor, then congestion relief on that corridor would best be achieved by enhancing transit, like the 30th infill Street Station. If transit is more attractive and the bridge is more likely to be slower due to maintenance, then that changes the gradient to make transit more attractive to driving.

I've arrived at the conclusion that, counter intuitively, every dollar spent to make transit more attractive does more to make cycling and walking safer than every dollar spent on a bicycle project.

-marc

]]> By: Peter http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4659 Peter Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:52:45 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4659 i like the idea of just taking a lane from cars. car traffic is down, and the new ferry is supposed to free up a lane of car traffic. there's no need to all this $spending. just give a lane over to bikers for now. we can make that happen over the next couple of weeks. i like the idea of just taking a lane from cars. car traffic is down, and the new ferry is supposed to free up a lane of car traffic. there's no need to all this $spending. just give a lane over to bikers for now. we can make that happen over the next couple of weeks.

]]> By: mike http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4658 mike Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:29:30 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4658 The point that this path would actually pay for itself by its utility to maintenance workers cannot be overstated. This was a statement made by engineering staff at a public meeting in San Francisco. It does so by giving 24X7 access to the bridge, not having to spend the time/labor by CHP and road crews to close lanes twice a day, reducing the number of workers getting hit by cars, and by not creating any artificial backups. And let's not forget the 10,000 people on Treasure Island who will be less than a half hour bike ride from downtown and the Caltrain or BART station. The point that this path would actually pay for itself by its utility to maintenance workers cannot be overstated. This was a statement made by engineering staff at a public meeting in San Francisco. It does so by giving 24X7 access to the bridge, not having to spend the time/labor by CHP
and road crews to close lanes twice a day, reducing the number of workers getting hit by cars, and by not creating any artificial backups.

And let's not forget the 10,000 people on Treasure Island who will be less than a half hour bike ride from downtown and the Caltrain or BART station.

]]> By: marcos http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4656 marcos Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:14:19 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4656 If the tradeoff were this or more expanded traffic lanes and approaches, then it would be worth doing. But I'd bet that the MTC could figure out how to funge its definitions of congestion management on bridge corridors if it was so inclined. But if that is the kind of trade offs we've got on the table with pots of money of this magnitude, given the challenges we're facing, then that speaks to distorted priorities. -marc If the tradeoff were this or more expanded traffic lanes and approaches, then it would be worth doing. But I'd bet that the MTC could figure out how to funge its definitions of congestion management on bridge corridors if it was so inclined.

But if that is the kind of trade offs we've got on the table with pots of money of this magnitude, given the challenges we're facing, then that speaks to distorted priorities.

-marc

]]> By: Seth Andrzejewski http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4654 Seth Andrzejewski Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:36:27 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4654 Unfortunately we cannot say "I'd rather spend nine figures on X". The capitol funds mix that this project is eligible for would be different than 20 bike/ped projects worth $15M each. Unfortunately we cannot say "I'd rather spend nine figures on X". The capitol funds mix that this project is eligible for would be different than 20 bike/ped projects worth $15M each.

]]> By: marcos http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4653 marcos Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:45:47 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4653 BART serves the same corridor as the Bay Bridge and generally allows bikes. There is no such service across the Golden Gate. North/South bicycle commutes are easier on all days other than when storm winds blow. East/West bicycle commutes are more difficult on days when the prevailing onshore flow comes in. Why would one assume that one would see similar numbers in a Marin SF commute as in a East Bay SF commute? Are there data to support that? Will this study analyze that? The west span does not need a retrofit, so funding for this project would have to compete with other projects for funding. In a world where we just printed money to be spent on "good things," (in this one we just print money to spend on bad things) then this would be a great project. I'd also like a palette of free gold bricks delivered to my doorstep. But in a world of constrained resources, I'd rather see nine figures spent shoring up more "pedestrian" bike infrastructure which would be used by orders of magnitude more people than even the rosiest scenarios of this project. I mean, you could probably create grand, safe bike/BRT boulevards on the entire corridors of San Pablo/Telegraph, El Camino Real and Market Street and still have money left over for what the West Span project would cost. This would fund the 30th Street infill BART station. This is the same misapprehension that expects for all bike lanes to be implemented in a year where the MTA is facing a gouging shortfall, or that Healthy Saturdays was worth losing McGoldrick on east side land use issues, and is a predictable result of single issue advocacy that does not see the big picture of resource prioritization based on multiple, legitimate, contending uses and basic political strategy. -marc BART serves the same corridor as the Bay Bridge and generally allows bikes. There is no such service across the Golden Gate. North/South bicycle commutes are easier on all days other than when storm winds blow. East/West bicycle commutes are more difficult on days when the prevailing onshore flow comes in. Why would one assume that one would see similar numbers in a Marin SF commute as in a East Bay SF commute? Are there data to support that? Will this study analyze that?

The west span does not need a retrofit, so funding for this project would have to compete with other projects for funding. In a world where we just printed money to be spent on "good things," (in this one we just print money to spend on bad things) then this would be a great project. I'd also like a palette of free gold bricks delivered to my doorstep. But in a world of constrained resources, I'd rather see nine figures spent shoring up more "pedestrian" bike infrastructure which would be used by orders of magnitude more people than even the rosiest scenarios of this project.

I mean, you could probably create grand, safe bike/BRT boulevards on the entire corridors of San Pablo/Telegraph, El Camino Real and Market Street and still have money left over for what the West Span project would cost. This would fund the 30th Street infill BART station.

This is the same misapprehension that expects for all bike lanes to be implemented in a year where the MTA is facing a gouging shortfall, or that Healthy Saturdays was worth losing McGoldrick on east side land use issues, and is a predictable result of single issue advocacy that does not see the big picture of resource prioritization based on multiple, legitimate, contending uses and basic political strategy.

-marc

]]> By: bikerider http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4651 bikerider Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:06:20 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4651 With regard to comments by marcos (and anyone else who sees this just as a "boutique" project) -- go do a site visit to the Golden Gate bridge for very conservative baseline count on the number of bike trips which can be expected for this project. Then take capital cost, divide by average daily number of trips, and this project pencils out better than any public transit project in the Bay Area. It actually compares quite favorably to other bike projects too. Moreover, the total cost of both East and West span bike paths is a very, very tiny percentage of the total cost being spent on toll bridge retrofit program ($10 billion and counting...). With regard to comments by marcos (and anyone else who sees this just as a "boutique" project) -- go do a site visit to the Golden Gate bridge for very conservative baseline count on the number of bike trips which can be expected for this project.

Then take capital cost, divide by average daily number of trips, and this project pencils out better than any public transit project in the Bay Area. It actually compares quite favorably to other bike projects too.

Moreover, the total cost of both East and West span bike paths is a very, very tiny percentage of the total cost being spent on toll bridge retrofit program ($10 billion and counting...).

]]> By: John Murphy http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4647 John Murphy Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:13:53 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4647 "Only the most hardy will "commute" 10 mi next to 10 lanes of freeway traffic and up 200 ft. of incline." I got bumped off Caltrain on a rainy day yesterday, and most of those riders have some form of berg between home and Caltrain. There are plenty of hardy commuters out there. "The east span is already a big improvement for a supercheap Transbay ride... The cost of bringing bikes on transit will decrease from $2.50 (W. Oakland Bart) or $3.50 (AC Transit transbay) to something like $1.50 (#108 Muni - riding your bike to Treasure Island)." There are only 2 bike racks per bus, and the frequency would make getting bumped pretty crappy after riding downhill to TI, instead of being able to just ride across the West Span. "Only the most hardy will "commute" 10 mi next to 10 lanes of freeway traffic and up 200 ft. of incline."

I got bumped off Caltrain on a rainy day yesterday, and most of those riders have some form of berg between home and Caltrain. There are plenty of hardy commuters out there.

"The east span is already a big improvement for a supercheap Transbay ride... The cost of bringing bikes on transit will decrease from $2.50 (W. Oakland Bart) or $3.50 (AC Transit transbay) to something like $1.50 (#108 Muni - riding your bike to Treasure Island)."

There are only 2 bike racks per bus, and the frequency would make getting bumped pretty crappy after riding downhill to TI, instead of being able to just ride across the West Span.

]]> By: JR http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4646 JR Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:14:06 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4646 This idea was brought up many years ago and I guess this finally is moving. I think besides the path being used by service vehicles, I think they were also going to allow people whose, cars have broken and either side of the bridge, to safely have somewhere to wait outside of their car. I don't know how narrow that path is going to be, but I hope service vehicles will be about the size of zap! cars. This idea was brought up many years ago and I guess this finally is moving. I think besides the path being used by service vehicles, I think they were also going to allow people whose, cars have broken and either side of the bridge, to safely have somewhere to wait outside of their car. I don't know how narrow that path is going to be, but I hope service vehicles will be about the size of zap! cars.

]]> By: Seth Andrzejewski http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4645 Seth Andrzejewski Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:04:58 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4645 Why does everyone suppose that bike projects are always for "commuters"? Only the most hardy will "commute" 10 mi next to 10 lanes of freeway traffic and up 200 ft. of incline. The east span is already a big improvement for a supercheap Transbay ride... The cost of bringing bikes on transit will decrease from $2.50 (W. Oakland Bart) or $3.50 (AC Transit transbay) to something like $1.50 (#108 Muni - riding your bike to Treasure Island). Why does everyone suppose that bike projects are always for "commuters"? Only the most hardy will "commute" 10 mi next to 10 lanes of freeway traffic and up 200 ft. of incline.

The east span is already a big improvement for a supercheap Transbay ride... The cost of bringing bikes on transit will decrease from $2.50 (W. Oakland Bart) or $3.50 (AC Transit transbay) to something like $1.50 (#108 Muni - riding your bike to Treasure Island).

]]> By: jombee http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4642 jombee Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:26:21 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4642 Not to be a downer, but does this design include a suicide prevention barrier? Not to be a downer, but does this design include a suicide prevention barrier?

]]> By: marcos http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4640 marcos Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:11:01 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4640 The Manhattan Bridge was engineered to support four subway tracks. MTA's usage patterns shifted and the load the bridge was carrying shifted to an asymetric pattern as well, leading to significant damage to the structure. already weakened by lack of preventative maintenance. Much of the rerouting of the BMT and IND lines in the late 1990s, early 2000s was due to this factor. And seriously, folks, we have not proposed a new bike lane since 1997, Market Street is a deathtrap and we're seeing scarce resources thrown at a boutique project. It is as if people want to intentionally distract from the achievable and focus on fantasy while we're deep in a hole. -marc The Manhattan Bridge was engineered to support four subway tracks. MTA's usage patterns shifted and the load the bridge was carrying shifted to an asymetric pattern as well, leading to significant damage to the structure. already weakened by lack of preventative maintenance.

Much of the rerouting of the BMT and IND lines in the late 1990s, early 2000s was due to this factor.

And seriously, folks, we have not proposed a new bike lane since 1997, Market Street is a deathtrap and we're seeing scarce resources thrown at a boutique project. It is as if people want to intentionally distract from the achievable and focus on fantasy while we're deep in a hole.

-marc

]]> By: Eric Fischer http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4639 Eric Fischer Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:36:57 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4639 The trains had two lanes of the lower deck, with the other three lanes for trucks. The upper deck had six narrow lanes for cars. The trains had two lanes of the lower deck, with the other three lanes for trucks. The upper deck had six narrow lanes for cars.

]]> By: John Murphy http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4638 John Murphy Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:06:30 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4638 "They used to run trains on one side of the bridge" - if I understand it correctly they used to run trains on one *deck* of the bridge. "They used to run trains on one side of the bridge" - if I understand it correctly they used to run trains on one *deck* of the bridge.

]]> By: Michael Smith http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4637 Michael Smith Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:54:18 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4637 They used to run trains on one side of the bridge. If they could do that would a path designed to be light weight (instead of designed to be intentionally expensive in order to kill the project) really cause a problem? They used to run trains on one side of the bridge. If they could do that would a path designed to be light weight (instead of designed to be intentionally expensive in order to kill the project) really cause a problem?

]]> By: marcos http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4633 marcos Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:38:05 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4633 Jason's solution is the one which, if ever, will see the light of day. My understanding is that the bridge would not be balanced if there were only a path on one side. If service vehicles are going to be using the path as well as peds and bikes, then it needs to be built out to stronger specifications. There are also concerns about the added weight lowering the span to the point where it might impinge upon the shipping lane below. The west span of the bridge was just not engineered for this feature. If this project were evaluated by a first day ridership metric, it would not even be studied. There are many, many better ways to spend nine figures on bike or other MTC transit projects than this, projects that will benefit orders of magnitude more people. -marc Jason's solution is the one which, if ever, will see the light of day.

My understanding is that the bridge would not be balanced if there were only a path on one side. If service vehicles are going to be using the path as well as peds and bikes, then it needs to be built out to stronger specifications. There are also concerns about the added weight lowering the span to the point where it might impinge upon the shipping lane below. The west span of the bridge was just not engineered for this feature.

If this project were evaluated by a first day ridership metric, it would not even be studied.

There are many, many better ways to spend nine figures on bike or other MTC transit projects than this, projects that will benefit orders of magnitude more people.

-marc

]]> By: Jeffrey W. Baker http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/mtc-to-award-13-million-for-bay-bridge-west-span-bike-path-study/comment-page-1/#comment-4632 Jeffrey W. Baker Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:34:18 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1902#comment-4632 I think the path on both sides is to not load the bridge with a static torque. Is the path really rated for a service vehicle load? If yes, are the service vehicles small enough to be passed by two directions of people and bikes, or would they block the path? I think the path on both sides is to not load the bridge with a static torque.

Is the path really rated for a service vehicle load? If yes, are the service vehicles small enough to be passed by two directions of people and bikes, or would they block the path?

]]>