Skip to content
by Bryan Goebel
Compare the New York Times coverage of the Bay Bridge fiasco with the SF Chronicle’s:
It’s better written, more analytical, and actually gets quotes from engineers and people who know what they’re talking about. The Chronicle coverage is downright amateurish.
How is it that anyone repairing the Bay Bridge is not anticipating 30 mph gusts of wind? (They should be anticipating 80–100 mph gusts.) How can they not anticipate the effect of vibrations from traffic? This is their job, for heaven’s sake.
I wish we had a good newspaper in town. Sigh.
Yeah, I’ve been watching & reading a lot of the news coverage and 2 important questions I have not heard asked once are:
“What are you doing this time that is different than last time that would lead us to have more confidence?”
“Why did the piece fail so quickly under conditions that were exactly what should have been expected?”
I also notice the professor from Berkeley who predicted the original work was shoddy, and has now been proven right, is saying this fix is being handled in the exact same way.
“I have a sinking feeling we're all going to learn once again that hindsight is 20/20, and that all this caving to merchants' unfounded fears will result in an entire generation of lost opportunity to make our streets safer and more lively.”
– Upright Biker
In response to "SFMTA Cuts Block of Polk Bike Lane Fought by Visionless Mayor's Optometrist"