I found this carbon dioxide and driving cost calculator on the carpooling network ( http://www.carpoolingnetwork.com ) . They suggest huge annual savings : up to 2000 $ and 1.5 tonnes of co2 per year.

Responding in part (and to the comments so far):

1) I did speak with the union workers, some of whom agreed to support the path and agreed to join in any cheer in support. However, they never got a chance as there was not a peep from the well-behaved crowd of bicyclists, who had been instructed not to cheer or clap, for “Just like on the road, giving respect will get us respect.” There is much potential for collaboration with the trades and given yesterday’s OAC situation, yes it is sorely needed.

2) Remaking the Bridge configuration is a great way to save costs and oops, probably even pump more cars through. Being systems/solidarity minded myself, in past campaigns the Bike the Bridge! Coalition (now defunct/in hiatus) proposed such things be considered as a shared HOV/bike/bus lane; creating a Class II bikeway (on road bike lane) by narrowing the lanes 1 foot or more on average; creating variable HOV lanes based on bridge flows, to assure carpoolers and buses do not get stuck in traffic; and even rode a five-bike, 100-foot long banner-sculpture of a suspension bridge with trains on it across the Bay Bridge in 1998 with a group of about 20 supporters, to make a public statement of the importance of maintaining capacity for future rail on the bridge (essentially opposing the new bridge, and advocating for transit first, even after winning the bike path, as the new bridge represented significant problems with process, safety, and cost/greenhouse gas/environmental impacts, along with objections over the proposed bikeway design for public health reasons).

3) Yes there *is* a tremendous disconnect in this political process, on a grand scale, and the political balancing act which emerges on this more micro scale is noticably different from a decade ago as the bicycle movement has become so much more established. The long campaign for the East Span was an all-fronts campaign, with everything from legislation/litigation to protest and direct action, and long lines of speakers at each of the 32 meetings, for we knew the institutional bias was (and still is) to simply ignore bicyclists for more trucks’n cars (MTC), much like the current RTP expands freeways and tosses billions at saving unsavable asphalt roads, under the banner of “Cutting Edge Climate Change.” Yes there is something Mickey Mouse-ish about naively coming out with signs and upbeat expressions of common sense, to try to influence the billions for business as usual, but can we not have some faith in the fundamentals of human goodness? The showing yesterday sends a clear message that we are organized and will not be brushed aside with inflated cost estimates, nor by bureaucratic legal maneuvers.

Agreed: When those in the trades begin to demand a better world — a redesign — things will really start to move.

To the follow-up posts to-date, each in turn:

1) BART will likely never open to bikes around the clock, at least without a major project like a second tube, because (a) it closes at night for maintenance, with no redundancy in the transbay crossing;(b) space is constrained for the demand it would see in peak hours, which still prohibit bicycling. There are definitely improvements which can be made to increase bicycle access and reduce again the “BART blackout,” which we’ve made tremendous strides on over the past 10+ years. That said, YES, as oil availability declines, we may see reorganizing the bridge configuration become more politically viable. Once upon a time the bridge had trains and trucks on the bottom, and two-way bi-directional car traffic on top, and carried twice as many people a day. (Of note, the bike path doubles the capacity of the bridge– cheap!).

2) “People will hate you forever.” I disagree. The inflated cost estimates will be debunked just as in the first bridge battle. The value will be tremendous to the public. The cost is a small fraction of the total bridge cost. And excuse me, “ridiculous favoritism”? Have you looked around at the infrastructure and priority given to cars? And no, as just discussed, we can’t simply take BART.

3) Eric, agreed that “you probably have to be careful about weight distribution.” Of note: one thing that came out in yesterday’s hearing is that a world expert on the Bay Bridge, Prof. Astaneh at UC Berkeley, has studied the pathway and found that it will make the bridge stronger during seismic events. For one, the bridge is narrow and the path will reduce side-to-side swaying.

4) Greg, if you have a problem with how things are scheduled, speak with MTC staff, I’m sure they’ll accommodate you. The fact is the OAC came up suddenly after organizing around the earlier meeting had already occurred. The bicycle organizations including BABC and their member groups SFBC and EBBC worked with TransForm, which supports the path, to ensure our crowds were complementary rather than clashing. Please don’t make unsubstantiated accusations; furthermore, there is no evidence that the OAC would have gone any differently if bicyclists crawled back under their rock in the gutter and ignored the biggest and most important bicycle facility in the region. (Chris, you made it sound like there were only a few bicyclists, those were our greeters to help the bicyclists not be lost in the chaos. They were directed to go directly inside for the first meeting, where many more bicyclists were present.)

5) Regarding motorcyclists, I’m surprised they and the carpoolers weren’t more adamant about not paying a toll. Bates is right that people will switch from carpooling (and motorcycling) due to the toll. Regarding the study, yes there is a second study being done by TY Lin, a “Project Study Report,” which advocates need to be involved with. There is ongoing work with various agencies and SF to determine how the approaches to the bridge will be designed.

6) Richard, no reason to ask for only one thing. By all means there needs to be a change in bridge operations to prevent delays for transbay buses (I’ve been a transbay bus-bike commuter, by the way, and have repeatedly made efforts to address that). Last I heard, from AC Transit Director Peeples, the controllers of the “dynamic” metering lights at Caltrans and CHP had not updated them in years, and MTC/Caltrans deny there’s a problem. Oh if only transit riders were as passionate and organized as bicyclists. But then, how would they get to the meetings? One more reason for bicyclists to push now for the Bay Bridge, to expand its uses: perhaps the toll, which is not scheduled to sunset, will be used for transit operations in the future.

[Originally posted at 8:40 AM, reposted due to broken link, with minor edits.]

yep. that’s strategery for ya. good job!

Pick your battle. Take BART. Don’t commit political suicide!