Comments on: Hancock Introduces Bill to Allow Toll Funds for Bay Bridge Bike Path

By: Mkelly

Mkelly — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:20:00 +0000

It looks like the bike/pedestrian lane would be on the South side of the bridge. Why? The North side has one of the best views in the world.

By: Seth Andrzejewski

Seth Andrzejewski — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:48:28 +0000

All: this is not a vanity project. The only reason Caltrans is remotely considering this is it will allow maintenance to take place during normal hours and save O&M costs. Closing bridge lanes at night to paint and repair is costly in the long-run.

By: marcSFBC

marcSFBC — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:19:36 +0000

@SFResident: Yes– a $390 million influx of money would be good for San Francisco– but pots of money have allocations, and limits– regional money; operational vs. capital; bridge tolls used for bridge-related projects. There are billions and billions of dollars used for bad highway projects– ‘vanity projects’ as you say– but that doesn’t mean that this cheap $300 million has to be axed for the other cheap bike projects in the SF Bike Plan. It’s not a zero-sum game.

By: SFResident

SFResident — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:08:29 +0000

@marc: I also think that the Caldecott bore is also a poor prioritization of transportation funding. In fact, if given the option between this project and the 4th bore I’d certainly favor this.

This project is “expensive” in relation to the value we would get from putting that same $390M into improving the SF bicycle infrastructure, improving conditions on Market street, helping defray the skyrocketing cost of caltrain, BART, or fast passes, or just about any mundane and “unsexy” project that would actually improve people’s daily (non-car) commutes.

This is a vanity project. A nice and green vanity project, but a vanity project nonetheless.

By: marcSFBC

marcSFBC — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:05:26 +0000

@SFResident: How do you define this as expensive? Compared to what?

Let’s put this project in perspective– they are about to start the FOURTH bore of the Caldecott Tunnel– and will cost $420 million for less than ONE MILE of roadway.

Currently, 33% of SF who don’t own a car– are prohibited from accessing the bridge. This project covers at least 3 times the length for 3/4 the price of a quadruple-redundant project.

So, I ask again– to both you and Rob– in relation to what, is this project ‘expensive’?

By: SFResident

SFResident — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:50:45 +0000

This is a good idea in general but more than a bit extravagant when our public transit system is completely melting down and our city has a borderline-useless bicycle infrastructure (THANKS ROB!). The number of commuters who are athletically able to make the trip across the bridge as a commute is likely to be quite small and, barring increased commercial development of Treasure Island, I suspect most tourists will gravitate towards the GGB.

This project is ultimately a toy. A very expensive toy that promotes alternative transportation and might boost tourism a bit, but given its limited function it shouldn’t be given the same priority as implementing the bicycle plan, properly funding MUNI, and dealing with Market Street.

By: marcSFBC

marcSFBC — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:55:32 +0000

@Rob Anderson: If you believe $390 million is too expensive for this project, what would be a reasonable price in your mind, Rob? I love that you say your ridiculous lawsuit wasn’t anti-bike, but worried about car and transit flow. Yet, curiously, you oppose this project– even when it has no impacts on either transit or car flow. Interesting.

By: Doug Smith

Doug Smith — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:17:07 +0000

I sure hope this happens. I have always felt that the west span bike lane would not only be a terrific commute corridor but also a valuable tourist attraction as well, benefitting cities on both ends of the bridge.

By: John Murphy

John Murphy — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:11:22 +0000

$160 million to $390 million.

Half of what OAC would cost and probably used by twice as many people. Bargain!

By: Rob Anderson

Rob Anderson — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:04:37 +0000

Mike puts “expensive” in quotes, as if there’s any doubt that it will be, but the estimate last year—pending the results of the $1 million dollar study that will be out this year—was $160 million to $390 million.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/08/BAK316UG43.DTL

By: Mike B

Mike B — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:15:07 +0000

It is heartening to see a bill proposed to fund a bike path on the West Span of the bridge. We will likely hear from very “responsible” people how fiscally irresponsible such a project would be to undertake at this time. Ten years ago I received such responses from elected representatives regarding my written requests for just such a path.

My point would be: We all need to press our representaives to support the bill, because you can be certain the legislative leadership would just as soon drop the whole “expensive” idea.

By: jamie

jamie — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:51:52 +0000

Yeah! Bike rides to Treasure Island might be in my future!

By: murphstahoe

murphstahoe — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:58:36 +0000

@jwb – I have read in many many places that you must have a fastrak in order to get the carpool discount. Amusingly the user comments following the article that says “must have fastrak” go on and on about how painful it will be for the toll takers to be handling coins. Yet another sign of the apocalypse.

Aside from the money collected, it gets more people onto Fastrak (who will sometimes cross the bridge without a carpool or outside of carpool hours), which is a big money saver/generator for Caltrans.

By: Jeffrey W. Baker

Jeffrey W. Baker — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:47:07 +0000

I have a question that has been bugging me. I regret it is only tangentially related.

When they implement the new toll in the carpool lanes of the upper deck, how are they going to keep from hosing up the AC Transit transbay bus services that use the carpool lane, such as the V line? Yes, some buses use the toll bypass on the north side of the toll plaza, but other buses which come into the maze from I-580 use the carpool lanes on the south side.

Are they going to force carpoolers to use Fastrak? Convert one of the two lanes to Fastrak? Just let the bus get stuck in traffic?

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:14:18 +0000

It’s fitting that the bridge should cost so much and take so long yet there was never any consideration for those who might want to make it part of their lifestyle (be it bike commuting, jogging, or going for a morning walk).