Today’s Headlines

  • Driver Injures Two People at Oak and Masonic Jogging on Panhandle (SFBay, Hoodline)
  • Sunday Streets Returns to the Tenderloin This Weekend (Hoodline)
  • Another Bernal Heights Neighbor Says Lane Reduction on 280 Off-Ramp Too Sudden (Bernalwood)
  • BART Train Fire Believed to Be Caused By Aging Vehicles, Infrastructure (ABC, Examiner, KTVU, Biz)
  • GJEL: Bay Bridge Contra Flow Bus Lane Should Be Paired With Bike/Pedestrian Path
  • GG Bridge Traffic Flows During Doyle Dr Closure (ABC); Another Multi-Car Crash on Bay Bridge (SFGate)
  • Bay Bridge Committee Approves $1.1 Million to Prepare Anchor Rods for Earthquakes (SF Appeal)
  • More on Muir Woods’ Vehicle Reservation System Approved to Limit Car Traffic (SFGate)
  • AC Transit Now Provides Real-Time Bus Info for Google Maps (ABC)
  • Berkeley Police Turn to “Bike Index” National Registry to Match Stolen Bikes With Owners (Berkeleyside)
  • Palo Alto Drivers Disregard New Left Turn Ban at Downtown Intersection (Palo Alto Online)
  • Article From 1898: San Jose “Wheelmen” Oppose Bay Area Bike Paths, Prefer Good Roads (Cyclelicious)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Ziggy Tomcich

    In response to the GJEL article about pairing a bike/pedestrian path with a contraflow bus lane on the bay bridge: Constructing pedestrian and bike paths to the west span of the bay bridge will be very costly and technically difficult. It’s a suspension bridge. You can’t just hundreds of tons of extra steel and concrete without redesigning the entire span. Construction will likely require several bridge closures, and it will be a monumental and complex undertaking. Essentially it would be a designing and building a separate bridge designed to anchor itself to a suspension bridge, and installed without shutting down traffic to the bay bridge. Good luck!

    I think a stand alone pedestrian bicycle bridge from Treasure Island to the ferry building will be cheaper and simpler to build, much more pleasant to ride and walk on, and less of an obstruction to bridge traffic. A stand alone pedestrian bicycle bridge would require a fraction of the weight and construction costs of automobile bridge. It would be a huge tourist draw, it would create housing demand in west Oakland and Treasure Island, and it would take a significant number of cars off the road and people off of Bart.

    I wish ARUP would include a stand-alone pedestrian/bicycle bridge alternative in their assessment of what it would take to retrofit the west bay span.

  • jonobate

    A standalone bridge would require building support towers between SF and Treasure Island that are similar to the towers of the existing Bay Bridge in both number and height, plus a deck wide enough to accommodate bikes and pedestrians in both directions. The proposed bike/ped path would just require hanging the new bike/ped deck off the edge of the existing road deck, without any need for new towers. I don’t see any way in which adding a bunch of huge towers to the project would reduce costs. A low bike/ped bridge might be feasible, but that is unlikely to be allowed as it would obstruct shipping.

  • Is there some proposal that giant cruise ships would go around to pass under the eastern span of the Bay Bridge that I haven’t heard about?