OK SF Bay Area .....

[ronnykmarshall]

What the hell is going on with the Bay Bridge????

I am soooooo pissed about some of the crap I'm readin'!

[troubleinwinter]

1. Oh, ya know, the usual...

delays, cost overruns, playing politics, Gropenator, and so on.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/10390045.htm

My advice? Get a wetsuit and take up windsurfing, or take BART.

(from Santa Rosa)

[ronnykmarshall]

2. I hear ya!

This damn thing should have been built ten years ago.

What a mess!

[Xithras]

3. The 5 billion dollar price tag is insane.

Sorry, but for 5 billion dollars they could build a big parking lot, a new BART terminal, and a kickass public transit system in SF that would get people in, out, and around the city just as easily without all of the traffic and pollution.

Hell, they could probably tunnel the roadway UNDER the bay for that kind of money!

I don't see how ANYONE, especially in the extremely liberal Bay Area, can justify spending more than 5 billion dollars on a bridge that will functionally be no different than the one there now. Personally, I don't want my tax dollars to be wasted on this thing...no state bailout.

[cally]

4. Remember the cost overruns on the rebuild

of 880? Caltrans has a severe problem managing costs. I just want the thing built within a reasonable budget. The Richmond-San Rafael bridge is also undergoing reconstruction. The Golden Gate bridge needs help. All of these will cost much.

[mitchtv]

5. it smacks of political revenge

give the Bay area an ugly POS. When everyone knows they deserve the most beautiful and well designed bridge in the world. There is always plenty of money for the ugly part of the state. you know where I mean.

[davidinalameda]

6. just hope Ahnuld remembers that he received support in the East Bay

and that Repukes use the bridge as well

[gardenista]

9. And you know where all that money is coming from?

Yep- the bay area.

We in the bay area are paying for the revitalization of lovely downtown, keekkkkk* Fresno.

[Sivafae]

7. you bet it is revenge

Especially when the tallest bridge in the world has been unveiled and its costs were $543,000. Isn't that the same amount that the state is trying to save? What a crock of merde. The Chronicle was full of letters to the editor about that very thing. I am glad I am not the only one that notices.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/16/EDGA6AC2701.DTL

[democracyindanger]

8. Um...That's $523 million...

[CAcyclist]

10. This article says the current design may be cheaper than a viaduct

Caltrans' skyway may not be best Bay Bridge fix

Status: U
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Apparently-To: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.142.16.245
From: "12/20 Oakland Tribune" <[e-mail]>
X-eGroups-Approved-By: batn259 <[e-mail]> via web; 20 Dec 2004 21:39:58 -0000
X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 66.94.237.45
Mailing-List: list [e-mail]; contact [e-mail]
Delivered-To: mailing list [e-mail]
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:41:48 -0800
Subject: Caltrans' skyway may not be best Bay Bridge fix
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-ELNK-AV: 0



Published Monday, December 20, 2004, in the Oakland Tribune

Skyway may not be best bridge fix
Studies find tower plan might still be easiest solution; audit due
Wednesday

By Sean Holstege

Caltrans says it wants to finish the new Bay Bridge with a plain
concrete skyway, but neither its own technical report nor any panel of
consultants backs up that finding.

An independent industry panel concluded with scant support that a
cable-stayed tower should be built. A federal peer review team found
that the currently planned self-anchored suspension, or SAS span,
presented the least risk, as did Bechtel Corp. earlier this year.

And a panel of seismic experts warned that any design change could
lead to catastrophe or expensive, cumbersome re-engineering.

[CAcyclist]

11. And they are now threatening to remove the bike path

The bike path is only going to add a nominal cost compared to the overall cost and has absolutely nothing to do with the cost overruns and delays.

This is my reply to Senator Speier when she wrote me a letter stating that she would no longer support a bike path on this bridge.


12/21/04

Senator Jackie Speier
400 South El Camino Real, Suite 630
San Mateo, CA 94402


RE:Bike Path on the Bay Bridge

Dear Senator Speier,

I beg you to reconsider your decision not to support a bike path. This is not an amenity:it is a necessity for cyclists.

If everyone in America is equal and if bicyclists have all the rights and responsibilities of motorists and equal rights to access, as is codified in state and federal law, then this bike path is merely a rectification of illegal denial of access.

Federal money cannot be used for transportation projects that negatively affect cyclists. By perpetuating the existing negative effect, it can be argued that failing to provide a bike path would violate this rule.

There is no other reliably available means of access for cyclists from the East Bay to SF and back. Buses run infrequently, BART restricts access during commute hours and BART doesn’t run 24 hours. I, myself, was forced to take a taxi at a cost of $40 from the Transbay Terminal to the East Bay last year during the Thanksgiving Day holiday as I was trying to catch Amtrak down to Bakersfield, because I missed the bus that would take me over to the east bay. I was doing this trip partly by bike and the rest by public transportation and could have ridden my bike across the bay bridge to my destination if that had been legal.

The cost overruns and delays on this bridge have nothing to do with the bike path, as you well know, and I am very disappointed that you would use this as an excuse.


Sincerely,

Dani Weber