Governor picks simpler Bay Bridge plan…Stylish design to be abandoned

…in favor of skyway in response to mushrooming costs

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration is expected to scrap the costly signature design for the Bay Bridge's new eastern span and will instead recommend building a simple skyway, sources close to the negotiations said Thursday.

The shift away from a single-tower suspension span to a viaduct, similar in concept to the San Mateo and Dumbarton bridges, is expected to be announced today at a press conference in San Francisco, sources in state and local government said on condition they not be identified.

The decision to go with a skyway brings the state all the way back to the original design for the eastern span proposed by then-Gov. Pete Wilson in 1997. At the time, Bay Area leaders rejected it as unworthy of the region's splendor.

State Senate President Don Perata, D-Oakland, indicated Thursday that such criticism is far from dead, reviving the description of the viaduct design as a "freeway on stilts.'' He said if that's what the state wants, it should pick up the whole tab rather than expect the Bay Area to raise tolls to cover cost overruns.

more…
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/10/MNG20A9TV61.DTL

If this is the atrocity they say it is, I hope it's named in honor of the Groper.

anyone have a link to a pic of the better looking design?

What a fucking joke! Oakland get's the red-headed stepchild treatment again.

Oh, and then there's this;

Kiewit Pacific has several connections to the Schwarzenegger administration. Kempton, the new Caltrans director, is a former partner in the Sacramento transportation lobbying firm Smith, Kempton and Watts, which Kiewit Pacific hired to help try to reopen the bidding process on the suspension span after the lone $1.4 billion offer came in.

Kiewit Pacific also hired California Strategies, a lobbying firm headed by Bob White, a top adviser to Schwarzenegger during last year's recall election and the chief of staff to former Gov. Wilson.

Hey Ahnold! Who are the "special interests" again?


2nd Edit: You can visit the bridge at www.newbaybridge.com
When it first went up (the website) they were offering a free poster of all the people who worked on the bridge. It was to be an anuual series for the seven year build. I ordered 2 of the first year posters and when it came around to order the second year I got an e-mail back saying the program had been suspended. I knew right then that there were troubles coming when the effing POSTER program was eliminated.

It's not a good ride, either ... imho.

If you think *this* is bad, you should have seen some of the original designs for this bridge. As causeways go, this one isn't too bad. Still not what I'd call a grand entrance. (On the other hand, neither Hayward or San Mateo are particularly grand places.)

... Detroit and Port Huron. (Even if the Ambassador Bridge or Blue Water Bridge is slightly better looking.)

I don't really take offense to your comment, but as a resident of San Mateo I thought I'd stand up for it. The town is generally upper middle class and pretty white bread, but there is a wide range of socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds. More importantly it is 20 miles to San Francisco, 10 miles to half moon bay via the same hwy that the bridge services(and the san mateo coast is one of the most beautiful places in the country), and best of all it is 1500 miles from Crawford, TX.

As for the bridge, it isn't the golden gate and it shouldn't be the model for the bay bridge, but it's a heck of a lot more useful than it was now that it has expanded to three lanes each way.

</lurk mode>

Didn't mean to disparage San Mateo particularly. I used to live in Foster City (which I have no problem disparaging) and spent quite a bit of time in San Mateo and loved it. I think my point is that it's not a "grand" place in the way SF is, architecture-wise. On the other hand, the hills behind San Mateo *are* quite pretty. :)

I just want the damn thing built and the cost passed on to the entire state fairly not just us in the Bay Area

through tolls/taxes. People who don't use the bridge shouldn't have to pay for it.

That is fair.

Fair's fair...

The current way we pay for interstate highways, the Federal gasoline/diesel taxes, (i.e. drivers pay for highways) is much fairer.

Everyone in a society benefits from transportation.

Take that kind of thinking too far and you wind up an extreme libertarian saying all taxes are slavery and everyone has to get back exactly what they pay in to the government.

Thats not the way it works and to think so is selfish.

And as a practical matter, there are tangible benefits from things like this that go way beyond the community and those who drive on the bridge.

Do you consume any goods or foods that are shipped throught that port, trucked over that bridge?

Will the area be more productive as a whole because of the bridge, and thus support more jobs, pay more taxes?

Your attitude is something like NIMBY in reverse, "nowhere but in my backyard" and its just as selfish.

patcox2 wrote: That's not the way it works and to think so is selfish. Excuse me? I'm selfish because I want those who use a resource (whether it's peas, lumber or bridges) to pay for them? Huh?

And as a practical matter, there are tangible benefits from things like this that go way beyond the community and those who drive on the bridge.

Do you consume any goods or foods that are shipped throught that port, trucked over that bridge? Yes, and I pay for them, since I pay for the costs of shipping those products in the costs of buying those products.

Will the area be more productive as a whole because of the bridge, and thus support more jobs, pay more taxes? 1. That's impossible to measure, either before or after the fact. 2. Should I pay for another areas vague "economic development"?

I object strongly to your description of me as selfish. But I think name-calling weakens your argument anyway

I seem to remember that California once had an enviable school system.

All hail the mighty "my tax dollar"!

... the fella in the limosine being driven to see his stock broker and the gal working a minimum wage at a hospital job driving a beater should pay the same? How about the ambulence carrying a patient to a hospital? How about a school bus? If some vehicles go free, who pays their share? Other users?

Should every bridge and highway be paid for by user fees? Airports? Schools? Courts?

Old, old argument. Repudiated every time.



On the other hand, how about a national sales tax of 1% on the sale of every share of corporate stock?

:shrug:

The viaduct would be really cool if they could do it without stilts, but that's decades away

if it saves money it's a good thing.

This discussion about the bridge has been going on for way too long. I don't care about the design. I just want a safe bridge. Each day that they delay this project, we get closer to another disaster.

troll watch.