bike lane on the Bay Bridge?

[[email protected]]

hundreds of thousands take the Bary Bridge on weekdays to get from
Oakland to San Fran. It's 6 miles one way and it takes 1.5 hrs during
rush hour. The toll is $4. WIth the gas it's easily $10 one way. A bit
steep for a 6 mile trip.

What would it take them to allocate a bike lane? No fancy construction
is needed, just make each car lane (there 4 lanes AFAIR) a foot
narrower and make a railguard to protect the cyclists. 6 miles is 30
min of relaxed riding. The bike lane can be narrow since it would be a
one way lane.

[Diablo Scott]

wrote:
> hundreds of thousands take the Bary Bridge on weekdays to get from
> Oakland to San Fran. It's 6 miles one way and it takes 1.5 hrs during
> rush hour. The toll is $4. WIth the gas it's easily $10 one way. A bit
> steep for a 6 mile trip.
>
> What would it take them to allocate a bike lane? No fancy construction
> is needed, just make each car lane (there 4 lanes AFAIR) a foot
> narrower and make a railguard to protect the cyclists. 6 miles is 30
> min of relaxed riding. The bike lane can be narrow since it would be a
> one way lane.
>

Rush hour into the City is probably half an hour on the bridge, and $6
or more in gas would require spilling most of it before you got to the
other side.

As cool as a Bay Bridge bike lane would be, I'd much rather see the
money spent somewhere else. Ditto for a bike lane through the Caldecott.

[Jay[_2_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> hundreds of thousands take the Bary Bridge on weekdays to get from
> Oakland to San Fran. It's 6 miles one way and it takes 1.5 hrs during
> rush hour. The toll is $4. WIth the gas it's easily $10 one way. A bit
> steep for a 6 mile trip.
>
> What would it take them to allocate a bike lane? No fancy construction
> is needed, just make each car lane (there 4 lanes AFAIR) a foot
> narrower and make a railguard to protect the cyclists. 6 miles is 30
> min of relaxed riding. The bike lane can be narrow since it would be a
> one way lane.
>
Absolutely no chance, for the reasons others have previously argued in this
thread - J.

[[email protected]]

On May 23, 8:12 pm, "
> wrote:
> hundreds of thousands take the Bary Bridge on weekdays to get from
> Oakland to San Fran. It's 6 miles one way and it takes 1.5 hrs during
> rush hour. The toll is $4. WIth the gas it's easily $10 one way. A bit
> steep for a 6 mile trip.
>
> What would it take them to allocate a bike lane?

It would take someone like Alex Zuckermann.
http://www.sfbike.org/?baybridge

BTW, you're off on the distance by 40%. It's 8.4 miles from the toll
plaza to Rincon Hill.

[[email protected]]

I fill up every 5 days, a full tank is $50. I have a Subaru. It does
take 1.5 hrs from Berkeley to downtown. Approaching Emervylille at 8
am the sign says 56 min to downtown. $10 per round trip plus tolls =
$14 round trip. I messed up round trip versus one way in my OP. And
the math is not the point. Give or take a factor of 2, it's still too
much.

A bike line to Treasure island and back is useless. Who needs to go to
Treasure Island? It's not even a real island.

[[email protected]]

On May 23, 8:52 pm, Diablo Scott > wrote:

> As cool as a Bay Bridge bike lane would be, I'd much rather see the
> money spent somewhere else.

The bike lane that's being hung off the south side of the east span
doubles as a maintenance lane -- this is the real reason why it was
economically feasible. The bike part is just to make it sound good.

[[email protected]]

On May 24, 11:18 am, "
> wrote:

> A bike line to Treasure island and back is useless. Who needs to go to
> Treasure Island?

Bicycle pirates?

[[email protected]]

BTW I've heard much more utopical ideas on this group, like, people
giving up driving their cars, or constructing bicycle highways. A bike
lane on te bay bridge, in contrast, only would take 6 (or 8.4 miles)
of railguards and a new paint job for the bridge.

Also, it would make more of a difference than the Golden Gate bike
lane that is only used by sausalito commuters and tourists. How many
people live is Sausalito? Like, 100 times less than in Oakland? And
sausaltans still have long ways to go to get to downtown. While the
bay bridge lands you directly in downtown.

I would even agree pay a buck or two in tolls to get across by bike.

[Patrick Lamb]

On 24 May 2007 11:18:15 -0700, "
> wrote:

>I fill up every 5 days, a full tank is $50. I have a Subaru. It does
>take 1.5 hrs from Berkeley to downtown. Approaching Emervylille at 8
>am the sign says 56 min to downtown. $10 per round trip plus tolls =
>$14 round trip. I messed up round trip versus one way in my OP.

Have they extended the Bay Bridge all the way into Berkeley now?
Sounds like you're adding about 200% to the bridge distance...

Why not argue for BART access for bikes? I'd think that'd get a lot
more commuters interested in cycling.

Pat

Email address works as is.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> hundreds of thousands take the Bary Bridge on weekdays to get from
> Oakland to San Fran. It's 6 miles one way and it takes 1.5 hrs during
> rush hour. The toll is $4. WIth the gas it's easily $10 one way. A bit
> steep for a 6 mile trip.
>
> What would it take them to allocate a bike lane? No fancy construction
> is needed, just make each car lane (there 4 lanes AFAIR) a foot
> narrower and make a railguard to protect the cyclists. 6 miles is 30
> min of relaxed riding. The bike lane can be narrow since it would be a
> one way lane.

#1: The lanes on the bay bridge are none too wide for cars as it is.
Removing just a foot from each might make it more dangerous than it already
is.

#2: 6 miles or riding in close proximity to huge numbers of cars going 50mph
and belching out all manner of fumes is not my idea of "relaxed riding."

#3: I can think of a whole lot of other, better ways to spend the sort of
money such a project might entail. Most likely, for a fraction of the cost,
you could provide free and expanded use of BART for cyclists between SF and
Oakland, and intermodal commuting is a very good thing. You get the bicycle
to be seen as an integral part of the solution, something that can be added
to what you might already be doing for increased versatility.

#4: In general, the best time for adding bike facilities to roadways is when
they're initially designed, or rebuilt. Much cheaper and more functional
when they're not an afterthought. That's what the "complete streets"
initiative is all about. Consider the needs of all users, including
pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, cars etc. Done right, everyone
benefits from improved traffic flow and reduced congestion.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[[email protected]]

>
> #1: The lanes on the bay bridge are none too wide for cars as it is.
> Removing just a foot from each might make it more dangerous than it already
> is.

I see you point here.

> #2: 6 miles or riding in close proximity to huge numbers of cars going 50mph
> and belching out all manner of fumes is not my idea of "relaxed riding."

Same thing with the Golden Gate Bridge, and yet people ride it all the
time, and enjoy it.

> #3: I can think of a whole lot of other, better ways to spend the sort of
> money such a project might entail. Most likely, for a fraction of the cost,
> you could provide free and expanded use of BART for cyclists between SF and
> Oakland, and intermodal commuting is a very good thing. You get the bicycle
> to be seen as an integral part of the solution, something that can be added
> to what you might already be doing for increased versatility.

Have you ridden the BART during peak hours? Unless they add cars there
is no space for bikes. I see their point of not allowing bikes during
rush hour.

> #4: In general, the best time for adding bike facilities to roadways is when
> they're initially designed, or rebuilt. Much cheaper and more functional
> when they're not an afterthought.

Great, let's rebuild the Bay Bridge. Way cheaper than a new paint job
or a "bike tube" hung below the existing structure.