Bike/Pedestrian Path
Bikeway viewed from above |
Bikeway viewed from below |
View along the bikeway |
Bikeway details |
| Views of east span bike/pedestrian path,
including view/rest stops that extend out from path. (Click images to
enlarge) |
In selecting the single-tower self-anchored suspension design for the main span of the
new east half of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, MTC (acting as the Bay Area Toll
Authority, or BATA) on June 24, 1998, also approved setting aside $50 million to
incorporate a bicycle/pedestrian path on the new facility. The 15.5-foot-wide path will run
along the southern edge of the eastbound deck, from Yerba Buena Island to Oakland, and will
be positioned one foot above the auto deck so as to shield users somewhat from traffic
noise and exhaust.
Two primary alternatives were studied for the bicycle/pedestrian path: providing a single
path cantilevered off the south side of the span, or separating bicyclists and pedestrians
by building two pathways, one on either side of the span. Decisionmakers also looked at
placing the path above or below the auto deck.
Ultimately, the Engineering and Design Advisory Panel, the Bay Bridge Design Task Force and
the full MTC/BATA Commission rejected the two-path option because (a) the path on the north
side of the westbound span heading uphill from Oakland to Yerba Buena Island could have
interfered with motorists' views, and (b) for security's sake, it would be better to
concentrate what may be, on many days, a modest number of path users on one facility,
instead of spreading them over two.
In a related development, Assembly Bill 2038 (Migden), which authorizes BATA to also expend
toll surcharge funds on a bicycle/pedestrian path on the existing west span of the Bay
Bridge, was signed into law in June 1998. Subsequently, in August of 2000, Caltrans
launched a $3 million study (funded by MTC/ BATA) to look at the technical feasibility and
cost of extending the path to the west span. Completed in May 2001, the study found that,
while such a path would be feasible to construct, the least expensive alternative would be
more than $160 million in 2001 dollars.
For more information, contact Peter Lee, plee@mtc.ca.gov, tel. 510/817-3206.
|