What’s expensive is maintaining 10 lanes for cars. Otherwise, a bike path is cheaphttps://twitter.com/graue/status/1065115832642990081?s=21 …
-
-
-
Non-motorized access to cross between Oakland and San Francisco on the Bay Bridge should be the default, not the exception. That it is currently the exception, shows who should pay in order to add it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm dubious as to the cost benefit ratio. How much more useful bike infrastructure could be created with this money? I could be wrong, but I think this would mostly be used as a recreation route.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They should just close down a lane of the roadway with one of those flexible barriers that they use on the GG bridge in the reverse commute direction & make a two-way bike lane that is either on top or on the bottom roadway depending on time of day.
@Scott_Wiener -
Also serves the purpose of gradually reducing “auto-only” road space..
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The cheap solution is closing a lane and converting it to a bike lane. That will be amazing. Then electric bicycles can take off! That is the future! Within 20-mile range, pedal assist is the best alternative.
-
East end of the bridge is not close to any residential area. Such a bike lane wouldn't be very useful to many commuters. It'd be a fun weekend activity, so weekend closure of one car lane could be a better compromise.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Utilitarian argument is appropriate here
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If only we could divert some of that widening freeway money and make this happen now.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Worth it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.