What’s the problem that another bridge would be trying to solve? It won’t be congestion relieve - see induced demand. Next Bay crossing should definitely be transit, which would add more capacity to the corridor than an auto bridge anyways.
-
-
-
I’m more pro-second transbay tube/tunnel over a bridge. I want redundancy for BART.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
My experience with the 880 corridor: on the east side 880 is the bottleneck, not the bridges. This might pull a few ppl off 880 but pretty low return I'd guess.
-
I still feel like we need a second Transbay Tube even though it’s more expensive, simply because the redundancy would both allow all-night service and enable seismic retrofits of the original cc
@gillibits - 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Definitely need at least 2 more bay bridges and 2 more bay tunnels. We are thinking way too small
-
where are all these cars going when they get to SF? going to finish destroying the city for highways? that's the only context where adding more transbay highways makes sense.pic.twitter.com/QKd4Ncg2dO
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
are you comparing 2002 dollars to recent estimates of transbay tube? I just can't believe a bridge is cheaper.
-
Idk, els are cheaper than subways right?
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
By 2012, that price went up to $12.4 billion with estimates on widening the San Mateo and Dumbarton at $3 billion each.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
$8.2 billion to build a *bridge*? Does anywhere else in the world have such high construction costs?
-
No, not really.
@alon_levy - 5 more replies
New conversation -
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.