http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/09/16/lawmakers-approve-bill-to-raise-bay-area-bridge-tolls/
Congestion pricing is one of the proposals here to justify a toll hike.
MOD NOTE: Changed thread title. –Roadfro
You're title is a bit misleading.
What state lawmakers have passed is a bill that allows the MTC to put a regional measure on the ballot to hike bridge tolls by as much as $3. Ultimately, the decision to raise tolls lies with the voters in the seven Bay Area counties.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 17, 2017, 09:45:50 PM
You're title is a bit misleading.
What state lawmakers have passed is a bill that allows the MTC to put a regional measure on the ballot to hike bridge tolls by as much as $3. Ultimately, the decision to raise tolls lies with the voters in the seven Bay Area counties.
Today's media would've said "You won't believe which bridges will be raising their tolls by $3!"
I think it would be a bad idea to raise tolls by $3 in one sitting. If there is a revenue need, the toll should be raised more gradually, like $1 every 6 months until it is $3 higher.
Just watch: Once the hikes are approved, there's going to be a whole lot of taking the roundabout way through San Jose just to avoid the tolls. (Or they could ride BART if they don't want to drive the long way.)
Quote from: Henry on September 18, 2017, 09:42:05 AM
Just watch: Once the hikes are approved, there's going to be a whole lot of taking the roundabout way through San Jose just to avoid the tolls. (Or they could ride BART if they don't want to drive the long way.)
Here's that shortcut before the toll increase:
(https://i.imgur.com/Yasne6h.png)
How common are bikes across the bridges? I assume they're still free.
Getting rid of the toll booths that act as choke points and the toll agencies, which are just another layer of bureaucracy, strikes me as a better solution. Raise the gas tax in the metro counties as much as is needed to maintain and replace the bridges instead!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on September 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
Getting rid of the toll booths that act as choke points and the toll agencies, which are just another layer of bureaucracy, strikes me as a better solution. Raise the gas tax in the metro counties as much as is needed to maintain and replace the bridges instead!
Rick
The bridges are expensive to build and maintain. Tolls on the bridges encourages people to work near where they live.
I don't like that as an excuse. To encourage people is a nice way of saying we're going to fine you if you live where you want to live. If people want to live in the other side of the bridge they should be able to and not be subject to fines to work on the opposite side. I'm against tolls except for trucks.
The tolls aren't a surprise to anyone moving there. It's just one of the many considerations one should make when looking for a home and/or employment. Should we claim parking fees are a fine as well and raise everyone's taxes just to provide free city parking?
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
Getting rid of the toll booths that act as choke points and the toll agencies, which are just another layer of bureaucracy, strikes me as a better solution. Raise the gas tax in the metro counties as much as is needed to maintain and replace the bridges instead!
Rick
The bridges are expensive to build and maintain. Tolls on the bridges encourages people to work near where they live.
So you think people should have to move every time they get a new job? That's ridiculous.
Quote from: compdude787 on September 18, 2017, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
Getting rid of the toll booths that act as choke points and the toll agencies, which are just another layer of bureaucracy, strikes me as a better solution. Raise the gas tax in the metro counties as much as is needed to maintain and replace the bridges instead!
Rick
The bridges are expensive to build and maintain. Tolls on the bridges encourages people to work near where they live.
So you think people should have to move every time they get a new job? That's ridiculous.
So do you think people who chose to live near where they work should be paying much higher taxes to subsidize an intrinsically expensive commute for those who don't?
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 04:00:31 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on September 18, 2017, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
Getting rid of the toll booths that act as choke points and the toll agencies, which are just another layer of bureaucracy, strikes me as a better solution. Raise the gas tax in the metro counties as much as is needed to maintain and replace the bridges instead!
Rick
The bridges are expensive to build and maintain. Tolls on the bridges encourages people to work near where they live.
So you think people should have to move every time they get a new job? That's ridiculous.
So do you think people who chose to live near where they work should be paying much higher taxes to subsidize an intrinsically expensive commute for those who don't?
If one adds X amount of cents per gallon to the gas tax for the counties in the Bay Area, then that does the job of covering the region which generates the majority of traffic on those bridges.
Despite living in downstate Oregon, I would be happy to pay more gas tax if government was efficient in the use of the funds to see the majority of it go to the I-5 corridor since that is where the most people live. It is also where the most jobs are and the transportation backbone that sees goods as well as tourists come and go to us out here in left field. We who live here do need various projects taken care of but nowhere as much as the most populated part of Oregon does! Besides, when I leave home to go to Capital City, Springfield and Shelbyville, it sure would be easier if the urban roads are up to snuff.
No matter how one argues the case, one thing is undeniable. Every layer of bureaucracy adds costs without adding pavement or maintenance. Tolls do such, thus they must be opposed.
Parking meters on the other hand are about churn. If some is not generated, there will be less parking for those who come and go, which is an important consideration in downtown districts that are active. Sometimes one mixes in lots, free and paid as well as public and private parking. Those are city planner deals which respond to the demand for parking at a particular time or particular era. No need for meters when the demand for parking spaces is low after all! Go the other way as some neighborhoods in PDX illustrate and then conditions rise to the Something Must Be Done level. One then chooses the best of bad alternatives sometimes while reminding themselves that doing nothing is even worse!
Rick
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 04:00:31 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on September 18, 2017, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
Getting rid of the toll booths that act as choke points and the toll agencies, which are just another layer of bureaucracy, strikes me as a better solution. Raise the gas tax in the metro counties as much as is needed to maintain and replace the bridges instead!
Rick
The bridges are expensive to build and maintain. Tolls on the bridges encourages people to work near where they live.
So you think people should have to move every time they get a new job? That's ridiculous.
So do you think people who chose to live near where they work should be paying much higher taxes to subsidize an intrinsically expensive commute for those who don't?
Yes I do. Just like those who have long commutes subsidize the expensive transit infrastructure that they likely will never use.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 19, 2017, 03:13:25 AM
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 04:00:31 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on September 18, 2017, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
Getting rid of the toll booths that act as choke points and the toll agencies, which are just another layer of bureaucracy, strikes me as a better solution. Raise the gas tax in the metro counties as much as is needed to maintain and replace the bridges instead!
Rick
The bridges are expensive to build and maintain. Tolls on the bridges encourages people to work near where they live.
So you think people should have to move every time they get a new job? That's ridiculous.
So do you think people who chose to live near where they work should be paying much higher taxes to subsidize an intrinsically expensive commute for those who don't?
Yes I do. Just like those who have long commutes subsidize the expensive transit infrastructure that they likely will never use.
Considering the price of housing in the Bay Area, there's not much incentive to live near work unless the yearly household income exceeds about $350K or so (houses are being bid up to much more than their listing prices). There's a reason why Tracy, Manteca, and other exurbs exist in their present form and why so many make the commute -- and the ACE rail line is essentially "sold out", so the alternative is the drive. The area keeps attracting new workers -- but not all can afford to live close-in. It's best not to consider the housing/commute/transit market to be fully fungible -- at least in this region. And it's likely that the toll hike will be spread out over 3-5 years; doing it any other way would invite a backlash that would be felt at all legislative and administrative levels. And while it's true that local transportation circles are dominated by the desire to reduce regional driving, those entities are answerable to the folks in their respective jurisdictions -- and the notion of sticking it to those folks in the name of such a concept has its limitations. They're agencies -- not the dictatorship of the proletariat!
Quote from: sparker on September 19, 2017, 05:30:39 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 19, 2017, 03:13:25 AM
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 04:00:31 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on September 18, 2017, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
Getting rid of the toll booths that act as choke points and the toll agencies, which are just another layer of bureaucracy, strikes me as a better solution. Raise the gas tax in the metro counties as much as is needed to maintain and replace the bridges instead!
Rick
The bridges are expensive to build and maintain. Tolls on the bridges encourages people to work near where they live.
So you think people should have to move every time they get a new job? That's ridiculous.
So do you think people who chose to live near where they work should be paying much higher taxes to subsidize an intrinsically expensive commute for those who don't?
Yes I do. Just like those who have long commutes subsidize the expensive transit infrastructure that they likely will never use.
Considering the price of housing in the Bay Area, there's not much incentive to live near work unless the yearly household income exceeds about $350K or so (houses are being bid up to much more than their listing prices). There's a reason why Tracy, Manteca, and other exurbs exist in their present form and why so many make the commute -- and the ACE rail line is essentially "sold out", so the alternative is the drive. The area keeps attracting new workers -- but not all can afford to live close-in. It's best not to consider the housing/commute/transit market to be fully fungible -- at least in this region. And it's likely that the toll hike will be spread out over 3-5 years; doing it any other way would invite a backlash that would be felt at all legislative and administrative levels. And while it's true that local transportation circles are dominated by the desire to reduce regional driving, those entities are answerable to the folks in their respective jurisdictions -- and the notion of sticking it to those folks in the name of such a concept has its limitations. They're agencies -- not the dictatorship of the proletariat!
I generally agree here.
My issue is what I see the urbanist and transit advocates take issue with isn't whether one uses a car or train but the underlying push by the powers that be to get people to live closer to where they work. That's how I see these "live, work, play" developments.
I get that would be cheaper and better for the environment but you can make that argument for a lot of things. I certainly don't need these agencies "suggesting" how I live let alone deciding that induced demand(which I think is bullshit anyways) is enough of an argument to neglect the freeways and decide adding lanes isn't an option. Meanwhile while I sit in traffic spending 3 hours to go 7 miles I keep hearing they are expanding transit and reducing lanes to "encourage" people to use alternative forms of transportation but it is becoming evident no one wants to do that. Perhaps those that do are the anomaly.
I think pretty soon Metro and other agencies are going to have face the reality that traffic won't be solved by this magic solution they've come up and they will need to again put a focus on widening freeways and building new ones. What else can be done?
Quote from: 1 on September 18, 2017, 11:28:58 AM
How common are bikes across the bridges? I assume they're still free.
Still free for the bridges that allow them: Bay Bridge east span to Treasure Island, Golden Gate, Dumbarton, Carquinez (aka Zampa), Benicia, and Antioch.
Not allowed on the west span of the Bay Bridge or the San Mateo Bridge.
Coming to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge sometime in 2018.
Bikes are often at or above capacity on the Golden Gate, due mostly to tourists on rental bikes, especially on weekends and holidays. (It's a very dangerous place for even an experienced cyclist to ride due to everything going on.) More folks are using the new Bay Bridge path for recreation, but bike traffic on the other bridges is generally very light. I don't think I've ever seen a bike on the Antioch Bridge.
Quote from: kurumi on September 18, 2017, 11:20:45 AM
Quote from: Henry on September 18, 2017, 09:42:05 AM
Just watch: Once the hikes are approved, there's going to be a whole lot of taking the roundabout way through San Jose just to avoid the tolls. (Or they could ride BART if they don't want to drive the long way.)
Here's that shortcut before the toll increase:
(https://i.imgur.com/Yasne6h.png)
That makes a good argument for some type of toll or HOT lanes for the facility. Have any been considered?
Quote from: Henry on September 18, 2017, 09:42:05 AM
Just watch: Once the hikes are approved, there's going to be a whole lot of taking the roundabout way through San Jose just to avoid the tolls. (Or they could ride BART if they don't want to drive the long way.)
Considering the perpetual state of congestion on CA 237 between US 101 and I-880 -- which now extends into off-peak times -- such a "detour" may not prove to be a viable option. Essentially most arterials within the 101/880/237 "triangle" experience such congestion around peak hours (particularly Montague Expressway and Tasman Ave. -- the latter goes through the middle of the Cisco "campus"; one really doesn't want to be on that facility about 4 - 4:30 pm when pretty much every Cisco employee hits the road for home. Bottom line --
there is no efficient commute path through northern San Jose from 5:30-9:30 am and 2:30-7 pm -- period!. Plan your trips through that area accordingly!
What I find intriguing is the idea that the agency responsible for these bridges needs legislative approval to raise the tolls. Over on this coast, our toll road operators generally have authority to implement toll hikes unilaterally.
Do the Bay Area bridges help subsidize other things, or is their toll revenue purely for self-subsistence?
Quote from: mrsman on September 20, 2017, 04:32:36 PM
Quote from: kurumi on September 18, 2017, 11:20:45 AM
Quote from: Henry on September 18, 2017, 09:42:05 AM
Just watch: Once the hikes are approved, there's going to be a whole lot of taking the roundabout way through San Jose just to avoid the tolls. (Or they could ride BART if they don't want to drive the long way.)
Here's that shortcut before the toll increase:
(https://i.imgur.com/Yasne6h.png)
That makes a good argument for some type of toll or HOT lanes for the facility. Have any been considered?
237 currently has HOT lanes between 880 and Great America Parkway and they are scheduled to be extended westward to 101 by 2019.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 20, 2017, 08:14:47 PM
What I find intriguing is the idea that the agency responsible for these bridges needs legislative approval to raise the tolls. Over on this coast, our toll road operators generally have authority to implement toll hikes unilaterally.
Do the Bay Area bridges help subsidize other things, or is their toll revenue purely for self-subsistence?
Except for the Golden Gate Bridge, which is a fully independent entity, all the other bridges over both the Bay and the Carquinez/Suisun strait are owned and operated by Caltrans; hence the legislative supervision in the case of toll levels. While Caltrans itself will likely field most of the calls objecting to any rate hikes, one can be assured that the local state assemblyperson or senator will have to deflect a good deal of flack on their own -- appropriate, since they're the ones who legislated the hike! In CA, blame is usually spread out over multiple parties (even Jerry Brown's office will get vociferous complaints about this!). :eyebrow:
I remember watching a segment of People Behaving Badly, just before "congestion pricing" on the Bay Bridge, where he says, "The Bay Bridge is about to implement congestion pricing; I'd just wish they implement safety pricing: the more hazardous you drive, the more you pay. That would certainly end our budget woes for sure."
New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn't that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won't happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.
http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 12:32:03 PM
New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn't that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won't happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.
http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true
:confused:
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 19, 2017, 06:31:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 19, 2017, 05:30:39 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 19, 2017, 03:13:25 AM
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 04:00:31 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on September 18, 2017, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 18, 2017, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 18, 2017, 12:11:50 PM
People balance many things in their decision where to live or work. If you take a job that's far from home, then you need to consider the cost of transportation; for driving, that includes gasoline consumption, wear and tear on the vehicle, tolls, parking fees; for public transportation, it includes transit fares, possibly parking fees. If the job is far enough from home that it's not worth the cost of transportation, then the solution is to move closer to work or look for a different job–not complain that it costs too much to get to work. No reasonable person who takes a job downtown but buys a house out in the suburbs has any expectation that his or her commute shouldn't cost any more than if the two were closer together.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 07, 2017, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 12:32:03 PM
New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn't that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won't happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.
http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true
:confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 01:49:50 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 07, 2017, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 12:32:03 PM
New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn't that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won't happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.
http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true
:confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?
So you don't think it's a good idea to know
how much and
in what way a project will affect the environment?
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 02:16:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 01:49:50 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 07, 2017, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 12:32:03 PM
New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn't that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won't happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.
http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true
:confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?
So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
No because it will be built regardless. This is a huge project and needs to be built. I'm not saying they be irresponsible in regards to the environment, some precautions obviously need to be taken, but the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach. Have about one or two of them withthin 3 months. Usually it takes years and of public outreach. Make it 4 months max from the time of the proposal to the selection. These things could make this bridge happen and built within 5-6 Years.
Have you read how much time it takes from when a project is first proposed to when it is built? Almost a decade. This bridge isn't even proposed yet. It's merely being discussed as a potential proposal. Probably 2-5 years until we see an actual proposal? This construction will be tricky to because of the geography and the density of the city. This will take longer to construct than a regular bridge. It's a major project and much needed!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: December 08, 2017, 10:23:28 AM
Not just any project btw. Very few projects that are extremely expensive and high priority.
Mod Note: Merged posts & removed identical quoting from second post. –Roadfro
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 03:15:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 02:16:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 01:49:50 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 07, 2017, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 12:32:03 PM
New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn’t that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won’t happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.
http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true
:confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That’s how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?
So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
No because it will be built regardless. This is a huge project and needs to be built. I’m not saying they be irresponsible in regards to the environment, some precautions obviously need to be taken, but the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach. Have about one or two of them withthin 3 months. Usually it takes years and of public outreach. Make it 4 months max from the time of the proposal to the selection. These things could make this bridge happen and built within 5-6 Years.
Have you read how much time it takes from when a project is first proposed to when it is built? Almost a decade. This bridge isn’t even proposed yet. It’s merely being discussed as a potential proposal. Probably 2-5 years until we see an actual proposal? This construction will be tricky to because of the geography and the density of the city. This will take longer to construct than a regular bridge. It’s a major project and much needed!
So if someone proposes an expensive project that'll go right thru your home, they should be allowed to take your home without no public outreach? Just give you a notice saying - hey, you got 30 days to move out because we're building a massive, expensive road!
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 03:15:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 02:16:36 PM
So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
No because it will be built regardless. This is a huge project and needs to be built. I'm not saying they be irresponsible in regards to the environment, some precautions obviously need to be taken, but the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach. Have about one or two of them withthin 3 months. Usually it takes years and of public outreach. Make it 4 months max from the time of the proposal to the selection. These things could make this bridge happen and built within 5-6 Years.
Have you read how much time it takes from when a project is first proposed to when it is built? Almost a decade. This bridge isn't even proposed yet. It's merely being discussed as a potential proposal. Probably 2-5 years until we see an actual proposal? This construction will be tricky to because of the geography and the density of the city. This will take longer to construct than a regular bridge. It's a major project and much needed!
And who is going to be the one to say if they are being "irresponsible in regards to the environment" or not? Who is going to say what "obvious" precautions "need to be taken"? And, whoever gets to make those calls, on what basis do they make their determinations without studies to give them data?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 12:32:03 PM
New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn't that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won't happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.
http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true
True. We do focus on the environment way too much in certain cases expecially considering that idling cars in traffic are just as bad if not worse for the environment. If it was bypassed the time would be cur be at least 40% and cost by a similar margin (don't know exact figures).
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 07, 2017, 03:54:22 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 12:32:03 PM
New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn't that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won't happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.
http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true
True. We do focus on the environment way too much in certain cases expecially considering that idling cars in traffic are just as bad if not worse for the environment. If it was bypassed the time would be cur be at least 40% and cost by a similar margin (don't know exact figures).
Apples to oranges. Idling cars do not affect the same part of the environment as highway projects. Idling cars do nothing but pollute the air. Highway projects can affect flood plains, wildlife habitats, migrations patterns, etc.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 07, 2017, 03:20:16 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 03:15:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 02:16:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 01:49:50 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 07, 2017, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 12:32:03 PM
New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn't that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won't happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.
http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true
:confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?
So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
No because it will be built regardless. This is a huge project and needs to be built. I'm not saying they be irresponsible in regards to the environment, some precautions obviously need to be taken, but the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach. Have about one or two of them withthin 3 months. Usually it takes years and of public outreach. Make it 4 months max from the time of the proposal to the selection. These things could make this bridge happen and built within 5-6 Years.
Have you read how much time it takes from when a project is first proposed to when it is built? Almost a decade. This bridge isn't even proposed yet. It's merely being discussed as a potential proposal. Probably 2-5 years until we see an actual proposal? This construction will be tricky to because of the geography and the density of the city. This will take longer to construct than a regular bridge. It's a major project and much needed!
So if someone proposes an expensive project that'll go right thru your home, they should be allowed to take your home without no public outreach? Just give you a notice saying - hey, you got 30 days to move out because we're building a massive, expensive road!
Now you're puttinf words in my mouth. I am not talking about tearing down people's homes or property acquisitions.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 07, 2017, 03:20:16 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 03:15:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 02:16:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 01:49:50 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 07, 2017, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 12:32:03 PM
New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn't that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won't happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.
http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true
:confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?
So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
No because it will be built regardless. This is a huge project and needs to be built. I'm not saying they be irresponsible in regards to the environment, some precautions obviously need to be taken, but the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach. Have about one or two of them withthin 3 months. Usually it takes years and of public outreach. Make it 4 months max from the time of the proposal to the selection. These things could make this bridge happen and built within 5-6 Years.
Have you read how much time it takes from when a project is first proposed to when it is built? Almost a decade. This bridge isn't even proposed yet. It's merely being discussed as a potential proposal. Probably 2-5 years until we see an actual proposal? This construction will be tricky to because of the geography and the density of the city. This will take longer to construct than a regular bridge. It's a major project and much needed!
So if someone proposes an expensive project that'll go right thru your home, they should be allowed to take your home without no public outreach? Just give you a notice saying - hey, you got 30 days to move out because we're building a massive, expensive road!
Now you're puttinf words in my mouth. I am not talking about tearing down people's homes or property acquisitions.
But... That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?
Regardless of any poster's opinion -- "plowing ahead" with a new bridge just isn't going to happen. First of all, just saying "yeah, we want it to connect 238 with 380" doesn't in any way mean that a straight line between the 101/380 and 238/880 interchange will be anywhere near where planning and vetting will eventually place the facility. Most of the previous plans curved a connector north along the shoreline from north of SFO to Hunters' Point in SE S.F. (the longstanding CA 230 corridor) with an additional connector to I-280 just at the east end of the double-deck segment east of US 101; the bridge itself would extend east at Hunters' Point over to somewhere around Bay Farms (between Alameda and Oakland International Airport), where it would snake down the shoreline a bit to San Leandro, then turn east to access I-238. Originally, a second branch would have sliced through Alameda toward I-980 -- but the political implications of that these days would sink such a connector in its tracks. Any such project will, in the current environmental and political climate, require extensive vetting -- and will probably undergo multiple revisions before both route and format are finalized. One problem with both ends of any projected crossing is that the Bay levels have been rising over the past couple of decades; the mudflats where the CA 230 corridor originally was projected to go are now several feet under water (just drive along the "Candlestick Causeway" section of US 101 to witness this phenomenon first-hand!); some sort of viaduct would be required to complete any connection from the bridge down to the SFO/I-380 area; similar conditions also effect any landing on the east side as well, but there are more options over there for route variances.
The reality is that a project of this magnitude won't be undertaken without having to pass through several layers of the aforementioned "vetting" -- the Bay Conservation district, Caltrans' own bridge engineering department (of course); maybe even the Coastal Commission will put in its two cents' worth, and the various county MPO's (this project would involve three of those)......the list will probably fill out with several more actors as the project progresses through its initial stages. Then there will be the naysayers from S.F. wondering "why the fuck are you considering something that'll bring more cars into the city!" Like any Bay Area project, it'll feature screams of both joy and anguish from collectively all sides! If it progresses beyond the "vague talking about" phase, it'll be an intriguing -- albeit likely bumpy -- ride!
Quote from: sparker on December 07, 2017, 05:04:03 PM
Regardless of any poster's opinion -- "plowing ahead" with a new bridge just isn't going to happen. First of all, just saying "yeah, we want it to connect 238 with 380" doesn't in any way mean that a straight line between the 101/380 and 238/880 interchange will be anywhere near where planning and vetting will eventually place the facility. Most of the previous plans curved a connector north along the shoreline from north of SFO to Hunters' Point in SE S.F. (the longstanding CA 230 corridor) with an additional connector to I-280 just at the east end of the double-deck segment east of US 101; the bridge itself would extend east at Hunters' Point over to somewhere around Bay Farms (between Alameda and Oakland International Airport), where it would snake down the shoreline a bit to San Leandro, then turn east to access I-238. Originally, a second branch would have sliced through Alameda toward I-980 -- but the political implications of that these days would sink such a connector in its tracks. Any such project will, in the current environmental and political climate, require extensive vetting -- and will probably undergo multiple revisions before both route and format are finalized. One problem with both ends of any projected crossing is that the Bay levels have been rising over the past couple of decades; the mudflats where the CA 230 corridor originally was projected to go are now several feet under water (just drive along the "Candlestick Causeway" section of US 101 to witness this phenomenon first-hand!); some sort of viaduct would be required to complete any connection from the bridge down to the SFO/I-380 area; similar conditions also effect any landing on the east side as well, but there are more options over there for route variances.
The reality is that a project of this magnitude won't be undertaken without having to pass through several layers of the aforementioned "vetting" -- the Bay Conservation district, Caltrans' own bridge engineering department (of course); maybe even the Coastal Commission will put in its two cents' worth, and the various county MPO's (this project would involve three of those)......the list will probably fill out with several more actors as the project progresses through its initial stages. Then there will be the naysayers from S.F. wondering "why the fuck are you considering something that'll bring more cars into the city!" Like any Bay Area project, it'll feature screams of both joy and anguish from collectively all sides! If it progresses beyond the "vague talking about" phase, it'll be an intriguing -- albeit likely bumpy -- ride!
You're going to need some really large chain cutters or wire cutters to get through all that; a simple pair of kitchen scissors ain't going to do it.
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 04:58:25 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 07, 2017, 03:20:16 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 03:15:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 02:16:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 01:49:50 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 07, 2017, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 12:32:03 PM
New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn't that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won't happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.
http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true
:confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?
So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
No because it will be built regardless. This is a huge project and needs to be built. I'm not saying they be irresponsible in regards to the environment, some precautions obviously need to be taken, but the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach. Have about one or two of them withthin 3 months. Usually it takes years and of public outreach. Make it 4 months max from the time of the proposal to the selection. These things could make this bridge happen and built within 5-6 Years.
Have you read how much time it takes from when a project is first proposed to when it is built? Almost a decade. This bridge isn't even proposed yet. It's merely being discussed as a potential proposal. Probably 2-5 years until we see an actual proposal? This construction will be tricky to because of the geography and the density of the city. This will take longer to construct than a regular bridge. It's a major project and much needed!
So if someone proposes an expensive project that'll go right thru your home, they should be allowed to take your home without no public outreach? Just give you a notice saying - hey, you got 30 days to move out because we're building a massive, expensive road!
Now you're puttinf words in my mouth. I am not talking about tearing down people's homes or property acquisitions.
But... That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?
Yes you are. They didn't plow through anyone's home they wanted to. Several projects were canceled because of racial reasons, financial, or whatever.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 05:26:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 04:58:25 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 07, 2017, 03:20:16 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 03:15:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 02:16:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 01:49:50 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 07, 2017, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 12:32:03 PM
New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn't that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won't happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.
http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true
:confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?
So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
No because it will be built regardless. This is a huge project and needs to be built. I'm not saying they be irresponsible in regards to the environment, some precautions obviously need to be taken, but the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach. Have about one or two of them withthin 3 months. Usually it takes years and of public outreach. Make it 4 months max from the time of the proposal to the selection. These things could make this bridge happen and built within 5-6 Years.
Have you read how much time it takes from when a project is first proposed to when it is built? Almost a decade. This bridge isn't even proposed yet. It's merely being discussed as a potential proposal. Probably 2-5 years until we see an actual proposal? This construction will be tricky to because of the geography and the density of the city. This will take longer to construct than a regular bridge. It's a major project and much needed!
So if someone proposes an expensive project that'll go right thru your home, they should be allowed to take your home without no public outreach? Just give you a notice saying - hey, you got 30 days to move out because we're building a massive, expensive road!
Now you're puttinf words in my mouth. I am not talking about tearing down people's homes or property acquisitions.
But... That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?
Yes you are. They didn't plow through anyone's home they wanted to. Several projects were canceled because of racial reasons, financial, or whatever.
My great-grandmother's house was torn down to make way for I-635 in KC. Didn't have a choice. It's call eminent domain.
Also, back in the quick, cheap projects era, if your property wasn't actually taken, you got nothing. The park next door to you was replaced by a viaduct placed so drivers' headlights shone into your bedroom, you got nothing. In rural areas, if you had a ranch that would be split by a freeway, they didn't have to offer a convenient way to cross between halves of your property or compensation for the inconvenience, and paid only for the land actually taken.
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 05:54:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 05:26:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 04:58:25 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 07, 2017, 03:20:16 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 03:15:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 02:16:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 01:49:50 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 07, 2017, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 12:32:03 PM
New Bay Bridge being discussed. The 10 billion dollars isn't that bad what it would take to build this. The problem is I bet this won't happen for 15 Years or more. Would be nice if they could bypass all the environmental regulations and just get it built.
http://abc7news.com/amp/traffic/as-traffic-increases-lawmakers-call-for-possible-new-bridge/2750337/?__twitter_impression=true
:confused:
I think major infrastructure projects that are a high priority should be built with little to no environmental studies to speed up the process. Everything will have an effect on he environment. That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?
So you don't think it's a good idea to know how much and in what way a project will affect the environment?
No because it will be built regardless. This is a huge project and needs to be built. I'm not saying they be irresponsible in regards to the environment, some precautions obviously need to be taken, but the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach. Have about one or two of them withthin 3 months. Usually it takes years and of public outreach. Make it 4 months max from the time of the proposal to the selection. These things could make this bridge happen and built within 5-6 Years.
Have you read how much time it takes from when a project is first proposed to when it is built? Almost a decade. This bridge isn't even proposed yet. It's merely being discussed as a potential proposal. Probably 2-5 years until we see an actual proposal? This construction will be tricky to because of the geography and the density of the city. This will take longer to construct than a regular bridge. It's a major project and much needed!
So if someone proposes an expensive project that'll go right thru your home, they should be allowed to take your home without no public outreach? Just give you a notice saying - hey, you got 30 days to move out because we're building a massive, expensive road!
Now you're puttinf words in my mouth. I am not talking about tearing down people's homes or property acquisitions.
But... That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?
Yes you are. They didn't plow through anyone's home they wanted to. Several projects were canceled because of racial reasons, financial, or whatever.
My great-grandmother's house was torn down to make way for I-635 in KC. Didn't have a choice. It's call eminent domain.
It still happens today. I agree with it to. But there is a process. Regardless, I am not proposing any changes to any of the aspects regarding property acquisition or eminent domain procedures, so I don't know why we're even discussing this. Words were put in my mouth there.
Quote from: kkt on December 07, 2017, 07:21:34 PM
Also, back in the quick, cheap projects era, if your property wasn't actually taken, you got nothing. The park next door to you was replaced by a viaduct placed so drivers' headlights shone into your bedroom, you got nothing. In rural areas, if you had a ranch that would be split by a freeway, they didn't have to offer a convenient way to cross between halves of your property or compensation for the inconvenience, and paid only for the land actually taken.
That has changed today. In OKC, Uhual is in a battle with the city and its likely going to get some of its property at a pretty penny. I can't speak on your grandmas situation(sorry that happened it sucks), but today you can fight in court and get a fair price.
There are noise and light mitigation techniques that are used on modern freeway construction as well as connectivity issues that are taken more into to consideration than in the past. Does that mean I want to see those go away just because I said in the past they didn't have all of the environmental red tape we see today? No. The world isn't black and white.
Anyways, my opinion is stated. As Sparker said, my opinions don't mean squat here because it ain't happening, especially in a place like San Francisco. I just want to see a new bridge sooner than later. They already know if it is selected and environment reports are had it's going to be built anyways. Has there ever been a major project that was stopped or never left the ground strictly to environment reasons as a result of studies that happened?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 07:25:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 05:54:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 05:26:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 04:58:25 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 07, 2017, 03:20:16 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 03:15:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 02:16:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 01:49:50 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 07, 2017, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 12:32:03 PM
(because who doesn't love long nested quote strings?)
Words were put in your mouth, yes. But, to be fair, you did say the following...
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 03:15:40 PM
the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 01:49:50 PM
That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?
...which, when put together, can make people think you find public input just as unnecessary as environmental impact studies.
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 07:37:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 07:25:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 05:54:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 05:26:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 04:58:25 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 07, 2017, 03:20:16 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 03:15:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2017, 02:16:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 01:49:50 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 07, 2017, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 12:32:03 PM
(because who doesn't love long nested quote strings?)
Words were put in your mouth, yes. But, to be fair, you did say the following...
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 03:15:40 PM
the 5+ Years it would take to complete all of the studies should be bypassed. So should the extensive public outreach.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2017, 01:49:50 PM
That's how they used to do it and things got built a lot faster then. Am I wrong?
...which, when put together, can make people think you find public input just as unnecessary as environmental impact studies.
Fair enough. I will clarify now that I do not think the eminent domain process should be changed. I don't know enough about it anyways.
As far as public input, I have read it can take years and years just for that process alone. I think they could be brought down to months and that should still for people enough time.