[SF-Oakland] Bay Bridge deal would retain 'signature' span

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 6/12/5 | Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross

[SmithL]

After a six-month standoff between Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bay Area legislators over what to do about the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge, the two sides are on the verge of reaching a deal, well-placed sources tell us.

In a nutshell: Bay Area lawmakers would keep the design they want -- the "signature" suspension span featuring a single, spire-like tower just east of Yerba Buena Island.

But it would come at a cost. Drivers on all the state-owned bridges in the Bay Area -- that's every one but the Golden Gate -- can expect to pay an extra $1 in tolls, bringing the hit to $4 starting in 2007, two sources close to the negotiations said.

A toll hike has long been in the works as part of whatever agreement emerged to pay for the new eastern span, which is projected to come in at $6.2 billion -- $3.5 billion over budget, and counting.

However, Democratic leaders were hoping to forestall the day of toll- plaza reckoning until 2008. Under the emerging deal, the increase will come much sooner, though just when has yet to be worked out, said the sources, who spoke on condition they not be identified.

As part of the deal, the state would kick in an extra $400 million toward building the new bridge, on top of the $300 million that Schwarzenegger had offered for tearing down the old, earthquake-vulnerable span.

[SmithL]

Why not raise the toll for the people that actually use the bridge?

[Uncle Hal]

Liberals want something for free. They want some else to pay for it.

[Tax Government]

Government is a criminal enterprise, doing what it wants and ripping off as much as it can.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Sorry, but that's entirely too logical. This is the government.

[SmithL]

Under the possible deal, the new Bay Bridge would feature this single-tower design. Photo courtesy of Caltrans

[Lx]

While that's a very beautiful span, why should I have to pay for it? The original span was a lot cheaper but people like Jerry Brown in Oakland thought it was too ugly and that it was racist of the planners to have such an ugly span on the Oakland side.

I say, all Californians pay for the original utilitarian span and Bay area citizens pay for the upgrade. After all, the span there now is pretty ugly.

[kingu]

7 billion for a bridge that might or might not survive the next big earthquake. I sure hope that someone gets the smart idea to carry insurance on the sucker, because otherwise we're just going to have to rebuild it in 20 years.

Wasted tax money in the hotbed of liberals - ghads what a shock.

[SmithL]

Speaking of beautiful spans:

This is what Charleston's new Cooper River Bridge will look like when it opens next month.

And here's a photo of it next to the existing spans:

Those used to make me nervous anytime I went over, or under them.

[sharktrager]

Because the extra expense isn't for the benefit of those using the bridge, but for those looking at the bridge from a distance.

[wideminded]

Bay Area lawmakers would keep the design they want -- the "signature" suspension span featuring a single, spire-like tower just east of Yerba Buena Island.

Since when has the Bay Bridge been about looks? I lived in the Bay Area for a while and I never found anything about the Bay Bridge to be attractive. The Golden Gate Bridge was obviously built with aesthetics in mind, but the Bay Bridge was just built to be functional.

[SmithL]

Actually, the San Francisco side is the "pretty" suspension bridge. The Oakland side has the "working class" cantilever span, and Jerry Brown is jealous.

[wideminded]

Actually, the San Francisco side is the "pretty" suspension bridge.

It's a suspension bridge, but was it ever acclaimed for its appearance before the current discussion? I never found driving on the bottom deck to be all that pretty.