New Bay Bridge from San Lorenzo?

'Southern Crossing' span back on planners' study plate

The Bay Area Toll Authority's oversight committee voted Wednesday to spend up to $400,000 to conduct another study about the possibility of building a new bridge across the San Francisco Bay between the East Bay and the Peninsula.

The idea of building a so-called "Southern Crossing" between Interstate Highway 238 in San Lorenzo and Interstate Highway 380 in San Bruno, near San Francisco International Airport, has been considered for more than 40 years and has been endorsed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and other elected officials in the past.

But the idea has always been rejected because of environmental and cost considerations.

Steve Heminger, executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the toll authority's sister agency, noted in a memo to oversight committee members that the most recent studies about building a new span were conducted in 1991 and 2002, but he believes "enough time has passed since the last study to take a fresh look at the need and opportunities between the East Bay and the San Francisco Peninsula."

Heminger said the 2002 study looked at some low-cost options for improving travel across the Bay as well as high-cost options such as a new toll bridge, a new BART tunnel and a new rail tunnel.

"The study found critical mass lacking in both travel demand and political support for the higher cost options," he said.

AECOM, a Los Angeles-based professional technical and management support services company, will conduct a six-month study to assess whether circumstances have changed enough to warrant a full-fledged analysis for a new bridge.

If it's decided that an in-depth analysis is justified, a second study would take up to another 18 months.

Funding for the studies will come from revenues on the Bay Area's seven state-owned toll bridges that are set aside for bridge rehabilitation work.

Jeff Shuttleworth, Bay City News

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.


Like this comment
Posted by cosmic-charlie
a resident of Downtown
on Nov 11, 2010 at 6:04 am

The last sentence in the article clearly states the money is set aside for bridge rehabilitation work. So here we go again, another example of bureaucrats disregarding again either the spirit and/or the intent of the law. I wonder who stands to gain from the money?

I have a great idea, use the money for bridge rehabilitation work, just like the article says. Are you tired of this kind of nonsense?

Just in the last few minutes, I finished conducting an extensive remote study for a third span, and conclusions are as follows:

1. It will be expensive.
2. It will take a long time
3. It will be beautiful

Excellent! I have just saved $400,000

1 person likes this
Posted by Arroyo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 11, 2010 at 5:36 pm

I grew up in San Leandro and remember the planning that took place to prepare for the "southern crossing". Unfortunately, as usual, the enviros made the decision for us, decided it might cause additional growth east of Castro Valley, and it was scrapped (after millions had been spent). Well, the decision certainly didn't stop the growth, but after spending about three hours trying to get to San Francisco this morning, I can assure you that we need another bridge.

It's unforunate that all the politicians will try to wring every last campaign contribution dollar out of those involved in studying and building the bridge (similar to the Bay Bridge debacle). But, we do need another crossing.

As a cynic I can assure you they will find a never before seen species of animal or insect that just happens to inhabit the area designated as the new bridge route.

I sure would like to travel on a new "southern crossing" before I make my final crossing to the next life.

1 person likes this
Posted by Mark L.
a resident of Birdland
on Nov 11, 2010 at 9:47 pm

Arroyo, you are correct. All political & advocacy groups that receive taxpayer funding must be defunded. The environment has become the front for raging war against the individual. So called environmental groups are nothing more than anti-capitalists, anti-growth, 1960's, flat earth Marxists operations. They are funded in part by the U.S. gov't, that's you and me. These groups have been granted by statute the power to bring lawsuits on behalf of the American people. They are shutting down projects all over the country. Obstructing towns and cities all over the country. We need to take our rights back by denying them access to the courts, unless they have standing like everyone else.

Like this comment
Posted by Maria
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 11, 2010 at 10:16 pm

Please don't tar all environmentalists with the same brush.

I find it a great shame that the environment has become yet another us-vs-them battle. If you're for protecting the environment, you're a socialist tree-hugger (the logic behind the whole socialist bit rather escapes me, except for the fact that it seems to be the right's favorite boogeyman nowadays). If you're for building projects to stimulate the economy, you're an evil money-grabbing Bambi-killer. The biggest part of the problem is that people separate the human environment and "nature", when they are intertwined. I'm not against building bridges to facilitate travel, I'm against the type of careless construction practices that dump tons of crud into the Bay...

...But ANYWAYS. (How did the conversation get sidetracked in this direction?...)

1 person likes this
Posted by dublinmike
a resident of Dublin
on Nov 11, 2010 at 10:38 pm

dublinmike is a registered user.

cosmic-charlie...LOL Good one.

You environmental bashers forgot Mayor Willie Brown. He did not like it. That darn fascist, socialist, commie Demo.

You also forgot that several cities did not want the additional traffic and the public opinion was sour on the financing bonds. Those darn cities and darn fascist, socialist, commie citizens!

Please cover all the facts instead of inflicting hyperbole like Maria's.

1 person likes this
Posted by Arroyo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 12, 2010 at 9:01 am

We were called "Conservationists" rather than Enviro-Wackos in those days. We tread lightly, did not litter, but used logging roads, etc. to gain access to the areas we visited.

I grew up hunting and fishing the S.F.Bay, as well as trekking around the Wilderness Areas in the Sierra. It took 10 hours or more of driving to reach some areas on those old washboard roads. I like trees, deer, wildflowers, clean air, etc., but I am against halting viable construction to save an endangered fly. I supported the Sierra Club, and all the other wildlife groups, until the VietNam war was over and "Saving The Environment" became everybody's favorite pastime. After seeing young children being inundated with partisan information and animals and insects used as pawns to halt viable projects, I stopped supporting the groups.

But, I guess I'm not as smart as Dublin Mike -- and have evolved into an enviro-basher.

Oh, and yes, Willie Brown, John Burton, and the current Dem hierarchy, are only interested in projects where the campaign contributions are many. No juice, no support.

Like this comment
Posted by Chuck Wiedel
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 12, 2010 at 8:06 pm

This is just about as stupid an idea as resurrecting a Demo. governor from the 70's!!! Some of us still have a memory!!
With the dems running Sacto, by the time they got this multi-BILLION dollar bridge built, we wouldn't be able to afford to cross it anyhow, as gas will be priced at $10/gallon -- that's what the current administration wants, anyhow.
This state is SO our of step with the rest of the country -- except perhaps for N.Y. , and who wants to be like THEM?? -- LET'S JUST DO SOMETHING REALLY WHACKY AND PASS A BALANCED BUDGET -- ON TIME -- FOR A CHANGE, AND SEE IF WE CAN'T DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE RIDICULOUS DEFICIT WE ARE GETTING ACCUSTOMED TO!!! How's that for RADICAL??? Worth a try, I'd say. Oh, yes, and forget about the stupid "second crossing" bridge...........................

Like this comment
Posted by Me Too
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 13, 2010 at 6:29 pm

Let me get this straight...they are going to spend $400,000 and 6 months to determine if they should actually do a real analysis which will take 18 months (costs not stated - assuming in the many millions). Maybe they should do a 3 month study to determine if they should do the 6 month study to see if the 18 month study is feasible to determine if they should build a bridge that has already been rejected twice.

Like this comment
Posted by Omar
a resident of another community
on Feb 19, 2015 at 11:14 pm

Another bridge won't make a difference if the roads it gets to are clogged when you get there. We need to reduce car reliance overall. A new light rail or second BART link across the bay would do more to improve traffic than any bridge could. The old Key System streetcars had express trains to San Leandro from the Bay Bridge.

Like this comment
Posted by Ed
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 20, 2015 at 8:33 am

Another bridge building project just after they re-did the Bay Bridge?
I doubt it

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Be the first to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Premarital and Couples: "Our Deepest Fear" by Marianne Williamson
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,268 views

District elections will be problematic
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 789 views

Oakland Temple rededicated
By Jeb Bing | 2 comments | 348 views


Nominations due by Sept. 16

Pleasanton Weekly and are once again putting out a call for nominations and sponsorships for the annual Tri-Valley Heroes awards - our salute to the community members dedicated to bettering the Tri-Valley and the lives of its residents.

Nomination form