[Carfreeliving] treasure island

[Joshua Switzky]

I know this is blasphemous, but I support charging a toll for bikes/peds on
a west span bridge path, to partially offset the cost of construction,
until the path is paid off, rather than waiting until kingdom come for this
entire chunk of money to fall out of the sky. If you charged $1 each way,
you could offset probably 1/4 to 1/2 the cost of the bridge in less than 50
years, although probably sooner. Or you could charge $2 one way, and you'd
get a lot of tourists and recreationists doing a bridge-ferry bike/walk
loop between SF and TI. Plus you could tack on an extra $1 to auto toll for
cars leaving TI to subsidize the path as well. These revenue ideas should
really be purused seriously, or this whole bridge path is a fantasy I
think.

Anyone have any estimates on the daily ped/bike crossings on the GG Bridge?
Are there any estimates about usage for the Bay Bridge?



                                                                           
             dave at livablecity.                                             
             org                                                           
             Sent by:                                                   To 
             Carfreeliving-bou         carfreeliving at livablecity.org       
             nces at livablecity.                                          cc 
             org                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: [Carfreeliving] treasure island 
             12/20/2005 11:25                                              
             AM                                                            
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




T.I. could be a wonderful car-free development, but the challenges are as
great
as the benefits. Residents on a car-free Treasure Island could enjoy a
complete
lack of roads, their housing linked throughout by trails. Gardens would
abound.
There would be no car noise. However, transit access to the island would be
difficult, as it would be expensive per trip for such an isolated
development.
Shared cars at the entrance to the island would be a good supplement to
infrequent transit service. As soon as you let in some cars for access
within
the island, you've lost much of the benefit of a car-free development.
However,
to completely restrict cars would limit the attractiveness of living there
for
most potential residents. A better way than a massive extraction from
developers to pay for transit and the ped/bike/maintenance path would be a
high
toll at the entrance to the island. This would also discourage car use,
obviously.

The more I think about it, the more I think that it's not a good place for
residential development. A better use would be for recreation and wetlands.
Let
Mills Corp. put their sports complex on Treasure Island, accessible only by
transit from the Ferry Building, Sausalito, and Oakland. Daytime-only ferry
service to a major attraction would actually be cost-effective compared to
24/7
service for everyday multiple uses. People wouldn't lose their homes when
sea
levels rise. Use Piers 27-31, and much of the rest of the waterfront, for
that
matter, for high-density housing. This would require changing the state
code,
but if you allow public pedestrian access to the waterfront I think that
waterfront residential better preserves the bayfront for public use than a
massive car-dependent recreational attraction at Piers 27-31.

I'm agnostic on the pedestrian/bicycle/maintenance path to T.I. from San
Francisco. Under either scenario, such a path would be extremely popular,
absolutely gorgeous, and socially important. For the $200-300 million it's
expected to cost, I can think of many more beneficial uses, including
converting the bridge per Jason's "out of the box" ideas. If the San
Francisco
bicycle network were fully funded at a cost of only $50-100 million, I
would be
happier about the $200-300 million for the path. We need both. Remember
that
amortized over its life, considering savings on maintenance made possible
by
the path, the total cost is much less.

Dave

_______________________________________________
Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list
to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF
To unsubscribe:
mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe
or, for all options, go to:
http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org