Here are some of the most frequently asked questions regarding the proposed bridge across the estuary.
1. What problem is this bridge trying to solve?
State Route 260 (the Posey Tube) offers extremely limited and substandard access for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling across the estuary. As the only access point for miles in either direction, this deficiency negatively impacts the environment, health, and economies of the communities on both sides of the estuary. In addition, more housing is increasing the pressure for more cross-estuary access. It will also improve disaster preparedness for Alameda by offering an additional cross-estuary option in the event of an emergency.
2. Is a bike and pedestrian bridge even possible here?
Yes. The Coast Guard green-lighted further study of the proposed design in 2021, which was a key approval. The bridge is listed in several regional transportation plans. Currently, an in-depth county-funded study (a “Project Initiation Document”) is under way, expected to be complete in early 2024.
3. Will the Port of Oakland and container ship traffic be an issue?
No. Proposed crossings would be east of the port, so container ship traffic is not an issue. The Port is supportive of the bridge effort.
4. Will a bridge impede recreational sailboat traffic?
The study under way right now is looking to find designs and alignments that best balance a broad range of considerations and usability factors, marine navigability among them, as shown in this slide from the most recent presentation:
The three top-scoring candidate designs are drawbridges that are low (40′ above the water in their closed position). Taller sailboats would not have unimpeded access with these designs, but smaller sailboats and watercraft would not be impacted. As we understand it, there will likely be a schedule of regular openings, with an aim of giving all users — whether crossing the bridge or going under it — decent and predictable access.
5. How much does it cost? Can Alameda (or Oakland) afford it?
The first bridge design was estimated to cost around $200M to build. While that seems like a big number, it’s important to keep it in context. Transportation infrastructure is expensive. The Oakland Access Alameda Project (OAAP) is $150M, and it only improves the Tubes and local roads, with much less overall impact on access and mobility than the bridge.
This estimate may be reduced if the design of the bridge changes, something being looked at as part of the engineering study that’s under way. This estimate was based on a design that meets the Coast Guard’s default specifications, not this specific situation.
A final thing to keep in mind is that like all other bridges around Alameda, this bridge would be county, state, and/or federally funded. City general funds won’t be used — it’s considered regional infrastructure, not city infrastructure. Even the study underway right now is county funded.
- Short term: Tube improvements, i.e., smoothing the path and adding a few inches of width (complete as of 08/2016). Note: There will likely be improvements to the sidewalk in the Webster Tube, too, as part of the Oakland Alameda Access Project. These upgrades will not bring the experience up to standard, though.
- Mid-term: Water shuttle (a 2-year pilot is scheduled to start in 2024).
- Long-term: Bike and pedestrian moveable bridge.
More recent studies looked again at alternatives and essentially confirmed this direction.
On the very distant horizon is BART (2040 earliest), too, with an underground station in West Alameda.
7. Why can’t we build a car bridge with bike lanes on it, or at least include transit lanes on this bike and pedestrian bridge?
The very significant environmental impacts of a car bridge here would not be acceptable. Car infrastructure takes up a lot of extremely limited physical space and would require significant displacement, not acceptable either. Further, Oakland is not interested in more car traffic from Alameda.
Additionally, in recent years, there’s been a clearer understanding around the concept of induced demand, which basically tells us that we can’t solve our car congestion problems with more car infrastructure — we just fill it back up not long after it’s built, and are back to congestion again not long after build out, an extremely wasteful proposition. Alternatives that allow people to make different choices (transit, walking, biking) are more effective.
New car infrastructure is just not in Alameda’s future.
The bike and pedestrian bridge, on the other hand, will improve mobility with a much smaller physical and environmental footprint. Oakland welcomes it and is a partner in the project.
While adding transit sounds like a good idea, it would make this project dramatically more complex and expensive, and has been deemed infeasible. Pursuing bus rapid transit lanes through the tubes might be a better way to improve transit here, and of course, there’s potentially BART in the future.
8. How many people will use this bridge?
The 2021 Travel Demand Analysis estimates 35,000 – 42,000 pedestrian and bicycle trips per week.
9. I’m not a bicyclist (or a walker) and would never use this. Why do I care?
- You’ll benefit from others not driving, and choosing to bicycle (or walk) instead: lighter traffic, easier parking, etc.
- Fewer people driving means better air quality, so you’ll breathe easier, have better water quality, help marine life, and reduce carbon emissions.
- Greater independence for family members who don’t drive. If you have kids, you won’t have to shuttle them around as much. They can get to Jack London Square or BART on their own, or if you are in Oakland, they can get to Alameda’s sports fields and beach on their own.
- If you are a business, you will see more customers — there are lots of unique businesses and events on both sides of the estuary that aren’t getting the patronage they deserve because people can’t easily get to them. To boot, because your new patrons will likely be bicyclists, and bicyclists tend to spend more at local businesses, you’ll be attracting an ideal demographic. If you employ bicycle commuters, you’ll find they take fewer sick days. If you are an employer looking to hire, better access makes recruiting easier.
10. A water shuttle seems sufficient, why not just do that?
The water shuttle will help, and a pilot is in the works starting in 2024, but it will offer only limited service, and it’s viewed only as an interim solution. It’s not the 24x7x365 access that’s needed. If it were, the operational costs would exceed the bridge’s operational costs significantly (estimated at $12M/year, and future mandates for electric will make it even more expensive). A water shuttle won’t move nearly as many people as a bridge. A water shuttle is transit, which means disruptions in service are possible. We’ve had both ground shuttles and water shuttles in the past, and both were abandoned for various reasons. There’s a reason a water shuttle was listed as the mid-term, and not the long-term (ideal) solution: it helps, but it’s not enough.
We’re hoping for the 2-year pilot to be approved and extended at least until the bridge is operational.
******
Want to learn more? The study website is https://estuarybridge.org/, and our own page is here: https://bikewalkalameda.org/estuary-crossing/.
