Reply #11: And they are now threatening to remove the bike path

[CAcyclist]

The bike path is only going to add a nominal cost compared to the overall cost and has absolutely nothing to do with the cost overruns and delays.

This is my reply to Senator Speier when she wrote me a letter stating that she would no longer support a bike path on this bridge.


12/21/04

Senator Jackie Speier
400 South El Camino Real, Suite 630
San Mateo, CA 94402


RE:Bike Path on the Bay Bridge

Dear Senator Speier,

I beg you to reconsider your decision not to support a bike path. This is not an amenity:it is a necessity for cyclists.

If everyone in America is equal and if bicyclists have all the rights and responsibilities of motorists and equal rights to access, as is codified in state and federal law, then this bike path is merely a rectification of illegal denial of access.

Federal money cannot be used for transportation projects that negatively affect cyclists. By perpetuating the existing negative effect, it can be argued that failing to provide a bike path would violate this rule.

There is no other reliably available means of access for cyclists from the East Bay to SF and back. Buses run infrequently, BART restricts access during commute hours and BART doesn’t run 24 hours. I, myself, was forced to take a taxi at a cost of $40 from the Transbay Terminal to the East Bay last year during the Thanksgiving Day holiday as I was trying to catch Amtrak down to Bakersfield, because I missed the bus that would take me over to the east bay. I was doing this trip partly by bike and the rest by public transportation and could have ridden my bike across the bay bridge to my destination if that had been legal.

The cost overruns and delays on this bridge have nothing to do with the bike path, as you well know, and I am very disappointed that you would use this as an excuse.


Sincerely,

Dani Weber