If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   When asked why the bike path cost $9.4 million, the Bay Area Toll Authority replied that they couldn't justify spending more because the bike path is only temporary and they'll be destroying it in a few months   (sfgate.com) divider line 158
    More: Stupid, Bay Bridge, Bikeway, Bay Area Toll Authority  
•       •       •

7997 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Mar 2014 at 9:31 PM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-24 07:59:43 PM  
I have never, ever had as much sympathy for Tea Partiers as when I was reading Caltrain's ~40-year development plan.

So yeah, this makes an average amount of sense for CA.
 
2014-03-24 08:35:24 PM  
Pay privates contractors to....oh wait.......
 
2014-03-24 08:58:35 PM  

cretinbob: Pay privates contractors to....oh wait.......


I WAS IN THE POOL!
 
2014-03-24 09:35:38 PM  
Thank godparticle liberals run SF so such fiscal irresponsibility is avoided.
 
2014-03-24 09:39:54 PM  

OnlyM3: Thank godparticle liberals run SF so such fiscal irresponsibility is avoided.


It just goes to show that ten million dollars isn't a lot of money.
 
2014-03-24 09:40:39 PM  
They could have build the bike path out of 9.4 million dollars in ones, then redeposited the money when the more permanent solution was done.
 
2014-03-24 09:43:48 PM  
Oh no, they spent 0.1% of the total cost of the new Bay Bridge to build a temporary bike path to connect to it? THE HORROR
 
2014-03-24 09:44:02 PM  
One of the SanFran Supervisors is a farker.
 
2014-03-24 09:44:10 PM  

img2u.info

"Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?"

 
2014-03-24 09:44:50 PM  
... and wrong thread.

Ugh.
 
2014-03-24 09:45:07 PM  
FTA: "This bridge has always been about access for all kinds of travel modes, not just automobiles"

Finally, someplace to test drive my flying car...that's if I ever get one.
 
2014-03-24 09:45:59 PM  
Because California.
 
2014-03-24 09:46:12 PM  

skinink: They could have build the bike path out of 9.4 million dollars in ones, then redeposited the money when the more permanent solution was done.


Well they did do it for less, then they got sued for doing it on the cheap so then it cost more.
 
2014-03-24 09:46:38 PM  
Well I can see it costing that much, especially since they are building it on a bridge. The only problem I have is why did they build it now if it is only going to be torn up and rebuilt in a few months? Why didn't they just wait to build it when they could make it permanent? Was it a budget thing where they had to have the money scheduled to be spent by the end of the year or lose it in the next years budget?
 
rpm
2014-03-24 09:46:45 PM  

MrEricSir: Oh no, they spent 0.1% of the total cost of the new Bay Bridge to build a temporary bike path to connect to it? THE HORROR


At a cost per crossing of more than $15 each. Might've been cheaper to hire a taxi to get people across the bridge.
 
2014-03-24 09:48:12 PM  

LesserEvil: ... and wrong thread.

Ugh.


Still works for this thread, in a way.
 
2014-03-24 09:49:31 PM  

skinink: They could have build the bike path out of 9.4 million dollars in ones, then redeposited the money when the more permanent solution was done.


Hell I bet you could build a nice bridge welding together 940 million pennies.
 
2014-03-24 09:50:54 PM  

Russ1642: OnlyM3: Thank godparticle liberals run SF so such fiscal irresponsibility is avoided.

It just goes to show that ten million dollars isn't a lot of money.


I wouldn't turn my nose up at it. So if you are in the giving mood, send it my way.
 
2014-03-24 09:51:22 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: LesserEvil: ... and wrong thread.

Ugh.

Still works for this thread, in a way.


Objection overruled, let's see where he goes with it.
 
2014-03-24 09:51:30 PM  

netcentric: One of the SanFran Supervisors is a farker.


Man, they ALL farkers.
 
2014-03-24 09:52:06 PM  

MrEricSir: Oh no, they spent 0.1% of the total cost of the new Bay Bridge to build a temporary bike path to connect to it? THE HORROR


It's thinking like that which causes government to be so expensive and wasteful.    While they were at it, why didn't they hire someone to hand out bottled water to the bikers as well?  I'm sure that would be very expensive compared to the price of the whole bridge.  And it wouldn't be any more wasteful because despite what he says about donating the remnants, it's most likely going to end up in a landfill.

It's like people in my town who want all the railroad crossings to be elevated because they don't like getting stuck at railroad crossings or the horn blows too loudly.  Forget that the railroad has been going through town for a hundred years.  It can't be that expensive, can it?   Hey, why not make the railroad bypass our town completely?  It shouldn't cost the railroad too much compared to their annual revenue!
 
2014-03-24 09:53:16 PM  

cretinbob: Pay privates contractors to....oh wait.......


Honestly, given that this involved building a bridge that spanned the bay, the $9.4m price tag probably isn't that extreme.  The bigger issue is the stupidity of government officials actually issuing the contract in the first place, knowing that it would only last for 7 months.
 
2014-03-24 09:53:17 PM  

MrEricSir: Oh no, they spent 0.1% of the total cost of the new Bay Bridge to build a temporary bike path to connect to it? THE HORROR


Do a quick read on the history of that bridge. The amount of money blown in its construction and the political nonsense behind it is mind boggling.
 
2014-03-24 09:55:04 PM  
Bay Area Troll Authority?
 
2014-03-24 09:58:27 PM  

MrEricSir: Oh no, they spent 0.1% of the total cost of the new Bay Bridge to build a temporary bike path to connect to it? THE HORROR


Are you for real?
 
2014-03-24 09:58:52 PM  

Great Justice: Bay Area Troll Authority?


It is a bridge.

/and we all know who lives under bridges
 
2014-03-24 10:00:47 PM  
Trolly headline is trolly.

"The Bay Area Toll Authority spent $9.4 million to build a temporary entrance so the Bay Bridge's bike path could be ready when the new eastern span opened to [vehicular] traffic in September." ""This bridge has always been about access for all kinds of travel modes, not just automobiles," he said. "And if we were going to get cars on the bridge by Labor Day, then why shouldn't we get bikers and walkers on at the same time?"

Translation: they spent the extra money, knowing full well it was a temporary act, so that cyclists didn't have to wait to be able to use the bridge.

OnlyM3: Thank godparticle liberals run SF so such fiscal irresponsibility is avoided.


You're an idiot.
 
2014-03-24 10:01:07 PM  
"This bridge has always been about access for all kinds of travel modes, not just automobiles," he said. "And if we were going to get cars on the bridge by Labor Day, then why shouldn't we get bikers and walkers on at the same time?"

Why? Because costs vs. benefits is a real thing.
 
2014-03-24 10:02:24 PM  

MrEricSir: Oh no, they spent 0.1% of the total cost of the new Bay Bridge to build a temporary bike path to connect to it? THE HORROR


That could have paid for a lot of gruel for limbless minority orphans you insensitive clod
 
2014-03-24 10:02:45 PM  
What possibly cost $9 million? There are 4 lane highways around here that didn't cost that much. Were they using gold bricks, or something?
 
2014-03-24 10:03:12 PM  

gfid: MrEricSir: Oh no, they spent 0.1% of the total cost of the new Bay Bridge to build a temporary bike path to connect to it? THE HORROR

It's thinking like that which causes government to be so expensive and wasteful.    While they were at it, why didn't they hire someone to hand out bottled water to the bikers as well?  I'm sure that would be very expensive compared to the price of the whole bridge.  And it wouldn't be any more wasteful because despite what he says about donating the remnants, it's most likely going to end up in a landfill.

It's like people in my town who want all the railroad crossings to be elevated because they don't like getting stuck at railroad crossings or the horn blows too loudly.  Forget that the railroad has been going through town for a hundred years.  It can't be that expensive, can it?   Hey, why not make the railroad bypass our town completely?  It shouldn't cost the railroad too much compared to their annual revenue!


"Thinking like that" aka comparing numbers to other numbers? Come on. Numbers don't mean anything in isolation.

Point is, anyone who's getting pissed about a $9 million temporary bike path on a $6 billion bridge is the physical embodiment of the phrase "penny wise and pound foolish."
 
2014-03-24 10:05:28 PM  

MrEricSir: gfid: MrEricSir: Oh no, they spent 0.1% of the total cost of the new Bay Bridge to build a temporary bike path to connect to it? THE HORROR

It's thinking like that which causes government to be so expensive and wasteful.    While they were at it, why didn't they hire someone to hand out bottled water to the bikers as well?  I'm sure that would be very expensive compared to the price of the whole bridge.  And it wouldn't be any more wasteful because despite what he says about donating the remnants, it's most likely going to end up in a landfill.

It's like people in my town who want all the railroad crossings to be elevated because they don't like getting stuck at railroad crossings or the horn blows too loudly.  Forget that the railroad has been going through town for a hundred years.  It can't be that expensive, can it?   Hey, why not make the railroad bypass our town completely?  It shouldn't cost the railroad too much compared to their annual revenue!

"Thinking like that" aka comparing numbers to other numbers? Come on. Numbers don't mean anything in isolation.

Point is, anyone who's getting pissed about a $9 million temporary bike path on a $6 billion bridge is the physical embodiment of the phrase "penny wise and pound foolish."


As I am reading it, it appears that they could have waited seven months and not spent that $9 million at all. Am I wrong about that, or are you an idiot?
 
2014-03-24 10:05:43 PM  
It cost $30 million to paint the bridge.

Maybe they should just blow the thing up?

Or, you know, keep it and pay for a structure that generates billions of tourist dollars for SF.
 
2014-03-24 10:05:59 PM  

DubtodaIll: Well they did do it for less, then they got sued for doing it on the cheap so then it cost more.


Yup.  Just read down further in the article.  Bicyclist sued Oakland for $3.25 million for a severe accident caused by a pothole.

They can't just slap something together quickly because of lawyers.
 
2014-03-24 10:07:04 PM  

rpm: MrEricSir: Oh no, they spent 0.1% of the total cost of the new Bay Bridge to build a temporary bike path to connect to it? THE HORROR

At a cost per crossing of more than $15 each. Might've been cheaper to hire a taxi to get people across the bridge.


Joke's on you -- you can't get the whole way across the bridge on that bike path. It only goes to the middle, Treasure Island.

/Yarrrr
 
2014-03-24 10:07:05 PM  

Russ1642: OnlyM3: Thank godparticle liberals run SF so such fiscal irresponsibility is avoided.

It just goes to show that ten million dollars isn't a lot of money.


s7.postimg.org
 
2014-03-24 10:07:50 PM  
It will stimulate spending while producing nothing, so Keynes would approve. After all, recessions are caused by overproduction. Parasites will fix our economy; we just need more of them.
 
2014-03-24 10:08:52 PM  

MrEricSir: Oh no, they spent 0.1% of the total cost of the new Bay Bridge to build a temporary bike path to connect to it? THE HORROR


Hi!

I used to do heavy construction for a living.  I've been the project manager for a few bridge jobs.  For that much money you could replace 2-3 full sized car bridges.  And they spent that much on a short lived (months) temp. structure.

I don't care how much the full project is.   That's farking wasteful.
 
2014-03-24 10:09:01 PM  
More people should have cow-catchers on front of their Chevy Suburbans.
 
2014-03-24 10:09:08 PM  

gfid: It's thinking like that which causes government to be so expensive and wasteful.


static.guim.co.uk

Government is expensive no matter who does the thinking. It's too bad it was spent on a well-constructed half mile wooden bridge people actually used for months instead of some politicians. Nine million is a lot of other people's money, but at least no one was quoted as saying, regarding the spending of such a chunk of money, "I have no idea. I can't tell you whether or not the money went to the right things or didn't - nor do I actually think it's important." -Bremer's financial adviser, retired Admiral David Oliver (regarding the 12 Billion dollars in cash dropped in Iraq)
 
2014-03-24 10:10:01 PM  

flak attack: cretinbob: Pay privates contractors to....oh wait.......

Honestly, given that this involved building a bridge that spanned the bay, the $9.4m price tag probably isn't that extreme.  The bigger issue is the stupidity of government officials actually issuing the contract in the first place, knowing that it would only last for 7 months.


We recently had our bridge bridge replaced and a temporary footbridge had to be erected. The span was about 100m and I beleve the cost of the temp bridge was $30k
BTW, the bridge was over cost and poorly desiged. It has a center pier which has turned into a huge snag that's nearly dammed the entire river.
 
2014-03-24 10:10:37 PM  
Source for my post: Link
 
2014-03-24 10:15:37 PM  
This is what was decided Wednesday in my place. Everyone all around is excited; you can barely find anyone opposed.

http://www.keysnet.com/2014/03/22/495608/rehabilitation-of-the-old-s ev en.html?sp=/99/106/
 
2014-03-24 10:16:35 PM  

YixilTesiphon: MrEricSir: gfid: MrEricSir: Oh no, they spent 0.1% of the total cost of the new Bay Bridge to build a temporary bike path to connect to it? THE HORROR

It's thinking like that which causes government to be so expensive and wasteful.    While they were at it, why didn't they hire someone to hand out bottled water to the bikers as well?  I'm sure that would be very expensive compared to the price of the whole bridge.  And it wouldn't be any more wasteful because despite what he says about donating the remnants, it's most likely going to end up in a landfill.

It's like people in my town who want all the railroad crossings to be elevated because they don't like getting stuck at railroad crossings or the horn blows too loudly.  Forget that the railroad has been going through town for a hundred years.  It can't be that expensive, can it?   Hey, why not make the railroad bypass our town completely?  It shouldn't cost the railroad too much compared to their annual revenue!

"Thinking like that" aka comparing numbers to other numbers? Come on. Numbers don't mean anything in isolation.

Point is, anyone who's getting pissed about a $9 million temporary bike path on a $6 billion bridge is the physical embodiment of the phrase "penny wise and pound foolish."

As I am reading it, it appears that they could have waited seven months and not spent that $9 million at all. Am I wrong about that, or are you an idiot?


Did you make the same argument about the S-Curve, or are you hilariously poor with numbers?
 
2014-03-24 10:16:57 PM  
Ten foot wide, 20-30 foot engineered segments, footings and posts. I can see several million, but I'd bet some of that cost is in the permanent path.
 
2014-03-24 10:19:32 PM  

MrEricSir: "Thinking like that" aka comparing numbers to other numbers? Come on. Numbers don't mean anything in isolation.


Uh, the numbers are in dollars.  People have a concept of what dollars mean in their own budgets.  They're not taken in isolation.

Point is, anyone who's getting pissed about a $9 million temporary bike path on a $6 billion bridge is the physical embodiment of the phrase "penny wise and pound foolish."

I bet you could save any city the size of SF a billion dollars by finding `100 similarly wasteful projects, but compared to entire budget for the city, that's problem counting pennies to you.

And you suggesting it would have been "pound wise" to just not build the bridge at all? Being penny wise and pound foolish would be building a bridge too small (to save money now) so that it would be completely useless in 5 years and they'd have to build a whole new one.

I'm sure you don't ever get upset at wasteful government spending, right?  Each piece of thebudget is just a drop in the bucket.
 
2014-03-24 10:22:07 PM  
That happens all the time all over the country.  How come nobody complains when they temporarily restripe lanes or build temporary onramps, offramps or railroad crossings during the course of road widenings or grade separation construction?
 
2014-03-24 10:24:30 PM  

gfid: And you suggesting it would have been "pound wise" to just not build the bridge at all? Being penny wise and pound foolish would be building a bridge too small (to save money now) so that it would be completely useless in 5 years and they'd have to build a whole new one.


So you have no clue why we spent 20 years building an obscenely overpriced bridge but felt compelled to weigh in anyhow. Uh, thanks for spreading the gospel of your ignorance over the internet, I guess!
 
2014-03-24 10:25:33 PM  

wildcardjack: Ten foot wide, 20-30 foot engineered segments, footings and posts. I can see several million, but I'd bet some of that cost is in the permanent path.


the approaches and abutments? could be
 
2014-03-24 10:26:50 PM  

UsikFark: Government is expensive no matter who does the thinking. It's too bad it was spent on a well-constructed half mile wooden bridge people actually used for months instead of some politicians. Nine million is a lot of other people's money, but at least no one was quoted as saying, regarding the spending of such a chunk of money, "I have no idea. I can't tell you whether or not the money went to the right things or didn't - nor do I actually think it's important." -Bremer's financial adviser, retired Admiral David Oliver (regarding the 12 Billion dollars in cash dropped in Iraq)


That's another example of wasteful government spending.  i'm sure That Eric would look at the cost of the entire Iraq war and tell you that it's 0.1% of the entire budget to it doesn't matter.

Let's say you make $100,000 a year.  0.1% of your anual income is $100.  If you lose $100, it's not going to break you, but do you see people making $100,000 a year tossing $100 around like it's nothing?

Scale it down, if you will.  You make half that and support a wife and 2 kids with a mortgage.  Are you going to burn $50 bills to light your cigars?
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report