UC Berkeley Earlier Faculty Research Title The Making and Un-Making of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge: A Case in Megaproject Planning and Decisionmaking Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6g7695t8 Author Frick, Karen Trapenberg Publication Date 2005 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The Making and Un-Making of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge: A Case in Megaproject Planning and Decisionmaking by Karen Trapenberg Frick B.A. (University of California, Los Angeles) 1990 M.A. (University of California, Los Angeles) 1992 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy in City and Regional Planning in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Martin Wachs, Chair Professor Elizabeth Deakin Professor Paul Groth Fall 2005 The Making and Un-Making of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge: A Case in Megaproject Planning and Decisionmaking Copyright 2005 by Karen Trapenberg Frick Abstract The Making and Un-Making of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge: A Case in Megaproject Planning and Decisionmaking by Karen Trapenberg Frick Doctor of Philosophy in City and Regional Planning University of California, Berkeley Professor Martin Wachs, Chair After over a decade of debate, construction of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge’s eastern span finally began in 2002 at a current approximate cost estimate of $6 billion. The intense and controversial debate ranged from whether the bridge should be seismically retrofitted or replaced, how it should be designed, where it should be located, and how it should be funded. Decisions on these issues provided fertile ground for a highly contested process as public agencies at every level of government and mobilized groups and citizens participated and significantly altered the decisionmaking process. The design process also signified a fundamental change in how state and regional agencies plan and manage projects of this magnitude. This dissertation provides a detailed history and analysis of the new span’s state and regional decisionmaking processes. To guide this case study of a major transportation infrastructure project (also known as a “megaproject”), the research questions addressed are: What are the key characteristics and issues of debate for a major infrastructure project, such as the new Bay Bridge, and 1 how do these impact policy decisions and project outcomes? These questions were designed to set the Bay Bridge case within a larger theoretical context while at the same time allowing the analysis to be of practical interest. This research contributes to the literature by knitting together the themes of megaproject planning, problem definition, agenda setting and policy implementation, as well as the “technological sublime,” which details how large scale projects capture the public’s attention and imagination. For the analysis, a megaproject typology and a conceptual framework focusing on megaproject characteristics and results are developed and applied to the Bay Bridge case. Lastly, several recurring themes throughout the bridge’s development process are examined, including substantial conflicts over the project’s purpose and definition; varying perceptions of crisis; and, disputes over accountability for cost overruns and delay that impeded the project’s implementation. Chair Date 2 CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi Chapter 1. THE BRIDGE’S MAKING AND UN-MAKING: AN INTRODUCTION 1 Research Approach and Methodology 4 2. A FIELD GUIDE TO MEGAPROJECTS: A LITERATURE RETROSPECTIVE 8 Megaproject Characteristics and Typology 8 Problem Definition, Agenda Setting, and Policy Implementation 14 The Technological Sublime 18 Concluding Remarks 22 3. ALL ROADS LEAD TO A NEW BRIDGE 24 Background on the Bay Bridge 26 Caltrans Wrestles with the East Span’s Seismic Retrofit 29 The Bay Area’s Reaction to the Proposed Bridge Designs 40 Regional Design Process Created: Let the Games Begin 42 Bridge Design: Form and Function 45 State Legislation to Fund the New Bridge 52 30% Design and the Search for the Signature Bridge Continues 55 Observations 66 Project Purpose 67 Caltrans, MTC, and EDAP’s Roles in the Planning Process 73 Perspectives on the Regional Process 76 4. BATTLE OF THE ALIGNMENT 81 Bridge Alignment: Development Central 81 Eastern Terminus on the Oakland Shore 82 East Bay Municipal Utility District and its Sewer Outfall and Facility 84 i Gateway Park 85 Western Terminus on Yerba Buena Island 88 United States Coat Guard’s Base 89 Background on Naval Station Treasure Island 89 Naval Station Treasure Island’s Land Transfers 91 San Francisco’s Plans for Naval Station Treasure Island 92 Bay Bridge Access Ramps to Yerba Buena Island 94 San Francisco and Naval Interests 95 Alignment Conflicts Begin 97 Governor Davis’ Decision on the Bridge Alignment 113 Geotechnical Soil Testing on Yerba Buena Island 117 Uncle Sam to the Rescue 119 After the Land Transfer 126 The Process Overall 128 Participant Perceptions of Motivations 131 Closing Remarks 134 5. PEDDLING FOR A PATHWAY 135 Bicycle Advocacy and Bridges in the Bay Area 137 Pathway Support and Opposition 139 Creation of a Bay Bridge Pathway Committee 142 The Pathway Supporters’ Advocacy Techniques and Strategies 143 Pathway Consideration in the Design Process 147 Pathway Protests 152 West Span Pathway and Study 153 Pathway Advocacy Observations 156 6. THE PURSUIT OF RAIL 159 Rationale and Supporters of Rail Service 160 Consideration of Rail in the Regional Design Process 162 Rail Ballot Measures of 1998 163 Concern for the Environment, Regional Growth and/or Traffic Congestion 170 Nostalgia for the Key System and Interest in a Streamlined Modern Rail Line 171 ii Rail as part of a Broader Agenda 172 Advocates’ Perceptions of MTC and Caltrans’ Motivations 175 Comparison of the Pathway and Rail Advocacy Efforts 176 7. BRIDGE STORY, PART II: AFTER THE LAND TRANSFER 180 $2 Billion Cost Increase in 2001 180 The “Big One” of Cost Increases in 2004 184 Statewide Debate Déjà vu 192 Bay Bridge Aesthetics 194 New Bridge’s Seismic Safety 196 Conflict of Interest/Bias and “Closed Door” Allegations 198 8. SUPPLEMENTING THE MEGAPROJECTS THEME: SYNTHESIS AND OBSERVATIONS 200 Megaproject Characteristics and Results 200 Recurring Themes in the Bay Bridge Case 208 Project Definition Conflicts 208 Crisis 212 Accountability, Blame and Project Delay 215 Future Research 220 ENDNOTES 224 REFERENCES 271 APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS 280 iii ILLUSTRATIONS TABLES Page 3-1 Bay Bridge Corridor: Distribution of Average Weekday Person Trips 28 4-1 Distance between the Nimitz House and Alignment Alternatives 99 EXHIBITS 3-1 1989 Bay Bridge East Span Collapse at Pier E-9 281 3-2 Earthquake Faultlines Near Bay Bridge 282 3-3 Existing San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge 283 3-4 Original Lane Configuration on Existing Bay Bridge 285 3-5 Elevation of Existing Bay Bridge’s East Span 286 3-6 Profile and Geology of the San Francisco Bay 287 3-7 Elevations of Preliminary East Span Alternatives by Caltrans 288 3-8 Elevation of Cable-Stay Bridge, Proposed by Ventry Engineering 289 3-9 Early 1997 East Span Alternatives by Caltrans 290 3-10 Single Tower Cable Stay Bridge Proposal by Professor T.Y. Lin 291 3-11 Workshop Proposal Submittals to MTC (also see Exhibit 3-10) 292 3-12 1953 Butterfly-Wing Bridge Design by Architect Frank Lloyd Wright 302 3-13 Planning and Design Recommendations For the East Span 303 3-14 30% Design Alternatives 305 3-15 MTC Recommended Self-Anchored Suspension Span 308 4-1 Bridge Alignment Alternatives 309 4-2 Port of Oakland’s Planned Expansion Area 310 4-3 Proposed Plans for Gateway Park 311 4-4 Yerba Buena Island’s Existing Land Uses 312 4-5 Historic Buildings on Yerba Buena Island 314 4-6 San Francisco’s 1996 Reuse Plan for Treasure/Yerba Buena Islands 315 4-7 Temporary Detours on Yerba Buena Island 316 4-8 Simulated Views of Proposed Bridge Alignments from the Nimitz House 317 4-9 Northern and Southern Bridge Alignments on Yerba Buena Island 318 4-10 Torpedo Building at Northern Tip of Yerba Buena Island 319 4-11 Signing of Senate Bill 60 of 1997 320 iv 4-12 MTC’s Bay Bridge Task Force 321 4-13 San Francisco’s Southern Alignment and the Sewer Outfall 322 4-14 Land Transferred on Yerba Buena Island 323 5-1 Renderings of Approved Pathway 324 6-1 Some Pathway Supporters Protest in Support of Rail 325 7-1 State-Owned Toll Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program Cost Estimates 326 7-2 Key State Legislation Affecting the Toll Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program 327 7-3 Toll Increases on Bay Area State-owned Toll Bridges 328 7-4 New East Span Groundbreaking, January 2002 329 7-5 New East Span Construction, Fall 2004 330 7-6 Signing of Assembly Bill 144 of 2005 331 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Writing about the new Bay Bridge has been akin to catching a tiger by the tail because the project has been in a continual state of flux and debate. Along the way, several people and resources have provided valuable assistance. Professors Martin Wachs and Elizabeth Deakin have been constant beacons in my academic and professional careers. Martin Wachs cultivated my interests in transportation planning while I was a UCLA student. As my dissertation committee chair and faculty advisor, he has been a source of unlimited encouragement, research guidance, and true inspiration. He initially suggested the bridge topic and for that I am grateful. Elizabeth Deakin demonstrated to me how technical analysis may be interwoven into political debate and analysis while developing a variable toll pricing proposal with other major participants for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. As a dissertation committee member, she provided continual enthusiasm and challenged me to relate the Bay Bridge case to other academic literature.