If anyone is interested in tracking the development of the possible bike-ped bridge to connect Oakland to Alameda, read this twitter thread. There are pictures and everything. The big takeaway which we all should have known is, this is going to be tricky:
We know it’s going to be tricky because of the needs of the Coast Guard but even the approaches to the bridge will require some creativity. Even though the Western corridor is the shortest I can see that one getting the most push back because of the proximity to housing on the Alameda side and, I think the Oakland side ends at Cost Plus which is not terrible but probably the most uninteresting part of Jack London Square, The Eastern and Central Corridors are pretty close to the new bike trail through Jean Sweeney park which is nice but the approach on the Alameda side to the bridge on the Central Corridor looks weird. I think the Eastern Corridor might be the most straight forward of all the options but I think it lands in an area of Oakland which doesn’t have the greatest bike infrastructure but I haven’t been that way in a long time so maybe it’s changed.
Anyway it’s a great thread and, well, there’s a long way to go.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
This is the Biden Agenda: use the war in Ukraine to distract us from the hordes of drug dealers biking over this “bridge” that we can’t afford because of Hillary Hyperinflation which is getting so bad that Surf City no longer can provide the promised two-girls-for-every-boy but we’ll never be able to get there anyway because Big Green is going to take our cars & give them to the illegals so they can bring Newsom’s fentanyl even faster, though none of this would have ever been a problem if not for Voter Fraud, by which I mean “VOTER FRAUD” and you know what that means…
Comment by Realest Observer — February 23, 2023 @ 7:02 am
Bravo good sir or madam!
Comment by Rod — February 23, 2023 @ 9:44 am
Is this satire? Seems too unhinged to be anything else besides satire. Are you ok? Please seek help
Comment by concerned citizen — February 27, 2023 @ 5:26 pm
I think there are people that just wake up and say to themselves “Where can I post utter nonsense”
Comment by Ron Mooney — February 23, 2023 @ 8:37 am
Looking forward to the bikers comments …
Eastern looks pretty good, but both Central and Western seem tucked away at both sides, but if this happens it may open up the areas to more placemaking.
Side note … anyone really thinking A’s ballpark is going to happen?
Comment by Ron Mooney — February 23, 2023 @ 8:43 am
Nope.
Comment by . — February 23, 2023 @ 9:15 am
post #1, I can read and understand the English language, maybe not always!!. I would favor the Eastern, its more centrally located and ends in a nice Park on the Oakland side. the A’s ballpark, “NO”.
Comment by John P. — February 23, 2023 @ 9:22 am
The Western Alameda-side is actually an easement seaside specifically for the bridge. Theoretically, those homeowners bought knowing this. It also has the densest residential and commercial on the alameda-side.
Comment by Lucy — February 23, 2023 @ 9:23 am
In my opinion (in case the A’s ever ask me) the existing Coliseum site is the better location. Already has freeway & BART, and over 100 acres of parking, which can & should be reduced to add housing. It would not hinder port traffic the way Howard Terminal would 80+ times a year and infrastructure costs would be lower.
I’m a big A’s fan, but what they are asking, or rather DEMANDING, of Oakland is both unconscionable and fiscally impossible. Compare this situation to SF & the Giants:
The Giants like to say they built Oracle without subsidy which isn’t really true, but SF only put down about $80MM in land & infrastructure, the inflation adjusted value of which is approx 130MM. Oakland has offered about 400M, which is already a foolish amount for a city beset by such troubles, while the A’s are demanding double that. Note that SF is more than twice as large, had then and has now a much wealthier population, and most importantly is a combined city/county, which greatly increases taxing power. Subsidizing a sports team almost never pans out for the cities that do it. SF is a rare exception, and remember that SF’s voters told the Giants no at the ballot box twice before.
Oakland can & should proceed with residential development in the area, which can & should happen without a ballpark, no matter how many times the A’s keep repeating that lie. The value of a few thousand housing units will be at least as great as a ballpark, and will generate more property tax revenue than a park would. Oakland is much more likely to recoup its infrastructure investment by housing only, and even if it’s not “profitable” vs. tax expenditure, it’s a still a far better use of tax dollars than helping a billionaire get even richer.
If they do build a park at Howard, I will go to games, but if it’s built with the outsize subsidy, I’ll never agree that it was a good idea for Oakland.
All that said, I think they stay in Oakland, one way or another. Vegas is a much smaller media market with a lower per capita income, and will struggle with attendance for a summer sport in a town where the local industry does not want tourists leaving the slot machines for a 4 hour game. And even if they do leave Oakland, there are greener pastures than Vegas, such as Portland or Sacramento. Vegas is just not viable, and even the A’s have trouble keeping a straight face when they say it is.
Comment by dave — February 23, 2023 @ 10:07 am