Nope, adding a deck like that for the added bikes would be more than 20 million. Although, this is a pretty "hefty" price tag for what they are doing...? It is more interesting to me, what that number contains, and how it was derived?

I have problems with all of these "take a lane" schemes, and not counting the effects on congestion, travel times, fuel use, and emissions from these schemes. One really has to do both sides of the equation to see if the "cost benefit" is positive, and/or improves the "public good". And, as I've noted, much of this "new urbanist" "touchy feely" "kumbaya" "math free" planning is utter nonsense, that does not calculate the negative impacts, like more congestion, travel delay costs, increased fuel use, and resultant increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

This lack of consideration for all of these complex factors, as the editorial rightly says, is a real problem. Are the benefits really worth the costs?

These bike lanes being barrier separated are, however, much safer. As opposed to "take a lane" "road diet" bike lanes on surface streets, with only striping to protect them, which have almost no observed data to support the "claims", by bike "advocates", of improved "safety" for cyclist's using them (that actually shows fewer accidents per bike mile traveled on such facilities???). I

But, so far, in this discussion, only one person here has offered the actual solution to diminishing mobility, from increasing congestion (which actually decreases the vehicle "flow rates" and actually reduces the "capacity" of the lanes) in the face of increasing demand... More capacity... And, this should also include looking at a direct rail link for SMART to cross the bridge, and make connections to the Capital Corridor and BART...