Bidding and initial construction Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge

construction on skyway in progress @ left in 2004, main span counterweight support columns in place @ right of center

although controversial, authorities decided allow bids include major components , materials not made in united states. partly due cost of materials, , due lack of suitable fabrication facilities within united states, or within western hemisphere. in contrast, china, sas deck components built, has low cost materials producers. other major components produced in japan, owing availability of large steel casting, welding, , machining capabilities. suspender saddles made in england. federal highway funds come made in america restrictions, bridge built without such funds, otherwise qualify owing carriage of interstate 80.

the authorities shocked when opened bids on proposed tower portion , single bid us$1.4 billion received, considerably more estimate of around $780 million. partially because of rise in cost of steel , concrete, particularly result of concurrent building boom in china, due construction uncertainties owing innovative design. entire project, requiring 100,000 tons of structural steel, expected cost $6.2 billion of july 2005, 1997 estimate of $1.1 billion (for simple viaduct) , march 2003 estimate of $2.6 billion included tower span. despite increase in costs, construction began on replacement on january 29, 2002, completion slated 2007. span opened on september 2, 2013.

removal of signature span

on september 30, 2004, office of governor arnold schwarzenegger announced that, without sufficient funds authorized legislature, bid must allowed expire. was, @ time, unclear if require redesign obtain less expensive span.

six alternative proposals in 2004

on december 10, 2004, governor s office announced signature span concept had been scrapped, bridge simple viaduct proposed. design, having gone full circle, remained expensive due continued high cost of materials. many argued there little difference in final cost lesser proposal since concept required obtaining new permits, perhaps adding 2 or 3 years; furthermore, viaduct may not able obtain coast guard approval, since maximum width of ship channel reduced half. local reaction announcement intense, suggesting bridge built appear proposed — either in steel material bid or using reinforced concrete tower of similar appearance of lower cost.

reinstatement of original design

the standpoint of pro- signature bridge activists , regional politicians reinforced legislative analyst s report in late january 2005. report indicated, due additional time delays , new permitting requirements, governor s viaduct proposal cost additional funding , take longer complete proposed signature span. view reinforced further report in march 2005 indicating delay imposed governor had added @ least $100 million expected cost (subsequently modified $83 million in december 2005 report).

the design controversy continued on 6 months. in essence, governor believed entire state should not share in costs of building bridge, considered local problem. northern californians pointed out when southern portions of state experienced disasters, state supported rebuilding, seen in earthquake rebuilding of freeways , subsequent seismic retrofit of state freeway structures , bridges. since objective of replacement of eastern span prevent necessity of complete rebuilding after large earthquake, bay area residents felt justified in call state support.

a compromise announced on june 24, 2005 governor schwarzenegger. governor said , state senate president pro tempore don perata had reached agreement resurrect plans signature span. cost estimates of contract deferral expenses , inflation range attributable delay have ranged $400 million. direct costs due cessation of work included dismantling of temporary structures , reconstruction upon subsequent restart.

after being approved legislature, compromise legislation authored senator loni hancock signed governor on july 18, 2005. compromise called state contribute $630 million cover $3.6 billion in cost overruns, , bridge tolls raised $4 starting in 2007. @ time of signing, skyway portion of bridge 75 percent complete , state beginning prepare put suspension span out new bids. entire project scheduled completed in 2013 @ estimated cost of $6.3 billion, not counting demolition of old span.

in january 2006, costs main structure steelwork determined $400 million in excess of these expectations. new bids main span opened on march 22, 2006, 2 submissions @ 1.43 , 1.6 billion usd. owing reserves built $3.00 toll during delay, suggested authorities additional tolls exceeding $4.00 not required, due added costs in other portions due delay , cost of restarting main span foundation work, eventual toll of $5.00 expected. (the toll collected in westbound direction.) low bid joint venture of american bridge , fluor corp., named american bridge-fluor, accepted on april 19, 2006.