Meg-projects are often captivating to political leaders and the public because of their colossal size and the technical hurdles they overcome. This feature of major infrastructure in the landscape has been termed the 'technological sublime' (Marx, 1964; 2000; Nye, 1994). This chapter uses the concept of the sublime to contribute a new dimension to understanding the evolution of mega-project design and optimism bias. The case of the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in Northern California is used to demonstrate how the technological sublime dramatically influenced bridge design, project outcomes, public debate, and the lack of accountability for its excessive cost overruns.

According to David Nye (1994: vxi), the technological sublime 'is about repeated experiences of awe and wonder, often tinged with an element of terror, which people have had when confronted with particular natural sites, architectural forms, and technological achievements.' In the Bay Bridge case, the goal of developing a sublime, new structure became the focal point of the public debate and drove the design and funding process. The project's initial purpose was to replace the bridge's east span, which collapsed during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Debate focused on designing a 'signature' bridge - a bridge that signifies the technological and aesthetic triumph of the region over the San Francisco Bay, a geologically complicated body of water, and thereby leave a unique signature on the landscape. This daring ingenuity spoke to the interest of many in the Bay Area, but not all, to create a sublime new bridge. The concept of the 'technological sublime' provides a theoretical context for interpreting underlying motivations, optimism, and rhetoric of political leaders and participants advocating for not only a mega-project, but a 'mega-landmark.' The basis for the analysis is the results of in-depth interviews with approximately 45 key participants and extensive review of project-related documents and media accounts.

First, the background on mega-project characteristics and the technological sublime is reviewed. Then an overview of the existing Bay Bridge and the design process for the new bridge is provided. The chapter concludes with observations about the impact of the technological sublime on the planning process, project design and implementation, as well as implications for analyses of other mega-projects.

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 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.

In this paper we use a case study approach to examine how airport operators are addressing bicycle access to their properties and the motivations and obstacles they face, in light of new policies to integrate bicycles, along with transit and walking, into transportation planning, design and construction, and to increase bicycles’ role in the transportation system.

Eight influential elements emerged from our review of policy documents and research literature. We used them to guide interviews with key informants. The eight elements are: governance structure, location, access roads, self-perceived environmental stewardship, spending restrictions on non-aviation transportation improvements, proximity to transit, policies and mandates to reduce environmental impacts and land use constraints. We report on seven cases, selected on the basis of inclusion in studies on key aspects of airport ground access and, for one, identification as exemplary. They are: Oakland International Airport, San Francisco International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Boston Logan International Airport Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, and Portland, an exemplar recommended by several key informants. 

We limit our discussion to employee bicycle access because that has been the focus of airport operators that have made these investments and programs to reduce single-occupancy vehicle travel at airports.

In aggregating the interviews, we identified replicable approaches to improving bicycle access. We also identified examples of innovative funding for multi-modal access using revenues generated by airport Passenger Facilities Charges. Finally, we identified areas for additional research: airport employee commute needs, ground access mode choice and operator costs and benefits of bicycle access investments.

This paper presents the results of a qualitative survey of commercial owners, managers, and occupants in the City of Berkeley who have invested in on-site bicycle facilities such as secure parking, showers, changing rooms, and clothing lockers, what we are calling “bicycle-oriented design” (BOD). The sites represent a selection of building types common in the commercial building stock in U.S. cities.

The research is designed to answer three questions about the use of BOD: (1) what were motivations behind the decision to invest in BOD (2) what are the challenges and rewards for investing in BOD? and (3) what types of BOD were chosen? The survey was carried out through structured interviews and by site visits.

This research builds on the growing literature on bicycle facilities by exploring the concept that bicycle infrastructure does not stop at the door. We find a number of motivations and challenges shared across a variety of settings, and the insights derived from the study can be applied to broader situations. Operational needs and a desire for “green” image-building and marketing are important contributors. Space costs, especially the cost of interior space, posed challenges. Solutions at some sites suggest strategies that could be applied in other settings. The results also indicate that many decisions on specific BOD components were made on an ad hoc basis, indicating a potential need for an authoritative source of information and guidelines about BOD because much of the information is scattered across different agencies and sources.