🚀 go-pugleaf

Dave Simpson  <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:

>spp@cs.berkeley.edu wrote:

>>(1) San Francisco is on the tip of a penninsula, and is therefore
>>is an illogical place for a freeway corridor connecting
>>inland cities like Santa Rosa and San Jose.

> Not only is the S.F.  location an obviously logical place for a
> crossing of the Golden Gate by a bridge (already achieved), it's
> obviously logical to connect the freeway system north of the
> Golden Gate and the bridge itself with the rest of the existing
> freeway system in the City and on the Peninsula.

It doesn't seem logical to me, since it's enormously expensive
(even dangerous) to provide freeway capacity across a bridge,
and the land within the city itself is not only highly expensive,
but is already saturated with local traffic.

Things work better if the long-haul, north-south traffice
is routed inland.

>>(2) San Francisco is an urban center (and don't try to tell me
>>South Pasadena is); as such its normal to route unrelated non-city
>>traffic around it -- just as Washington D.C. has a beltway,
>>and London U.K. has the M25 Orbital.

> We aren't even talking about a freeway that would cross
> downtown itself (the Financial District), but instead would
> traverse the city from north to south somewhat to the west of
> it.

What you are talking about will never happen, due to the impact
on neighborhoods;  plus if it were built, there would be no
improvement over the present driving time on existing north-south
arteries in western San Francisco.

What a totally, completely lousy idea.

Steve