🚀 go-pugleaf

S.P.P. in Berkeley wrote:

>> 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.

The city streets also are full of through traffic.

Points north and south of the city -- that lie along the line formed
by them -- obviously as well as logically are best connected with a
bridge across the Golden Gate.  The freeway system north of the
bridge already exists, and the freeway system in the southeastern
part of the city already exists.  It's obvious as well as logical that 
they be connected.  What's illogical is to insist they remain instead
disconnected.

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

That's blatantly false.  They work better if the through traffic
doesn't have its freeway travel interrupted by a forced travel
along city streets.  This traffic still will, as is logical, travel in
a north-south direction, meaning through the City adjacent
to the bridge.  It is illogical, inefficient, and unreasonable to
reroute them inland.


>> 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,

Never say never -- and in this case, fortunately.  Reason still
may prevail one day.

> due to the impact on neighborhoods;

This would be mitigated (at increased cost).

>  plus if it were built, there would be no improvement over the
> present driving time on existing north-south arteries in western
> San Francisco.

Laughably false!  Why not get rid of all freeways, then?

>What a totally, completely lousy idea.

To insist on the current, substandard status quo indeed is so.


Dave Simpson