🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

You're being illogical.

Not only that, but if you're at Berkeley, I don't see any excuse
for you to make such inaccurate statements.  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.  You should be perfectly aware of
the existing situation there if you're at Berkeley; for example,
if you were awake and aware, you'd not object at all to anyone's
references to the other freeways that San Francisco should build
if it wanted a truly modern transportation system, on any specious
grounds of invalid logic, but only as a matter of taste.

>(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.

Most freeways in the West, modern freeways, go through downtown,
or close to it; they do not deviate from, or bypass, central cities.
It's the East that has older, stranger ways such as beltways ("What are
these freeways AROUND the cities?" people ask when they visit the
East) along with spaghetti roads rather than a gridwork.

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.  (Making "Divisadero" more
literally accurate makes sense.)


Dave Simpson