🚀 go-pugleaf

in article 9eu8i2$mir$1@samba.rahul.net, spp@cs.berkeley.edu  wrote:

> Okay, I stand corrected on that point.  I've never been on
> that southern stretch of 85, only the part from 280 to 17.
> In any case, 85 doesn't go through the city center.

No one mentioned "city center". I don't believe that is a requirement to
define "a freeway going through town".

> Exactly my point.  You build a freeway cutting through a
> city center; usage patterns and demographics follow which
> make it a necessary artery; then a few decades later, it's
> a major regional clog.

The 880 bottleneck is not anywhere near San Jose's city center.

> It's partly true that widening freeways doesn't help congestion,
> but the main advantage of a bypass relative to a wider city
> center freeway is that traffic on the bypass will not slow
> down traffic more local to the city.  This is, like, obvious.

No, it isn't obvious. Like, man, some of the fastest freeway traffic around
is through San Jose's city center on 280 at certain times of the day. It is
all a matter of road design, not where the roadway is physically located. As
a matter of fact, 280 at commute times SPEEDS UP as traffic approaches city
center, even though an HOV lane ends at that point. Cool!

> It's not an isolated problem, it's a very typical problem that
> results from typical poor planning.

The 880 bottleneck, in providing the basis for your sweeping conclusions, is
an isolated problem. Furthermore, the problem occurs in the northern areas
of San Jose, considerably away from city center.

And it isn't even an example of poor planning. It is an example of
bureaucratic stubbornness to deal with a clearly dysfunctional roadway. Even
now, there is absolutely nothing being done to solve the problem.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS