🚀 go-pugleaf

John Higdon  <no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> wrote:

> 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".  

Wrong, I did.  The question at hand is whether it's
more reasonable, as I am claiming, to bypass around
city centers, as is done in London UK, Washington DC,
and San Francisco CA.

> I don't believe that is a requirement to define "a freeway 
> going through town".

By "city center" I mean generally the highest-density, 
highest-usage part of an urban area, which usually corresponds
to historical city centers plus some surrouding area.

>> 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.

I'm not sure what you're calling "the" 880 bottleneck.  I had
in mind the bottleneck that stretches roughly from North 1st
street down to the 101 interchange and out along 17.

Are you thinking of the bottleneck between say Fremont/Milpitas
and 237?  That one you can bypass around.  And even if you do
not it is the lesser bottleneck on a typical evening commute,
going southbound.  That is not the bottleneck I am discussing here.

Steve