🚀 go-pugleaf

in article 9eu4gg$lqa$1@samba.rahul.net, spp@cs.berkeley.edu  wrote:

> 85 Doesn't go through San Jose.

Oh, it doesn't? It certainly cuts through a major portion of south San Jose,
from its southern terminus along many miles to where it enters Los Gatos. It
then cuts through another portion of west San Jose. Check your map.

> On those ocassions when I have to travel by car from Berkeley
> to Santa Cruz, in order to get to an evening event, I find it
> incredibly inconvenient that there is no freeway
> that totally bypasses San Jose.  880 to 17 is the most direct
> route but it is the worst in terms of traffic.  And obviously,
> San Jose people commuting locally are not benefitting from
> people like me who are just passing through the middle of
> downtown San Jose.

You have cited the worst bottleneck in the Bay Area: the passage of 880 from
Milpitas to the 101 interchange. The fact that it goes through San Jose has
much less to do with the congestion than the fact that it has the same
number of lanes as it did when it opened in the fifties (two in each
direction).

> The best route is in fact the one that most resembles
> a bypass: 280 to 85 to 17.  Unfortunately, 280 is most
> easily reached by going through San Francisco...

I agree. Tell them to widen 880 north of the 101 interchange. "Bypass" is
not a factor. The route you described just has wider roads. Oh, I forgot:
"making freeways wider does not reduce congestion".

> I consider San Jose an excellent example of why, in general,
> you need bypasses, and how the city-center-oriented freeway
> system makes traffice much worse.

You are making a generalization from a notoriously bad isolated problem.
Your conclusions, based upon a lack of real familiarity with the area (see
the comment about the route of 85 above) makes a good argument concerning
why local control of transportation is best.

-- 
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

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

> spp@cs.berkeley.edu  wrote:

>> 85 Doesn't go through San Jose.

> Oh, it doesn't? It certainly cuts through a major portion of
> south San Jose, from its southern terminus along many miles to
> where it enters Los Gatos. It then cuts through another portion
> of west San Jose. Check your map.

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.

>> On those ocassions when I have to travel by car from Berkeley
>> to Santa Cruz, in order to get to an evening event, I find it
>> incredibly inconvenient that there is no freeway
>> that totally bypasses San Jose.  880 to 17 is the most direct
>> route but it is the worst in terms of traffic.  And obviously,
>> San Jose people commuting locally are not benefitting from
>> people like me who are just passing through the middle of
>> downtown San Jose.

> You have cited the worst bottleneck in the Bay Area: the
> passage of 880 from Milpitas to the 101 interchange. The fact
> that it goes through San Jose has much less to do with the
> congestion than the fact that it has the same number of lanes as
> it did when it opened in the fifties (two in each direction).

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 best route is in fact the one that most resembles
>> a bypass: 280 to 85 to 17.  Unfortunately, 280 is most
>> easily reached by going through San Francisco...

> I agree. Tell them to widen 880 north of the 101 interchange.
> "Bypass" is not a factor. The route you described just has wider
> roads. Oh, I forgot:  "making freeways wider does not reduce
> congestion".

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.

>> I consider San Jose an excellent example of why, in general,
>> you need bypasses, and how the city-center-oriented freeway
>> system makes traffice much worse.

> You are making a generalization from a notoriously bad isolated 
> problem.

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

Steve

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

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

John Higdon wrote:
> I agree. Tell them to widen 880 north of the 101 interchange. "Bypass" is
> not a factor. The route you described just has wider roads. Oh, I forgot:
> "making freeways wider does not reduce congestion".

VTA is already busy doing just that.  Unfortunately, they're only widening
it to 3 lanes per side (even though most of 880 -- from Oakland to Alvarado-
Niles Rd. -- is already 4 lanes per side, and there is already unfilled
demand for 5 or 6).  So this widening will not solve the problem, and will
have to be repeated.

John
(San Jose native, exiled by housing prices in 1997)

John Higdon wrote:

> Oh, I forgot: "making freeways wider does not reduce congestion".

If memory serves me correctly, congestion on Bay Area freeways is forecast
to grow 250% in the next 20 years, even with all the improvements in the
current long-range plan.

Scott Mace

in article 9eup66$m38$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net, Scott Mace  wrote:

> If memory serves me correctly, congestion on Bay Area freeways is forecast
> to grow 250% in the next 20 years, even with all the improvements in the
> current long-range plan.

And what would it be without the improvements?

-- 
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

"Scott Mace" <smace@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9eup66$m38$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> John Higdon wrote:
>
> > Oh, I forgot: "making freeways wider does not reduce congestion".
>
> If memory serves me correctly, congestion on Bay Area freeways is forecast
> to grow 250% in the next 20 years, even with all the improvements in the
> current long-range plan.
>
> Scott Mace
>

What improvements?  Oh, you mean a few carpool lanes, a few gap closures,
and one tiny little freeway connecting I-880 and I-680.  Oh, those.  And
meanwhile population is forecast to what, almost double?  Or at least
increase by double digit percentage points?  Yes, when you have a large
increase in population but provide only minimal increases in the required
infrastructure, that is why congestion is forecase to increase that much.

If the MTC were any kind of business, their board of directors would have
been fired by now for suggesting such a ridiculous dysfunctional plan that
is basically telling their customers that things will only get much worse.
Way to go.

Don

--
http://www.fixtraffic.org  Fighting for the Rebuilding and Expansion of
Southern California's Freeway and Highway System
Discussion at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sc_hwys
Discuss the 710 Fwy Gap Closure--Pro or Con--at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Go_710

in article iBYQ6.24040$Rh7.803344@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net, Don
Hagstrom  wrote:

> If the MTC were any kind of business, their board of directors would have
> been fired by now for suggesting such a ridiculous dysfunctional plan that
> is basically telling their customers that things will only get much worse.
> Way to go.

In the meantime, we are going to spend billions and billions of dollars
TALKING about bringing BART to San Jose in maybe ten or fifteen years. If
ever built, it will provide a pleasant commute for a few folks who elect to
not live in the squalor of Silicon Valley but instead enjoy their bucolic
existence in the San Ramon valley. Those of us who live here, and who need
BART like a hole in the head, will end up paying for it and then some.

Actually, I think the gold rush lure of jobs in the valley will ebb and with
greatly reduced interest by east bay residents in pleasant travel to
high-paying jobs, the plan to "bring BART to San Jose" will die a
well-deserved death. Of course, we will still have the tax, but that can be
squandered on other transit debacles. There is always a place to dump
taxpayer money. BART is just one of the most glamorous.

The collapse of the high-tech industry cannot come soon enough for me. Let
some of these folks do real work and get some real jobs...in their own
counties, and stop clogging our roads and or trying to hold us up to pay for
a BART extension.

-- 
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

In article <3B14FC2F.528F7FB4@pacbell.net>,
Chris Hughes  <chughesnospam@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>spp@cs.berkeley.edu wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Where is this mythical bypass around San Fransisco that you talk about?
>Generally a bypass means you get near the city, then loop around it on
>either side.

    According to Websters, you're right on the second part, but wrong on
    the first (assuming you're using definition #1):
 
   Pronunciation: 'bI-"pas
   Function: noun
   Date: 1848
   1 : a passage to one side; especially : a deflected route usually
       around a town
   2 a : a channel carrying a fluid around a part and back to the
	 main stream b (1) : SHUNT 1b (2) : SHUNT 1c; also : a surgical
	 procedure for the establishment of a shunt <have a coronary
         bypass> 


Looping around SF on either side would either put you in
>the ocean or the bay.  Last time I checked, my car isn't a boat.

    It's probably not practical to loop around SF to the west, because
    there's only ocean out there for a long long ways, but if you go east
    there's the bulk of North America, which by happy coincidence includes
    the land immediately east of SF bay.

                  ____
    david parsons \bi/ don't worry, the power cartel will deal with those
                   \/                                  pesky traffic jams.

David Parsons wrote:

>    It's probably not practical to loop around SF to the west, because
>    there's only ocean out there for a long long ways, but if you go east
>    there's the bulk of North America, which by happy coincidence includes
>    the land immediately east of SF [B]ay.

The East Bay is too far away.  No reasonable person suggests going along
the East Bay as a bypass alternative to completing the north-south highway
route.


Dave Simpson

On Wed, 30 May 2001 19:40:34 GMT, Dave Simpson <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:

>The East Bay is too far away.  No reasonable person suggests going along
>the East Bay as a bypass alternative to completing the north-south highway
>route.

Be careful what you say or imply. Given there there are a number of
people who post here indicating the East Bay *is* a reasonable
alternative, you have just called them all unreasonable (in every
topic, because you didn't qualify things).

Daniel

W/H: faigin@aero.org/faigin@pacificnet.net   http://www.pacificnet.net/~faigin/
Mod., Mail.Liberal-Judaism (www.mljewish.org)       Advisor, s.c.j.Parenting
Maintainer, S.C.J FAQ/RL   (www.scjfaq.org)       Daddy to Erin Shoshana
Maintainer, Calif. Highways List (www.cahighways.org)
Webmaven, Temple Beth Torah of Granada Hills (www.bethtorah-sfv.org)

Daniel Faigin wrote:

>Be careful what you say or imply. Given there there are a number of
>people who post here indicating the East Bay *is* a reasonable
>alternative, you have just called them all unreasonable (in every
>topic, because you didn't qualify things).

Daniel, there are people who claim I-5 is a reasonable bypass, but
neither I-5 nor the East Bay are reasonable alternatives.  To suggest
they are is worthless excuse-making by those who refuse to face the
reality of the situation.


Dave Simpson

In article <S0cR6.5904$rn5.282405@www.newsranger.com>,
Dave Simpson  <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>David Parsons wrote:
>
>>    It's probably not practical to loop around SF to the west, because
>>    there's only ocean out there for a long long ways, but if you go east
>>    there's the bulk of North America, which by happy coincidence includes
>>    the land immediately east of SF [B]ay.
>
>The East Bay is too far away.  No reasonable person [...]

    Sure, if you define ``reasonable person'' as ``someone who agrees
    with me.''   This definition may be the essence of usenet flaming,
    but it's pretty useless otherwise.

                  ____
    david parsons \bi/ I'll be contrary and deny your redefinition.
                   \/