U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-28-2014, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,600,501 times
Reputation: 7830

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelizard860 View Post
No I meant tearing them down is a horrible idea. How are people supposed to get into/out of the city. You'd completely gridlock every city doing that and make transportation of goods a nightmare. AWFUL idea.
We are a car based society. These nuts that are proposing stuff like this are ANTI-AUTOMOBILE. Period.
It depends on the freeway and depends on the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-28-2014, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,094 posts, read 16,138,912 times
Reputation: 12696
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Maybe some people do, but it sounds like the idea is inadequate transit capacity. Of course it'd be dumb not to have a road bridge connecting San Francisco with East Bay. What is the $6.5 billion San Francisco is spending?
Spent. And it was the MTC, not San Francisco directly.

Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco

A second BART tunnel and expansion of the San Mateo bridge and supporting infrastructure would have cost more. That wouldn't address 101/280 but it really would be fairly simple. You'd honestly have more trouble with freight than passengers. You'd just need the second tunnel to handle the load and to greatly expand the number of parking spots in BART. Freight would probably need to be handled via rail. Get a rail yard down somewhere by Hunters Point handling the bulk of San Francisco's freight needs so the only thing you'd need to ship into the city on trucks would be overnight deliveries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,600,501 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Spent. And it was the MTC, not San Francisco directly.

Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco
In the case of SF, the BART needs to be expanded throughout the metro as well as into SF more to reduce the need of making transfers. SF has a good transit system with Muni and BART, but it is still inadequate to the city and metro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 11:06 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,110,497 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Spent. And it was the MTC, not San Francisco directly.

Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco
well that's a bridge, which are more expensive than roads. The bridge isn't just for downtown access it's to connect San Francisco and the neighboring peninsula with East Bay; it would be stupid to not have a road there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,094 posts, read 16,138,912 times
Reputation: 12696
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
well that's a bridge, which are more expensive than roads. The bridge isn't just for downtown access it's to connect San Francisco and the neighboring peninsula with East Bay; it would be stupid to not have a road there.
So put a "boulevard" bridge rather than a "urban freeway" bridge. That'd cost far less. Also it wouldn't carry 200,000 cars per day. Since 80 would be torn down, the huge bridge would be dumb anyway. It's laughable that you'd carry that kind of traffic through downtown San Francisco's surface streets which gridlock every day for 4+ hour as it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 11:25 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,110,497 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
So put a "boulevard" bridge rather than a "urban freeway" bridge. That'd cost far less. Also it wouldn't carry 200,000 cars per day. Since 80 would be torn down, the huge bridge would be dumb anyway. It's laughable that you'd carry that kind of traffic through downtown San Francisco's surface streets which gridlock every day for 4+ hour as it is.
Huh? I assume a lot of the bridge isn't going to downtown San Francisco but past it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 11:43 AM
 
1,774 posts, read 1,841,355 times
Reputation: 2701
Most inbound bay bridge traffic is going to SF. You'd take san mateo or dunbarton to get to the peninsula from the east bay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,094 posts, read 16,138,912 times
Reputation: 12696
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Huh? I assume a lot of the bridge isn't going to downtown San Francisco but past it.
Not so much. If you're going much past San Francisco, you're not going to drive THROUGH San Francisco to get there. Traffic sucks everywhere in the Bay Area but the epicenter of suck is San Francisco. Going around the long way is often faster. For example, if you're driving from Oakland (downtown area) to SFO you're often better off going the long route down to the San Mateo Bridge and then back up rather than driving through San Francisco.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 11:54 AM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,868,982 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Yes, but the people don't need to drive to get to their offices. If I could magically plan Boston I wouldn't have built most of the downtown expressway, expand the ring expressway, and improve the rail system (make the commuter rail system through running, improve frequencies to at or near rapid transit levels so the inner suburbs would have a system a bit BART-like in frequency).
Bad assumptions. People may need to drive to their offices for all kinds of reasons. They may work in sales, in which case you need to get into the car and go somewhere else after meeting in the office. You may need to make additional trips before or after work or have an job where ability to travel is necessary. You may even be driving downtown as an client or on business or as an vacation or day trip.

Commuter rail is great for an 9-5 job and encourages sprawl becuase instead of hellish traffic you get an nice ride and all you need is an quick drive to the parking lot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 11:57 AM
 
1,774 posts, read 1,841,355 times
Reputation: 2701
Personally I thought 101 from San Mateo to San Jose and anywhere on 880 was much worse than the traffic right in SF.
Bay Bridge itself is a nightmare, though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top