3 ms·

Read up on the Centeal Freeway, Embarcadero Freeway, the Freeway Revolt, and the eventual demolition of those freeways. What you describe was almost complete i

Read up on the Centeal Freeway, Embarcadero Freeway, the Freeway Revolt, and the eventual demolition of those freeways. What you describe was almost complete in SF in the 1960s and it was stopped by mass citizen opposition. It was a complete disaster for the city and quality of life. Then in the 1990s the remaining stubs -- except 280 -- were mostly removed so it could never happen again. The city is more beautiful and live able now than it was in those dark freeway decades. Underground construction would be just as bad in promoting traffic nightmares but less bad in destroying street life and at American construction prices would cost as much as half a dozen Mars missions for no traffic benefit. (Around US$200 MMM probably) Yes, no traffic benefit. When we removed the half completed system, traffic actually improved. If you wonder why, look up Braess Paradox and induced demand.

rsync 11y ago
"What you describe was almost complete in SF in the 1960s and it was stopped by mass citizen opposition. It was a complete disaster for the city and quality of life." I am fully aware of that history, and it's not what I am describing at all. I am speaking specifically of a long-haul, point A to point B tunnel. Imagine getting all of the pass-through cars (and trucks!) off of Van Ness and the GG Park <--> 19th ave. corridor...
ak217 11y ago
Traffic didn't improve. It got rerouted elsewhere, sure. Ultimately what happened was that neighborhoods with freeways nearby appreciated in property values, and those without freeways remained sleepy and suburban. Except Van Ness and Lombard, which became traffic death traps. What happens when San Francisco refuses to build transportation infrastructure (which, yes, includes both subway and freeway tunnels and bridges, just like in dozens of other grown up cities around the world) is more suburban office park and subdivision sprawl around the bay, or an outflow of resources to other metros.

rsync 11y ago

"What you describe was almost complete in SF in the 1960s and it was stopped by mass citizen opposition. It was a complete disaster for the city and quality of life." I am fully aware of that history, and it's not what I am describing at all. I am speaking specifically of a long-haul, point A to point B tunnel. Imagine getting all of the pass-through cars (and trucks!) off of Van Ness and the GG Park <--> 19th ave. corridor...

ak217 11y ago

Traffic didn't improve. It got rerouted elsewhere, sure. Ultimately what happened was that neighborhoods with freeways nearby appreciated in property values, and those without freeways remained sleepy and suburban. Except Van Ness and Lombard, which became traffic death traps. What happens when San Francisco refuses to build transportation infrastructure (which, yes, includes both subway and freeway tunnels and bridges, just like in dozens of other grown up cities around the world) is more suburban office park and subdivision sprawl around the bay, or an outflow of resources to other metros.