4 ms·
You can’t realistically take a whole city and draw a line down the middle and say “no cars can cross this ever”.
by rco8786 7y ago
You can’t realistically take a whole city and draw a line down the middle and say “no cars can cross this ever”.
- alwaysdoit 7y agoSure you could. We have more than 2 dimensions.
- benmusch 7y agoI guess, but the amount of space and inefficiency that building a highway that literally runs over 1 block over the middle of a city would seem to be not at all worth it.
- dajohnson89 7y agoit wouldn't be a highway, it's called an overpass. and they're quite common.
- Symbiote 7y agoAn overpass tends to make the area underneath it pretty grim: surrounded by concrete with little natural light. I can't think of any examples of a nice shopping street with an overpass above it. An underpass works well, but is likely to be much more expensive.
- OkGoDoIt 7y agoAlso there’s two levels of subways running beneath market street so an underpass wouldn’t be feasible
- icebraining 7y agoMy city has a two-way overpass over a popular pedestrian street: https://cdn.olhares.pt/client/files/foto/big/980/9808889.jpg https://cdn.olhares.pt/client/files/foto/big/980/9808889.jpg I think it works well as long as the overpass isn't too wide. Also, using colours and stone instead of raw concrete on the outside helps.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- maccam94 7y agoWell, there's Golden Gate Park for a good chunk of the way across SF, which has no surface level streets crossing directly through it...
- g_h 7y agoThat’s not true. There are several roads that wind through GGP for driving and parking. Crossover Drive cuts through approximately the middle.
- bluGill 7y agoMost cities have that in some form. A river acts as a you cannot cross, except for a few far apart areas. The bay in SF does the same. Then there are sea side cities which have a large shall not cross line.
- rco8786 7y agoRivers have bridges. Seaside cities do not have an undriveable barrier down the middle of it.
- bluGill 7y agoRivers have limited bridges. I live in a city divided by a river (I suspect a large number of those reading this do as well: rivers attract cities for various reasons), most streets just end at the river even though both sides are very developed. If I want to cross the river there is are 5 bridges in the 15 miles of river frontage the city covers (then nothing for many more miles either way). There is great demand to get across the river, we are a tiny city and so the only traffic congestion is getting to the river crossing, but the cost of getting over the river is high enough nobody can justify building another bridge. I don't know SF, but my guess is that market street will have more crossing than our rivers.