4 ms·

it's a bargain for the city but still a blight on it's residents that does not serve them in any way it makes the lives of a few rich people better as they can

it's a bargain for the city but still a blight on it's residents that does not serve them in any way it makes the lives of a few rich people better as they can commute to their yachts better, but that's about it sf would have been completely fine as a city without this bridge

boulos 4y ago
Do you feel that reaching Point Reyes and other areas in the north does not "serve them in any way"? Bridges have existed for millennia because they're useful to both sides of the bridge.
- basedgod 4y ago
  this garbage bridge does not serve it's residents above replacement. ferries already existed, as well as other ways to get to the areas north of the city. the main issue with this bridge is that it is the enemy of better, and a bridge/tunnel with forward thinking infrastructure and transit can now never be built, now that we have this antiquated garbage bridge built, merely for the myth of car ownership the civil planning doesn't even extend to the rest of the city, it's merely plopped down onto an arbitrary section of it. it would have been better to not have been built at all. a more ugly bridge built later on wouldn't have had the nimbys we have today, and could have been torn down and retrofitted without it being sacrilegious
  - djbusby 4y ago
    It reads like you don't understand the needs of SF back when that bridge was built. It could also carry rail, but that portion was not completed - because, and here's the shocker, a city's needs change over time. The Wikipedia page about this bridge covers a lot of these details.
milesskorpen 4y ago
Entirely 100% disagree. Easy access to Marin and all areas north make San Francisco a much better city.
kaycebasques 4y ago
Tourism is a substantial part of San Francisco's economy. It employs a lot of San Francisco residents.
bombcar 4y ago
If it's only used by a few rich people, I'd expect the traffic on it is very light.
- kaycebasques 4y ago
  Counterpoint though is the fact that you see heavy traffic on it is testament to its role in encouraging car culture
  - Lammy 4y ago
    People need to live somewhere, and we sure haven't built up enough to allow most people to live within the city itself. Is "encouraging car culture" the new NIMBY angle? It's just the flip-side of the housing crisis. I'd live closer to work too if I could afford Woodside or whatever.
Melatonic 4y ago
Ah yes - a bridge from the top of a peninsula to the other side. Surely nowhere else would people think to make one of those. Just have everyone take the long way around where they will then need to cross TWO bridges if they want to travel north!

boulos 4y ago

Do you feel that reaching Point Reyes and other areas in the north does not "serve them in any way"? Bridges have existed for millennia because they're useful to both sides of the bridge.

basedgod 4y ago
this garbage bridge does not serve it's residents above replacement. ferries already existed, as well as other ways to get to the areas north of the city. the main issue with this bridge is that it is the enemy of better, and a bridge/tunnel with forward thinking infrastructure and transit can now never be built, now that we have this antiquated garbage bridge built, merely for the myth of car ownership the civil planning doesn't even extend to the rest of the city, it's merely plopped down onto an arbitrary section of it. it would have been better to not have been built at all. a more ugly bridge built later on wouldn't have had the nimbys we have today, and could have been torn down and retrofitted without it being sacrilegious
- djbusby 4y ago
  It reads like you don't understand the needs of SF back when that bridge was built. It could also carry rail, but that portion was not completed - because, and here's the shocker, a city's needs change over time. The Wikipedia page about this bridge covers a lot of these details.

milesskorpen 4y ago

Entirely 100% disagree. Easy access to Marin and all areas north make San Francisco a much better city.

kaycebasques 4y ago

Tourism is a substantial part of San Francisco's economy. It employs a lot of San Francisco residents.

bombcar 4y ago

If it's only used by a few rich people, I'd expect the traffic on it is very light.

kaycebasques 4y ago
Counterpoint though is the fact that you see heavy traffic on it is testament to its role in encouraging car culture
- Lammy 4y ago
  People need to live somewhere, and we sure haven't built up enough to allow most people to live within the city itself. Is "encouraging car culture" the new NIMBY angle? It's just the flip-side of the housing crisis. I'd live closer to work too if I could afford Woodside or whatever.

Melatonic 4y ago

Ah yes - a bridge from the top of a peninsula to the other side. Surely nowhere else would people think to make one of those. Just have everyone take the long way around where they will then need to cross TWO bridges if they want to travel north!