https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/1597978283215179778
As someone who uses it all the time and already hates traffic, I definitely disagree with the commenters in that thread saying "just use public transportation!". I guess (my opinion) they don't realize that a major US highway goes through there and sometimes people need to go through SF.
What a weiner.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 03:14:20 PM
What a weiner.
His first name looks kind of familiar though.
That's the latest trend. Freeways upsetting neighborhoods and they need to go. The Sheridan in NYC is proof they can be eliminated.
Then that's why KC won't let I-49 be completed. It's all going to disrupt the neighborhood, but we welcome the added traffic on our neighborhood streets though. Sure we'll have some people get struck by a car, but at least no barriers in the area to separate our whole community.
Make it hard for non-residents to visit the city and then wonder why business is floundering
I mean, most of San Francisco's business isn't tourism-related, so visitors are not really much of a concern. What is a concern is that SF is so gotdam expensive to live in that people practically have to commute in from Wendover, Utah to be able to afford to work there.
Harder to get into SF → fewer employees willing to do it → harder time getting people to work in SF → have to offer higher wages to get employees → prices increase → harder time getting people to work in SF → have to offer higher wages to get employees → prices increase →harder time getting people to work in SF → have to offer higher wages to get employees → prices increase →harder time getting people to work in SF → have to offer higher wages to get employees → prices increase →harder time getting people to work in SF → have to offer higher wages to get employees → prices increase →
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2022, 03:30:05 PM
Then that's why KC won't let I-49 be completed. It's all going to disrupt the neighborhood, but we welcome the added traffic on our neighborhood streets though. Sure we'll have some people get struck by a car, but at least no barriers in the area to separate our whole community.
There are efforts underway to look at options for US71 in KC including closing the freeway gap.
Quote from: thsftw on November 30, 2022, 02:43:16 PM
I guess (my opinion) they don't realize that a major US highway goes through there and sometimes people need to go through SF.
The Central Freeway is not even the best way to go through SF if that's what you're trying to do. East Bay <=> Peninsula is already covered by a freeway route, and Marin <=> Peninsula traffic is using CA-1 (which, if anything, could be a candidate for a better/faster route). Long-distance traffic isn't going straight through SF, either.
Otherwise, it's a stub freeway. You're already going to be on surface streets to get to where you're going, likely several miles of them. A few more blocks is not likely to make a big difference.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 03:57:34 PM
What is a concern is that SF is so gotdam expensive to live in that people practically have to commute in from Wendover, Utah to be able to afford to work there.
That is true, but the highest-paying jobs are based out of places like Mountain View and Menlo Park that have plenty of freeways....
We forgot about the most important question, though: if this happens, what happens to the route designations?!?!
Quote from: citrus on November 30, 2022, 04:26:29 PM
That is true, but the highest-paying jobs are based out of places like Mountain View and Menlo Park that have plenty of freeways....
Those are kind of least-concern, though. If you make $1,000,000 a day running a Silicon Valley company that makes an app that lets you digitally categorize different types of bacon on the cloud, and you commute in on a helicopter that costs $100,000 a day, you still profit.
The real problem is the people who work at McDonalds in San Francisco proper, and yet can't live anywhere nearby because housing is too exorbitant to live in on a McDonalds salary. They have to live in outer space, make it to work at McDonalds, and hope the time and financial costs of the commute make it economically viable. Eventually it stops making sense to drive two hours each way to make a McDonalds salary and people will stop doing it. The more fucked up you make the commute, the more people fall on the wrong side of that line, and you have to increase wages to make the numbers work well enough for people to take the job.
This isn't like the insane idea to remove I-980 across the Bay or the almost as nuts desire to remove I-280 north of the US 101 interchange. As citrus pointed out, this is a stub freeway; it's barely a half mile long. It also has a surface street running under most of it, so there's little question where the traffic would go. The interchange to US 101 would need to be completely redesigned along with the intersections of Division-9th-San Bruno and Division-10th-Portero. By the time all that is done, it's questionable whether there will be much improvement for the locals.
The one thing it does is save a lot of money in the long run. I'm sure the age of that highway goes back to the 1970s. A complete rebuild with earthquake protection for even a short elevated highway is expensive. I don't see the point of removing it unless it's time to completely rebuild it and given it's age that's probably the impetus for removal. In that case I do think a cost-benefit analysis needs to be done. My guess is the Central Freeway becomes history, especially given the political climate in SF.
The ironic thing is they just spent tons of money about 20 years ago building the connection to Octavia Blvd (where does the Fell and Oak traffic go once the freeway is torn down, Octavia turned out to be a rush hour disaster already?).
I'd guess they won't connect Octavia Blvd to Division/13th St if the Central Freeway is removed. Octavia problem solved. That the traffic jam has moved to Division and may be worse is irrelevant. Octavia Blvd will be so much better.
Quote from: citrus on November 30, 2022, 04:26:29 PM
Quote from: thsftw on November 30, 2022, 02:43:16 PM
I guess (my opinion) they don't realize that a major US highway goes through there and sometimes people need to go through SF.
The Central Freeway is not even the best way to go through SF if that's what you're trying to do. East Bay <=> Peninsula is already covered by a freeway route, and Marin <=> Peninsula traffic is using CA-1 (which, if anything, could be a candidate for a better/faster route). Long-distance traffic isn't going straight through SF, either.
Otherwise, it's a stub freeway. You're already going to be on surface streets to get to where you're going, likely several miles of them. A few more blocks is not likely to make a big difference.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 03:57:34 PM
What is a concern is that SF is so gotdam expensive to live in that people practically have to commute in from Wendover, Utah to be able to afford to work there.
That is true, but the highest-paying jobs are based out of places like Mountain View and Menlo Park that have plenty of freeways....
We forgot about the most important question, though: if this happens, what happens to the route designations?!?!
A few more blocks is. Two to three more stoplights. The point is, whether a glorified ramp or not, there is no need to tear down unless it's ready to collapse nor because a certain politician doesn't like it. A glorified ramp isn't a thing of worry. If is there and it does no harm, just appreciate the fact that you some extras that are already in place, and don't go wasting time, money, and noise when you have other issues out there needing more attention than whine about a short freeway to nowhere that provides access between a freeway and a street both part of US 101.
And the huge benefit is what? The Central Freeway at this point essentially is a glorified connecting on/off ramp and isn't really going to add/subtract anything by being removed.
Quote from: SectorZ on November 30, 2022, 03:21:30 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 03:14:20 PM
What a weiner.
His first name looks kind of familiar though.
You might be thinking of disgraced former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner.
I use the Central Freeway pretty regularly to get to either Japantown or the Cathedral Hill area, and the Octavia end has been developed into an extension of the Hayes Valley boutiques and restaurants over time.
What I'm not sure about: Do they want to reroute 101 to 9th/10th like pre-1954? (I know 7th was the temporary northbound routing in the late 90s - signed by SF's insistence but NEVER the actual 101 route between 80 and Van Ness/Fell).
I'll miss if it it's gone, but I fully realize what I want has no bearing on what will happen here anyway.
A tunnel should be built to connect this to the Presidio Parkway. That would take through traffic off of local roads and make it safer for cyclists and pedestrians while increasing connectivity across the region.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 03:57:34 PMI mean, most of San Francisco's business isn't tourism-related, so visitors are not really much of a concern. What is a concern is that SF is so gotdam expensive to live in that people practically have to commute in from Wendover, Utah to be able to afford to work there.
What you described in San Francisco Bay Area also applies Los Angeles and San Diego. The list goes on and on. There are folks who lived in Sacramento, Auburn, and Placerville who super-commuted to the SF Bay Area which means you wake up, drive to work, work, drive home, grumble, then go to sleep. Forget work-life balance. As I said many times before, I'm so glad to have escaped at the end of 2018.
Quote from: ZLoth on December 01, 2022, 04:14:54 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 03:57:34 PMI mean, most of San Francisco's business isn't tourism-related, so visitors are not really much of a concern. What is a concern is that SF is so gotdam expensive to live in that people practically have to commute in from Wendover, Utah to be able to afford to work there.
What you described in San Francisco Bay Area also applies Los Angeles and San Diego. The list goes on and on. There are folks who lived in Sacramento, Auburn, and Placerville who super-commuted to the SF Bay Area which means you wake up, drive to work, work, drive home, grumble, then go to sleep. Forget work-life balance. As I said many times before, I'm so glad to have escaped at the end of 2018.
why are you awake at 3 am
BART exists, but is having a rocky recovery. Muni just opened its delayed and under-capacity Central Subway and is still operating far below its potential. Fixing both of these issues would be better uses of the money than tearing down the Central Freeway for now.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 30, 2022, 07:11:05 PM
And the huge benefit is what? The Central Freeway at this point essentially is a glorified connecting on/off ramp and isn't really going to add/subtract anything by being removed.
That's what I said, a glorified ramp. Until it needs to removed over age or something else, tax money could be allocated to other things not to this political nonsense.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 01, 2022, 04:56:53 AM
Quote from: ZLoth on December 01, 2022, 04:14:54 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 03:57:34 PMI mean, most of San Francisco's business isn't tourism-related, so visitors are not really much of a concern. What is a concern is that SF is so gotdam expensive to live in that people practically have to commute in from Wendover, Utah to be able to afford to work there.
What you described in San Francisco Bay Area also applies Los Angeles and San Diego. The list goes on and on. There are folks who lived in Sacramento, Auburn, and Placerville who super-commuted to the SF Bay Area which means you wake up, drive to work, work, drive home, grumble, then go to sleep. Forget work-life balance. As I said many times before, I'm so glad to have escaped at the end of 2018.
why are you awake at 3 am
Because that's when all the fun goes down!
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 01, 2022, 04:56:53 AM
Quote from: ZLoth on December 01, 2022, 04:14:54 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 03:57:34 PMI mean, most of San Francisco's business isn't tourism-related, so visitors are not really much of a concern. What is a concern is that SF is so gotdam expensive to live in that people practically have to commute in from Wendover, Utah to be able to afford to work there.
What you described in San Francisco Bay Area also applies Los Angeles and San Diego. The list goes on and on. There are folks who lived in Sacramento, Auburn, and Placerville who super-commuted to the SF Bay Area which means you wake up, drive to work, work, drive home, grumble, then go to sleep. Forget work-life balance. As I said many times before, I'm so glad to have escaped at the end of 2018.
why are you awake at 3 am
Because one of my customers is having major issues, and the person who is handling the issue paged out to me. The joys of being a team lead.
Quote from: thenetwork on November 30, 2022, 09:07:34 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on November 30, 2022, 03:21:30 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 03:14:20 PM
What a weiner.
His first name looks kind of familiar though.
You might be thinking of disgraced former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner.
:paranoid: It was a sarcastic response to the person I was responding to...
Quote from: thenetwork on November 30, 2022, 09:07:34 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on November 30, 2022, 03:21:30 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 03:14:20 PM
What a weiner.
His first name looks kind of familiar though.
You might be thinking of disgraced former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner.
Lots of Weiners in Congress.
Time for another gooood earthquake, I see.
:nod:
Mike
Quote from: Rothman on December 01, 2022, 08:31:47 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on November 30, 2022, 09:07:34 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on November 30, 2022, 03:21:30 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 03:14:20 PM
What a weiner.
His first name looks kind of familiar though.
You might be thinking of disgraced former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner.
Lots of Weiners in Congress.
More recently in FMC Devens in the real Weiner's case.
Quote from: formulanone on December 01, 2022, 01:31:42 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 01, 2022, 08:31:47 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on November 30, 2022, 09:07:34 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on November 30, 2022, 03:21:30 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 03:14:20 PM
What a weiner.
His first name looks kind of familiar though.
You might be thinking of disgraced former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner.
Lots of Weiners in Congress.
Lots of sore losers, too.
Sore losers in Congress...?
Quote from: Rothman on December 01, 2022, 03:33:01 PM
Quote from: formulanone on December 01, 2022, 01:31:42 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 01, 2022, 08:31:47 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on November 30, 2022, 09:07:34 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on November 30, 2022, 03:21:30 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 03:14:20 PM
What a weiner.
His first name looks kind of familiar though.
You might be thinking of disgraced former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner.
Lots of Weiners in Congress.
Lots of sore losers, too.
Sore losers in Congress...?
A lot of sore Weiners in Congress?
Quote from: Scott5114The real problem is the people who work at McDonalds in San Francisco proper, and yet can't live anywhere nearby because housing is too exorbitant to live in on a McDonalds salary. They have to live in outer space, make it to work at McDonalds, and hope the time and financial costs of the commute make it economically viable. Eventually it stops making sense to drive two hours each way to make a McDonalds salary and people will stop doing it. The more fucked up you make the commute, the more people fall on the wrong side of that line, and you have to increase wages to make the numbers work well enough for people to take the job.
In the case of San Francisco, for decades they've been able to get away with tapping low-income neighborhoods in places like Oakland as a labor source for many of their service sector shit-pay McDonald's-type jobs. The BART train connection across the bay makes this possible. But gentrification has swept through about 1/3 of Oakland so far. As more
neighborhood transformation happens more of those low income workers will be pushed completely out of the Bay Area or even out of the entire state. San Francisco could see its service sector businesses totally screwed at getting labor for anything.
Many cities around the US have housing markets that are in an affordability crisis. If the people working the thankless jobs on the bottom end of the economy can't find an affordable place to live the situation risks upending a lot of everyday things all of us take for granted. Policy makers on the local and state levels are doing nothing of substance to deal with the problem. Just keep on building that high priced R-1 zoned housing.
San Francisco is at such an extreme of living costs that it could be among the first places to feel the consequences of allowing imbalances to exist for so long. I think the residential real estate market in the United States could be
very interesting (but not in a good way) 10-20 years from now. So many people who bought properties at very inflated values will be looking to sell 10-20 years from now, wanting to downsize for retirement. Or it might be middle age empty-nesters who bought too much home and regret doing so.
They may not find many buyers, especially ones willing to buy at prices the property owners want. Quote from: Plutonic PandaA tunnel should be built to connect this to the Presidio Parkway. That would take through traffic off of local roads and make it safer for cyclists and pedestrians while increasing connectivity across the region.
San Francisco is pretty locked-in. The path currently cut by the Central Freeway stub could be an opening for a tunnel up to the Presidio area. A straight
bee-line path from the end of Central Freeway up to the beginning of the Presidio Parkway is about 2.5 miles. A pair of highway tunnels would have to be built deep-bore fashion under the Fillmore District, Japantown and Pacific Heights. That would be one hell of an expensive project. It's certainly possible from an engineering perspective. But politically such a thing might be impossible. We could probably check back in another couple or so decades if San Francisco's local economy totally implodes under all the weight of its pricing excess.
^^^ it'd be expensive but given how bad traffic is it could be tolled and rake in the money. I bet such an endeavor would be wildly successful. But if it costs anywhere near like the Big Dig then it isn't worth it.
If it was up to me I'd push the green button to get a SF tunnel project started right now. It would be a bit bigger in scope than the SR-99 tunnel in Downtown Seattle. This tunnel would be at least half a mile longer than the Seattle tunnel, and that's if it was built in a perfectly straight direction.
I don't think this kind of tunnel project would be as difficult to build as the Big Dig in Boston since a good bit of it would be built well above sea level. Still, the threat of earthquakes are a concern. The San Andreas fault line is just South of the city limits. A pair of long highway tunnels like this could require ventilation from up above, which could be tricky considering how dense San Francisco is built.
San Francisco is one of the most densely packed cities in the US. The Presidio is a former military installation that looks like it's being transformed into some yuppie-fied I don't know what kind of thing. US-101 is getting covered with deck parks on the North side of the Presidio grounds. All that stuff would complicate efforts to build a proper North entrance to a four-lane or six-lane toll tunnel. If Central Freeway was removed and the land under it kept empty a South tunnel entrance could be conveniently built there.
Realistically, I think San Francisco would have to go through a severe economic crisis for something like a US-101 connector tunnel to be possible. Under current political conditions I could see a tunnel proposal like this met with absolutely fury from people demanding those billions in infrastructure dollars be spent on bicycle paths for the homeless. I'm personally very sane and centrist in my politics. I'm so sick of people on the far right, in part because I get so much exposure to that here in Oklahoma. But people way out on the left exasperate the hell out of me too. And I really can't stand the rich limousine liberal types. San Francisco is just filled with those kinds of folks -people needing to assuage the guilt they feel over their wealth by putting on a public act of caring for the down-trodden. Give me a ****king break. They'll give someone a 24K gold band-aid to put over a bullet wound.
If I were the legislature/governor/Caltrans, I'd give the city of S.F. a poison-pill deal:
The city can either be:
- 1. A high-density, transit-focused urban city with the Central Freeway removed
- 2. A suburban single-family city which requires the Central Freeway
No more of this B.S. that they want to have all the fun toys of being a transit-focused city, but still mandate single-family lots (which prevents redevelopment supply bringing down housing costs). Either they get to be urban or not. Make the city lift the zoning restrictions FIRST... then we can talk about demolishing the freeway.
^^^^ that's ridiculous and a nothing but an ideological fantasy. Both can be true and happen.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 01, 2022, 01:06:17 AM
A tunnel should be built to connect this to the Presidio Parkway. That would take through traffic off of local roads and make it safer for cyclists and pedestrians while increasing connectivity across the region.
Well that's certainly not going to happen. If SF or California wanted to spend billions on tunnels, it would be for Muni routes carrying a lot more passengers and getting them off shared city streets so they could move through the city faster. Not to accomodate motor vehicle traffic that's going through the city without any desire to stop.
Quote from: SectorZ on November 30, 2022, 03:21:30 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 03:14:20 PM
What a weiner.
His first name looks kind of familiar though.
This one is in San Francisco and Sacramento here.
Quote from: ZLoth on December 01, 2022, 04:14:54 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 03:57:34 PMI mean, most of San Francisco's business isn't tourism-related, so visitors are not really much of a concern. What is a concern is that SF is so gotdam expensive to live in that people practically have to commute in from Wendover, Utah to be able to afford to work there.
What you described in San Francisco Bay Area also applies Los Angeles and San Diego. The list goes on and on. There are folks who lived in Sacramento, Auburn, and Placerville who super-commuted to the SF Bay Area which means you wake up, drive to work, work, drive home, grumble, then go to sleep. Forget work-life balance. As I said many times before, I'm so glad to have escaped at the end of 2018.
True and also in recent years there have been talks to move jobs out of San Francisco and San Jose areas for Austin, TX. Yes the Venture Capitalist and Tech Industries have been discussed for escalating "Income Inequality" in the the Bay area for some time.
It's all nice and well to think that businesses are going to pull up and leave Silicon Valley for Austin or the NC Triangle or any number of other tech hubs. But that is only for successful companies and even they will still maintain a significant presence in the Bay Area because they can't afford not to. Startups happen everywhere but it seems most of the most successful ones start there or move there to expand rapidly (e.g., Facebook, Twitter). The skilled workers are there, the local universities keep attracting more students, and many workers don't want to leave because the weather is near idyllic. Those young people also tend to be more flexible in their living arrangements than older folks because they're working 60+ hours/week, so having to share a room in a crackerbox apartment is less of a problem.
This is as much a money issue as it is a political issue. Weiner has also requested answers from Caltrans (https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/central-freeway-state-sen-wiener-asks-caltrans-examine-removal/) as to whether the agency has developed any plans to replace or rebuild the freeway, the road's remaining useful life, and maintenance costs. The Central Freeway has been around since at least 1964 which means it's probably overdue for rebuild. There's little purpose to it as it's more a glorified interchange than real freeway at this point. A redesigned interchange which dumps out at Bryant and 11th St is probably the best that would replace it. Yes, the convenient connection to Market St will be lost but the Van Ness traffic could be given a direct line down 13th which runs under the current freeway to Bryant and 11th. (Chances are residents of Dubose Av and the south part of Van Ness Av will prefer traffic to be directed that way.) The other option is something like a diamond at Division, but that would probably be more difficult to fit given the current land use around the highway. I'm curious whether the ramps to 9th and 10th are included in this question as IMO they should be kept. A tunnel connecting to the Presidio is a non-starter unless, as kkt previously stated, it's for some sort of mass transit. I'd say the Central Freeway will last no longer than the next time Caltrans wants to do any work to extend its life.
Quote from: skluth on December 03, 2022, 03:15:24 PM
It's all nice and well to think that businesses are going to pull up and leave Silicon Valley for Austin or the NC Triangle or any number of other tech hubs. But that is only for successful companies and even they will still maintain a significant presence in the Bay Area because they can't afford not to. Startups happen everywhere but it seems most of the most successful ones start there or move there to expand rapidly (e.g., Facebook, Twitter). The skilled workers are there, the local universities keep attracting more students, and many workers don't want to leave because the weather is near idyllic. Those young people also tend to be more flexible in their living arrangements than older folks because they're working 60+ hours/week, so having to share a room in a crackerbox apartment is less of a problem.
This is as much a money issue as it is a political issue. Weiner has also requested answers from Caltrans (https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/central-freeway-state-sen-wiener-asks-caltrans-examine-removal/) as to whether the agency has developed any plans to replace or rebuild the freeway, the road's remaining useful life, and maintenance costs. The Central Freeway has been around since at least 1964 which means it's probably overdue for rebuild. There's little purpose to it as it's more a glorified interchange than real freeway at this point. A redesigned interchange which dumps out at Bryant and 11th St is probably the best that would replace it. Yes, the convenient connection to Market St will be lost but the Van Ness traffic could be given a direct line down 13th which runs under the current freeway to Bryant and 11th. (Chances are residents of Dubose Av and the south part of Van Ness Av will prefer traffic to be directed that way.) The other option is something like a diamond at Division, but that would probably be more difficult to fit given the current land use around the highway. I'm curious whether the ramps to 9th and 10th are included in this question as IMO they should be kept. A tunnel connecting to the Presidio is a non-starter unless, as kkt previously stated, it's for some sort of mass transit. I'd say the Central Freeway will last no longer than the next time Caltrans wants to do any work to extend its life.
Good point too given that some of the roads need to meet quake standards before the next Hayward Quake.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 03, 2022, 10:44:41 AM
^^^^ that's ridiculous and a nothing but an ideological fantasy. Both can be true and happen.
Can be, but should? SF is creating a situation where driving is a necessity but extremely inconvenient.
Quote from: kkt on December 03, 2022, 12:45:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 01, 2022, 01:06:17 AM
A tunnel should be built to connect this to the Presidio Parkway. That would take through traffic off of local roads and make it safer for cyclists and pedestrians while increasing connectivity across the region.
Well that's certainly not going to happen. If SF or California wanted to spend billions on tunnels, it would be for Muni routes carrying a lot more passengers and getting them off shared city streets so they could move through the city faster. Not to accomodate motor vehicle traffic that's going through the city without any desire to stop.
So what is the thru traffic? Chopped liver?
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2022, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 03, 2022, 10:44:41 AM
^^^^ that's ridiculous and a nothing but an ideological fantasy. Both can be true and happen.
Can be, but should? SF is creating a situation where driving is a necessity but extremely inconvenient.
Quote from: kkt on December 03, 2022, 12:45:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 01, 2022, 01:06:17 AM
A tunnel should be built to connect this to the Presidio Parkway. That would take through traffic off of local roads and make it safer for cyclists and pedestrians while increasing connectivity across the region.
Well that's certainly not going to happen. If SF or California wanted to spend billions on tunnels, it would be for Muni routes carrying a lot more passengers and getting them off shared city streets so they could move through the city faster. Not to accomodate motor vehicle traffic that's going through the city without any desire to stop.
So what is the thru traffic? Chopped liver?
Driving in or through SF has been an exercise in inconvenience my entire life. From what I can tell in the CHPWs driving in SF has been an inconvenience since time and memorial.
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2022, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 03, 2022, 10:44:41 AM
^^^^ that's ridiculous and a nothing but an ideological fantasy. Both can be true and happen.
Can be, but should? SF is creating a situation where driving is a necessity but extremely inconvenient.
Quote from: kkt on December 03, 2022, 12:45:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 01, 2022, 01:06:17 AM
A tunnel should be built to connect this to the Presidio Parkway. That would take through traffic off of local roads and make it safer for cyclists and pedestrians while increasing connectivity across the region.
Well that's certainly not going to happen. If SF or California wanted to spend billions on tunnels, it would be for Muni routes carrying a lot more passengers and getting them off shared city streets so they could move through the city faster. Not to accomodate motor vehicle traffic that's going through the city without any desire to stop.
So what is the thru traffic? Chopped liver?
Going via 880 and 580, at least so San Francisco hopes.
As long as I remember, driving through S.F. in order to get to anything north of the Golden Gate Bridge has been a tactical error.
Quote from: ZLoth on December 01, 2022, 04:14:54 AM
What you described in San Francisco Bay Area also applies Los Angeles and San Diego. The list goes on and on. There are folks who lived in Sacramento, Auburn, and Placerville who super-commuted to the SF Bay Area which means you wake up, drive to work, work, drive home, grumble, then go to sleep. Forget work-life balance. As I said many times before, I'm so glad to have escaped at the end of 2018.
I'm lucky to get to remote a couple days a week, but a couple days a week I'm also getting up at 4am to beat the rush for my two-hour commute too. Can't afford to live where I work these days.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 02, 2022, 09:36:13 PM
If it was up to me I'd push the green button to get a SF tunnel project started right now. It would be a bit bigger in scope than the SR-99 tunnel in Downtown Seattle. This tunnel would be at least half a mile longer than the Seattle tunnel, and that's if it was built in a perfectly straight direction.
I don't think this kind of tunnel project would be as difficult to build as the Big Dig in Boston since a good bit of it would be built well above sea level. Still, the threat of earthquakes are a concern. The San Andreas fault line is just South of the city limits. A pair of long highway tunnels like this could require ventilation from up above, which could be tricky considering how dense San Francisco is built.
San Francisco is one of the most densely packed cities in the US. The Presidio is a former military installation that looks like it's being transformed into some yuppie-fied I don't know what kind of thing. US-101 is getting covered with deck parks on the North side of the Presidio grounds. All that stuff would complicate efforts to build a proper North entrance to a four-lane or six-lane toll tunnel. If Central Freeway was removed and the land under it kept empty a South tunnel entrance could be conveniently built there.
Realistically, I think San Francisco would have to go through a severe economic crisis for something like a US-101 connector tunnel to be possible. Under current political conditions I could see a tunnel proposal like this met with absolutely fury from people demanding those billions in infrastructure dollars be spent on bicycle paths for the homeless. I'm personally very sane and centrist in my politics. I'm so sick of people on the far right, in part because I get so much exposure to that here in Oklahoma. But people way out on the left exasperate the hell out of me too. And I really can't stand the rich limousine liberal types. San Francisco is just filled with those kinds of folks -people needing to assuage the guilt they feel over their wealth by putting on a public act of caring for the down-trodden. Give me a ****king break. They'll give someone a 24K gold band-aid to put over a bullet wound.
I would strongly recommend that you take a look at some of the problems that have occurred since the Salesforce Transit Center (the Transbay Terminal replacement) finished construction before getting into the idea of a cross-SF car/truck tunnel. Then, I would recommend looking at how much traffic actually goes from San Mateo to Marin counties using the SF street system and the Central Freeway connect. Spoiler alert: Likely very little.
And you don't have to either be on the obnoxiously pro-freeway Right or the silly pro-bikepath Left to understand this.
Quote from: kkt on December 03, 2022, 05:08:04 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2022, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 03, 2022, 10:44:41 AM
^^^^ that's ridiculous and a nothing but an ideological fantasy. Both can be true and happen.
Can be, but should? SF is creating a situation where driving is a necessity but extremely inconvenient.
Quote from: kkt on December 03, 2022, 12:45:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 01, 2022, 01:06:17 AM
A tunnel should be built to connect this to the Presidio Parkway. That would take through traffic off of local roads and make it safer for cyclists and pedestrians while increasing connectivity across the region.
Well that's certainly not going to happen. If SF or California wanted to spend billions on tunnels, it would be for Muni routes carrying a lot more passengers and getting them off shared city streets so they could move through the city faster. Not to accomodate motor vehicle traffic that's going through the city without any desire to stop.
So what is the thru traffic? Chopped liver?
Going via 880 and 580, at least so San Francisco hopes.
As long as I remember, driving through S.F. in order to get to anything north of the Golden Gate Bridge has been a tactical error.
I would think San Bruno-Sausalito would be thru traffic for SF proper, yet going out to 580 and 880 seems like it would be WAY out of the way.
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2022, 09:19:00 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 03, 2022, 05:08:04 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2022, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 03, 2022, 10:44:41 AM
^^^^ that's ridiculous and a nothing but an ideological fantasy. Both can be true and happen.
Can be, but should? SF is creating a situation where driving is a necessity but extremely inconvenient.
Quote from: kkt on December 03, 2022, 12:45:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 01, 2022, 01:06:17 AM
A tunnel should be built to connect this to the Presidio Parkway. That would take through traffic off of local roads and make it safer for cyclists and pedestrians while increasing connectivity across the region.
Well that's certainly not going to happen. If SF or California wanted to spend billions on tunnels, it would be for Muni routes carrying a lot more passengers and getting them off shared city streets so they could move through the city faster. Not to accomodate motor vehicle traffic that's going through the city without any desire to stop.
So what is the thru traffic? Chopped liver?
Going via 880 and 580, at least so San Francisco hopes.
As long as I remember, driving through S.F. in order to get to anything north of the Golden Gate Bridge has been a tactical error.
I would think San Bruno-Sausalito would be thru traffic for SF proper, yet going out to 580 and 880 seems like it would be WAY out of the way.
More miles, but likely not any more minutes. Traffic through San Francisco is a bear. So is over the Golden Gate Bridge.
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2022, 09:19:00 PM
I would think San Bruno-Sausalito would be thru traffic for SF proper, yet going out to 580 and 880 seems like it would be WAY out of the way.
Much faster (and more direct) to take 380->280->19th Ave than to mess with near-downtown SF via 101/Central Freeway anyway.
Quote from: FredAkbar on December 03, 2022, 11:11:14 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2022, 09:19:00 PM
I would think San Bruno-Sausalito would be thru traffic for SF proper, yet going out to 580 and 880 seems like it would be WAY out of the way.
Much faster (and more direct) to take 380->280->19th Ave than to mess with near-downtown SF via 101/Central Freeway anyway.
Possibly although 19th Ave and Park Presidio and the Golden Gate Bridge can easily be moving at slower than a walking pace.
Quote from: kkt on December 04, 2022, 12:10:54 AM
Quote from: FredAkbar on December 03, 2022, 11:11:14 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2022, 09:19:00 PM
I would think San Bruno-Sausalito would be thru traffic for SF proper, yet going out to 580 and 880 seems like it would be WAY out of the way.
Much faster (and more direct) to take 380->280->19th Ave than to mess with near-downtown SF via 101/Central Freeway anyway.
Possibly although 19th Ave and Park Presidio and the Golden Gate Bridge can easily be moving at slower than a walking pace.
True but when it isn't it's much faster than taking the surface streets if a tunnel were available. How about getting rid of the fucking toll booths that require you to slow down!?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2022, 12:12:52 AM
Quote from: kkt on December 04, 2022, 12:10:54 AM
Quote from: FredAkbar on December 03, 2022, 11:11:14 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2022, 09:19:00 PM
I would think San Bruno-Sausalito would be thru traffic for SF proper, yet going out to 580 and 880 seems like it would be WAY out of the way.
Much faster (and more direct) to take 380->280->19th Ave than to mess with near-downtown SF via 101/Central Freeway anyway.
Possibly although 19th Ave and Park Presidio and the Golden Gate Bridge can easily be moving at slower than a walking pace.
True but when it isn't it's much faster than taking the surface streets if a tunnel were available. How about getting rid of the fucking toll booths that require you to slow down!?
It ain't the toll booths. For one thing, there's none going north, and southbound they're collected electronically only.
A lot of it is traffic to the bridge visitor's center and to the vista point on the Marin side for tourists who want to walk across and take photos. They crawl along the curb lane, waiting for parking places to open up in the view points. Maybe a large parking lot in the Presidio with shuttle buses to both Bridge vista points? If they're running shuttle buses anyway, maybe even start the run at Powell and Market for excellent connections to other public transit.
I do agree the Central Freeway is a glorified half-mile ramp to US-101 south and I-80 East. I got to agree with skluth's points though. I'm not sure what the land would be re-used for. More public housing? There's public housing already and more coming throughout the city.
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2022, 04:36:57 PM
Can be, but should? SF is creating a situation where driving is a necessity but extremely inconvenient.
In downtown, yes extremely inconvenient, but in that case I'd say public transit is good enough to get around (but not international wise.) In most of the city though I think the geography especially hills and slopes make driving inconvenient. Now owning a car in SF as opposed to being thru traffic is a real pain.
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2022, 04:36:57 PM
So what is the thru traffic? Chopped liver?
From my experience:
North to Marin/Sonoma/Mendocino countries: I-280 -> CA 1 at Daly City -> US 101 right before the Golden Gate Bridge
North to Sacramento/Oregon: I-80 -> I-505 -> I-5
East to Reno and beyond: I-80
South in the Bay Area: I-280/US 101 south, taking CA-85 if necessary
South to LA/San Diego: I-80 -> I-580 -> I-5
Of all these directions, the first is a real slog to get through but it's "consistent" in that it usually takes me the same amount of time for me to get to the Bay Bridge (30 min from across town in SF) In all the days of the week, daytime traffic through the Bay Bridge has always been bad, the pandemic did not appear to change that despite traffic on US-101 in the peninsula being better than pre-2020.
Interestingly San Francisco Proper has the same amount of freeways as Vallejo, CA.
US-101, I-280 and I-80 for San Francisco Proper.
Vallejo, CA has the same amount of freeways I-80, I-780 and CA-37
Only difference here is that San Francisco has to please the Venture Capitalists and financial district crowd that do have offices in the city.
Sure there has been talks to open more VC's offices in other parts of the country.
How about this one and it will be in debates for now move the Venture capitalists companies to Sacramento and have Branch offices there if this is a good solution to anything and it will take decades to find out.
Get the decent high paying jobs out of San Francisco and spread it to other parts of California or other parts of the USA.
Yes I mentioned this in the Austin, TX example but that we have to wait in terms of decades to find out.
How about another move some jobs to Stockton and Modesto where some of the commuters are coming from apparently to enter San Francisco and San Jose. Why San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties have not considered this one is yet to be seen here.
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/inno/stories/news/2022/11/15/sir-robotics-us-headquarters-cmc.html (https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/inno/stories/news/2022/11/15/sir-robotics-us-headquarters-cmc.html)
Note there are talks to have some tech operations in the Sacramento area, Also Vacaville has been another place of interest to have the biotech industry in Vacaville as part of a move to reduce traffic going to San Francisco and keep jobs within California. Yes this move in the Vacaville area if successful would reduce the number of people going to San Francisco going to work from the Sacramento area.
https://solanoedc.org/news/vacaville-launches-california-biomanufacturing-center (https://solanoedc.org/news/vacaville-launches-california-biomanufacturing-center)
https://www.thereporter.com/2021/07/09/agenus-purchases-site-in-vacaville-for-biomanufacturing-center/ (https://www.thereporter.com/2021/07/09/agenus-purchases-site-in-vacaville-for-biomanufacturing-center/)
https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/article/vacaville-unveils-california-biomanufacturing-center-plan-to-spur-2b-in/ (https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/article/vacaville-unveils-california-biomanufacturing-center-plan-to-spur-2b-in/)
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=32318.0
We mentioned this here on I-80 express toll lanes project for Solano County, CA given that this portion has to respond to both Sacramento and Bay Area commuters at the same time.
Quote from: bing101 on December 04, 2022, 10:52:20 AM
Interestingly San Francisco Proper has the same amount of freeways as Vallejo, CA.
US-101, I-280 and I-80 for San Francisco Proper.
Vallejo, CA has the same amount of freeways I-80, I-780 and CA-37
Only difference here is that San Francisco has to please the Venture Capitalists and financial district crowd that do have offices in the city.
Sure there has been talks to open more VC's offices in other parts of the country.
How about this one and it will be in debates for now move the Venture capitalists companies to Sacramento and have Branch offices there if this is a good solution to anything and it will take decades to find out.
SF has more than six times the population of Vallejo in the same land area. There isn't any city on the west coast that really comes close to the same population density as SF.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 04, 2022, 10:58:49 AM
Quote from: bing101 on December 04, 2022, 10:52:20 AM
Interestingly San Francisco Proper has the same amount of freeways as Vallejo, CA.
US-101, I-280 and I-80 for San Francisco Proper.
Vallejo, CA has the same amount of freeways I-80, I-780 and CA-37
Only difference here is that San Francisco has to please the Venture Capitalists and financial district crowd that do have offices in the city.
Sure there has been talks to open more VC's offices in other parts of the country.
How about this one and it will be in debates for now move the Venture capitalists companies to Sacramento and have Branch offices there if this is a good solution to anything and it will take decades to find out.
SF has more than six times the population of Vallejo in the same land area. There isn't any city on the west coast that really comes close to the same population density as SF.
True too.
A couple quick comments.
The land below the Central Freeway is already mostly developed. There's 13th St, a dog park, a skate park, and a couple businesses (including a U-Haul) store their vehicles in the parking lots under the viaduct. There's very little land that can be developed as most of it is already in use. The giant parking lot at 11th and Bryant is probably where a new I-80 interchange hits the streets.
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2022, 04:36:57 PM
So what is the thru traffic? Chopped liver?
This is San Francisco. Thru traffic doesn't rate that highly. You're basically an annoyance to them and if they could get away with banning all thru traffic, they would.
Sorry to be so negative about this but I think I'm just being realistic. I agree it would be nice to have a freeway connection from the south end of the Golden Gate to I-80 or I-280. I just don't believe it's going to happen. If a meteor destroyed everything from Pacific Heights to Union Square, SF residents would probably insist the entire area be rebuilt as a car-free zone. That's the warped political reality of San Francisco.
Quote from: skluth on December 04, 2022, 11:40:49 AM
A couple quick comments.
The land below the Central Freeway is already mostly developed. There's 13th St, a dog park, a skate park, and a couple businesses (including a U-Haul) store their vehicles in the parking lots under the viaduct. There's very little land that can be developed as most of it is already in use. The giant parking lot at 11th and Bryant is probably where a new I-80 interchange hits the streets.
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2022, 04:36:57 PM
So what is the thru traffic? Chopped liver?
This is San Francisco. Thru traffic doesn't rate that highly. You're basically an annoyance to them and if they could get away with banning all thru traffic, they would.
Sorry to be so negative about this but I think I'm just being realistic. I agree it would be nice to have a freeway connection from the south end of the Golden Gate to I-80 or I-280. I just don't believe it's going to happen. If a meteor destroyed everything from Pacific Heights to Union Square, SF residents would probably insist the entire area be rebuilt as a car-free zone. That's the warped political reality of San Francisco.
Possibly if it could be built as a tunnel, but even tunnels cause surface disruption for exits and entrances and ventilation as well as during construction. I have some optimisting sketches from when I was a kid about where it might go through rock deep enough to tunnel through. But the truth is even if a tunnel could be built, nobody would spend the kind of money it would take.
Not for a freeway mainly serving people passing through.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2022, 12:12:52 AM
Quote from: kkt on December 04, 2022, 12:10:54 AM
Quote from: FredAkbar on December 03, 2022, 11:11:14 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2022, 09:19:00 PM
I would think San Bruno-Sausalito would be thru traffic for SF proper, yet going out to 580 and 880 seems like it would be WAY out of the way.
Much faster (and more direct) to take 380->280->19th Ave than to mess with near-downtown SF via 101/Central Freeway anyway.
Possibly although 19th Ave and Park Presidio and the Golden Gate Bridge can easily be moving at slower than a walking pace.
True but when it isn't it's much faster than taking the surface streets if a tunnel were available. How about getting rid of the fucking toll booths that require you to slow down!?
Especially when they only let you pay by plate or transponder.
Quote from: bing101 on December 04, 2022, 10:52:20 AM
Interestingly San Francisco Proper has the same amount of freeways as Vallejo, CA.
US-101, I-280 and I-80 for San Francisco Proper.
You omitted the Mission Freeway portion of San Jose Avenue from I-280 to Randall Street. It's not a "real" freeway due to its 45 MPH speed limit and one northbound at-grade intersection but it was planned to be so back in the 50s.
Quote from: Techknow on December 04, 2022, 02:41:32 PM
Quote from: bing101 on December 04, 2022, 10:52:20 AM
Interestingly San Francisco Proper has the same amount of freeways as Vallejo, CA.
US-101, I-280 and I-80 for San Francisco Proper.
You omitted the Mission Freeway portion of San Jose Avenue from I-280 to Randall Street. It's not a "real" freeway due to its 45 MPH speed limit and one northbound at-grade intersection but it was planned to be so back in the 50s.
Good Point and there was supposed to be CA-1 as the 19th's ave freeway in the city. Also I-280 was supposed to connect to I-80 and CA-480 at one point back when Chase Center and Oracle Park were industrial wastelands.
Quote from: skluth on December 04, 2022, 11:40:49 AM
This is San Francisco. Thru traffic doesn't rate that highly. You're basically an annoyance to them and if they could get away with banning all thru traffic, they would.
Sorry to be so negative about this but I think I'm just being realistic. I agree it would be nice to have a freeway connection from the south end of the Golden Gate to I-80 or I-280. I just don't believe it's going to happen. If a meteor destroyed everything from Pacific Heights to Union Square, SF residents would probably insist the entire area be rebuilt as a car-free zone. That's the warped political reality of San Francisco.
I highly doubt that attitude is unique to San Francisco, or even to large cities. Doesn't make it right. The "we live here, everyone else can go f*** themselves" attitude needs to go, not just here, but everywhere.
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2022, 03:17:58 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 04, 2022, 11:40:49 AM
This is San Francisco. Thru traffic doesn't rate that highly. You're basically an annoyance to them and if they could get away with banning all thru traffic, they would.
Sorry to be so negative about this but I think I'm just being realistic. I agree it would be nice to have a freeway connection from the south end of the Golden Gate to I-80 or I-280. I just don't believe it's going to happen. If a meteor destroyed everything from Pacific Heights to Union Square, SF residents would probably insist the entire area be rebuilt as a car-free zone. That's the warped political reality of San Francisco.
I highly doubt that attitude is unique to San Francisco, or even to large cities. Doesn't make it right. The "we live here, everyone else can go f*** themselves" attitude needs to go, not just here, but everywhere.
Oh, it definitely isn't. But the degree to which residents make that attitude a part of their identity seems to be much bigger in SF than many other places.
I think there needs to be a balance between travelers and residents. Putting freeways through does have negative consequances, and not just for the displaced landowners. San Francisco is particularly densely populated with people as well as landmark locations that it would be sad to lose.
Frankly I see nothing but stagnation in the cards for the Bay Area. That's going for all forms of transportation. Costs of doing anything there are too high. Plus there is a serious out-migration of blue-collar and service-sector workers.
Driving in or thru San Francisco is bad enough just in terms of all the stop lights and other crap. The Bay Area has among the highest gasoline prices in the nation. Here in Lawton, OK I can fill up at Sam's Club for $2.54 per gallon. In San Francisco fuel prices are nearly double that level. Some stores are charging as much as $5.39 per gallon currently. Add fees from toll bridges to that. I imagine someone having to commute from places like Stockton or Tracy into the Bay Area to work a modest pay job would probably have to do the park and ride thing at some point. They lose a hell of a lot of the day just in commute time. It's no wonder so many people are moving out of California.
New York City suffers from the same problem. I lived there for 5 years (in the late 80's to early 90's). My commute back and forth to college was 90 minutes each way. I have no desire to go back there. Where I live now it takes me less than 10 minutes to drive from my house to my workplace.
QuoteSome stores are charging as much as $5.39 per gallon currently.
Oh, you should have been here a couple months ago.
On the rare occasion that I attended a show in San Francisco, usually at The Warfield Theater (https://www.thewarfieldtheatre.com/), I would end up taking BART from the Orinda (https://www.bart.gov/stations/orin) station rather that try to lose my mind crossing the bay bridge and finding parking in that area. The problem is that, when you combine the population of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim and the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), you are effectively talking about 45.6% of the total population of California in those two areas alone.
As I have stated too many times, I lived in California for 41 years, and so glad to have escaped almost four years ago now. I have no desire to move back or visit.
Quote from: ZLoth on December 04, 2022, 08:10:27 PM
On the rare occasion that I attended a show in San Francisco, usually at The Warfield Theater (https://www.thewarfieldtheatre.com/), I would end up taking BART from the Orinda (https://www.bart.gov/stations/orin) station rather that try to lose my mind crossing the bay bridge and finding parking in that area. The problem is that, when you combine the population of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim and the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), you are effectively talking about 45.6% of the total population of California in those two areas alone.
As I have stated too many times, I lived in California for 41 years, and so glad to have escaped almost four years ago now. I have no desire to move back or visit.
When I worked in Los Angeles, San Diego and the Inland Empire I would commute in from Phoenix. My employers back then kept giving me relocation offers to move to California, it just wasn't workable given the cost of living compared to Arizona. The story was very much the reverse when I was offered a transfer from Orlando to the Central Valley. As much as you like to paint the entirety of California as consisting of Bay Area/Los Angeles elements don't agree with it isn't the reality across the board.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 04, 2022, 07:43:55 PM
Frankly I see nothing but stagnation in the cards for the Bay Area. That's going for all forms of transportation. Cost of doing anything there are too high. Plus there is a serious out-migration of blue-collar and service-sector workers.
Driving in or thru San Francisco is bad enough just in terms of all the stop lights and other crap. The Bay Area has among the highest gasoline prices in the nation. Here in Lawton, OK I can fill up at Sam's Club for $2.54 per gallon. In San Francisco fuel prices are nearly double that level. Some stores are charging as much as $5.39 per gallon currently. Add fees from toll bridges to that. I imagine someone having to commute from places like Stockton or Tracy into the Bay Area to work a modest pay job would probably have to do the park and ride thing at some point. They lose a hell of a lot of the day just in commute time. It's no wonder so many people are moving out of California.
New York City suffers from the same problem. I lived there for 5 years (in the late 80's to early 90's). My commute back and forth to college was 90 minutes each way. I have no desire to go back there. Where I live now it takes me less than 10 minutes to drive from my house to my workplace.
I certainly see why especially for less than median incomes people would get tired of it and want to leave. However, I'm not seeing an overall decline in real estate prices there. For people who can still afford to live somewhere near where they work it's still a pretty nice place. I know it's a squeeze on the less well compensated workers though - teachers, cops, service workers of all kinds... They are making a little effort toward making public transportation better. I think besides BART there's also a passenger ferries from Vallejo and Richmond into the S.F. waterfront.
Quote from: kktI certainly see why especially for less than median incomes people would get tired of it and want to leave. However, I'm not seeing an overall decline in real estate prices there.
Historically California has been able to supplement its workforce greatly via legal and illegal immigration. Lately even that factor has not been enough to offset the overall net losses in population over the past couple years. And then the people emigrating to the US aren't exactly stupid either. I would at least expect more people trying to legally emigrate to the US to choose locations other than California where to live.
The living cost situation in California is so absurd that the
contagion is trying very hard to spread elsewhere. Santa Fe is total high cost douche town now. The rapid population growth in Austin could hit a hard ceiling, thanks in part to the celebrities and other fat-wallet people moving there, making an already expensive living-cost city even more so.
Housing is expensive where there are jobs that allow enough people to pay those prices.
Every one of those high income locales depend on low wage workers to toil away at jobs in restaurants, retail stores and all sorts of other businesses. Those high income places aren't exactly receptive to ideas like building units of housing affordable to people who work in those kinds of businesses.
At this point I don't know how service sector businesses in cities with extremely high costs of living like San Francisco can manage staffing their businesses at all. Crappy, low-wage jobs in retail stores, restaurants, etc are plentiful everywhere, not just places where the living costs are insanely high.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 04, 2022, 08:31:12 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on December 04, 2022, 08:10:27 PM
On the rare occasion that I attended a show in San Francisco, usually at The Warfield Theater (https://www.thewarfieldtheatre.com/), I would end up taking BART from the Orinda (https://www.bart.gov/stations/orin) station rather that try to lose my mind crossing the bay bridge and finding parking in that area. The problem is that, when you combine the population of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim and the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), you are effectively talking about 45.6% of the total population of California in those two areas alone.
As I have stated too many times, I lived in California for 41 years, and so glad to have escaped almost four years ago now. I have no desire to move back or visit.
When I worked in Los Angeles, San Diego and the Inland Empire I would commute in from Phoenix. My employers back then kept giving me relocation offers to move to California, it just wasn't workable given the cost of living compared to Arizona. The story was very much the reverse when I was offered a transfer from Orlando to the Central Valley. As much as you like to paint the entirety of California as consisting of Bay Area/Los Angeles elements don't agree with it isn't the reality across the board.
Lets see here.... by MSA....
- Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim - 33.6%
- San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley - 12.0%
- San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA - 8.4%
In terms of land area, they represent a small chunk of California. But, in terms of political power, they run California, and the policies made under the Capital Done in Sacramento affect all of the Californians whether it be DMV registration fees or gas taxes at the pump. Los Angeles considers the rest of California as one big giant straw for the water to be sucked dry.
Quote from: ZLoth on December 05, 2022, 12:17:48 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 04, 2022, 08:31:12 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on December 04, 2022, 08:10:27 PM
On the rare occasion that I attended a show in San Francisco, usually at The Warfield Theater (https://www.thewarfieldtheatre.com/), I would end up taking BART from the Orinda (https://www.bart.gov/stations/orin) station rather that try to lose my mind crossing the bay bridge and finding parking in that area. The problem is that, when you combine the population of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim and the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), you are effectively talking about 45.6% of the total population of California in those two areas alone.
As I have stated too many times, I lived in California for 41 years, and so glad to have escaped almost four years ago now. I have no desire to move back or visit.
When I worked in Los Angeles, San Diego and the Inland Empire I would commute in from Phoenix. My employers back then kept giving me relocation offers to move to California, it just wasn't workable given the cost of living compared to Arizona. The story was very much the reverse when I was offered a transfer from Orlando to the Central Valley. As much as you like to paint the entirety of California as consisting of Bay Area/Los Angeles elements don't agree with it isn't the reality across the board.
Lets see here.... by MSA....
- Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim - 33.6%
- San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley - 12.0%
- San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA - 8.4%
In terms of land area, they represent a small chunk of California. But, in terms of political power, they run California, and the policies made under the Capital Done in Sacramento affect all of the Californians whether it be DMV registration fees or gas taxes at the pump. Los Angeles considers the rest of California as one big giant straw for the water to be sucked dry.
Do you actually have anything worthwhile to contribute to these threads about California roads besides how much you hate the state? Of all the topics on this board this is the one you pick to whine about California again. I don't think any of this in the discussion were trying to promote SF or California as being the greatest place ever to live. You left and chose what you feel is a better living situation for you in Texas. Why do we need to hear about your angst about a place you no longer live ad nauseam?
Quote from: ZLoth on December 05, 2022, 12:17:48 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 04, 2022, 08:31:12 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on December 04, 2022, 08:10:27 PM
On the rare occasion that I attended a show in San Francisco, usually at The Warfield Theater (https://www.thewarfieldtheatre.com/), I would end up taking BART from the Orinda (https://www.bart.gov/stations/orin) station rather that try to lose my mind crossing the bay bridge and finding parking in that area. The problem is that, when you combine the population of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim and the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), you are effectively talking about 45.6% of the total population of California in those two areas alone.
As I have stated too many times, I lived in California for 41 years, and so glad to have escaped almost four years ago now. I have no desire to move back or visit.
When I worked in Los Angeles, San Diego and the Inland Empire I would commute in from Phoenix. My employers back then kept giving me relocation offers to move to California, it just wasn't workable given the cost of living compared to Arizona. The story was very much the reverse when I was offered a transfer from Orlando to the Central Valley. As much as you like to paint the entirety of California as consisting of Bay Area/Los Angeles elements don't agree with it isn't the reality across the board.
Lets see here.... by MSA....
- Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim - 33.6%
- San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley - 12.0%
- San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA - 8.4%
In terms of land area, they represent a small chunk of California. But, in terms of political power, they run California, and the policies made under the Capital Done in Sacramento affect all of the Californians whether it be DMV registration fees or gas taxes at the pump.
That's a lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing, other than perhaps you think California is the only state that works that way, which is wildly incorrect.
Lets see here.... by MSA....
- Kansas City - 30.4%
- Wichita - 22.0%
In terms of land area, they represent a small chunk of Kansas. But, in terms of political power, they run Kansas, and the policies made under the Capital Dome in Topeka affect all of the Kansans whether it be KDOR registration fees or gas taxes at the pump.
Quote from: skluth on December 04, 2022, 11:40:49 AM
A couple quick comments.
The land below the Central Freeway is already mostly developed. There's 13th St, a dog park, a skate park, and a couple businesses (including a U-Haul) store their vehicles in the parking lots under the viaduct. There's very little land that can be developed as most of it is already in use. The giant parking lot at 11th and Bryant is probably where a new I-80 interchange hits the streets.
When former Mayor Ed Lee proposed converting 280 north of Army (Cesar Chavez) to boulevard, his concept was basically market-rate housing alongside the new street. In the end, local opposition (ironically championed in part by Embarcadero Freeway teardown advocate ex-mayor Art Agnos) in Dogpatch and the fact CalTrain's rebuild in the area would have cost more with this plan ended up dooming the project.
---
Actually took the Central Freeway again to go towards Japantown today, then took it late at night to head to 80 east. The regular backup on the Central Freeway is the segment that is no longer 101 (westbound between Van Ness and Market) - a combination of traffic heading to the Hayes Valley restaurants/boutiques and to other surface streets in the area (i.e. to Japantown like myself, or to Franklin Street via Market).
Prior to the 2005 reconfiguration where the structure to Fell was removed, I don't recall traffic west of Van Ness on the freeway being all that notable, but in the 17 years of the current setup, the Market Street light has been the source of congestion since. Some of the former freeway right of way north of Market has been taken up by a brewpub and the Smitten Ice Cream retail outlet (now closed, sadly, with the chain down to 2 locations).
Quote from: kkt on December 04, 2022, 11:27:44 PM
Housing is expensive where there are jobs that allow enough people to pay those prices.
You're ignoring the huge role investors and developers have played in propping up real estate prices.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 05, 2022, 01:40:18 AM
That's a lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing, other than perhaps you think California is the only state that works that way, which is wildly incorrect.
Lets see here.... by MSA....
- Kansas City - 30.4%
- Wichita - 22.0%
In terms of land area, they represent a small chunk of Kansas. But, in terms of political power, they run Kansas, and the policies made under the Capital Dome in Topeka affect all of the Kansans whether it be KDOR registration fees or gas taxes at the pump.
In terms of population density, California is the #11 state, while Kansas is the #41. In terms of land area, California is almost double the size of Kansas. In terms of Congressional Representatives, Los Angeles county has (until redistricting) eighteen congressional districts either partially or wholly. Kansas has a total of four congressional districts. As for population, Kansas City is the 31st largest MSA with a population of 2,199,490, while Wichita is the 93 largest MSA with a population of 647,919. Combined, they total about 21.9% of the population of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA or 61.5% of the population of the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley MSA.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2022, 12:32:37 AMDo you actually have anything worthwhile to contribute to these threads about California roads besides how much you hate the state?
When my family moved to California in 1977, it was the state that many people wanted to move to. It is a beautiful state to drive in, especially along the coast and the Sierra Nevadas, including many a nice drive along CA route 70, 49, 88, and 4. I even had a desire to drive US-395 end-to-end.
No, it's not the state I hate, it's the policies and decisions that have been made over the past 40 years that turned California from the Golden State to the Pyrites state. And, some of those wounds have been self-inflicted. The Elvas Freeway in Sacramento (part of CA-51/Business 80) is a congestion choke point going down from three lanes to two near Arden Way. It has never been expanded. There was a plan to replace the Capital City Freeway with one that met Interstate standards, but it was canceled in the late 1970s and what was constructed was turned into a light rail station. There is a desperate need for an additional bridge across the American River between Watt Ave and Sunrise Blvd because of the notorious rush hour congestion. Nope, the best they can do is covert those bridges, along with the Hazel Ave bridge, from two lanes each direction to three. After 9/11, the Folsom Dam road was closed and replaced with the Folsom Lake Crossing. These, along with other mothballed if not outright canceled construction decisions made decades ago, is now coming back to haunt that state. Yet, some of those advocates keep proposing public transit projects. Nice idea, but it only is cost effective if you have dense urban housing. Dense urban housing usually means apartment buildings, which means that the rent check you write every month builds up zero equity, and is subject to increases. While my property taxes go up each year, I should have my home paid off by the end of the decade.
Would I like to talk more about the roads of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana? Oh yes, but circumstances prevented it. In 2019, I moved to North Texas, and had some road trip plans drawn up, only for them to the scuttled into just plan day trip plans due to Covid. In 2020 and 2021, I was also too damn busy leading a team that provides premium support for online conferencing. 2022 looked to finally be a year of driving opportunity, only for gas prices to go sky high. In the middle of this, I became a adult caretaker of my mother having to make the difficult decision to take away her car keys due to health issues and, in turn, curb my own freedom. Since I moved here, I haven't been further north than I-40 (thanks to the Indian Nation Turnpike), further south than Waco, more east than Bossier City, and only once was I further west than Granbury. Because I live so close to work, all I can complain about is the traffic on US-75 on Tuesdays and stare out of my office window at the George Bush Parking Lot in the morning.
What gets me is the generalization that the entire state is one way because of the Bay Area or Los Angeles Metro Area. I guess you missed all the major projects recently in places like District 6 or don't care to recognize them?
There is a lot of unlikeable things about every state, that's not a new story. There is a lot of unlikeable things in California and you left because of them. I even noted upthread I refused to move to a major city in California due to some of the misgiving you mentioned. All the same, what do those misgivings have to do with generalizing the entire state as a single thing when it clearly isn't? This would be like going onto the Midwest Board about Michigan and Metro Detroit (where I grew up) ruining the entire state when it certainly didn't
Well, a lot of the high income areas like S.F. have higher state or local minimum wage than the Federal 'tipped minimum wage' that some states let employers get away with paying. And many workplaces do pay above the local minimum wage in order to attract workers, or not have to replace them every six months. And local governments do take some steps to create or maintain some affordable housing, though it's a bit like bailing out a swimming pool with a teaspoon the demand is so high. I take exception to the "cantagion" comment. Expensive cities with higher wages and higher costs pop up all over the United States and all over the world. It's not a disease, it's economics, any place the economy is not so depressed there are no good paying jobs at all.
The workers who manage to live on service job wages in high cost cities are making sacrifices to do so - long commutes, less desirable living areas, living with parents or sharing an apartment with roommates. Many hope it will be a short term deal and are studying or working to qualify for one of the higher paid jobs in the area.
The workers I feel sorry for are places like Maryland or Georgia where there are certainly expensive areas to live, but the "tipped minimum wage" is a joke that no one could possibly live on and enforcement of a credit to make the wage up to the Federal minimum wage isn't really enforced.
There's plenty of people who look at apartment costs here in Seattle and look at their pay and decide to leave.... and go to a less expensive area... and then discover that yes apartments are a lot cheaper in Virginia or the midwest or somewhere. But instead of getting $16 an hour plus tips, they're lucky to get $7 including tips, and they're not living any better than they were, and there are fewer chances to move up to a better job.
I suppose it would be worth pointing out that I grew up in the S.F. Bay Area, but I live in Seattle now and have no plans to move back. Although I still enjoy visiting.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2022, 08:12:18 AMAll the same, what do those misgivings have to do with generalizing the entire state as a single thing when it clearly isn't? This would be like going onto the Midwest Board about Michigan and Metro Detroit (where I grew up) ruining the entire state when it certainly didn't.
Scale and scope, plus representation in state and federal decision making. Detroit—Warren—Dearborn, MI MSA is only about 4,365,205 people, which is about ⅓ the size of Los Angeles MSA and slightly over the population of the entire state of Oregon. The state of Michigan has 13 congressional districts which is fewer than the county of Los Angeles. The California state legislature consists of a 80 seat assembly and a 40 seat senate, and the districts are drawn by population. And remember, if it weren't for fresh water, Los Angeles would be a desert, so where does it get the water from? The central valley and the Colorado River. Guess which lake is about to hit empty? Lake Mead. Because of water, Los Angeles will not allow California to be split up into multiple pieces.
What most of you are missing is that Los Angeles is large in both population and land area used. Only Texas, New York, and Florida have more people as states than Los Angeles as a MSA. The only MSA bigger than Los Angeles is the New York City MSA, and that is split between the states of New York, New Jersey, and Pike County, PA.
My god, do you have some sort of obsession over politics? I also lived in Chicago, Phoenix and Orlando if you want a fuller break down. Are you going to give a political critique on all those places as well? What about major cities I've worked?
I don't know, I find this odd having moved as much as I have holding onto an axe to grind with a state I no longer reside in. Usually when a situation has become untenable for me in one particular state my general tact has been look elsewhere. You say that you moved to Texas for similar reasons which I can totally get. What I don't understand is how you can claim to be happy when you clearly are hanging onto political baggage in the place you left.
Edit: the political premise of this thread and the Central Freeway isn't lost on me for anyone reading this exchange.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2022, 11:29:57 AMMy god, do you have some sort of obsession over politics? I also lived in Chicago, Phoenix and Orlando if you want a fuller break down. Are you going to give a political critique on all those places as well? What about major cities I've worked?
Yes, both by living in the same place for 40 years as well as the political decisions have an effect on the quality of life including attracting and chasing away of residents and businesses and the priority given to transportation projects. They say that the road to hell is based on good intentions. There were plenty of good intentions accumulated over the four decades that caused me to take an opportunity... any opportunity... to escape. The only thing that kept me in California was that I would inherit a home with low property taxes, but everything else? Nope. What is the point in living in "Paradise" if you can't afford to live there?
Chicagoland and, by extension, Illinois is on my list of places NOT to move to, partially based upon the weather, partially based on it's notorious reputation. The other places... besides the weather and the sports teams, not much. When I moved to DFW, I did a in-depth study of where I wanted to live to ensure that I was making the correct decision. Thankfully, this was before the surreal estate period, and I have no regrets about the decision. Now, if only they would complete the I-635 project not to mention the two US-75 projects north of me.
Quote from: kktWell, a lot of the high income areas like S.F. have higher state or local minimum wage than the Federal 'tipped minimum wage' that some states let employers get away with paying. And many workplaces do pay above the local minimum wage in order to attract workers, or not have to replace them every six months.
San Francisco's minimum wage for both tipped and non-tipped employees went up to $16.99 per hour in July. While that sounds like a lot for a minimum wage, a person would have a hard time trying to live on that anywhere in the Bay Area. That especially goes for anywhere inside San Francisco city limits. As I said earlier, San Francisco has had the luxury of drawing labor from low income areas in Oakland to fill a lot of McDonald's type jobs. If the remaining low income neighborhoods in the Bay Area get gentrified what are those service businesses going to do then? It's not like someone is going to commute clear from Stockton to work a job at the In-N-Out Burger on Fisherman's Wharf.
I remember when San Francisco's minimum wage went up to $15. Some people here in Oklahoma were fuming how stupid
and "liberal" that was, but conveniently overlooked just how much it costs to live in locations like the Bay Area. Oklahoma's minimum wage is still just $7.52 per hour (the federal level, which hasn't changed since 2008). But living costs here are such that it might be easier for someone to survive on $7.52 per hour here than it is for someone getting paid $17 an hour in San Francisco.
Quote from: kktAnd local governments do take some steps to create or maintain some affordable housing, though it's a bit like bailing out a swimming pool with a teaspoon the demand is so high. I take exception to the "cantagion" comment. Expensive cities with higher wages and higher costs pop up all over the United States and all over the world. It's not a disease, it's economics, any place the economy is not so depressed there are no good paying jobs at all.
There is nothing natural about the
"economics" of this situation. San Francisco is hardly alone in this. Cities across the US have made it an overwhelming priority to zone as much land as possible in cities and suburbs to R-1 single family unit homes. There is fierce resistance against building any housing that's deemed "affordable."
Build a condo complex with units costing $500K and up? Great! Build units someone making less than $40K per year can afford? Pump the breaks on that crap! We can't have any "riff raff" living nearby! The hypocrisy is these douches depend on a lot of "riff raff" people working at jobs that provide a foundation for their quality of life.
Many cities across the US have created a living situation that is not sustainable. Rent prices actually started easing a little in San Francisco recently. But that is due to factors like people migrating out of the area or sharing an apartment with one or more roommates if they stay. Young people are graduating from college faced with the choice of moving back in with parents or moving to another part of the country in order to afford leaving home. Living with roommates is hardly an "upgrade" over living with parents. Anyone stuck in that position will have a hard time meeting a spouse, getting married and having kids. Many systems in America depend greatly on young adults continuing to do the getting married and having kids dance. Being able to buy or just rent family-sized housing is part of that equation. Too many young people are just getting priced out of parenthood. This doesn't seem like a problem at all right now. But it's going to be a pretty terrible one in about 20 years.
Quote from: ZLoth on December 05, 2022, 11:10:36 AM
If it weren't for fresh water, Los Angeles would be a desert, so where does it get the water from? The central valley and the Colorado River. Guess which lake is about to hit empty? Lake Mead. Because of water, Los Angeles will not allow California to be split up into multiple pieces.
Since you bring up the water, I should at least point out that most of L.A.'s water comes from the EASTERN side of the Sierra - Mono Lake and the Owens Valley, via the Los Angeles Aquaduct. Also some from the Colorado River. Some but not so much from the Central Valley. Yes, water is and will continue to be a huge problem in the southwestern U.S. and the powers that be have been just kicking the can down the road for decades rather alarm people by doing something that might help.
A lot of water practices are more wasteful than they would need to be. Yards with decorative thirsty plants, agricultural crops not optimised for the climate. There's been insufficient motivation to conserve for senior water rights users.
Quote from: kkt on December 05, 2022, 01:17:19 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on December 05, 2022, 11:10:36 AM
If it weren't for fresh water, Los Angeles would be a desert, so where does it get the water from? The central valley and the Colorado River. Guess which lake is about to hit empty? Lake Mead. Because of water, Los Angeles will not allow California to be split up into multiple pieces.
Since you bring up the water, I should at least point out that most of L.A.'s water comes from the EASTERN side of the Sierra - Mono Lake and the Owens Valley, via the Los Angeles Aquaduct. Also some from the Colorado River. Some but not so much from the Central Valley. Yes, water is and will continue to be a huge problem in the southwestern U.S. and the powers that be have been just kicking the can down the road for decades rather alarm people by doing something that might help.
A lot of water practices are more wasteful than they would need to be. Yards with decorative thirsty plants, agricultural crops not optimised for the climate. There's been insufficient motivation to conserve for senior water rights users.
Los Angeles city, yes. But most of Orange County and from east of LA through the Inland Empire gets their water from the Colorado.
It's not primarily a zoning issue. Based on the hope that developers would build affordable housing, zoning rules were relaxed to allow more midrises... and what did we get? Affordable housing for people making $40k a year? You're joking! We got towers of tiny but premium-looking condos that sell for 3/4 of a million. And why should developers do anything different? They don't make as much money making cheap housing. So they knock down old housing stock that might be 70 years old, evict a bunch of low-income tenants who tolerated poor conditions, and put up towers full of premium-priced condos, make a pile 'o money, and move on. The low-income tenants move into their cars or tents in parks or homeless shelters or out of the area entirely.
Now Seattle might have predicted this. They allowed a whole neighborhood of mixed light industrial use and cheap housing to be replaced by Amazon's headquarters. 100K new high-paying jobs, plus loss of the existing cheap housing the neighborhood held before = already bad housing shortages throughout the city made much worse, with more money coming in to bid up what housing there is.
That similar things happen in city after city should be a clue that this IS a problem with our economic system, NOT just one or two cities. Some very well paid jobs indeed in a city where many others are paid very little.
This is a bad situation. Bad for young people who don't want to have roommates, and I don't blame them. Bad for middle aged people who are not going to be getting higher paid jobs to pay higher rent. We agree about that, I think. But I am not seeing simple easy way out.
The Northeast doesn't have this problem as much. If you look at quality of life rankings, California ranks below most solid blue states (New Mexico is the major exception here and is arguably not solid blue), although still in the top half overall. I think some of it is that you can live on less if you don't drive, and public transit is better in the Northeast due to being less spread out. California's government has also made some questionable decisions (e.g. Proposition 65 may cause cancer, repeatedly changing COVID guidelines in mid-2020, the gig economy law intended for rideshare drivers unintentionally affecting musicians negatively, decriminalization of theft under $950), blunders that the Northeast would not make. In addition, most homeless have shelter in the Northeast while it's comparatively less in California.
I don't know how Oregon, Washington, or Illinois compare. Minnesota does quite well.
Now if we could get New Hampshire's minimum wage above $7.25/hr...
Quote from: kktThis is a bad situation. Bad for young people who don't want to have roommates, and I don't blame them. Bad for middle aged people who are not going to be getting higher paid jobs to pay higher rent. We agree about that, I think. But I am not seeing simple easy way out.
There is no simple, easy way out. For one thing, too many people are making too much money off the current housing market paradigm for anything to change. We're not learning any lessons from previous boom-bust cycles either. I was not at all surprised by the Great Recession when it hit in the late 2000's.
To me the current situation feels worse due to so many absurd conditions being present. For instance, there is a massive amount of real estate property sitting empty, just being held like trading cards by investors. It spans everything from penthouses in skinny Manhattan skyscrapers to ordinary homes in small cities. America's real estate market has turned into a global investment playground. Combine that with developers building most new units of housing on the luxury-price end of the spectrum.
I'm afraid we'll have to
learn the hard way (again) and suffer consequences in both the near term and long term. Service-sector businesses have been struggling at filling job vacancies. Their struggles are bound to get worse. Meanwhile everyone else seems to think the problem doesn't exist. When they get inconvenienced by staff shortages at a restaurant, grocery store or wherever they barf out the line,
"nobody wants to work." They take all the "losers" working those low pay jobs totally for granted.
I probably wouldn't give a damn about this problem either if I didn't have to worry about how it might affect me 20 years from now.
I think I'll be eligible to retire and start drawing Social Security by then. But our nation's generational demographics could be a complete shit-show by then -based on how we are royally screwing over so many young adults right now.
It might be kind of fun, in a darkly humorous way, to see San Francisco start reaping what it has sewn in the coming years. This thing with the Central Freeway just seems like them re-arranging the chairs on the Titanic as it's heading toward the ice berg.
Quote from: 1 on December 05, 2022, 02:37:18 PM
California's government has also made some questionable decisions (e.g. Proposition 65 may cause cancer, repeatedly changing COVID guidelines in mid-2020, the gig economy law intended for rideshare drivers unintentionally affecting musicians negatively, decriminalization of theft under $950), blunders that the Northeast would not make.
Point of clarification: Most of those laws you cite came not from the legislatures, but from the initiative process. In other words, the people put them on the ballot, and the people passed the law. Even though AB5 came from the legislature, the screwed up fixes came from inititivi-cough, lyft--tes.
I wonder if it would be legal to put a tax on VACANT housing. Hmm.
Quote from: ZLoth on December 05, 2022, 08:00:49 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 05, 2022, 01:40:18 AM
That's a lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing, other than perhaps you think California is the only state that works that way, which is wildly incorrect.
Lets see here.... by MSA....
- Kansas City - 30.4%
- Wichita - 22.0%
In terms of land area, they represent a small chunk of Kansas. But, in terms of political power, they run Kansas, and the policies made under the Capital Dome in Topeka affect all of the Kansans whether it be KDOR registration fees or gas taxes at the pump.
In terms of population density, California is the #11 state, while Kansas is the #41. In terms of land area, California is almost double the size of Kansas. In terms of Congressional Representatives, Los Angeles county has (until redistricting) eighteen congressional districts either partially or wholly. Kansas has a total of four congressional districts. As for population, Kansas City is the 31st largest MSA with a population of 2,199,490, while Wichita is the 93 largest MSA with a population of 647,919. Combined, they total about 21.9% of the population of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA or 61.5% of the population of the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley MSA.
So what? "A few major cities have more population and dominate the rural areas politically" is the case in pretty much every state (barring a few of the really rural states). I just picked Kansas as an example. I could have done the same analysis for Oklahoma, Missouri, New York, or Nevada and I would have got the same results. You are just making it seem like a problem unique to California because you don't like California. (Whether cities controlling the state politically is even a problem is likewise up for debate–I happen to think it's not.)
I thought the Tulsa metro called the shots here in Oklahoma. :biggrin:
Quote from: kktI wonder if it would be legal to put a tax on VACANT housing. Hmm.
While such a thing might be an appealing idea
in principal such an idea would be
Dead-On-Arrival in any legislative body, federal down to local. Too many people are "getting their beaks wet" in that real estate racket, including lots of elected lawmakers. I'm sure they would have a list of excuses ready, such as having to pay too much in property taxes
-although I'm sure these elected millionaires have plenty of loop holes their accountants can exploit to minimize those costs.A sort of "squatters tax" on vacant real estate might have unintended consequences too. It would really be bad in an economically depressed market. The effects would hit local property owners with just a couple or so properties harder than some rich investor. One of my friends just moved into a new home, but still has an old house his parents owned that's sitting vacant. He needs to do some renovation work before he can put it up for sale. He'd be pretty screwed if he got hit with an extra vacancy tax on top of the property tax he pays already. Rich guys can get out of paying taxes. The rest of us can't.
Examples of vacancy taxes I've seen include exemptions for repairs and renovations being done to prepare them for occupancy.
I suppose a person determined to avoid the tax could easily make those take forever.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 05, 2022, 12:38:17 PM
San Francisco's minimum wage for both tipped and non-tipped employees went up to $16.99 per hour in July. While that sounds like a lot for a minimum wage, a person would have a hard time trying to live on that anywhere in the Bay Area.
That's lower than I expected. For comparison, Washington's statewide minimum is set to hit $15.74 in January (up from $14.49) and Seattle's city minimum is $18.69 for employers who don't pay medical benefits.
Quote from: Bruce on December 06, 2022, 06:30:13 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 05, 2022, 12:38:17 PM
San Francisco's minimum wage for both tipped and non-tipped employees went up to $16.99 per hour in July. While that sounds like a lot for a minimum wage, a person would have a hard time trying to live on that anywhere in the Bay Area.
That's lower than I expected. For comparison, Washington's statewide minimum is set to hit $15.74 in January (up from $14.49) and Seattle's city minimum is $18.69 for employers who don't pay medical benefits.
I'm sure the weird change at the end is due to the output of some formula, but couldn't they round up to the next nickel?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 04, 2022, 08:31:12 PM
Quote from: ZLoth on December 04, 2022, 08:10:27 PM
On the rare occasion that I attended a show in San Francisco, usually at The Warfield Theater (https://www.thewarfieldtheatre.com/), I would end up taking BART from the Orinda (https://www.bart.gov/stations/orin) station rather that try to lose my mind crossing the bay bridge and finding parking in that area. The problem is that, when you combine the population of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim and the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), you are effectively talking about 45.6% of the total population of California in those two areas alone.
As I have stated too many times, I lived in California for 41 years, and so glad to have escaped almost four years ago now. I have no desire to move back or visit.
When I worked in Los Angeles, San Diego and the Inland Empire I would commute in from Phoenix. My employers back then kept giving me relocation offers to move to California, it just wasn't workable given the cost of living compared to Arizona. The story was very much the reverse when I was offered a transfer from Orlando to the Central Valley. As much as you like to paint the entirety of California as consisting of Bay Area/Los Angeles elements don't agree with it isn't the reality across the board.
True too there is more to California besides Bay Area and Los Angeles.
https://www.thereporter.com/2020/10/22/vacaville-launches-california-biomanufacturing-center/
https://www.genengnews.com/topics/bioprocessing/vacaville-unveils-california-biomanufacturing-center/
Here in California we had stories about the Biotech Industry setting up shop in Vacaville, CA which is halfway from Sacramento and San Francisco. But that story got overshadowed with Elon Musk bragging about moving to Austin TX from the San Jose area and got more national attention because of that.
https://www.thereporter.com/2021/07/09/agenus-purchases-site-in-vacaville-for-biomanufacturing-center/
https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/vacaville/vacaville-solano-college-at-center-of-new-biomanufacturing-hub/
Quote from: skluth on December 04, 2022, 11:40:49 AM
A couple quick comments.
The land below the Central Freeway is already mostly developed. There's 13th St, a dog park, a skate park, and a couple businesses (including a U-Haul) store their vehicles in the parking lots under the viaduct. There's very little land that can be developed as most of it is already in use. The giant parking lot at 11th and Bryant is probably where a new I-80 interchange hits the streets.
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2022, 04:36:57 PM
So what is the thru traffic? Chopped liver?
This is San Francisco. Thru traffic doesn't rate that highly. You're basically an annoyance to them and if they could get away with banning all thru traffic, they would.
Sorry to be so negative about this but I think I'm just being realistic. I agree it would be nice to have a freeway connection from the south end of the Golden Gate to I-80 or I-280. I just don't believe it's going to happen. If a meteor destroyed everything from Pacific Heights to Union Square, SF residents would probably insist the entire area be rebuilt as a car-free zone. That's the warped political reality of San Francisco.
Pacific Heights, Pacifica/San Bruno? That Pacific Heights? I wouldn't pedestrianize that far.
Okay, I'll bite a bit more here. I would venture a guess that I am the forum member that lives closest to the Central Freeway. The building I live in abuts it. I've lived here for 8+ years. Obviously I moved here knowing it's there, so I'm not going to insist on its removal, but...the removal would probably a net benefit for me.
My local lens is: the Central Freeway does not carry much *thru traffic* - it's mostly traffic bound to and from parts of SF north and especially west. Real thru traffic is on CA-1 or on I-580 over the Richmond Bridge. The other freeway portion that Weiner mentions, the Bayshore Viaduct section, *does* carry a ton of thru traffic that goes from the East Bay to the Peninsula via SF, and there would be a huge impact if it were impacted as well.
Removing the Central Freeway has some benefits, but they are probably small. The biggest benefit is likely to be saving on long-term maintenance costs. There is not a lot of land to reclaim under there (as skluth noted), as the street below is a major surface street. BTW, this doesn't really have anything to do with forcing everyone into bike lanes. The surface street already has protected bike lanes east of Foslom St, and they are in the works (https://www.sfmta.com/projects/13th-street-safety-project) west of there as well. You don't need to take down the freeway for people to use those.
The biggest benefit to me, personally? The area down under the freeway tends to be dark, dingy, gross, most people don't wanna be down there so you have a higher concentration of more unsavory activity. And this is worse than other freeways in the city as it is a long, continuous stretch, as opposed to occasional bridges mid-block. The bridge supports also make sightlines at basically every intersection pretty bad (the stretch is on the city's "high injury network"), and the transitions from freeway speeds to surface streets results in drivers being more aggressive than elsewhere in the city other than perhaps that Bay Bridge approaches. The sidewalks are narrow. Removing the freeway _would_ fix all of these problems - and I don't think the drawbacks are that high given that most traffic is relatively local and ends up queued up at a stoplight anyways.
Re: Vacancy tax, lots of speculation, but the City has a commercial property vacancy tax that went into effect this year, and just voted a limited residential property vacancy tax that goes into effect in 2024. So, I suppose we will find out how that works in practice.
Quote from: bootmii on December 06, 2022, 11:41:01 AM
Quote from: skluth on December 04, 2022, 11:40:49 AM
A couple quick comments.
The land below the Central Freeway is already mostly developed. There's 13th St, a dog park, a skate park, and a couple businesses (including a U-Haul) store their vehicles in the parking lots under the viaduct. There's very little land that can be developed as most of it is already in use. The giant parking lot at 11th and Bryant is probably where a new I-80 interchange hits the streets.
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2022, 04:36:57 PM
So what is the thru traffic? Chopped liver?
This is San Francisco. Thru traffic doesn't rate that highly. You're basically an annoyance to them and if they could get away with banning all thru traffic, they would.
Sorry to be so negative about this but I think I'm just being realistic. I agree it would be nice to have a freeway connection from the south end of the Golden Gate to I-80 or I-280. I just don't believe it's going to happen. If a meteor destroyed everything from Pacific Heights to Union Square, SF residents would probably insist the entire area be rebuilt as a car-free zone. That's the warped political reality of San Francisco.
Pacific Heights, Pacifica/San Bruno? That Pacific Heights? I wouldn't pedestrianize that far.
Pacific Heights (https://www.compass.com/neighborhood-guides/sf/pacific-heights/) is a neighborhood in San Francisco near the Presidio. The blast I described would wipe out about 10 sq km of the city. For comparison, the Tunguska event wiped out over 2000 sq km while the Berringer Crater in Arizona is about 1.25 sq km.
I took a look at Google Maps to try and visualize any alternatives and there really aren't any? The ramps to 9th and 10th would have to stay, and the only other thing I could see is keeping a ramp to Division and having Division traffic turn onto Van Ness to replace the 101 highway thru traffic access. But that really doesn't even solve any problems or make any more land available?
Quote from: thsftw on December 06, 2022, 02:03:11 PM
I took a look at Google Maps to try and visualize any alternatives and there really aren't any? The ramps to 9th and 10th would have to stay, and the only other thing I could see is keeping a ramp to Division and having Division traffic turn onto Van Ness to replace the 101 highway thru traffic access. But that really doesn't even solve any problems or make any more land available?
I agree very little new land would be made available. But Division likely would be restyled as a boulevard like Octavia Blvd (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7730723,-122.4237635,3a,83.2y,348.73h,81.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s18P9egO64zHgpbuxi5aadA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) with two express lanes each way down the center and one-way feeder streets on each side for local traffic. This configuration would still get traffic from Bryant to Van Ness relatively quickly, especially if the lights on Division were synched.
I also agree the ramps to 9th/10th should stay but San Francisco is its own brand of weirdness/insanity (depending on your POV). My big worry would be outright reconfiguration of both interchanges and the 9th/10th ramps only going to the Bryant/Division intersection since Crossbay traffic can use the ramps to 8th. I realized this would be the cheapest option while writing this response and the more I think about it the more I can see this being considered the preferred alternative for Weiner and his constituents.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:48:16 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 06, 2022, 06:30:13 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 05, 2022, 12:38:17 PM
San Francisco's minimum wage for both tipped and non-tipped employees went up to $16.99 per hour in July. While that sounds like a lot for a minimum wage, a person would have a hard time trying to live on that anywhere in the Bay Area.
That's lower than I expected. For comparison, Washington's statewide minimum is set to hit $15.74 in January (up from $14.49) and Seattle's city minimum is $18.69 for employers who don't pay medical benefits.
I'm sure the weird change at the end is due to the output of some formula, but couldn't they round up to the next nickel?
Yes it is adjusted annually for price index. I'm not sure why it would be important to make special rounding rules to the nickel instead of to the penny. Are you calculating your paycheck in your head?
Quote from: citrus on December 06, 2022, 12:21:46 PM
Okay, I'll bite a bit more here. I would venture a guess that I am the forum member that lives closest to the Central Freeway. The building I live in abuts it. I've lived here for 8+ years. Obviously I moved here knowing it's there, so I'm not going to insist on its removal, but...the removal would probably a net benefit for me.
My local lens is: the Central Freeway does not carry much *thru traffic* - it's mostly traffic bound to and from parts of SF north and especially west. Real thru traffic is on CA-1 or on I-580 over the Richmond Bridge. The other freeway portion that Weiner mentions, the Bayshore Viaduct section, *does* carry a ton of thru traffic that goes from the East Bay to the Peninsula via SF, and there would be a huge impact if it were impacted as well.
Removing the Central Freeway has some benefits, but they are probably small. The biggest benefit is likely to be saving on long-term maintenance costs. There is not a lot of land to reclaim under there (as skluth noted), as the street below is a major surface street. BTW, this doesn't really have anything to do with forcing everyone into bike lanes. The surface street already has protected bike lanes east of Foslom St, and they are in the works (https://www.sfmta.com/projects/13th-street-safety-project) west of there as well. You don't need to take down the freeway for people to use those.
The biggest benefit to me, personally? The area down under the freeway tends to be dark, dingy, gross, most people don't wanna be down there so you have a higher concentration of more unsavory activity. And this is worse than other freeways in the city as it is a long, continuous stretch, as opposed to occasional bridges mid-block. The bridge supports also make sightlines at basically every intersection pretty bad (the stretch is on the city's "high injury network"), and the transitions from freeway speeds to surface streets results in drivers being more aggressive than elsewhere in the city other than perhaps that Bay Bridge approaches. The sidewalks are narrow. Removing the freeway _would_ fix all of these problems - and I don't think the drawbacks are that high given that most traffic is relatively local and ends up queued up at a stoplight anyways.
Re: Vacancy tax, lots of speculation, but the City has a commercial property vacancy tax that went into effect this year, and just voted a limited residential property vacancy tax that goes into effect in 2024. So, I suppose we will find out how that works in practice.
Happen to agree with that too! This is given that the city is also trying to figure out which new industries need to be there in response to some of the VC's and Tech Jobs moving to Austin, TX in the past two years. However that is hype for now what the reality would be is yet to be seen here. Yes this is where I was born but at the same time if I stayed there who knows where I would be today.
Quote from: 1 on December 05, 2022, 02:37:18 PM
The Northeast doesn't have this problem as much. If you look at quality of life rankings, California ranks below most solid blue states (New Mexico is the major exception here and is arguably not solid blue), although still in the top half overall. I think some of it is that you can live on less if you don't drive, and public transit is better in the Northeast due to being less spread out. California's government has also made some questionable decisions (e.g. Proposition 65 may cause cancer, repeatedly changing COVID guidelines in mid-2020, the gig economy law intended for rideshare drivers unintentionally affecting musicians negatively, decriminalization of theft under $950), blunders that the Northeast would not make. In addition, most homeless have shelter in the Northeast while it's comparatively less in California.
I don't know how Oregon, Washington, or Illinois compare. Minnesota does quite well.
Now if we could get New Hampshire's minimum wage above $7.25/hr...
Isn't New England States usually have a better quality of life among the blue states. I heard of Massachusetts and Vermont brought up at one point.
Quote from: kkt on December 06, 2022, 02:56:25 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:48:16 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 06, 2022, 06:30:13 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 05, 2022, 12:38:17 PM
San Francisco's minimum wage for both tipped and non-tipped employees went up to $16.99 per hour in July. While that sounds like a lot for a minimum wage, a person would have a hard time trying to live on that anywhere in the Bay Area.
That's lower than I expected. For comparison, Washington's statewide minimum is set to hit $15.74 in January (up from $14.49) and Seattle's city minimum is $18.69 for employers who don't pay medical benefits.
I'm sure the weird change at the end is due to the output of some formula, but couldn't they round up to the next nickel?
Yes it is adjusted annually for price index. I'm not sure why it would be important to make special rounding rules to the nickel instead of to the penny. Are you calculating your paycheck in your head?
It just stuck out to me, considering that federal minimum wage (and thus Oklahoma minimum wage) has been rounded off as long as I've been in the workforce. ($5.15 → $6.00 → $7.25)
Quote from: skluth on December 06, 2022, 02:44:45 PM
Quote from: thsftw on December 06, 2022, 02:03:11 PM
I took a look at Google Maps to try and visualize any alternatives and there really aren't any? The ramps to 9th and 10th would have to stay, and the only other thing I could see is keeping a ramp to Division and having Division traffic turn onto Van Ness to replace the 101 highway thru traffic access. But that really doesn't even solve any problems or make any more land available?
I agree very little new land would be made available. But Division likely would be restyled as a boulevard like Octavia Blvd (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7730723,-122.4237635,3a,83.2y,348.73h,81.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s18P9egO64zHgpbuxi5aadA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) with two express lanes each way down the center and one-way feeder streets on each side for local traffic. This configuration would still get traffic from Bryant to Van Ness relatively quickly, especially if the lights on Division were synched.
IIRC Octavia has a light sync setup that was designed to keep cars from rolling super-fast down the road, in concert with the somewhat steep incline from Market to Haight (which itself hasn't had that much of an effect).
When Mayor Lee proposed the removal of 280 in Dogpatch, local residents explicitly cited Octavia as a reason they did not want his plans implemented and instead specifically wanted the freeway retained.
I have read somewhere on this forum years ago that when the Central Freeway used to run all the way to Fell (and to Turk), the light timings for Fell/Oak facilitated 40 MPH continuous driving from the freeway towards Haight-Ashbury/Golden Gate Park; from experience I know Franklin Street (parallel alternate northbound to US 101 along Van Ness) has decent light syncing for about 25-30 MPH for through traffic, and pre-pandemic Great Highway was synced to about 35 MPH. Current Great Highway light sync speed is closer to 29 MPH, but not quite sure how fast.
Quote from: 1 on December 05, 2022, 02:37:18 PM
The Northeast doesn't have this problem as much. If you look at quality of life rankings, California ranks below most solid blue states (New Mexico is the major exception here and is arguably not solid blue), although still in the top half overall. I think some of it is that you can live on less if you don't drive, and public transit is better in the Northeast due to being less spread out. California's government has also made some questionable decisions (e.g. Proposition 65 may cause cancer, repeatedly changing COVID guidelines in mid-2020, the gig economy law intended for rideshare drivers unintentionally affecting musicians negatively, decriminalization of theft under $950), blunders that the Northeast would not make. In addition, most homeless have shelter in the Northeast while it's comparatively less in California.
I don't know how Oregon, Washington, or Illinois compare. Minnesota does quite well.
Now if we could get New Hampshire's minimum wage above $7.25/hr...
Go around anywhere in NH, and a Dunkin' Donuts is hiring at $12-$15/hr, while in Massachusetts they're $15-$16/hr, with Mass minimum wage moving to $15/hr on 1/1. I feel few people in NH work for minimum wage.