San Mateo County's Cancelled Freeways

[TheStranger]

I agree with silverback's assessment.  As a kid, I would pore over maps of SF and imagine these two roadways, in some form or another.  What are attractive about those ROWs is that much of the land was urban parkland - fewer homes and businesses that need to be bulldozed

Considering how much the Western Freeway I-80 extension was opposed, the idea of demolishing parkland was equally seen as unpalatable as home/business removal to San Francisco residents during the freeway revolt period.  Another bit of parkland that exists due to a freeway cancellation is Glen Canyon Park, which would have been in the path of the proposed Crosstown Freeway between today's I-280 (then US 101 and later Route 82) at Monterey Boulevard, and pre-1968 I-280 at today's Clarendon/Laguna Honda intersection.

I have seen somewhere - forgot the source - that Sunset Boulevard at one point was considered for pre-1968 I-280, though never seriously pursued. 

Great Highway was shown as a route corridor in some 1940s/1950s plans but never as an official mapped CalTrans route (unlike pre-1968 I-280, the Central Freeway north of Market, the I-80 Western Freeway, and 480 between Broadway and US 101).  But even in its current form as a boulevard, it may not be long for car usage; the portion from Sloat to Lincoln has been closed during the pandemic for pedestrian uses as noted here:

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/How-the-Great-Highway-has-become-San-Francisco-s-15597659.php
https://sf.streetsblog.org/2020/05/18/great-highway-vs-great-walkway/

[jander]

Having the Great Highway closed to traffic is amazing. I hope they keep it closed.  Being able to bike along the coast with no cars is super fun.  And the families love being out there on skates, etc.

[Max Rockatansky]

Having the Great Highway closed to traffic is amazing. I hope they keep it closed.  Being able to bike along the coast with no cars is super fun.  And the families love being out there on skates, etc.

Except that it was a major road and had really convenient access to most of the City on Pacific side.  It's kind of hard for me to get behind closing off a major road, especially when a City like San Francisco is already heavily pedestrian oriented. 

[jander]

Ehh, its not really a major road.  Sunset is way more efficient in getting you where you need to go. 

Skyline. –> Sloat –> Sunset/19th is way more efficient if you are going anywhere besides Lands End.

You can also drive Lower Great Hwy if you have to.

[Max Rockatansky]

Ehh, its not really a major road.  Sunset is way more efficient in getting you where you need to go. 

Skyline. –> Sloat –> Sunset/19th is way more efficient if you are going anywhere besides Lands End.

You can also drive Lower Great Hwy if you have to.

To the Cliff House and Land's End I'd prefer Great Highway from Skyline and Sloan via CA 35.  19th/1 is usually backed up from all the through traffic.  Sunset isn't very helpful given the only real practical way to even get to it include using 19th.  The move just reeks of being unfriendly to visiting automotive traffic.  This seems more like an excuse not to put money into maintaining Great Highway over the forces of erosion more than anything. 

[Concrete Bob]

All the traffic that would normally use the Great Highway will use Sunset and Nineteenth Avenue, thereby increasing congestion on those arterials.  The extra traffic will then spillover onto the parallel north-south neighborhood streets. 

The closure of the Great Highway to through traffic is the equivalent of shutting down checkout aisles at a grocery store during peak business hours.  It isn't a very smart move, logistically or business-wise. 

When I was younger, I would visit San Francisco fairly frequently (Amoeba Records - YEAH !).  I haven't been there voluntarily in over ten years, due to the congestion and a few other non road-related issues.   

[sparker]

Ehh, its not really a major road.  Sunset is way more efficient in getting you where you need to go. 

Skyline. –> Sloat –> Sunset/19th is way more efficient if you are going anywhere besides Lands End.

You can also drive Lower Great Hwy if you have to.

To the Cliff House and Land's End I'd prefer Great Highway from Skyline and Sloan via CA 35.  19th/1 is usually backed up from all the through traffic.  Sunset isn't very helpful given the only real practical way to even get to it include using 19th.  The move just reeks of being unfriendly to visiting automotive traffic.  This seems more like an excuse not to put money into maintaining Great Highway over the forces of erosion more than anything. 

All the traffic that would normally use the Great Highway will use Sunset and Nineteenth Avenue, thereby increasing congestion on those arterials.  The extra traffic will then spillover onto the parallel north-south neighborhood streets. 

The closure of the Great Highway to through traffic is the equivalent of shutting down checkout aisles at a grocery store during peak business hours.  It isn't a very smart move, logistically or business-wise. 

When I was younger, I would visit San Francisco fairly frequently (Amoeba Records - YEAH !).  I haven't been there voluntarily in over ten years, due to the congestion and a few other non road-related issues.   

The Great Highway issue has always been sand drift from the adjacent beach rather than actual erosion.  The waves on the ocean side of S.F. are quite impressive, which is why there are signs all over the beaches adjacent to the Presidio (the quasi-legal nude beach) warn against going out into the water past waist-high level.  They simply act as a "wet pushbroom" relocating the sand inland (much of it ends up past the Great Highway and piled up against the first row of houses).  And yes, it's gotten worse in the last couple of decades; when I first lived in the region in the late '70's, the road was occasionally closed when the winds blew sand inland, both limiting driving visibility and posing damage to vehicles.  But back then the road was rarely inundated with wet sand as it is today.  But it always took a E-W slog through the Sunset or Outer Richmond to even get to Great Highway; it was never a terribly efficient commute route down to Daly City or Pacifica; Sunset was and is always a more efficacious route (although lately it's more than a bit "fugly" since the city stopped maintaining the ROW); even 19th Avenue/CA 1 is all right if you get the lights timed correctly.  Great Highway won't be missed all that much; some friends who live in the outer Sunset have even suggested that it be replaced by a high berm to keep the sand out of the neighborhood!

[skluth]

Ehh, its not really a major road.  Sunset is way more efficient in getting you where you need to go. 

Skyline. –> Sloat –> Sunset/19th is way more efficient if you are going anywhere besides Lands End.

You can also drive Lower Great Hwy if you have to.

To the Cliff House and Land's End I'd prefer Great Highway from Skyline and Sloan via CA 35.  19th/1 is usually backed up from all the through traffic.  Sunset isn't very helpful given the only real practical way to even get to it include using 19th.  The move just reeks of being unfriendly to visiting automotive traffic.  This seems more like an excuse not to put money into maintaining Great Highway over the forces of erosion more than anything. 

All the traffic that would normally use the Great Highway will use Sunset and Nineteenth Avenue, thereby increasing congestion on those arterials.  The extra traffic will then spillover onto the parallel north-south neighborhood streets. 

The closure of the Great Highway to through traffic is the equivalent of shutting down checkout aisles at a grocery store during peak business hours.  It isn't a very smart move, logistically or business-wise. 

When I was younger, I would visit San Francisco fairly frequently (Amoeba Records - YEAH !).  I haven't been there voluntarily in over ten years, due to the congestion and a few other non road-related issues.   

The Great Highway issue has always been sand drift from the adjacent beach rather than actual erosion.  The waves on the ocean side of S.F. are quite impressive, which is why there are signs all over the beaches adjacent to the Presidio (the quasi-legal nude beach) warn against going out into the water past waist-high level.  They simply act as a "wet pushbroom" relocating the sand inland (much of it ends up past the Great Highway and piled up against the first row of houses).  And yes, it's gotten worse in the last couple of decades; when I first lived in the region in the late '70's, the road was occasionally closed when the winds blew sand inland, both limiting driving visibility and posing damage to vehicles.  But back then the road was rarely inundated with wet sand as it is today.  But it always took a E-W slog through the Sunset or Outer Richmond to even get to Great Highway; it was never a terribly efficient commute route down to Daly City or Pacifica; Sunset was and is always a more efficacious route (although lately it's more than a bit "fugly" since the city stopped maintaining the ROW); even 19th Avenue/CA 1 is all right if you get the lights timed correctly.  Great Highway won't be missed all that much; some friends who live in the outer Sunset have even suggested that it be replaced by a high berm to keep the sand out of the neighborhood!

Great Highway isn't the only coastal highway with problems. Everywhere along the coasts is experiencing more problems than they formerly did. Some of it is sea level rise, but it's often more a land subsidence issue. I experienced this in Portsmouth, VA, where the port area is sinking due to isostatic rebound around Chesapeake Bay after the Ice Age glaciers retreated. Tangier Island is almost completely gone.  The tectonic forces that cause all our earthquakes are also causing the entire Bay region to sink. Areas on fill (Foster City) or depleting their ground water (San Joaquin Valley) are also more affected.

We need to make sure our coastal highways are built for how the land will change over the next fifty or more years, not just for today.

[Max Rockatansky]

Ehh, its not really a major road.  Sunset is way more efficient in getting you where you need to go. 

Skyline. –> Sloat –> Sunset/19th is way more efficient if you are going anywhere besides Lands End.

You can also drive Lower Great Hwy if you have to.

To the Cliff House and Land's End I'd prefer Great Highway from Skyline and Sloan via CA 35.  19th/1 is usually backed up from all the through traffic.  Sunset isn't very helpful given the only real practical way to even get to it include using 19th.  The move just reeks of being unfriendly to visiting automotive traffic.  This seems more like an excuse not to put money into maintaining Great Highway over the forces of erosion more than anything. 

All the traffic that would normally use the Great Highway will use Sunset and Nineteenth Avenue, thereby increasing congestion on those arterials.  The extra traffic will then spillover onto the parallel north-south neighborhood streets. 

The closure of the Great Highway to through traffic is the equivalent of shutting down checkout aisles at a grocery store during peak business hours.  It isn't a very smart move, logistically or business-wise. 

When I was younger, I would visit San Francisco fairly frequently (Amoeba Records - YEAH !).  I haven't been there voluntarily in over ten years, due to the congestion and a few other non road-related issues.   

The Great Highway issue has always been sand drift from the adjacent beach rather than actual erosion.  The waves on the ocean side of S.F. are quite impressive, which is why there are signs all over the beaches adjacent to the Presidio (the quasi-legal nude beach) warn against going out into the water past waist-high level.  They simply act as a "wet pushbroom" relocating the sand inland (much of it ends up past the Great Highway and piled up against the first row of houses).  And yes, it's gotten worse in the last couple of decades; when I first lived in the region in the late '70's, the road was occasionally closed when the winds blew sand inland, both limiting driving visibility and posing damage to vehicles.  But back then the road was rarely inundated with wet sand as it is today.  But it always took a E-W slog through the Sunset or Outer Richmond to even get to Great Highway; it was never a terribly efficient commute route down to Daly City or Pacifica; Sunset was and is always a more efficacious route (although lately it's more than a bit "fugly" since the city stopped maintaining the ROW); even 19th Avenue/CA 1 is all right if you get the lights timed correctly.  Great Highway won't be missed all that much; some friends who live in the outer Sunset have even suggested that it be replaced by a high berm to keep the sand out of the neighborhood!

Great Highway isn't the only coastal highway with problems. Everywhere along the coasts is experiencing more problems than they formerly did. Some of it is sea level rise, but it's often more a land subsidence issue. I experienced this in Portsmouth, VA, where the port area is sinking due to isostatic rebound around Chesapeake Bay after the Ice Age glaciers retreated. Tangier Island is almost completely gone.  The tectonic forces that cause all our earthquakes are also causing the entire Bay region to sink. Areas on fill (Foster City) or depleting their ground water (San Joaquin Valley) are also more affected.

We need to make sure our coastal highways are built for how the land will change over the next fifty or more years, not just for today.

Which was one of the more interesting aspects of being in Key West when Roosevelt Boulevard was being rebuilt.  The new sea wall seemed kind of excessive but it really did it's job during the last couple hurricanes.