Saw this article (http://www.greencaltrain.com/2013/01/sf-mayors-office-unveils-bold-proposal-to-turn-freeway-and-rail-yards-into-neighborhoods-urges-caltrain-to-swap-railyards/) in the blogosphere this morning, with some details about a proposal to tear down parts of I-280 in San Francisco, replaced with urban boulevards and street grid connections. There's a link to a more detailed PDF study in there too. Looks like there are quite a few proposals, some keeping most of the freeway intact with some small adjustments at the north end, and some having the freeway touch down at 16th St, tearing down the viaduct north of there. I've heard proposals of tearing down everything east of US-101, but I don't see that anywhere here.
The impetus for these proposals seems to come from a couple places. One is new urban development: the neighborhood (Mission Bay) east of I-280 and north of 16th St was historically a large industrial land of railyards, docks, etc. Now, UCSF is building a large healthcare-oriented campus there, complete with lab facilities, hospitals, and housing for students. Beyond that, there are quite a few new condo complexes in Mission Bay now, already constructed, under construction, and proposed. 4th St is supposed to become a commercial corridor for the neighborhood, and transit (the 22 Muni bus line) is supposed to be rerouted there, possibly with bus rapid transit.
The other motivating factor is based on engineering and CA High-Speed Rail. The HSR corridor is slated to follow the current Caltrain corridor whose right-of-way is directly under I-280. Electrifying the corridor just for Caltrain is supposed to happen beforehand, and grade separations are likely to be required. This is going to prove difficult at a few at-grade crossings that are directly under I-280, especially at 16th St.
I suppose this should not be too big a surprise given SF and precedent. The last time I-280 was cut back (just a few blocks on the north end), it was to make way for urban development surrounding the 4th/King Caltrain station and AT&T Park, and the Muni light rail (T line) extension.
I'm split on proposals like these, but I'd personally be mostly in favor of having the freeway touch down at 16th St, instead of reaching 5th St as it does today. A lot of this is personal - my girlfriend works over at UCSF, and the whole area does feel a little creepy. I've walked down 7th St (parallel to 280) in broad daylight, and it feels super sketchy. The intersection of 7th, 16th, and Mississippi doesn't feel as sketchy, but it feels dangerous from a pedestrian standpoint, and pedestrian traffic there has increased a lot in the last 2-3 years. Razing the freeway and building a neighborhood will certainly make it feel more "friendly" around there - but at what cost. While I don't drive on that stretch of 280 much, it's a welcome alternative to 101. SF has also had a series of "successful" freeway stub teardowns. I live very close to the stub end of the Central Freeway. The neighborhood got a lot better since the extension was taken down, but it's not like walking down Octavia Blvd is pleasant. Ditto for 4th and King.
I think this is interesting because it's not the traditional NIMBY argument. 280 isn't really in anyone's backyard right now (other than some RV dwellers on the street), but the City wants to build a lot there. Some may argue that the area should be left alone, there's no business building housing near a freeway that's already there, but there's also this standpoint: there's currently a pretty serious housing shortage in SF, especially for rentals. (Rents have gone up like crazy in the past year or 2, and my friends all have stories of showing up at an apartment viewing only to find 30 other people outbidding each other.) SF itself doesn't really have open land for development like this anywhere, and it's more valuable without the freeway. What are your thoughts?
Looks to me like the development would do more to make the area less sketchy than tearing down the freeway. How would the boulevard deal with the railroad tracks?
Development would help for sure... at least to a point. (The area under the Central Freeway is both developed and dingy.)
The train tracks would go underground - which should probably happen regardless of what else happens.
I support this reasonable freeway tear-down proposal.
They got some waterfront real estate that'll benefit from its removal at this location.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 16, 2013, 03:20:16 PM
They got some waterfront real estate that'll benefit from its removal at this location.
Actually, no. The remaining section of 280 between 4th Street and 16th Street is entirely inland.
Quote from: TheStranger on January 17, 2013, 11:53:54 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 16, 2013, 03:20:16 PM
They got some waterfront real estate that'll benefit from its removal at this location.
Actually, no. The remaining section of 280 between 4th Street and 16th Street is entirely inland.
...and provides the only convenient freeway access to and from AT&T Park.
Existing trains don't move any faster than 20 MPH after exiting the final tunnel before arriving at the San Francisco Caltrain station. That is the segment of track that is under I-280.
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 17, 2013, 01:43:57 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on January 17, 2013, 11:53:54 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 16, 2013, 03:20:16 PM
They got some waterfront real estate that'll benefit from its removal at this location.
Actually, no. The remaining section of 280 between 4th Street and 16th Street is entirely inland.
...and provides the only convenient freeway access to and from AT&T Park.
Existing trains don't move any faster than 20 MPH after exiting the final tunnel before arriving at the San Francisco Caltrain station. That is the segment of track that is under I-280.
That stretch of 280 is at least a half mile from the waterfront, discounting the two channels that protrude form the Bay. (Not that either of them are particularly nice.) The City is trying to redevelop the waterfront, and I'd say it's inconclusive whether 280 is an asset, a detriment, or inconsequential to those efforts.
I'd argue that the freeway is not an especially convenient way to get to AT&T Park if you have other options - already, parking on game days is $20-100(!, for weekend games with "rival" opponents in town), and most surface parking south of AT&T Park is being re-purposed for housing and other uses. (i.e. the parking was intended to be temporary.) The transit connections at that location are far and above most other MLB ballparks...and would only get better if/when Caltrain gets electrified. But no matter what happens, AT&T is a hell of a place to watch baseball!
Quote from: citrus on January 17, 2013, 10:12:03 PM
That stretch of 280 is at least a half mile from the waterfront, discounting the two channels that protrude form the Bay. (Not that either of them are particularly nice.) The City is trying to redevelop the waterfront, and I'd say it's inconclusive whether 280 is an asset, a detriment, or inconsequential to those efforts.
That channel off of McCovey Cove is exactly what I'm talking about. I see it's already lined with some nicer development and boat docks. The existing freeway bridges can't be very attractive while they're using some potential valuable waterfront real estate. When you've got density like San Francisco,
any waterfront property is a huge asset. That's why cities have been cleaning up and redeveloping their old industrial waterfronts for decades.
Side note: the Giants were playing when the current aerial photos were taken. Never seen that before.
Looks like the home team was in a bit of a jam. The bases are loaded and a right-handed batter is up. The infield is playing at double-play depth so that means there is at most one out. The outfield is playing pretty much straight away, if a little deep, so the batter must be pretty good to present a equal threat to both left & right fields.
Must be a weekday game, too judging by the crowd size. Full parking lots elsewhere in the city is further evidence. So odds are pretty good it was a Wednesday or a Thursday, since those are the most common days for a weekday day game. Using that information, one could probably figure out what date the aerials were taken.
Nooo, it isn't like Google Earth doesn't just tell you the date. :biggrin:
Though I suppose given the date, you could figure out the exact moment during the game when the aerial was snapped.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 20, 2013, 02:42:27 PM
Quote from: citrus on January 17, 2013, 10:12:03 PM
That stretch of 280 is at least a half mile from the waterfront, discounting the two channels that protrude form the Bay. (Not that either of them are particularly nice.) The City is trying to redevelop the waterfront, and I'd say it's inconclusive whether 280 is an asset, a detriment, or inconsequential to those efforts.
That channel off of McCovey Cove is exactly what I'm talking about. I see it's already lined with some nicer development and boat docks. The existing freeway bridges can't be very attractive while they're using some potential valuable waterfront real estate. When you've got density like San Francisco, any waterfront property is a huge asset. That's why cities have been cleaning up and redeveloping their old industrial waterfronts for decades.
Side note: the Giants were playing when the current aerial photos were taken. Never seen that before.
Looks like the home team was in a bit of a jam. The bases are loaded and a right-handed batter is up. The infield is playing at double-play depth so that means there is at most one out. The outfield is playing pretty much straight away, if a little deep, so the batter must be pretty good to present a equal threat to both left & right fields.
Must be a weekday game, too judging by the crowd size. Full parking lots elsewhere in the city is further evidence. So odds are pretty good it was a Wednesday or a Thursday, since those are the most common days for a weekday day game. Using that information, one could probably figure out what date the aerials were taken.
Slightly off-topic, but Google has been actively trying to shoot aerial images during major events in recent years. Check their aerial images of Oshkosh, WI - I got when it was flown down to within about half an hour or so. It was about 2:00pm CDT (Sun angle) on the Sunday before EAA opened in 2011 (24-July). Numerous clues on the grounds point to that day.
:nod:
Mike
San Francisco has found funding to discuss the teardown proposal further, though if implemented, it would not happen for at least 5-6 years.
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/07/s-f-railyard-redevelopment-280-terminus-phase-two-funded.html
(Interestingly, CalTrans did earthquake retrofits earlier this year on this stretch of freeway).
Reading the debate on Socketsite in the wake of having read the Wikipedia entry of the Embarcadero Freeway's late-80s/early-90s history has made me realize...regardless of city policy and other cities trying to claim the San Francisco example as an ideal...there has never been much agreement amongst residents here as to the functionality (and future) of existing highways in the city.
The comments there do provide insight into the traffic patterns along existing 280 in the Potrero Hill/Dogpatch area and along the sections of streets (Octavia, Embarcadero) that were built or refurbished as freeway replacements.
Quote from: citrusSF itself doesn't really have open land for development like this anywhere
A year and a half after this post, I can think of several counterexamples to that:
- the Schlage Lock site in Visitacion Valley which is finally being developed (in conjunction with the Muni Metro extension to Bayshore Caltrain, and the revived Geneva Avenue extension to the Bayshore Freeway)
- Hunter's Point (which, for its historic seediness, is receiving new construction at present)
- Candlestick Park once the stadium is demolished later in the year
While none of those are in as trendy a spot as Mission Bay or Dogpatch, the land area of those three project sites is significantly larger than what would be freed up by removing 280 in Mission Bay.
The Planning Dept is acting as if it's probable enough that developers should take it into account:
http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/07/29/500_townsend_would_trade_i280_for_a_view_if_youre_asking.php
Quote from: TheStranger on July 29, 2014, 11:55:06 AM
Quote from: citrusSF itself doesn't really have open land for development like this anywhere
A year and a half after this post, I can think of several counterexamples to that:
- the Schlage Lock site in Visitacion Valley which is finally being developed (in conjunction with the Muni Metro extension to Bayshore Caltrain, and the revived Geneva Avenue extension to the Bayshore Freeway)
- Hunter's Point (which, for its historic seediness, is receiving new construction at present)
- Candlestick Park once the stadium is demolished later in the year
While none of those are in as trendy a spot as Mission Bay or Dogpatch, the land area of those three project sites is significantly larger than what would be freed up by removing 280 in Mission Bay.
Of course! I'd also add the Parkmerced expansion over in the far SW corner of SF. Undoubtedly developers and the City see more $$$$ in this location... not that that's a particularly good reason in itself to tear the freeway down.
Mission Bay already looks wildly different than it did when I started this thread! (And that's not even including the massive fire that happened in the spring.) Dogpatch looks pretty different in many parts as well. There's also the Warriors arena that's going to be built on 3rd St in Mission Bay in a couple years. Will be interesting to see what happens. Meanwhile, I'm following the proposed 400' towers over by Market and Van Ness....
Quote from: citrus on July 29, 2014, 10:45:52 PM
Of course! I'd also add the Parkmerced expansion over in the far SW corner of SF. Undoubtedly developers and the City see more $$$$ in this location... not that that's a particularly good reason in itself to tear the freeway down.
I wonder how much of this will be affected by...
1. the continued delays on high-speed rail
2. the current battle between the state and SF (and SF voters) over that voter-development-approval proposition that passed, much of which has to do with waterfront areas
Interesting that in some way, the development boom currently occurring South of Market is to an extent an artifice of the anti-Manhattanization that curtailed north of Market development after the mid-1980s (specifically with height limits being relaxed around Transbay). Even the past saga of the Embarcadero Freeway fits in with the city's shift towards emphasizing the southern part of the core over the traditional Financial District area, with this 280 discussion being but one aspect of this decades-long revamping.
I wouldn't be surprised if this went through! Sort of reminds me of Detroit's plans to eliminate I-375 (although that proposal does not involve a railroad yard).
This proposal has been back in the news recently: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/I-280-near-Mission-Bay-would-be-razed-in-Caltrain-6254662.php
I guess they haven't razed enough of San Francisco's freeway system.
I'm surprised 280 hasn't already been rased. I know people use it, but I sense that a good arterial roadway would substitute fine.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 14, 2015, 08:05:45 PM
I'm surprised 280 hasn't already been rased. I know people use it, but I sense that a good arterial roadway would substitute fine.
I use it at least 2-3 times a week when 101 has its usual traffic around Cesar Chavez (Army) and at I-80 - northbound in the commute it is pretty close to capacity, and the exit in the Dogpatch neighborhood (Mariposa Street) is almost always backed up .
I cannot think of any scenario where moving all of those commuters onto only 101 between the Bayview and downtown areas would be beneficial.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 14, 2015, 06:30:49 PM
I guess they haven't razed enough of San Francisco's freeway system.
I'm sure all the people of the City by the Bay share that sentiment. Putting a freeway in the Embarcadero area was the worst mistake ever in the history of urban planning.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 15, 2015, 11:56:06 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 14, 2015, 08:05:45 PM
I'm surprised 280 hasn't already been rased. I know people use it, but I sense that a good arterial roadway would substitute fine.
I use it at least 2-3 times a week when 101 has its usual traffic around Cesar Chavez (Army) and at I-80 - northbound in the commute it is pretty close to capacity, and the exit in the Dogpatch neighborhood (Mariposa Street) is almost always backed up .
I cannot think of any scenario where moving all of those commuters onto only 101 between the Bayview and downtown areas would be beneficial.
If I were to build the boulevard on the freeway ROW, I would keep the same number of lanes, and maybe add at least one more in each direction if need be. And there'd be RIRO's for the side streets, plus signalized (split-phase?) intersections for the crossing streets.
Does that mean that Selby Street would finally see the light of day? Or would it be incorporated into the new parkway?
Quote from: Henry on May 19, 2015, 12:15:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 14, 2015, 06:30:49 PM
I guess they haven't razed enough of San Francisco's freeway system.
I'm sure all the people of the City by the Bay share that sentiment. Putting a freeway in the Embarcadero area was the worst mistake ever in the history of urban planning.
The fact that Art Agnos was voted out in part because Chinatown/Richmond District residents felt their needs were trumped by pro-waterfront development interests tells me there isn't (and never has been) a city-wide consensus on this. The comments on that Chronicle article only highlight inter-neighborhood differences as well.
Quote from: Henry on May 19, 2015, 12:15:11 PM
If I were to build the boulevard on the freeway ROW, I would keep the same number of lanes, and maybe add at least one more in each direction if need be. And there'd be RIRO's for the side streets, plus signalized (split-phase?) intersections for the crossing streets.
That's however not how the replacement boulevards along the Embarcadero and Octavia Boulevard were built. Octavia has frontage roads for the burgeoning east portion of the Hayes Valley business district, but only 2 through lanes in each direction, and signals generally designed to guarantee that traffic heading from the Central Freeway to Fell Street has to stop at least once (and traffic heading from Oak/Octavia to the freeway has to stop once as well). Oak has a protected right turn to Octavia but the other cross streets do not have protected turns as far as I can recall.
I don't think the Embarcadero gained any lane additions with the removal of 480 (especially with the old Belt Line rail right of way being used for today's F-Market historic streetcar line).
Quote from: JustDrive on May 21, 2015, 05:11:58 PM
Does that mean that Selby Street would finally see the light of day? Or would it be incorporated into the new parkway?
No - the portion currently being suggested for conversion to boulevard, if I'm not mistaken, is north of Cesar Chavez (Army).
More news on potential to remove northernmost 1.2 miles of I-280 in San Francisco near Mission Bay:
http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=3717 - feasibility study to remove portion of I-280 just released
QuotePhase I of the RAB studies four distinct components. Each component will include a thorough analysis of existing conditions and prepare conceptual design alternatives within three study areas: the 16th Street grade separation, the 4th and King Railyard, and I-280. ... 1. Make I-280 a Boulevard: Replace the end of I-280 north of Mariposa or 16th Street with an urban surface boulevard, similar to the Embarcadero or Octavia Boulevard. This boulevard could create new open space, improve circulation and allow connectivity throughout the area that is currently separated by 1.2 miles of I-280.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/demolition-of-one-mile-stretch-of-i-280-part-of-proposal-to-link-mission-bay-with-surrounding-area/
QuoteMission Bay is San Francisco’s neighborhood of the future.
That’s Mayor Ed Lee’s publicly stated vision. And in public documents, his office said a key to that future may be razing Interstate Highway 280 — now the source of much public ire.
Mission Bay has become home to gleaming new UC San Francisco hospitals, and is the potential new home to what some call the mayor’s “legacy project” — the Golden State Warriors’ Chase Center. The Mission Rock and Pier 70 housing developments could also soon considerably boost the neighborhood’s population.
And one day in the far-flung future, perhaps decades from now, Mission Bay may become the conduit for a second transbay tube that would connect BART and — for the first time — newly electrified Caltrain service to the East Bay.
But the future comes at a cost.
A one-mile portion of Interstate 280 at 16th Street could come down to make way for a boulevard, which would link Mission Bay with its surrounding neighborhoods, say city planners.
The highway’s potential demolition is included in “The Railyard Alternatives and I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study,” which was released Tuesday by The City. The report explores a plethora of changes to the area.
The study looks at relocating the 4th and King Streets Caltrain railyard, a more than $2.6 billion proposal to connect High Speed Rail and Caltrain to the new Transbay Transit Center, and to create a 1.3-mile tunnel from the transit center to Mission Bay in anticipation of the new transbay tube.
That Transbay Transit Center is now under construction in South of Market, and is seen as a vital connection for high speed rail in California, set to open in 2017.
QuoteRemoving a portion of I-280 was the most controversial part of this plan prior to the meeting, and that sentiment intensified Tuesday night.
Surrounded by angry neighbors at the rec center, former Mayor Art Agnos — no stranger to fighting development, as evidenced by the recent “No Wall on the Waterfront” campaign — told the San Francisco Examiner he will personally combat any effort to tear down I-280.
In 2014, Agnos and now-Supervisor Aaron Peskin blocked a luxury housing development along the Embarcadero, and passed a ballot measure calling for voter approval of all height-limit increases along the waterfront.
Agnos promised a similar fight against tearing down I-280.
“I’m going to make the [No Wall on the Waterfront] fight look like a minor league skirmish,” he said.
It’s a switch in position for a former mayor who, in the 1990s, not only tore down the Embarcadero Freeway, but played a key role in tearing down the Central Freeway at Octavia Street as well.
“Listen,” he said, “there’s no one in this city who has demolished more freeways than I have.” But tearing down I-280 “will absolutely choke all of this area.”
Wow, San Francisco residents who oppose tearing down a portion of San Francisco's freeway system? Have I just entered the Twilight Zone?
Not only that - it appears to be some of the same people that fought to tear down freeways in the past.
The issue is likely on what would go in its place - these folks are very opposed to building new expensive housing right now, which is likely what would go into the space now occupied by the train station.
And it looks like 280 will stay in place for the long-term, as a completely different plan for rerouting CalTrain in the area was approved in April:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/New-simpler-plan-for-SF-s-downtown-rail-12855669.php
Very interesting phrasing here from the paper:
QuoteRetaining I-280 and its two ramps to Sixth Street and King Street should make it easier to sell the project to residents and commuters who feared that the plan to demolish the freeway and replace it with an Octavia Boulevard-like street would lead to gridlock.
...
"This is really about: "˜How do we get trains to the Transbay Transit Center?'" he [Adam Van De Water of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development] said. "But we kept hearing from the neighborhood: "˜Are you going to take the freeway down?'"
Quote from: TheStranger on June 26, 2018, 05:10:57 PM
And it looks like 280 will stay in place for the long-term, as a completely different plan for rerouting CalTrain in the area was approved in April:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/New-simpler-plan-for-SF-s-downtown-rail-12855669.php
Very interesting phrasing here from the paper:
QuoteRetaining I-280 and its two ramps to Sixth Street and King Street should make it easier to sell the project to residents and commuters who feared that the plan to demolish the freeway and replace it with an Octavia Boulevard-like street would lead to gridlock.
...
"This is really about: "˜How do we get trains to the Transbay Transit Center?'" he [Adam Van De Water of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development] said. "But we kept hearing from the neighborhood: "˜Are you going to take the freeway down?'"
And.............thousands of San Francisco Giants fans, who take 280 to the Pac Bell field, are thankful; much of the stadium's parking provisions are worked around the freeway's northeast terminus south of the Caltrain depot. Also thankful: folks who need to get to the Embarcadero for one reason or another (myself: Pier 23 jazz!).
Excellent! Now find a way to upgrade the 101 to a freeway through town whether that be demolishing buildings or building a tunnel. I know it isn't going to happen, but I have to say it.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 28, 2018, 03:09:16 AM
Excellent! Now find a way to upgrade the 101 to a freeway through town whether that be demolishing buildings or building a tunnel. I know it isn't going to happen, but I have to say it.
Importantly, it won't happen because no one wants it.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 28, 2018, 04:12:36 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 28, 2018, 03:09:16 AM
Excellent! Now find a way to upgrade the 101 to a freeway through town whether that be demolishing buildings or building a tunnel. I know it isn't going to happen, but I have to say it.
Importantly, it won't happen because no one wants it.
So the likely hundreds of thousands of people a day that would use it wouldn't want it? That's funny.
Anyways, I won't get into this topic any deeper. I meant that as more tongue in cheek. As much as I want it to happen, what's really important to understand and obvious is that it will be built when the purple line is extended to Catalina Island and the Beverly Hills Freeway is built and extended onto artificial islands alongside Malibu to connect with Oxnard. I'll stop now. ;)
After what was done to the Central and Embarcadero Freeways, I am genuinely surprised that the stub end of I-280 will not suffer the same fate.
Quote from: Henry on June 28, 2018, 09:06:58 AM
After what was done to the Central and Embarcadero Freeways, I am genuinely surprised that the stub end of I-280 will not suffer the same fate.
Certain S.F. political figures tried just that tactic -- but unlike the others, which were damaged beyond repair in 1989, there's enough utility for the 280 stub (the aforementioned stadium and access to the Embarcadero; the fact that the S.F. industrial district straddles 280) to continue to exist regardless of the fact that it doesn't connect directly to another freeway at its north end. It's S.F. -- so no doubt sometime off in the future someone else will prattle on about tearing it down for "community cohesiveness" or some other rationale -- but it's been truncated briefly once -- and that's about all that will be done in that regard for the near term.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 28, 2018, 06:13:58 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 28, 2018, 04:12:36 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 28, 2018, 03:09:16 AM
Excellent! Now find a way to upgrade the 101 to a freeway through town whether that be demolishing buildings or building a tunnel. I know it isn't going to happen, but I have to say it.
Importantly, it won't happen because no one wants it.
So the likely hundreds of thousands of people a day that would use it wouldn't want it? That's funny.
What
is happening with US 101 is the Van Ness BRT project, which is supposed to finish in a year or so, assuming NIMBY folks don't have their way too much.
The surface street will undergo changes, one of which I am happy about even though I don't drive there - left turns are being eliminated (except for Lombard and Broadway). It's about time - Sunset Blvd and 19th Avenue (CA-1) already don't allow left turns for the last few years. Also the traffic lights will be optimized. Just general quality of life changes but I'll take em!
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 28, 2018, 06:13:58 AM
So the likely hundreds of thousands of people a day that would use it wouldn't want it? That's funny.
There's no one using it right now, because it doesn't exist. San Francisco's policy, whether written or otherwise, is to stop more cars from joining the already-abysmal mess. A new freeway does not meet that goal. Consider how many of those thousands were former residents of the freeway's ROW.
I understand you may or may not have been speaking tongue in cheek, but many others have suggested this extension before, and I'm not sure why since it doesn't make any sense these days.
Quote from: sparker on June 28, 2018, 08:35:48 PM
Quote from: Henry on June 28, 2018, 09:06:58 AM
After what was done to the Central and Embarcadero Freeways, I am genuinely surprised that the stub end of I-280 will not suffer the same fate.
Certain S.F. political figures tried just that tactic -- but unlike the others, which were damaged beyond repair in 1989, there's enough utility for the 280 stub (the aforementioned stadium and access to the Embarcadero; the fact that the S.F. industrial district straddles 280) to continue to exist regardless of the fact that it doesn't connect directly to another freeway at its north end. It's S.F. -- so no doubt sometime off in the future someone else will prattle on about tearing it down for "community cohesiveness" or some other rationale -- but it's been truncated briefly once -- and that's about all that will be done in that regard for the near term.
I think the article I posted showed that former mayor Art Agnos, whose legacy is primarily the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway's entire route, was against the 280 removal. It's interesting that what he was against now (the late Mayor Lee suggesting clearing freeway ROW for future market-rate development) is exactly what he supported all the way when 480 was taken out ca. 1990-1991. One could argue he simply favored whatever the locals in each time period were clamoring for - though as noted in previous threads, Chinatown opposition to the Embarcadero demolition was very real.
Quote from: jakerootI understand you may or may not have been speaking tongue in cheek, but many others have suggested this extension before, and I'm not sure why since it doesn't make any sense these days.
Sense is a relative thing: SF's post-1950s policy has always been to encourage mass transit usage by making it difficult for car-friendly traffic improvements to occur at all, and I can acknowledge that, but decongesting city streets that are instead being used as highway corridors isn't an illogical position, just one that is not in step with much of San Francisco's philosophical leanings. (Halfway across the world, the reverse happened in Metro Manila: light rail lines were built in the 1980s and 1990s first, before the region finally wholeheartedly accepted a through-town Metro Manila Skyway extension due to how untenable regular 2-hour traffic jams on a 9-mile boulevard have become). And the level of mass transit needed to fully supplant car usage in SF IMO has never existed, partially because of the 1950s streetcar line removals - especially the B Geary MUNI route - and because of BART's 1960s ambitions never fully being reached once that project became more expensive a decade later.
Quote from: TechknowThe surface street will undergo changes, one of which I am happy about even though I don't drive there - left turns are being eliminated (except for Lombard and Broadway). It's about time - Sunset Blvd and 19th Avenue (CA-1) already don't allow left turns for the last few years. Also the traffic lights will be optimized. Just general quality of life changes but I'll take em!
IIRC I've read threads either on this forum or elsewhere about how Fell and Oak Streets used to be optimized years ago for 40 MPH traffic between Golden Gate Park and the Central Freeway (I've seen somewhere a post about the old Mabuhay Gardens nightclub/performance venue near Broadway being reachable from the Haight in 10 minutes using Oak Street, 101/Central Freeway, 80, and 480). Will this be setup in such a way that one can run into only one or two red lights going north or south on Van Ness between Mission and Lombard? Franklin nearby seems like it is already optimized for northbound traffic.
Back pre-'89 when the Central Freeway was still intact, most traffic coming off the freeway heading toward the Golden Gate Bridge simply segued north onto Franklin rather than taking Fell east to Van Ness (the route signed as US 101) all the way to Lombard; if you hit the signals right, you could almost do it in nonstop fashion (the light at Broadway would invariably get you!). Inversely, Gough street, one-way southbound a block to the west, was used as a cutoff for the inverse traffic movement. All that can still be done from Octavia, but with some convoluted movements that require some counterintuitive movements across traffic flow; most traffic heading north to Marin and beyond tends to simply follow the signed 101 onto Van Ness these days (it certainly seems more congested than in the '80's!).
Quote from: jakerootSan Francisco's policy, whether written or otherwise, is to stop more cars from joining the already-abysmal mess. A new freeway does not meet that goal. Consider how many of those thousands were former residents of the freeway's ROW.
At some point the Bay Area will achieve the unwritten goal of fewer cars on the streets and freeways if they just keep doing what they're doing by escalating the cost of living to ever new levels of excruciating absurdity. They have a bubble going on that's just primed to pop. I know they're not going to pay people working service industry jobs like flipping burgers within San Francisco city limits $50 per hour. But that's where they're headed. And that ridiculous, hypothetical $50 per hour rate is just for the workers to live within a reasonable commuting distance. There's news articles about software engineers for firms like Google having a hard time making ends meet on a $200,000 annual salary.
The Bay Area is getting well into an economically unsustainable situation. It's a nice fantasy to imagine a big city populated with only top one percent earners. Unfortunately that idea doesn't wash since cities can't function without their mid-level and grunt-level workers. The Bay Area isn't the only place getting ate up with development catering only to the top 10% or top 1% of income classes. At some point the people who can manage to move (or escape) to less costly locations will do so. The others who are stuck in the extreme cost zones will cut back on all sorts of buying choices, which includes having children. If these cost of living prices keep rising you'll see a lot fewer American born children in the local school systems within just a few years. Japan is already a case study on this kind of population decline.
As long as the decision makers continue to believe that these things are caused by people desiring different lifestyles rather than realizing that it's all they can actually afford, nothing will change.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 02, 2018, 10:24:19 PM
Quote from: jakerootSan Francisco's policy, whether written or otherwise, is to stop more cars from joining the already-abysmal mess. A new freeway does not meet that goal. Consider how many of those thousands were former residents of the freeway's ROW.
At some point the Bay Area will achieve the unwritten goal of fewer cars on the streets and freeways if they just keep doing what they're doing by escalating the cost of living to ever new levels of excruciating absurdity. They have a bubble going on that's just primed to pop. I know they're not going to pay people working service industry jobs like flipping burgers within San Francisco city limits $50 per hour. But that's where they're headed. And that ridiculous, hypothetical $50 per hour rate is just for the workers to live within a reasonable commuting distance. There's news articles about software engineers for firms like Google having a hard time making ends meet on a $200,000 annual salary.
The Bay Area is getting well into an economically unsustainable situation. It's a nice fantasy to imagine a big city populated with only top one percent earners. Unfortunately that idea doesn't wash since cities can't function without their mid-level and grunt-level workers. The Bay Area isn't the only place getting ate up with development catering only to the top 10% or top 1% of income classes. At some point the people who can manage to move (or escape) to less costly locations will do so. The others who are stuck in the extreme cost zones will cut back on all sorts of buying choices, which includes having children. If these cost of living prices keep rising you'll see a lot fewer American born children in the local school systems within just a few years. Japan is already a case study on this kind of population decline.
Ok.
I know the Bay Area is unaffordable to say the least, but would an extension to the 101 help that? All it would do is reduce the amount of housing in San Francisco proper. The key to reducing housing costs is building more residential units, which IMO the Bay area has not done enough of (building up at least). Sprawl and freeways don't work well in San Francisco due to geography, so the best option is a robust transit network and high density. They're working on both, but in the mean time, demand for housing has skyrocketed. Things will improve in time, but not because of new freeways.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 02, 2018, 11:36:04 PM
The key to reducing housing costs is building more residential units, which IMO the Bay area has not done enough of (building up at least). Sprawl and freeways don't work well in San Francisco due to geography, so the best option is a robust transit network and high density. They're working on both, but in the mean time, demand for housing has skyrocketed. Things will improve in time, but not because of new freeways.
Mission Bay/South Beach, the Mission District, SOMA and...Hunter's Point!!!...are places I know that have had extensive new-housing construction in the last few years, mostly of the condo variety, and mostly market-rate.
Having said that...
- of the transit projects currently in play, the one that has the most potential impact for riders (BRT on Geary) is years away. 38 line has been the busiest in the wake of the 1950s removal of streetcars along the Geary corridor - a street that once had 4 streetcar lines running on it at once (A, B, C, and D). I've read that the Central Subway project has been projected not to have as much of an impact on overall ridership patterns in comparison to anything done along Geary.
- West of the downtown core, densities remain low, particularly in the Outside Lands districts of the Sunset and Richmond, where few buildings above 2 stories even exist and very little infill is left. There's plenty of land in those areas relative to the rest of the city, but most of the housing is still in the 1920s-1930s streetcar suburb style and the area is more prone to cooler weather than trendier districts like the Dogpatch and Mission.
- in the Dogpatch, it seems like non-residential development is booming much faster than any new housing in the 3rd Street corridor, in particular the Warriors' new arena and the UCSF hospital.
From the 1970s to the creation of the Muni Metro T line, transit within SF seemed to be in complete stasis (the historic streetcars serve as a doubling up of existing Market Street and Financial District transit coverage, rather than reducing automobile usage). Since the T line was created ca. 2003, the Transbay project has taken pretty long to materialize (CalTrain extension into Transbay - discussed and suggested for years - is only now finally occurring in concert with the discussions over 280), the Central Subway is a year away from completion, and the Van Ness BRT project in many ways seems to be the test of the concept for Muni buses overall. Other than that...there's the talk about BART building a second tube to Oakland but that's not going to happen in the next 15-20 years at least, there's the E historic streetcar line which serves more to reduce the need of a transfer at the Ferry Building between the F and N than as consistent additional service, and that seems to be about it.
Off topic, but what is the status of the BART and Muni rebuild? Were they not scheduled to rebuild the whole system?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 03, 2018, 01:04:46 AM
Off topic, but what is the status of the BART and Muni rebuild? Were they not scheduled to rebuild the whole system?
BART has been getting new railcars but that is a gradual process. I've actually seen the MUNI Metro new additions to their fleet several times already in SF, while I have yet to see new BART railcars on the SF/Peninsula side of the lines. BART's current big ongoing projects: the expansion south to San Jose (of which Warm Springs is the newest station so far in that direction), and outer-suburb connector lines (of which the line to Antioch just recently opened).
MUNI is a multi-faceted agency though: MUNI Metro lightrail, the buses (both trolleybuses and regular ones), historic streetcars, and the cable cars which are pricier in fare and tourist-oriented. IIRC the cable car system is due for another extensive rehab project like the 1982-1984 hiatus in service was.
MUNI's biggest current projects so far are the Central Subway (T line extension from Mission Bay through SOMA/Moscone Center area, Union Square, and finally Chinatown), the bus lanes on Van Ness which have been under ongoing construction for 2 years, the creation of the E historic streetcar line, and the aforementioned addition of new light rail rolling stock.
Quote from: jakerootI know the Bay Area is unaffordable to say the least, but would an extension to the 101 help that? All it would do is reduce the amount of housing in San Francisco proper. The key to reducing housing costs is building more residential units, which IMO the Bay area has not done enough of (building up at least). Sprawl and freeways don't work well in San Francisco due to geography, so the best option is a robust transit network and high density. They're working on both, but in the mean time, demand for housing has skyrocketed. Things will improve in time, but not because of new freeways.
I'm not suggesting the 101 freeway be extended. But I think the prime motivations behind removing parts or all of the Embarcadero Freeway is salivating real estate developers wanting to capitalize on the speculation activity taking place in cities like SF, NYC and some other bubble markets.
As for building more housing, it's going to take a wider variety of housing to bring the situation more into balance. Developers are gravitating to building anything new in the form of luxury apartments for the executive set. Then there's existing housing being snapped up by investors/speculators from all over the place (even foreign countries) to be renovated into units for high income people. That's the factor behind why mass-gentrification has taken place in New York City. Housing affordable to lower income workers (like kitchen help at restaurants, coffee shops, etc) isn't on the radar scopes at all.
I think if we want to just let the market do whatever it wants to do then by the same measure the developers should feel the consequences of the bust when it finally happens. They shouldn't be able to work the government and legal system to escape, fall back and re-group and then turn around to run the same scams all over again. These guys should have their nuts out there on the chopping block if they want to gamble like this. The whole thing smells like 2006 all over again.
Regarding mass transit, it's a nation-wide problem that the United States doesn't know how to build things like subway lines, light rail lines, etc without it costing an obscene fortune. And even if some new subway lines are built within San Francisco, who is going to be riding it? Typically the middle and lower income sets take mass transit. If a city is gearing its economy only for the upper class it's a waste of money building new subway lines in those zones.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 03, 2018, 11:45:41 AM
Regarding mass transit, it's a nation-wide problem that the United States doesn't know how to build things like subway lines, light rail lines, etc without it costing an obscene fortune. And even it some new subway lines are built within San Francisco, who is going to be riding it? Typically the middle and lower income sets take mass transit. If a city is gearing its economy only for the upper class it's a waste of money building new subway lines in those zones.
The irony is that in SF, the definitively high-income areas (Pacific Heights, Nob Hill, the eastern slope of North Beach, among others) are all situated atop hills; attempting to build below-ground transit that follows the contours -- or alternately, use hundreds of feet of vertical elevators serving low-altitude stations -- would be one of the more expensive transit activities ever taken -- all in the hopes of "income-equalizing" transit ridership. The lower income areas (those not yet gentrified) seem to be located in the flatlands in the southeast corner of the city (the high-income Marina/Cow Valley area is an outlier, of course -- an exception to the altitude/income formula), historically lower income and housing cost than the remainder of the city -- but shared with the city's industrial and warehouse base. But that area is reasonably served by light rail (in S.F., the term
well-served generally doesn't apply to bus service, electric or conventional -- too many traffic issues intervene). Also, a lot of it is muddy "fill", not particularly conducive to underground construction (applies to much of the territory south of China Basin). There's a reason why unconventional transit (cable car, electric buses) found their way early into S.F. usage; unfortunately, what's happening across the country is also taking place there vis-Ã -vis the class/income divisions -- but with limited space within the city limits, the low end simply gets squeezed out. More transit will be built -- but likely on the surface, and in the areas most amenable to such things -- i.e., the lower end of the income spectrum -- which itself is inexorably edging upward. But S.F., particularly its governing bodies, have their share of "social democrats"; there will likely be some space reserved for denser lower-income housing; most likely arrayed in and around the southeast industrial zones. Some activists want that type of housing located in SOMA (south of Market) near the Caltrain station and the ballpark; but even an ostensibly egalitarian city like S.F. has its limits regarding its relationship with the financially capable, so to speak (as the knights of yore learned, sometimes the dragon wins!). So the city ends up placing higher-density cost-contained housing in areas that aren't contested by market forces above and beyond what's S.O.P. today regarding official response. With only 49 square miles to work with, S.F.'s going to be a conundrum for some time to come!
It almost goes without saying San Francisco is far from the only city in the Bay Area boasting ridiculous housing prices and overall living costs. Much, if not all, of the Bay Area is dealing with the same thing. San Jose as well as the cities and suburbs flanking it are doing as much price gouging as any community in that part of California.
I've been following news about this kind of topic more in the New York City area (in part because I lived there from '86-'91). I started taking notice of what was happening in NYC due to the amazing drop in the crime rate, particularly murder.
In 1990 the 5 boroughs of NYC had a record setting number of 2245 homicides. The crack cocaine epidemic and gang violence associated with it fueled many of those numbers. 87 victims were killed in the Happy Land Social Club arson fire. The numbers from 1991 were similar: 2154, just no mass murder via arson to give the figure an extra bump. In 1990 NYC had a population of 7,322,564. If I did my math correctly the NYC murders per 100,000 per capita rate for 1990 works out to 30.65. That's pretty terrible. But to put the ratio in perspective Flint, Michigan had a 61.98 per 100,000 per capita homicide rate in 2012. Fast forward to 2017. NYC finished 2017 with 290 homicides -the lowest total since 1951. What makes the number more amazing is the population of NYC in 2017 swelled to an estimated total of 8,622,698. The 2010 Census figure was 8.175 million. So 290 homicides for a city of 8.6 million people works out to 3.36 murders per 100,000. That's well under the US national average, 5.3 per 100,000 in 2016. FYI the US set a modern era low point of 4.4 per 100,000 in 2014, less than half the modern era record of 10.2 per 100,000 set in 1980.
Note: I delved into researching that grim material to refute some of the grossly exaggerated claims made about crime in my town, Lawton, which some people stupidly nickname "Little Chicago" and try to claim it as being the most dangerous small city in America (a stat that has never been true). Lawton is freaking Disneyland compared to Chicago (especially Chicago these days considering that city's current crime rates).
Anyway, the transformation of New York City into one of the world's safest major cities was credited to policing strategies like Broken Windows, Stop and Frisk, etc. Those policies had some effect, but crime was falling in other cities where aggressive police policies were not in place -even in places like Los Angeles, where the police department was embroiled in scandal at the time. Crime rates kept falling in NYC. But no one wanted to mention the 7 ton elephant in the room: soaring living costs and gentrification.
When I lived in NYC certain neighborhoods like Bedford-Stuyvesant and Brownsville in Brooklyn, The South Bronx or Spanish Harlem in Manhattan were places anyone regardless of color needed to avoid, especially after dark. Enter at your own risk. Nearly 30 years later all those neighborhoods have very different demographics. The transformation didn't all happen honestly either. A bunch of shady land lords, speculators, etc ran scams on many long time residents to force them out so a rent-controlled property could be renovated into luxury housing for upwardly mobile hipsters. One of the easiest scams was just not depositing rent checks. Many long term residents (quite a few elderly) were used to mailing in paper checks. Property owners simply didn't cash them. A couple or so months later: eviction proceedings. The people getting evicted usually had no money or other resources to fight the matter in court.
While New York City's crime rate has reached new lows, its homeless population has exploded in size. There's a bunch of homeless people in New York who actually work full time and then (try to) live in shelters. They're making enough to survive, but not enough to escape. There's even a good amount of political NIMBY controversy over the city trying to open new shelters for working homeless.
I don't know how San Francisco measures up with New York City with this kind of complicated situation. But it seems pretty obvious there is a trend of gentrification and overall class warfare present. Even if San Francisco has a good number of "Social Democrats" involved in the city government there's only so much those people can do. New York City has had lots of its own liberal, activist politicians over the past 30 years and they haven't prevented the more sinister things taking place there from happening.
Quote from: sparker on July 03, 2018, 05:41:03 PM
The irony is that in SF, the definitively high-income areas (Pacific Heights, Nob Hill, the eastern slope of North Beach, among others) are all situated atop hills; attempting to build below-ground transit that follows the contours -- or alternately, use hundreds of feet of vertical elevators serving low-altitude stations -- would be one of the more expensive transit activities ever taken -- all in the hopes of "income-equalizing" transit ridership.
To some degree, isn't the Central Subway project an example of a modern subterranean attempt at providing transit to a geographic area (Chinatown) defined by uneven terrain and hills? There's been some desire for that to extend to North Beach but no real momentum for that yet IIRC.
The BART line in SF that exists today roughly follows the Southern Freeway portion of 280 between Daly City and Glen Park, and then runs along flat portions of Mission and Market Streets. Had the SF-Marin line not been nixed in the 1960s, Geary would have been the corridor (and it does have some hills here and there between the Tenderloin and Laurel Heights); I recall that BART being planned for Geary Boulevard was one factor in the ending of streetcar service along that key street - though today's mix of buses, historic streetcar, and BART/MUNI Metro along Market Street demonstrate how useful it is to have multiple modes in the same corridor! (For that matter, the Muni Metro J line runs parallel to the SF BART corridor and shares the Glen Park stop with it)
Quote from: TheStranger on July 03, 2018, 10:52:35 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 03, 2018, 01:04:46 AM
Off topic, but what is the status of the BART and Muni rebuild? Were they not scheduled to rebuild the whole system?
BART has been getting new railcars but that is a gradual process. I've actually seen the MUNI Metro new additions to their fleet several times already in SF, while I have yet to see new BART railcars on the SF/Peninsula side of the lines. BART's current big ongoing projects: the expansion south to San Jose (of which Warm Springs is the newest station so far in that direction), and outer-suburb connector lines (of which the line to Antioch just recently opened).
MUNI is a multi-faceted agency though: MUNI Metro lightrail, the buses (both trolleybuses and regular ones), historic streetcars, and the cable cars which are pricier in fare and tourist-oriented. IIRC the cable car system is due for another extensive rehab project like the 1982-1984 hiatus in service was.
MUNI's biggest current projects so far are the Central Subway (T line extension from Mission Bay through SOMA/Moscone Center area, Union Square, and finally Chinatown), the bus lanes on Van Ness which have been under ongoing construction for 2 years, the creation of the E historic streetcar line, and the aforementioned addition of new light rail rolling stock.
Thank you for the update! I could have sworn that BART was going to rebuild their existing subways or parts of it as they were deteriorating.
Interestingly, the only connection between the new Central Subway line and the rest of the MUNI LR/trolley network is a surface interchange at its southern end with the E-line down King Street; it crosses the Market Street complex (stacked surface trolley/Muni "J" line, BART) below the present NE/SW tunnels; obviously some connection needed to be made in order to get the trains to the service facilities.
BART is doing "spot" rebuilds as needed (new rails, ties, upgrading the 3rd rail power buss); the line that seems to be problematic is Walnut Creek/Pittsburg; more incidents and delays on that segment than on any other. Otherwise, they're still working on the Warm Springs-Berryessa (San Jose) extension, which is a couple of years behind schedule -- and have the downtown San Jose-Santa Clara University extension in the wings (although those plans were truncated/downgraded to a single-track facility a couple of months ago).
Quote from: sparker on July 06, 2018, 02:32:22 AM
Interestingly, the only connection between the new Central Subway line and the rest of the MUNI LR/trolley network is a surface interchange at its southern end with the E-line down King Street; it crosses the Market Street complex (stacked surface trolley/Muni "J" line, BART) below the present NE/SW tunnels; obviously some connection needed to be made in order to get the trains to the service facilities.
I do know there'll be a station-passageway connection between the BART/MUNI Metro Powell Street stop along Market, and the Union Square station proposed for the Central Subway. I suspect it'll be one of those hallway setups not unlike the station-to-station passageways between lines on the Paris Metro.
As for the SJ BART extension, how far in the future is the Berryessa-Diridon segment?
Quote from: TheStranger on July 06, 2018, 10:38:26 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 06, 2018, 02:32:22 AM
Interestingly, the only connection between the new Central Subway line and the rest of the MUNI LR/trolley network is a surface interchange at its southern end with the E-line down King Street; it crosses the Market Street complex (stacked surface trolley/Muni "J" line, BART) below the present NE/SW tunnels; obviously some connection needed to be made in order to get the trains to the service facilities.
I do know there'll be a station-passageway connection between the BART/MUNI Metro Powell Street stop along Market, and the Union Square station proposed for the Central Subway. I suspect it'll be one of those hallway setups not unlike the station-to-station passageways between lines on the Paris Metro.
As for the SJ BART extension, how far in the future is the Berryessa-Diridon segment?
That segment actually passes the Diridon station -- it'll supposedly have a series of escalators from the tunnel to reach the station itself -- and then heads northwest under Stockton Ave. (to avoid the Caltrain service facility) and then next to the Caltrain tracks, with a terminus near the present Santa Clara depot (just east of Santa Clara University). To contain cost and keep the cut/cover work along Santa Clara Street relatively narrow, the portion south of the Berryessa station was reduced to a single-track facility (with a passing track at Diridon). Preliminary surveys are supposed to start next spring (2019) with construction either commencing in late 2020 or early 2021, according to the
Murky News. With the delays (and commensurate rationalizations) of the Warm Springs-Berryessa segment, BART is reluctant to project a completion date at this point (since they're engaging in inner-city construction with all the potential complications that entails, I can hardly fault them for that!). It's been an ordeal just getting it down through Milpitas to anywhere in San Jose (even with it situated on a straight-shot former WP alignment); I for one hardly expect less problems with the downtown/Santa Clara section.
From what I have read, the underground portion of the BART line isn't a single track but rather a single tunnel with two levels, each containing a single track. Downtown San Jose businesses favored this type of tunnel because it eliminates the need to use the cut-and-cover method of construction. The tunnel would be bored with minimal disruption at the surface.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 06, 2018, 08:16:16 PM
From what I have read, the underground portion of the BART line isn't a single track but rather a single tunnel with two levels, each containing a single track. Downtown San Jose businesses favored this type of tunnel because it eliminates the need to use the cut-and-cover method of construction. The tunnel would be bored with minimal disruption at the surface.
Now
that makes more sense than the configuration that I originally heard (thanks for the partial info, Murky News! :eyebrow:) and talked about. I suppose with the advances in boring equipment any arrangement, even such an over/under configuration, has become possible. Even the upper level will have to be quite deep; much of downtown's been dotted with projects to upgrade utilities just below the surface over the last few years; BART will certainly have to duck under those facilities. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with both Coyote Creek and the Guadalupe River en route to, respectively, downtown/SJSU and Santa Clara; their previous encounter with a significant floodplain on this line was with Alameda Creek in Union City, which they crossed on a viaduct.