Presidio Parkway

[mightyace]

How much does anyone know about the proposed Presidio Parkway in San Francisco?

http://www.presidioparkway.org

Sponsors intend to issue the RFQ on or after February 1, 2010.  
The RFQ will be available on the following website: www.publicinfrastructure.ca.gov

I found out about this via this TollRoadsNews Article:
Calif to spend $billion+ on pretty Presidio Parkway without even talk of tolls, but want P3!?!

[TheStranger]

Obviously, the Parkway would be a part of US 101 - I'm not sure the TollRoadsNews article quite understands though that tolling that little stretch of road would be adding a burden to commuters who already have to pay the Golden Gate Bridge $5 toll southbound...

(Granted, that toll is paid to a local - Golden Gate Bridge/Transportation Authority - entity rather than a state entity, but still)

The no-hard-median configuration on Doyle and on the GGB dates back to when it was first built, when traffic was one-way inbound in the mornings and outbound at night.

Despite all the buzzwords of "parkway rather than freeway" and "traffic calming" - probably the only way to convince anti-freeway San Francisco that this project is sustainable/viable - the PDF graphic I'm looking at on the site seems to imply that it will remain mostly a grade-seperated route, with the Marina Boulevard interchange being reconfigured (which would actually, for the first time, make the through lanes continue for US 101 on Richardson Avenue (as opposed to the through lanes of Doyle continuing to Marina Boulevard).  The flash conceptual drawings - http://www.presidioparkway.org/flash/map/ - make the access control depictions much more explicit, and a significant improvement over the existing single carriageway setup.

This section of road would have become part of I-480 in the 1950s interstate plans, though proposals differed as to if 480 would have used the Marina Boulevard exit, or continued along Richardson with 101.

[KEK Inc.]

There's now a YouTube video up that shows the project.  I think it has a lot of potential, but can be relatively expensive with the tunnels. 

 

Frankly, I don't really think this will do much other than beautify the area.  There should be a through freeway through San Francisco, but that won't ever happen.[/color] 

[TheStranger]

Frankly, I don't really think this will do much other than beautify the area.  There should be a through freeway through San Francisco, but that won't ever happen.[/color] 

At the very least, the new freeway through the Presidio would have proper shoulders and lane separation (which the 1937-era Doyle Drive does not).

[KEK Inc.]

Frankly, I don't really think this will do much other than beautify the area.  There should be a through freeway through San Francisco, but that won't ever happen.[/color] 

At the very least, the new freeway through the Presidio would have proper shoulders and lane separation (which the 1937-era Doyle Drive does not).

Also, the intersection with CA1 will be improved.  That intersection tends to make me a little nervous, particularly in the event of an earthquake. 

[roadfro]

Interesting to look at some of the other YouTube videos posted about the project: Presidio Parkway YouTube channel.

The fact that they found and relocated a Franciscan Manzanita bush in the right of way is kinda cool, especially since the plant was thought to have been extinct in its native habitat since 1947.

Frankly, I don't really think this will do much other than beautify the area.  There should be a through freeway through San Francisco, but that won't ever happen.

I would agree that a freeway through San Francisco would be ideal, but has virtually no likelihood of happening.

As to this project, yeah, the tunnels and what not will be expensive. However, it appears that much of the tunnels are actually being built from the ground up as opposed to being dug out, which might actually lessen the cost.

It appears that the Doyle Drive section is mostly an aging viaduct in need of seismic retrofits and safety improvements. If that can be done be accomplished by making more of the road at grade and removing much of an otherwise unsightly viaduct, it seems to be a decent tradeoff.

[TheStranger]

It appears that the Doyle Drive section is mostly an aging viaduct in need of seismic retrofits and safety improvements. If that can be done be accomplished by making more of the road at grade and removing much of an otherwise unsightly viaduct, it seems to be a decent tradeoff.

The project as designed so far still retains all grade separations along the current route (albeit reconstructed to modern standards) so it's not quite a surface boulevard either.  I don't know if the new parkway is Interstate-standard, but certainly it won't be a single carriageway like Doyle Drive currently is.

[roadfro]

The improvements would appear to provide shoulders and has sufficient separation between carriageways, but whether those are Interstate standard can't really be determined from the animations.

[KEK Inc.]

It appears that the Doyle Drive section is mostly an aging viaduct in need of seismic retrofits and safety improvements. If that can be done be accomplished by making more of the road at grade and removing much of an otherwise unsightly viaduct, it seems to be a decent tradeoff.

The project as designed so far still retains all grade separations along the current route (albeit reconstructed to modern standards) so it's not quite a surface boulevard either.  I don't know if the new parkway is Interstate-standard, but certainly it won't be a single carriageway like Doyle Drive currently is.

The website and business plan presentation seems to stress the point that it's a parkway rather than a freeway.  We all know how San Francisco is when it comes to freeways, so I'm sure they wouldn't want it to be up to Interstate standards.  The likeliness of I-3 becoming a reality within this century is fairly low.     

[TheStranger]

It appears that the Doyle Drive section is mostly an aging viaduct in need of seismic retrofits and safety improvements. If that can be done be accomplished by making more of the road at grade and removing much of an otherwise unsightly viaduct, it seems to be a decent tradeoff.

The project as designed so far still retains all grade separations along the current route (albeit reconstructed to modern standards) so it's not quite a surface boulevard either.  I don't know if the new parkway is Interstate-standard, but certainly it won't be a single carriageway like Doyle Drive currently is.

The website and business plan presentation seems to stress the point that it's a parkway rather than a freeway.  We all know how San Francisco is when it comes to freeways, so I'm sure they wouldn't want it to be up to Interstate standards.  The likeliness of I-3 becoming a reality within this century is fairly low.      

I don't think though that you can call this project anything other than limited-access - there are no stoplights or at-grade intersections, no matter what moniker the city wants to call the road.

And even if we consider SF's city policy against any new road capacity, this would not represent that, rather a modern replacement to an older freeway.  

In short: Both Doyle Drive (the current route) and Presidio Parkway (its forthcoming replacement) are freeways, going by the definition of the term (routes where all access comes from interchanges only).

As far as building to Interstate standards or otherwise - at the very least, the lane widths and shoulders will be improved significantly from what exists now, and the project involves a numbered highway (US 101) so CalTrans probably isn't going to be putting the second incarnation of the Arroyo Seco Parkway's 5 MPH ramps here.

[myosh_tino]

Adding to the Freeway vs Parkway debate, head 50 miles south of San Francisco to San Jose and you'll find the Guadalupe Parkway which is CA-87.  Even though it's called a "Parkway", it is really a 6-lane freeway for it's entire length between US 101 and CA-85.  I'm not sure if it's built to Interstate standards but according to Daniel Faigin's website cahighways.org, the entire highway is constructed to California's "freeway standards".

[TheStranger]

Adding to the Freeway vs Parkway debate, head 50 miles south of San Francisco to San Jose and you'll find the Guadalupe Parkway which is CA-87.  Even though it's called a "Parkway", it is really a 6-lane freeway for it's entire length between US 101 and CA-85.  I'm not sure if it's built to Interstate standards but according to Daniel Faigin's website cahighways.org, the entire highway is constructed to California's "freeway standards".

Having driven down Route 87 several times (at least twice for Sharks games), it is very likely Interstate-standard as most of it is 1990s construct, around the same time as Route 85.

(Conversely, the Pasadena Freeway/Arroyo Seco Freeway in Los Angeles, current Route 110/former US 66 and Route 11, is absolutely not Interstate standard - it was submitted to the feds and rejected very early on.)

[KEK Inc.]

Adding to the Freeway vs Parkway debate, head 50 miles south of San Francisco to San Jose and you'll find the Guadalupe Parkway which is CA-87.  Even though it's called a "Parkway", it is really a 6-lane freeway for it's entire length between US 101 and CA-85.  I'm not sure if it's built to Interstate standards but according to Daniel Faigin's website cahighways.org, the entire highway is constructed to California's "freeway standards".

Route 87 is definitally a freeway now after they removed the lights on Taylor and Heading, but is it still called a parkway? 

[myosh_tino]

Adding to the Freeway vs Parkway debate, head 50 miles south of San Francisco to San Jose and you'll find the Guadalupe Parkway which is CA-87.  Even though it's called a "Parkway", it is really a 6-lane freeway for it's entire length between US 101 and CA-85.  I'm not sure if it's built to Interstate standards but according to Daniel Faigin's website cahighways.org, the entire highway is constructed to California's "freeway standards".

Route 87 is definitally a freeway now after they removed the lights on Taylor and Heading, but is it still called a parkway? 

Most of the freeway exit signs on US 101 and I-280 still show the CA-87 shield and "Guadalupe Parkway".

Interstate 280 (Southbound first, Northbound second)



U.S. 101 (Southbound)

[Bickendan]

It appears that the Doyle Drive section is mostly an aging viaduct in need of seismic retrofits and safety improvements. If that can be done be accomplished by making more of the road at grade and removing much of an otherwise unsightly viaduct, it seems to be a decent tradeoff.

The project as designed so far still retains all grade separations along the current route (albeit reconstructed to modern standards) so it's not quite a surface boulevard either.  I don't know if the new parkway is Interstate-standard, but certainly it won't be a single carriageway like Doyle Drive currently is.

The website and business plan presentation seems to stress the point that it's a parkway rather than a freeway.  We all know how San Francisco is when it comes to freeways, so I'm sure they wouldn't want it to be up to Interstate standards.  The likeliness of I-3 becoming a reality within this century is fairly low.     

Parkway/Freeway... semantics to sell the project to voters and the such. For example, consider the Newberg-Dundee Bypass that ODOT wants to build. At a presentation meeting, some guy asked if this was a freeway (and he asked it in the 'I'm against this if it's a freeway!' tone), and the ODOT rep had to stress it was a 'bypass, not a freeway'. Four lanes, grade separated, dual carriageway? Freeway.

[TheStranger]

Construction photo from May:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/magi48/4587985013/

And one from April:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter-r/4569548101/

[myosh_tino]

Here are more photo galleries of the Doyle Drive replacement project from the Caltrans District 4 website...

Doyle Drive Falsework - Sept 2, 2010
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/photography/images/100902/

Doyle Drive Aerials - Aug 31, 2010
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/photography/images/100831b/

Link to entire District 4 Photo Gallery... http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/photography/