Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mgk920]

Time for another gooood earthquake, I see.

 

Mike

[formulanone]

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.

[SectorZ]

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.

[Rothman]

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...?

[Max Rockatansky]

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?

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ 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.

[Bobby5280]

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-215]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^^ that’s ridiculous and a nothing but an ideological fantasy. Both can be true and happen.

[kkt]

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.

[bing101]

What a weiner.

His first name looks kind of familiar though.

This one is in San Francisco and Sacramento here.

[bing101]

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.

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.

[skluth]

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 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.

[bing101]

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 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.

[vdeane]

^^^^ 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.

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?

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^^ 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.

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.

[kkt]

^^^^ 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.

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.

[ClassicHasClass]

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.

[brad2971]

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.

[vdeane]

^^^^ 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.

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.

[kkt]

^^^^ 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.

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.

[FredAkbar]

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.

[kkt]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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!?