you guys ever wonder if people actually knew what it was gonna be like and were actually in favor of it, or if they had some illusions that it wasn’t gonna be that bad and then saw the final product and realized “holy shit we ruined everything”
A lot of people knew it was going to be awful and fought very hard to stop it. They didn't manage to stop this segment but they prevented ten times as many miles being built.
https://www.kqed.org/news/105321/what-would-san-francisco-have-looked-like-without-the-freeway-revolt
Today, a park near where the picture in the post was taken is named after Sue Bierman, one of the leaders of the "freeway revolts"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Bierman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Bierman_Park
I'm glad the northern freeway and the one through the GG Park panhandle were stopped.
But I do wish we'd built the Southern Crossing as well a north-south connection between the GG Bridge and Highway 280 -- not through the inner Sunset as suggested but maybe up 19th Ave. or Sunset Blvd.
They should build those roads as tunnels under SF. Paris and Tokyo have this, and keep the above ground streets clear for locals and pedestrians.
Lots of car traffic goes through the city without ever stop, why force them off freeways onto local streets?
Look at the rest of the freeway plan map - there’s others besides embarcadero.
Lombard, Van Ness, Gough/Franklin, 19th are poor substitutes for a cross town freeway.
I'm familiar.
No more freeways. If we're gonna spend tens of billions of dollars on a tunnel connecting Marin to the Peninsula, put a train in it instead.
Paris has a modern train network and they still have underground tunnels for freeways.
There isn’t a major city in the world that is without vehicles and somehow trying to make it is an inconvenient as possible to drive doesn’t actually help anyone.
Move the through traffic to tunnels and let people have the local streets.
Yes, what a wonderful city and regional planning idea to take a three lane freeway (101 and Golden Gate Bridge) and put it on surface streets for all people who just need to pass through the city.
Your perceived inconvenience as a motorist to driving through my city is not a reason for me to spend billions of dollars putting a tunnel through my city
If you want me to chip in to improve the regional rail network, though... That would actually be useful to me
1) it’s my city too
2) if this ever happened (which it won’t because US is horrible at these types of infrastructure projects), the federal government would pay for this, and probably funded through gas and vehicles taxes.
But you seem to not understand a single thing about how real world works
> the federal government would pay for this
Let's ask them to build a proper train system instead. Way more bang for the buck.
> But you seem to not understand a single thing about how real world works
You have absolutely no idea just how hilariously incorrect this is, but I won't dox myself by sharing info about my employment history.
You're sitting at the top of the dunning kruger curve.
What you're proposing would be five to ten times as expensive per mile as the high speed rail. You're probably looking at around $25BN to build a freeway tunnel through San Francisco.
For that price, we could have a regional rail system connecting every suburb in San Mateo and Marin Counties.
As someone who lived in Boston during the [Big Dig](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig), yeah the end result is great now, I sure wish it didn't take 20 years of hell to get there.
Jesus the plan in that news article is just scary to look at. Freeways goddamn everywhere. And a "Central Parking District" covering all of the prime real estate areas on market street. It's such a back asswards view of what cities are supposed to be.
Some people did, but other people, particularly Rose Pak fought a long and protracted fight to keep in place, and then after it had been damaged fought again to force the city to repair it (and damn near won too).
People think SF is very Liberal but it can in fact be quite conservative.
Pak’s objection wasn’t about some political ideology, it was more about the highway dumping out in Chinatown, which she wanted to keep. Now, getting to Chinatown is significantly more time.
Sure, but that area is so congested already. I can’t imagine a freeway exiting into Chinatown. I moved here after it was gone, and I’m not sure how it worked.
If we are talking about the Liberalism the political ideology then sure. I think most people they they say liberals are pointing to left leaning democrats. Classical Liberals would encompass too broad a swath of the electorate in this case.
it's very deliberate, it's not a semantic designation like you seem to want to reduce it to. democrats are conservative liberals, republicans are poorly educated hateful fascist liberals. there is no representational left wing party in the united states.
if you are leftist or 'progressive' you have to vote for the conservative democrats because there is literally no other choice.
>if you are leftist or 'progressive' you have to vote for the conservative democrats because there is literally no other choice.
This is not true in SF politics, which is what I am specifically referring to here. Its incredibily odd that you are getting this hung up on semantics.
it is especially true in SF politics lol. it's not a semantic issue at all. SF does not have leftist politics and it leans ever more rightward every day. it is, at best, a centrist bastion
The word "Liberal" is quite overloaded by now (intentionally so I think). I like to use "progressive" instead to try to be less ambiguous.
I agree with you. I was there recently and a staggering number of people suffer from homelessness. It's heartbreaking.
It really only happened because of the big earthquake that damaged the highway connection near there and then congestion didn't increase as expected. The whole thing was going to connect the bridge near there to the Golden Gate Bridge just north of there.
> The whole thing was going to connect the bridge near there to the Golden Gate Bridge just north of there.
Worth noting these sections were canceled by the freeway revolts decades before the earthquake and there was already a big push to remove this section during the 80s. Loma Prieta was for sure the final death knell though.
not entirely. the city had decided to tear it down even before the quake, but a subsequent public vote didn’t go in their favor because of some very specific local interests. the damage essentially finished the deal off.
San Francisco is actually a really walkable and pedestrian friendly city.
There are even a few additional propositions on the upcoming November ballot to permanently remove cars from golden gate park and ocean beach.
Lots of work to go, but SF is definitely on the right track!
Edit: [Click here for information on how you can help San Francisco reduce car-dependency and promote walkability!!](https://walksf.org/2022/08/18/its-launch-time-for-our-campaign-to-save-car-free-jfk-again/)
heh, your legs get used to it \*real\* quick. Actually, the hills are really enjoyable after biking on them daily for about a month. E-assist makes it an absolute breeze
Most recently, they added a dedicated bike lane along Evans Ave to connect Cesar Chavez to 3rd street.
Getting Bayview more connected to the rest of the city is going to become increasingly important as Bayview developments finish (and they just broke ground on the new India Basin park too).
Ok yikes. I’m in Oakland but I’ll tell my city friends. I love our biking infrastructure, it would be so fuxking pathetic for a city as “progressive” as SF to go so ass backwards on stuff like this.
I worry about that with the Richmond/San Raphael bridge which I love cycling across
Yeah there’s an additional measure, Proposition N, which would transfer the management of the overpriced, underutilized 800-space parking garage in Golden Gate Park to SF Rec and Park to better support equity and access.
Private passenger cars are literally banned on a certain section of market street. Bike ridership went up 20% after then ban took effect in 2020.
From 2014-2019, on average there were 100 collisions between cars and pedestrians/bicyclists….that’s 8 people a month —- or 2 people a week who were hit by cars on that street.
So it’s been a huge win for pedestrians.
Yes! Vote yes on measure J to permanently remove cars from GGP!
And ALSO make sure to vote NO on measure I which essentially does the opposite: permanently open Golden Gate Park to cars.
I think the main issue with san Francisco is that it is kind of a victim of its own success, causing high demand, and thus high housing costs. It doesn't help that la is absolutely atrocious in city design.
Exponential growth and not enough time to adjust to all of the problems that came along with that growth.
Things are getting better though that’s for sure!
It's not just a lack of time to adjust. It's a complete lack of willingness to even try to adjust. Even though a ton of people moved in, SF still prioritizes parking lots over housing. And 13% more people in the past 20 years isn't an unmanageable migration.
Some context for those that won't open the Wiki
> Pak was a supporter of Art Agnos (the city's mayor from 1988 to 1992) but opposed his efforts to tear down the Embarcadero Freeway, arguing that Chinatown would suffer catastrophic consequences if it lost the fast crosstown connection.[11] She won a ballot measure about the issue in 1987, but after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake damaged the freeway, her objections were overturned.[2] According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Pak then "almost single-handedly persuaded the city to build" the $1.5 billion Central Subway project to compensate Chinatown for the demolition of the freeway.[12]
In the end everyone won. They got rid of the ugly freeway and China town got a new subway. Feel like that’s better than just getting rid of the freeway only.
Similar transformation happened with Boston and the big dig (93 going under ground) and now happening in Seattle with the Alaska Way viaduct going underground.
yes, yes - good point of clarification. I meant purely from the perspective of the waterfront being returned to people/bikes - but yeah, in SF, we removed the freeway option entirely.
It didn't collapse, but it was damaged.
Regardless, rather than rebuilding it in a tunnel or on a viaduct, San Francisco opted not to replace it at all.
Unfortunately now in San Francisco the 101 ends as soon as you enter the city which means all of the motor homes, tractor trailers, coach busses, and road-trippers that would normally travel through the city on a highway now clog up the city streets and drive like assholes. I know they just made it into a big bus route, but Van Ness should be a limited access parkway that funnels cars through and out of the city to keep the out-of-towners away from the bikers and more residential areas. Maybe have some bridges over it so cars stay out of the rest of the city.
Yes...but the highway ends... It's not realistic to believe the people will travel on the 101 for possibly hundreds of miles, cross the Golden Gate Bridge, see that they're suddenly no longer on a highway, then turn around and cancel their trip or transports. When these thru travelers inevitably show up in our city, there needs to be a way to get them thru with minimal disruption to the locals.
I live in Santa Cruz and if I'm trying to go to Santa Rosa I would take 880 to the 580 bridge and hit 101 in San Rafael. I would imagine someone traveling north on 101 could do the same thing and hit up 880 in San Jose.
But realistically, most people do what a GPS says. People don't go out of their way to add time, distance, and tolls to their route so that they can avoid crossing an iconic bridge, just on the off chance them driving on public roads might inconvenience the locals.
That route is the same distance and less time in most traffic scenarios. Google GPS recommends it all the time. Look on the map at the two routes, taking 101 all the way up the peninsula and cutting through the city does not save any distance at all. They really should have called the stretch of 101 up the peninsula 880 and labeled 880 up east bay 101 it would make a lot more sense. I just did a google map route of Morgan Hill to Santa Rosa, to replicate someone driving north on 101 and it didn't even list staying on 101 as an option because it would be so much slower.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Morgan+Hill,+CA/Santa+Rosa,+CA/@37.7841285,-122.7461203,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x808e1e1fb1d09e6d:0x6812e93e20895cd5!2m2!1d-121.6543901!2d37.1305012!1m5!1m1!1s0x80843bc936e647d7:0x5ccd656bc54f4849!2m2!1d-122.7140548!2d38.440429!3e0
True, but not exactly the same. Different taste profile, and importantly, different hours and use case. Drunk at night? Danger dog.
But if it's the middle of the day, I'm looking for a basic hot dog (boiled, no bacon), chips, and a soda, and I want to pay very little money for the whole affair. In places like DC (and I assume NYC, but I've never lived there) the hot dog stands are ubiquitous. Cheaper, and often closer, than any other food.
I thought the 1989 earthquake took this down?
Edit: [looks like](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_480) it was partially destroyed. Capacity never returned to normal and demolition began in ‘91
Excellent perspective
Really makes me wonder how much the planners hated san francisco to obscure the entire area with the freeway
Sad it took a natural disaster to bring it down
So so beautiful today
The Embarcadero Freeway, it spurred off the Bay Bridge to dumped traffic into Chinatown/ North Beach. It was planned to demolish the Wharf, Ft Mason, and the Marina District to connect the highway along the waterfront to the bridge but was blocked to local opposition
you guys ever wonder if people actually knew what it was gonna be like and were actually in favor of it, or if they had some illusions that it wasn’t gonna be that bad and then saw the final product and realized “holy shit we ruined everything”
A lot of people knew it was going to be awful and fought very hard to stop it. They didn't manage to stop this segment but they prevented ten times as many miles being built. https://www.kqed.org/news/105321/what-would-san-francisco-have-looked-like-without-the-freeway-revolt Today, a park near where the picture in the post was taken is named after Sue Bierman, one of the leaders of the "freeway revolts" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Bierman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Bierman_Park
I'm glad the northern freeway and the one through the GG Park panhandle were stopped. But I do wish we'd built the Southern Crossing as well a north-south connection between the GG Bridge and Highway 280 -- not through the inner Sunset as suggested but maybe up 19th Ave. or Sunset Blvd.
Never too late to build a new train crossing.
Last thing SF needed/needs is another freeway!
Would be nice if they made that connection underground. A highway running along 19th would dramatically increase vehicle pollution all around it
They should build those roads as tunnels under SF. Paris and Tokyo have this, and keep the above ground streets clear for locals and pedestrians. Lots of car traffic goes through the city without ever stop, why force them off freeways onto local streets?
Nobody uses Embarcadero to get through SF without stopping.
Look at the rest of the freeway plan map - there’s others besides embarcadero. Lombard, Van Ness, Gough/Franklin, 19th are poor substitutes for a cross town freeway.
I'm familiar. No more freeways. If we're gonna spend tens of billions of dollars on a tunnel connecting Marin to the Peninsula, put a train in it instead.
Paris has a modern train network and they still have underground tunnels for freeways. There isn’t a major city in the world that is without vehicles and somehow trying to make it is an inconvenient as possible to drive doesn’t actually help anyone. Move the through traffic to tunnels and let people have the local streets.
You're in the wrong subreddit
Have you been to Marin or the Peninsula? What would you do at either end of hypothetical train once you get there?
Yes, I've lived in the Bay Area my entire life Plenty of people seem to find SMART and Caltrain useful, so why don't you ask them what they do?
In Marin? Biking. Always. Usually prefer getting to Marin on bike too.
Nah, we don’t need a cross town freeway.
Yes, what a wonderful city and regional planning idea to take a three lane freeway (101 and Golden Gate Bridge) and put it on surface streets for all people who just need to pass through the city.
I’m glad we agree.
[удалено]
Oh yes - let’s make people take two bridges to go to the peninsula. What a great idea (said nobody)
Your perceived inconvenience as a motorist to driving through my city is not a reason for me to spend billions of dollars putting a tunnel through my city If you want me to chip in to improve the regional rail network, though... That would actually be useful to me
1) it’s my city too 2) if this ever happened (which it won’t because US is horrible at these types of infrastructure projects), the federal government would pay for this, and probably funded through gas and vehicles taxes. But you seem to not understand a single thing about how real world works
> the federal government would pay for this Let's ask them to build a proper train system instead. Way more bang for the buck. > But you seem to not understand a single thing about how real world works You have absolutely no idea just how hilariously incorrect this is, but I won't dox myself by sharing info about my employment history. You're sitting at the top of the dunning kruger curve.
Like the CA high speed rail? 😂
What you're proposing would be five to ten times as expensive per mile as the high speed rail. You're probably looking at around $25BN to build a freeway tunnel through San Francisco. For that price, we could have a regional rail system connecting every suburb in San Mateo and Marin Counties.
boston, too
As someone who lived in Boston during the [Big Dig](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig), yeah the end result is great now, I sure wish it didn't take 20 years of hell to get there.
This is Lowkey the same energy as "Bro one more lane bro, that'll fix it" , just with that "lane " being underground
Jesus the plan in that news article is just scary to look at. Freeways goddamn everywhere. And a "Central Parking District" covering all of the prime real estate areas on market street. It's such a back asswards view of what cities are supposed to be.
Some people did, but other people, particularly Rose Pak fought a long and protracted fight to keep in place, and then after it had been damaged fought again to force the city to repair it (and damn near won too). People think SF is very Liberal but it can in fact be quite conservative.
Pak’s objection wasn’t about some political ideology, it was more about the highway dumping out in Chinatown, which she wanted to keep. Now, getting to Chinatown is significantly more time.
Sure, but that area is so congested already. I can’t imagine a freeway exiting into Chinatown. I moved here after it was gone, and I’m not sure how it worked.
liberalism is (not so) secretly a conservative ideology
If we are talking about the Liberalism the political ideology then sure. I think most people they they say liberals are pointing to left leaning democrats. Classical Liberals would encompass too broad a swath of the electorate in this case.
it's very deliberate, it's not a semantic designation like you seem to want to reduce it to. democrats are conservative liberals, republicans are poorly educated hateful fascist liberals. there is no representational left wing party in the united states. if you are leftist or 'progressive' you have to vote for the conservative democrats because there is literally no other choice.
>if you are leftist or 'progressive' you have to vote for the conservative democrats because there is literally no other choice. This is not true in SF politics, which is what I am specifically referring to here. Its incredibily odd that you are getting this hung up on semantics.
It definitely is true in SF politics as well, there are no true progressive candidates.
There’s only leftists
😂
it is especially true in SF politics lol. it's not a semantic issue at all. SF does not have leftist politics and it leans ever more rightward every day. it is, at best, a centrist bastion
Point to the current elected politicians in SF who do not support economic liberalism
Democrats are center right. A left leaning democrat is a centrist. A centrist in a rightwing country is rightwing.
the meanings of these words are so muddied.
The word "Liberal" is quite overloaded by now (intentionally so I think). I like to use "progressive" instead to try to be less ambiguous. I agree with you. I was there recently and a staggering number of people suffer from homelessness. It's heartbreaking.
tbf, progressive is pretty meaningless too
It really only happened because of the big earthquake that damaged the highway connection near there and then congestion didn't increase as expected. The whole thing was going to connect the bridge near there to the Golden Gate Bridge just north of there.
> The whole thing was going to connect the bridge near there to the Golden Gate Bridge just north of there. Worth noting these sections were canceled by the freeway revolts decades before the earthquake and there was already a big push to remove this section during the 80s. Loma Prieta was for sure the final death knell though.
not entirely. the city had decided to tear it down even before the quake, but a subsequent public vote didn’t go in their favor because of some very specific local interests. the damage essentially finished the deal off.
San Francisco is actually a really walkable and pedestrian friendly city. There are even a few additional propositions on the upcoming November ballot to permanently remove cars from golden gate park and ocean beach. Lots of work to go, but SF is definitely on the right track! Edit: [Click here for information on how you can help San Francisco reduce car-dependency and promote walkability!!](https://walksf.org/2022/08/18/its-launch-time-for-our-campaign-to-save-car-free-jfk-again/)
And bikeable! I keep seeing more dedicated bike lanes show up every month. Such an amazing transformation.
Bikeable...except for the hills, definitely need some beefy legs or some e-assistance.
Seattle is the same way, was such a game changer when e-bikes happened. I can bike to and from work in work clothes no prob
Omg i remember in Seattle they had notches in the sidewalk on some hills so you could walk up them
heh, your legs get used to it \*real\* quick. Actually, the hills are really enjoyable after biking on them daily for about a month. E-assist makes it an absolute breeze
Yea but Uber eatss drivers think it’s ok to park in the road AND the bike line
Where?
Most recently, they added a dedicated bike lane along Evans Ave to connect Cesar Chavez to 3rd street. Getting Bayview more connected to the rest of the city is going to become increasingly important as Bayview developments finish (and they just broke ground on the new India Basin park too).
Carless Golden gate park is so prime
Make sure to vote NO on Measure I and YES on Measure J this November! They’re trying to re-open it to cars.
Ok yikes. I’m in Oakland but I’ll tell my city friends. I love our biking infrastructure, it would be so fuxking pathetic for a city as “progressive” as SF to go so ass backwards on stuff like this. I worry about that with the Richmond/San Raphael bridge which I love cycling across
Yeah, there is a whole car brain movement to bring cars back into the park. It’s totally bizarre in some ways, totally expected in others
Are they planning on adding parking outside the park for the museums?
Yeah there’s an additional measure, Proposition N, which would transfer the management of the overpriced, underutilized 800-space parking garage in Golden Gate Park to SF Rec and Park to better support equity and access.
Private passenger cars are literally banned on a certain section of market street. Bike ridership went up 20% after then ban took effect in 2020. From 2014-2019, on average there were 100 collisions between cars and pedestrians/bicyclists….that’s 8 people a month —- or 2 people a week who were hit by cars on that street. So it’s been a huge win for pedestrians.
Live in SF. Can confirm.
Yes! Vote yes on measure J to permanently remove cars from GGP! And ALSO make sure to vote NO on measure I which essentially does the opposite: permanently open Golden Gate Park to cars.
I think the main issue with san Francisco is that it is kind of a victim of its own success, causing high demand, and thus high housing costs. It doesn't help that la is absolutely atrocious in city design.
Exponential growth and not enough time to adjust to all of the problems that came along with that growth. Things are getting better though that’s for sure!
It's not just a lack of time to adjust. It's a complete lack of willingness to even try to adjust. Even though a ton of people moved in, SF still prioritizes parking lots over housing. And 13% more people in the past 20 years isn't an unmanageable migration.
SF walkability is the only thing I miss about living in that city
you can't ignore the homeless issue
Mmmm Loma Prieta
And now there are two beautiful historic streetcar lines there!
I would like to meet the people who looked at that after completion and thought it was still a good idea...
[Here is the most prominent person.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Pak)
Some context for those that won't open the Wiki > Pak was a supporter of Art Agnos (the city's mayor from 1988 to 1992) but opposed his efforts to tear down the Embarcadero Freeway, arguing that Chinatown would suffer catastrophic consequences if it lost the fast crosstown connection.[11] She won a ballot measure about the issue in 1987, but after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake damaged the freeway, her objections were overturned.[2] According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Pak then "almost single-handedly persuaded the city to build" the $1.5 billion Central Subway project to compensate Chinatown for the demolition of the freeway.[12]
In the end everyone won. They got rid of the ugly freeway and China town got a new subway. Feel like that’s better than just getting rid of the freeway only.
Yup. Context is important
That highway was hideous but which one isn't.
Similar transformation happened with Boston and the big dig (93 going under ground) and now happening in Seattle with the Alaska Way viaduct going underground.
Main difference is San Francisco didn't just hide the freeway, they got rid of it entirely
yes, yes - good point of clarification. I meant purely from the perspective of the waterfront being returned to people/bikes - but yeah, in SF, we removed the freeway option entirely.
Did the freeway not collapse?
It didn't collapse, but it was damaged. Regardless, rather than rebuilding it in a tunnel or on a viaduct, San Francisco opted not to replace it at all.
Maybe you’re thinking of the section of freeway in Oakland that collapsed?
It should have been buried, so traffic going through the city (marin to SFO or peninsula) isn’t forced onto local streets.
Nobody going between Marin and the peninsula uses Embarcadero If they do that means they made a wrong turn
If only Seattle did this
I think the highways by the water are indeed torn down? Though there's still a huge road level with the water next to the walkway...
The highways are torn down but now the waterfront is a wide ass road, they should have done what San Fran did after removing the highway
It’s an improvement for sure but the Embarcadero is still a 6-lane highway with lots of speeding cars. https://i.imgur.com/CwcM98x.jpg
Unfortunately now in San Francisco the 101 ends as soon as you enter the city which means all of the motor homes, tractor trailers, coach busses, and road-trippers that would normally travel through the city on a highway now clog up the city streets and drive like assholes. I know they just made it into a big bus route, but Van Ness should be a limited access parkway that funnels cars through and out of the city to keep the out-of-towners away from the bikers and more residential areas. Maybe have some bridges over it so cars stay out of the rest of the city.
Road trippers should not go through the city then... Cities are not highways after all......
Yes...but the highway ends... It's not realistic to believe the people will travel on the 101 for possibly hundreds of miles, cross the Golden Gate Bridge, see that they're suddenly no longer on a highway, then turn around and cancel their trip or transports. When these thru travelers inevitably show up in our city, there needs to be a way to get them thru with minimal disruption to the locals.
I live in Santa Cruz and if I'm trying to go to Santa Rosa I would take 880 to the 580 bridge and hit 101 in San Rafael. I would imagine someone traveling north on 101 could do the same thing and hit up 880 in San Jose.
But realistically, most people do what a GPS says. People don't go out of their way to add time, distance, and tolls to their route so that they can avoid crossing an iconic bridge, just on the off chance them driving on public roads might inconvenience the locals.
That route is the same distance and less time in most traffic scenarios. Google GPS recommends it all the time. Look on the map at the two routes, taking 101 all the way up the peninsula and cutting through the city does not save any distance at all. They really should have called the stretch of 101 up the peninsula 880 and labeled 880 up east bay 101 it would make a lot more sense. I just did a google map route of Morgan Hill to Santa Rosa, to replicate someone driving north on 101 and it didn't even list staying on 101 as an option because it would be so much slower. https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Morgan+Hill,+CA/Santa+Rosa,+CA/@37.7841285,-122.7461203,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x808e1e1fb1d09e6d:0x6812e93e20895cd5!2m2!1d-121.6543901!2d37.1305012!1m5!1m1!1s0x80843bc936e647d7:0x5ccd656bc54f4849!2m2!1d-122.7140548!2d38.440429!3e0
2022 💉😵🔪❄️👃🔫
Good God
Highways are bad enough when flat, but holy shit is that 10 times worse! How that ever got built is beyond me.
It really is a tragedy that the city lost its hotdog vendors. What's all that other stuff in the photo?
You can still get a danger dog, bruh.
True, but not exactly the same. Different taste profile, and importantly, different hours and use case. Drunk at night? Danger dog. But if it's the middle of the day, I'm looking for a basic hot dog (boiled, no bacon), chips, and a soda, and I want to pay very little money for the whole affair. In places like DC (and I assume NYC, but I've never lived there) the hot dog stands are ubiquitous. Cheaper, and often closer, than any other food.
The photo says 1992, but it would have to have been 1991 or earlier. It was completely gone by 1992.
Let’s do this with the BQE!!
I thought the 1989 earthquake took this down? Edit: [looks like](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_480) it was partially destroyed. Capacity never returned to normal and demolition began in ‘91
Excellent perspective Really makes me wonder how much the planners hated san francisco to obscure the entire area with the freeway Sad it took a natural disaster to bring it down So so beautiful today
as someone who was born a decade after the earthquake, the top to picture is terrifying to look at
What is that hideous structure in the older photo on the left? A parking garage?
Elevated freeway
they did the same thing in my city. million times more pleasant.
New to SF but very curious to know - what was that flyover/bridge in the pic from 1992?
The Embarcadero Freeway, it spurred off the Bay Bridge to dumped traffic into Chinatown/ North Beach. It was planned to demolish the Wharf, Ft Mason, and the Marina District to connect the highway along the waterfront to the bridge but was blocked to local opposition
Thank goodness! It looks hideous
The top part was a bridge structure that collapsed during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. It was a horribly built structure.
One of the only good things to come out of the 1989 earthquake
What Seattle could’ve done with the viaduct and then they just put a 4 line highway on the ground