Re: [carfree_cities] Anyone know how Portland & San Francisco got rid of their waterfront freeways?
- On Friday 04 May 2001 13:57, Mark Watson wrote:
> Please send info onI think you'll prefer the Portland approach.
> how to wage a successful campaign. We're looking for any info, but a
> how-to manual would be great. Analyses of past campaigns, such as
> Portland & SF, would be very helpful.
If you want to emulate San Francisco's program for doing away with the
atrocious Embarcadero Freeway, you need to start with an earthquake, much
more deadly than your recent one, which damages the structure so badly that
repair is not economically feasible.
That's how it happened here. The 1989 Loma Prieta quake was the ultimate
argument against elevated freeways.
The absence of the freeway is a huge improvement. If we could get rid of
the cars, also, the Embarcadero would be a really spectacular place.
- Mark Watson wrote:
>Calling all road fighters! In the spirit of Portland & San Francisco,Seattle >may be ready to get rid of a waterfront freeway. Many people,
>mayor, want it to come down. Many people think it can be fixed. Highlydirt >that has caused some of the current problems!
>unlikely. And among those who want to tear it down, some think we need to
>replace it with a tunnel ($$) through the same unstable, water-logged fill
Given that Seattle's Sound Transit Link project has gotten to the point that
people want it to become a subway this just might be a way to secure
As far as I know in the USA transit projects are a 50/50 split between the
Federal and local governments. With highway projects it's like 80% Federal
20% local government.
>Among other things, we canoption >as a replacement.
>highlight Boston's big dig as one reason that a freeway tunnel is not an
The big problem in Boston is that the much needed North/South rail link is
not being built at the same time. Dawson