The cost of it just doesn't justify boring freeways underground in San Francisco not just because the city is urban and dense, but the economic benefits to the city would be far outweighed by the costs. SF is more of an international business and financial center than a major port. Yes, it handles some cargo (althouhg Oakland handles a lot as well), but SF is not the major port city that Los Angeles, Hong Kong, and New York/Jersey are. Only in cities that fit both scenarios and have insane land values is tunneling of freeways justified for economic productivity, and there are very few cases of that in the world. New York, yes. Hong Kong, yes. Tokyo, DEFINITELY yes (and perhaps has more than any other city in the world).
Urban freeways are necessary to some extent all over the world. Even Europe has some exceptions to the "no freeways through urban areas" rule. The problem is that the US just went all out with the construction of the interstate system and many of these were built before NIMBYism could stop the process. Also, it's a give and take where the economic productivity produced has to justify the cost of tunneling or making it actually "nice." Boston's Big Dig is a shining example of what an urban freeway should be. But it sure as hell wasn't worth $14 billion +.
__________________
So am I supposed to sign something here?
|