3:10 *why plan for four lanes if they're narrowing down to a single lane ramp so suddenly?* 2:49 why does the overpass bike path not connect to bike paths on *both* sides of the road underneath? 1:22 why is the industrial access road so wide? Why does it need a median?
re your question about 3:10 - it's a metered on ramp as indicated by the stop light. These are very effective in controlling the volume of traffic entering congested main lines.
Will this project include a traffic light study for Woodside Road? The lights are timed like the goal is more traffic. They stop cars at every intersection instead of letting traffic flow.
When will we learn that we need to stop throwing endless money at ugly car infrastructure and instead redirect funding to public transit and bike infrastructure? Nobody is going to use those bike lanes since you would be riding next to what is essentially an expressway. Use the money to grade separate caltrain and. build better bike infrastructure. Caltrain can move far more people than 101 can ever dream of.
US Route 101 carries nearly 280,000 vehicles per day at its busiest point on the Peninsula. Besides, Caltrain and driving-based infrastructure shouldn't be competing against each other, but rather complementing one another. A good, well-rounded transportation plan incorporates the needs of drivers, transit users, cyclists and pedestrians. See cities such as Madrid, Spain as an example where transit lines blanket the entire city, but there are also over 30 freeways in the Madrid metropolitan area to accommodate the high volumes of car traffic, including the M-30, which carries a peak maximum of nearly 340,000 vehicles per day at its busiest point, busier than any stretch of Bay Area freeway. The Netherlands has one of the most robust public transit networks in the world, but they also build 8-16 lane freeways connecting the largest population centers. Driving will continue to be the primary mode of travel for many decades to come on the San Francisco Peninsula, and both traffic delays and safety have been an issue at this interchange for a number of years, so redesigning it and planning for future growth is a good investment.
@FreewayBrent I have to disagree your statement that driving based infrastructure and caltrain shouldn't be competing with each other. We need people to switch from driving to taking caltrain. This can only be achieved by making caltrain a better experience than driving. Therfore we should not be funding expansion to car infrastructure as that will only encourage more people to drive. Instead we need to fund caltrain so we can achieve better train service. In an ideal world there would be unlimited funding and we could build the greatest highways and the best train systems. But unfortunately we live in a world where infrastructure funding is hard to come by. Where we decide to spend the money we have really says a lot about where our priorities are.
@FreewayBrent I have to disagree your statement that driving based infrastructure and caltrain shouldn't be competing with each other. We need people to switch from driving to taking caltrain. This can only be achieved by making caltrain a better experience than driving. Therfore we should not be funding expansion to car infrastructure as that will only encourage more people to drive. Instead we need to fund caltrain so we can achieve better train service. In an ideal world there would be unlimited funding and we could build the greatest highways and the best train systems. But unfortunately we live in a world where infrastructure funding is hard to come by. Where we decide to spend the money we have really says a lot about where our priorities are. Why are we funding future growth in car traffic when we don't want growth in car traffic?
I could see there were bike lanes and separated bike paths in some sections of the video. Why are there both? I would never use a bike lane if a bike path is available.
Simply delusional cycling infrastructure. Just think about that stuff for more than 5 seconds and you can figure out it's a much better idea to build paths in quieter areas. Bikes are not cars.
Needs one more lane
3:10 *why plan for four lanes if they're narrowing down to a single lane ramp so suddenly?*
2:49 why does the overpass bike path not connect to bike paths on *both* sides of the road underneath?
1:22 why is the industrial access road so wide? Why does it need a median?
re your question about 3:10 - it's a metered on ramp as indicated by the stop light. These are very effective in controlling the volume of traffic entering congested main lines.
omg! that bike lane 😱😱😱
Will this project include a traffic light study for Woodside Road? The lights are timed like the goal is more traffic. They stop cars at every intersection instead of letting traffic flow.
When will we learn that we need to stop throwing endless money at ugly car infrastructure and instead redirect funding to public transit and bike infrastructure? Nobody is going to use those bike lanes since you would be riding next to what is essentially an expressway. Use the money to grade separate caltrain and. build better bike infrastructure. Caltrain can move far more people than 101 can ever dream of.
US Route 101 carries nearly 280,000 vehicles per day at its busiest point on the Peninsula. Besides, Caltrain and driving-based infrastructure shouldn't be competing against each other, but rather complementing one another. A good, well-rounded transportation plan incorporates the needs of drivers, transit users, cyclists and pedestrians. See cities such as Madrid, Spain as an example where transit lines blanket the entire city, but there are also over 30 freeways in the Madrid metropolitan area to accommodate the high volumes of car traffic, including the M-30, which carries a peak maximum of nearly 340,000 vehicles per day at its busiest point, busier than any stretch of Bay Area freeway. The Netherlands has one of the most robust public transit networks in the world, but they also build 8-16 lane freeways connecting the largest population centers. Driving will continue to be the primary mode of travel for many decades to come on the San Francisco Peninsula, and both traffic delays and safety have been an issue at this interchange for a number of years, so redesigning it and planning for future growth is a good investment.
@FreewayBrent I have to disagree your statement that driving based infrastructure and caltrain shouldn't be competing with each other. We need people to switch from driving to taking caltrain. This can only be achieved by making caltrain a better experience than driving. Therfore we should not be funding expansion to car infrastructure as that will only encourage more people to drive. Instead we need to fund caltrain so we can achieve better train service.
In an ideal world there would be unlimited funding and we could build the greatest highways and the best train systems. But unfortunately we live in a world where infrastructure funding is hard to come by. Where we decide to spend the money we have really says a lot about where our priorities are.
@FreewayBrent I have to disagree your statement that driving based infrastructure and caltrain shouldn't be competing with each other. We need people to switch from driving to taking caltrain. This can only be achieved by making caltrain a better experience than driving. Therfore we should not be funding expansion to car infrastructure as that will only encourage more people to drive. Instead we need to fund caltrain so we can achieve better train service.
In an ideal world there would be unlimited funding and we could build the greatest highways and the best train systems. But unfortunately we live in a world where infrastructure funding is hard to come by. Where we decide to spend the money we have really says a lot about where our priorities are. Why are we funding future growth in car traffic when we don't want growth in car traffic?
These bike lanes are so unsafe!
I could see there were bike lanes and separated bike paths in some sections of the video. Why are there both? I would never use a bike lane if a bike path is available.
They are literally seperated bro like you couldn't ask for more!😅
0:48 they're between car lanes just enough so they're really dangerous@@pocki892
*you do not need this many road lanes*
The separated mixed use bike path and intersection facilities are great, keep those
Simply delusional cycling infrastructure. Just think about that stuff for more than 5 seconds and you can figure out it's a much better idea to build paths in quieter areas. Bikes are not cars.
Only desperate people would use those bike lanes
One more lane will fix it I swear it’ll fix traffic this time. Wasted money.