>The reason travel times are similar is because Octavia Blvd >would have a
>capacity only 2/3 that of the elevated freeway. This >bottleneck will
>discourage and prevent about 1/3 of the drivers from using >
>Octavia
Caltrans estimates that approximately 1/3 of the traffic which currently exits
at Fell is in fact headed for northern San Francisco. The Prop E Octavia
boulevard plan directs that traffic to where it wants to go, via Franklin
St.--the most direct access to northern San Francisco.
>I would vote Yes on E if Octavia Blvd were designed to >facilitate traffic
>flow, rather than restrict it. The Prop E design has two lanes >in each
>direction, with left turn pockets. Traffic arteries must be at >least three
>lanes in each direction and left turns must be prohibited >(except onto
>Fell).
Both the Octavia boulevard and Prop H retrofit plans call for two lanes of
through traffic in each direction. So there is no difference at all between
the plans on that score (the boulevard proposal also creates residential lanes
in either direction, separated from through traffic by landscaped islands,
similar to what exists on Park Presidio). So the sum total for auto traffic
is comparable travel times to the western neighborhoods, and _improved_ access
to the northern tier of the City. Add to the equation: lower cost, shorter
completion time, improved seismic safety, and elimination of a notorious
blight from the heart of the City. As I see things, it's a no-brainer.