
The spine of San Francisco is now car-free - mooreds
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2020/01/market-street-car-free-san-francisco-bike-lanes-transit/605674/
======
habosa
There is a lot of negativity in this thread ... let me try to show why this is
a big deal.

Cars and car owners have had completely unchecked rights in American cities
for decades. Cities are congested with traffic, sidewalks are small and
crowded, and bikers are playing Frogger every day.

So a major US city finally makes one of its most important streets private-car
free. I can't even imagine the political hurdles that were crossed to get to
this point.

So today the difference is small. I biked down Market street this morning and
I had an extra lane to work with when buses were not around. But other than
that, not a huge difference.

But the change in a year or two will be huge. I imagine they'll re-time the
lights for bikes/buses instead of private cars. Wider sidewalks and bike
lanes. More pedestrian traffic for businesses. A quieter, cleaner, and safer
street. More room to plant trees, have outdoor public seating, etc.

Let's give this one a chance. It could be the start of something big.

~~~
amflare
> Cars and car owners have had completely unchecked rights in American cities
> for decades.

That's like saying fish have unchecked rights in the fishtank. American cities
have been built around the automobile, so of course the automobile will have
an elevated level of importance. It would be absurd to think anything else. I
appreciate people want alternatives, and more power to them, but until cities
are organized so that an individual's living radius is miles rather than 10s
of miles, the automobile will continue to be king. And rightly so.

~~~
jeromegv
"until cities are organized so that an individual's living radius is miles
rather than 10s of miles", this is exactly what San Francisco is doing. You
can't ask for that and then oppose yourself to the transformation of Market
Street at the same time.

~~~
lacker
San Francisco seems like it is going the opposite way. As it gets more
expensive people are forced into longer and longer commutes.

------
cletus
As someone who doesn't live in SF but has visited many times I'm not really
sure what the issue with Market Street and cars is. It's always seemed fine to
me. Compare this to say Oxford Street in London (where I lived at the time
congestion pricing was first introduced), which was clearly an issue. But
sure, I'm on board.

Although I'm not sure why taxis need an exemption. I guess it's another way to
prop up a dying industry. Having caught cabs in SF before, I never will again,
even if they can drive down Market Street.

The article also mentions 14th Street in NYC, which I live near and am very
familiar with. This has been a contentious issue. Originally the L was planned
to shutdown for 15-18 months and there was a plan to make 14th street sort of
car free. I say sort of because cars were allowed to turn onto 14th Street but
had to make the next right turn. This plan is now moot.

But a big concern was that it would just push car traffic to 13th and 15th
streets, which are "residential".

I'm honestly not sure why 14th Street needs a dedicated busway as it does have
the L. Compare this to say 23rd and 34th street that have no cross Subway
(42nd does).

But the elephant in the room here is that you can still park on 14th street.
If you're serious about increasing the traffic flow (of buses or otherwise)
the obvious thing to do is free up 2 lanes by getting rid of the parking. But
weirdly free street parking is sacrosanct in NYC politics. Why people who live
in downtown Manhattan need this huge public subsidy is beyond me.

~~~
addicted
Maybe because people believe all this valuable public space can be better used
than as a Thruway for ferrying individuals in massive steel cages from one
part of town to another.

Re: the 14th street busway, The “fears” about 13th and 15th street turned out
to be unfounded. In the meanwhile, thousands of people who used the bus are
benefitting with much faster and more reliable service (to the point that
buses on 14th street are now waiting at stops because they are arriving too
fast).

Car traffic has basically been unaffected.

Pedestrians find it much better and safer.

People who live and work there have it much better with the massively reduced
air and noise pollution.

And you’re right that this should be replicated throughout the city. If it
works on 14th street, which as you rightly point out already has a train, it
will be a much bigger success on other streets.

Similarly in SF besides the quality of life improvements you have reclaimed
valuable space that was being given away for no good reason.

~~~
komali2
The noise pollution thing is huge. Private car owners love their god damned
horns. Beep beep. Like children. Drives me fuckin crazy. I'm at the corner of
2nd and Howard. Easily 5% of my day is spent daydreaming about ways to get
those cars to shut the fuck up. Paintballs, HERF gun, signs. I'll never do
anything but I'll continue to daydream my way through the honking.

It's one traffic light! Just WAIT.

~~~
emmelaich
Holy shit, you've just pinpointed what irritated me most about SF! So much
beeping.

In Sydney, for comparison, it's quite rare.

~~~
darkwizard42
Oh man, if you think honking in SF is bad, in NYC it’s a damn 24 hour chorus.
I mean even at 4 am I have heard honking (park ave is NOT congested then so I
can’t even imagine the need to honk then)

~~~
gowld
NYC has signs up promoting the expensive fine for non-emergency honking, which
is illegal, but there's no enforcement.

~~~
cletus
This is NYC in general. It has a police force rivaling the armies of some
countries and the lowest crime in decades so I'm not sure what they're doing
now but whatever it is, it isn't traffic enforcement.

Running red lights ("but it was amber 15 seconds ago!"), honking at cars in
front who are waiting on pedestrians who have right of way, block
intersections preventing cross traffic (every Saturday afternoon you see
dumbasses do this and traffic going to the Holland Tunnel backed up to
Midtown), turning at red lights (illegal in the five boroughs), deciding to
enter an intersection to block an emergency vehicle that has its sirens going,
not getting out of the way of emergency vehicles and so on.

In nine years living in NYC I think I've seen a driver pulled by the NYPD
exactly twice.

And what does the state legislature do? It tries to pass laws to make it
illegal to detain taxi drivers who kill pedestrians [1] (luckily vetoed by the
Governor).

[1]: [https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2015/06/23/senate-passes-bill-
to...](https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2015/06/23/senate-passes-bill-to-prevent-
arrests-of-bus-and-taxi-drivers-who-kill/)

------
brenden2
Would love see this expanded to include most of the city. Manhattan too. I
don't think people need to drive around cities in cars, perhaps with some
exceptions (like people with disabilities). Roads are a huge waste of real
estate, and more than half of the surface area could be replaced with
greenspace to increase the amount of clean air and proximity to nature.

~~~
ipnon
The political problem is that more than 50% of households in New York City own
an automobile.

Edit: 45% of New York City households owned at least 1 automobile as late as
2015 [0]. Ownership per household was 22% in Manhattan.

[0] [https://edc.nyc/article/new-yorkers-and-their-
cars](https://edc.nyc/article/new-yorkers-and-their-cars)

~~~
beisner
While true, I wonder what fraction of those automobiles are used to get into
the areas below Central Park on a regular basis. I've always had a romantic
idea of making all the surface streets below 96th street between 2nd Ave and
10th Ave bus/taxi only, perhaps with special zones for residents to own cars,
and repurposing large swaths as pedestrian/greenspace... But it's an unlikely
dream.

~~~
ipnon
Remember that it is impossible to enter or exit Long Island (including
Brooklyn and Queens) by car without driving through either Manhattan or the
Bronx, and most freight enters the city by semi truck.

~~~
atyppo
No -- Staten Island (and the VZ Bridge) exists. The government is too
incompetent to toll the Holland and Lincoln tunnels accordingly.

------
joeblau
There are still taxis, busses, commercial/city vans, muni, and other vehicles
on Market; just not personal vehicles. To say it’s car free is hardly
accurate.

~~~
PascLeRasc
That's still a _huge_ step forward. Personal vehicles are one of mankind's
worst creations.

~~~
jophde
Clearly you didn’t grow up rural.

~~~
lkbm
I frew up just outside a town of under 10000 people, and I still agree. We
need them some places, but they've infested everywhere.

~~~
jophde
When people in places like that need to get to the city for a doctor do you
recommend horse drawn wagon?

~~~
lkbm
> We need them some places

~~~
jophde
Missed that. Regardless you are agreeing with the OP that they are the worst
things humans invented while acknowledging we need them some places is a bit
contradictory.

~~~
lkbm
Yeah, it is to some extent. (Also, the OP actually said "personal vehicles",
which is definitely way broader than I'm meaning to argue. Bicycles are
personal vehicles.)

A better formulation: Cars in their current form and predominance are
terrible. Done right, we would still have pickups for moving heavy loads, and
some speedy form of transport for moving around individuals, but would it be
two tons of steel?

Imagine a world with no cars where you make this proposal: each person gets a
two-ton machine that can go up to 100 mph, its direction determined by a
driver-controlled steering wheel. We're going to have people as young as 16,
with _maybe_ 30 hours of training drive it on a curvy 20-foot-wide road. Now
the machine's only ~six feet wide, so we'll divide this road into two 10-foot
lanes separated by _a painted line_ down the middle. People will go 55 mph on
one side while other people go 55 mph in the opposite direction just on the
other side. It's safe, because people know to stay on their side of the line,
except sometimes when they're expected to cross over briefly if they think
someone else is going too slowly. As mentioned, the vehicle can go 100 mph.
The only thing keeping it at 55 is that the driver is expected to press and
hold a pedal at just the right pressure.

This proposal would be shot down so hard. Someone would probably object that
this crazy idea is likely to end up being the leading(?) cause of death for
people under the age of 30.

We're in a situation where it's the best we have in rural areas, but if we
really thought about it, we could come up with something better. We need them
in this world, because we built this world to need them.

~~~
jophde
Dirtbikes, ATVs are better at traversing the terrain and we wouldn't need
roads. If you want to get anywhere you need to go fast. The problem is speed
kills. Even with all of the gear it's significantly safer to be a two ton
steel cage. Personal helicopters would be ideal but that seems cost
prohibitive and amateur flight isn't legal. The allure of the car is
independent transportation. I suppose self driving cars would help the safety
issue if they work but they still need roads.

------
ogre_codes
The big thing people seem to miss here is that San Francisco's auto-
infrastructure is completely saturated. Adding more cars just results in
slowing down existing traffic, and it's been this way for years.

From the article: > Cheap gas, the tech boom, and the rise of ride-hailing
have meant the amount of traffic entering San Francisco has grown by 27
percent since 2010. Not only is that making congestion increasingly miserable,
with average travel speeds on corridors like Market Street dropping nearly 20
percent...

This isn't a case of getting rid of cars because of some environmental hippy
policies. Big cities cannot grow streets enough to enable the amount of car
traffic in congested areas. The city isn't going green, they are replacing
extremely inefficient ways of getting around with more efficient ways because
they want to encourage growth.

~~~
diogenescynic
>San Francisco's auto-infrastructure is completely saturated.

So how is taking away infrastructure going to help?

>traffic entering San Francisco has grown by 27 percent since 2010 >This isn't
a case of getting rid of cars

Right, we're just getting rid of a main traffic artery--same cars, fewer road.
How does this improve traffic?

>they are replacing extremely inefficient ways of getting around with more
efficient ways because they want to encourage growth.

What new efficient way is being added?

~~~
ogre_codes
> Right, we're just getting rid of a main traffic artery--same cars, fewer
> road. How does this improve traffic?

It's all about what you are measuring. You see traffic as "Volume of cars
going between two points" when traffic is in fact the number of people going
between one place and another. There is no value in getting a car from one
place to another, there is a lot of value in moving people.

> What new efficient way is being added?

It's been illustrated many times how much more efficient bikes, buses, and
trolly's are at getting large numbers of people from one place to another when
space is constrained.

~~~
Eric_WVGG
This. I'll even supply an actual illustration:
[https://humantransit.org/2012/09/the-photo-that-explains-
alm...](https://humantransit.org/2012/09/the-photo-that-explains-almost-
everything.html)

------
supernova87a
I'll tell you what -- they may say Market Street is car-free, but drive a car
on it and no one will stop you. SFPD is so understaffed (and frankly
uninterested) to properly police the streets of SF that you can pretty much do
anything and unless you stab someone, you're not going to get a ticket for
pretty much anything. We have tons of "bus-only" lanes, or bike lanes, and the
rules are broken every other car with no penalties. Apparently, just like in
tech, we think that some rules, paint stripes, and people's intentions won't
require any significant human administrative monitoring or intervention.

Compare it to NYC where you commonly see beat cops walking the street and
patrolling every other block. And more importantly, giving out tickets with an
apparent belief that people should get penalized for committing minor
offenses. SF Police is just not present or interested in doing this, or
resourced to do so. They can't even stop people from breaking into cars, and
you think they're going to be ticketing people for driving in a partial
pedestrian zone?

I chalk it up to incompetent city government (which frankly right now, is
actually hostile to proper policing -- with a DA who has openly said such, and
a public who mistakenly thinks this is good to assuage their guilt), a lack of
strong police culture, and the incredible cost of hiring people in California,
that keep us from having the right amount of police. Honestly, this cost
(driven by housing by the way) leads to our crime rate also.

~~~
CydeWeys
We have the same problems everywhere in NYC. We have an unbelievable number of
police on the force (corresponding to much higher crime levels of the past),
yet there's very little traffic enforcement. People routinely drive
recklessly, enter areas they're not supposed to, park illegally in travel
lanes, bike lanes, or sidewalks, etc., and there's little risk of anything
happening. Even worse, we have a huge placard abuse crisis where many tens of
thousand of different government employees (cops, firefighters, teachers, city
workers, etc.) get these ridiculous placards that essentially make them immune
to parking enforcement, even when driving their personal vehicles in non-
emergencies. The police (who largely live outside the city and drive to work)
thus see this as one of their perks and they are loath to do anything to fix
it.

So the only solutions that will work are those that don't require the police
to do their job. We need red light cameras at every intersection and speed
cameras on every road (they'd very quickly pay for themselves), and we need
physical protection installed everywhere so that cars cannot even enter bike
lanes or drive up onto sidewalks. It's sad that this is what it's come to, but
absent getting a non-car-based police force who live in the city who are
actually interested in protecting us against drivers, I don't see it changing.

~~~
farisjarrah
I'm all for stronger traffic enforcement as much as the next concerned
citizen, but honestly things like surveillance/speed/red light cameras don't
actually make anyone safer. If you google "Red Light Cameras Safety" You'll
see plenty of articles like this one that state plenty of reasons why these
cameras don't help as much as initially thought.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-
cameras...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-
not-make-streets-safer/)

Instead, it would probably be much more effective to fine people for these
transgressions as a percentage of their income. A $500 speeding ticket or a
$100 parking ticket isn't really going to bother a person driving a $140,000
Tesla as much as its going to bother someone who is driving a $1500 Toyota
Camery. We can probably actually continue to have the police selectively
enforcing like they do now, but if people actually fear the consequences of
breaking boneheaded traffic laws because they'll have to pay $15000 for a
speeding ticket, then they'll be a lot less likely to break those laws.

~~~
Brendinooo
This is an interesting argument, but I've heard it said that the 8th
Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines could make such legislation
difficult to implement.

United States v. Bajakajian[0] is in play here.

> Thus the Court declared that, within the context of judicial deference to
> the legislature's power to set punishments, a fine would not offend the
> Eighth Amendment unless it were "grossly disproportional to the gravity of a
> defendant's offense".

A $15,000 speeding ticket is absolutely disproportional to the gravity of the
offense of speeding, unless you find a way to argue that the offense is
greater because of the net worth of the person committing it.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#United_States_v._Bajakajian)

~~~
soneil
I don't think anyone is arguing that the offense is greater - I think they'd
argue they're putting the "proportion" back in proportional - making the fine
proportional to the income, so that it has more equal impact.

~~~
Brendinooo
I understand, I'm just saying that there is text in the Constitution that says
you can't do that. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

If speeding is an equal offense for all people, then fining someone more for
it would be excessive.

I saw a source that believes it's a solvable problem, but any conversation
about this issue has to solve that problem.

~~~
soneil
I think we'd just have to have a chat about the definition of what's
excessive? Fining me $1m for something would be excessive, fining AT&T $1m for
the same thing would be trivial. "excessive" is relative.

The GPDR is an example of what I mean; where fines are written as €x or y% of
revenue, whichever is higher - which is intended precisely to make fines
proportional. There's little sense levying the same dollar fine against Google
and my local corner shop - a figure that Google wouldn't notice would destroy
the other.

------
adaisadais
The part of Market Street where there are now no private cars typically
doesn’t have that many private cars on it. However, this is the right move for
the city.

~~~
chroem-
The more difficult it becomes to commute from cheaper outlying areas, the
higher rents will rise within the city proper.

~~~
selectodude
BART and Caltrain are always going to be cheaper than driving into the city.
People who drive into San Francisco aren't the ones who don't live in the city
because they can't afford it.

~~~
closeparen
If your time is worth $0, yes. Depending on where you're coming from, it can
easily turn a 45 minute commute into 2+ hours.

Probably the biggest lever here is to dramatically increase housing supply
near the suburban train stations (e.g. SB 50). It's not the train ride itself
that kills you, but the trek across suburbia.

------
burlesona
I bike or scooter on Market almost daily, so I’ve been excited about this
change.

I think it was to some degree over-hyped, because this stretch of market was
already fairly restrictive to cars, and even after the change they’re still
letting all city vehicles and taxis use the street, so I didn’t expect a big
change.

Nevertheless, commuting yesterday was noticeably calmer and quieter, with a
lot more bikes and scooters out. I was hoping to find the numbers from the
bike traffic counters they have on the street, but I didn’t see them. My
unscientific guess, then, is 30-50% more bikes.

It’s a nice change. I just wish they’d extend it deeper into the city, and
specifically create a firm connection to Golden Gate Park. As-is, “the wiggle”
gets you there, but the stretch from Haight to the Panhandle feels dangerous
to me.

I’d love to see Page St. pedestrianized, caveat somehow allowing residents car
access to their block only. It’s a perfect connector except for a couple
really steep blocks. Perhaps a rope tow to help the less athletic (me) get up
the hill? :)

------
as-j
I've crossed or gotten around Market to/from my work for the last 3 years.
These articles are more hype than anything. Thoughts:

1\. This has been slowly under way for years, and finally closing it cars
really isn't a big deal. I would never have willing taken Market east of 10th
for years, there's better and faster routes. (Mission, Folsom, etc)

2\. You can still cross Market on car. You have too, going between the
Financial district, SoMA, and then highways, 80, 280. So there's plenty of
cars around.

3\. Market is already clogged full of buses, trams, etc. It's not like it's
turned into this walking boulevard heaven.

4\. The article calling "one of the cities busiest...thoroughfares" seems
pretty disingenuous. I admit I don't have the stats, but in the closed section
it's slow, essentially 1 lane, ton of lights, etc. Yes there's a ton of buses,
trams, etc but for cars...I can't see it. Is it really busier than Mission,
Howard, Folsom, Harrison, Pine, Geary, Oak, Fell, Gough, Van Ness, etc? Ex:
Franklin is 4 lanes of traffic going 1 way, with a timed green wave of lights.

5\. West of 10th up to the Castro then Twin peaks, and when Market turns into
Portola, now that's a busy road, and I use it a good bit.

------
samstave
I dont quite understand how bad “private” cars really were on market.

I bike commuted throughout the city for a decade, and my biggest problem on
market were muni buses and the cheese grater.

As a driver, there is a little black hole to get to via private car easily and
thats the marriott marquee and target.

It takes an extra while to loop past markrt back around to get to marriott in
certain circumstances.

Also, i once tested taking muni down from mission and duboce to embarcaderro
vs how long it would take on bicycle; muni bus took 40 minutes. Bike to 7.

Although muni was plagued by little swarms of ticket cops causing massive
delays to check tickets and hassle people. (They spent many minutes engaging
in not productive discussion with people and arguing with them over tickets,
which only delayed the rest of the bus longer)

~~~
caymanjim
I lived in San Francisco 15 years ago, and last visited about six years ago. I
know a lot can change in that time frame, but when I was there, there wasn't
much car traffic on that section of Market. I don't object to the car ban, but
I don't think it will change much. Looks like another victory of PR over
practical impact. This is a cheap and easy way to gain good press without
addressing any of San Francisco's core transit problems.

------
blakesterz
This article closes with a really interesting quote:

“For most of the 20th century, there was a belief that the primary function of
our transportation infrastructure was reducing congestion. Most people would
agree that those efforts failed,” said Tumlin. “If we want cities to exist, we
have to to use our abilities to cut emissions through transportation.”

------
classified
" _... pedestrianizing their downtown cores ..._ "

Lots of cities already did this in the previous millennium. Nice to see that
40 years later word is finally starting to get around to the likes of NYC and
SF.

------
totallynotabot
Checked it out at lunch yesterday and the roadway seemed noticeably emptier to
me. Yes, still buses and street cars but felt much less hectic. As a bikeshare
user I’ll be more excited to use Market to get around downtown.

------
rileyt
It's nice to see private cars not being able to drive down Market, but calling
it "car free" is a dishonest title. Taxis, buses, commercial vehicles and muni
will make it far from a pedestrians paradise.

------
bytematic
Here in madison we have a personal car-free street in our "spine" and it's
great, the businesses there are some of the most sought after spaces

------
maelito
Here's an attempt at mapping the pedestrian areas of cities.

It's designed for France but seems to work for San Francisco :
[http://villes.plus/San%20Francisco](http://villes.plus/San%20Francisco)

------
markkat
Oops. I actually drove on Market yesterday.

~~~
komali2
Not all of market is closed to cars.

~~~
scurvy
The article is also incorrect on one detail. Market south of 10th to Van Ness
is closed. Only the northbound lane is open from Van Ness to 10th. This is so
the SFMTA employees can still drive to work and park in their garages every
day.

------
tzs
An interesting thing I learned a while back that surprised me was that in the
days before cars, death rates from accidents involving horses and horse drawn
vehicles where similar to the death rates in our time from car accidents [1]
[2] [3]. Horses were also quite polluting.

I wonder, then, if there were efforts back then to close major streets to
horses?

[1] [https://legallysociable.com/2012/09/07/figures-more-
deaths-p...](https://legallysociable.com/2012/09/07/figures-more-deaths-per-
capita-in-horse-accidents-in-nyc-in-1900-than-in-auto-accidents-today/)

[2] [https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/31/cars-and-
horse...](https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/31/cars-and-horses)

[3]
[https://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20110107/NEWS/1010703...](https://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20110107/NEWS/101070332)

------
electriclove
Why are taxis still allowed?

~~~
locallost
I don't know how it's in the US, but where I've been or lived in Europe taxis
are considered a part of public transit.

------
papreclip
People will look back on the late-20th century in the future and be amazed
that a common citizen had their own car, their own house with a yard, ate meat
daily, etc

I would much rather live in a drivable SF before overpopulation than cope with
compromises that overpopulation demands. Changes like this are necessary, but
they feel more like the decline of civilization as we know it than progress

------
jeffnappi
In Seattle they've moved the SR-99 underground and have removed the eye-sore
of the viaduct [1]. It's been a huge improvement to the waterfront. This year
they'll be adding green space, a two-way protected bike lane, etc [2]. I'm
looking forward to seeing it completed :)

1\.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk3ji2-kZf8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk3ji2-kZf8)

2\. [https://waterfrontseattle.org/waterfront-projects/park-
prome...](https://waterfrontseattle.org/waterfront-projects/park-promenade-
bike-path)

~~~
souprock
I really liked walking under the viaduct. It was shelter from the weather. It
just seemed really nice under there. I even thought it was sort of attractive.

Seattle needs to add a great big awning that has as much character as the
viaduct had. It might as well do double-duty of course, with cars on top.

~~~
jeffnappi
Seattleites need no shelter from the weather :D

------
v1l
I don’t understand. Why are traditional taxis still allowed?

~~~
wutbrodo
Corruption?

------
yalogin
Does Uber and lyft still get to run cars there? Because that would just make
it seem like the law got influenced by corporations.

~~~
looki
No, only licensed taxis.

------
kaliali
Too bad it's not homeless free.

------
diogenescynic
San Francisco politics is all about addressing issues that aren't problems and
ignoring issues that are problems. I moved 3 months ago and would never go
back. I imagine this will just lead to massive traffic issues and more
homeless camps and needles in the downtown area.

------
gok
When will it be poop-free?

------
orangeinvestor
SF needs to build diagonal crossing bridges (or tunnels). The traffic jams
come from all the pedestrians crossing the streets.

~~~
phoobahr
SF needs to build diagonal crossing bridges (or tunnels). The traffic jams
come from all the vehicles i pedestrian spaces.

Fixed that for you.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Regardless of how you frame it not forcing different classes of traffic to
cross each other at the same grade is almost always (i.e. always but I'm sure
there's exception or two out there) improvement for both but projects like
that rarely happen in this day and age.

------
caycep
Slightly OT but glad to see Citylab is still publishing - how is it doing?

------
a_band
Love that they think banning most vehicles from a main traffic artery is going
to reduce congestion. Classic SF urban planning move.

~~~
dang
" _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A
good critical comment teaches us something._"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

If you know more than others about this topic, a good way to comment is to
share some of what you know, so we can all learn something. Snarky
dismissiveness doesn't help anyone.

------
mrosett
I didn't realize that they allow taxis but not Uber/Lyft. How delightfully
corrupt!

~~~
untog
I don't know about corrupt. Uber and Lyft sidelined the regulations around
taxis when they launched because "disruption".

There is no limit to the number of cars Uber and Lyft put on the road. And
just about anyone can be a driver. So an Uber driver should be allowed to
drive down these streets when carrying a passenger. But what about when they
don't have one? How do you tell the difference between that and them just
driving for their own purposes?

In short, what's to stop me signing up to be an Uber driver, putting my little
decal on my car then driving through downtown SF, parking up and going to the
office job I've always had? Street closures would be totally compromised by
giant loopholes like that.

Uber and Lyft created this grey area, willingly. Unfortunately they now have
to live in it.

~~~
BurningFrog
> _How do you tell the difference between that and them just driving for their
> own purposes?_

The non corrupt version is of course that Taxis are not exempt from the car
ban.

~~~
untog
And I'd personally be in favour of that. But is the argument really "taxis
shouldn't be allowed to do X because the unregulated startup that ignored city
regulations has worked itself into a position where it can't do X, and
anything else is corrupt"?

~~~
BurningFrog
If you see the old Taxi system and its regulations as deeply corrupt, you see
Uber/Lyft as civil disobedience heroes for crushing an oppressive system.

You probably don't agree, but at least be aware of how we think.

~~~
untog
I do see the old taxi system as deeply corrupt. I just see Uber/Lyft is
utterly corrupt in a different way.

~~~
BurningFrog
It's a rare day when I meet a bigger cynic than myself.

It warms my heart in several ways :)

------
neuronic
Ban private cars from all inner cities, at least in Europe where there's
acceptable public transport and alternatives.

We need to reclaim our cities and revert the damage done by big auto. GM and
others have screwed American city inhabitants for decades by actively
destroying public transport projects through lobbyism and blackmail.

~~~
BurningFrog
> _Ban private cars from all inner cities, at least in Europe where there 's
> acceptable public transport and alternatives._

A more constructive/less destructive model would be for SF to actually built
decent public transport and get cars off the street by offering better
alternatives.

Of course, SF long ago lost its ability to build things. So only banning
remains in the toolbox.

~~~
zip1234
Fast buses are difficult if they are stuck in car traffic. Remove the cars and
the bus can move much faster. If the bus moves faster and can more accurately
predict a schedule, more people may use it, which allows more frequent runs,
and so on.

~~~
BurningFrog
It took SF over 20 years to get started on one fast bus line on Geary. It's
still not done.

[https://thefrisc.com/the-ballad-of-geary-
brt-b70ac45d0a4e](https://thefrisc.com/the-ballad-of-geary-brt-b70ac45d0a4e)

Functioning major cities build subways, a much bigger undertaking.

~~~
komali2
I think buses is all we can handle in SF considering the Chinatown subway
station debacle.

Our roads are fairly wide for a city, I think busses are ok. They're way
cheaper too.

~~~
BurningFrog
I guess we'll see by 2040 :)

------
xixixao
This is probably commendable, but for me personally, cars, or state of
pavement, are not the biggest problems to enjoying Market street.

The homelessness crisis is. I’m surprised no one yet mentioned it in this long
thread. $600 million might be better spent there.

~~~
komali2
> I’m surprised no one yet mentioned it in this long thread

Probably because it's off topic for the thread, which is about the
restrictions on private cars on market Street specifically and transit
strategies in general, not a pile-on for SF criticism.

The money was allocated for transportation improvement. It would be illegal to
spend it otherwise.

Lots of money is being spent on the homelessness crisis. Shelters are being
built. It's being worked on.

~~~
xixixao
I respectfully disagree. The articles and discussion here specifically talk
about the enjoyment of Market street for pedestrians and cyclists.

I am not suggesting to use money allocated for transportation on something
else. I’m suggesting the money should have been allocated on something else.

This article[0] claims that $300M is spent annually on the crisis. The $600M
would triple that investment.

[0]
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfchronicle.com/politics/am...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfchronicle.com/politics/amp/San-
Francisco-to-build-200-bed-Navigation-Center-14049706.php)

------
tlogan
This is nice if our problems are isolated...

Sadly this will just cause more homeless on the Market street. My reasoning is
following:

\- less car traffic means less shoppers (moms, families, girls, etc.)

\- less shoppers means stores will close

\- but there will be still rich people walking to/from their office which are
perfect target for panhandling

At the end, each building will have a security guard in the front protecting
workers (bilkers, workers, etc.) from homeless.

In short, the problem is that we have such as a huge homeless problem in the
city and any progressive move will backfire. We need to fix that problem
first.

~~~
xsmasher
I don't think "less car traffic means less shoppers" is true at all. If you
look at any store on market street the majority of patrons did NOT drive
there; and pedestrians are more likely to stop at multiple stores instead of
"one and done."

A liveable, walkable downtown means that people can stop at stores and
restaurants on the way to/from work in a way that just isn't convenient when
driving.

------
merrywhether
I can only see this making traffic worse throughout FiDi and SoMa. Ubers/Lyfts
will have a harder time twisting around to get to pickup spots as they are
forced deeper into the mostly-one-way streets around market. BART continues to
be decrepit with no new capacity nor reach nor increases in reliability. And
people will still drive into downtown because SF is incapable of allowing
large increases in the number of in-city housing units. All those people from
East Bay and South Bay and the peninsula have to get into the city somehow.

I love car-free initiatives and wish SF could be less choked by vehicles
during rush hour especially, and maybe this is a start of a bigger revolution,
but I’m not holding my breath.

PS As everyone else pointed out, nice carve-out to prop up the taxi industry.

~~~
wutbrodo
Good? Fidi and soma are pretty densely connected by transit; excluding the
disabled and families, most people taking an Uber around the area are doing so
without good reason. I take Ubers fairly often in the western half of the
city, but there's often no need downtown.

