
To save lives, SF will close Market St. from 3rd-8th street to private vehicles - pm24601
http://hoodline.com/2015/06/safer-market-street-plan-sparks-opposition-from-uber-hearing-to-be-held-tomorrow
======
gkop
In SF, cars vs. everyone else captures a surprising amount of political
energy. As someone who has lived in a variety of cities and suburbs, but SF
for the past 3-4 years, SF remains excessively car-friendly at the expense of
pedestrians, bicycles, public transit, and non-car-related uses of public
space. Fortunately the voting population and the political class are slowly
pushing the cars out (the "saving lives" rhetoric is a smart strategy and not
invalid, but there's more to it than that - the future prosperity and quality
of life in the city depends on curbing private auto ownership and use).
Prohibiting private vehicles on Market St. is a no-brainer.

What I'd like to see is a kind of congestion pricing, eg. a $1000/year permit
to operate a car in the city, with vouchers for low-income drivers. (I would
pay this myself; I walk, take transit, cycle, drive, and take cabs in the city
in that order of frequency)

~~~
thrownaway2424
We're a very long way from congestion pricing. We don't even have the simplest
of toll schemes yet. It would be trivial to establish a toll on the eastbound
Bay Bridge, for example, or to raise the westbound toll, but we haven't done
it. It would be a matter of a little bit of paint to extend the existing
carpool hours on car-choked freeways, or to establish new carpool lanes.
Removing street parking spaces remains highly controversial. This city is a
long way from congestion pricing.

~~~
jon-wood
London managed to go from nothing to congestion charging, although I wouldn't
say its made a huge difference. The roads in central London are still
hideously dangerous, especially for cyclists.

~~~
thrownaway2424
Well, TfL does claim that congestion is down about 30% versus predicted
congestion, or about 10% versus baseline congestion since before the charge. I
know cycling is still perceived as dangerous there but according to the
numbers, fatalities per cyclist journey are down significantly since the
congestion charge began. If you think London cycling is dangerous I invite you
to join me in San Francisco for some perspective.

------
pstrateman
I've lived in SF for over 20 years.

Nobody actually wants to drive downtown, but public transit isn't good enough
to reliably use it from large parts of the city.

This is typical nanny state SF government.

They ban things instead of coming up with better solutions.

(Yeah I don't think for a minute this will stop at market street.)

------
azinman2
I love that uber feels entitled to get the same deal as taxis. Wow. Like zero
self awareness. Pay for medallions, get regulated, and all the other business
that come with being a taxi and maybe you too can use the taxi lanes. Such BS.

~~~
alooPotato
Not sure I agree. Whatever reason the city has to allow cabs on market should
equally apply to uber or other mass transit. The reason they want to allow
cabs could be because it optimizes transportation for the residents of the
city if there is less car owners and more shared vehicles. That would apply to
uber as well. It could alternatively be that the city believes professional
drivers (those that do it for a living) are safer drivers than the average car
owner. This would apply equally for uber as well. I can't think of a reason
that the city would want to allow taxis but not ubers to use market.

In fact the only thing I can think of is that the city actually supports the
crazy medallion monopoly we've built which is insane.

~~~
fredophile
My guess would be enforcement. How do you identify uber drivers? If I
sometimes drive for Uber but am not currently driving for them what stops me
from putting up my amber sign when I drive there?

~~~
alooPotato
Those pink mustaches and glowing blue uber signs probab eliminate 90% of the
fraud. Couple that with a few sting operations once every 6-12 months and I
doubt there would be much fraud.

------
Animats
No, SF is not closing Market St. They're restricting turns onto it. You'll
still be able to drive from Van Ness to the Ferry Building if you want to. Or
take the trolley line.

Of course those are some of the most dangerous intersections in the city. The
druggies cross Market there, between the 6th St corridor and the Tenderloin.
There are too many people crossing the street in that area who have impaired
basic pedestrian skills.

~~~
spikels
Even today you cannot drive from Van Ness to the Ferry Building on Market.
Besides the fact that Market long ago was cut off at Stuart (a block or so
before the Embarcadero) all non-bus/streetcar/taxi traffic going NE or Market
is forced to turn right at 10th St for the last few years.

~~~
Animats
Not quite; you can escape the northbound Market-10th St right turn by changing
lanes at the Polk-Fell crosswalk across Market just before 10th. After that
crosswalk, the streetcar track lane is no longer bus-taxi only, and you can
cross 10th in it. Then you're forced out of the track lane again into the
right hand lane as you pass the Twitter building.

However, at 6th St, you're now forced to make a right turn.

------
IgorPartola
I wish more cities would do this and in more areas. Boston and Cambridge for
example are terrible to drive in and the public transit system provides a very
viable alternative. Maybe even convert some of the larger avenues to powered
walkways and simply ban all private car traffic.

~~~
ggreer
If public transit is such a viable alternative, why do so many people in those
cities drive? Perhaps you're overlooking some disadvantages of public transit.

I haven't spent much time in Boston, but public transportation in SF is a
joke. Average fleet speed is 8.1mph, the slowest in north america. Even
express lines are outpaced by bicycles. Heck, I've been able to out _run_ the
N from Civic Center to Ocean Beach.

In addition to being slow, SF's public transport is disgusting. Many homeless
leave filth on busses and trains. I can't remember a time I've taken Muni or
BART and _not_ smelled urine (or worse).

Then there are the constant annoyances stemming from the _public_ part of
public transportation: being packed into cars like cattle, sick people
spreading germs, passengers playing music out of their phones, etc.

All of these problems combine to make a distinctly unpleasant experience.
That's why I often Uber or just walk in SF.

~~~
pstrateman
Public transit in SF is a joke.

It takes over an hour to get from most places to downtown.

~~~
Decade
Going downtown is not that bad. There’s a transit line from pretty much any
neighborhood to downtown, and a lot of express services during rush hours.
Service is dramatically worse after midnight, though.

It’s getting from one residential neighborhood to another that’s really
annoying. I have students scheduling over an hour to get to high school,
because SFUSD has a policy of promoting school integration and doesn’t provide
buses. Teenagers getting enough sleep? What a silly idea.

------
pdkl95
_FINALLY!_

It has been obvious for a long time that actually driving on Market St. a
terrible idea. It's dangerous, permanent gridlock, and far too many people end
up confused at the unusual road layout and end up driving in the bus lanes.
This is outstanding news.

------
pm24601
Four of the most dangerous intersections in San Francisco will be made much
safer.

It will be nice to have fewer Uber drivers doing illegal U-turns. Uber drivers
unfortunately do not warn passengers about dooring bicyclists.

------
gojomo
If access to (parts of) Market Street needs to be rationed, they should make
it a toll area, like the congestion zones of London, Singapore, and elsewhere.

Ubers and taxis are functionally the same in their benefits to residents; they
should each have the same option to pay the toll or choose other routes.

~~~
jon-wood
This seems the usual answer of making sure rationing only effects those who
can't pay to avoid it.

------
gojomo
This could easily backfire, when congestion on nearby streets rises, or
drivers suffer more confusion from the constantly-shifting lane/turn rules.

~~~
pm24601
I have seen traffic gets backed up waiting behind a driver trying to do a
right turn on to Market. I would be comfortable making a bet that the traffic
flow will improve.

------
superuser2
HN title currently reads: "To save lives, SF will close Market St. from
3rd-8th street to private vehicles." Article title reads: "Despite Opposition
From Uber, SFMTA Approves Safer Market Street Plan."

HN title appears to be false: the Safer Market Street plan will prevent _turns
onto_ Market St. but says nothing about drivers continuing straight on.

~~~
pm24601
I felt the original title was link-baity. The reality is that this closure is
a long time coming. People have been working on this before Uber was founded.

Before Uber, Market St. merchants had objections that were addressed.

Uber having an objection is no more special than a brick and mortar store
having an objection.

