To save lives, SF will close Market St. from 3rd-8th street to private vehicles

http://hoodline.com/2015/06/safer-market-street-plan-sparks-opposition-from-uber-hearing-to-be-held-tomorrow

by pm24601 • 11 years ago

30 52 11 years ago

pm246016• 11 years ago

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.

pdkl95• 11 years ago

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.

gkop3• 11 years ago

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)

thrownaway24243• 11 years ago

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.

gkop3• 11 years ago

You are right that congestion pricing is not likely to happen very soon, it's just a wish of mine, a transparent and efficient solution bringing us to the same end result as the slow and politically noisy trajectory that we are on.

Re: tolls, however, I don't think it's a smart idea to toll a bridge both ways because of the overhead of installing and maintaining the toll plaza, the detrimental effect on traffic, and the extra friction to leave the city (we want drivers to leave the city! Don't think twice, just leave!); just double the fees westbound instead. And maybe add flat tolls inbound on the 101 and 280 to match the inbound tolls on the bridges.

jon-wood3• 11 years ago

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.

Animats2• 11 years ago

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.

gkop3• 11 years ago

Are you sure re: Van Ness to the Ferry Building legally, for private vehicles? There had been for example a mandatory right turn off Market at 10th St., is that not still there?

Edit: please double check the article. The diagram shows a required right turn for eastbound Market St. traffic at 6th. So you are right that Market St. is not totally closed, but wrong suggesting that regular folks can legally drive Market to the Ferry Building - in fact the most direct legal route from Van Ness is Mission St.

spikels• 11 years ago

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.

Animats2• 11 years ago

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.

pm246016• 11 years ago

Nope between 3rd and 8th - no private vehicles.

azinman2• 11 years ago

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.

fredkbloggs5• 11 years ago

Amazing, isn't it? They insist they aren't a taxi company, except when it suits them. What really amazes is the naked and highly public inconsistency. This isn't some subtle thing; it's roughly what you'd expect from a 6 year old who's trapped himself with a lie. Why are people falling all over themselves to give these simpletons billions?

yishanl2• 11 years ago

Because they have a very compelling future and a really strong product. They evoke discussion on the economics of car ownership and have made transportation accessible/convenient for a lot of people who can't afford cars.

I feel there is a stereotype of Uber that it's mostly used by rich, spoiled, college students and young folk. I used to believe that as well, but since working on my own startup in the restaurant industry, I've seen how a lot of blue collar workers like chefs who really do rely on Uber for day-to-day transportation or supplemental income when their paychecks aren't enough.

gojomo3• 11 years ago

Uber provides a superior version of the same service, getting more SF residents where they want to be, faster, cheaper. (Uber thus also better advances other civic goals like getting more private vehicles off the road, and eliminating wasteful parking.)

So why shouldn't Uber drivers have the same access to shared public infrastructure? We want roads maximally employed for the benefit of residents, not offered as a perk to narrow guilds.

Do you have zero self-awareness about how frivolously bureaucratic and obsequious your focus on "medallions" and "getting regulated" sounds? What's wrong with judging outputs, rather than politically-assigned credentials?

alwaysdoit• 11 years ago

I wish taxis weren't allowed on Market either. As a pedestrian, they scare me the most.

JesperRavn• 11 years ago

That's the problem with simply saying "taxis are regulated because of externalities, so they deserve special privileges". Taxis are among the worst, most aggressive drivers on the streets. Medallions mean there are less of them, which is good, but a better system is allowing companies like Uber to take over. Uber drivers are much better than taxi drivers in my experience.

alooPotato2• 11 years ago

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• 11 years ago

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?

chrismcb• 11 years ago

Uber claims to be "ride sharing" so no, they shouldn't be allowed, if personal cars aren't. If they want to be treated like taxis, then they can become taxis. Uber drives aren't supposed to be "professional drivers" so why do you think they are safer than other drivers?

IgorPartola2• 11 years ago

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• 11 years ago

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 outrun 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.

pstrateman2• 11 years ago

Public transit in SF is a joke.

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

IgorPartola2• 11 years ago

I agree with you on all these points, even if I haven't experienced them myself in SF. I used to take the T and used the bus system in the greater Boston area for a couple of years and had similar experiences. Quite a few people drank beer out of gatorade bottles for breakfast, etc. One guy nearly threw up in my lap.

The point I'm trying to make is that public transit can be made much better and more enjoyable. Instead of saying "well, it sucks now" we should say "it sucks now, let's make it better". The budgets currently devoted to maintaining roads, traffic police, etc. could be used to improve public transit instead. Motorized walkways could double or triple your walking speed (something you say you already do) in lots of places.

I grew up in Kharkiv, Ukraine, a city with roughly 1m people and several public transit options: subway, tram/light rail, commuter rail, taxis, and buses. While some of these got to be somewhat gross, the subway specifically was always great: always clean, always air conditioned, marble floors and walls. By contrast, Boston's T/subway/metro is always looking like there is either construction or rodent extermination going on, and it is incredibly hot at all times. It's also incredibly noisy because of the wrong size chassis on some of the train. I believe that if a country like Ukraine can have nice public transit, the US should be able to figure it out too.

gojomo3• 11 years ago

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

pm246016• 11 years ago

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.

pstrateman2• 11 years ago

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.)

gojomo3• 11 years ago

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-wood3• 11 years ago

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

superuser2• 11 years ago

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.

pm246016• 11 years ago

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.

pm246016• 11 years ago

Actually, the SFMTA plan clearly explains that private vehicles will not be permitted on Market between 3rd and 8th.

To save lives, SF will close Market St. from 3rd-8th street to private vehicles

Related Stories