4 ms·
We're talking about one street. Is it seriously a "massive negative impact" to drive down the next street over?
by imgabe 7y ago
We're talking about one street. Is it seriously a "massive negative impact" to drive down the next street over?
- jjoonathan 7y agoI thought it was a routing problem -- the one street half bisected a peninsula, so if you want to get from one side to the other it wouldn't mean "driving down the next street over," it would mean driving down twice its length and dealing with traffic at the squeeze point. Did I misunderstand the geometry?
- etrautmann 7y agoYes you misunderstood - you can cross the street at many points but not drive along it
- jjoonathan 7y agoThat makes much more sense, thanks! Less useful for the pedestrians -- but also less apocalyptic for traffic.
- ghaff 7y agoYes, some traffic is being taken off Market but it's a long way from being made into a pedestrian mall. I'm not sure you'd want one on Market anyway. It's not a very pleasant stretch of the city for the most part for reasons that are only somewhat car traffic related.
- scrumbledober 7y agoThis brings up an interesting question. What street(s) in SF would be best for a truly automobile free pedestrian mall? My first thought would be the embarcadero, but it already has a very nice wide sidewalk and I think closing it to cars would be a pretty large hindrance to traffic.
- ghaff 7y agoYeah, the Embarcadero is already pretty pedestrian friendly and it's a rather essential thoroughfare that can't be easily bypassed. In downtown-ish area? Presumably in and around Union Square somewhere. You already have a mini restaurant version in Belden Place. There's a lot of traffic through there but it was already being messed with by lots of construction for ages.
- etrautmann 7y agoValencia! Imagine 16-20th or 20th-24th as pedestrian only. Mission and Guerrero can handle the traffic and there’s no need for cars there.