2 ms·

Market St. has never been a significant thoroughfare for private cars. Of course there’s no traffic impact. Try the same thing on Mission, Howard, Folsom, Harr

Market St. has never been a significant thoroughfare for private cars. Of course there’s no traffic impact. Try the same thing on Mission, Howard, Folsom, Harrison, Geary, Van Ness, etc. and you’ll see a very different story.

Tiktaalik 7y ago
You'd be surprised. Vancouver shut down its core arterial streets to traffic during the 2010 olympics (Broadway, Hastings) and spiked transit funding to compensate. Nothing bad happened and people shifted their behaviour pretty easily.
- Steltek 7y ago
  Did Vancouver's experience result in a shift in transportation priorities long term? Or after the Olympics, were people eager to go back to the prior status quo?
  - Tiktaalik 7y ago
    The funding went away so things went back to normal. Of course with any available roadspace, it will be filled up and used. Later on with a new government transit funding increased and transit has subsequently been seeing double digit growth. The entire exercise makes me feel pretty confident that you can close off road space and so long as you're funding viable alternatives things are fine.
    - asdff 7y ago
      It's really just a question of efficiency. People don't take the subway in nyc because its fun; it can still take an hour one way if everything is working out for the mta that day. They take it because driving in would take two hours. People take whatever is easiest, so in cities like LA it's no suprise that millions of people would rather sit in traffic hell for 45 minutes one way a day when their transit trip would be an hour and a half, if everything works. If you want less people driving, then you need to provide a better alternative beyond transit just being the civically minded thing to do. It also doesn't help when its not perceived to be the most safe alternative, in terms of crime and harassment.
rabeener 7y ago
Can you clarify your point? I read the article but don’t see any mention of trying this on any of the streets you listed. It looks like the city of SF made a good call here and the first part of your comment supports that.
- bussierem 7y ago
  I believe his point is that this is kind of non-news. Yes they picked a good place to do this because it's kind of obvious that there wouldn't be an impact, but that also makes it not really news-worthy because it does nothing to support the idea that "getting rid of cars on streets is a good thing everywhere".
- closeparen 7y ago
  Doing this for Market St. is basically free. There are no real risks or tradeoffs. Of course it’s a good call. But to frame this as a triumph against critics predicting doom is just weird. No one was seriously predicting doom on this one. The only people driving on Market are confused tourists. But then it’s going to be held up as an example for other streets that actually do have risks and tradeoffs.
  - jvagner 7y ago
    The news media kept hammering the potential for cArmageddon.. which was weird. It was a non-story, and it still is, but I guess someone needs content to promote.
wpietri 7y ago
As somebody who cycled Market Street every day for a few years, I beg to differ. Private cars were always my biggest safety worry. Per the MTA, it was 200-400 cars per hour during morning commutes. That's half what's on Mission, but it was still plenty to contend with.
- closeparen 7y ago
  I cycled Market every day too. Far and away the scariest thing is a bus on my tail. Far and away the most frustrating thing is a bus in front of me. I switched to Howard because the trucks forcing me to weave in and out of the bike lane were less of a hassle. Excited that Market is eventually getting a dedicated bike lane as part of this project, though.
kaikai 7y ago
Never? It’s hasn’t recently mostly because the city has been changing traffic flow in Market exactly to reduce car traffic. They put in dedicated bus and taxi lanes, then mandatory turns off of Market. All of that reduced regular traffic, exactly so that banning cars didn’t have a huge impact. We could to the same thing in other parts of the city.
alamortsubite 7y ago
The changes to Market Street may have been gradual enough that you didn't notice, or by "never" maybe you mean only the last 20 years. I remember it was packed with cars in the '90s.
- dntrkv 7y ago
  Exactly, this wasn't an overnight change. It was a gradual process which is how it should be done. Banning cars on a major road overnight with no plan in place will obviously result in chaos. Nobody is suggesting this.
andys627 7y ago
> Try the same thing on Mission, Howard, Folsom, Harrison, Geary, Van Ness, etc. and you’ll see a very different story. Probably not. More car lanes = more cars. Less car lanes = less cars. People switch modes, drive elsewhere, don't take trips, etc. Time and time again (Paris, London, NYC, SF, Portland, Seattle, and many many more) cities have taken space from cars without carmageddon.

Tiktaalik 7y ago

You'd be surprised. Vancouver shut down its core arterial streets to traffic during the 2010 olympics (Broadway, Hastings) and spiked transit funding to compensate. Nothing bad happened and people shifted their behaviour pretty easily.

Steltek 7y ago
Did Vancouver's experience result in a shift in transportation priorities long term? Or after the Olympics, were people eager to go back to the prior status quo?
- Tiktaalik 7y ago
  The funding went away so things went back to normal. Of course with any available roadspace, it will be filled up and used. Later on with a new government transit funding increased and transit has subsequently been seeing double digit growth. The entire exercise makes me feel pretty confident that you can close off road space and so long as you're funding viable alternatives things are fine.
  - asdff 7y ago
    It's really just a question of efficiency. People don't take the subway in nyc because its fun; it can still take an hour one way if everything is working out for the mta that day. They take it because driving in would take two hours. People take whatever is easiest, so in cities like LA it's no suprise that millions of people would rather sit in traffic hell for 45 minutes one way a day when their transit trip would be an hour and a half, if everything works. If you want less people driving, then you need to provide a better alternative beyond transit just being the civically minded thing to do. It also doesn't help when its not perceived to be the most safe alternative, in terms of crime and harassment.

rabeener 7y ago

Can you clarify your point? I read the article but don’t see any mention of trying this on any of the streets you listed. It looks like the city of SF made a good call here and the first part of your comment supports that.

bussierem 7y ago
I believe his point is that this is kind of non-news. Yes they picked a good place to do this because it's kind of obvious that there wouldn't be an impact, but that also makes it not really news-worthy because it does nothing to support the idea that "getting rid of cars on streets is a good thing everywhere".
closeparen 7y ago
Doing this for Market St. is basically free. There are no real risks or tradeoffs. Of course it’s a good call. But to frame this as a triumph against critics predicting doom is just weird. No one was seriously predicting doom on this one. The only people driving on Market are confused tourists. But then it’s going to be held up as an example for other streets that actually do have risks and tradeoffs.
- jvagner 7y ago
  The news media kept hammering the potential for cArmageddon.. which was weird. It was a non-story, and it still is, but I guess someone needs content to promote.

wpietri 7y ago

As somebody who cycled Market Street every day for a few years, I beg to differ. Private cars were always my biggest safety worry. Per the MTA, it was 200-400 cars per hour during morning commutes. That's half what's on Mission, but it was still plenty to contend with.

closeparen 7y ago
I cycled Market every day too. Far and away the scariest thing is a bus on my tail. Far and away the most frustrating thing is a bus in front of me. I switched to Howard because the trucks forcing me to weave in and out of the bike lane were less of a hassle. Excited that Market is eventually getting a dedicated bike lane as part of this project, though.

kaikai 7y ago

Never? It’s hasn’t recently mostly because the city has been changing traffic flow in Market exactly to reduce car traffic. They put in dedicated bus and taxi lanes, then mandatory turns off of Market. All of that reduced regular traffic, exactly so that banning cars didn’t have a huge impact. We could to the same thing in other parts of the city.

alamortsubite 7y ago

The changes to Market Street may have been gradual enough that you didn't notice, or by "never" maybe you mean only the last 20 years. I remember it was packed with cars in the '90s.

dntrkv 7y ago
Exactly, this wasn't an overnight change. It was a gradual process which is how it should be done. Banning cars on a major road overnight with no plan in place will obviously result in chaos. Nobody is suggesting this.

andys627 7y ago

> Try the same thing on Mission, Howard, Folsom, Harrison, Geary, Van Ness, etc. and you’ll see a very different story. Probably not. More car lanes = more cars. Less car lanes = less cars. People switch modes, drive elsewhere, don't take trips, etc. Time and time again (Paris, London, NYC, SF, Portland, Seattle, and many many more) cities have taken space from cars without carmageddon.