5 ms·

>I sometimes wish I could get Californians to have the same courage as the Swiss do when zoning towns which require only walking. I would settle for just makin

by mapgrep 13y ago

>I sometimes wish I could get Californians to have the same courage as the Swiss do when zoning towns which require only walking. I would settle for just making pedestrian-only some small bits of San Francisco, ostensibly the most progressive city in the state. For example: Oh what I wouldn't give to have Third Street shut down from say Folsom to Market. I walk every day most of the length of Third Street and it is an automotive hellscape. Literally six lanes of cars all going in the same direction. And it's anarchy. At nearly every single light change, someone ends up blocking the intersection because they tried to make it across with no room. Cars nearly mowing down pedestrians as they try to turn into parking lot/hotel access roads. Cars clogging the bus lanes. And the honking, oh the honking. Just shut it down. From the convention center through Yerba Buena Gardens, the St Regis, MOMA, all the way to Market. Giant outdoor cafes and restaurants and biergartens. Some protected dedicated bike lanes. Nice pedestrian paths. Dedicated spaces for outdoor exhibits from MOMA, the African Diaspora museum (in the St Regis) and Yerba Buena Center. Earmark the extra tax increment for something nice, maybe for improving mass transit, or the police, or the art scene, as penance for taking away the six-lane artery of transit misery. Then do it again on some other miserable street. And so on.

JimboOmega 13y ago
For those of us who don't have cars, this seems like a great idea (and honestly, I don't know why they even allow cars on market; as it's set up now, you already have to turn off every few blocks, even though most people ignore that and merge into the bus lane in the intersection often enough). But really, if a road is completely packed with cars, shutting it down is not going to end the traffic problem. Those cars (and the people in them) have to go somewhere. Also, speaking of third street, the new muni line from Powell to the caltrain station is already costing ~$1B/mile, so expanding such things is not at all cheap. Or effective, based on ridership estimates. What might reduce traffic congestion would be throwing up more high rise buildings so people can live in the city and work near where they live. Reduced commutes means reduced traffic, reduced rents means less gentrification in outlying areas...

by mapgrep 13y ago

JimboOmega 13y ago

For those of us who don't have cars, this seems like a great idea (and honestly, I don't know why they even allow cars on market; as it's set up now, you already have to turn off every few blocks, even though most people ignore that and merge into the bus lane in the intersection often enough). But really, if a road is completely packed with cars, shutting it down is not going to end the traffic problem. Those cars (and the people in them) have to go somewhere. Also, speaking of third street, the new muni line from Powell to the caltrain station is already costing ~$1B/mile, so expanding such things is not at all cheap. Or effective, based on ridership estimates. What might reduce traffic congestion would be throwing up more high rise buildings so people can live in the city and work near where they live. Reduced commutes means reduced traffic, reduced rents means less gentrification in outlying areas...