9 ms·

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

30 points by pm24601 11y ago

gojomo 11y ago
This could easily backfire, when congestion on nearby streets rises, or drivers suffer more confusion from the constantly-shifting lane/turn rules.
- pm24601 11y 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.
pstrateman 11y 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.)
gojomo 11y 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-wood 11y ago
  This seems the usual answer of making sure rationing only effects those who can't pay to avoid it.
pm24601 11y 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 11y 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.
gkop 11y 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)
- thrownaway2424 11y 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.
  - gkop 11y 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-wood 11y ago
Animats 11y 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.
- gkop 11y 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 11y 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.
  - Animats 11y 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.
- pm24601 11y ago
  Nope between 3rd and 8th - no private vehicles.
azinman2 11y 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.
- gojomo 11y 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 11y ago
  I wish taxis weren't allowed on Market either. As a pedestrian, they scare me the most.
  - JesperRavn 11y 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.
    - kcanini 11y ago
      My experience as a frequent bicycle commuter is the exact opposite. Taxi drivers are usually the most defensive and courteous drivers on the road; I assume it's because they know that they could be out of a job with one mistake. The only two serious incidents I've had with cars, on the other hand, were both caused by reckless Uber drivers.
IgorPartola 11y 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 11y 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.
  - pstrateman 11y ago
    Public transit in SF is a joke. It takes over an hour to get from most places to downtown.
    - Decade 11y ago
      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.
  - 11y ago
superuser2 11y 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.
- pm24601 11y 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.
- pm24601 11y ago
  Actually, the SFMTA plan clearly explains that private vehicles will not be permitted on Market between 3rd and 8th.

30 points by pm24601 11y ago

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

pm24601 11y 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.

pstrateman 11y 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.)

gojomo 11y 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-wood 11y ago
This seems the usual answer of making sure rationing only effects those who can't pay to avoid it.

pm24601 11y 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 11y 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.

gkop 11y 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)

thrownaway2424 11y 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.
- gkop 11y 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-wood 11y ago

Animats 11y 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.

gkop 11y 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 11y 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.
- Animats 11y 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.
pm24601 11y ago
Nope between 3rd and 8th - no private vehicles.

azinman2 11y 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.

gojomo 11y 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 11y ago
I wish taxis weren't allowed on Market either. As a pedestrian, they scare me the most.
- JesperRavn 11y 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.
  - kcanini 11y ago
    My experience as a frequent bicycle commuter is the exact opposite. Taxi drivers are usually the most defensive and courteous drivers on the road; I assume it's because they know that they could be out of a job with one mistake. The only two serious incidents I've had with cars, on the other hand, were both caused by reckless Uber drivers.

IgorPartola 11y 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 11y 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.
- pstrateman 11y ago
  Public transit in SF is a joke. It takes over an hour to get from most places to downtown.
  - Decade 11y ago
    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.
- 11y ago

superuser2 11y 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.

pm24601 11y 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.
pm24601 11y ago
Actually, the SFMTA plan clearly explains that private vehicles will not be permitted on Market between 3rd and 8th.