San Francisco's Main Street is Now Officially Car-Free

[jtakeda]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

FWIW, JTakeda, should he care to contribute, should have a very educated take...

Haha thats one way to put it. Well obviously everything here is ATMO... Ill try and separate my thoughts in two different categories although it sounds like we share similar thoughts on the topic.

1. What I think is the plan from the cities perspective.

So I saw the plan to extend the sidewalks and have more walking/foot traffic going down market. Almost like a very long fishermans wharf type business district in downtown. I think the goal is to clean up the TL and make the hotel guests more comfortable on public transit/walking.
Also market st houses some of the most pedestrian/cyclist vs vehicle accidents in SF. Ive personally been hit on market st 3 times by people opening doors in moving traffic. Im talking I'm in the left lane passing and someone opens the door non curb side. So safer for greener forms of transportation--again encourage people to use sustainable methods of transport.

Also its a way for the city to throw a bone to all the medallion carrying taxi cabs they basically abandoned when they let uber and lyft take over the streets without regulation and single handedly destroy the industry--excuse me disrupt the industry.

The city is trying to force the issue of environmental impacts and safety impacts of having a lot of cars.

2. The reality.
Its a really great idea IMO. The city is trying to force people out of their cars by making it extremely congested on other streets. They are also trying to "win back" all the transit riders who switched from muni/bart to uber/lyft. If they can make public transit faster and cheaper than uber/lyft and make the service safer its a great way to reduce environmental footprint etc.

The problem is it will not be enforced. Congestion downtown is already absurd. The short run effect is havoc and chaos. in 10-15 years I can see this playing out really great for the city but all of us are definitely going to pay a price now.

I find uber/lyft to be the most dangerous vehicles on market st followed very closely by other commuters who either dont pay attention, run the lights/block crosswalks, or simply dont behave like a courteous road user and move over for faster bikes or cars and cause frustration.

I see an increase in entitled bike commuters fighting with vehicles who arent supposed to be there and a lot of friction from people who used to use market st to make a buck and feel like the city is taking away from their earning potential.


Too long didnt read is:
I think its a great idea for the long term development of the city/a last ditch effort to try and save public transportation as we know it but its going to create a lot of hostility/friction in the short run.

[marciero]

How timely. I'm in the city all this week.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by jtakeda

Haha thats one way to put it. Well obviously everything here is ATMO... Ill try and separate my thoughts in two different categories although it sounds like we share similar thoughts on the topic.

1. What I think is the plan from the cities perspective.

So I saw the plan to extend the sidewalks and have more walking/foot traffic going down market. Almost like a very long fishermans wharf type business district in downtown. I think the goal is to clean up the TL and make the hotel guests more comfortable on public transit/walking.
Also market st houses some of the most pedestrian/cyclist vs vehicle accidents in SF. Ive personally been hit on market st 3 times by people opening doors in moving traffic. Im talking I'm in the left lane passing and someone opens the door non curb side. So safer for greener forms of transportation--again encourage people to use sustainable methods of transport.

Also its a way for the city to throw a bone to all the medallion carrying taxi cabs they basically abandoned when they let uber and lyft take over the streets without regulation and single handedly destroy the industry--excuse me disrupt the industry.

The city is trying to force the issue of environmental impacts and safety impacts of having a lot of cars.

2. The reality.
Its a really great idea IMO. The city is trying to force people out of their cars by making it extremely congested on other streets. They are also trying to "win back" all the transit riders who switched from muni/bart to uber/lyft. If they can make public transit faster and cheaper than uber/lyft and make the service safer its a great way to reduce environmental footprint etc.

The problem is it will not be enforced. Congestion downtown is already absurd. The short run effect is havoc and chaos. in 10-15 years I can see this playing out really great for the city but all of us are definitely going to pay a price now.

I find uber/lyft to be the most dangerous vehicles on market st followed very closely by other commuters who either dont pay attention, run the lights/block crosswalks, or simply dont behave like a courteous road user and move over for faster bikes or cars and cause frustration.

I see an increase in entitled bike commuters fighting with vehicles who arent supposed to be there and a lot of friction from people who used to use market st to make a buck and feel like the city is taking away from their earning potential.


Too long didnt read is:
I think its a great idea for the long term development of the city/a last ditch effort to try and save public transportation as we know it but its going to create a lot of hostility/friction in the short run.

Interesting take. Thanks for sharing. Sounds like the theme is "great idea but lots of growing pains first." I haven't commuter cycled in the City for a long time. Not sure this would be the impetus for it. I do take public transport, though.

[bward1028]

I find the bus system in SF to be really great, and I have switched from taking lots of uber/lyfts to taking the bus most places, unless it needs more than one transfer. Then I rent one of the sit-down electric scooters.
Market is already a pretty decent place to bike, because most residents are smart enough to know that it's a cluster**** if you are in a car. This is not a part that we ride on regularly, but it's a great start to making the whole street car free.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by jtakeda

I think its a great idea for the long term development of the city/a last ditch effort to try and save public transportation as we know it but its going to create a lot of hostility/friction in the short run.

Very good writeup, and obviously well considered opinions

Originally Posted by jtakeda

I think the goal is to clean up the TL and make the hotel guests more comfortable on public transit/walking.

Too late. SF voted for the status quo, and the "working poor" behind the scenes at the hotels, convention centers, meeting sites are already suffering.

{source} Person who grew up on Parker Ave, worked on Parnassus, and bailed.

[jtakeda]

Originally Posted by Old School

Too late. SF voted for the status quo, and the "working poor" behind the scenes at the hotels, convention centers, meeting sites are already suffering.

{source} Person who grew up on Parker Ave, worked on Parnassus, and bailed.

Can you elaborate? I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say.

I think you’re referring to hotels and conventions being moved away from SF because the homeless/ rampant drug problems?


If that’s the case I think the city will be fine. The ED bridge program while mainly focused on rural areas will create funding to help drug treatment. Progressive ideas of safe injection and general harm reduction policies are also becoming less stigmatized in SF (still very controversial but bear with me).

A lot of the young doctors are focusing on treating SUD patients and trying to stabilize the most vulnerable. While this might not bring back the conventions and business meetings right now I think SF being a front runner in the green technology/ environmental movement will prove to be the thing that brings business in.

I’m not saying it’s going to work, but I think the city is putting all their chips on the table and hoping their environmentally conscious plan creates revenue streams in the long run and lures those business development conferences back.

The homeless epidemic here is exacerbated by the housing “shortage” which we can hopefully stabilize by the time market st makes its big transformation to the large sidewalks and European style cycle lanes

[ibis]

Originally Posted by jtakeda

The homeless epidemic here is exacerbated by the housing “shortage” which we can hopefully stabilize by the time market st makes its big transformation to the large sidewalks and European style cycle lanes

It seems like Potrero Hill is exploding with a lot of condo's popping up all around Anchor Brewing. I'm sure that neighborhood wants to keep its property value up and all but I have to wonder if the plan was to offer a lot of low income housing instead of the mandated few.

Market Street is half vacant store fronts. I hope this long shot works to revitalize the area because giving companies like Twitter tax breaks for them to move in certainly didn't work.

[jtakeda]

Originally Posted by ibis

It seems like Potrero Hill is exploding with a lot of condo's popping up all around Anchor Brewing. I'm sure that neighborhood wants to keep its property value up and all but I have to wonder if the plan was to offer a lot of low income housing instead of the mandated few.

Market Street is half vacant store fronts. I hope this long shot works to revitalize the area because giving companies like Twitter tax breaks for them to move in certainly didn't work.

Don’t get me started on the secret handshake with all the tech companies. It’s half the reason I’m leaving the bay after growing up here and spending my entire life here.

[cgolvin]

Originally Posted by jtakeda

The short run effect is havoc and chaos. in 10-15 years I can see this playing out really great for the city but all of us are definitely going to pay a price now.

Appreciate the thoughtful response, jtakeda.

Irrespective of what city we're talking about, in my view the quoted piece above points to the foundational problem: the solutions to congestion, habitability, etc. demand a long term approach that will have short- to medium-term negative consequences for many people. I see very little evidence that the majority of people in the US are willing to make the necessary (or even any) sacrifices, and it's very hard for me to imagine that changing in our political climate.

I'm also skeptical of the potential success of any groundswell movement, the numbers are too daunting.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by cgolvin

Appreciate the thoughtful response, jtakeda.

Irrespective of what city we're talking about, in my view the quoted piece above points to the foundational problem: the solutions to congestion, habitability, etc. demand a long term approach that will have short- to medium-term negative consequences for many people. I see very little evidence that the majority of people in the US are willing to make the necessary (or even any) sacrifices, and it's very hard for me to imagine that changing in our political climate.

I'm also skeptical of the potential success of any groundswell movement, the numbers are too daunting.

It's a start. Sometimes, you gotta mandate broccoli....

[unterhausen]

Originally Posted by cgolvin

I see very little evidence that the majority of people in the US are willing to make the necessary (or even any) sacrifices, and it's very hard for me to imagine that changing in our political climate.

It's hard to know, I think a lot of people have been alerted to the need for change and are willing to make changes. And are demanding that infrastructure change to make it easier for them to dump their cars.

I think people that do planning in cities are seeing that a lot of the congestion is not from residents and thinking that their transportation infrastructure should serve residents first. And that people from out of town don't actually need to drive in and park right in front of their destination anyway.

[bicycletricycle]

Ya, what this guy said

Originally Posted by Buzz

Yes. Seen it happening here before my eyes for 20 plus years now. I travel and have relatives all over the US. This isn’t normal or nationwide. I have relatives in Cleveland, Atlanta, NYC, Boston and nothing in those places approaches what is ALLOWED to take place here.

This reminds me of NYC in the 1980s. Different leadership was elected tand overnight there was cops at each end of every block. It didn’t take long to clean things up and make the city safe and tolerable to live in. It just takes willpower.

There is absolutely nothing compassionate about allowing a drug addict to sit in his or her own excrement. If a parent left a kid in a dirty diaper all day long next to an open bottle of aspirin the parents would be hauled in on neglect charges.

Guys that commit auto burglaries are given tickets instead of arrested. The whole thing is upside down.

Read the readers comments in the SF Chronice/ SF Gate on any story about this if you want to get a sense of how the citizens feel here.

[cgolvin]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

It's a start. Sometimes, you gotta mandate broccoli....

Ha! <insert requisite G.W. Bush reference here>

I did have one hopeful experience back when, as a member of our homeowner's board, we were dealing with LADOT about traffic mitigations tied to new development. After our initial head-butting they began to think differently — with some thought to neighborhood impact versus their SOP of "whatever makes the traffic move".

Alas, Waze subsequently decimated any positive impact their efforts had. As a side point, I think Google (owner of Waze) is unforgivably irresponsible in this regard.

[bshell]

Poverty, mental illness, addiction, homelessness etc. are the root of your situation. They absolutely are a national problem and were not 'brought by city leaders' to SF.

Feelings, anecdotes, and comment sections are no substitute for real study and data. Neither are poor analogies to child endangerment. These are adults with rights and free will and things get tricky fast. Keep in mind that the voters of California chose to decriminalize drug violations several years ago at the ballot box. Until the nation has honest and uncomfortable discussions and realizes that it is on the wrong track there will be no correction.

Punitive measures don't solve problems. How do you punish someone with absolutely nothing to lose?

[bshell]

ps. I'm all for experiments with fewer cars.