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

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

hoodline.com

30 pointspm2460152 comments

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)

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.

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.

London managed to go from nothing to congestion charging, although I wouldn't say its made a huge difference. The roads in central London are still hideously dangerous, especially for cyclists.

Well, TfL does claim that congestion is down about 30% versus predicted congestion, or about 10% versus baseline congestion since before the charge. I know cycling is still perceived as dangerous there but according to the numbers, fatalities per cyclist journey are down significantly since the congestion charge began. If you think London cycling is dangerous I invite you to join me in San Francisco for some perspective.

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.)

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.

Amazing, isn't it? They insist they aren't a taxi company, except when it suits them. What really amazes is the naked and highly public inconsistency. This isn't some subtle thing; it's roughly what you'd expect from a 6 year old who's trapped himself with a lie. Why are people falling all over themselves to give these simpletons billions?

Because they have a very compelling future and a really strong product. They evoke discussion on the economics of car ownership and have made transportation accessible/convenient for a lot of people who can't afford cars.

I feel there is a stereotype of Uber that it's mostly used by rich, spoiled, college students and young folk. I used to believe that as well, but since working on my own startup in the restaurant industry, I've seen how a lot of blue collar workers like chefs who really do rely on Uber for day-to-day transportation or supplemental income when their paychecks aren't enough.

As far as I can tell, the discussion is always around the latest petulant demand by Uber's execs for some special concession from the public or the state. I haven't seen much discussion of "the economics of car ownership", probably because most of the people "sharing" their cars are driving 98% Uber miles and 2% their own. It's not a carpool. It's not a car-sharing service. It's a taxi service, like any other, and everyone knows it.

Do you have any actual data to back up that claim?

It doesn't matter how we categorize Uber. (We can just call it a platform.) What is way more important is what Uber means to a customer. The average person in SF knows is that Uber is cheaper than a taxi, more plentiful in supply, and more convenient.

So it doesn't matter what the discussion is about, since the core product hasn't changed. It provides utility to both the avid users and occasional users like me. And that's why there are people giving these "simpletons" money.

Now with Uber, people who out of budget don't have to ever consider buying/leasing a car. Even those who do have cars are starting to see just how affordable it is to Uber around. http://blog.samaltman.com/uber-vs-car-ownership

As for people using their cars to drive "98% Uber miles", that's their decision. And it's a pretty logical one if you don't have a stable, decent-paying job to begin with.

- You already own the car and are going to be paying for maintenance and gas and DMV fees anyways, which isn't cheap. Since chances are, you're already living/driving around that area, you might as well just drive a few extra miles here and there to earn a few bucks.

- Cars depreciate fast. It's not like you will get substantial value when you resell if you've kept your mileage low. Maybe it's a few hundred dollars, but given the thousands you already paid for the car, you might as well drive it and earn money with it.

- Your car can become an asset if you can make it one via Uber. It can't be an investment if it's losing value as soon as it rolls out of the dealership. Otherwise, it'll just be sitting in your garage as a liability, collecting dust and you'll just be waiting for the eventual yearly bills from DMV/mechanic. Might as well go out and make money with it if you need to offset your costs.

The other option which you conveniently omitted is car sharing, which became established in San Francisco in 2001 and has tens of thousands of vehicles available.

You are right it doesn't matter how Uber is classified -- just the vehicles being permitted on to the section of Market Street in question.

If the vehicle is not one of the permitted kinds of vehicles, it gets ticketed.

Uber is really irrelevant. The original article title is link-baity. From what I have heard, they didn't even show up at the hearing and most of the public comment was in favor of the closure.

Generally the only trend I see in uber discussions are toxic derailments by people like you screwing up any discussion. It's obviously a good thing, saves drunk driving deaths and "designated driver" has become a thing of the past.

No, people blinding defending ride-sharing is the derailment. It's not about whether or not ride-sharing is a thing, it's about the legal gray area these companies operate in and the entitlements they claim with it. The concept is not the issue, the companies behind it are.

Not really, drunk driving deaths are saved, you should tell this story to parents who have had their kids die. I had 2 stories on my facebook feed recently about lives ruined due to drunk driving. Stop overstating the case.

What prevents drunk driving deaths is not driving while drunk. There are plenty of ways to avoid that. Decades before Uber existed, the big PSA push was "call a taxi!" Then the designated driver came into vogue. In large cities at least, almost no one drives to bars at all; the plan is always to use transit or taxis. Of course today even small towns have taxi services that trawl the bar areas around closing time, so you rarely even have to call (or have the bartender call for you). To the extent that Uber makes any difference here, it's solely by providing additional taxis, which any taxi company can do.

This might be the weakest defense of Uber I've ever read.

Not really, your ability to contemplate alternatives is reduced significantly, impulsive people and people with EF deficits by definition have a lowered ability to mentally represent alternate outcomes and are more prone to drinking, you cannot tell them to not drink because of how their brain processes choices and the economy of outcomes, if these people take an uber there and back they will be good and saved.

I have plenty of defenses, it is yours that is weak.

At no time did I suggest that people not drink. I suggested that the solution to drunk driving wrecks and deaths is that people not drink and drive. You've completely glossed over the relevant point, which is that people who have chosen to drink need to look for ways to get home that don't involve driving. A taxi service, like Uber, is one way to do that. There are many taxi services; any will do for this purpose.

Dude it is easily understood that drinking reduces executive functioning which by definition is your ability to contemplate alternative outcomes and makes you choose economically poor ones, so by definition they are very unlikely to think "I shouldn't drive" it reduces your ability to contemplate those outcomes. You are assuming some neurologically stable state that is not distributed evenly.

But if they took an uber there, they do not have the option to drink and drive either way. See Russell Barkley's last book for EF I can spam quotes if needed.

You haven't explained why Uber is any different from any other taxi service in this regard, so I think we're finished here. I know I am.

> Because they have a very compelling future and a really strong product.

Yes, the slightly more convenient, probably illegal, taxi at a higher price, product.

Isn't people needing it for supplemental income an argument for a decent minimum wage, rather than one for Uber to be allowed to make more money?

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?

I wish taxis weren't allowed on Market either. As a pedestrian, they scare me the most.

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.

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.

I've never been to SF - but where I live Taxi drivers are usually the most ruthless drivers. Not the stupid "I have no idea what I'm doing" ones, but the ones who'll do everything to be quick, no matter the casualties.

Not sure I agree. Whatever reason the city has to allow cabs on market should equally apply to uber or other mass transit. The reason they want to allow cabs could be because it optimizes transportation for the residents of the city if there is less car owners and more shared vehicles. That would apply to uber as well. It could alternatively be that the city believes professional drivers (those that do it for a living) are safer drivers than the average car owner. This would apply equally for uber as well. I can't think of a reason that the city would want to allow taxis but not ubers to use market.

In fact the only thing I can think of is that the city actually supports the crazy medallion monopoly we've built which is insane.

My guess would be enforcement. How do you identify uber drivers? If I sometimes drive for Uber but am not currently driving for them what stops me from putting up my amber sign when I drive there?

Those pink mustaches and glowing blue uber signs probab eliminate 90% of the fraud. Couple that with a few sting operations once every 6-12 months and I doubt there would be much fraud.

Uber claims to be "ride sharing" so no, they shouldn't be allowed, if personal cars aren't. If they want to be treated like taxis, then they can become taxis. Uber drives aren't supposed to be "professional drivers" so why do you think they are safer than other drivers?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nope between 3rd and 8th - no private vehicles.

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.

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.

Public transit in SF is a joke.

It takes over an hour to get from most places to downtown.

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.

I agree with you on all these points, even if I haven't experienced them myself in SF. I used to take the T and used the bus system in the greater Boston area for a couple of years and had similar experiences. Quite a few people drank beer out of gatorade bottles for breakfast, etc. One guy nearly threw up in my lap.

The point I'm trying to make is that public transit can be made much better and more enjoyable. Instead of saying "well, it sucks now" we should say "it sucks now, let's make it better". The budgets currently devoted to maintaining roads, traffic police, etc. could be used to improve public transit instead. Motorized walkways could double or triple your walking speed (something you say you already do) in lots of places.

I grew up in Kharkiv, Ukraine, a city with roughly 1m people and several public transit options: subway, tram/light rail, commuter rail, taxis, and buses. While some of these got to be somewhat gross, the subway specifically was always great: always clean, always air conditioned, marble floors and walls. By contrast, Boston's T/subway/metro is always looking like there is either construction or rodent extermination going on, and it is incredibly hot at all times. It's also incredibly noisy because of the wrong size chassis on some of the train. I believe that if a country like Ukraine can have nice public transit, the US should be able to figure it out too.

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.

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.

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.

This seems the usual answer of making sure rationing only effects those who can't pay to avoid it.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com