Comments on: Market Street: Learning to Share

By: Cornered « Transbay Blog

Cornered « Transbay Blog — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:14:02 +0000

[...] of the Better Market Street plan to make this very route — 3rd Street to Kearny — a straight cross-through street, by prohibiting right turns from 3rd onto Market? So why should we now invite motorists to make [...]

By: The New Market Street: 6th and 8th Street Turns « Transbay Blog

The New Market Street: 6th and 8th Street Turns « Transbay Blog — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:02:30 +0000

[...] and 6th/Market is only the first step in long-term plan prepared by the SFCTA, which consists of a variety of changes — incremental ones like those that began today, along with more ambitious recommendations [...]

By: lyqwyd

lyqwyd — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:54:05 +0000

I don’t know why anybody would want to drive on market anyways. Whenever I drive downtown I cross market on 8th street and then take folsom to my destination. Parking is much easier there, and it’s usually only a couple blocks extra walk. Sometimes I take Mission, but never Market.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:03:57 +0000

Is it just me, or would a mandatory turn lane at 8th St. just create a huge hazard for cyclists? Yes it would limit cars below 8th St., but it would be very difficult to get around all the cars turning left at once.

By: anonymouse

anonymouse — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:34:51 +0000

As a cyclist I’d just like to add that Market is not very good for cycling, given the awful pavement quality and potential peril of using the center lanes (trolley tracks I can handle, but those ventilation grates are deadly). I tended to prefer Mission or even Howard. Anyhow, getting cars off Market is a great idea, and the improvements they propose are useful, but I doubt the enforceability of “Bus/Taxi Only” restrictions, as they don’t seem to be working very well on the existing center lanes of Market.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:37:40 +0000

Well, by “case studies,” I meant concrete, real-life applications that you can easily point to at community meetings, etc., as successful examples of how auto restrictions can actually increase business — as opposed to studies/reports that are written up and then stuck on the shelf to gather dust. It would seem that the latter should be more powerful advocacy tool than the former, but that doesn’t always seem to be the case. But yeah, point taken. That was, after all, the TA’s own study.

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:29:57 +0000

“Hopefully that will change, as we accumulate more case studies like Broadway in NYC, Sunday Streets in SF, and so forth.”

I share your hope (I hope!) but I fear that no amount of studies will be enough/ If the TA can release a study it conducted itself (http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/05/27/only-17-percent-drive-to-downtown-sf-to-shop-study-finds/) clearly showing that cars don’t contribute to the downtown economy, then turn right around and say we can’t ban cars from Market Street for economic reasons, I’m skeptical anything can get through to them :-/

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:01:53 +0000

Arguments that have resulted in watered-down auto restrictions were based on fears that banning cars would dampen economic activity. Fears which ware not based on fact, but given weight as if they were for no good reason.

It’s true, merchants have not usually been good judges of what drives traffic toward or away from their stores. The discourse has been guided by false gut instincts, rather than concrete facts. Hopefully that will change, as we accumulate more case studies like Broadway in NYC, Sunday Streets in SF, and so forth.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:51:53 +0000

Hi Josh, thanks for writing in with your thoughts.

I think that your assessment of the TA’s proposal as “straight down the middle” might actually be generous, because this plan is so thoroughly incremental. The proposal basically consists of a few traffic changes, plus elements we have now, but shifted around a bit. Those changes can make a noticeable difference, but I wonder if it goes far enough toward good place-making on Market.

An earlier TA study on Market Street contemplated forcing cars to turn south off of Market at a couple points, e.g. at 8th and at 4th, whereas this proposal does that in the short-term only at 8th. Adding in another forced right turn would be interesting, though. It opens up the possibility for a truly auto-restricted zone in an area with heavy pedestrian activity, somewhere near Union Square (maybe 3rd or O’Farrell-5th, or 4th-5th, depending where the second turn is placed).

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:40:45 +0000

This is a great summary of the recent history and current proposal.

In the interests of injecting opinion and taking one side over the other, I’d like to say that a straight-down-the-middle compromise like the TA plan will leave us with sub-optimal, as you put it, Market Street for a decade or more.

The TA’s own study showed that auto trips generated a tiny fraction of sales receipts in the Union Square area. Pedestrians and transit riders, however, contributed an overwhelming supermajority. These shoppers will continue to face obstacles when trying to use Market Street because the TA is ignoring its own evidence and continuing to allow cars to spoil the street for everyone else.