Seems fine to me. Taxis were allowed on there anyway, the fact that Ubers were not is the strange exclusion, not the other way around. Besides, cars are hardly the most pressing safety issue for...
Seems fine to me. Taxis were allowed on there anyway, the fact that Ubers were not is the strange exclusion, not the other way around.
Besides, cars are hardly the most pressing safety issue for pedestrians on most of market street.
10 years ago when it was closed, it was closed to private vehicles so as to exempt commercial deliveries, licensed cab drivers, emergency vehicles, public transit, etc. But Waymos aren't private...
10 years ago when it was closed, it was closed to private vehicles so as to exempt commercial deliveries, licensed cab drivers, emergency vehicles, public transit, etc. But Waymos aren't private vehicles. Uber and Lyft drivers are driving private vehicles. As such, it makes sense to allow one and not the other. Lurie can make this happen with no public input or legislation specifically because it's only a reinterpretation of the existing law.
Cars are hardly the most pressing safety issue now. Before it was closed to private traffic, Market saw 15% of all situations where a pedestrian was struck in San Francisco. It's possible that Waymos are safer to be around than other vehicles, but Market was closed for a good reason.
Absolutely. But it's fundamental to Market, as it cuts diagonally through the grid in that part of the city, and not even at a 45 degree angle. It meant that cars could be coming from and going to...
Absolutely. But it's fundamental to Market, as it cuts diagonally through the grid in that part of the city, and not even at a 45 degree angle. It meant that cars could be coming from and going to a variety of different directions at any time, and every intersection was unique. It was a unholy hassle for drivers and pedestrians both.
I see. I've seen a few of those streets in SoCal. Absolutely dreadful. I wonder why it as made that way to begin with, but I know SF's terrain isn't that acommadating to begin with.
I see. I've seen a few of those streets in SoCal. Absolutely dreadful. I wonder why it as made that way to begin with, but I know SF's terrain isn't that acommadating to begin with.
Market St. is the way it is because landowners opposed changing their existing grid established by the original Spanish settlers. When the original settlers wanted to expand South, the planners...
Market St. is the way it is because landowners opposed changing their existing grid established by the original Spanish settlers. When the original settlers wanted to expand South, the planners wanted the roads to curve to match the hills but the landowners didn't want that. At the same time, another grid was being developed around Mission Street and the streets were perpendicular or parallel to it. These two grids were always going to clash and no landowner wanted to give up land to make their land fit the other grid. So the planners created Market St to bridge the two grids. They made the street as wide as they could to give wagons and horses as much room as possible to navigate the different grids.
Landowners at the time hated Market St. and literally planned to lynch the planners, who basically escaped to the northern Bay Area (near modern day Sausalito)
Well, that certainly escalated more than I ever expected. The more I read about all these nimbyisms getting in the way of proper planning and better public goods, the more I wish we were...
Well, that certainly escalated more than I ever expected.
The more I read about all these nimbyisms getting in the way of proper planning and better public goods, the more I wish we were aggressive of eminiment domain. We shouldn't have high speed rails delayed or canceled just because some single homeowner likes their house. The government can pay for a new house. Whatever happened to "home is where your family is".
In fairness, we were pretty aggressive with eminent domain before but we used it to seize land from marginalized communities and built highways everywhere lol. Though if we could guarantee that...
In fairness, we were pretty aggressive with eminent domain before but we used it to seize land from marginalized communities and built highways everywhere lol. Though if we could guarantee that land seized would be used for public transit and probably urbanizing our cities more, I wouldn't mind.
Yup, not surprised at all. That's why my initial instinct to Emininent domain was negative. You just know the exact kinds of targets they'd focus on, and how slow they'd be repaying those targets...
Yup, not surprised at all. That's why my initial instinct to Emininent domain was negative. You just know the exact kinds of targets they'd focus on, and how slow they'd be repaying those targets (if ever).
Not like this administration would help with it, but I do think a controlled eminent domain with grounded, objective reasons provider by experts, and an X% extra value in payment for the land can potentially work out.
The issue with Uber/Lyft is probably their sheer numbers. I don’t have any sources or anything but last time I was in SF the number of rideshare cars in the city dramatically outnumbered the...
The issue with Uber/Lyft is probably their sheer numbers. I don’t have any sources or anything but last time I was in SF the number of rideshare cars in the city dramatically outnumbered the number of taxis. It may be that the level of traffic added by taxis is manageable but that which would be added by Uber/Lyft would not be.
Similar to buses and taxis, numbers of Waymos are likely much lower, plus the city can always tell Waymo to reduce that number if needed.
I'd be small scale infuriated at this in L. A. Mostly because you can't even claim that LA public transportation is in the same conversation as SF and that this is a lose-lose. Still, I'm sure...
I'd be small scale infuriated at this in L. A. Mostly because you can't even claim that LA public transportation is in the same conversation as SF and that this is a lose-lose.
Still, I'm sure SF'ers have their own share of gripes with this.
From the article: Apparently there is pushback: Rideshare companies and safe-street advocates are fuming that the mayor is playing favorites
From the article:
Waymo will start mapping the corridor in the coming days, and the driverless service is expected to launch there as early as this summer, according to city officials.
East of 10th Street, Market Street is off-limits to private cars, Ubers, and Lyfts. But the partially car-free downtown stretch of Market Street is open to buses and taxis. Lurie said the initiative with Waymo will complement existing transportation options and make it easier for residents, workers, and visitors to access downtown businesses.
I’d like to see SF tear up half of the pavement and some of the sidewalks on market and turn it into a linear park. Leave just enough space for buses and give the rest to the people.
I’d like to see SF tear up half of the pavement and some of the sidewalks on market and turn it into a linear park. Leave just enough space for buses and give the rest to the people.
Seems fine to me. Taxis were allowed on there anyway, the fact that Ubers were not is the strange exclusion, not the other way around.
Besides, cars are hardly the most pressing safety issue for pedestrians on most of market street.
10 years ago when it was closed, it was closed to private vehicles so as to exempt commercial deliveries, licensed cab drivers, emergency vehicles, public transit, etc. But Waymos aren't private vehicles. Uber and Lyft drivers are driving private vehicles. As such, it makes sense to allow one and not the other. Lurie can make this happen with no public input or legislation specifically because it's only a reinterpretation of the existing law.
Cars are hardly the most pressing safety issue now. Before it was closed to private traffic, Market saw 15% of all situations where a pedestrian was struck in San Francisco. It's possible that Waymos are safer to be around than other vehicles, but Market was closed for a good reason.
At that point it sounds more like a traffic planning issue than anything else.
Absolutely. But it's fundamental to Market, as it cuts diagonally through the grid in that part of the city, and not even at a 45 degree angle. It meant that cars could be coming from and going to a variety of different directions at any time, and every intersection was unique. It was a unholy hassle for drivers and pedestrians both.
I see. I've seen a few of those streets in SoCal. Absolutely dreadful. I wonder why it as made that way to begin with, but I know SF's terrain isn't that acommadating to begin with.
Market St. is the way it is because landowners opposed changing their existing grid established by the original Spanish settlers. When the original settlers wanted to expand South, the planners wanted the roads to curve to match the hills but the landowners didn't want that. At the same time, another grid was being developed around Mission Street and the streets were perpendicular or parallel to it. These two grids were always going to clash and no landowner wanted to give up land to make their land fit the other grid. So the planners created Market St to bridge the two grids. They made the street as wide as they could to give wagons and horses as much room as possible to navigate the different grids.
Landowners at the time hated Market St. and literally planned to lynch the planners, who basically escaped to the northern Bay Area (near modern day Sausalito)
Well, that certainly escalated more than I ever expected.
The more I read about all these nimbyisms getting in the way of proper planning and better public goods, the more I wish we were aggressive of eminiment domain. We shouldn't have high speed rails delayed or canceled just because some single homeowner likes their house. The government can pay for a new house. Whatever happened to "home is where your family is".
In fairness, we were pretty aggressive with eminent domain before but we used it to seize land from marginalized communities and built highways everywhere lol. Though if we could guarantee that land seized would be used for public transit and probably urbanizing our cities more, I wouldn't mind.
Yup, not surprised at all. That's why my initial instinct to Emininent domain was negative. You just know the exact kinds of targets they'd focus on, and how slow they'd be repaying those targets (if ever).
Not like this administration would help with it, but I do think a controlled eminent domain with grounded, objective reasons provider by experts, and an X% extra value in payment for the land can potentially work out.
The issue with Uber/Lyft is probably their sheer numbers. I don’t have any sources or anything but last time I was in SF the number of rideshare cars in the city dramatically outnumbered the number of taxis. It may be that the level of traffic added by taxis is manageable but that which would be added by Uber/Lyft would not be.
Similar to buses and taxis, numbers of Waymos are likely much lower, plus the city can always tell Waymo to reduce that number if needed.
It could also be an issue of the more difficult differentiation between a private car and a rideshare car since it's a more fluid concept.
I'd be small scale infuriated at this in L. A. Mostly because you can't even claim that LA public transportation is in the same conversation as SF and that this is a lose-lose.
Still, I'm sure SF'ers have their own share of gripes with this.
From the article:
Apparently there is pushback:
Rideshare companies and safe-street advocates are fuming that the mayor is playing favorites
I’d like to see SF tear up half of the pavement and some of the sidewalks on market and turn it into a linear park. Leave just enough space for buses and give the rest to the people.