Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 236 posts

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#131

Post by kaikai »

closeparen wrote: post #100

Market St. has never been a significant thoroughfare for private cars. Of course there’s no traffic impact. Try the same thing on Mission, Howard, Folsom, Harrison, Geary, Van Ness, etc. and you’ll see a very different story.

Never? It’s hasn’t recently mostly because the city has been changing traffic flow in Market exactly to reduce car traffic. They put in dedicated bus and taxi lanes, then mandatory turns off of Market. All of that reduced regular traffic, exactly so that banning cars didn’t have a huge impact. We could to the same thing in other parts of the city.

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#132

Post by wpietri »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #12
Tepix wrote: post #2

Just the fact that riding a bicycle got more attractive and 25% more people are using their bicycles now means that there will be less people left stuck in traffic in their cars. Not to mention the people who are exercising by using their bicycles will have health benefits as well.

Will 25% more cyclists have much of an impact on the number of cars on the road? 25% more of a small number is still a small number.

Market Street is a busy cycling route. During rush hour I'd often ride in a pack of 20 or 3 cyclists.

According to MUNI, cyclists peaked at 650/hour before the change. That's in contrast to 400 cars per hour. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Car-free-Market-...

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#134

Post by zten »

flyinghamster wrote: post #54

Chicago tried this decades ago with the State Street Mall project [1]. It turned out to be an overall flop, with stores seeing reduced traffic, and by 1993 it was gone and good riddance. As a pedestrian, I hated it when I worked downtown. Maybe they'll do something on Market Street that will work better, or perhaps it might be a better fit there than in Chicago, but I wish them luck, because they're going to need it.…

Nobody is on Market to get to a destination on Market. You can’t park for the vast majority of it, and there are literally no driveways. This change mostly eliminates through traffic that drags down bus service.

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#135

Post by rootusrootus »

ghaff wrote: post #50
AndyMcConachie wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Rue de la Loi is Brussels is notorious for this. They removed a lane of traffic a few years ago and added a bike lane at the same level as the sidewalk. Incredibly dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists. https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8445626,4.3736092,3a,75y,270...

This is actually even worse than that. Because of trees, the bike lane sort of goes down the middle of the sidewalk. https://www.google.com/maps/@42.358207,-71.0988444,3a,75y,20...

In the street view, there's even a bicyclist avoiding it altogether and riding in traffic.

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#136

Post by carapace »

Symbiote wrote: post #3

The linked article (1) says the redesign will have "sidewalk level bike lanes". If there's a way for local people to comment on this, please encourage these to be changed to in-between-road-and-sidewalk level. (Or road level with a continuous kerb in between). This makes it much, much easier for pedestrians not to accidentally wander into the lane. (2) 1 https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Car-free-Market-...…

I haven't been down there since the change, maybe I can do it today and post a lil trip report.

FWIW, This was brought up in the public comments on the project. The bike lanes seem to be between the sidewalks and the bus stops in several places, and overall there isn't a firm physical distinction between bikes and pedestrians. It seems to me that you're going to have to ride more slowly than you would if we had proper bike lanes, and there are going to be a lot of accidents with bikes hitting peds.

Also, cross traffic is still going on and the center of the street is reserved for buses (if I understand correctly) and light rail, and there are still cars (taxis, &c.), so from a bike-commuter POV I don't think it will be much more convenient than before, however, it's potentially much safer.

But again, I haven't actually been down there yet myself.

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#137

Post by ghaff »

standardUser wrote: post #125
ghaff wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NY (Manhattan and certain areas of Brooklyn in particular) somewhat uniquely don't really require a car. Partly it's because owning a car is a pain/expensive and partly because of transit. But it's also because there's a general mindset that as a professional 30 year old, you're not really expected to have a car and activities and people's expectations are set accordingly. In other cities--and there are other cities…

I lived for over a decade in downtown SF without a car. I can't imagine having owned a car, or needing one, or wanting to deal with the hassle of actually using one. Things certainly got better with rideshares, but transit was abundant and taxis worked fine too (sort of).

I think a lot probably comes down to lifestyle preferences. I don't live in a city but, if I did, I'd almost certainly want a car because I'd be visiting people/doing things outside the city on a regular basis and it's pretty common that I go hiking or boating a few hours away for a day or a long weekend.

There's no way I would want to feel restricted to a city especially somewhere that there are as many natural possibilities as the Bay Area.

Maybe short-term and standard car rentals would suffice but that starts adding overhead whenever you want to go somewhere.

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#138

Post by baddox »

thedance wrote: post #96
new_realist wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are fewer of them and they are more efficient, running at higher passenger utilization.

This can’t be true. Taxis often run with zero passengers, whereas a private car never does.

It can be true if enough taxi time is spent with 2 or more passengers.

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#139

Post by wpietri »

everyone wrote: post #70

A big traffic jam would be nothing like 'Carmageddon' An extremely popular series of computer games starting in 1997, where u race around smashing into other vehicles and running over pedestrians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmageddon Why do they keep saying carmageddon????

I think you could call that moderately popular at best. 20+ years ago.

They keep calling it that for the same reason the game got that name: it's a cute term that quickly conveys "giant automotive disaster".

Re: No ‘carmageddon’ on auto-free Market Street: study shows bikes and buses benefit

#140

Post by alamortsubite »

closeparen wrote: post #100

Market St. has never been a significant thoroughfare for private cars. Of course there’s no traffic impact. Try the same thing on Mission, Howard, Folsom, Harrison, Geary, Van Ness, etc. and you’ll see a very different story.

The changes to Market Street may have been gradual enough that you didn't notice, or by "never" maybe you mean only the last 20 years. I remember it was packed with cars in the '90s.
Post reply on HN