Charleston Reports Improvement After Restoring Two-Way Traffic

The Charleston Post and Courier reports that the quality of life on a couple of streets that were converted from one-way expressways to two-way streets has improved.

[Mayor Joe] Riley said he doesn't feel any sense of delay driving down Beaufain or Wentworth streets these days —streets the city changed to two-way traffic a few years ago. "Actually, it (going a little slower) is more pleasant because you don't have to worry about someone passing you and them mentally thinking they are on some big arterial highway," he said. -The Post and Courier

The city of Charleston is expanding on that success by moving forward to convert two busier streets to two-way traffic this fall.

During the past 15 years, City Hall has favored those who live and work on a street over those who simply drive along it. -The Post and Courier

The SFMTA should take note. The Northeast corner of San Francisco lives and work under the burden of one-way streets that are the most dangerous in the city. In my opinion there isn't a single one that couldn't benefit from a yellow stripe down the middle.

SFCTA Agrees to Study Car-Free Market Street

Rachel Gordon of the (soon to be extinct?) SF Chronicle reports that the SF County Transportation Authority voted yesterday to study the effects of restricting cars on Market, between Van Ness and the Embarcadero.

According to Gordon the study is to be finished in three months and will provide a comprehensive analysis of the effects of banning cars outright, or of limiting their access in other ways.

The comments on that article on SF Gate are as divorced from reality as comments on that site usually are, so I wouldn't recommend reading them unless you want to frustrate yourself. But I would definitely encourage everyone who reads this to write a letter to the editor of the Chronicle expressing support for the study, and for a car-free Market Street. You can email your letters to letters@sfchronicle.com. From experience I can tell you that your letter stands a decent chance of getting printed, and it will influence the dialogue about the issue.

Just for fun, here are a couple of simulations of what Market Street could look like with fewer cars or no cars. These simulations were created by a transportation engineer named Gregory Riessen, but it's not clear if they were done as part of any specific plan or study, or just for fun:

Go To the Geary BRT Meeting Next Thursday!

Streetsblog SF commenter "chinagirl" alerts us to the next Citizens Advisory meeting for Geary BRT on Thursday, February 26 at 6 pm at the Transit Authority's HQ, 100 Van Ness Floor 26.

A second critical item that may come up is considering making Geary a two-way street downtown, reverting to the pre-1970 layout with 2-way Geary and Sutter Streets --chinagirl

Since this increases transit access, improves the corridor, and makes a one-way speedway back into a two way street, I say get out there and make it happen! Chinagirl says

Please come to the Geary BRT meeting next Thursday to show support for the TA and encourage their talented staff to create a true Great Street, from Market to the Ocean, one that will be a pleasure for bus riders, bicyclists and pedestrians.

Word.

The Chronicle's Half-Baked Editorial Opinion

The Chronicle Comical's editorial against congestion pricing is the latest nonsensical opinion to dribble across that once-halfway-decent page. The irrational diatribe claims that the market-driven plan to charge cars to drive downtown (during rush hour only!) is a "half-baked" "eco-friendly idea" that "may be too much even for San Francisco."

One of San Francisco's "relatively unclogged city streets," according to Chronicle editors who apparently don't get out much

$30-60 million may be a relatively small amount of money to a business like The Chronicle that loses that much each year, but it is in fact a significant amount of money for the regions transit agencies. That's a full tenth of the SFMTA budget! But if it suits the accounting sensibilities of the Chron, I'd be perfectly happy setting the price by supply and demand, the way our parking meters soon will.

The clueless editorial writer guffaws, "The city's official slogan might as well be: Don't Drive Here," but "Don't drive" is indeed city policy. Section 8A.115 of our City Charter, our "Transit First" policy, specifically states that

Decisions regarding the use of limited public street and sidewalk space shall encourage the use of public rights of way by pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit, and shall strive to reduce traffic and improve public health and safety.

As I've said before, congestion pricing is not punitive! The fact of the matter is that motor vehicle drivers have been receiving a public subsidy for years. Congestion pricing plans are just a step toward presenting people with the true economic costs of their decisions. That most people would consider the costs of driving too much to make it worthwhile most of the time is not a reason to hide that cost from them, especially when the agreed-upon goal on both sides is to get them to stop driving.