In Utrecht, Netherlands only busses and taxis are allowed in some parts of the city center, and this predates Uber/Lyft existing (let alone expanding to the Netherlands). It's pretty standard municipal policy.
Have they succeed though? Last I saw, neither was profitable, and both were hemorrhaging hundreds of millions (and in Uber's case, billions) of dollars every quarter.
Yeah, mostly something like a car. Who would want to go that far with a walker? Have you ever tried it?
How close do you need a private vehicle to be exactly? And is Market St in the middle of downtown really the place for someone who needs that accessibility?
Or is this just some out-of-context concern that doesn't really apply to this situation at all?
You should be ashamed for saying this. Sickening.
Any one of us could be temporarily or permanently disabled at the drop of a hat. You don't make you decision if where you live with that in mind though based on your comment.
Accessible design doesn't care if you broke your ankle and only have mobility issues until next month, it still helps you.
People have this weird mentality that accessibility is optional because it doesn't affect them. It doesn't affect you until it does.
That's not close to the only reason you should care, but even someone as needlessly cynical as you can at least appreciate that angle of it.
We're talking about a specific street banning a few types of vehicles in downtown SF, not accessibility design principles across the world. Perhaps context is more important than outrage?
You're literally questioning someone's right to exist in a location, the fact it's a single street doesn't excuse it, do you really not see that?
There is no "right to exist", and nobody can stop you from "existing", whatever that means. This is a nonsequiteur. A vague extremist statement thrown around to make things dramatic but is actually meaningless.
As for context, if you ignore it and just come in with a generic "what about the disabled people" in any possible conversation then there's no productive discussion to be had, which is clear in this case. You seem to be caught in an emotional argument against a position that was never made so I'll end it here.
They have little patience when they're rolled out as an excuse against every change of use to a street, almost always by people who aren't disabled but simply want to drive everywhere.
It's the "think of the children!" counter argument for local transport planning.
Pedestrian streets are, on the whole, beneficial to disabled people. There is more space, fewer chances of collisions, and crossing the street is trivial instead of harrowing. Go look in any city that has larger pedestrianized areas and see for yourself: it works for pretty much everyone.
We're talking about banning cars on a single main road to make it more people friendly. There are still buses, taxis and shuttles on this road. And there are roads with cars right next to it.
What exactly is so challenging here that you claim is "hate against disabled people"? That those living right on Market St suddenly have to go a tiny bit farther if they want to take Uber?
There are motorized wheelchairs for people who can’t push themselves. People in wheelchair for life I met have a motorized one.
On a related note, I’ve become more sensitive to the exhaust and engine noise from ICE cars when riding my bike. Nothing like directly breathing in the pollution to sour the trip and dash hope for getting rid of fossil fuels. Glad to hear about the upgrade anyhow.