Banning cars on SF’s Market Street, once a radical idea, approved unanimously

Re:Banning cars on SF’s Market Street, once a radical idea, ... by abdullahkhalids on Wednesday October 16, 2019 @07:35AM (#21269242)

I am a public transit person also, but come on, there are lots of valid reasons for there being taxis, such as minor medical problems, bad weather, unsafe conditions at night, having to transport packages etc.

It is indeed annoying that the rich just use them all the time, but I won't advocate cutting off the nose (preventing the rich from using taxis) to spite the face (letting regular folks using it for an emergency).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Banning cars on SF’s Market Street, once a radical idea, ... by sails on Wednesday October 16, 2019 @08:42AM (#21269714)

> valid reasons for there being taxis, such as minor medical problems, bad weather, unsafe conditions at night, having to transport packages etc.

Agree with these, and have been glad for an on demand ride service for some of these, but I feel that these are the likely a small percentage of the total use, and that the system currently biases towards a catering for a minority indulgence rather than a general public good.

Agree that it is a spiteful proposal. I'm very frustrated by the slow pedestrianisation of London, and the taxis are a key piece of this.

I'm trying to find some example of how other Western European cities have pedestrianised their cities and dealt with the issue of taxis.

Edit: A further thought: In London, taxis are given the same privilege as buses (they can use the bus lane). This comes to the crux of my issues with cabs in the city. I think the service can exist for the reasons indicated, but giving _an empty taxi_ the same privilege as a _full bus_ speaks to a decision made with different priorities. Not only does this slow down the 100x more people in the buses but it encourages use of taxis as a "rich person's bus" alternative to the tube.

[ Parent | on HN ]