If you’ve been on Market Street in San Francisco in the last few years, you may have noticed something pretty interesting – there are no cars. Well, no private cars at least. And this is no coincidence. In 2020, mayor London Breed closed off Market Street to private vehicles as part of a project known as “Better Market”. Fast forward to today in 2024, and the topic of car-free Market Street is re-emerging as we approach the mayoral election. In particular, candidate Mark Ferrell has shown interest in reintroducing cars to downtown Market Street. But is this a good idea? Let’s talk about it.

I want to preface by saying that any data about Market Street in the last few years is hard to interpret. Downtown San Francisco is the economic workhorse of the city, but much of its activity is intertwined at a global level, and so the actual demand for Market Street to connect people and businesses really transcends many of the changes made to just the street itself.

Consider that back in 2019, downtown was roaring. Some commercial real estate was renting for nearly $100 per square foot. Back then, cars could drive on Market Street. Now fast forward 5 years, cars are banned and we see office vacancy rates soar to 36%. But is anyone pointing fingers at car-free Market Street as the cause of this downturn?

Well, no. There was a pandemic. Companies went online. Tech companies in particular stayed online while scaling back their downtown footprints. Those people traveling on Market Street in 2019 were going to and from their offices. Now… they don’t.

But also consider this data: Since going car-free in 2020, there’s been a 40% drop in collisions on Market. Transit travel times have reduced by up to 4 minutes. Bus ridership on Market itself has seen stronger recovery post-pandemic than the rest of the system.

Are any of these because of car-free Market? Or are they just due to broader traffic decline in general for the same reasons already mentioned?

Obviously, leveraging historical data right now is tricky.

But back to Mark Farrell. To quote his opening campaign speech: “Why don't we have [cars] on Market Street? Just because it’s the ideology of no cars? No more in San Francisco.”

Well, we can talk about congestion, or pollution, or biker safety, or transit efficiency, because those are all reasons.

But Farrell has also echoed the concerns of people who allegedly avoid downtown because ride hailing services like Uber and Lyft can’t access Market Street directly, so they require pickups and dropoffs to be in the Tenderloin, which is unsafe.

Well, here’s a map of the Tenderloin. [shown in video] Market Street borders the neighborhood. If your destination is on Market Street between Turk and McAllister, then you’re already bound for the Tenderloin, and Uber will land you on the nearest cross street, just steps away from Market Street itself.

Now, this may seem nit-picky, but it’s important to address these arguments. Obviously, perceived safety is a real concern, because perception is reality.

But it’s worth considering that, in addition to actual safety, keeping cars out of the equation can do more for our perceived safety than we might think, and it has to do with the concept of natural surveillance.

The idea here is that people are less likely to commit crime when others are watching. In contrast, isolation from others makes crime easier and more likely. One issue with cars is that they are a form of isolation. As an example, to quote the famous urbanist Jane Jacobs, a person walking from a BART station or biking down Market has “eyes on the street”. The WHOLE street, including the sidewalk. But the same person choosing instead to drive a car is physically insulated from their surroundings and less likely to engage with others. This trade off of driving versus other modes of travel impacts natural surveillance, and thus our sense of safety.

Unfortunately on Market Street, we have a chicken and egg problem. Safety on Market requires lots of people, but people don’t currently feel safe enough to go there. And now more than ever, there lacks a catalyst for being on Market Street at all since people now work from home.

As I mentioned, the vitality of downtown transcends Market Street. Reintroducing cars is a cheap step that might yield short-term benefits, but ultimately comes at the cost of safety, both real and perceived. To truly restore Market Street is to restore the reason for being there at all, and I think once we address that, the rest will fall into place. And we’ll once again see downtown as the bustling core of the city.