Hayes Street Closure: What the October 28 SFCTA Meeting Revealed

October 28, 2026 | SFCTA Community Advisory Committee

The San Francisco County Transportation Authority’s Community Advisory Committee received a presentation of preliminary findings from the Hayes Valley Public Life Study on October 28. No vote or recommendation was made.

Read our Analysis of the Public Life Study

The discussion nevertheless raised important questions about how the findings will inform the upcoming renewal of the Hayes Street closure, particularly since the study will not be completed until 2027.

The study’s limitations remain unresolved

Planning staff acknowledged that pedestrian activity on Saturdays cannot be attributed solely to the street closure. Ordinary weekend activity, programmed events, and the Farmers Market all influence the counts. A committee member suggested comparing Hayes Valley with a similar commercial corridor without a closure, an analysis that has not yet been conducted.

The study also identified operational impacts, including slower Route 6 service, traffic diversion to surrounding streets, and mixed business outcomes. Among 32 businesses surveyed, 41% reported negative impacts, compared with 37% reporting positive impacts.

A committee member also challenged the description of customers as “walk-ins,” since entering a business does not establish how a customer traveled to Hayes Valley. Planning acknowledged that “drop-in customers” would be a more accurate term.

SFMTA could not clarify its transit findings

When questioned about the reported 16% slowdown on Route 6, SFMTA staff could not clearly identify the comparison periods used to calculate the figure. Staff also could not provide supporting ridership data and suggested that weekend ridership may be lower and buses may recover lost time, without presenting figures to substantiate those explanations.

Business opposition was again omitted from the presentation

Planning characterized 72% of surveyed businesses as favoring some form of continued closure, without mentioning the 22% favoring an end to the recurring closure or the 6% who were undecided. Only 31% supported the existing schedule, a distinction HVS had raised with Planning before the meeting.

No decision threshold was identified

When a committee member asked whether a particular level of public or business opposition could slow, limit, or derail the project, SFMTA staff said there was no specific threshold. Instead, the information would be provided to decision-makers for consideration. The exchange left unanswered how documented adverse impacts or substantial opposition would influence future permit decisions.

Endorsements for a longer-term closure

During public comment, Raynell Cooper, a legislative aide to Supervisor Bilal Mahmood, expressed the office’s support for renewing the Hayes Street closure permit for two years or longer. Andrew Seigner, representing the HVNA/permit holder, stated that the goal is to make the closure permanent.

The question still missing

The study’s next phase is expected to examine longer-term activation, pedestrian safety, and public-space improvements, but not the restoration of Hayes Street to ordinary public circulation. Six years after the closure began, the City continues to examine how to sustain or improve it without meaningfully considering reopening the street. The question is not whether events and public activities can benefit Hayes Valley. It is why those activities require a recurring closure of a public street when event-specific permits remain available.