A Deep Analysis: Scope, Limits and Its Use in Justifying a Permanent Closure
The study was developed in coordination with the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association (HVNA), the permit holder for the closure.
A recent UC Berkeley study examines activity patterns during the weekend closure of Hayes Street. The report has been cited by supporters as evidence that the street has become a “thriving public space.” However, it was developed amid ongoing efforts to justify the continuation and potential permanent expansion of the closure. While the study provides a narrow snapshot of how people use the street during closure events, it is being presented as evidence of broader success — a conclusion the research itself does not support.
The study suggests that weekend closures are associated with:
• increased pedestrian activity
• longer dwell times
• greater social interaction
• more active use of public space
This study captures how people use Hayes Street during closure events. It does not evaluate broader economic, operational, or neighborhood impacts — yet its findings are being used to support long-term and potentially permanent closure.
What the Study Actually Measures
The UC Berkeley study focuses on a defined set of observational variables related to how people use the street under different conditions.
Researchers compare three scenarios:
• a normal traffic day
• a weekend closure day
• an event-based closure day
Within these scenarios, the study measures:
• how long people remain in the space (“dwell time”)
• where activity clusters occur
• types of activity (sitting, walking, socializing, etc.)
• how people move through the area
These observations describe how people behave within a pedestrianized environment and how activity patterns change when vehicle traffic is removed. However, the scope is limited to behavior within the defined study conditions — not the broader impacts of the closure itself.
The Self-Selection Problem
One of the most important methodological limitations of the study is self-selection. The research focuses on individuals already present on Hayes Street during closure events — meaning participants are those who have chosen to be there and engage.
When surveys are conducted among people already participating in an activity, the results reflect the views of those inclined to participate — not those who may be affected differently or who choose not to engage.
In this case, the study captures the experiences of individuals who were already:
• walking through the space
• attending an event
• socializing or lingering on the street
As a result, the study reflects the perspectives of current users of the closure, but not those who may be affected by it in other ways.
This includes:
• residents who avoid the area during closures
• businesses experiencing changes in access or customer flow
• delivery drivers or service providers navigating the area
• visitors who may have altered routes or stopped coming altogether
Because of this, the findings are best understood as observations about the behavior of existing users — not a comprehensive evaluation of the closure’s broader impacts.
Stakeholder Representation
The study describes engagement with local business organizations and community stakeholders as part of its research process. However, neither the Hayes Valley Small Business Association (HVSBA) nor the Hayes Valley Safe (HVS) coalition — both of which have been actively involved in documenting the impacts of the street closure and engaging with city agencies — were consulted. This is notable given the extent of ongoing documentation, outreach, and participation from these groups in hearings, permitting discussions, and neighborhood-level reporting.
The absence of these perspectives suggests that stakeholder input was drawn from a limited subset of participants, rather than a broad cross-section of affected businesses and community members. As a result, the study’s framing of “community priorities” and “stakeholder perspectives” should be understood within that narrower context.
Use of Public Hearings as Source Material
The study references attendance at SFMTA and ISCOTT hearings as part of its research process. However, public testimony and agency discussions during those hearings reflect a much broader range of perspectives than is captured in the study. In particular, concerns related to enforcement, operational impacts, and the ongoing strain on businesses and surrounding streets — all documented in public records — are not substantively reflected in the analysis.
The study also notes coordination with the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association (HVNA) in shaping its understanding of community priorities. Taken together, this raises questions about how hearing input was interpreted and incorporated, and whether the study reflects the full scope of viewpoints presented in those forums.
These omissions are notable given the extensive public record, including documented testimony and follow-up reporting submitted after the ISCOTT hearing.
Members of the study team attended ISCOTT and SFMTA hearings and provided public comment in support of the closure, despite not being neighborhood stakeholders. At the same time, the study does not reflect the full range of testimony presented at those hearings — particularly concerns raised by small businesses and other impacted parties.
As a result, the study’s use of public hearings functions more as validation than as a balanced reflection of the full public record.
What the Study Does Not Measure
The study does not evaluate many of the core factors required to assess the long-term viability of a commercial corridor. While the study provides useful observations about activity within the street during closure conditions, it does not evaluate many of the broader factors typically considered when assessing long-term changes to a commercial corridor.
Economic outcomes
The report does not include data related to:
• retail sales
• business revenue trends
• business turnover or vacancy rates
• comparative performance before and after the closure
These indicators are central to understanding how a street closure affects local businesses over time.
Neighborhood impacts
The study also does not evaluate:
• resident satisfaction or concerns
• noise, crowding, or quality-of-life impacts
• accessibility for people with mobility needs
• how the closure affects visitors who are not attending events or business clientele
Transportation and circulation
The report does not examine:
• traffic diversion to nearby streets
• impacts on emergency access
• delivery logistics for businesses
• changes in parking availability or travel patterns
These are key components of how a street functions within its surrounding neighborhood and are typically part of a comprehensive evaluation.
Claims vs Evidence
The study’s observations are relatively narrow in scope, focusing on how people behave within the street during closure conditions. The analysis is based on a limited number of observation periods and a relatively small sample size, which further constrains its ability to support broader conclusions about long-term outcomes.
However, the conclusions drawn from those observations are often interpreted more broadly. For example, the study highlights increased dwell time, social interaction, and activity levels during closure and event days. These findings describe how people use the space when it is closed to traffic.
They do not demonstrate broader outcomes such as:
• overall economic improvement for the corridor
• positive impacts across all businesses
• increased accessibility or convenience
• long-term benefits for residents or non-participants
In this way, there is a distinction between what the study directly measures and what is sometimes inferred from those measurements. Observing that people spend more time in a pedestrianized space is not the same as demonstrating that a street closure produces positive outcomes across all stakeholders. Without that distinction, there is a risk of treating limited observational findings as comprehensive evidence of broader success.
This matters when limited observational findings are used to support long-term policy decisions.
Framing and Presentation
Beyond what is measured, it is important to consider how the study is presented. The imagery and narratives emphasize moments of activation, including:
• vendor-driven events
• organized programming
• participation from affiliated groups and stakeholders
• curated moments such as memorials or community gatherings
These elements reflect specific, programmed uses of the space rather than typical day-to-day conditions along a neighborhood commercial corridor.
The study also frames the street as a “home” or a “stage,” shifting its role away from a public right-of-way toward a programmed, event-oriented space. While these perspectives may be useful in certain design contexts, they do not reflect the full range of functions the street must serve — including access, circulation, deliveries, and support for local businesses.
At the same time, the study does not address:
• retail performance or sales trends, traffic patterns and circulation impacts
• noise and quality-of-life concerns
• public revenue implications tied to standard permitting and street use
Taken together, both the framing and the omissions reinforce a partial view of the street — one centered on programmed activity rather than everyday function.
Why This Matters
Because the study focuses on short-term observations within closure conditions, its findings describe how people use the space when it is closed to traffic — not whether the closure is successful as a policy.
The study’s conclusions are based on a small number of observation periods and a limited survey sample, rather than sustained data collected over time. Without that broader context, there is a risk that partial findings are used to support conclusions that extend beyond what the study can actually demonstrate. This context is important because the study is not being presented in isolation — it is being used to support decisions about whether the closure should become permanent.
Reference
UC Berkeley Graduate Study (developed in coordination with HVNA)
view full study
Note on Funding and Commissioning
The study does not clearly disclose its funding or commissioning structure. Given its coordination with the permit holder, additional transparency would help clarify its role within the broader policy process.
For our ongoing weekly compliance logs and primary documentation of the closure, see the Hayes Street Closure Documentation Hub.