Can you clarify your point? I read the article but don’t see any mention of trying this on any of the streets you listed. It looks like the city of SF made a good call here and the first part of your comment supports that.
I believe his point is that this is kind of non-news. Yes they picked a good place to do this because it's kind of obvious that there wouldn't be an impact, but that also makes it not really news-worthy because it does nothing to support the idea that "getting rid of cars on streets is a good thing everywhere".
Doing this for Market St. is basically free. There are no real risks or tradeoffs. Of course it’s a good call.
But to frame this as a triumph against critics predicting doom is just weird. No one was seriously predicting doom on this one. The only people driving on Market are confused tourists. But then it’s going to be held up as an example for other streets that actually do have risks and tradeoffs.
The news media kept hammering the potential for cArmageddon.. which was weird. It was a non-story, and it still is, but I guess someone needs content to promote.