I totally agree with that if you eliminate parking you will eliminate car use (duh!) but the real question is whether that is good and is that what people really want. My view is that in a city like San Francisco, most people to want to use a mix of cars, public transport, walking etc. So I am in favor of urban planning that facilitates all of those options (which is really much more balanced than the “cars are evil” attitude that many people seem to have).

Why is parking forfeited when one moves into an urban setting? You seem to strongly dislike cars, but it could just as easily be said that you forfeited the right to be in a vehicle-free setting when you moved into an urban area. In my view the ability of people to get to their jobs, run their business etc. are significant priorities. You may disagree, but that just means that your definition of “what is best for everybody” may not be everybody’s definition. And you shouldn’t be surprised when other people don’t want your views imposed on them.

I agree that people prefer private car use. This is the most car dependent on earth. But that is NO argument to continue to feed that habit. We live in a dense (although not dense enough for you, but I see cars as a reason for this city being meeting that density threshold you seek) city that does have transit options. Parking can’t be seen as a right, but rather as a luxury that, more often then not, is forfeited when moving into urban settings.

Also, if you must use the scary “totalitarian” tactic, I feel like I like live in a car totalitarian society. I have to sacrifice my right to safely cross streets, to not hear horns blowing at all hours, to breath clean air, etc. It is not a matter of telling people what they can and can’t do, but what is best for everyone must be enabled (i.e. safety, health) over convenience.

Furthermore, even when public transport options are available many people prefer cars and, in any case, the city does not have the density to provide public transport between every location.

Your comment that “private cars must go” is just ludicrous and shows a strong totalitarian impulse. Rather than presuming to tell other people what they can and can’t do, maybe you should spend some time actually paying attention to and respecting others’ legitimate needs and concerns.

@Marcos: Why do you think it is impossible to sate demmand for parking? Why do think parking creates demand for more parkings? Is parking like crack somehow? Your position makes no sense.

Moving street parking to paid garages makes sense because it frees up the streetscape for other uses. Charging for parking eliminates any subsidy for driving and encourages people to think of alternatives. But having parking is critical because public transport, walking and biking are often not viable options. So why not provide alternatives? Why not support solutions that help everyone rather than taking the knee-jerk “cars are evil” approach.

http://tinyurl.com/bikescapehongkong

Jon

i almost never go because it’s a traffic sewer, but you’re right – there is no transit there.

I think we need to look at the overall livability of North Beach, and the city as a whole.

agreed. we advocates need to talk a lot more about private enterprise’s responsibilities to the city and its residents. and that goes for their landlords, too. no ‘broken teeth’ should be allowed, for instance, without significant fines for owners. if owners want an empty shack, they buy one out in Orange County — plenty of availability, I hear.

The truth about street parking in front of businesses is that the spaces are most often filled with the cars of the owners and the employees.

i’ve read this, and believe it to a certain extent, but it’d be interesting to get a little more data, and try to think of some imaginative solutions. for instance, a lot of airports allow their employees to park out in the sticks, and then shuttle them in, and then back at the end of their shifts.

The tables (and the tourists) really seem to plant themselves smack in the middle with very little room to walk around them.

funny/agreed. turning over more of traffic beach to pedestrians and bikers would be totally awesome. i’m not hopefully that bikers will be allowed to ride there anytime this century, given the extreme love for buses in this city, but at least pedestrians should get a shot even if we bikers don’t – because of our own aversion to real transit.

Erik, the researchers came to a different conclusion than what Thonos stated.

i assumed Erik was being sarcastic, and as such, earned himself ‘Hero’ status for the comment. sometimes derision is the appropriate response. this stuff is important, and eventually, at some point in the future, people will know that we’re serious about taking back the city for people instead of cars.

Redwood City and Old Pasadena are interesting examples of how cities have improved their sidewalks, but they didn’t actually eliminate parking.

Was in Redwood City just today. Its little downtown area is improved, but comparing the parking policies is only fruitful if you do it very carefully, because they’re completely opposite one another in just about every important-to-parking way. SF is 4 times as dense as Redwood City. SF has all sorts of transit that runs within a mile of North Beach. SF has thousands of hotel rooms within walking distance of North Beach. SF has a zillion tourists that are bused or biked into North Beach. There is very little room for parking in SF, in particular North Beach, and there are huge swaths of space in Redwood City.

[The transit-first policy] approach ignores the desires of the vast majority of the people who live in the City and use cars for work and/or errands.

The reason they use their cars is because there is no transit for them to use — which makes this argument self-referencing/invalid. We need to strive for efficiency, which is why private automobiles must go.

The effect of eliminating parking, therefore, is to actually balkanize the City and makes parts of it inaccessible to those who live in other neighborhoods.

The widening of the sidewalks will be a tremendous boon for North Beach – so no balkanization will happen. During reconstruction of the area, retail rents in the area might hold steady a bit more than they normally would, and then when the project is done — watch out — most expensive real estate in the city. Of course, it’d be nice if they were planning on allowing bikes up there, or provide transit.

The 11 line would connect Van Ness station, SoMa, Montgomery station to North Beach, and the 12 line could connect Potrero to N. Beach.

I don’t care what type of buses you run into North Beach – nobody is going to ride them by choice – especially people who are used to driving cars.

No, this is the product of poor transit planning as one can never build enough parking to sate demand because the existence of parking increases demand.

The TEP recommends transit connection improvements to North Beach from points south and east.

The 11 line would connect Van Ness station, SoMa, Montgomery station to North Beach, and the 12 line could connect Potrero to N. Beach.

Then there is also the two gigabuck Central Subway that should facilitate access to North Beach.

-marc

I am not surprised to see that most people on Columbus Ave. arrive by some means other than car — parking is very limited there. If we eliminated all parking, I am sure no one would arrive by car. However, I am not sure that is a good thing. As a city resident, I almost never go to North Beach because there is no good public transport to there and parking is impossible. (Indeed North Beach is now largely a tourist haven not a place where residents go for that very reason). There are many other areas in the City that lack good public transport access. The effect of eliminating parking, therefore, is to actually balkanize the City and makes parts of it innaccessible to those who live in other neighborhoods. I don’t view that as an improvement.

Unfortunately, the City’s transist first policy as often interpretted as an anti-car policy. In other words, anything that is bad for cars is good for the City. This approach ignores the desires of the vast majority of the people who live in the City and use cars for work and/or errands. I am definitely in favor of improving public transport but I am doubtful that SF has the density to support great inter-neighbhorhood transit — getting really good transit into and out of FiDi and SOMA would be a major acheivement. So it would be nice if the City would focus on how to best accomodate cars and pedestrians rather than reflexively adopting any policy so long as it is anti-car.

The amount of parking necessary to encourage shoppers to drive to your establishment is rather large. I’m thinking something along the lines of a free garage or lot, not a few spaces. If all you have is one or two spaces outside I’m going to assume that they will always be filled and I will never be able to find parking there. It won’t even cross my mind that I could drive there. Grocery stores outside of walking distance I will drive to, but they have this level of parking and I’m likely going to be buying a large amount of bulky goods (if I had the money for a bike I’d probably bike instead and just go a bit more often).

Seriously, parking spaces in front of a shop do not even remotely figure into my likelihood to shop there. Inconvenient access to public transit, however, makes a huge difference. If I can’t easily walk or take convenient transit there I’m not likely to go there at all.

Touche, Thanos.

Regarding Columbus:
http://blog.streetcar.org/2009/01/goodbye-columbus.html

I agree with GRR. While I hope Thanos’ business prospers, I think we need to look at the overall livability of North Beach, and the city as a whole. I love my neighborhood, but more reliable transit would make North Beach an even better neighborhood. And I’d argue that car traffic, with the delays that parallel parking brings, really slows down said transit. If MUNI was that much faster, and ran a few extra buses every hour, Thanos, your business would see an increase in costumers as a result of better access to the neighborhood as a whole.