Geary Rapid Transit (transportation, title, parking)

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

The difference with Boston and NYC is because they have a real subway. The western and southern half of SF is hilly and suburban and is very much car dependent. Pretending that somehow sunset/richmond are fully walkable in non-sense. This will reduce Geary to one lane road in certain spots unless they eliminate all parking. Thats just insane in area which has a really bad parking situation already. This is purely ideological move and not based on facts.

You are assuming parking should be a given, as if it's in the Bill of Rights. But, this is a market, which means two things.

1) It should be noted how expensive it is to park in SF. The land used by these spaces is worth $30,000 or more per space, based on the value of land in the Richmond district in general. Yet, the spaces are either "free" or metered below the market rate. Of course demand for such spaces are going to be high! But, this is artificial demand. If people could own parking spaces and rent them out, I'm sure the going rate would quickly shoot up to meet the market rate. Simply by allowing the price to adjust would, then, price many current users out of the market. For some, this would be equivalent to eliminating parking. Therefore, your argument is in opposition to market forces and we can say that your argument is, hypocritically, ideological and not based on facts.

2) If an individual does not find the situation fits with his or her needs in the long run, then he or she simply doesn't move there. People make these kinds of tradeoff decisions every time they move. Higher prices or closer to shops? Proximity to parks or to work? Lower prices or a nicer neighborhood? It goes on and on. Why should parking along Geary be any different?

That's not to say this won't hurt current residents. But, given a congested corridor that is too dense to widen but not dense enough to build a subway for, what would you do to relieve current and future traffic?

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

And did you expect to always easily find parking no matter where you went in SF? Did you guys cry about the N-Judah destroying precious parking spaces and getting in the way of cars?

Big difference between Judah / Irving / etc and Geary.

[capoeira]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

Did you guys cry about the N-Judah destroying precious parking spaces and getting in the way of cars?

Somebody must have cried since they put the line on Judah instead of on Irving where all the businesses are. Irving is almost continuous shops/restaurants etc. from 9th Ave. to 26th Ave. The N line turns off Irving at 9th and avoids all those businesses. Irving has easy parking with lots of angle spaces on the street. If one goes there early to mid-morning it is really easy to find parking there.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by capoeira

Somebody must have cried since they put the line on Judah instead of on Irving where all the businesses are. Irving is almost continuous shops/restaurants etc. from 9th Ave. to 26th Ave. The N line turns off Irving at 9th and avoids all those businesses. Irving has easy parking with lots of angle spaces on the street. If one goes there early to mid-morning it is really easy to find parking there.

Sort of like Clement and Geary

[sav858]

So say the proposal they go with doesn't eliminate any parking or even adds parking, and they don't run all the buses in the BRT right-of-way. What are your reasons for being against the BRT going to be then?

Some of you act like this BRT project isn't considering any of these concerns being brought up. Judging by some of the responses it doesn't even appear some of year even looked at the project website.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by sav858

So say the proposal they go with doesn't eliminate any parking or even adds parking, and they don't run all the buses in the BRT right-of-way. What are your reasons for being against the BRT going to be then?

If it could be done with zero loss of parking, AND zero loss of existing through lanes (the shorties that grow it to 3 lanes in each direction in places don't count), AND, the expresses won't be stuck behind the locals ...

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

If it could be done with zero loss of parking, AND zero loss of existing through lanes (the shorties that grow it to 3 lanes in each direction in places don't count), AND, the expresses won't be stuck behind the locals ...

So...something that is impossible? Basically, it just sounds like you want a subway. Or nothing at all.

[mayorhaggar]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

So...something that is impossible? Basically, it just sounds like you want a subway. Or nothing at all.

And then he'd cry even more about socialism.

In any case, go park a block or two away from Geary like most people do anyway.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

And then he'd cry even more about socialism.

In any case, go park a block or two away from Geary like most people do anyway.

Take away Geary parking and the side streets get worse.

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Take away Geary parking and the side streets get worse.

True. But should the focus be on parking as if being able to park is a right? Or should the focus be on the current and near and distant future transportation needs of the corridor?