To be more precise, I meant storefronts, a few bike lanes, some trees, and then an "open air sewer for automobiles that pay no direct usage fees but still take up huge amounts of urban space per person" ;)

Snide remarks aside, there are nice drawing of Octavia Boulevard in https://www.amazon.com/Boulevard-Book-Evolution-Multiway-Bou... and an interesting (at least to me) backstory of its development in https://www.amazon.com/Street-Fight-Struggle-Mobility-Franci...

Anyone interested in this topic should check out the book "Street Fight: The Politics of Mobility in San Francisco". It's a great look at the history of San Francisco's transit network and the political battles that continue to shape it (usually for the worse).

http://www.amazon.com/Street-Fight-Politics-Mobility-Francis...

The number of curb cuts for private driveways in San Francisco is absurd. In most cases a private driveway results in one parking spot for the resident and one less parking spot on the street, for a net gain of 0 parking spots. It privatizes what would be a public spot. Curb cuts also make it more dangerous to walk and bike, as you never know when a car will come out.

In my fantasy world, curb cuts would be taxed. Many of the private home garages could be converted back into housing as it was before (and without raising the precious height of a building!) and increase the capacity of the city.

However, as others have noted San Francisco does not need more parking. It needs fewer cars. San Francisco actually has more cars per capita than any other city in america (source: Street Fight http://www.amazon.com/Street-Fight-Politics-Mobility-Francis...). Parking should cost money to discourage cars, improve efficiency, and generate revenue.