So where should the cars park then? Parking is a real issue in large cities and we won't solve it by removing even more spots. Other solutions (which are potentially more expensive) should be looked into before we consider removing street parking.
In big cities these days most parking is off street anyway. A trend to remove on street parking in favor of better pedestrian safety and improved traffic flow can only be a positive.
I live in a big city that is having a similar debate of bike lanes sacrificing space for on-street parking.
And it's a frustrating debate.
Look, I drive. I love parking spaces because I hate looking for parking.
But I also know that as more people move into the city, we need alternative modes of transportation. It's simply unsustainable to add more parking spaces in the hopes of alleviating the lack of supply. We're better off increasing usage of alternative forms of transportation by installing bike lanes (which when properly designed, unequivocally encourages bike usage) and increasing funding for mass transit.
And on-street parking can be so frustrating on major streets as people have to brake and reverse into a spot, stopping traffic. Or they crawl at a much slower pace as they try finding an open spot. Or they force awkward lane changes as there is inconsistencies as to whether or not the lane is drivable/parkable.
The other day somebody posted something saying how more lanes in a road will just cause more people to drive, so won't do anything to reduce traffic. I'd imagine it works the same for parking and even in reverse.
They obviously preferred to do so (since they chose it), and maybe the new lane let some more people afford the house/commute-time pair they wanted.
It's true that induced demand means aggregate travel times don't go down, but more people getting where they need to go in the same amount of time is a victory too.
- astronomical housing costs in the small radius of convenient non-driving commutes to the downtown business district
- exposure to high crime and dysfunctional public schools (possibly requiring the purchase of private K12) in said radius
- travel times to common destinations by public transit 2-3x driving, meaning less engagement with the rest of the world or less free time
- One of
a) standing on a lurching vehicle with an arm raised over your head, rather than sitting in a vehicle as comfortable and smooth as you care to make it
b) cardio, outdoors in whatever the weather happens to be, with no shower at the not-home end of the trip
c) the cost of another person's time to drive you, in addition to the usual fuel + wear and tear
required to get anywhere
are all issues of parking, in that they can all be avoided with more parking and are all exacerbated/forced to the forefront of more people's lives with less parking.
If you are in a US city and truly exposed to none of these, please let me know which one so I can move there.
I don't know about you, but if 2 hour commutes by car are acceptable for people, I don't know why 2 hour walks (~8 miles) or 2 hour bike rides (~20 miles) are not.
b) hasn't ever been a problem for me regardless of the weather--a wipe down with bath wipes and a change of clothes (plus a cold drink) was always sufficient.
To be fair, a lot of these problems are induced by having such car-focused cities in the first place. That extreme focus on making cities car-compatible makes them less livable for every other user of the infrastructure (cyclists, pedestrians, public transport users).
In my opinion the right way to go would be to drastically improve public transport (so it actually IS a competitive option) and in an overlapping process reduce car infrastructure and replace it with pedestrian/cycling/public transport infrastructure.
Remove street parking, narrow the streets (the space that used to be parking spaces doesn't need to be part of the street). Use some of the reclaimed space to build space-efficient parking (i.e. a high-rise parking garage), sell some of what's left to cover the cost, use the remainder for things of civic value (whatever we consider those to be - parks, museums, low-income housing, cafes...)
