The issue of lines-of-sight around parked cars is a big deal, and as you said, it's critical for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists alike. Part of the solution is to make sure that the no-parking regions near intersections are appropriately sized for the speed of the street—they need to be long enough that drivers can actually see that there are no cars that will collide during the time it takes them to pull out. (I'm disturbed by how often this isn't the case in residential neighborhoods in the south bay.) Another part of the solution could be curb extensions, to physically prevent cars from parking near the intersection and allow pedestrians to see more clearly. (And ease the ability of drivers and cyclists to see pedestrians.) There are probably other tools that would help, but those seem like they would yield a big improvement.

Uh huh. 100% agree. Street parking is especially dangerous because it is not sufficient to look for the presence of a car; I must look for the presence of a car, and continue looking until I ascertain whether it's one of the dozens of parked vehicles.

But...street parking is also very convenient. Streets are very close to where people want to get to; no need to walk from a parking garage a half mile away. And practically speaking, it would be hard to imagine how to change existing cities.

Thinking specifically of CBD type locations, removing street parking and having more mobility on foot or bicycle works better for me because I can drive straight to a big parking building, then move swiftly to where I need to be.

Street parking is very convenient for the people that get it.

Also the increased cognitive load of having to pay attention to many things occurring on the road is not necessarily a bad thing. There is evidence that having to pay attention to many things forces drivers to slow down, which is safer and results in less injuries and deaths. In contrast wide lanes allow drivers to feel comfortable which increases their speed and results in more dangerous roads for pedestrians.

I have seen the occasional bike get doored by passengers not checking before opening their door. But I imagine this occurrence is much less than if the bike lane were on the driver's side.

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.

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.

I live in a major city and I don't have a car. Parking is no issue for me at all :)

- 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.

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.

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.

So do I actually. But a lot of people do and for that reason it would be far too idealistic to think about removing cars from American cities.

Instead of upgrading trams like St. Petersburg, Melbourne and most of Europe did, America scraped trams due to lobbying efforts of car companies to switch to shitty buses.

The Netherlands have amazing train and tram networks throughout their cities. It's not uncommon to see bicycles piled up and belted to the wall in the bike section of each train.

This makes no sense for local city traffic.

> in most cities it is unrealistic due to how little parking there is available

This is a problem with how American cities are designed. Ideally, one shouldn't need to own a car at all in a major city. In Manhattan, for example, it's ridiculous that the government (and therefore residents) subsidize cars by providing free street parking all over the island. Very, very few people who live there own a car. But I digress.

Have they considered replacing the parking lane with a bike lane instead of regular traffic?

> And, as others pointed out, in most cities it is unrealistic due to how little parking there is available.

That's purely a supply and demand issue--because of how cheap street parking is, the price of parking is very low and thus elevated parking garages are uneconomical. If only elevated parking is available, that changes.

what happens to them?

Seriously, if you're in Amsterdam and you feel like parking in a bike lane is acceptable please do not do it, it will not end well.

So then, streetcar would be in the righmost lane, not blocking other lanes like it does now. And the streetcar passengers would not have to step on the street, which is obviously dangerous.

And, I would equip streetcars with plows, to deal with people that still park in the right lane, especially in rush hour. + Permit the streetcar drivers to crash the plow into the car blocking the lane, long as the streetcar driver says, "Oops, sorry about that"

That would be most satisfying to watch. The right-lane-blocking assholes would now have a natural predator, and they will either be crushed, or forced to a different habitat.

I'm excited for the advent of autonomous cars, but their introduction is not really going to solve any of the current problems with our road network.

It makes the parking (end goal) more expensive to them via both time (additional time to park) and money (gas wasted during finding the parking spot), so it is reflected in the cost of the good. Thus it is not an externality.

That would be a dumb thing to do, unless you value your time very little. Why not just park in the nearest garage?

This disconnect is the reason a lot of silicon valley startups flounder outside of silicon valley. Most of the US population can't afford to throw away $10 to save 20 mins.