Seems like an inability to store private vehicles for free on public property would reduce cars and traffic.

Without alternatives it will simply reduce commerce in that area which, sure, will reduce traffic.

When these suggestions are made HN seems to forget people still need to live the time between when this pain is enforced and if/when a solution arises.

Street parking doesn't need to be free.

It’s not ‘free’ it’s paid for by property taxes. Just because in certain areas it’s not worth it to actually enforce permits doesn’t mean the city won’t at the request of the homeowners or businesses.

Free here means free at point of use. I pay property taxes and don't own a car. You pay property taxes and do park a car. We both pay the same toward parking, therefore it makes sense to say parking is free.

How would getting rid of street parking mean third world traffic jams where people have to go to the bathroom in their cars?

Are you 100% sure that street parking is the only difference between these two situations?

"Third world" traffic jams are what you get when you have enough population density. And for that, you don't have to go to this "third world" you speak of, look at NY.

While I don't agree with the GP, traffic in NYC is nothing like what it is describing (i.e., significantly better than the "third world").

I am not making a direct comparison. I am using NYC as a case for how population density affects traffic. That does not have much to do with a place being "third world". He/She could as well make points about better infrastructure instead of disparaging places as "third world" countries. The notion of bucketing countries is derogatory, and does not add to the argument.

And just to make my point further, OP's other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20810496 makes it pretty clear they have every intention to stereotype countries as "third world"

> I am not making a direct comparison. I am using NYC as a case for how population density affects traffic.

Yes, you are. You said:

> "Third world" traffic jams are what you get when you have enough population density.

then proceeded to throw out NYC as a non-"third world" example.

> He/She could as well make points about better infrastructure instead of disparaging places as "third world" countries. The notion of bucketing countries is derogatory, and does not add to the argument.

> And just to make my point further, OP's other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20810496 makes it pretty clear they have every intention to stereotype countries as "third world"

Yes, it could have, and the use of "third world" as shorthand for "lacking proper transportation infrastructure" was unnecessary and somewhat derogatory. However, your initial response doesn't address that. It just puts the cause of traffic jams as population density, then compares NYC's density (and, implicitly, traffic), to the places being referenced.

I am not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that a lack of street parking is what causes traffic jams rather than a lack of sane traffic infrastructure or public transportation. But, it doesn't make sense from first principles, at least. Could you explain how you came to that conclusion?