Regarding getting to work sweaty, why not ride slower? Sure, you might live in a hotter place than I do, but if you reduce your speed you'll sweat less. I think many of us on bikes are still getting out of the lead foot mentality of driving a car.
Traffic too fast can be controlled. Traffic too slow? That's one that can be solved by separated bike lanes. Look at the Netherlands and how they solve it. I personally hate the combined bike/traffic sections of Market St in San Francisco. Those are the most terrifying 7 blocks of my commute.
* Measure one's pedal torque and cadence, thus calculate and display "Human Watts" input to the bike while cycling (update rate = once per crank rev)
* Supply a configurable amount of electric-motor power assistance directly proportional to one's "Human Watts" input -- at selectable, configurable, default power amplification factors of 0x ( assist off ), 1x or 2x.
With this instrumented, pedal-power-amplified bike I've found:
* I won't break a sweat if I keep my "Human Watts" below about 30 to 60 (power assist on or off, doesn't matter)
* Breaking 100 - 150 "Human Watts" for more than a few seconds will break a sweat for me.
* (Off topic ) Efficiency comes out to an excellent 2 to 4 Watt-Hours-electric per mile with my settings and low-power riding style, having gotten over 100 miles on my first, not-yet-fully-depleted battery charge.
It's also possible to configure a throttle power control to deal with hills where my "no sweat" rate of 50 Watts -- even with 2x power assist -- won't make it up a grade.
But I configure the throttle as disabled as I don't have hills like that on my commute. I config pedal power amplification for a cut-in speed of 6 mph and a cutoff speed of 13 mph just right so as to stay dry and safe for me and those around me. Un-assisted cyclists frequently pass me; that's fine.
I stick to what roads on my commute have painted bike lanes. My scariest road encounter (a motorist who crowded me toward the curb with his car, twice) would have been impossible were I riding in a protected bike lane and making the kind of protected right turn this new design affords.
Edits for clarity.
---------------
[1] http://www.ebikes.ca/shop/edgerunner/full-bikes/edgerun-stok...
As far as "Separated" I guess it becomes important to define separated. If there were physical curbs between, I could see it - but where I have seen that those tend to become even more pedestrian travelled, but even the flexible post at interval type ones, I've seen most of those destroyed in the first year they'd been put in by plows, UPS drivers, you name it. It's a bit of a tall ask to put in full on curbs, as much as I think it could work. Most of our major downtown streets aren't much wider than SF's smaller streets, with parking on both sides.
The separated thing is super interesting to me. Obviously we couldn't do it on all streets, like the very skinny SF ones you talk about (I live near many of them in the Lower Haight). On those, which are not major thoroughfares, mixing bikes and cars is fine. But when it comes to a 4-6 lane street like Market St (or some in Chicago), separated makes sense. The traffic will go around if the street is less amenable to them. It's the same argument as taking down a freeway through a city. SF did it both at the Embarcardero (well, that one was by natural causes aka an earthquake), but then also at Octavia. Traffic slowed, neighborhoods revitalized. Studies have been done showing that taking these down doesn't greatly increase driving times, and often the traffic driving them doesn't actually stop in the city that they pass through. Instead they pollute the air and leave. Strong argument for taking them down, IMO.
But I've digressed. I agree there are challenges and never a one-size-fits-all solution. But there are solutions that are not currently being put into place that benefit the vast majority.
</rant>
Interestingly some cities and towns in England are having trouble because they are being accused of over-enforcing parking regulations in order to get income.
The amount of income they get is a reasonable amount but trivial in terms of the total budget. And people breaking parking rules are usually pretty clearly breaking an obvious rule.
But it cause great offence and distress and councils need to spend time and money explaining what they're doing and why; and also on the appeals process.
The use of roaming CCTV vehicles which travel to parking blackspots is being investigated at the moment, and might be regulated out.
I agree with the rest of your post! Offering better bike parking and some changing facilities would be helpful.
Another idea, that would not work in US cities, is to remove all road and pavement marking. There's just a broad road with no kerbs (but pavements are marked with slightly differen paving) or lines and everyone, pedestrians cyclists and vehicles just use it. Vehicles entering this area suddenly slow down and look out for people.
Not quite a replacement for showers, but this might help any people who are "that guy" if showers aren't an option: http://www.amazon.com/Wet-Ones-Antibacterial-Travel-15-Count...
Several of them are somehow converted into school children drop off zones for cars during the morning (i.e., at the time that people should be commuting on them they're made even more dangerous - Des Plaines Ave near the church school for example) And of course despite multiple calls out to advocacy groups and local leadership, nothing seems to beat the "for the children" argument, despite the fact that what it's really doing is "for the traffic" more than anything.
That's one of many examples though, but the short of it is - things like protected bike lanes ignore the real problems in urban commuting, of which there are essentially four, in my opinion:
1 - Traffic is too fast - The basic speed limit unless posted otherwise, in the city of Chicago is 30mph. this speed limit is nearly NEVER enforced by police (Hello free revenue stream?) and traffic down major streets regularly goes at 50+ mph.
2 - Traffic is too slow - congested streets cause just as many problems as speeding. Being in a car when you're stuck in stop light to stop light traffic is infuriating. People are constantly looking for a move they can make to avoid it. Even with a bike lane, cars will constantly try to pass on the right, use what's supposed to be parking to make moves towards turning early, etc. This has been the source of my own collisions with automobiles 4/5 times I've had them in 10 years.
3 - Lack of a safe place to stow the bike. Any respectable bike will cost $500.00 and up. Sure, you can get some used single speed or old ten speed for less, but walk into any shop, and you won't see much below that. Locking those outside, especially on a regular schedule, makes them not last very long. (not to mention weather, which while often fine to do a short ride in, all day exposed to can wreak havoc on even a great bike).
4 - The whole, stinky at work, work stigma, aging building infrastructure problem. Sure, a few downtown offices have showers, but it's certainly the exception (spoken as a developer who's worked in many offices over the years) and in some companies being "that guy" seems to have it's own negative connotations.
Want to spend that bike-focused infrastructure money well? Start offering tax breaks to companies providing showers (I'd hear this was a thing once, but never found any proof of it), or safe places to store bicycles indoors. Want to create more of that bike-focused infrastructure money? Start enforcing speed limit laws that exist already, and start looking more towards traffic patterns for cars as a whole, and stick to shared lanes and painted lanes.