The converse to this argument is that over the last 50 years construction has INCORRECTLY focused solely on cars on dense local corridors where there is a significant need for proper infrastructure for not only cars, but buses, pedestrians, and bikes. We should look at the cost of just having car only transport infrastructure. what is the cost of lost foot traffic in front of stores? What is the cost of more frequent maintenance? What is the cost of businesses and residences having to respond to parking MINIMUMS? What is the cost to the city of having to provide below market rate street parking? I have a feeling people so anti-bike and supposed free-marketers in transportation would freak out if street meters and restaurant lots where set at market rates according to supply and demand... they freak when streets parking downtown goes from a $1/hour to $1.25/hour.
Minimum parking zoning is to keep overflow demand from using parking that everyone can use, not just that business or residence.
Pedestrians are already very well provided for in urban areas with nearly all roads having sidewalks. Few sidewalks in our area experience congestion. Where it happens, almost always, is from private property in the way, be it tables and chairs or bikes chained to poles.
An invention I thought of is a bicycle parking meter with locking chain. That way cyclists can contribute to infrastructure and benefit from having a lock, including Hubway bikes. Its like arctic parking where electric service for an engine heater is included. I also advocate for more motorcycle parking spaces which are much closer to bicycle size than car sized spaces.
BTW, you probably don't know of the efforts in the 1980s to encourage carpooling and smaller cars. They failed, though carpooling is still much more popular than bicycling! There were fed regulations on businesses limiting parking spaces, and parking spaces were also made smaller to promote compact cars.
Child car seats killed the compact car initiatives. Kid seats promote parents to buy big SUVs. Getting kids in and out of compact cars is back breaking, so SUVs are favored. Due to killer air bags in the passenger seat (no two seat cars) and width of kid car seats, there is only room for two in the back seat, thus prompting the need for 3 row SUVs and minivans to transport many times: parents and 3 kids, parents, 2 kids, and grandma or nanny, parents, 2 kids and a playmate etc. With more heavy SUVs on the road, compact cars need to be stronger and heavier to survive being hit by one, new roll-over regulations are imposed due to high center of gravity vehicles rolling over, and rear cameras are needed because parents can't see well out the back and run over their own kids.
Now, if feds had used information on all the negatives in kid car seats, would they have still chosen them over belt systems which better fit 3-10 year olds? Belts which would be available in cabs and not result in incorrectly installed car seats? Belts which served the low-income who have to borrow cars often because they don't own two cars, one for dad, and the minivan for mom with seats always installed? Middle class regulators didn't think of that, much like not thinking that air bags might kill smaller adults and kids.
Where bike lanes become congested and show more cyclists than motorists, space allocation should clearly be shifted, just as when sidewalks are consistently overcrowded with people.
As to street parking...First, businesses need it to stay in business with enough patrons. Second, the land was bought long ago. If building new streets, there could be savings in buying narrower right of way. For 70 parking spots at $1/hr., with 70% utilization and fines, there is income. With bike lanes, there is no income. Which is preferable? Cars provide lots of income in taxes to help pay for road use, bicycles zero.
Restaurant parking? Owners own the land so parking comes from their pockets. Communities don't like fast food restaurants, so making them have parking for 45 minute sit down meal needs instead of 15 minute need is a way to penalize them. Businesses need parking to stay in business. Bicyclists do not make up for lost motorist customers. Arlington gets very few customers out of bicyclists despite having the second busiest bike path in the country - far more come by car.
As to making roads work for transit buses, I'm all in favor! The bus accident this week in Roxbury is an example of a road made inhospitable for public transit. Too much width was given to the sidewalk for the 60' double/tandem/articulated bus to get by the legally parked 65' tractor trailer on a curve safely and easily. If lots of space was wanted in front of the court house, the building needed more set-back. Travel lanes need to be 11' wide for city buses given that parking width is often squeezed. With bicyclists on the road too, 14' is better for outside lanes. With 98% motorists and 2% bicyclists, allocate roadway accordingly. If it were 50-50, again allocate accordingly.
)