Parking takes space. Outdoor parking keeps everything far apart, less walkable and unpleasant for anyone outside of a car. It also costs a fuck ton of money and is environmentally damaging.
If you want good parking you gotta be willing to shell out its real unsubsidized cost of $10-$20/h in a multilevel garage.
GP was probably referring to the value of the land. There are very few places in the world where land is rented for ~$1500/sqm/month. I don't live in the US but took San Francisco as a reference for an expensive city in terms of land and parking.
A quick look on real estate websites [0] suggests you can buy land in San Francisco quite central for $10k-15k per square meter.
If we take the value of the service, parking prices for San Francisco [1] are as high as $7/h and as low as free (at night).
Unless I looked in all the wrong places or my math needs triple checking, the numbers you're very adamant about look wildly misaligned with reality even for peaks, let alone for average or median. That doesn't bode well at all for any opinion based on them. And it encourages the other side of the conversation to come with equally unrealistic claims about the cost and impact of "my biking lanes".
In your top comment you recommended the Not Just Bikes YouTube channel. But it either didn't correct these views or worse, it encouraged them. Not a stellar recommendation.
[0] Zillow but the URL us ungodly long. Easy to check it by yourself though.
Fair enough but I don't need to tell you that if SF is "too cheap" and you have to pick the highest prices on the continent to make your point about general prices, you're making the wrong point.
Not even getting into the whole "subsidized parking" gem, as if the normal price is "peak price" or else it's subsidized. This kind of ludicrous statements undermine any point one might try to make along side. Curious about their opinion on their own heavily subsidized bicycle, down from the normal price of $500k [0].
Bonus, there are more places to park for under $10/h in Manhattan than there are for $50 [1].
I live in Europe. If I even tried to commute with my children to music school using public transport it would take me additional 3 hours a week.
That's why I am asking, is really car equal to cancer? Or is it this "I cannot see other people's needs if they are different than mine" or maybe "I will use law to ban other people from thinking otherwise" attitude?
In North America, motorists generally believe that any place not accessible by car is inaccessible. When you have a culture so deeply attached to driving, it reinforces the need to drive. This is why I call it a cancer. Motorists cannot live in a vacuum while also demanding that they be able to drive everywhere out of "convenience". That, and the fact that cars produce a huge number of carcinogens for people living in cities.
Here's how the needs of drivers usually work: I want to live outside the city center, therefore I create the need to drive because I chose to live away from transit. This problem is mostly self inflicted out of a privilege of choice. So I am not particularly empathetic towards it.
As far as using laws to ban natural human behaviour, what are your thoughts on: jaywalking? pedestrians crossing against red lights when there is no car traffic in sight? people walking on the shoulder of highways (sometimes the only infrastructure available)? Mandatory use of sidewalks? Parking minimums when building a house? There are laws governing all of these in the US (and some apply in Europe too) which ban the free movement of pedestrians. If cars are so dangerous that we have to enforce laws around simply walking in order to maintain safety, there's something wrong.
>In North America, motorists generally believe that any place not accessible by car is inaccessible.
This sounds more like a projection than actual fact. Do you seriously believe that motorists generally believe that Hawaii is inaccessible? Puerto Rico? England? Japan? China? Or do you mean on a smaller scale - ski slope tops, trails, parks, and other pedistrian-only areas in the cities? How did you figure this?
Mostly referring to ie. public access parks that are closed to cars, streets that have been closed to traffic, temporary bike lanes. Drivers feel as though these are punishments foisted upon them simply because they exist and do not serve them as motorists.
These are my observations as a pedestrian, cyclist, and motorist.
I have never seen motorist expressing these feelings. On the other hand, cyclists complain about lack of bike lanes all the time (e.g. on this very site), they become livid when the existing bike lane is removed. They are actually quite upset when the existing lane is merely obstructed by, say, a parked car. Projection, as I suspected.
Wouldn't it be nice if the only other car traffic on the road was there because of use cases similarly niche to yours? Public transportation is great at eliminating the need for using a car for completely overkill trips like commuting and basic shopping.
Having said that, given good cycling infrastructure, chances are you could either bring your kids along on a cargo bike [1] or they could just ride there themselves [2].
Because good parking encourages car use, increased car use encourages wide, high-speed roads, and bike routes are impediments to the development of wide, high-speed roads.