why not both? why not good parkings and nice bicycle routes?
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.
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 don’t know exactly what a fully unsubsidized cost of parking is, but I’m not using hyperbole. It’s closer to $10-20/h than the ridiculously low prices people have grown accustomed to.
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?
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.
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?
These are my observations as a pedestrian, cyclist, and motorist.
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].