The back streets aren’t wide enough here.
This is a common response to my plan see “Getting more people to cycle by improving safety”.
If you don’t want to look back at my plan. In a nutshell my proposal is to replace one lane in some back streets with a separated two way bicycle path replacing one of the lanes. For full details you will have to follow the link above. In this post I want to address the issue stated in the title which I will rephrase.
My original proposal is to preserve parking on both sides of the street. The idea of preserving parking is fine for very wide back streets that have room for two cars passing and also for parking on both sides. However many back streets really only have space for one car and parking both sides. Because these streets are under-utilised and generally people do not speed on them, it is workable for these streets to be two way,
In real suburban streets in Melbourne, the streets also do not use a lot of on-street parking because most houses have driveways. So in suburban streets with driveways, losing parking down one side of the street may be a solution. On the other hand in older areas with little or no driveways, it will probably not be acceptable to lose parking on either side of the street.
This is a proposal, and compromises will have to be made on all sides if it is to come to fruition. Common sense will have to prevail. In inner urban areas, wider streets may have to be identified. In outer suburban areas, this may not be an issue. I have never said every street should be modified in this way, so I am not alarmed that not every street can be modified to allow an extra bicycle path.
My original proposal is for an East-West street and a North-South street in each major block to be nominated as the street in that block to be reconfigured for the two way bicycle path. On the basis of cost, or if not enough streets are suitable for reconfiguring, the council concerned may choose to reconfigure one street in each direction in every second or third block. This solution would not be ideal, but if they were connected, it would provide long stretches of off-road cycling.If this were done to bring off-road cycling paths to a larger area with the intent of infill of the missing blocks later, it might be preferable.
It is the goal of the proposal to provide more off-road cycling paths. Details like this should not be seen as a a blocker. I believe compromise is better than no off-road cycling paths at all.
ucancycletoo 
An alternative which should be in the mix would be to eliminate parking on one side (or both sides) of the street. The street is simply too valuable to be automatically (without further thought) given over to individual car-owners free of charge. If a house block costs $3,000 per sq metre then a car park bay in front of the house is worth $20,000 and should not be free.
Thus the street residents could have choice about one-way or losing on-street parking. In either case there is a trade-off for cyclists eg danger of dooring v. two-way congestion.
I didn’t fully understand the intent of these sentences:
“However many back streets really only have space for one car and parking both sides. Because these streets are under-utilised and generally people do not speed on them, it is workable for these streets to be two way”.
I believe the plan is useful only if the cycle routes are carefully worked out first to form a properly integrated pattern that would reflect real-life use, and then roads adapted as above without compromise.
AS to the sentences you didn’t understand. First of all I sorry for the turgid prose. But what I am trying to say is that some streets though considered wide enough for two-way traffic and parking on both sides really aren’t wide enough for that and so probably won’t be suitable for my suggested treatment. In light of this I suggest we need to consider only those roads that are wide enough for the treatment I propose.
If you need further explanation, there are a lot of streets in the inner city that are not wide enough for two way traffic and parking on both sides, yet they configured that way anyway.
Your idea about a choice of removal of parking as opposed to a removing a lane in a two way carriageway is interesting. However I don’t think it will be as popular. I am also worried about the width provided. Do you think a parking lane will be as wide as a driving lane? I am proposing two way bicycle traffic in one of these lanes. It should also be separated from cars an pedestrians by a curb,. not paint.
As to the sentences you didn’t understand. First of all I sorry for the turgid prose. But what I am trying to say is that some streets though considered wide enough for two-way traffic and parking on both sides really aren’t wide enough for that and so probably won’t be suitable for my suggested treatment. In light of this I suggest we need to consider only those roads that are wide enough for the treatment I propose.
If you need further explanation, there are a lot of streets in the inner city that are not wide enough for two way traffic and parking on both sides, yet they configured that way anyway.