John Mashey, in the bowels of an old thread, had this to say on the incentives and disincentives to rational transit economics:
Think about the logical effects of local statutes that a certain amount of parking spaces be provided per resident, worker, or customer. In effect, parking spaces are required, thus spreading buildings further apart, and *incenting* people to use cars more, because now, the spots are there.
John suggests Donald Shoup’s The High Cost of Free Parking.
One of my grad school buddies has a blog about Seattle urban design where he recently did this same rant, but insisted on eliminating parking requirements for dwelling units.
Great, I sez – who’s gonna buy them, therefore who will build them, so what’s the point?
Now, reducing parking in commercial areas – there you go. As soon as we get decent transit, it’ll work like a champ.
I’d settle for my employer subsidizing my public transit to the same extent he subsidizes my car.