[pajtl]

The question is whether we're pricing in externalities appropriately. We've had the market do it once with ICE cars and it is painfully obvious that the pricing involved was only a fraction of the true cost to the environment.

Planning to 'just mine more' of whatever and completely replace all of private transportation infrastructure sure sounds like another path to environmental disaster.

That's not to say we should drop EVs or anything like that. But we should at least think twice, especially when there are perfectly good alternatives.

[supertrope]

If you could ask a fish what swimming in water is like, they would answer "What's 'water'?" People are so used to in kind subsidies for cars that many don't realize the extent of these supports.

Toll-free highways and roads. Mandated parking minimums. Free on-street parking. Zoning laws banning anything but single family houses cite increased traffic and parking demand "caused" by denser construction (but this exclusionary zoning itself increases demand for driving). If you hit someone with your car, stay at the scene, and are not drunk criminal liability will not attach. Driver's license and insurance requirements are kept low. The US Government finances moving to suburbs with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Federal Reserve buys mortgage backed securities. In many cities the majority of downtown land is roads and parking!

When you have lived your whole life in cities that are designed automobile first and automobile only, and public transit is either non-existent or still underfunded compared with cars, then you will ask for a car based solution. An individual can only choose between choices they know exist, based on the information they have access to.

[jjav]

> Mandated parking minimums.

Have you lived in areas without mandated minimum parking? I have and it is a nightmare I don't care to ever repeat. There are good reasons for such rules.

In a perfect idealized world with excellent public transit, there's no need for mandated minimum parking, I agree! But that perfect world mostly doesn't exist (maybe Manhattan, only some areas).

When there is no parking, but people absolutely must have their car to get to work to be able to survive, it is mayhem. Violent fights over parking with human and property damage, people circling for hours and hours all night trying to park, you can't leave your house to go to important things because you lose your spot, and so on.

The positive way to do it is to solve for public transit first, so that most people are happy to not have to have a car. Then parking becomes a moot point, no rules needed.

If you force people to have a car to exist in society and simultaneously force them to have no place to park, it is a disaster.

[supertrope]

Better mass transit often requires reallocating strips of land from car lanes and parking. For example dedicated bus lanes are painted over what used to be on street parking spots. Or a station is constructed in the middle of the road. If we resist removing parking, then we're not going to get improved mass transit.

Should the market set the supply of parking, or should local government officials do it based on dogma? Right now most cities choose option two. Planning officials usually copy and paste traditional rules such as 1.4 parking spots per residential unit, or 1 parking spot per x square feet of store sales floor. These figures are set with the goal that parking is only maxed out a few days per year. This means there's lot of idle blacktop most days. Developers usually build the legal minimum amount of parking because the minimum number of spots is so high. Land used for low productivity use like parking comes at the opportunity cost of more affordable rent. When the price of something is set to $0, demand is without bound. People leave their cars parked on prime real estate instead of moving them to a garage a block away, store second and third vehicles, etc. Local authorities usually only charge for parking as a last resort. Time based limits are usually first implemented. Because 97% of parking is free people will drive around and around, or get there really early in hopes of finding a free spot. A significant proportion of downtown traffic is parking spot cruising.

Parking minimums can first be relaxed on streets well served by transit. When a new building is literally down the block from a station and a 1.4 parking spots per resident is mandated that's not a good use of scarce land. Developers won't build zero spots. Banks financing the project will have their own parking requirements.

Letting parking float at market price has the benefit of parking being easy. A city can set prices with the target of one open spot per block. If demand is low, let the price fall to $0. No more cruising around and around, risking a parking ticket, or trying to understand complex day and hour limits.

There is an good book on this (dry) subject. The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup.

[adrianN]

Parking minimums effectively make excellent public transit a much harder problem.

[timeon]

Yes. People are often narrowing the topic down to <magic form of transport> - but the discourse should include whole package as you have mentioned.

[matheusmoreira]

> subsidies for cars

> Toll-free highways and roads.

> Free on-street parking.

Since when is this a subsidy? The only reason we pay taxes is so the government can provide us with useful infrastructure like this.

I'm not american by the way. Much of what you said simply doesn't apply to me. For example, I'm not sure we have mandated parking minimums. I wish we did.

> When you have lived your whole life in cities that are designed automobile first and automobile only, and public transit is either non-existent or still underfunded compared with cars

My city has plenty of collective transport options. There are so many nice air conditioned buses that they're a nuisance in traffic. We have a train station, an airport.

I still prefer cars. Not because of environmental efficiency but because they're convenient and they allow me to be independent. I don't have to depend on some other transport service's schedule. I don't have to sit around waiting for the bus to arrive. I don't have to be around other people. I don't have to wait until the vehicle makes countless stops in places that have nothing to do with me. I just get in my car and go wherever I need to go.

> An individual can only choose between choices they know exist, based on the information they have access to.

I have the information and I'm perfectly capable of choosing. Even if we had amazing japanese style trains crossing every city in my country I'd still prefer a car for local transportation.