Too many cars will just add to congestion and make the surrounding spaces less desirable. You could address this with a congestion charge, but that has problems of its own. Limits to parking in some key spots around transit can then be a workable alternative.
Just because I have a car doesn’t mean I intend to drive it in the city. There’s a whole world out there and a lot to do that requires a car. So if I live by a train that’s good for commuting to the city I’m now stuck only doing that? What about the many things I do that have nothing to do with that?
> I don’t think people with infants and toddlers expect them to ride a bike. Taking kids around to their clubs and sports, etc isn’t practical.
Tons of parents around here use cargo bikes - my son went to daycare ~5 miles away on the back of mine and still hops on the back for longer trips in grade school. With e-assist it’s faster than driving, way less stressful and expensive, and the difference is that kids love getting on bikes in a way that they don’t riding in cars because they can see so much more of the world.
>I don’t think people with infants and toddlers expect them to ride a bike. Taking kids around to their clubs and sports, etc isn’t practical.
Obviously, you've never been to Japan. I see infants and toddlers on (their parents') bikes all the time. Parents regularly carry 2 kids on a bike with them.
you really think so? i get the free market angle, but what about the local optimum risk? People want parking because they need parking. and they need parking because they need cars because everything's unwalkable because there's too much parking...
I am sure we all have different views here but parking maximums seems to discriminate the most towards low income folks as you would classify them. Those who are not working normal 9-5 or have employment that does not follow the Bart stops.