[iav]

If a developer is replacing a 2 story, 20 unit building with 20 parking spots with a new 5 story, 50 unit building, they shouldn’t be able to have more than 25 parking spots, as that is already a net increase from the status quo and will thereby increase traffic and congestion (the street isn’t getting wider…). The logical fallacy here is that it assumes those 25 units without a spot won’t just street park.

[infecto]

Which I would agree with but they Bay Area is in deadlock when it comes to roads and public transportation.

You cannot build better roads because cars are bad, so rush hour is just a polluting nightmare. You cannot have better public transportation because there will be at least one person that going to block it for any number of reasons.

[ac29]

The Bay Area has and continues to spend a lot of money on roads and public transportation. You can argue its not enough, but improvements absolutely have been made recently, and a lot more is in progress.

[01HNNWZ0MV43FF]

Sounds like a problem for a land tax. If cars make more money than homes and businesses, go for it.

[zozbot234]

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.

[apsurd]

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...

[ildjarn]

But there is a side mission to reduce car dependency.

[malermeister]

Trying to shoehorn a market into everything is not necessarily a good thing. I'd prefer housing for low income folks over parking for rich tech dudes.