[twelvechairs]

Or just do what the Japanese do - remove unlimited (and overnight) on-street parking in urban areas and require anyone owning a car to prove they have a private parking spot to house it

[ragall]

That would be a good idea, but one of the main impediments is the fact that heavy regulations make underground concrete structures (and hence underground parking lots) very expensive, a lot more than in Europe or Asia, where it's often economical for even 3-5 story residential buildings to have underground parking space. That's the reason why developers push for on-street parking.

[dottjt]

I think you're also forgetting the other aspect that allows this which is having readily available public transport.

[mc3301]

Most of Japan doesn't have excellent public transport.

Car ownership is less common in most of the places in Japan with excellent public transport.

But I do like that each car legally requires its own parking spot. It is tricky to go to people's homes, because often extra parking is extremely limited or non-existent. It requires specific planning.

[alamortsubite]

The more you subsidize automotive infrastructure, the more public transport will suffer for it.

[stronglikedan]

That's pretty drastic, and would probably only be the best alternative on a densely packed island. Seems like overkill for any other situation.

[seanmcdirmid]

Price parking appropriately and make people pay for it. If land is cheap, parking is cheap, so not a big deal. If land is expensive, then no freeloading on the streets, which can be put to better use anyways (sidewalks, bike lanes, outdoor cafes etc...)

[hamdingers]

> probably only be the best alternative on a densely packed island

So Manhattan or the San Francisco Peninsula?

I suspect the refusal to kowtow to car owners and the density are interrelated. Tokyo is more dense, in (small?) part, because there is far less space consumed by inanimate appliances.