Of course I’m not hoping to see a time when a fear of THEFT is what dissuades motorists from driving into town. But I am wondering if some similar force might make CAR parking similarly difficult and, subsequently, reduce congestion. (And asthma, and cancer, and oh, you know, damage to children’s lungs, damage to unborn children’s chromosomes, the list kind of goes on and on.)

I don’t believe that’s the case, at least not entirely. I think people also don’t bike into the CBD because it can be uncomfortable to bike in nice clothes if you’re going to work or going someplace fancy, and because biking can be unpleasant if it’s really cold or really hot, and because if they get sweaty they don’t have anyplace to shower once they get where they’re going, and because they feel unsafe biking when there are a lot of crazy drivers around, and… I mean, I can go on. A place to park is a concern, sure, but if you’re serious about people who aren’t hardcore bikers adopting cycling as a serious mode of transit, you have to consider the things that concern casual bikers.

I’m not saying I disagree with your conclusion regarding auto parking, by the way, I just think your premise is something of an oversimplification.

Since the early 1970s, all new parking facilities in Manhattan Community Districts 1-8 have been required to get special permits, and accessory parking in new buildings has been strictly limited. There is no minimum there, only a maximum.

So in effect, the policy has been tried and failed, as double parking, on-street parking, crusing for street parking has taken the place of additional off-street parking. CP is a response to that failure.

Having actually participated in work on the design of parking regulations for the NYC zoning resolution, I can assure you that in most mid-density zoning districts, as well, parking is voluntary. Buildings can be designed in segments to take advantage of waiver rules to avoid providing parking, if that is what the developer wants.

If you go to the north side of Austin Street in Forest Hills, for example, you’ll see a butt-ugly commercial building with a series of elevators/stairs gracing the front facade. Why?

Because each section of the building was counted as its own building, too small to require any parking under the waiver rule. And thus each one was required to have its own access. There are less ugly ways to do the same thing.

One could make the case that accessory parking should be prohibited, and paid public parking encouraged, in mid-density areas. But it certainly isn’t required.

Couldn’t parking reform obviate the need for congestion pricing?

Why doesn’t the sustainability crowd pursue one or the other, not both?

I’ve almost been embarrassed to ask this before for fear I’ll look like I’m overlooking huge obvious things, but is there something I’m not getting? I’ve seen a few articles here saying that congestion and parking reform have to go hand in hand. But, really, is that true? Why not just make massive changes to parking, and not have the massive, massive study and fierce public debate over CP?