Free parking is kind of mislabeled. The correct term is minimum parking requirements. Most build standards now enforce having a minimum amount of parking for any new building or housing development, including for low income housing.<p>In order to have mass transit work, we need to be able to build housing and businesses that have very little to no parking allocated. Minimum parking (along with level of service for roads) makes every business and house foot print larger, decreases density, and decreases pedestrian accessibility.<p>It wouldn&#x27;t even be that hard to naturally enforce&#x2F;encourage this. All we would have to do is eliminate minimum parking requirements for developments within a quarter mile radius of a mass transit station.<p>One would argue that would do essentially nothing. For example a wealthy condo owner would naturally want a parking space and thus pressure the developer to build a space. But I argue there is demand and will be more demand for this parking-less space today in very crowded cities (think SF) or in the future when younger generations or immigrants decide to live in high density areas.<p>I actually think we have things backwards with minimum parking compared to other cities like Tokyo. Minimum parking acts as a hidden subsidy that increases the price of the property. In Tokyo, houses can be sold without parking. But in order to own a car in Tokyo, you have to prove you also own a parking space. So many housing communities will have parking lots or shared parking garages where nearby residents can rent a space. (There also exist houses that are sold with attached parking as well, but it isn&#x27;t a requirement.) This is essentially a free market solution to the problem where as the American minimum parking solution is a government regulated solution.