Wrong. If parking is already the limiting factor and is already used to capacity, even assuming no other transportation mediums, tolling parking until it's just

Wrong. If parking is already the limiting factor and is already used to capacity, even assuming no other transportation mediums, tolling parking until it's just below capacity obviously won't reduce the number of visitors who actually make it into the attraction at a given time -- it will just reduce the number of visitors who are at any given time waiting for parking in traffic jams. (You can stop reading now, the rest of this post repeats the above point in more ways for those who did not understand it.) If this isn't obvious, think of any attraction with a line. Once there's a line at all, the attraction (cashiers, for example) is being used to capacity at maximum thoroughput. Increasing the size of the line does not change thuroughput, but does increase latency in exchange for no benefit for anyone. If your parking fee is so high that even at peak time half your spaces are unused, it's too high and by lowering it you can get more visitors. But once it's at just the right level where there's, say, only 5-10% vacancy, lowering prices any further will merely increase traffic without increasing the visitor thoroughput at all (conversely, increasing is also lose/lose because you lose visitors while wasting parking) In other words, there's a natural equilibrium price, and it sure as fuck ain't zero. By the way, how the heck do you figure it's inconvenient to pay for the resources you use to park? You already do anyway, indirectly. Making it more direct changes nothing except helping reduce congestion, which makes driving more convenient. Nobody likes sitting in unpredictably long jams. America is funny, we have lots of libertarians who suddenly become communists in the sole case of parking.