> They do this in Japan [0], apparently the entire country. I didn't know that they had a problem with sprawl. This is a common fallacy: "X happens in Y, and

> They do this in Japan [0], apparently the entire country. I didn't know that they had a problem with sprawl. This is a common fallacy: "X happens in Y, and Y has greater Z. Therefore, X increases (or does not decrease) Z". At its core, it's an issue of confounding variables: even if what you're saying is true (I don't know, because I don't know about Japanese parking policy), you can't use differences in macro results as a way to draw conclusions about the effects of micro policies. There's too much else that gets bundled up in that measurement and which isn't controlled for. > I don't follow your connection as to how eliminating free parking leads to sprawl. I didn't say eliminating free parking leads to sprawl. I said that requiring (or encouraging) the creation of parking spots without any external cap or limit on parking would lead to sprawl.