Think about it like this: Why is there paid parking? It's because demand exceeds supply, so they require a fee in order to encourage people not to come.
But that means you could have more visitors.
Now, if you are maxed out, then good, paid parking makes sense - send those tourists elsewhere.
But if more visitors = more money, and that is something the town wants, then adding more parking, and reducing fees is what the town should do.
Which is what I said: "It also encourages people to go elsewhere."
It boils down to this: When choosing paid parking make sure this is what you want, that you want people not to come.
(And I acknowledge that in certain situations it makes sense to want that.)
And I know what you are thinking: You'd rather they take the bus or whatever. But think about this: Why do they chose to drive anyway, forcing you have to encourage them not to?
Clearly there is something lacking with the bus, to the point that you have to deliberately make driving worse just to induce them to use it.
Have you ever been to Europe? People just don't use cars when visiting most cities there. They walk, take a bus, use an Uber.
I live in Montreal, and it's the same when tourists come here. They may drive to the city, but they leave their car parked the whole time. (Side streets out of the center have some free parking. Commercial arteries and downtown core is paid)
Sure, you could have more parking for cars, but you might not have more people. And with too much parking you destroy the city you want to visit. Edmonton and Calgary have plentiful parking, and no ones goes to visit them, except as a stopping point to see the wilderness around the city.
Oh, when I said "not have more people", I meant it in the sense that cars take a lot of space in the environment, blocking people. They also transport fewer people in a given space than bikes, buses, subways, sidewalks, etc. In a dense urban car that is.
> And I know what you are thinking: You'd rather they take the bus or whatever. But think about this: Why do they chose to drive anyway, forcing you have to encourage them not to?
It doesn't work like this.
Imagine a person considering visiting the town. They have a threshold of pain/effort in their mind, say V, above which they'll just go sightseeing elsewhere. Let C be the pain/effort of visiting our town by car, and B the pain/effort of visiting by bus. If C < B < V, they'll visit by car. If you can arrange to have C > B, while still keeping B < V, they'll still visit, but via a bus.
So the goal for a town is to make it so that for most interested people, B < C && B < V.
What is your definition of "the supply of parking" for a given area? I don't think the number of available parking spots in that area is a good measure, since people can always park just outside the area and walk in.
Instead, I think a good measure of parking supply for a given destination point could be the sum of available spots, weighed by their distance to the destination.
But that means you could have more visitors.
Now, if you are maxed out, then good, paid parking makes sense - send those tourists elsewhere.
But if more visitors = more money, and that is something the town wants, then adding more parking, and reducing fees is what the town should do.
Which is what I said: "It also encourages people to go elsewhere."
It boils down to this: When choosing paid parking make sure this is what you want, that you want people not to come.
(And I acknowledge that in certain situations it makes sense to want that.)
And I know what you are thinking: You'd rather they take the bus or whatever. But think about this: Why do they chose to drive anyway, forcing you have to encourage them not to?
Clearly there is something lacking with the bus, to the point that you have to deliberately make driving worse just to induce them to use it.