Hooray?

…due to government subsidies, in the form of parking requirements.

Ask any teenager.

The only teenagers impressed by the low cost of a car have it subsidized by mom and dad.

Because people prefer cars, businesses provide parking.

So why shouldn’t they have the option of not providing it, if they feel that that’s what’s better for their business?

1. Charging for existing parking (assuming you don’t charge so much that the parking lots are unused) will raise more revenue while serving the same number of passengers, and thus raise ROI (in fact, I’d argue that it would increase the number of passengers, since some who are dissuaded from driving and parking by the fee might still be willing and able to take another mode–carpool, bus, bike, walk–while others who can only drive will be able to come later in the morning).

2. If people take existing transit to the ferry, subsidies are reduced, not increased, because GGT gets additional fare revenue at no additional cost.

3. I bet dollars to donuts your passenger mile subsidy numbers ignore parking costs.

4. I’d only support closing or shrinking the parking lots IF it resulted in greater ridership and fewer subsidies for the ferry– for example, there are currently very few people on the ferries going in the anti-commute direction. If turning an area of 50 parking spaces into businesses which attracted 50 employees and customers a day from San Francisco via the ferry, that would be a good idea, because GGT would maintain the same ridership, get additional rental income, even while helping alleviate capacity issues on the ferries themselves.