Of course, increasing mass transit funding is always good. However, there's one problem with the bill: the end of line parking facilities. Park and rides don't discourage car use - they only discourage driving cars into city centers. Since roads near city centers are often congested, park and rides can sometimes increase the commute range and hence sprawl. They also make it harder to rezone for high-density housing developments around the train stations; who wants to walk to the station through an endless parking lot?

There are definitely trade-offs with park and rides. You mention the downside, Alon: huge parking lots at suburban train stations can discourage future transit-oriented development. It would be better (in terms of emissions, congestion, and saving on gas) if suburban commuters actually lived within walking or biking distance of transit stops, or took a bus to the train. But the reality is that many suburban areas don't have this infrastructure and are unlikely to build it. In some locations, it's park and rides or nothing. And of course, there can be better and worse ways to build park and ride facilities -- a vertical parking garage does not discourage high-density development the way a sprawling lot would. Would the federal money under this bill be targeted at precisely those locations where park and rides are a necessary evil? Probably not. It's an imperfect piece of legislation, but nevertheless important in terms of the overall direction we need to be moving.

Don't get me wrong, I still think the bill is better than nothing.

As for parking buildings, they can work: dense cities like New York, Singapore, and Monaco often have multistory parking integrated into their commercial centers, not disturbing their street scenes. The downside is that a parking building is more expensive than a parking lot, and more difficult to convert to a high-rise office building when the demand arises. Which of the two is more feasible depends on how dense and expensive the area is.