Strictly limiting parking is unnecessary. Market-oriented policies for parking and traffic (congestion charges) combined with solid support of alternatives (protected bike lanes, protected intersections, bus lanes, light rail/subways) are sufficient to encourage a balanced transportation distribution.

Neither of those things are what American conservatives refer to as "market-oriented".

Congestion charges are taxes, and therefore abominable; alternative transport is socialist, ditto.

Since conservatives control the majority of state governments, neither policy can make progress in the current environment.

Subsidizing the use of roads by letting people use them for free after spending a great deal of money on building and maintaining them is not "market-oriented". Charging people to use them is the closest you can get to market-oriented if you are already stuck with the roads. The most market-oriented solution would be not to build public roads in the first place, but it's too late for that.

I suppose we could just demolish all the public roads and start over.

Urban roads are a natural monopoly, you're not gonna build multiple parallel sets of roads going along each block.

> Which in turn makes many employees prefer employers located in industrial parks outside of cities.

So basically silicon valley which is one of the highest cost of living places these days and has terrible traffic?

I don't live there, but the hub (city) and spoke (suburb) model seems to scale much better than the point to point where jobs and homes are distributed everywhere like silicon valley and thus everyone has to drive.