Great, you manage to artificially limit parking. So the new housing development moves another 10 miles outside of town, to get away from your artificial limit, and now their mowing down a cornfield out there instead for their build, so they can get the parking residents actually need.
If cities want to be a solution to climate change, they have to let people actually live in them. That means, they have to care about the price points of developments (they can't just keep deflecting and saying "luxury housing lowers prices in 50+ years when it trickles down") and they have to care about supporting residents actual transportation needs. (they can't just hide behind "everyone will bike or whatever").
Everytime they deflect on either of those, another farm or forest gets razed instead.
Los Angeles is suffering from this. Towers and towers of expensive apartments left empty at 4000+/mo meanwhile the homeless population grows and the population on the border of homelessness grows.
Traffic increases as people move out of the city center and need to commute in and then those people are taxed through congestion charges or tolls and provided with no, or tremendously expensive, parking.
The whole effort seems to conspire against exactly what made the city a city. Dense, mixed zoned, mixed class living
They never do though. It’s always the poor neighborhoods close in that subsidize the rich people in the suburbs.
Digging a trench for that new pipe out in boonies over a dirt field can be done in an afternoon by one guy with a backhoe. Putting in the same length of pipe underground in Manhattan will probably take a decade and astronomical amount of money.
There is no additional infrastructure cost placed on cities. You are just plain wrong.
A realistic approach in the face of coming climate doom would be max 0.5, for the people that really need cars as primary transport due to disability etc.