This new engineering building is just spreading the cost of classrooms to people who don’t use it.

This new fitness building is just spreading the cost of athletics to people who don’t use it.

The new wheelchair ramps are just spreading the cost of being handicapped to people who don’t use it.

You could apply that logic to all of a college (or life, if you count taxes and insurance) experience. Not everybody is going to use it, but the cost is spread to not disproportionally applied to a single demographic.

You've just made a claim that your wealth to own a car is comparable to someone who can't use their legs. Accessibility is also something which is becoming a legal requirement, eg https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/12/10/fifty-college...

A new engineering building would be an investment, it's expected to increase future returns

While I disagree with the car centric model that parking lots encourage this is about how can an University ease attendance for students.

If for various reasons on campus housing and public transport are unavailable then parking can be a forced option

To be fair, many college buildings are provided in large part by donations, but I don't think the same is true for parking lots.

Ideally, each student would receive value from the university roughly relative to the tuition they pay, and things that are completely optional should be charged for separately. I think it's reasonable to charge separately for:

- cafeterias - housing - tickets to performances

Why should parking be treated separately? Providing parking for free just encourages more parking, which means more pressure to create more parking, etc. Charging for it separately encourages more efficient commutes, whether by bus, bike, walking, or carpooling.

The same goes for cities and other areas with limited resources. Charging for those limited resources encourages more efficient use of those resources, as well as alternatives. Parking is merely one solution to transportation, why should we subsidize it over others?

Parking fares are generally more about congestion controll rather than dissuasion

> Does the school also pay for public transportation for people who don't drive?

Frequently enough, yes, it does.

The University of Michigan runs free shuttles from central campus to north campus. They don't check student IDs either, anyone can ride them.

Which is good. This is what you want in a developed space.

Your own temporary rental space of ~8*12 feet is a luxury. Riding on a bus or bike is not. The latter options should be accommodated with low or non-existent fees.

There are schools that include passes for local transit in their tuition as well. CU Denver did it when I attended about a decade back, and San Francisco State started doing it recently as well.

Universities often disproportionately distribute costs, especially with facilities that are not used by everyone. This should be treated no differently despite the anti-car (or anti-sports, or anti-leisure, or anti-gaming, or anti-phone, etc) sentiment of late.