[Aegaeus10111]

Honestly? I walk most palaces. Bad weather is my biggest reason to riding. And most people in cities can do that much more. Within an hour I can walk to most of my meetings throughout town. I live in a central-ish spot. Nice, affordable and walk-able - part of the choice. Driving takes almost as much time. The trams or metro save time only if the walk is over 30 min - and even at 60 min save only about half the time at best.

But as I posted, I didn't claim to be some universal example. I guessed 50% of people live in urban or sub-urban areas - high enough density to make public transportation practical. And I guessed that walking / public is appropriate for of transport needs.

Those who live in rural areas and/or have special needs would not be covered by the 50/80% easily (but I bet a very high percent would be covered by shared or taxi services)

Owning a car is absurdly inefficient. It sits parked 90% or more of its existence. We all pay taxes to support massive infrastructure for private cars - such as street parking in cities and police for drivers who can't stay within the law and choose to endanger my kids lives for their own convenience. Our whole view on car ownership is backwards.

I'm not preaching though - it's my choice to spend my money on things I find more useful than a status symbol parked where it might get stolen, broken into, and generally cost money. Everyone gets to make their own choices. :-)