This is a widely believed factoid on the internets but is not supported by the numbers. Roads have always been a relatively small percentage of government spending and has been going down over time. The big ticket items for local & state governments are criminal justice, education, health, and in many areas pensions for retirees.
This site has a good graph half way down showing the relative growth in spending by area:
Which adds salt to the wound because car traffic in denser areas is largely caused by the surrounding suburbs, as the locals can get to places by walking and transit, and often don't even have a car.
Trivially resolved through zoning reform. Rhetoric surrounding "banning cars" will not deter sprawl or achieve anything of note, it will just be considered fringe fanaticism.
> unsustainable
The global population growth rate is going to stall, and by extension, cities will cease to grow. Sustainability is a moot point.
Which I never engaged in. Banning cars is nonsense and is counter productive.
> The global population growth rate is going to stall
If we give every person a car to drive every day, today - that's enough to make it unsustainable. That's the whole point. We don't even have to have any growth in population.
> If we give every person a car to drive every day, today - that's enough to make it unsustainable.
Leaving aside that we aren't, sustainability necessarily implies perpetual increase. This hypothetical doesn't make sense. If the demand were there to supply everyone with a vehicle, we would, the materials are there. That would of course result in environmental encroachment, but not indefinitely. Plus vehicles on the road will all be EV in the coming decades.
This site has a good graph half way down showing the relative growth in spending by area:
https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative....