* Consider Manhattan. Large portions of it are built around people instead of cars. Many people live there, and others take alternative means of transportation

* Consider Manhattan. Large portions of it are built around people instead of cars. Many people live there, and others take alternative means of transportation to get there. I was there a few weeks ago, and Lyft often was comparable in time to the subway. * When public transport is relied on by enough people, it becomes reliable. When it is a first class citizen, it becomes reliable. Consider Istanbul, a city whose core cannot accomodate as many cars as people would like to drive. However, busses are a first class citizen and come regularly. In rush hour, they have a dedicated bus lane for the most important route on the European side and there is literally no wait. In off-peak times like 2am, the max wait is 10 minutes. * That's fine, you don't prefer living in density. As such, you should pay for the privilege. You should pay for the extra infrastructure needed to maintain your lifestyle. Anything less is fiscally irresponsible. In some places, that's fine. However, we are seeing towns and cities drowning under the debt of infrastructure maintenance. Ever heard your city's citizens complain about potholes? Almost every city has the problem because the city is maintaining too many large roads. Now, we certainly need to maintain rural areas for many reasons, and perhaps that's the right living area for you. However, when you come to town, it won't be custom fit for your vehicle. I should also clarify that removing off-street parking isn't the first step - it's much closer to the last step. First is open on-street parking. Then resident + metered parking. Then as density increases, adding more permanent transit on the right streets at the expense of those parking spots. Off-street parking is the last to go, but it goes strategically.