> So, sure, the cities and their people can try to end their "obsession" with driving. But for the other half of the population it is not an obsession. It is a

> So, sure, the cities and their people can try to end their "obsession" with driving. But for the other half of the population it is not an obsession. It is a requirement and no change in the design of cities (not where they live) is going to change that. For many more suburban areas, taxes are not high enough to support ongoing infrastructure maintenance, subsidies are required. Typically, developers pay the up front cost for infrastructure when building a new development, so the city avoids having to install infra, but then the maintenance costs end up kicking the city in the butt in 30-50 years. If they don't continue growing by building more housing and attracting businesses, places enter decline. Suburban housing is very attractive to Americans, but over time becomes very expensive to keep up. Eventually, these suburban towns will need to adapt and allow better uses of their land, or they'll need to become so expensive that the taxes can cover the ongoing maintenance. Cities can absolutely transform a car dependent area into a more productive one with additional transportation options. It'll require a lot of change, likely to zoning and possibly a land value tax instead of property tax. We'll see what happens in the coming years, but there are already plenty of examples of towns/cities going bankrupt because of their infrastructure maintenance obligations.