What a ridiculous straw-man extreme argument. When people say "car-free" they do not mean 0 cars. They mean a city where the incentive structure has been change

What a ridiculous straw-man extreme argument. When people say "car-free" they do not mean 0 cars. They mean a city where the incentive structure has been changed so driving cars is expensive and annoying, while walking or transit is easy and simple. But in such a "car-free" city, there should/can be * emergency vehicles * other essential government vehicles like post office, garbage, etc. * commercial delivery vehicles (dozens per 1000) * taxi services (dozens per 1000) * personal vehicles for those with disabilities * personal vehicles for those who are willing to pay a lot of money+time for them (hopefully not many dozens per 1000). You are thinking that the terminal goal is no cars. But the terminal goal is to live on Earth in a sustainable fashion so we don't destroy the only habitable ecosystem for humans. Fewer cars is a secondary goal in service of this very reasonable requirement.