Don't put words in my mouth that I did not say. I never stated a goal without cars. My two examples still have cars and they have public transportation. You're being entirely disingenuous and contrarian, truly ironic that you're calling me out as the contrarian. I never said fuck cars. Now this community is called that but it's just an umbrella for better urban design. So I'll concede that it's not helpful language in that specific regard. But if you can provide multiple forms of transportation for everyone that is not a bad thing. To think that's a bad thing is wild. Some people can't even afford cars and depends on there cities to provide public transportation. What do you say about those people, do they deserve to improve there material conditions? Cars don't have to be a primary way for commuting and there's plenty of people in my two example that don't use a car to get to and from work. But there's also people in those countries that do.

I've recently visited my friend in Japan and his family they live about 2 blocks from a station. We traveled all around that city via the subway system. No car, they don't even have a car, they can't really even afford one. Cars aren't always the primary modern necessity of getting around. Now in places like the North America, it very much is. But we can improve conditions for people that can't afford cars by improving those system. It does not mean remove all cars. If you want to drive a car to and from places you still can. You'll deal with less traffic. You'll get to places faster, your quality of live will improve. You still get your car.