>>1825492People who drive everywhere do so because they don’t have a better choice. Almost all people ARE NOT car people, bike people, or transit people. They just do whatever's fast, easy, comfortable, and safe. In fact, most people driving to work and errands HATE driving, because they have to do it. That’s why people are constantly raging in their cages.
That’s why the majority New Yorkers take the subway, but hate the NYC metro. It’s the fastest way to cover distance in the city (too many people for cars). Then they’ll walk or bike if the destination is close enough (that way they don’t have to use the subway). The subway might actually be decent, too, if the decision making politicians actually lived in New York and have to use it.
In the Netherlands in general, 40% of the population commutes by bike. Why? Their commute is less than 3 miles, and the bike infrastructure is there so they feel safe doing it. It’s easier than dealing with traffic, finding parking, and paying for gas or waiting for an EV to charge (cheaper, too). So that’s what they do.
There’s benefits to having urban design discouraging cars. People will actually move (making them healthier and reducing public healthcare cost), the burden on the roads eases (making them last longer and cheaper to maintain), and noise reduction is good for physical and mental health (just like exercise), and you have less car accidents killing people (the rate of car accidents have only been increasing over time). To get these benefits, you just design the city to favor non-car commutes. People will just do the best option.
What about rural settings? You’re not enough of the population to actually extend design efforts towards. You’ll just have the same roads as now, since they’re easy to lay down. Maybe an extra “mixed use” path running along the main highway for people “getting out of the city” for a Sunday run or bike ride.
