I'm not in favor of the current system, but your idea is wrong. It creates a centralized monopolized transportation system that serves well only a very small minority of people and might easily became a nightmare. There are other ways we could follow that would make much more people happy, support the economy and wouldn't make sick people stuck at home and everyone late.

One such system could be a real time optimized network of self driving and self owning (limited AI) electric vehicles with various sizes and operation modes (on demand like taxi/bus-like/...) - and non-self driving vehicles wouldn't be allowed inside.

And your comfort comes at the cost of massive amounts of space, clean air and thousands of deaths each year.

Sure, perhaps we need more gradual change, particularly in the states. But in Europe, especially the UK, we should be rolling out pedestrianisation to our busiest city centre streets and aggressively aiming for minimal traffic in the heart of city centres.

Sure they do. Not always though. Getting a bus to a hospital is impossible from my current place. And it's not just about driving yourself, you need to drive things (e.g. food) as well. Yes, I drove my car the 600 meters it is to the store - I simply wasn't able to walk it, and the idea of carrying things on the way back was truly sickening. It's 800 to the bus stop, I simply wouldn't make it. Food poisoning is a bitch (thankfully that was only one of the three occasions, the other ones were much lighter).

> And your comfort comes at the cost of massive amounts of space, clean air and thousands of deaths each year.

If you read my comment properly, you'd know that I'm against that as well as you are. I'm not in favor of the current system. I'm just more in favor of individual transportation, but that doesn't imply the current system.

Since the system could be connected to street cameras, has faster reaction times, doesn't drive through red lights and so on, no, it definitely would not be as lethal. The number of vehicles required would be much smaller, so the assumption is absolutely baseless - the common solution to safer cycling is less cars, and that's exactly what would happen. Additionally, most parking spaces wouldn't be needed as the cars could park at a centralized garages (desirable because charging) and the new space could be used to create bike-only roads. Buses everywhere would be more lethal since a bus is a large and heavy vehicle and there'd be too many of them. I'm sure you don't feel good riding a bycicle up to a hill next to a bus - for a reason; at least I don't.

There should be a national registry of everyone who wants to ban cars, that every driver can check before anyone wants a ride, or anything delivered to their front door

In the US at least, we already massively subsidize road infrastructure and gasoline, I think it's fair to let people who actually live in cities enjoy them, rather than bend over backwards to accommodate suburbanites who only come in for work.

Also, cars aren't a magic ticket to mobility. Elderly people often can't drive and end up stuck in their homes. They have to be purchased or leased, and maintained, etc.

This is not true for almost every major EU city I've been in. Yeah, many routes yes, the common ones - of course. Once you need something more specific, it can take hours to get to the other side of the city.

> what about the comfort of bikers and pedestrians that cars disrupt

This is bad planning, not a side effect of having 4 wheel road vehicles. It'd be exactly the same with only public transit if you wouldn't change how you design roads.

> Also, cars aren't a magic ticket to mobility. Elderly people often can't drive and end up stuck in their homes. They have to be purchased or leased, and maintained, etc.

Not saying they are a magical solution to everything, I'm saying they help a lot - because they do. I was ill three times this year and having a car was literally a life saver, I wouldn't even be able to buy groceries without it. My grandmother wouldn't be able to get to her cottage without a car because public transport simply doesn't go there. My parents wouldn't be able to raise 2 kids with wildly different interests at the same time because they wouldn't get them to school and then themselves to work on time without cars - actually they wouldn't be able to work at all because of how much time they'd spent in a bus (we calculated it one time).

BTW with comfort I meant this: During summer I drive car exclusively (taxi or mine) because I physically can't go inside a bus - it's so hot, humid and smelling that I start throwing up and losing consciousness almost before I go inside. Yes, I'm a particularly sensitive person but I'm not the only one.

> They have to be purchased or leased, and maintained, etc.

That would be solved with the system I proposed above. When I'm saying cars, I mean four wheel vehicles for ~4 persons, not that I'd like to maintain the entire current system as it is. I'd like to see more much optimization and

Prioritizing car traffic is a trade off. For your individual situation, they offer you convenience and comfort. But that's at the expense of other people, especially people who actually live in the urban core and aren't just visiting or there for work.

Your system of only allowing AI-driven electric cars is a nice compromise, but it's just speculation - we're a very long way from anything like that being realized. This is about policy changes today that create a dramatically higher quality of life for millions of urban dwellers.

Why do you say that? Have you ever lived in a city with good public transportation?

You should consider visiting Tokyo, the largest metro area in the world, with 38M residents. Almost no one drives there, public transportation is what pretty much everyone uses and it works. It's a clean and quite city where everyone can easily get around. Walking and biking there are really nice too.