Even still, the extent to which our society has become subservient to automobiles simply blows my mind.
Nah, I'm not anti-car. I'm anti-car entitlement and think the expectation that others should bear the external costs of an automobile friendly society is silly.
Edit: I did, in fact, say "anti-car".
A tiny proportion of any US metro area's real estate supports this lifestyle. Usually either the most expensive, or the most hurt by gentrification and displacement. It's not a generalizable strategy without huge changes in zoning, public housing finance, and public transit infrastructure. I think we should make those changes, I vote for every pro-housing candidate and every transportation funding measure, but they are prerequisites. You can't turn off the old system before the new one is ready.
Somebody posting under your username did:
Lot of anti-car folks on here.
But turn around and do anything to take into account that SOVs are the most space-inefficient form of transit, and you are immediately labelled anti-car. Congestion charges or adding tolls? Anti-car. Parking restrictions? Anti-car (especially because people complain there's not enough parking spaces as is). Charge residents for parking permits? Anti-car. Add bus or HOV lanes? Anti-car. Spend a dime on improving public transit? Anti-car (why are you wasting money on public transit no one uses instead of the congested highways).
Yes, banning cars outright is one of the most extreme options. But the sheer sense of entitlement among drivers means that all the other options that have been suggested have been resisted with as much force. The only acceptable compromise is to cater specifically to their whims, and maybe in tandem help public transit at the same time. Of course, if there's any budget overrun on such a joint project, all of the transit improvements are the first things to get axed.