> Point being, the question warrants reasonable consideration rather than immediate dismissal.

Sure, but it takes quite a bit of negatives to override the obvious and glaring benefits of anyone being able to transport oneself, one's family, one's stuff, at a moments notice, to any destination, in (almost) any weather, at an average speed of 30-60miles per hour, all at an amortized cost of approximately 50cents per mile.

The willingness and readiness of some people to disregard the large personal, societal, and economic benefits of having functioning automotive infrastructure - in concert with other methods of transit - quite frankly bewilders me.

> Sure, but it takes quite a bit of negatives to override the obvious and glaring benefits of anyone being able to transport oneself, one's family, one's stuff, at a moments notice, to any destination, in (almost) any weather, at an average speed of 30-60miles per hour, all at an amortized cost of approximately 50cents per mile.

The current discussion mostly centers on banning cars in cities or large agglomerations. In no city you'll reach average speeds even approaching 30 miles an hour - something around 20km/h is a more reasonable number to expect. That's btw. easily reachable with an electric bicycle or public transport. I can call a cab or a transport for larger goods at pretty much a moments notice, there's even car sharing services that have some parked in the street.

Also, you're disregarding that cars in cities have massive externalities - the current estimate for Berlin is that infrastructure for cars (roads and parking spaces) cost about 30% of the cities surface area at substantial cost to society (increased rent and building costs, maintenance etc) which is paid by the majority of people not owning a car. Not all of that could be recouped if private car usage is reduced, but substantial chunks could. Not to speak of noise and other pollution, risks of accident and injury etc.

So you're overplaying the advantages and disregarding the very real cost that other people shoulder for a minority driving.

You are correct for the dense part of large cities, once you get outside that things change fast. Anyone not living in those areas sometimes need to get to the dense part of the city, and driving their own car overall has the speeds of the non-dense part they pass through not the slow dense part near their destination.

That’s what park+ride is for — drive to a subway or train station at the edge of the city, leave your car there, and use transit in the city.

Look, its simple. You are either on the side of the fence where you want/need a fast transport, and hence you own and use a car, or you don't. Each side then downplays the other's arguments and propel theirs. Its obvious also in this discussion.

Realistically, IMHO the switch from private transport will happen no sooner than there is a real, proper, easy to use at any time on a whim alternative that is same cost (ideally cheaper due to subsidies) than owning and using a car. Things are improving greatly, but we're not there, practically anywhere (apart maybe from Netherlands and Denmark, but even that not for many use cases). Proof - people driving everywhere.

Mass transit is cheaper than owning a car without subsidies. However there is a large hurdle before the word mass applies. The bus I took to work this morning had a peak of 5 people on it - it was only cheaper because of subsidies. If there were 100 people on it (it only has ~30 seats, and the route doesn't allow a bigger bus - but ignoring reality...) the fare would pay for the bus, driver and be less than everybody having their own car.

>and disregarding the very real cost that other people shoulder for a minority driving.

1.1 mio cars in Berlin * ( 1.8 = size of household ) = 2 mio households own a car.

I think everybody would appreciate a city without cars as long as there is a sufficient cheap fast and comfortable transport (which is not a car) available. If it were the case for Berlin then there wouldn't be 1.1 mio cars there.

> be outlawed

In general if there are externalities then it's better to impose taxes that amount to the cost of that externality (plus the cost difference between enforcing the tax and enforcing the ban) rather than ban. That way if people really really want/need to use something like a car (e.g. the are mostly disabled and commute in from a country house) they still can.