But it seems to produce economically terrible outcomes longer term... Induced demand is a good example - you get to the point where you need to pay huge amounts of money to expand road infrastructure, but as soon as you do it encourages even more use so after widening a highway, there is often an increase in travel times fairly soon after the upgrade after the initial short-term benefit!

Strong Towns also have some good examples of how car-oriented infrastructure can also be economically unsustainable in that it encourages low-density neighbourhoods with a lot of roads, so long term cities can't afford to maintain the roads without cross-subsidising it from new developments. So if the city stops growing, it often can't sustain the infrastructure it has! Whereas somewhat more dense areas (especially where retail and small business tenancies are mixed in with housing) can have much more property tax income per unit area as well as less road infrastructure to maintain which can tip the balance to being economically sustainable in itself.

I would argue the opposite actually. If the US had embraced trains as people movers early on, with local subway systems, I'd imagine we'd have seen even more economic growth than we did. Our cities would be far more prosperous, our people healthier, our energy footprint lower. Better social mobility..

It seems likely that cars actually hindered average GDP growth from '45 to today, rather than helping it.

Because we made it that way, cars had nothing to do with it.

Hong Kong is not car oriented and it develop just fine…

Hong Kong is inserted on the global economy last time I've checked.