Whether or not you like cars, they're simply not sustainable. It's great that you have one and take advantage of the government subsidies, but it's not a thing that future generations are going to do.
And your other response above implies that road maintenance is bankrupting suburban cities, but it's entirely possible that those cities are simply not properly prioritizing/managing their spending, which is a common problem in California politics.
https://www.truthinaccounting.org/library/doclib/Financial-S...
Among most cities that declare, physical infrastructure is usually the least of their problems, it almost always is rooted in public employee pension guarantees that can't be met.
"Unfunded retirement liabilities are the main contributing factor to the $333.5 billion in city-level debt"
The two cities in the worst shape? NYC and Chicago, which are far more urban (and well-serviced by public transportation) than cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas or Anaheim which barely have any downtown urban core and are essentially just large glorified suburbs.
The problem with adding lanes to roads is not that people want you to work out instead of sitting in your car. Nobody really cares. The problems is that it doesn't scale, there isn't space to add enough lanes to get everyone into a car. Additional lanes come at the cost of making the road less suitable for walking and biking, further pushing people into their cars unnecessarily. Hence road diets; use expensive urban land for something other than holding slow-moving cars for 3 hours a day.
Car-centric suburbs were an interesting experiment that didn't work out. Unfortunately, half of America owns equity in the failed experiment, so it's going to be a rough couple decades while we adjust to something more sustainable. (Self-driving electric cars aren't going to save them.)