That’s the theory, but I think the reality is “induced demand” — the same reason expanding freeways from 5 to 10 lanes doesn’t reduce congestion.
Metro areas with transit don’t have shorter commutes time-wise: the average commute in large metros in the US is about 25-35 minutes across a huge range of densities and transit concentrations.
Why? The typical argument is that people often want more living space, or cities zone such that housing below a certain threshold size is illegal (and thus the smallest unit you can rent/buy has an inflated price), and residents move far enough that they can afford to live — often, their commutes are 15-30 minutes. Then, they change jobs, but often can’t move closer — because they can’t take their rent control with them, or their property taxes will spike, and the deal with a longer commute. Or, they have kids and need an extra bedroom, and move to the suburbs for the same reasons.
> cities designed for not having cars are inherently less prone to congestion
Yes, this was my point about mixed zoning!
having a car to avoid that alone is worth it. I suspect the recently sprouted anti-car evangelists are genuinely unaware of the big city public transit experience. nobody in their sane mind would preach it otherwise