I nearly omitted “consequently” as I would expect it to be obvious to anyone who is into walkable city planning: real estate is limited, so the choice between 7-lane road sprawl and walkable 1 or 2 lane streets—sometimes bus-only, sometimes shared with pedestrians, inevitably with heavy restrictions on speed and plenty of traffic lights—is binary. You cannot prioritise both pedestrian and public transport traffic and private cars simultaneously.

Yes, but "not prioritising private cars" is not authoritarianism.

The logic is that prioritizing public transport, and hence restricting private cars, is restricting freedom of movement by making you depend on municipal government for transportation. Did you read the rest of my original comment?

Your logic is based on the equivalence between prioritizing public transport and placing restrictions on cars

I can maybe see the point when talking about limited traffic zones. But the discussion here was about: 1. Reducing the need (not opportunity or freedom, need) to travel 2. Making public transport more effective

Neither of those is a restriction on cars. Nothing stops you from owning a car even though you don't need it and nothing stops you from using it even if it's inconvenient or unnecessary

I didn't see the point in answering to this comment earlier but since we're here:

> real estate is limited, so the choice between 7-lane road sprawl and walkable 1 or 2 lane streets—sometimes bus-only, sometimes shared with pedestrians, inevitably with heavy restrictions on speed and plenty of traffic lights—is binary

1. Traffic lights or speed bumps do not restrict cars, they restrict their convenience maybe, and they definitely restrict their ability to cause property damage and maimings around them. But you can still own and use your car, you're just not being subsidized as much by the rest of the community in doing so 2. Real estate is indeed limited. In the space you wasted for a 7 lane street plus the parking required you could have had a 2 lane street and an extra building used for apartments, offices, shops or an extra park or both. If making it mildly more uncomfortable to drive a car is a restriction on freedom on movement (your logic, not mine) then making it more expensive to have an apartment (because of reduced supply) and increasing the chance of getting injured by exposure to exhaust fumes or directly by car crashes is an infringement on the right to life itself

Obviously both of those statements are moronic. Making life better for those who don't want to own a car (or can't afford to) is not a restrictions on cars. If people decide that owning a car isn't worth it anymore for them then that's not coercion, it's showing that people were being "forced" into owning a car before when they didn't need to need it

If you posit that traffic lights, speed bumps, narrower slower roads, emergency services or bus only streets, along with other measures that aim to create a city that is easy to navigate by public transport and on foot, do not restrict private cars, then your idea of what “restrict” entails might be different enough from mine (and perhaps that of most people who own cars, which in fact does not include myself) to render any further discussion a waste of time.