SF public transportation is "good enough" that owning a car in SF is already a decision outside of pure transportation needs.
I lived in SoMA for 2+ years without a car using ZipCar occasionally to drive to SouthBay, which was cheaper than the car payment, insurance and the parking fee put together. Plus my commute was to Palo Alto which was neat because every Caltrain out of SF stopped in PA in the mornings, I used the bullets both ways every day.
Bicycles got me and my partner everywhere, faster and more conveniently (including in a bus or BART). We even went by to Napa on the ferry with bikes on it (once the Vine Trail cycle path connects all the way to Vallejo, I want to do it again - for now you can put your bike on a bus from Vallejo, no problem).
The Lyft would be used for the Costco runs or to lug things out of Tech Shop back home, when working on something bulkier.
Then I had a kid + moved to Mission bay which was still great for my Caltrain commute, but the kid changed the way I could just grab an Uber. There was no travelling light anymore.
I struggled to use a cab because we had to drag stroller car-seat everywhere we went with the kid and often even when didn't have the kid, because you'd pick them up on the way back.
The car was bought, even though it was a bad deal financially simply because it offered a fixed set of storage items we always had.
Even getting from location to location, the car was the slower option, it didn't make any sense except to serve as a home base for all things you needed to have with you.
large supermarkets (naturally can't be just in every small neighborhood) -> efficiency and lower costs. What is the point of local (thus small and high priced) store that a senior can walk to, yet can't afford to shop at?
Cars are expensive, the total domination of personal cars is only possible if you are a rich country. Much like gout.
For a local market to be economical it needs a catchment area containing enough customers.
Once customers start driving they prefer to drive a bit longer to go to a mega market or mall with good parking options, i.e. not a local market.
Local markets thus have a catchment area that is defined mostly by walking and biking.
(Not having a lot of parking can also help to make local markets more economical)
Some important conditions for local markets are then:
1. Zoning needs to allow the shop to be very close to residential areas, and with only few parking spaces.
2. Residential density needs to be high enough to have a large number of customers within walking or biking distance.
3. Walking and biking should be sufficiently safe and pleasant.
It is easy to see the why there are few local markets in suburban North America, but they are very common in urban places all over the world, as well as in thoughtfully designed and slightly denser suburbs in many countries.
They are massive sources of CO2 right now.
Even electric cars produce a lot of particulate matter from tires.
They crowd out housing and businesses when we require their needs be addressed first and foremost.
It's not so much a matter of a binary choice either for most people. You can use a car less and still have one for that occasional hiking trip or something.
Not surprisingly that you mentioned it, preaching and enforcing virtues - let’s get rid of the cars - upon others while enjoying the opposite vice yourself - driving a car - is at the core of the Christianity.
I feel like you are really running against the spirit of HN with this comment.
I think I overstated my case, its not as bad as I thought.
But it's not only that. Quality of life is precisely the kids being able to just cycle to school and sports with their friends, rather than being stuck on the back of an SUV in traffic for hours every day, being driven around by their parents.
I have lived in places where the former lifestyle is available and where the latter is mandated. There is NO QUESTION which one is better. That's why I'm working to campaign very hard for this to be a reality where I live in ~10 years time :)