Do you drive after the 4th beer with friends?
Here in the Ruhr area, there are [them] everywhere despite the centrality of everything and despite the fact that everyone has a car. Much cheaper than a taxi.
The demand is high. That means the market signals that there is a need to be met here.
“Developing country” is therefore an amazingly unmarket-oriented statement.
That individual mobility causes NO problems can be disproven live in every traffic jam where 1.3 people get stuck per vehicle. I don’t even need to bring up emissions for that.
It is the most expensive and least efficient form of mobility. But it satisfies our need for immediacy and “me first.”
A human need, I also drive sometimes simply because I want to go somewhere and don’t feel like having fellow travelers.
But I wouldn’t come up with the idea of saying that fulfilling needs is never problematic because it stands for prosperity. That is obviously nonsense.
Well, one simply keeps a private car as redundancy. And that often seems necessary, as impressively described here. I personally live in a village of 6,000 inhabitants. It’s 40 km to work by car, partly on a highway. I need 35 minutes in the morning by car. Currently, however, I drive 20 km to the nearest train station and then take the train to work. Fortunately, my workplace is right at the station.
A few years ago, I worked in the same city, also 40 km from my place of residence. Back then, I would have needed over an hour by train, tram, and walking. So about twice as much time. I consider that disproportionate.
Creating and maintaining redundancy is always expensive, by the way. What happens if you don’t create redundancy has recently been seen in prices in Germany.
Otherwise, in my opinion, cities may very well be free from individual traffic. Commuter parking lots around the city in a star shape, increase the frequency. Then also expand the frequency and offerings of public transport within the city. Only this way can it work.