The (false) assertion was "Quite literally it is the drivers who pay for the infrastructure used by everyone on the road. They earned it."

The comment you replied to points out that it was false.

You are correct that there are secondary advantages. However, the advantages you listed don't require the extensive and expensive road system the US has. Furthermore, there are secondary disadvantages you must also consider.

> Presumably all those people have their food delivered from the farm to their house on foot?

You are viewing things through a century of laws meant to encourage vehicle transport over other forms of transport.

In places where there are much stronger limits on vehicle transport, you still have truck transport to local grocery stores, but they may be limited to morning delivery hours, or using streets where pedestrians always have the right-of-way over cars.

You're probably wondering how people get to the stores. Historically there were corner stores within walking distance, where you would go for essentials, and larger stores you might visit once a week or less. These were replaced by supermarkets, with a larger selection, on the assumption people could drive there and buy many things at once. This lead to Wal-Mart and other big box stores, on the edge of town where land was cheap, and which could only be reached by cars. Public taxes subsidized the road system to get to these larger stores, and made it harder for local stores to compete, leading to an inter-dependency which is hard to break.

Furthermore, during COVID our local stores started offering home delivery service, and they've continued to do so. Having one vehicle deliver to 50 homes means fewer cars on the streets, and less need for parking, so less need for driving infrastructure.

> If they ever have a heart attack they will call EMTs to run to them with a stretcher and walk them to the hospital?

Even Mackinaw Island, which prohibits most motor vehicles, has a motorized ambulance. https://www.mlive.com/news/2021/01/mackinac-islands-new-cust... .

> And they built their home and furniture with trees felled on the lot they live on?

Even if personal vehicles were banned - which isn't going to happen! - there's still the 50% of the road budget which comes from taxes. That is enough to maintain a road system which can provide delivery, construction transport, emergency services, and more.

In any case, why should the law be that transport and construction vehicles require right-of-way over pedestrians even in the middle of a city block?

As for the secondary effects, why do we have so many paved roads when gravel roads would do? Building and maintaining paved roads is more expensive. But drivers can go faster on paved roads, and traditionally US roads were optimized for drivers.

Why do we have city road lanes which are 12-feet wide when 10-foot or 9-foot is safer and takes up less space from other uses? But drivers can go faster with wide lanes (which makes any collisions or crashes more deadly).

Why do they need to go faster? Partially because of post-war sprawl, enabled by cars and ideas of zoning purity. Cul-de-sac layouts, which are meant as a way to be safe in a car-dominated community, end up re-enforcing that car dependency, as they are hard to live in without a car.

Furthermore, the larger plot size of suburban living means city utilities like power, water, and sewage, are more expensive per capita than more compact pre-war areas.

This system of subsidized suburbia was deliberately encouraged by the federal government, and not an organic process. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/we-have-always-subsi...

See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI&list=PLJp5q-R0lZ... .