He claimed that the sweet spot for actually-liberating transit technology was bicycles.
I ran some conservative numbers and, sure enough, take out the time worked to pay for my car and make some reasonable (but, conservative) guesses about how much closer my house would be to where I need to go if you cut out all the stuff that's only there for cars (really wide margin-zones and medians for highway, huge interchanges, gigantic parking lots far bigger than the building they serve, front lawns generally, et c.) and, despite my living only a medium-distance from the city center and making way above median income for my city... I'm roughly at break-even versus that alternative bikes-mostly world where cars are just for emergencies, deliveries to businesses, and public transit buses & elderly assistance and such, and aren't owned by individuals near the city.
The numbers get worse fast if you live any farther out, or if you make closer to median income. Like, plainly-negative-value from cars being widespread.
> We think that the car due to its speed saves time. But when you are traveling by car, you not only lose the time it takes to go from A to B. You also have to work many hours to pay your car tax, insurance, maintenance and fuel.
My addendum: Also the capital cost of the car, whether it was bought outright in cash or with a loan.
[EDIT] FWIW, I was skeptical, is why I ran the numbers. He's so right, for the average person in (I'd bet) most US cities, that it's not even a close call, it turns out.
See also: national parks