>While the government may not explicitly state that "you must use cars" if you take a look at state transportation department budgets, for example, you'll see that the funding is all for cars. We could split hairs and say it's not a "mandate" but I think it is effectively a mandate and if you asked, most politicians would say something like "Americans love their cars and freedom" which means "we support car-only infrastructure".
Thanks for putting a finer point on that. As an American who lives in NYC, but has traveled/lived all over the US, your assessment is spot on.
Except for the "mandate" part (at least IMHO). Which, I argue, isn't splitting hairs at all.
I say that because the activities of state and local governments are, in fact, what the people they represent want. If it were not, those folks wouldn't have been elected in the first place.
And that's especially true for local governments, where a couple dozen folks dedicated to making something happen can usually do so. That's also true (generally with a few more folks involved) for state governments.
As such, those governments are, in fact, executing the will of their constituencies. So, in my mind, that's not a "mandate" (An authoritative command or instruction)[0] by the government, but a mandate (A command or authorization given by a political electorate to the winner of an election)[0] from the folks those governments represent.
So the car culture is, as wasteful as it may be, what the citizens of such towns/cities/counties/states have demanded (or at least voted for) and not some "edict from on high," which is the sense I got from both your comments around this. If my understanding is mistaken, my apologies.
[0] https://www.wordnik.com/words/mandate