This article is bullshit, written and funded by real estate developers who want to build high density housing without concerning themselves with where the people who live in that housing are going to park the cars they own. This appears to rely on the fallacy that people are going to give up their cars to take non-existent public transportation to bring their kids to school or get groceries.
The public transit that does exist is rife with drug addicted, mentally ill homeless people. No fucking thanks!
It's a cycle. Build the city around cars? Then the city becomes spread out due to poor land usage and cars become a requirement. Since the city is more spread out, public transit is both more expensive (since you need to cover more distance) and less efficient (you service fewer people per mile).
Except... people will? I've reduced the number of cars in my life, increased the biking and public transit. My kid gets dropped off at school on the back of a cargo bike, and I'll often walk to get groceries.
I use stuff like car2go, lime, lyft, etc. when I need a car or bike in short order.
Sure that's you. One anecdotal example. As a data driven counter example, take the number of card on the road in Los Angeles at a given time. I live in LA, and there is a zero percent chance I expose my child to typhus on the train.
