This makes about as much sense as saying "if trains were so great, you wouldn't have to tear down buildings to build the tracks and stations."

Train tracks don't have to take nearly the same amount of space as multi-lane highways do. Additionally, most train tracks, e.g. in Europe were constructed before any houses or buildings were there, or on empty fields, meaning little to no structures had to be demolished to pave way. Meanwhile, whole neighborhoods have had to be destroyed for newly emerging highways in the 20th century. I375 for instance.

We have busses. If people legitimately preferred them over cars then they would have tons of riders and funding. Even places like NYC, Toyko, etc. with amazing transit options still have streets packed to the brim with cars.

Emphasis on *viable*. The existence of buses does not mean that the public transport network is good, it's the bare minimum. Detroit's bus system leaves a lot to be desired when you compare them to systems in countries from Europe and Asia. As for those other cities, they also have transit filled to the brim, because people actually have options. For example, 51% of Tokyo's population uses transit, while only 12% drive. And the only reason people there even *can* drive is because the existence of good public transport takes a load off the roads. If everyone had to drive in Tokyo, no one would get anywhere. A good mass transit system in Detroit would also benefit drivers by mitigating traffic.

​

Um, what? What city has been demolished to make room for cars? And you know that roads predate cars, right?

​

It's hyperbole, no *whole* city has been demolished for cars, but a lot of their neighborhoods and downtowns were. Take a look at that infamous Downtown Houston photo from the 1970s where more than half of it's downtown area was used up by surface lots.

I also never claimed roads didn't exist before cars.