My city has throngs of people coming in via transit whenever there’s a major sporting event or concert. I know, I’ve shared trains with them many times. You don’t have to get there by car.

In my experience most are coming from nearby suburbs, not exurbs. While I might take the commuter rail in for a major sporting event or concert even if it might mean waiting around—or park at an outlying transit lot—It’s pretty impractical for most evening events and this is a major city with pretty good transportation options generally.

City residents can do whatever they want but I for one will simply not come in in general if it’s too big a hassle. And that’s fine. I have plenty of other things to do.

> City residents can do whatever they want but I for one will simply not come in in general if it’s too big a hassle. And that’s fine. I have plenty of other things to do.

Agreed, it is fine. As a city resident I would rather have fewer people coming in and a more walkable environment than more people coming in and streets clogged with cars. We should make sure the transit is excellent, but if some people don’t want to come in because they want to drive and it’s difficult, that’s fine! Too many people driving in makes the city an unpleasant place to be in.

Virtually every city in America destroyed itself in the pursuit of what you suggest: everyone will live out in Whiteville and they'll just drive downtown for culture, commerce, and employment. It didn't work. The freeways and parking lots cost too much, and the commuters don't pay enough taxes to balance it out.

And many don't mostly need to come downtown for commerce or employment any longer. And culture can be a handful of times a year. That's my situation. I rarely come into the nearest major city any longer. It's not that I don't come in but I'm very selective.

Well it sounds like we agree then. There's no reason for a city to hollow out its neighborhoods to make space for the cars of people who drive into town once a year.