Note that I’m not saying we don’t consider drivers at all - only that we look at the needs of the entire city rather than saying anyone who doesn’t drive doesn’t matter or, especially, that people who live there are less important than faster commutes for non-residents as was the case for much of the 20th century.

> Moreover, reducing accommodation for motor vehicles in cities leaves the non-urban population behind - and neglects that private vehicles aren't the only users of the roadway. Truck deliveries, garbage collection, and mail become a lot more difficult if roadways are reduced.

Non-urban drivers shouldn’t have primacy over residents just because they chose to live further away and refuse to use transit. Moreover, there’s a fundamental flaw in the assumption that speed limits are the primary limiting factor there: we actually know from decades of studies that they’re slowed by other cars, and adding lanes tends to make things worse by incentivizing more car trips. Boston famously spent enormous amounts of money on the Big Dig - which the MBTA is still struggling to pay off - and the net impact was a slight time savings for suburban commuters for about six months, after which traffic was worse than before because more people were driving. Getting those people onto trains would be far more effective and cheaper.

Similarly, delivery and garbage trucks aren’t affected at all by calming measures because those drivers aren’t flooring it all the way downtown - they’re stopping too often. What does help is reducing congestion and simplifying roads because that makes their routes more predictable (they don’t have the option of picking an alternate route) – if we wanted to help them, we’d ban unprotected left turns or reserve one parking spot per block for deliveries.