It’s cheap because it’s subsidised. Car users don’t pay all of the costs.

I already answered someone else about this topic. So I will mostly copy my comment:

“The subsidisation argument is one that occurs quite often. I can only speak about the situation in my country, Germany. Since every citizen is dependant on car infrastructure, due to their dependance on Trucks transporting goods into the supermarkets, Police service, Ambulances,… and especially they are in need for this infrastructure, because it is used to build the houses people live in and it is used to maintain these houses.

So everyone in my country is somewhat paying for car infrastructure, totally independent from their use of it for private transport, because they are indirectly in need of it. This is what is commonly called subsidisation for car infrastructure, because the use of the capital is often not directly declared by the government.

Now car owners, that drive, have to pay an additional automobile tax, because as it is with all cars, they slowly wear out the road and repairs need to be paid. Due to their additional use of the roads, they have to pay additional for damages and repairs. “

And it’s popular because places are designed for it to be the most convenient option. When you design places that aren’t for driving, people will use other modes.

Yes and no. In Germany we have many options, but cars are still an important and often chosen mode of transport. The infrastructure for other kind of transports exist. But they do not manage to compete with the flexibility of a car.

And I will paste another part of a comment to someone else:

“A modern city is welcoming to the new. This also includes scooters, bike sharing, car sharing, EV, and so on. And addressing the point of a stronger economy, I highly doubt that economic strength is dependant on 30 meters of rail, 10 Meters of Asphalt or whatever. “