Cars have a lot of independent mobility. Especially lightweight diesels. Their per km cost is way lower than gasoline let alone less efficient electric. And their production cost versus total lifespan is also quite in favour of durable diesel high compression piston engines.

Eliminating useful things is retarded. Keeping them because of scenarios that never happen is also retarded.

I also avoid car ownership and piloting because reduces exposure to potentially lethal contact with individuals who have the ability to get immunity from their mistakes that cost you your life, or worse, that also of your family.

I would think that probably the 20th century city with about 1 car per 4 individuals is not worth the trouble. It might be more like 1:8 or 1:16.

I'd rather keep the car if the risk was that high I might need to be able to suddenly relocate 1000km in less than a day. Otherwise, yes, better to shift more transport duties to professionals.

Just keep in mind that you may not have been involved in a disaster where confusion and fear lead to terrible behaviour from marginal individuals. In those situations, everyone hopes they have a bro with a pickup and a jerry can in the back.

Cost is not everything. Risk matters equally. Risk is just harder to evaluate. Ideal is that everyone works in a shop under their house and doesn't commute. Humans don't like change. It is a testament to the vulnerability baked into our epigenetics by our ancestors that, yes, probably 1 car 4 humans is a pretty good ratio.