This is important to consider, but even if anti-car policies inadvertently exclude some people, I'd push back against the presumption that they are more exclusionary than pro-car policies. They might still represent an improvement over the status quo in this regard. For instance, anti-car advocates often argue that policies which effectively require people to buy and maintain cars to participate in society are exclusionary of the poor.
For germany, there's a study that estimates that up to 30% of a flats rent in densely populated areas is directly or indirectly caused by car-centric planning. And if I just go round the block and estimate how much space is taken by (toll-free) parking and car lanes, I can quite well imagine that this number might be on the high side, but not entirely unfounded. Just half a block from my flat is a road that is double lane, at intersections 3-4 lanes including turn lanes in each direction, each direction offers a parking along the road and in the middle are two parking lanes 90° to the road. The parking space allocated would be sufficient to create a full house the entire length of the road. All that road space is built and maintained by the city, which receives neither vehicle tax nor any petrol taxes or any of the taxes that car owners pay.
I'm not generally opposed to people owning cars and using them. I'm opposed to people offloading the costs and space requirements of their private property onto the community.
A single parking spot is roughly equivalent to a large room in a flat. Parking spots are about 10m^2 each. Buildings have between three and five stories. At the relatively cheap rent prices here in Berlin, a parking spot should cost its user about 400€/month.
Exclusionary of the elderly, too. What exactly do you do if you live in car-burg where the only way to get around is by automobile, and you lose your license due to declining faculties? You become totally stranded & alone.
