I've been told that this is a no-go for city planners because the sheer quantity of fallen fruit can be a walking hazard, and no one wants the legal liability. What it comes down to is that "free" fruit trees would require additional ongoing maintenance costs. Nothing nefarious, just logistical issues.
No doubt, but look at the black and white thinking in this thread. We can't have fruit trees at all because they might interfere with sidewalks, or because city planners might get in a huff.
I'm not discounting the legitimate concerns of trafficability or zoning, but to write it off completely for these concerns is trash. If we can engineer a tailings dam and plan for 100 year floods that might ruin it, then we can figure out a way to permit fruit bearing trees in cities.
Because fruit on a grass field isn't a hazard? Also who said anything about cars? Cyclists use the road too and it's a much larger hazard for them than for cars. You're the one thinking about cars here, not me.
I imagine if there were trees all over every street in town there would be a lot of mushy ass fruit swarming with flies on the ground.
It's not a stable enough logistics chain to be viable, like, If I think "I'd like to possess a bowl of apples" I'm not going to like, patrol the streets and pick apples to that end.