Call it speculation, but most people don’t really want all the consequences that come with the distinct lack of it in the US. Especially when you consider the economic effects of walkable areas.
While it is true that Americans rely a bit too much on their cars, and have built infrastructure based on it instead of public transportation, it's hard to envision a world where individual transportation is no longer needed.
Look at Japan, they have a great train network but still use cars a lot. Because while train works well in cities, you still need people living in the country side to grow your food.
There a massive gap between “all cars should be banned”, which you seem to be replying to, and “some urban areas should be allowed to densify and operate without cars if their citizens want that”.
That's true but it seems like the people advocating for policy on both ends don't understand the difference in density and therefore transportation needs between Boston and Boise. Everyone wants policy to be a state or federal level cudgel these days and quite frankly that is stupid.
I live in rural Japan and own a car. However, I lived here without one for over 5 years. My apartment building is surrounded on 3 sides by rice fields, so it gives you an idea of just how rural it is. I can walk from one end of the town where I live to the other in 20 minutes. In that space there are 3 grocery stores, 2 hardware stores, a butcher, 2 fish mongers, 1 tofu shop, 2 flower shops at least 5 barbers, 3 doctors, 2 optometrists, many bars, restaurants, cafes, etc, etc, etc. I moved from suburban Canada. In 20 minutes I wouldn't be able to walk out of my neighbourhood of cul-de-sacs lined with identical houses. Not even a single convenience store. It's a commercial waste land.
In rural Japan, cars are used. In suburban Canada, cars are necessary. There are definitely more rural areas in Japan than where I live. I live in an actual town. If you are up in the mountains, or live far away from a town, a car is probably necessary. However, for the vast majority of people who live in this country, it is not.
But if you have denser cities, that leaves more room for rural areas. I don’t think anyone is arguing for less rural land, but as it stands, it is legally impossible to build another city like San Francisco or Manhattan in the US, and that’s a problem for sustainability. People want to live in those places, and not just because they are old.
The problem is not that you can't legally build a city like SF in the middle of nowhere. There are hundreds of smaller cities that could grow into bigger ones, but their population growth just isn't there. People wouldn't come to your "New SF" either.
The real problem is:
- Many people choose to live in big hubs like SF or Manhattan because that's where the high paying jobs are
- You can't legally turn SF into Manhattan (i.e. making it denser)
This is true. But what I wish for is better public transport in countryside. Automated train that can run also late at night and more bus would have relieved most of my woes when I was living in the countryside.
Would be great if you could afford the $40k and insurance to house that 4000lb hunk of precious metal you spend energy moving around everywhere you go. A bus pass is a $1.75 on the other hand...
The bus pass wouldn't be $1.75 if it serviced the rural areas. The economics just don't work with low population density.
Look at NJ Transit, in rural areas if you have a train station you get 2-3 commuter trains in the morning on week days and no service on the weekend or during the day/late at night. And thats for NJ, which has high population density even in rural areas, is physically small and is part of the north east corridor.