[mrangle]

It'll always be that way. The suburbs are vast. Walkability is the rare exception, not the rule. Due to distance. Some exceptional parts of some suburbs are walkable.

For example, I have in mind the immense suburbs of a second tier US city. These are impossible to redesign, and travel to do simple errands is measured in half mile increments. With expanses of residential housing and heavily trafficked roads inbetween. This is for convenient locations. Much of the housing is less conveniently located.

[CalRobert]

You're generally right but suburbs _can_ be walkable if they're not designed by idiots. Houten, in the Netherlands, comes to mind. Or a lot of the US streetcar suburbs which these days are generally not considered suburbs - South Park, San Diego to give one example.

[mrangle]

Respectfully, "can be" needs to be paired with "rarely". I'm not debating that the rare small section of expansive suburbs is walkable. That's found everywhere, rarely.

The reason that I'm insistent on the distinction is the same reason that I suspect responders are insistent on giving the impression that walkability is generally possible in suburbia. That reason is that the crux of the debate is whether or not the automobile has to remain central to American travel.

My POV is that suburbia is unavoidably car centric, almost all of the time with rare exceptions. Those taking the opposite pov are generally trying to give the impression that walkability is generally possible.