[jwagenet]

> You don't need an automobile to travel beyond your neighborhood! You can take a bus or a train or ride your bike, even in suburban areas.

Optimistic at best. Some cites like NY are better equipped for alternate transport, but my experience in California is less than stellar. Although it is my primary transport, outside of a ride between classes in university, I rarely see people my age cycling for non-recreational purposes. No only is there no desire, but most nonresidential streets I ride on have inadequate accommodations for bikes.

Trains in some cities are usable, but the coverage and stop frequency leaves much to be desired. I didn't even bother with the bus in LA. Not only did I have to travel 1 mile to get to the nearest stop, but when I wanted to travel on weekends waiting 40min+ for a bus wasn't worth it. In stark contrast to my experience Seoul which had a fantastic system of buses, trains, and taxis!

[akgerber]

Most American cities have many neighborhoods that aren't laid out to be accessible by non-automotive means. But that doesn't mean we should have zoning codes that require that to be the case always and forever, and that doesn't mean new neighborhoods should be built in the same way. American population is shifting and expanding, and we will have to significantly rebuild our cities over our lifetimes— we should rebuild them wisely!

The fact that $200,000 houses sit on $800,000+ worth of land in Silicon Valley means that, if policy were changed to allow reasonable density, Silicon Valley would quickly densify to the point that walkable neighborhood retail and mass transit would have a lot of customers. And mass transit needs a lot of customers to run at a reasonable frequency.

[Noreaster76]

That doesn't mean that we should simply accept America's sub-optimal state of affairs. We can strive for a better day, in which cars are not so dominant, and you can instead opt for a method of getting from A to B that is both healthier for you and easier on the environment.