If we stop building free parking (or rather requiring it, as most city and town codes require) and stop subsidizing roads and car travel, this issue would naturally sort itself out. Most people are car dependent because our government policies have made it so. If people had to pay the actual cost of parking, the upkeep of roads, gas, etc. it would be less palatable to drive a car everywhere.
Of course our country is overrun by cars, including our cities. The government has enacted policies that encourage car driving above other transportation means. This in turn has encouraged suburbanization, which, as you point out, generally requires a car-centric lifestyle.
There is nothing wrong with suburbanization, but we wouldn't have nearly the extent of suburbs that we have now if all transportation options were on equal footing. And it shouldn't be the governments job to make car travel so cheap that people buy large, cheap houses in the middle of nowhere.
This also ignores all the other costs of car-centric living such as increased risks for obesity, heart disease, depression, etc. If you live in a walkable area, you naturally walk a lot more and get daily exercise. The idea that you would need to go to a gym to get exercise in your daily life is one of the reasons that Americans are becoming so unhealthy.
> "There is nothing wrong with suburbanization, but we wouldn't have nearly the extent of suburbs that we have now if all transportation options were on equal footing."
This is basically what I'm thinking these days. Having suburbs is fine. What's really killing us, is the incredibly low density of those suburbs, caused by zoning and the hiding of transportation costs that subsidize that zoning.
It's the cul-de-sac neighborhoods and massive parking lots sitting idle 90% of the time that make suburbs unwalkable and impractical to service with public transport. If the suburbs themselves weren't so sparse, their residents wouldn't need to use their cars as much and transport options for getting into the city, or to neighboring suburbs would greatly alleviate traffic and increase freedom for those who can't drive, can't afford to drive or just would prefer not to.
There's a difference between suburbs where everyone has a yard and peace and quiet and suburbs where the sidewalks inconsistently exist, cul-de-sac neighborhoods inflate route lengths and compound traffic snarls, zoning breaks up residential areas with light commerical areas that have mandated massive lots to handle twice-a-year peak parking needs, etc.
You can literally see the difference in walkability and infrastructure service levels between suburban neighborhoods built in the 50s and those built in the late 70s and later.
One has consistent street and infrastructure grids, parks, likely bus stops (because they're feasible) and commercial-cluster downtown areas for goodness sake! While the other has larger yards, cul-de-sacs, inconsistent sidewalks and the closest they come to a downtown is a (likely now decrepit) mall with its own ocean of usually-empty parking and the commensurate traffic-snarling entrances and exits.
This is why I feel so out of place in the vast majority of american suburbs today. Standing in any public space, if you look at roads and parking lots as dead space, it seems as if half the total space surrounding you is just nothing. It isn't beautiful, it isn't usable, it is just empty space that soaks up the landscape, carving it up all to make it cheap for someone to drive, but making it impossible for someone to walk.
I'm not 100% convinced by this line of reasoning. All major forms of travel (including walking) can be seen as "supported" by government policies and money. If nothing else, eminent domain plays a huge role in transportation infrastructure.
I don't think we can build infrastructure like this piece at a time to see which one wins. So there is no true "equal footing" or "fair" approach that everyone can agree on.
" but we wouldn't have nearly the extent of suburbs ... it shouldn't be the governments job to make car travel so cheap"
I think we're touching here some fundamental problems of governance and city-planning.
a) what should the role of goverment be?
b) cities dont have those clear-cut borders as administrations have (ultra-dense areas somewhat evolve into rural areas as you drive outside of a city)
c) thus multiple layers of government and morality are involved in shaping our cities
I think providing people with more choices is usually the better policy, thus suburbia has its right to stay. My experience though is, that in suburbia you often end up with the worst of both worlds: the crime, dirt, traffic and anonymity of cities as well as the unacessability of culture, services and long commute times of rural areas. So I'd rather go all-in citywise or stay out of the whole thing at all. but then this is the personal preference of a 20-somewhat and not your typical young family founder who may strive for suburbia.
Of course our country is overrun by cars, including our cities. The government has enacted policies that encourage car driving above other transportation means. This in turn has encouraged suburbanization, which, as you point out, generally requires a car-centric lifestyle.
There is nothing wrong with suburbanization, but we wouldn't have nearly the extent of suburbs that we have now if all transportation options were on equal footing. And it shouldn't be the governments job to make car travel so cheap that people buy large, cheap houses in the middle of nowhere.
This also ignores all the other costs of car-centric living such as increased risks for obesity, heart disease, depression, etc. If you live in a walkable area, you naturally walk a lot more and get daily exercise. The idea that you would need to go to a gym to get exercise in your daily life is one of the reasons that Americans are becoming so unhealthy.