Cars are really only a problem in densely populated cities. But they are also the thing that makes less-densely populated areas viable to live at.
Public transport is what makes it possible to live without a car. But public transport is only economically viable in densely populated areas.
So: This equation resolves into something pretty obvious: Have car-free cities, but also continue car-based development of areas of lesser density, probably with "park and ride" being the interface.
Making the car and low population density out to be the devil and a remnant of the past, and car-free high-density development to be the future and solution of all transport-problems is a completely one-sided view.
You said a lot of stuff, and that wasn't my takeaway from it.
What's completely one-sided is development patterns and land regulation in much of the developed world and especially in the United States that favor detached housing and single occupancy vehicle commutes over any other form.
Cars are really only a problem in densely populated cities. But they are also the thing that makes less-densely populated areas viable to live at.
Public transport is what makes it possible to live without a car. But public transport is only economically viable in densely populated areas.
So: This equation resolves into something pretty obvious: Have car-free cities, but also continue car-based development of areas of lesser density, probably with "park and ride" being the interface.
Making the car and low population density out to be the devil and a remnant of the past, and car-free high-density development to be the future and solution of all transport-problems is a completely one-sided view.