> don't open it up to public review and leave it completely in the hands of more-or-less capable technocrats. Is that a price you're willing to pay?

Given that in US, "public review" for any kind of infrastructure (regardless if it's an apartment building, a cell base station, a railway, a power plant) means soliciting input from the most meddlesome moralistic NIMBY normies who have as little respect for other people's property rights as they have appreciation for the societal benefits of public infrastructure works -- and then giving them the authority to use their concern trolling to obstruct/delay/kill whatever project is considered.

It actually turns out you don't need to go full-on PRC to build cities with apartments and dense single-family houses with modern, high-capacity railways (all of which help reduce both the need and impact of parking spaces) if you're willing to tell these people to pound sand, and remove the land-use laws that they use to enforce their capriciousness.

This is absolutely correct. NIMBYism has adversely affected more Americans than Russia.

Since it follows that NIMBYs are more anti-American than Russia, we MUST put sanctions on their ability to affect their fellow Americans.

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

Exactly. Furthermore, the US is a comparatively young country. A lot of cities with great public transport either already existed before cars were around, or had the necessary population density to support mass transit.

I recently came back from a visit to London, and did not once need a car (I did take an Uber because I wanted to see what it was like to drive from the left side!). It was fantastic being able to take the Underground anywhere I needed to be, but it was very clear that it was only possible because the city was already there and densely populated before the arrival of cars.

Arguable. For every London in Europe, there’s 10 cities that grew 3-5-10x since 1945. After all, the postwar boom happened on both sides of the Atlantic. London, Paris, etc. are outliers.

It was just policy decisions in many cases.

To a large extent it’s about path dependency as well. You simply aren’t going to fit car infrastructure in a dense urban area whose streets were originally made for horses and pedestrians. It’s not like several European cities didn’t try though, in the heyday of car-oriented urban planning from the 50s to the 70s. Insofar as those attempts succeeded they are now being undone in favor of transit and walkability.

I don't understand this argument. The automobile is much younger than the country. Cars became broadly used about a century ago, the 1910s-20s. How many U.S. cities do you imagine there are that were created after that? Or even that, due to cars, dramatically changed their size relative to the overall population?

>How many U.S. cities do you imagine there are that were created after that?

Quite a few:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb#Post-war_suburban_expan...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York

Created, or built-up, expanded, and for more heavily populated? The US population has more than tripled in that same period, and the percentage of those people living in rural areas dropped precipitously.

>>I recently came back from a visit to London, and did not once need a car

Well, to be fair, if you are talking about a specific city in Europe then you should do the same here in the USA. London's american equivalent is NYC. You will not need a car here either.

>I recently came back from a visit to London, and did not once need a car

I'm not sure this is a great test. (Though, yes, London does have a great transit system even though I've also taken cabs from time to time for various reasons.)

When I visit American cities and don't travel outside them, I very rarely rent a car and don't necessarily take cabs/Lyfts all that much other than getting from the airport. I'm usually staying/doing business in/eating in a relatively central location that often exists in cities that are otherwise fairly spread out.

To give just an example that I'm very familiar with. I never rent a car any longer when I visit Raleigh but I'd never claim you could live there without a car.

Historical note: most US cities had dense public transit until the rise of the automobile. Those transit systems were bought by the car companies and dismantled to drive adoption of private cars. A similar path led to the creation of the crime of 'jaywalking' and getting people off of the streets so car adoption wouldn't be stopped by high rates of drivers killing pedestrians.

Talking about modes of transportation that work well based on countrywide population density is silly. The US's population density is massively skewed by Alaska and everything from Kansas to California being almost completely empty.

Most east coast cities have actually decreased their population density considerably since 1930.