> Solving for battery chemistry is cheaper and faster than rebuilding all of America (outside of a few metros where cars aren’t needed) around mass transit and walkability.

I don't think it's an either-or thing. I think we can have long lasting and high quality electric cars and also build so that we don't have to rely on cars as much or at all. A lot of people think that reducing reliance on cars means building skyscrapers and density like Manhattan, but it actually means building medium density mixed-use development where biking and walking and perhaps a streetcar are how you accomplish 90%+ of your day-to-day mobility needs. Then you have a car for when you need a car. This means you don't take a car to a grocery store that's half a mile away, you walk or bike. It means you don't take a car to a grocery store that's half a mile away because you have a small grocery store in your neighborhood that has everything you need for day-to-day living (you don't need to stock 16 different brands of cereal).

It also has some nice benefits where you can better participate in your local government or other civic institutions. One of the other insidious problems created by automobile-only infrastructure is that it weakens society. You can't protest when you have to figure out where to park first. You can't meet your local representative when you have to pay to park and it's a 30 minute drive each way. Etc.

I think redevelopment can happen, and in fact the growth in BEV tech is the trigger. Ebike sales have been staggering since the pandemic era started, and high gas prices have kept the trend going. And while some may switch back in time, the entire calculus of what vehicles are feasible for tripmaking changes with small BEV - an assisted cargo bike can go pretty fast! While the highways are out, they use the available battery resources more efficiently than a car for nearby destinations, which are the majority of trips, so in a competition for tripmaking market share they will come out ahead. That makes them part of an emerging virtuous cycle, where more people see an opportunity to save fuel and maintenance costs, so they get bikes, so there are more bikes on the street, so there's more demand for bike infrastructure.

This pattern has emerged in every city that has a bikeshare or other micromobility scheme: Consumers can dip into the waters and try it out without being "cyclists" and worrying about theft or maintenance. They can put up with poor infrastructure in other respects as a result and use it for the subset of trips where they feel it's appropriate to do so. And the operators(who are in a profitable, growing market) can provide the financial muscle to sway City Hall's policy and make the infrastructure better - because the resulting network growth goes right back into their pockets. And with learning effects, it becomes increasingly easy to deploy at a larger and larger scale. The first few years when these companies emerged and spilled e-scooters all over the streets made for disastrous PR, but their execution has improved greatly since then, with sturdier vehicles, better battery lifetimes, and closer working relationships with cities to address safety.