Hint: Sprawl is enabled by something. What is that something?
Also, the original post that spurred this discussion was about people who lived in *cities.* The OP posited that people in North American
*cities* didn't have the same public-transport options that people living in European cities do. I countered that with obvious examples of mass-transit options in American *cities.* The suburbs were not mentioned.Another option not mentioned, of course, is to increase licensing options in sprawly suburban areas so people can *walk* somewhere to have a beer, then walk back home. I'm fortunate to have such circumstances in my current living arrangement. I know that vast numbers of people in the USA don't have such options. In all too many regions, that's as much the fault of pinheaded bureacrats and their licensing bureacracies as anything else.
Sprawl won't be solved by mass transit. Sprawl is enabled by some- thing, though, and in your lifetime, that something will very likely go away. It is very possible that that something is going away sooner than you think. Take away the enabling factor, and sprawl will look like a very very bad option. Then what?
If the something I'm thinking about goes away, will suburbs and the living patterns they engender continue to be a fact? Suburbs are a fact because of an enabling factor that allows people to live in this manner. If the factor goes away, what becomes of suburban sprawl?