Okay, I guess
>we'd be even happier if we could coordinate non-driving
was more central to what you were getting at. I've never really thought of the presence of other drivers as a primary or even ancillary reason to also drive. Far more important are things like the weather, duration of the trip, physical exertion, cargo capacity, do I want to be sweaty and tired when I get there, is there a locker room with a shower, etc. In Milwaukee, Chicago, and Berkeley I've always felt like the separation of pedestrians and bikes from cars was pretty good.
There are places where it's dangerous to bike in the Milwaukee and Chicago metros, but they were also the kind of places you'd never visit unless you lived in them, and I didn't.
It sounds like LA could solve your problem with better sidewalks and bike lanes at much lower net cost to everyone else.
I guess people in LA are being coerced to drive, but plenty of other places facilitate driving, cycling, and walking safely at the same time.
The more interesting tension (to me) is between density and parking, where my basic argument is that parking inhibits density but is also inclusive of a much larger land area (and therefore people paying lower rents), while dense areas without parking are great for their residents but coercive to the people who can't or don't want to pay the rents in them.