Maybe for S-bahns far out it's a mile, but bikeshare should cover that.
Why not? Buses are cheap and can operate on existing infrastructure. Sure there are places like Seattle where the buses are congested and more expensive rail infrastructure is needed, but that is not true in majority of American cities. Quite often the bus lines are even already there, but run so infrequently that they are unusable for the majority of people (think El Paso).
For most of Americans the problem could literally be solved over night.
Though if cities actually did put for that investment, in a few years there would be enough riders as to pay off the investment. I'm not hopeful though: most cities have transit executives who don't care about transit, and so if given a ton of money will instead invest in transit art - things that look good but don't improve transit.
Also we can do it much faster if we accept we need to make driving worse. See https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/09/18/cars-and-train... cars and trains are fundamentally opposed, so every time build American-style light rail and yet continue widening highways we shoot ourselves in both feet.
Accepting the reality that we need carets and sticks to radically reform our material culture, demolish highways, shred zoning laws, crank up the gas tax, and then suddenly find your trains full, bikes all in use, people clamoring for more, the private sector helping with the easy stuff, and more growth in general.
Suburbia on the other hand makes us all worse off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUeqxXwCA0&list=PLJp5q-R0lZ...
Getting rid of cars would solve that problem regardless of density.
> large public parks
Denser everything else frees up more space for parks. (I sometimes think of a "fractal density" which is high on average but has tons of variation to keep things beautiful.)
You are saying at best make them less bad, but used just as often? Forget other universe, what about the other countries that successfully do what I speak of?
If your lifestyle is inherently non sustainable or non scalable, then you only get to live it because you're at the top of a pyramid scheme.
But we're already running over budget on the resources we do have, https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/past-earth-overshoot-d....
Unless we want to accept some kind of extreme depopulation events (either by choice or by systemic failure) then we have to learn to live a lot more efficiently than we do now. And the long term costs of running suburbs are not fully internalized to the people choosing to live like that.
I don’t think dense living energy usage is only marginally less due to the extra distance all the mass has to travel. And with current technology, the energy used is basically a proxy for pollution.
The more mass you move (water, sewage, gas, waste, supplies, people) longer distances, the more you pollute. I.e. the more space you use, the more you pollute. Just like using most other material resources.
It's not marginal at all, but a huge difference. Rich inner suburbs ("Democrat suburbs" you might say) are the worst polluters per capita, and urban and some truly rural areas the best, but the truly rural case absolutely doesn't scale.
I'm sorry, but your boats-the-shed fantasyland is slowly killing us all.
Expecting perpetual economic growth without densification is equally absurd.
A good example is ST3 in the Seattle area. Seattleites and their neighbors overwhelmingly supported the expensive and radical expansion of the rapid transit system in the area and were more then willing to pay the increased taxes for it... Opposition came mostly from the eastern parts of the state even though the taxes are only to be collected in the proximate areas to the expansion.
In fact I can’t recall any examples of people calling for the cancellation of existing public transit. The backlash is usually against planed expansions from distant areas.
I’ve seen a few places on the East coast where voters resonate with political candidates that decry the subsidies to public transit, and call for increases in fares or decrease in frequency of bus/train service.
There's nothing inherently bad about rainy, slushy or snowy weather. It's just water. Getting wet is not going to melt you.
It's miserable trying to bicycle in slush, or in near freezing temperatures. Bicycling any length of time in the rain also is miserable. Strong wind makes things worse, and there's only so much you can do to compensate. Let alone what happens when you get sick from a chill, or you work at a job that has lots of physical labor or standing time, or bike in high heat with no showers available at your job.
I used to do so a lot as a young man, and it really does limit you. Sometimes you just give up the bike and walk, because the weather is that bad.
It was unbelievably terrible. I was actually okay with the biking in 90+ degree heat, but it required more careful planning on water consumption. And, I have a pretty high tolerance for general wet misery. I once spent a weekend lying in puddles in the rain, and it was fine.
But the winter biking, holy hell. The cold and road slush are the real killers for winter biking. The cold can make it physically painful, and the slush makes it both dangerous, and consumes a huge amount of time on maintenance - especially when it's a salt-brine slush. That stuff disintegrates your bike (or at least my bike).
A car sidesteps it with a big set of convenience.
While convenience is king for the end consumer that's what will happen for most people.
In one elderly couple I know, they sustain permanent or serious injuries when they fall just walking, and they don't heal so fast or well. One slipped in the bathroom and broke their collarbone. The other slipped on the sidewalk and has permanently lost significant function in their left (dominant) hand. An injury that requires prolonged immobility, such as a broken hip, not uncommonly leads to death.
No way are they riding a bike. Not only would they hit cement at bicycle speeds, they lack coordination, strength, and mental acuity. I have been in many situations on bikes that they simply couldn't handle. As one simple example, what happens if there is no curbcut or some other obstacle. I can simply lift by bicycle over any obstacle; they cannot always do that, and especially with the added weight of a battery, and then consider that a tricycle is the only feasible option for their balance.
That can easily be a confusion of cause and effect. I have multiple 80+ neighbours and relative who ride a bike daily - which is what makes them fitter for events like falling in the first place. It's well researched that physical fitness both prevents accidents and reduces recovery times for the elderly.
You've made an assumption that most cities have a period of un-rideable weather every year and that's just not the case.
I didn't say the majority have good weather either, I just disagree with the premise that "most" have unrideable seasons. Maybe "most" have an unrideable day or week but there are days you can't drive too and we don't pull funding from road infrastructure because of it.
In addition to different high temperatures, SF also has surprisingly cold summers.
Having lived in CA for most of my life (and having visited AU once), I'd say the temperatures are more similar in Sacramento or Los Angeles, and to a lesser degree Palo Alto.
1: https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/Australia/SA/A...
2: https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/CA/San-Fra...
https://www.sustainable-bus.com/news/yutong-begins-the-deliv...
This is why transit-only lanes are important. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQY6WGOoYis
Though it might be time to vote for someone else. If your council member doesn't care what you think, then vote for someone else. SF is big, but it is still small enough for votes to matter. You have already rejected grass roots, but that is the real answer. And it need not be you doing much, just make sure the ones who are doing something get noticed by your peers.