Walk.
EDIT: or just drive, as you do now.
EDIT: or just drive, as you do now.
No. The comment you're replying to specifically said "walk", while the comment at top of thread specifically mentioned that building trains "requires a move towards high-density housing". High density housing, trains, and walking is a solved transportation solution for cities with much higher/denser populations than we have in North America.
Getting there from here is not such a solved solution, but the general process many places are working on goes:
build train (with park and ride at outskirts for current ridership) --> build high density mixed use near stations (which now doesn't need parking for each unit) --> rinse and repeat until city is more sustainable without blowing $$$,$$$,$$$ on road capital projects every year to deal with ever-increasing traffic
As I said, "the general process many places are working on". Look up cities in Can/US/Aus currently building light rail systems and you'll see who is working on it (with greater or lesser degrees of commitment, which will have corresponding outcomes in a decade or so).
North American cities successfully built themselves to be car dependent when no one else ever had, now they just need to work in reverse. The problems aren't functionally different whether it's cars jammed in stop-and-go on an interstate, trains overcrowded on a regional rail, horse and carriages clogging a bridge in medieval england (eg like discussed in the historical fiction World Without End), or individual people jamming the gates at Mecca or a large concert entrance/exit.
The root problem is vehicle lanes can only accomodate a few thousands of vehicles per hour at most (1800 at 2s following distance), while trains can easily accomodate tens of thousands of passengers in the same right of way. Even a sidewalk can (but generally don't) accomodate more users than single occupant vehicles on a highway lane.