Suburbs can be walkable. As can rural towns.
For those who live away from any civilization, they've made their choice about transportation.
For those who live away from any civilization, they've made their choice about transportation.
Storefronts at the sidewalk instead of on the other end of sprawling parking lot. Pedestrian crossings in the middle of longer stretches of road (as opposed to only at intersections). Dedicated bike paths throughout the entire town. Schools centrally located on a single campus in the middle of town.
It goes to show what a town can do when the local government decides they want to be more than just a outpost for a larger city.
For example, I have in mind the immense suburbs of a second tier US city. These are impossible to redesign, and travel to do simple errands is measured in half mile increments. With expanses of residential housing and heavily trafficked roads inbetween. This is for convenient locations. Much of the housing is less conveniently located.
The reason that I'm insistent on the distinction is the same reason that I suspect responders are insistent on giving the impression that walkability is generally possible in suburbia. That reason is that the crux of the debate is whether or not the automobile has to remain central to American travel.
My POV is that suburbia is unavoidably car centric, almost all of the time with rare exceptions. Those taking the opposite pov are generally trying to give the impression that walkability is generally possible.
This is pre-war streetcar suburbs. The difference is that the houses are close together. The garages are mostly in back and tiny. The streets are in a grid, nearly all have sidewalks, and many are narrow which lowers speeds. The main streets have shops and restaurants along them.