~85% of the American population live in urban areas, and that’s expected to increase to ~90% by 2050. So I would argue the myopic view is one in which the majority live in areas that could be better served by public transit but we deny it since California is far away or something.

Most of us aren’t traveling to remote areas that would be burdened to sustain public transit regularly enough for your argument to work. Most of us travel locally to work or school on a daily basis and somewhere to gather on the weekends probably in a local population center with entertainment options. That can easily be served by well built public transit that we wouldn’t be so reliant on personal automobiles as a country.

Is that to say cars don’t have a place in society, absolutely not, cars won’t just go away nor should they. The vast majority of us probably don’t need to rely on one for daily transit though if our public transit infrastructure was better built.

Sure, but there are plenty examples of it being done.

America had an intercontinental rail system in the 19th century. We know that building track over long distances is possible. Even in geographically challenging countries such as Switzerland, robust rail systems are possible. You ever see European trains? WAY nicer than anything you’ll see here.

Yes, America is unique in size, but even large nations like China are accomplishing incredible feats of public transport engineering.

Are the situations identical? No. Will it be difficult and expensive? Definitely. But isn’t America all about being an example for the rest of the world and whatnot?

Something has got to give in the US. Car focused planning is quite literally unsustainable