>A.) population density

22 of US states/territories have a higher population density than Europe. So why doesn't Ohio have proper public transport?

> B.) they have a prime geography for it.

What? What is that even supposed to mean?

According to census data more than 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas, as opposed to rural areas. People in Europe don’t walk from city to city. We (Europeans) also have cars. Walkable cities are supposed to offer other modes of transport WITHIN a city. Which is possible when you don’t have to spread out buildings to accommodate huge inner city arterial roads and giant parking lots.

Plenty of parts of the US have a much higher population density than Europe. I live in a small, rural town. The countryside is only 200 metres away from me. Where I live is still fully walkable.

There's no reason that massive places like LA or San Diego shouldn't be better designed. Even sub-urbs, most of which have a higher population than where I live by the way, could be far better.

> This country has always been highly spread out and it’s simply not practical to adapt the entire countries infrastructure to change that within a lifetime.

Considering the country went from (mass manufactured) cars not existing to the majority of people owning a car, public transit system being demolished, urban freeways and interstate highways all within a lifetime; why is it suddenly impossible to do the reverse?

The USA was built on the back of rail. "population density" and "geography" are fundamentally a-historic excuses. Not only can it be built, it's literally already been done before. In a time when population density was significantly lower and geography significantly more challenging.

Even in the arctic regions of finland almost all villagaes and towns have separated walking/cycling paths that kids kan use to go to school or visit friends. If you have enough money to build huge highways you have enough money to make a sidewalk and some safe crosswalks with speed bumps and pedestrian refuges.