That's quite the ask. It's quite unreasonable and flippant to simply want the US to model Dutch transportation and infrastructure as if the US were a greenfield

That's quite the ask. It's quite unreasonable and flippant to simply want the US to model Dutch transportation and infrastructure as if the US were a greenfield project. You can't ignore legacy and existing infrastructure, culture, habits, needs, etc. that we need to consider. From the point of view of a human life, urban planning and architecture are practically permanent: once a street grid or some buildings have been built and put in place, it is VERY difficult to change any of it. To see just how lasting this can be, consider the street grids in old Italian cities look at how the still follow the original Roman planning. The amphitheaters may be gone, but the streets that used to encircle them are still there, and the buildings that stand where the amphitheaters once stood even incorporate the original foundation work. Or look at smaller US cities like Hartford that were wrecked by highways. There are people working for the administration of these cities who know how many problems these things cause, but there are no realistic options available to make all but the smallest changes and improvements. The result of the Big Dig in Boston is desirable and welcome, but the cost was enormous (in part because of unnecessary losses, but good luck eliminating those). Maybe carpet bombing could liberate these cities from certain aspects of their legacy, but even then, the cost of rebuilding would be enormous (disregarding the evil of such a thing). This is why it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that cities take urban planning VERY seriously instead of letting developers do whatever they please. Urban planning is not a private matter. It is a matter of the common good and concerns not just the public today, but the public of the future. The US made a radical "bet" (under the heavy influence of the auto lobby) on cars, and this has been, in retrospect, a bad move in many ways. Something more balanced would have been better. Now, this doesn't mean we can do nothing. We can make conservative or incremental improvements. We can influence the direction infrastructure and development take. We just have to keep in mind that radical and sweeping changes are easy to demand, but difficult and even uncharitable to make in practice. Comparing Amsterdam to most of America is folly. The two do not afford the same opportunities for urban planning.