If your aim is "Reduce pollution caused by cars" then changing people from car-owning city-dwellers into car-owning suburb-dwellers might increase total pollution.
For example, if a family with one car turns into a family with two or three.
I think a pay-as-you go road tariff would be a nice way to introduce some 'nudges' in the right direction.
It could be managed by GPS trackers in vehicles, with the ability to charge different amounts in different locations and time of day (i.e. driving in cities or during rush hour should be discouraged), level of congestion, vehicle type (weight, length, self-driving or not), and selective emission controls (e.g. high polluters banned from city centres).
Fuel taxes are a simple, proportional way to target carbon emissions (effectively a carbon tax). However things like this should all be done with care (see gilets jaunes).
Even if they're all electric cars? This is why I live in the suburbs. You can't champion density as the solution on the one hand, and then say, "you have to drastically change your lifestyle to support density!".
Just let people who don't want to live in density pay for the externalities of low density living (require EVs, higher cost for infra, etc).
I'm not saying anything. I'm relaying what everyone who studies global warming has said. I'm not "championing" anything either.
I am relaying the science on global warming which indicates that if we continue down this path then we are absolutely screwed.
Density is not my idea. Density is what you get if you want (a) 7 billion people and (b) anything remotely resembling a sustainable society. If you also want a not dense society, then tell me which of (a) and (b) you want to eliminate.
If you're saying you want to ween us off of our rapidly worsening fossil fuel addiction then I don't know what to tell you but I do have several bridges to sell you.
Most of America drives cars. Most of Americans are not giving up their cars. Besides HVAC and industrial, transportation is an enormous producer of CO2 emissions. Electrify transportation. Density becomes moot.
Density might still have a chance in developing nations if they can avoid developing around the idea of the car; TBD.
Most Americans are going to learn a very different way of life. Either they can start living sustainably or they can start living with the consequences of unsustainability. Those are the only options. Electric vehicles are not going to fix much when our electricity is still mostly made by fossil fuels.
We need to stop subsidizing suburban and rural living yesterday.
> Most Americans are going to learn a very different way of life.
Unlikely. America has enough wealth that aside from coastal areas, life won't change that much unless agriculture collapses entirely.
> Electric vehicles are not going to fix much when our electricity is still mostly made by fossil fuels.
Coal is rapidly declining in use in the US for electrical generation. Natural gas will eventually be replaced by overbuilt renewables and battery storage (and EVs are a component of that). Electrifying transportation would be a huge step forward for moving off of fossil fuels compared to natural gas generation currently in play [1].
All of the above is possible without density or everyone moving to urban areas. American politics are built around equality of votes between dense cities, the suburbs, and rural areas. That is not changing in the foreseeable future. You're going to have to rely on market forces to drive out the remaining fossil fuels used.
Everyone can buy an EV or renewable power though to send market signals to ramp production capacity of both. Same with insulating your home and ensuring you're using as little energy as possible to condition your home spaces. And batteries. We need as many batteries as we can make.
That is the idea. The implementation of cycling lanes often has unintended consequences. Getting the details right is important or we end up with "cycle lanes to nowhere", lanes more dangerous than what was there before, drivers so angry about the lanes that the next round of politicians ban cycling completely, or several other possible futures I'm not even aware of. (Note that all of the above objections are general, they can apply to lanes for any purpose - only by careful work as the car lobby able to avoid them 100 years ago...)
I think the point is indeed to provide good public transportation as a suitable alternative.
> I will just not live in a city anymore
And why not? That's an entirely legitimate choice