I really don't see how this is necessary. I'm in what I would consider a walkable neighborhood right now. In fact, I walk all the time. The biggest reason I still have a car, that I almost never use, is going to medical appointments. Nothing can ever make that walkable when they're 20 miles away and I have to get there during business hours. Before working from home, it was needing to drive to the office, which you can do away with by having metroplex-wide public transit that spans an entire city and its major suburbs. There isn't shit you can do at the neighborhood level.<p>Getting rid of cars is not necessary. New York City is probably the most walkable city in the United States and it's full of cars. But the sidewalks are enormous, consistently open, construction projects are required to provide routes for pedestrians. I grew up in a place in Southern California that was pretty walkable, but most of Southern California is definitely not. The biggest difference wasn't whether or not cars existed. Aside from the sidewalks, it's more that you need to limit the number of arterial roads, their size, and the blocks a vehicle can expect to traverse before hitting a stop. Aside from everything being so far away, the biggest factors preventing people from just going for leisurely strolls without a specific destination is the danger posed by roads that take a long time to get across and cars doing highway speeds on those roads. It worked out where I grew up, even though it was a suburb, because the roads were small, we weren't near any highways, plus I lived on an actual cul de sac, but the end of the road only blocked cars from going further, not pedestrians.