Low density suburbs are a US thing, where chaotic lack of urban planning allowed people to spread out to cheaper land to build a home while passenger cars and fuel were in abundance and cheap. Compare an urban suburban area in Germany, where the majority of population lives in satelite villages (higher density little towns) served by one or two train stations in proximity to ride to the "city"/workplace of industrial center.

This US peculiarity was formed by policy controlled by the oil and auto industries, and their puppets politicians serving their interests alone, or risk never get re-elected. You can't design a transportation system to match chaos in all other respects. It may be too late to think in terms of efficiency how to cure US pathology. It is deep embedded in US lifestyle.

Rural Europe may not have adequate public transport but by historic evolution, farmers, owners and workers, lived in the center of an agricultural area, small town, small lots, marketplace centered in the middle of the town, and transportation needs were those of going to land and back. There was always a way to do so, animals, carriages, tractors, even buses in some respects. Expanding urban centers and lack of affordable housing had people either move to such towns or find work from such towns to the city, and this created new problems and challenges. Either a box like bed-sheet efficiency in the urban slams, or a decent small house in a village 1hr away.

I can't say there are no problems outside the US, it is just that many problems of the US are only in US and exist because of special industrial interests fully represented by government against ALL interests of public nature. Housing, food, health, energy, transportation, education, are intentionally disorganized and problematic in the US, as commodities regulated by cartels of industrial interests alone. An example of this collision of paradigms is the attempt by the US to parallely form two agreements as market/trade of N.Atlantic and one in Pacific rim. New Zealand, being geographically isolated from the rest of the world, deep South in the vilent south pacific, had created a domestic pharmaceutical industry for every drug it is considered essential. To open up to a free world market and allow it to go bankrupt, the chance to have to depend for imports for pharmaceuticals was by no means in the table for negotiation. The US members pushing for the agreement thought of this reaction as extreme as radical communist reaction to "open market".

Neither of these agreements have gone too far as far as I know or read recently. Various similar problems, the covid pandemic, brought new variables in the table the US had taken for granted that it is "common sense" for the entire planet that an open market should not be intervened or challenged by any government, by any interest group, by any humans! So we can't really talk about US totalitarian neo-liberalism when there is still evidence of resistance and anti-American sentiment in the world. It is too early for humanity to adopt to Hollywood fantasies and AI.