Absolutely valid, although I disagree with:

I want American car culture to die.

But at least you had this qualifier:

I hope it does, but I won't hate people for needing a car because it is necessary in America.

I don't mind cars remaining (and even you acknowledge that they are necessary in America), I just want better, faster, cheaper alternatives, so that their use is diminished significantly. When I visit relatives in NYC (often), I love using the trains and busses. My car usually sits unused most of the time I'm there. I would love to use mass transit in my own city if it was decent. About all I use it for is to go to the airport, which has been a terrific convenience. It's nice to be able to tell someone to drop off or pick me up at the local train station instead of the airport.

Your history is correct, and the auto and oil companies even encouraged and incentivized cities to abandon their electric trolly lines, in favor of gas-swilling, smoke belching internal combustible engines. It's really a combination of all the factors we both mentioned, and a whole lot more besides.

A big problem is that travel within cities and suburbs is one kind of transportation problem, and traveling between cities is a different kind of problem, and they often require different strategies and solutions that can be in conflict with each other. Regular trains and subways may work in the city, but not maglevs, which are better for long distance travel. So how do we have both, when new railways are hard to create, and the old ones are already crowded?

Add to that the simple fact that the sheer enormity of the country is an immutable variable that makes transportation alternatives necessary, but also very problematic.

I think a national bullet train infrastructure has to be America's next big improvement, if we could keep the oil companies and their stooges from stopping it.