3 ms·
London and New York are built for people, not cars. It makes sense to use public transit where the city is dense, walkable, and well connected with transit line
by yason 11y ago
London and New York are built for people, not cars. It makes sense to use public transit where the city is dense, walkable, and well connected with transit lines. Commuting by car in London is lunacy whereas in Bay Area it's the only sensible thing to do.
- enjo 11y ago"whereas in Bay Area it's the only sensible thing to do." Which is a failure of policy in the Bay Area.
- nikanj 11y agoTo be fair, the Bay has much worse weather than London or New York. Of course people want to remain within their cars. /s
- ars 11y ago> London and New York are built for people And people drive cars. So all cities are built for people. (Or did you think the cars drove around for fun on their own?) The actual difference is they are simply very large cities. So they can afford transit that would be impossible in smaller cities. You can not replicate what they do in other cities that are not as large (large measured in population density mainly). There is nothing unique about their design other than being large. They have the same level of roads as any other city. (And personally I have zero desire to walk anywhere, and I hate living in dense crowded cities. So I avoid living in - or even going to - cities that promote either of those things.)
- icebraining 11y agoThe article is about "highly urbanized areas", though, with the analysis being focused on D.C., Miami, Seattle, San Francisco, and New York.
- sundaeofshock 11y agoLots of people in the Bay Area use mass transit. The majority San Francisco residents (for example) commute by walking, biking or mass transit.