> I'd argue that it's not really a big city if there's a constant need to Lyft to your destinations. If that is your metric, then there isn't a single big city

> I'd argue that it's not really a big city if there's a constant need to Lyft to your destinations. If that is your metric, then there isn't a single big city in the US aside from NYC (and, maaaaybe, Chicago). With all other big cities in the US, you can technically get away by using public transport exclusively, but with a really giant caveat - your place of living, your place of work, and all the other places you would want to visit are all, by sheer luck, located near public transport routes. There is a non-zero number of people in this situation, but it requires a great deal of luck and specific choices to be made for that to happen. To be more specific, I will use Seattle as an example. We have a solid lightrail and bus system, and the expansion of lightrail has been going great. Public transport covers a lot of places and areas one might need or want to go to. But it doesn't cover an even larger amount of places/areas. I personally know plenty of people here who live without cars, and even the most pro-public-transport of them resort to Uber/Lyft fairly often. Not as a time-saving activity, but out of necessity.