I guess, you've claimed that "SF should reinvent itself along these lines" in response to an article that specifically includes biking as part of its 15-min def

I guess, you've claimed that "SF should reinvent itself along these lines" in response to an article that specifically includes biking as part of its 15-min definition. I've suggested that in SF we probably largely already meet that definition, relying heavily on the "or" in "on foot, by bike, or on public transit". It sounds like you're now discounting a whole mode of transit that was repeatedly discussed in the article, on the basis of not being universally accessible. I would hasten to point out that not everyone walks or can take all public transit (BART elevators frequently being broken is an issue for wheelchair users, for example). > Plus biking in SF isn’t the same as biking in Manhattan. It's true SF has more hills. But why should Manhattan be the baseline? Wrt getting to necessities within 15m, I still think almost all of the city qualifies. We don't mostly put our grocery stores on hilltops, for example. I'll refine my point: even though SF does have a bunch neighborhoods which are set up to be residential, the city's small footprint means that without trying all that hard, people end up being close in absolute distances to the necessities of life anyway. I do think it's worth pointing out that Tokyo and Moscow each have literally >10x the population of SF. It's kind of an apples-and-oranges comparison; of _course_ they have more rapid public transit.