4 ms·

> What's silly is suggesting that "efficiency" is the only metric for quality of life. That's a straw man you introduced. Cities with fewer cars are more effic

> What's silly is suggesting that "efficiency" is the only metric for quality of life. That's a straw man you introduced. Cities with fewer cars are more efficient and have a higher quality of life. That comparison re: density is meaningless, and that number doesn't matter at all. Nobody's going to put Hong Kong type subways in the middle of the Nevada desert where that average gets pulled down. Only New York and Chicago really have proper transit and that's only downtown. There's no reason for car ownership to be higher in SF or NY or DC or Chicago than in Hong Kong except inadequacy of transit. You'll notice that all the most liveable cities in the world have excellent transit and none of them are in America [1] [1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-most-and-least-livable-cities-in-2022/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-most-and-least-l...

Turing_Machine 4y ago
> Cities with fewer cars are more efficient and have a higher quality of life. Sure thing. That's why everyone who can possibly manage it moves to the suburbs when they have kids. Because they're looking for "lower quality of life" and a less "livable" environment for their kids. Note that Europeans do this too. P.S. I can assure you that Calgary, #3 on this list, has plenty of cars. > There's no reason for car ownership to be higher in SF or NY or DC or Chicago than in Hong Kong except inadequacy of transit. Except that people enjoy having a personal vehicle that goes where they want, when they want, and also enjoy not dodging junkies and drunks pissing in the subway cars and shaking them down for money.