2 ms·

The U.S. solution mostly is just not to have that level of population density. Most larger cities in Europe for example are old, laid out and built before the

The U.S. solution mostly is just not to have that level of population density. Most larger cities in Europe for example are old, laid out and built before the invention of the car. Before motorized transport, people mostly got places by walking. The point of a city is that you have lots of people that can all reach each other in a reasonable amount of time. If you have to walk, you have to get those people closer together. If you can drive, you can spread out more and still get reasonable travel times. A lot of big cities in the U.S. were mostly built out after the invention of the car, so they are built with cars in mind. The older ones mostly have semi-decent public transit available.

rickydroll 3y ago
I know the myth of European cities being more suited for walking but the reality is, it isn't. Even many's old city centers, it's one or two story buildings, tiny apartments, tiny expensive shops and has-beens preserve more for tourists than for living. I did see one exception. In Helsinki down by the harbor near the Estonian ferry, they are putting in 8-10 story apartment buildings. They are located on transit lines but does nothing but apartment buildings there. You have to take the tram to get to supermarket or medical facilities and the tram doesn't go that fast. It seems to me that effective public transit would require running a public transit vehicle (buses, trams) so that you never need to wait more than 15 minutes at any stop. Still would be horribly inefficient because you'd be doing lots of vehicle changes but at least you can get everywhere eventually.