3 ms·
It's fair. NYC is 8.8 million, bay area is 7 million. Tokyo is about double that. Not being negative. Being realistic. It's unfortunate that being realistic of
by ninetyninenine 2y ago
It's fair. NYC is 8.8 million, bay area is 7 million. Tokyo is about double that.
Not being negative. Being realistic. It's unfortunate that being realistic often is negative. Transit here is garbage. You either luck out and live and work near transit or you're like most people and have to drive.
A couple million in energy savings doesn't mean anything compared to the amount wasted by cars.
- verteu 2y agoSurely the relevant metric is population density?
- ninetyninenine 2y agoYou have the causal arrow backwards. A high density train network enables population density and high energy efficiency. At current population density all of our lives would improve if a network as dense as the tokyo metro appeared in the bay area over night.
- lswainemoore 2y agoThose are not the right population metrics to compare. If you're talking full Bay Area, you might as well talk NYC metro area (MTA claims to serve 15.3 million [1]). Tokyo's even trickier, but I think 36 million [2] seems closer to right. It's probably not worth arguing about too much, because ultimately I agree with you that there's a lot more to be done to reduce car ridership. But pointing at those places and saying "copy them" misses a lot of structural differences. [1] https://mta.info/about https://mta.info/about [2] https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/0056b6a98b8b4a48869f822d2c4edbf4 https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/0056b6a98b8b4a48869f822...