• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    161 year ago

    The title could be cities with good vs bad city planning. All the green cities are designed to force people to use cars, because they made everything so spread out with little to no public transportation. The red cities are built properly with public transportation to help people get around.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      Or bad vs worse city planning. I was surprised to see so many upstate NY cities on the low car ownership list. They do have some public transport but can still be pretty tough without a car. Though they’ve all had some efforts to rein in some failed urban renewal projects like bulldozing unnecessary freeways, and some attempts at improving walking and biking experiences.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        I imagine that it has to do with the age of those cities. They were established before cars, so the older parts were designed to get around easier. At least that’s what I assume, because virtually all the cities with low car ownership are in New England.

    • SokathHisEyesOpen
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Have you been to Los Angeles? It’s not so much that it was poorly designed as it is that it just never stopped growing. Los Angeles county is 4753 square miles.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Yeah, I went on a road trip a long time ago. I remember it was almost all highway with tons of cars without a good public transport system. They knew they were growing and could have held off the heavy traffic with commuter trains and a substantial public transport system.

        Sure there’s a system already in place in LA, though I’m sure there’s room for improvement.