I’ve heard the legends of having to drive to literally everywhere (e.g. drive thru banks), but I have no clue how far apart things are.
I live in suburban London where you can get to a big supermarket in 10 minutes of walking, a train station in 20 minutes and convenience stores are everywhere. You can get anywhere with bus and train in a few hours.
Can someone help a clueless British lemmyposter know how far things are in the US?
EDIT
Here are my walking distances:
- To the nearest convenience store: 250m
- To the nearest chain supermarket: 350m
- To the bus stop: 310m
- To the nearest park: 400m
- To the nearest big supermarket: 1.3km
- To the nearest library: 1.2km
- To the nearest train station: 1km
Straight-line distance to Big Ben: 16km
One thing that deserves special note is the US, aside from being more spread out in general, has a lot more sprawling suburbs with downtown areas…if you live near the downtown, then everything is walkable, but maybe 20% of a towns population in any given suburb will be that close, and thats a generous estimate.
As an American who has lived in the EU, walking / biking like you can do there just plain is not possible for MOST of the US. As other have mentioned, if you live in a major city, or in the center of a suburb, then it may not be so bad.
On a similar note, this sprawl is the same reason that public transport on the EUs level isnt viable in the US…there would need to be too many stops and too many routes to get decent coverage, and when you math it out, having cars is the most economical decision for most of the country.
- Nearest market: 600m
- Nearest big supermarket: 5.2km
- Nearest bus stop: 5km
- Nearest park: 1km
- Nearest library: 1.6km
- Nearest train station: 26km
Having a small market so close is a massive improvement from my previous address, where the only option was a big supermarket 3.9km away.
Walking distance is only part of this equation.
We have no sidewalks and I would need to cross a 6 lane interstate if I were to go to the “closest” anything.
So first of all, the US is big and diverse, if you hop in a car and drive from New York to LA without stopping, taking the fastest route, mostly on major highways, averaging out to something like 60+mph (about 100 km/h) you’re still going to be spending just about 2 days in the car.
And in between, you’re going to see a little bit of everything, mountain, plains, forest, farms, huge dense urban cities, towns small enough you can barely even call them a town, suburban sprawl, massive industrial facilities, you name it you’re going to see it.
Overall, if you live in an urban area, the situation may not be too bad, cities are somewhat walkable, there’s public transportation that will usually get you fairly close to where you need to go, there may even be protected bike lanes, etc. although the situation will vary wildly from one city to another.
It will even vary from one part of the city to another. You can have large sections of the city where there’s no real grocery stores or other places to get your basic necessities, and you’re pretty much limited to whatever you can get from corner stores, bodegas, convenience stores, etc. (mostly pre-packaged and processed foods, and if you’re lucky maybe a couple pieces of fresh fruit) and if you want anything more than that you’re probably looking at taking a few hours out of your day to walk a significant distance to a store or take public transit that may not go exactly where you need it, may be slow, expensive, or just a pain in the ass to deal with, etc.
Getting out into the suburbs, it’s again kind of a crapshoot. There are some walkable suburbs, with wonderful shopping options, there’s some that are a maze of residential developments and gated communities that come off of major roads with no sidewalks or even shoulders worth speaking of and you’re taking a significant gamble trying to walk anywhere from there. There may be little or no public transportation and if there is it may not be going anywhere you need to go, or be convenient to get onto
Personally, I live towards the rural end of the suburbs, about an hour or less from a major city depending on traffic.
Damn near everything I could ever want or need is within about a half hour drive, and most of I commonly need is covered within about 15 minutes.
If I don’t have a car though, my options drop off significantly. I’m looking at an hour walk one way to get to a grocery store, mostly along a long winding road with little or no shoulder and few streetlights. The only things I would really feel safe to walk to are 2 pizza shops, a small hardware store, a bar, a CVS, and gas station/convenience store, those last 2 are going to be about a half hour or longer walk, and along that winding road, but it’s a stretch that at least has a half decent shoulder and some lawns to walk on for most of the way.
If you have a bike, there’s a decent bike trail that will get you to some more shopping options, but it’s about an hour’s ride one way.
If you need to catch public transit, you’d have to walk about 2 hours to catch a bus, that line basically runs straight up and down a main road between the city and a larger, urban-ish town further out in the suburbs. There’s not many options to transfer to anywhere else along the way but there’s a lot along that route so if you can get to that bus most of your needs will be covered, but it doesn’t run super frequently and it’s not going to get you anywhere in a hurry.
Getting out into rural America, you have some small towns that are functionally self-contained, with their own grocery stores and other shopping options in-town within walking distance. Your options are limited but for the most part everything you really need is right there in town.
If you don’t work in town though, and often people in these areas don’t, they may be involved in farming, logging, oil/natural gas, construction, etc. and may work many miles from town, you’re pretty much screwed if you don’t have a car, or at least can count on carpooling with a coworker.
There’s other small towns where there just isn’t much of anything at all, maybe they have a gas station and a liquor store, and if you need anything else you’re SOL, in some cases you may be looking at an hour or more drive to get to anything else so you can forget about walking.
Regardless of where/what kind of area you find yourself in, transportation between cities is often going to be an issue. You can probably catch a Greyhound bus or maybe Amtrak or similar between most major cities, though you may have to get a little creative with figuring out your route, but if you’re trying to get to the smaller towns in between you may not have much luck.
There are, of course, nearly as many exceptions and special cases to everything I said as there are individual towns and cities.
Distance isn’t the only factor to consider. The infrastructure is also very important for determining if a short distance is walkable.
This YouTube channel has lots of great info on the topic https://youtube.com/notjustbikes and this video in particular demonstrations that not even all short distances are necessarily walkable in the US https://youtu.be/uxykI30fS54 @ 4:30 he begins to show a 800m walk in Houston from his hotel to a store.
I live on the edge of a small town. Google numbers:
- To the nearest convenience store: 4.7km, 1hr 4min walk
- To the nearest chain supermarket: 21km, 4hr 38min walk
- To the nearest bus stop: 18km, 4hr 7min walk
- To the nearest park: 3.4km, 47 minute walk
- To the nearest library: 4.7km, 1hr 3min walk
- To the nearest train station: 20km, 4hr 31 minute walk
I live in NYC. It’s one of the few large places in the US that’s dense and not completely car focused.
Convenience store: 5 minute walk to several
Supermarket: several within 10 minute walk
Pharmacy: several within 10 minutes on foot
Library: I think there’s two within 10-15 minutes walking
Restaurants: several within 10 minutes on foot
Subway: about 5 minute walk. There’s also a bus stop there.
Very large park: 15 minutes or so
I never want to live somewhere where I need a car again. Someone I was talking to at a party the other day was like “I love having my car it’s so much freedom” and I’m like aside from needing to fuel, maintain, insure, and store it I guess.
It depends what region your in.
City: depends where you live, i.e. how close to “downtown” you are. A lot of stuff is walking distance, but not everything. You could walk to school and get some basic food or a pharmacy. Probably need a car/bus for work or larger grocery trips.
Suberbs/town, you might be able to walk to convince store or to school/library, everything else is going to be a car or about a 30min walk. That being said, sometimes you’re “deep” in the suberb and the nearest convince store is a 20-40 min walk.
Rual/farm: you need a a car to visit your neighbors. Nearest grocrey is a 30 min drive away.
I live in a semi rural area. My closest grocery store is 10km, but it’s down the interstate, meaning even if I wanted to walk it, I couldn’t. Without using the interstate it’s about 15km.
My closest convenience store is only 7km, but the road i live on is not safe for walking (lots of blind curves, no sidewalks)
My nearest bus stop is 60 kilometers away, in my nearest city.
Nearest library is about 4 km past the convenience store, so 11ish klicks
Nearest train station is give or take 300 kilometers. We don’t really have any train service here.
Straight line distance from me to big Ben, give or take 6,500 kilometers
It’s not necessarily how far things are, it’s that you need a car to get to places in a sensible way.
I’m a fellow Brit, but have stayed in suburban US enough to have experienced how different it is. You might have a supermarket a couple of miles away, but if you want to attempt to walk there, you’ll often be going well out of your way trying to find safe crossing points or even roads with paved sidewalks.
Train stations are mostly used for cargo in most US cities. If you don’t have a car, you’re pretty much screwed.
Some cities are different. NYC being the obvious one. You can get about there by public transport pretty easily in most places there. San Francisco is another city that is more doable without a car, but more difficult than NYC.
I stayed near Orlando not too long ago and there it’s just endless surburban housing with shops and malls dotted about mostly along the sides of main roads. You definitely need a car there.
Denver isn’t great with public transport either. There’s at least a minimal light rail system and buses go pretty much everywhere, so that’s the good part, but the city is so sprawled out that unless your destination is a direct route you’re looking at an hour or more to exclusively use public transport. And that’s really the main city. Start getting out into the expanded metro area and there’s not many choices except for a handful of spur rail or bus lines.
It’s a lot more than many American cities, especially on paper, but in practice it’s pretty rough to use as a primary transport.
Most bus systems in American cities are for people to get to work and back home. Trying to take it to, for instance, a friend’s house, and you’re generally going to spend about 4x the time it’d take to drive there.
Rural American here. We drive 30 mins to the nearest bigish city to do all of our grocery shopping every weekend.
Corner store with basics: 5 min Supermarket: 15 min Restaurants: 5 min Park: 3 min Bus stop: 5 min Library: 15 min Local rail: 20 min Regional/National rail: 40 min
All walking distances. I live in a neighborhood that was designed before cars existed so it’s more like Europe in terms of distances/amenities. Except our transit infrastructure is shit.
As you might note, the busier and more dense a city is, the closer things can be yet the longer it takes to get somewhere per unit of distance. Unless you walk. Sometimes you’re out in the burbs and something’s 10 miles away but it’ll take you less than 10 mins to get there.
Here are my walking distances:
- To the nearest convenience store (gas station): 800m
- To the nearest chain supermarket: 1600m
- To the bus stop: 640m
- To the nearest park: 213m
- To the nearest *big* supermarket: 4.3km
- To the nearest library: 2.7km
- To the nearest train station: 1.4km
Straight-line distance to Big Ben: 5890km
Great question. London is amazing for being able to walk around, and has amazing transit. I honestly love your city, and may move there someday for it. This is mostly because London embraced transit in the early 20th century.
America went the other way, and embraced the car, and that pushed for the “American Dream”. Suburbs became the normal, where people wanted an independent house farther away from the city. From there bred new problems, people needed to be able to drive their car there, which meant we needed more parking, which meant that things became further and further away.
You can actually blame parking for most of America’s sprawl. Parking eats up a ton of space, and requires large roads to get people where they need to go and then massive parking lots for people to park their cars. Parking lots you can’t even understand in your London mind. Then there are new problems - the parking lots are so massive that now you can’t even walk to the building next door because it’s half a mile just to walk to that place! So people get in their cars to drive across the street to park in the next place. This isn’t exaggerated, that’s just how it is. Take a look at this shopping center in Des Moines, a city where I grew up.
Americans designed cities for cars, not people. There is no way that areas like that were built for humans to move around in, it was built for people to drive to. Greenspace or walkways are not a thing, you are meant to park, walk for hundreds of meters to the front of the door, shop, and then get back in your car and drive across the big street to go to dinner. (To boot, most places won’t let you leave your car either, if you’re done shopping you need to move it).
The real problem is that this is all by design. We kill so much space in our cities so that drivers feel more comfortable. Honestly, I really appreciate London and how well they’ve done. Remember all of this next time your PM wants to “make it easier for drivers”. No. Fuck the drivers. They’re driving their huge metal car into your city, and wanting to have it take up space all so they don’t have to walk or take a train/bus. They should have to pay extra for renting space from the city.
Amazing video on why parking is so freaking stupid in America: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUNXFHpUhu8
I think there is one thing backwards here, the US didnt embrace the car which lead to suburbs, but embraced suburbs which lead to using cars. The decision (which really wasnt a conscious one, more just the way it worked out) is based entirely on the vast geography of the country. We have the extra space, so we used it, and needeing cars followed.
The older cities in the US that were built based on European standards all have fairly excellent public networks (NYC, Boston, Philly, etc)
Does America not have places like British retail parks? Where the parking lot is basically shared by all the large shops which are then shoulder to shoulder with each other? Maybe that’s what a mall is. Though I was under three impression the shops were constrained for size there.
Maybe close to our strip mall, where q bunch of retail is in a strip of stores. It’s slightly better than the image I showed, but I wouldn’t call it walkable. You can at least walk to the next store, but you still are surrounded by parking, and usually on a large road, usually on the outskirts of town so you have to drive there. Then if another strip mall is built than that is the same as the picture I showed, where now you have to walk a mile to get across the parking lots, usually down the road several blocks distance to actually find a safe crossing, and then cross another massive parking lot.
We also have malls, which I always laugh at because they’re trying to simulate what we don’t have - a walkable neighborhood. Everybody loved them because they simulated the small shops and actually walking around, but surrounded again by miles of parking and again usually outside of town, so the only way to get there is driving.
(And if your wondering, transit “exists” in that image, in that there’s one bus stop for that whole area on a route that last I checked runs once every two hours during weekdays, ending at 7pm)
The lack of public transport is something I just can’t get my head around. Most British towns shopping centres are also transport hubs. People still complain about buses etc but they’re somewhat comparing it to London where many routes have 5-10 buses an hour and where any new major shopping areas will be sat on top of a tube or rail station. Britain still has large retail park carparks but you’ll almost always find them served by a handful of bus routes. I don’t think I’d ever be able to give up the combo of being able to walk 2 mins to the corner shop or hop the bus for ten mins for almost anything else.
Welcome to my primary frustration. It only takes most people to try a real city with real public transit to realize they actually like cities. Cities are fearmongered here in the states, people think they’re high crime, they’re dirty, they’re not easy to get to, and frankly I firmly believe most of that is because of our transit. Cities are hard to get to because most of them require cars to get to. Those with actual fun downtown (that don’t have good transit) involve people parking somewhere and walking around. Vegas and San Antonio are great examples.
San Antonio here, a place I genuinely had a good time in - once I parked and I could walk around. The city core is incredibly walkable - but it’s surrounded by freeways that cut neighborhoods off from each other.Having things so distant and making it hard to get into the cities makes people not want to go there, which deteriorates the city core - which then crime becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. By leaving the downtown core and never going - they unintentionally make crime worse.
There’s actually a really interesting theory here in the states. People really remember fondly going to college (Uni for you brits ;)), mostly because they always had a group of friends around, they would meet up for meals, go out for drinks, and they were all in the dorms. Then they graduate and most move out to the suburbs. The theory is - do they miss college? Or do they miss having a truly walkable neighborhood, with most things nearby? Friends that they can just see when they’re out walking around? A transit system that helps them get around their neighborhood easily.
How we move around fascinates me, and I think it’s a huge reason for a lot of social issues we face here in the states. I’ll go as far as most of them. I’ll take a very extreme example. Our culture’s racism would be inherently better with better transit. There’s reasons why more urbanized cores are more open to other people and cultures - it’s because we’re normalized to it. We see people every day and know they’re just like us. In suburban and rural america you aren’t exposed to other people. Even if you go to work you’re alone in your car, you don’t experience being around others. Having something like the Tube makes it a natural gathering place, where you experience everyone around you, and a lot of those prejudices can easily fall away just by being around people.
That turned out longer than I thought! Thanks for reading this far if you did :)
London (like much of Western Europe) was heavily demolished during WWII, so had to rebuild.
While during the same period the US was the opposite - it had an explosion of manufacturing growth during WWII, and having it dispersed made sense in numerous ways - it’s where the population was, or where space was available to easily expand, or where certain resources were, or even was far enough away from population for safety reasons (see uranium enrichment at Rocky Flats northwest of Denver, which is now largely an open space because you simply can’t reclaim that soil with all the uranium dust buried in it). You can see this in many cities where the old industrial areas are being reclaimed and converted to housing, shopping, entertainment, etc.
So you have 19th century engineering used during massive manufacturing growth ((because it was established and many older engineers (beyond draft age) had years of experience with it) in the US, while Europe saw destruction of lots of 19th century (and earlier) development.
Rebuilding happened during the mid-20th. So why wouldn’t you use the newest engineering.
In the US I once worked at a company manufacturing leather belts for factories that still had drive shafts running equipment. They were also using lathes from WWII, because it was precise enough for the assembly line machinery which was similar in age. Upgrading would cost more than it was worth (this was in the early 2000’s). I suspect their entire plant was built during WWII.
One way to look at it - in land space, the US is equivalent to 16 western OECD countries. Comparing a single European country to the US is meaningless. Better to compare most of the EU, and even then historical events, and political borders make for very different results.
Sure, there are a dozen reasons for why we went one route and they went another. I’m not declaring “why” it happened, but these things happened differently in each country, stirring in a few other nicely added oil and gas collusion (like buying up US transit and tearing it up to make more room for cars and throwing in some fearmongering causing white flight out of cities to suburbs) and we get where we are.
We had more space, but in terms of cities it’s the same thing. Other people are comparing the space in terms of country size. I’m talking about space in terms of city size and shape. London rebuilt during that time, during that time our cities were growing. Both were building for different reasons, and we both chose radically different approaches.
Just because we have more space doesn’t mean that we use it well - or that we even needed to. Our cities sprawl because of stupid politics like minimum parking. London could continue sprawling, Paris could, many many cities could. Our politics actively encouraged it, and now we have giant ugly sprawling 1 story garbage everywhere.
I love how London made most residential roads 20mph so I can bike without feeling like I’m about to be crashed into at any second
The average American thinks that if roads are too dangerous for bikers, then bikers shouldn’t be allowed to drive on them. This is preferable to reducing the speed limit…that people will ignore anyway.
I just tried to bike for the first time in my neighborhood. For half of the road there was a bike lane, and it was a ton of fun! Then that section ended and I had to merge with traffic - where I had cars swerving around me and making me feel like I somehow inconvenienced them.
That was an interesting read. Are you aware of any cities or towns which are built in a more European style with pedestrians in mind? I’m actually considering a few jobs in the states right now but I’m quite put off by how car reliant everything is.
Oh man, those are the hard questions. The short answer - no. You’re not going to find anything in the US even remotely close. What you’re going to want to look for is transit usage. How often and easily do people take transit? Here’s a helpful map for you to see how people get to work.
There is one and only one city that I could consider “close” to European cities in terms of being able to be as pedestrian as Europe, and that’s New York. There are others that are close and have decent transit. Chicago has the CTA and is relatively good if you live near the city center. Philly I hear has decent transit, again try to live near a stop rather than the suburbs. I’m in Seattle, and our transit system is growing rapidly - but most trips still require a car. We’re looking at going from a 2 car household down to a 1 car - but the system has to expand. (Even then it’s only 2 light rail lines and then bus).
Here’s a good video for you on Houston from NotJustBikes on Houston, and what it’s like to live there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54
I don’t know who did it, but there was a list of cities in the US with the amount of space used for car parking. I think Tulsa, OK was something like 2/3rds of their downtown land was devoted to parking.
It’s one of those things that once you see it, you can’t unsee it. It takes up so much space - and our downtowns are our most precious land that we have as a society. It’s where everyone wants to get to, it’s where we want businesses to open up and things to do, and we park cars on it. I know I come off as very anti-car, and I guess I am in some ways - but european cities have cars. They just don’t use them for 100% of their trips. Heck I drive, but when I go downtown I park at my local park and ride and take the train into the city
I never knew Boston was designed for cars (yes, that’s sarcasm, Boston is known for its roads being enlarged footpaths dating back hundreds of years, some of which started as paths that animals took).
The US is much more complex than such a simple statement. US cities, historically, weren’t so much designed as grew. And I still see that today. My town, a suburb of a city, was established about 1860 (140 years ago), when there was empty space between it and the city - farmland.
It certainly wasn’t “designed for cars” that didn’t exist at the time. The town I grew up in existed before cars.
And I’ve seen this all over the place. The cities grow until they run into small towns, which then become suburbs of the city. These small towns were often agriculture based (or manufacturing based), because farms need to take their cop to the train, the train stop ends up growing a town.
The only “designed” city I can think of is one in Maryland. There are others, but cities aren’t “designed” - that implies an over-arching plan. Cities are organic, they grow.
If you want to make a “design” argument, Western Europe is much more in line with this idea, since so much infrastructure was destroyed by two successive world wars over 20 years, and the reconstruction with “modern” engineering and design that took place starting in the 1950’s.
I was going to say if it was built before 1950 then it was probably better, but even then most cities were in fact radically changed and altered by the car. Even Boston was radically changed, bulldozing entire neighborhoods just so they could build the interstates through. (Those neighborhoods were mostly minorities of course, even in Boston if you look up where they decided was the “best” locations for the interstates guess whose neighborhoods were affected) - and even then those car-centric design decisions are still reverberating today. Look at Boston’s number one infrastructure project over the last 30 years - The Big Dig. Purely 100% because cars were a focus. Even now it’s still designed as a car centric approach because the entire “park” they put up is surrounded by a massive boulevard that you have to cross, surrounded by car noise.
Small towns too were radically altered by the car. Where small towns had hubs near the train station where people would get on now sprawl was not just there - but encouraged. Why live in the center of town when you could go live on the outskirts away from people?
So yes, your argument of “But cities were built before” - yes, many were. That doesn’t mean that we didn’t destroy huge portions of them just to accommodate drivers.
So I’ll amend my statement: Cities were bulldozed and rebuilt for the car.
Good Armchair Urbanist video about The Big Dig and Boston’s interstates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pPKfzzL54
