I live in a city with about 700,000 residents inside the official limits, and 3,000,000 residents in the metro. The nearest bus stop is approximately a quarter mile away.

With all due respect, the number of people who live in cities as dense as Tokyo are the minority, most of us don't.

No offense but if you think walking a quarter mile is a hindrance to access public transport then the car culture has done even more damage than I thought.

On the contrary, I think a quarter mile is perfectly reasonable for a public transit stop in my city. Sorry to suggest otherwise.

However, when I think about loading up my young children with all of their stuff, loading me up with everything I need, etc, and then dragging that down the street a quarter mile, then waiting for the bus, boarding it, riding to the transit center, transferring, riding another bus to the light rail station, riding that downtown, and then doing it all again the other direction... well, I'm pretty confident in my original point that the car is a hell of a lot more useful. Sure, you can exist with only the public transport option, but I was not asserting otherwise. But a lot of people on HN seem to think that not only is it possible, but that it is the superior choice.

So, no offense taken, in fact I appreciate you affirming my original comment about so many folks on HN commenting from the viewpoint of someone with a young, uncomplicated life :-).

Many people with kids do what you describe in cities. It's far better for everyone, and even if it's not the superior choice for an individual (though I'd contend it is when you adjust your lifestyle), it is the superior choice for everyone together as it avoids pollution, traffic gridlock and huge fuel inefficiencies.

As it is those with cars push off these negative externalities onto those who choose not to have them, or can't afford them. So your comfort does have a cost, which you don't pay directly.

Perhaps I'm sheltered or naive, but it seems to me that in a well designed system you shouldn't really have to take two bus connections to get to your nearest light rail station. More like zero, or one max if you live on the outskirts. This is how it is in London, and while I realize that's not a typically sized city, it's not unusually dense either. I think that kind of system is possible anywhere, it just requires motivation.

¼ mi is a 5min walk. Often you need to walk as far or further to and from the parked car. I literally yesterday just took 2 kids, a toddler and a baby, on a multi connection trip, and it's easy, simple, and less stressful then driving.

Also, tour last paragraph just makes you sound pompous and liek you have no intention of having a discussion but instead only wanting to put others with a different point of view down.

I think you're making it more complicated than it is in many places. In many you'd need not get in a bus at all, because the rail stations are dense enough to always be a couple blocks away. That requires having more than just 1 train line though, which is only really true in NYC (and maybe Chicago? You have to squint really hard for but to be the case even in sf) if you're looking in the us.

Nailed it.

A quarter mile to the closest route typically means a far more complex combination of transfers, each with its own delays, to actually get to your destination of choice.

A quarter of a mile is a long distance for a bus stop in a city with good transport. But sounds like your city doesn’t have enough transport density. Tokyo is pretty dense but its still not abnormal.