One thing I have learned from reading (and occasionally taking part in) these discussions is that no, it is not. The US is different. It is too big, too small, too densely populated, too sparsely populated, too hot, too cold, too dry and too humid for anything to work. It does not matter if something appears to work most everywhere else. It will not work anywhere in the US.

Ironically, it is actually hotter, it is actually colder, it's all of those things you sarcastically point out. Except being too small or dense, who told you that?

I'm from the American Midwest and I'm currently in Northern Europe. The difference is huge. The density issue of American suburbs is real, and the phenomenon is relatively rare globally. Go check out Google Earth. How do you not see it?

The weather is also more extreme in most places of the US than Europe. When Europeans tell people in Wisconsin to "just take an electric scooter to the metro station" they understandably laugh it off as ridiculous.

That's true for the Midwest but not necessarily for Boston. The temperature range is a bit larger in Boston but German cities can also have >100F weeks in summer and several weeks of snow in winter.

Snow is fine, but Boston will get 3 feet of snow, then an hour of freezing rain, and the next day it will be 45F. Winter is chaos

And that situation would literally just be business as usual in somewhere like Bangor or Buffalo. In Boston it's an excuse for half the city to call out of work and the MBTA to run trains "whenever we get around to it".

In Bangor or Buffalo there is very little "business as usual". Boston is far more dense and optimized with less slack in the system.

I bet that the activity in Boston when it is "shut down" due to weather is still busier than an average day in Bangor or Buffalo.

It's probably not much of a factor any longer but, for many years after the "Blizzard of '78", everyone knew someone who had to be evacuated from Route 128 or who got stuck at work for a week. A decade or so later I remember a friend who had moved to Boston recently remarking to me that they had never seen a northern city where people were so paranoid when the first snowflake fell.

It definitely created a mindset of really wanting to get home (or just staying there in the first place) if any amount of snow was forecast. Of course, it doesn't help that traffic is pretty bad even in nominal conditions. Every few years you still end up with a 6 hour commute home situation for many people.

Both those towns are small fries compared to Boston. Why not compare it to the Arctic?

Boston in particular is full of people who think the weather is super extreme in the winter. It's mostly a cultural identity thing with a side of massholes being pansies. It's probably easier to pander to them than to tell them they're wrong.

Source: masshole who has has lived in places with harsher climates

A bit cynical, but not unfair. Many people in the US persistently cling to the idea that solution implemented and working (albeit imperfectly) in other parts of the world will not work in the US due to XYZ.

Which in a way, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Solutions implemented in the rest of the world will not work in the US because most people don't believe they will, or that the US is not capable of radical change (that is, radical change not driven by an individual or a corporate desire for profit)

Well I mean comparing US to individual European countries usually ignores the fact that most of the countries quoted have homogenous population with numbers closer to large US cities like New York than the entire US. If you compare US to EU you see that EU is less rosy with it's own underdeveloped regions that and the difference between richest and poorest country in EU is probably worse than the difference between states in US, relocating between states in US is simpler, etc. etc. Also decision making at EU level Europe is waay harder than the US. So instead of talking US in aggregate why not do those changes state level where it makes sense - just like they are done in the Europe.

Europe is warmed by certain climate processes in the ocean, its indeed possible that a more northerly latitude like England or Iceland can in fact have less bad winter weather due to ocean currents. The Boston area does have more consistent solar illumination due to its southerly position, FWIW, so USA isn't all bad.

in other words those associated with the automobile industry and/or are anti middle class don’t want people to build a pedestrian friendly city.

It does look rainier than Munich, say: https://www.weather2travel.com/weather-comparison/?placename...

And maybe the street layout?

Nothing special to see from an European point of view...

Huh? Is Boston not the classic car-oriented USA city?

Yes and no. It's famously congested and challenging to drive in--one of the most expensive road infrastructure projects in the US ever (the "Big Dig") notwithstanding. But the downtown core as well as large parts of the adjacent Cambridge are actually pretty walkable and the public transit, subway in particular, is pretty decent. (Regular users rightly complain a lot about it, especially in winter, but then thats true of most cities including in Europe.)

I live about an hour outside of Boston and have to go in for a few days later this week and I'll be taking public transit.

Thank you, I was sure I heard about these massive congestion. I'm happy that the situation there is different than in the rest of US.

No, it's not. Most of the city, and close in suburbs like Cambridge and Somerville, were built before cars. This is one of the few places in the US where I'm happy living without a car.

No... I've never took my car into Boston when I've visited, I've always dumped the car at the train station.

no, too old for that (at least central boston).

When I visited I found transport to be very european compared to other US cities I have visited.

Boston is at 42.3601 N longitude, which is actually pretty far south-ish compared to Germany.

For comparison, Munich, Germany is 48.1351° N, Barcelona, Spain is 41.3851° N

Longitude in itself doesn't dictate weather. Labrador is the same longitude as London but we don't have similar climates.

Köppen climate classification is probably the best indicator of where else is similar; which comes out as the same as most of northern Europe [1].

1. https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather-summary.php3?s=9...

Latitude doesn't, you're right, though the map on the site you linked shows broad-strokes correlation, and I've found it helpful if I guess imprecise in illustrating general temperature differences.

The difference in summers - cool summer vs hot summer - is a big one, and I'd suggest that it makes Boston's climate not really the same as most of northern Europe. We haven't traditionally needed air conditioning in Germany, for example, while I understand Boston and New England (the upper mid-Atlantic and New York, surely, when I lived and visited there) come to rely on it during the summer months to not just live in puddles of sweat.

You mean latitude.

You're absolutely right (we both meant that)

That makes no sense. I’m in Atlanta but I’m pretty close to Saudi Arabia if you put the US over Europe. I can tell you I don’t live in a desert.

Chicago is comparable to Rome yet Rome rarely sees snow or the very cold windy weather Chicago is known for. You’re ignoring the whole jet stream.

Due to the ocean currents, i.e. cold water coming from the North on the US East coast, and hot water coming back from the South on the European West coast, it does not make much sense to compare latitude on the 2 sides of the Atlantic.

Famously(?) New York is at the same latitude that Naples, they definitely don't have the same climate.

Yes, as a European, I’m always amazed at how far south the northern US and even southern Canada really is.

With that said, those are latitudes, not longitudes.

>>With that said, those are latitudes, not longitudes.

Someone once told be a simple way to remember the difference. Longitude and latitude was first used be Greeks to travel the Mediterranean ocean (not sure if that is true, but helps with remembering); The Mediterranean ocean is long from East to West, so moving in the long direction changes the longitude.

My middle school geography teacher had a more memorable (to me) approach: lat = fat, so if you think of a fat person, their belt is the equator and latitude lines run parallel to it. Long = long hair, so if the Earth is positioned north-up, the hair (longitude lines) runs from top to bottom.

I was taught that latitude lines resemble the rungs of a ladder ("lat"-er, I suppose), or alternatively that longitude lines are all equally long.

I was taught think "longitude = long hair."