Why on earth would you compare Austin, which barely reaches city status with 900,000 people, nothing around it except farmland with European cities?

There are 2.4m people in the Austin metro area.

Ok, and what European city (greater metro area mind you) would you think is a good comparison?

Helsinki? Population 1,559,558.

Comparisons can be made between dissimilar things. The entire point of the comparison is that the cities are different.

Amsterdam is comparable population wise.

I compare Austin because I've been to Austin, so I saw it for my own eyes. I've been to a range of European cities (especially the UK where I live) and all of them were more walkable than Austin. I'm not the only person to observe this. There's a number of Youtube channels (Not Just Bikes for one) that talk about this in great depth.

People got around before cars existed, the ability for people to buy cars resulted in creating a system where they were needed. Now what would have happened if people couldn’t have afford cars? You don’t end up where we are today.

I lived within walking distance of my job and shopping for years near DC. To the point where I would go weeks without driving. But I didn’t sell my car and quickly went back to driving when it was even moderately less convenient.

Recognize that it's a fantasy for everyone to live near their job. As cities grow the mean distance between housing and job grows. It isn't so much social policy or cussedness or selfishness, as it is geometry.

We build cities based on peoples desires not some intrinsic need to separate jobs from homes, but that’s irrelevant here.

Both public transport and cars can both serve low density suburban commuters as demonstration by many cities around the world. America doesn’t lack public transportation because of it’s size, population density, layout etc, it’s simply people choosing driving consistently in how they vote, where they move, and what they do when given the option.

NYC doesn’t have good public transportation because New Yorkers are different, they have it because it’s the only option that scales.

That doesn't make the poor US city design the inevitable outcome, however. Not Just Bikes has some great videos outlining why US design is particularly shocking compared to other countries.

>It’s really hard for someone who hasn’t lived it to really understand what it means to be able to walk to the shop. Then compare to when that’s not physically possible.

I got you, friend. I grew up in the USSR, where private cars were luxury and public transit was so abundant that people referred to locations by the subway stations. The cities were designed for the citizens without cars (no parking anywhere, "microdistricts" in the newly built areas). It objectively sucks. I now live in the USA and can compare, if you have any questions I will be glad to explain what the life without a car is really like.

Until 2 years ago, I lived without a car and walked to work until 2018 (when I switched to remote working). I know the pros and cons. The USSR being shit doesn't make living without a car shit.

Even now, owning a car, I typically walk or ride. If I tried to do this in the USA, I'd be getting scraped off a stroad.

I imagine that if you work at home, have no children and have other people driving cars for you (delivery, taxi etc) it's not that bad. Not many people can afford this lifestyle though.

You didn’t read what I said: I only started WFH in 2018. I used to commute on foot before that.

My fiancé’s mother can’t drive and managed to raise 3 children by herself without a car, too. In the right environment, yes it is possible. No, she’s not rich by any stretch.

I did read it, I don't know what you wanted this to express but I understood it as the admission that walking to work became untenable. 2018 is not 2020, WFH then had a great income/career progression penalty.

And a whole lot of people managed to raise even more children before cars were invented or even horses were domesticated. Eg my gran-gran raised 3 children without running water and electricity (and obviously no horse or car), that does not mean she enjoyed it.

> I understood it as the admission that walking to work became untenable

I don't understand how you inferred that unless you chose to.

> And a whole lot of people managed to raise even more children before cars were invented or even horses were domesticated.

What on earth are you talking about? Either you've never been to London, or any major European city, or you're making spurious comparisons in bad faith.

You mentioned some woman raising children without a car as if it somehow supported your point, I pointed out that somebody doing something in the past is not a proof of that being somehow superior or even acceptable now. Even in the present time millions live and raise children without running water and electricity, should we start arguing that Americans need to quit these too because they cannot imagine living without them?

> It’s really hard for someone who hasn’t lived it to really understand what it means to be able to walk to the shop.

Every time you reply you only further prove this point.

> I pointed out that somebody doing something in the past is not a proof of that being somehow superior or even acceptable now.

Either you’re unable to understand my point because your English comprehension is terrible or you’re arguing in bad faith. Either way, talking to you is a waste of time.

Okay, I see you are being just combative. As I said I lived in the USSR and not as a single childless man working remotely and ordering deliveries too (I was a child myself though).