"Low density" just means that the entire area is covered in asphalt. That's not what well designed looks like.
Yes, and?
> That's not what well designed looks like.
It is more flexible, people-friendly, enables better living. So yeah, "well designed".
Unless you’re one of those people who can’t drive?
That indeed is the biggest problem. Waymo is already solving it in SF, though.
People can't afford to spend $20 every time they want to go anywhere.
The thing is, a transit trip's true cost is also around $20 in SF and Seattle. It's just that perverse incentives hide it from users.
Waymo taxis deserve the same level of subsidies. It won't be happening any time soon because it'll be a death knell for transit, and will leave thousands of city employees without work.
This isn’t true, unless you’re willing to consider the subsidies that cars get when it comes to putting in and maintaining roads and doing urban planning around half the city being car surfaces.
Yup. Wide roads, plenty of parking, distributed industry and office space, low density.