You then can live in a bike friendly city.
It is an indication that walk-and-bike interests are making good progress, and I'm glad to see it.
There's no good reason to phrase the question like that instead of filter the answers after the fact. The only reason is to get people thinking in a certain direction.
Regulations on marketing, campaign finance, and quid-pro-quo would go a long way in demolishing political hurdles between us and a lot of better things.
Even Seattle and NYC had parts that were very walkable, especially compared to LA.
But it’s hard for me to think of a city I’d rather walk between to random points in.
In the US? Sure. Now imagine a place where there are hundreds, thousands of cities that walkable or better, and you don't have to be a gazillionaire to live in one.
Based on my recent visit to New York, the main traffic issue I saw was really bad light timing. This trains both pedestrians and drivers to ignore the traffic signals.
Slef driving would probably make the car problem worse.
(BTW, I am lumping in biking with "walkable". A better term is "active travel")
Highways exists. There are two options. First, they divide country into two parts you cant cross on foot without taking long hike. Or, you build tunnels and bridges.
And that wasn't even the student part.
Go to SoDo, or parts of South Seattle, or North Seattle, and it’s much worse, and that’s just “Seattle proper.”
I guess people are being anti-car extremists in this thread, but still. SoDo? Land of concerts and events and dispensaries?
Not to mention plenty of cyclist deaths from people who have to cross SoDo to get where they’re going.
Bell St. is a park (albeit paved for vehicles), and it finally received signage about local-only car access:
https://mcusercontent.com/b6749cc9930b55a313056721e/images/2...
That image is from the latest Belltown United newsletter - https://www.belltownunited.org/
I'm a proud Belltown Community Council supporter/participant.