Hacker News Reader

Comment by CharlieDigital | Hacker News Reader

I was back in Taiwan last year after an extended absence.

It's pretty amazing how easy it is to get around with a combination of the mass rapid transit (MRT) system and high speed rail (HSR).

When I was last there, you still needed to take a bus or taxi from TPE to the city center. Now right from TPE airport, you can be in either Taipei city center in 30 minutes (MRT) or on the other end of the island in short order (HSR). Which is kind of fun because the southern end of the island has a totally different vibe.

Within Taipei, you can get to where you need to using the MRT and walk (fun because there's so many interesting nooks and back alleys anyways) or use bike rentals. There's also abundant buses as well connecting from the MRT stations.

Taichung has a single MRT line that connects east to west right off of the HSR line.

Kaohsiung has a few MRT lines and surface light rail that connect the major attractions.

All of it quite cheap to get around, incredibly clean and well maintained, and just all around made it much more enjoyable wandering the city.

The only time we felt the need for a car was visiting the more remote north/east coasts and only because we wanted to save time versus waiting for the slower trains that run those routes.

Whenever I land in SFO, I wonder who's bright idea it was to not have an easy connector to CalTrain at Milbrae (or I'm doing something wrong -- I feel like I don't fully understand the right way to get to Milbrae from SFO). Then on weekends, there's barely any service so if you land on a Sunday for a business trip, you'll waste so much time waiting for the train.

Indeed, it is jarring when we returned to the US.

View on HN

I've lived in a number of cities across three continents and I tend to think that the idea of a "car-free" city is a quintessentially North American overreaction to a quintessentially North American problem.

Like yes Wired we know that the suburb and the American commute have some serious downsides and the US leaned way too much into this model during a period of high population growth.

However it's not like other approaches to urban planning have no downsides. I personally like the Asian model of high density and mixed use zoning but here are some realities that come with it: noise, more pollution, more construction, less space, commercial usage pushing up land values etc.

There is no one size fits all so I tend to think most US cities would benefit from just dialing back the size of some of the suburban wastelands out there, keeping density low to medium and re-zoning to allow certain less intrusive types of businesses. One compact urban core, a low to medium density mixed use ring and a suburban fringe perhaps. Yes people are still going to need to cars in this city but a lot of commutes, shopping trips etc. are likely to get shorter.

For somewhere like San Francisco there's probably a great argument for the type of development you see in Taipei or Tokyo where you lean heavily into commuter rail and the train stations become big multi-use complexes and the center(s) of your city. But this is a huge reorganization of people's lives and existing property development that there's going to be a lot of pushback against and it's not all going to be nimbyism.

    > But this is a huge reorganization of people's lives and existing property development that there's going to be a lot of pushback against and it's not all going to be nimbyism

If anything, I feel like Taiwan's model should prove that you can do it anywhere precisely because it was already so dense and built up on top of being in an area with very high seismic activity. It's not like they could find a lot of room to build massive stations on the surface. You barely notice the underground MRT stations at all aside from stair arches that pop out of the ground[0]. If they can make it work in a city as dense and populated as Taipei, it feels like it ought to be possible anywhere.

And on the contrary, being close to an MRT line tends to drive up the price of housing in the area given it seems a strong selling point for the folks that live and work in the city. I think the real root cause is that US society is not egalitarian enough to make this work.

[0] Examples: https://maps.app.goo.gl/JS8WEKhKmiVMGWCF6, https://maps.app.goo.gl/mXFjKiAQ8Vf47SAG8

I can't speak to the history of Taipei specifically, I did visit for a month (loved it) and I currently live in the center of a different Asian megalopolis.

I can say a lot of these places became what they are by bulldozing a lot of medium-density shophouses and destroying a lot of local businesses and tightly knit communities that most people including myself would consider really charming places to live.

They replaced them with places where far fewer people can afford a space large enough to raise kids comfortably and where everyone around you is a stranger.

Now I enjoy the big dense city lifestyle, I like the awesome public transit, I like the massive selection of businesses and services and basically everything, but it's not for everyone and I couldn't see myself raising a family in the middle of it, which eventually if you want your country's population to not collapse, you need people to do somewhere.

I think also considering some of the massive redevelopments that have happened in Asia over the years, you would see massive pushback in the US from essentially an individual rights point of view if you were to try to do that.

It feels like it needs to have the right mix of transit to make it work.

Wife and I both agreed that we preferred Kaohsiung to Taipei if we were to live in Taiwan. With the HSR, it would be about the equivalent of my commute from Princeton to NYC.

But that's precisely the problem, isn't it? It doesn't pay to build a subway when you don't have enough density. Most other forms of transit also get stuck in traffic.

It's tricky too, because a lot of "low density suburban wastelands" was already significantly phased out over a decade ago, in a lot of the US anyway.

People hear "suburbs" and imagine a single-family home on 1 to 2+ acre lots -- something that looks like this -> https://st2.depositphotos.com/1658611/5485/i/950/depositphot... . And while that definitely still happens, it's really limited to the exurbs in the US these days, it's not representative of newer suburbs anymore.

The primary style of suburban development built since say 2010 in the US, has really been more like 5 single-family homes on 1 acre, or 10 townhouses on 1 acre, or equivalent. Something that looks like this -> https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/modern-suburbs-17207940.jpg or this -> https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/0... -- which is anywhere from 5x to 20x higher density per acre.

This is true, but that model of suburban development still tends to push necessities out of walking or even biking distance. I visited my folks in the Des Moines suburbs while they were out there and it was an hour's walk to almost anything bigger than a corner store. Of which I found, I think, one that was closer than that.

If we go by your parent's photos, my main beef with these neighborhoods is there's no commercial development. There should be (light) commercial development.

I am a big fan of the Asian shophouse. You can open a restaurant or a convenience store or a small clinic or whatever class of local service business isn't going to be too disruptive on the bottom floor of your residential property. You need to own and operate it, it can't be someone from outside the community. People eat, shop and live together and spend more locally. Small businesses get easier to create. Everyone has neighbors again. People walk two blocks down instead of driving 30 minutes to Walmart. Yes I'm stacking multiple social agendas here.

You probably do have to go towards medium density for this to be viable but maybe if you don't you still end up with people taking a lot of 10 minute car rides instead of 30-40 minute ones and then it's still a win in my book.

You described pretty well my almost-suburban New England spot. I walk everywhere, because there's stuff everywhere. There's a guy down the street who built an add-on to his house and his wife runs a convenience store out of it. It's great. The problem is that there are (particularly American? I don't know) pathologies around ejecting from the idea of a community that you see in even those relatively tight-packed suburbs, and what you describe, while great, flies against that.

My parents (who are themselves not really the sort of folks you'd expect in an urban core, ha) didn't last in Iowa very long. They moved back to New England and while they live on like three acres now, they're friendly with all their neighbors in a way even I'm not in my relatively approachable community.

> There should be (light) commercial development.

There is. (both example pictures above have a commercial development less than 10 minutes walk away).

The problem is that there isn't enough commercial need for every single development to have it's own commercial block -- we already have a large overabundance of commercial space in the US as it is, adding even more of it inside each residential development doesn't magically spring forth a business to fill it.

(this is true even at city-level densities -- as lots of urban 5-over-1 developments are struggling to keep their ground-level commercial/retail units sustainably filled)

And since we do need more housing, pressure builds to just convert the commercial back into residential anyway...

Some new developments in the US are "mixed use" which emulates what you described.

My first thought looking at that first "new suburb" photo was: where's the sidewalk? And the second photo has sidewalks but no visible amenities.

Sure they're denser, and townhouses are at least less materials-intensive to build, but I'm curious how this is otherwise an improvement on the old planning model of swathes of detached homes?

> I'm curious how this is otherwise an improvement on the old planning model of swathes of detached homes?

It's not. (Or at least, I'm not arguing it's better). My only point is that "more density" isn't the magic bullet fix people sometimes think it is -- because the US is doing a lot more density than we historically have in the past 60-ish years, and it's not meaningfully different in terms of lifestyle or planning.

If you want good alternative public transit, you have to just decide to build it first, and you kind-of have to do it almost everywhere nearby. (not just Division St, not just Woodward Ave, not just Hiawatha Ave, etc).

"Crank up density" doesn't magically result in a "car-free" city. You can't townhouse your way into having the Chicago Elevated, you have to actually decide to build the L. (similar to, say, Seattle SoundTransit)

This is what is happening in the US city I reside in. Developers are gobbling up land and putting in “high density” housing, but without building any additional amenities or restructuring roads that make the area more enjoyable to live in. And this is in a city with very libertine zoning rules, so mixed use is not restricted. The price/foot is about the same for the higher density housing as it is for a house and a yard just a 10-20 min drive further out, so given the choice between high density/no amenities/no parking/not walkable/surrounded by high speed roads vs a house with a yard and a garage (will have to drive in either scenario)…I’ll take the bigger house and the yard.

Those new suburbs are just as bad. They squeeze more people into less space while retaining all the issues of the original suburbs and adding a mass of people on top.

A proper suburb should be a mixed-zone small town with proper public transport and amenities you can walk to like European suburbs are.

Here's Farsta (10 km from Stockholm): https://maps.app.goo.gl/oAgBhNkvQFw5BVS16?g_st=ic

Here's Västerhaninge (30 km from Stockholm) https://maps.app.goo.gl/iGkzuzPC8y188teh8?g_st=ic

I think I have see a lot of places like this in US. The difference is most housing is apartments and rents usually are higher than mortgage payment for twice the size of house.

> quintessentially North American overreaction to a quintessentially North American problem.

The article is mostly about London.

The way Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea fund trains is a big difference with the US (though ironically is similar to how the US used to fund trains in the 1800s). The companies (usually in some kind of private-public partnership from my understanding) who build and run the trains in East Asia typically get land around the train stop to develop into malls, shops, apartments, etc. These sales and rents then fund the train lines. This incentive to keep everything nice on the trains and around the stops to help the other sides funding is important I think.

This is sort of the model that Brightline (Fortress Investment) is using. They are spending money on the train service in hopes of increasing the values of their real estate investments.

Its a smart investment strategy. If you can offer someone a walkable little neighborhood where they can live, walk to a a gym, grocery store, and a couple bars or restaurants, AND also walk to a train that can take them to work and a few more areas. That is an attractive offer. Even if the person still has a car, people seem to enjoy not driving everywhere.

Yes. I actually think this should apply to publicly run systems as well.

It seems like in the US we often lament that government run systems run at a loss instead of a profit, but also tend to hamstring them from doing things (like building shopping, dining, offices, housing on top of transit stations) that a private enterprise would do to make its investment profitable.

A strange thing about South Korea is that even the most expensive condos in Gangnam derive a significant part of their value from being close to a subway station (yeoksekwon). The millionaires who live there are riding the subway right beside the pleebs! No wonder they want to keep the trains nice and clean.

It's the same in Taipei.

This is incorrect.

Yes, people appreciate the subways but not in the way you just described. It's the "wealthy" that use the subway as well as a car, but the expensive condos in Gangnam are not using or caring about the subway. The subway is just a plus.

People living in the expensive parts of Gangnam(-gu) are not riding the subway. People living in the affordable parts of Gangnam(-gu) are.

In fact, if you look on a map in Gangnam, you will find the apartments at the doorsteps to subway stations are huge complexes for generic wealthy people. But the expensive apartments are as far as possible between the subway stops, but still in walking distance:

- 서초그랑자이

- 래미안 리더스원

- 서초푸르지오써밋

- 신반포 area services insanely expensive apt blocks but is just 1 lame station.

One can always find counterexamples in a large city.

Meanwhile, the one lame station you mentioned that serves the 신반포 area is directly connected to the financial district and the airport. And just a couple of blocks away is 고속터미널 station where three subway lines intersect.

Well yeah.. all subway stations connect in Korea and are very useful?

The rich in expensive apartments don't use them. In fact in order to appear rich, people prefer to take taxis and their car. That's why the entire city is filled with cars even when they're incredibly slow.

> Indeed, it is jarring when we returned to the US.

No place is a panacea. Berlin surely has its issues. But Europe and Berlin in particular is very nice for this expat from the US. I love that I pay basically nothing out of pocket over what’s taken from my taxes for healthcare. The trains are basically ubiquitous and at least near me just refreshed with new cars. We walk basically everywhere and take transit also. I’m far healthier than when I was stateside driving everywhere. The food has far less harmful things in it. Etc etc.

My cousin who lives in Japan says similar things about Japan. He’ll never go back to Canada where he’s from. The feeling is similar to me and the US though I’ll be bringing my family home to the US eventually because I miss home and the potential for stupid high salaries and what that might do for my retirement fund. But yeah. Europe for the win for the time being.

I had the same experience when I first moved out to the Bay Area. You'd think with all the marketing that they would have solved something as simple as mass transit, maybe Jetson's style with personal pneumatic tubes.

Nope, there's barely any transit. Maybe it's okay if you live near a BART station. The best my employer could do was offer a shuttle that also had to sit in traffic for at least 45 minutes each way. I bike to work now and it takes 15 minutes here in Amsterdam.

It sounds like you're saying it works for tourists. How would I get a massive CostCo shop home in Taipei (or similar large amount of shopping)?

you must also ask the question why you want to make a huge shopping trip.

If you lived in a world where accessing the shop was easy and convenient, and they stocked everything you need, and you didn't have oodles of storage at home to store it all: why would you even make such a huge shopping trip?

It's precisely this.

The culture and organization of the city means that 1) most folks have relatively small kitchens and small refrigerators, 2) actually, most dwellings are quite small in the first place so there isn't so much space to store large stockpiles of goods, 3) markets are abundant and easy to access, 4) the cost of eating out is so low that many folks do not have a habit of cooking at home and often just eat out.

So your plan is for people to have a longer commute to work, work 8 hours at the job, have a longer commute home, and then have to trudge to a shop in the evening most nights of the week (in all weathers)? Sounds idyllic. Food shopping every night can replace going to the gym or playing with your kids. And if you're elderly and would rather drive - tough luck.

>>If you lived in a world where accessing the shop was easy and convenient, and they stocked everything you need, and you didn't have oodles of storage at home to store it all: why would you even make such a huge shopping trip?

Well obviously no-one is going to buy food they can't store. If they live in a tiny pod then by all means subsistence shop on a daily basis. However, the groceries will also be far more expensive.

The MRTs in Taiwan run very tight schedules with high frequency. Commutes are relatively short. Most folks go out with their kids and get food together (Taiwan being known for their night markets).

    > However, the groceries will also be far more expensive

It's counterintuitive, but groceries and food are actually very cheap in Taiwan.

Seeing is believing.

Here, "somewhere in Europe", you can order groceries online and get them delivered to your door for cheap. This kind of service really took off during COVID and then stuck. I guess people found it convenient.

We usually still go to the store, but use this service when we have a large amount of shopping to do as it just is... convenient. Instead of driving to and running around in the store looking for all the stuff we need and then carry it out to the car and into the home, we just gather around the iPad in the comfort of our living room and order what we want. The day after it shows up at the door. It's fantastic.

How is driving to a costco, parking on a giant parking lot, walking through a massive store, loading up a cart, walking the the cart to your car/truck, unloading everything, returning the cart, and then driving home at all efficient?

People do giant shopping trips exactly because the whole process is so cumbersome.

The US has the longest commutes of any country in the world because of urban sprawl and zoning. Car-free cities offer an alternative to that way of life.

Door-to-door, a Costco trip usually takes me about 90 minutes. I go to Costco probably once every two weeks.

Just a data point. I'd love to hear how often urbanites go to the grocery store and how long each trip typically takes.

If you go once every 2 weeks, where do you get your fresh fruit and veggies? Do you just live off of frozen food? Do you plan all your meals 2 weeks ahead? What if you have people coming over for dinner on short notice?

Urbanites still have the option to go to a big-box grocery store. Mine is an 8-minute drive away, but we just never go there.

Ah, Costco isn't the only grocery store I go to. Roughly, I grocery shop once per week, alternating between Costco and other grocery stores where I buy fresh foods or smaller items that don't make sense from Costco.

My personal feeling is being able to stock up in bulk is a net timesaving benefit of car-centric living, BUT the tradeoff comes when you only need a few things from the store. On the one hand, it's only about once or twice a month that I need to go to the store because I need just 2-3 very specific things. However it's a major annoyance, and it'd definitely be nice to be able to walk a short distance to get them.

Didn't see any replies with specifics, so here's mine: Door-to-door, it takes me no more than 30 minutes for a shop, and I usually go 3 times every 2 weeks. So about the same as you. I wouldn't consider my location "lucky" either: there's 3 supermarkets alone within a 5 minute cycle from my house. Across most of the city, you're always going to be close to one.

> The US has the longest commutes of any country in the world

I lived in Mumbai starting 7:30 in morning I reach office by 10AM after changing buses and trains. Leave office at 6:30 -7 in evening and hit home by ~10 pm. And even those days I worked in IT so not exactly among poor who have to live far away.

Claiming US commute being longest is just ignoring how billions outside North America/Europe lives.

It turns out you're right. Thank you for the correction.

The issue you're having is not understanding how it can be.

The lucky truth is that this is not some hypothetical situation, it's a lived reality for me and many more people in Europe.

I'm 34 and I don't even have a drivers license; that's freedom. I never needed one.

That said: I'm not really talking about an absolute reality (IE; no cars at all). Reducing car usage actually helps those that really need to use a car, like the disabled, the elderly, people hauling large things (such as when they move homes) etc;

Groceries aren't far more expensive, but the inner city stores are, on average 5% more expensive than larger stores of the same brand. 5% on your groceries is vastly under the tax burden of maintaining huge roads, the accidents they cause (which has a healthcare burden) and even disregarding that: fuel cost and mileage on your vehicle (which increases insurance rates and decreases the longevity of your car).

I live in Europe as well.

I can understand not owning a car, but never learning to drive is like never learning to swim. Driving is a life skill, whether you own a car or not.

Groceries are a lot more than 5% more expensive in a corner shop vs out of town supermarket.

Getting your drivers license is also very costly, must be transferred when you move country, in countries like Sweden (where I live) you have to retake your test every 10 years.

It also requires a lot of time to do anything with it. It's an administrative document, like a passport. You can say "getting a passport is important" and I'd believe you, but better to get it when you need it rather than pre-emptively, because otherwise you're wasting valid years.

I find often that when we do things like taking a drivers license we feel like we are incentivised to use it, when we use it we purchase vehicles and register them and then we have sort of a sunk cost feeling. Once you've invested all that time and cost using it feels cheap so you are more likely to use it.

On the flip side, because I don't have a license I make subtle decisions to avoid using a car, so my life is relatively car-free, on the very rare occasions I do need a car I can hire someone and it works out significantly cheaper in the long run.

Chacun à son goût. I'd prefer not to have to rely on other people. Also, if you change your mind learning to drive is a lot harder when you're older.

> I'd prefer not to have to rely on other people.

Same, that’s why I don’t want to depend on the fuel supply chain or the regulation of a car, or the upkeep of the roads.

I know that in certain cities in China they have little lotteries on which cars are allowed to drive each day based on how their license plates start as a way to avoid traffic situations. (they still have traffic situations).

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13619...)

I never owned a car, never felt the need to. I have learned to drive as a young adult, but unlike swimming, I never found that skill actually useful. If I had to drive a car today I would rather take some lessons first anyway, as there's no way I could actually drive safely otherwise. It's very easy for me to imagine much better ways to spend the money used to learn how to drive and much more useful "life skills" to acquire.

Yeah, what a big trudge, walking to the corner grocery for some food for dinner. A ten minute trip.

In large cities you have many small supermarkets within a short walking distance from your house. It takes 20 minutes to do a quick shopping run to pick up what's needed. It's true that groceries are more expensive than at Costco...but you also don't need a massive deep freeze + pantry to keep all of your extra stuff, or a big car to carry it all in.

In the early 70's at the behest of airlines Congress passed a law that prevented Airports and State/Local governments from sharing cost of Municipal Rail lines. Which is why in the US if there is a rail connection it's always a separate feeder. I only learned of that a few years ago when congress repealed it.

There is also an unwritten law in the US that the government isn't allowed to make changes that would interfere with an established business charging monopoly rents. Putting a subway stop at an airport would devastate the business of taxi, limo, and parking concessionaires. Also can you imagine if you had a layover at an airport and could get on the subway, go downtown and have dinner, then come back?

Do you have any children? I can't imagine car free city is good when you have two or more young children. For one, groceries are a problem as you likely need to stock more food to cook. Sure you can go to the store every other day but that takes a lot of time and is more expensive. Plus you are on a lot tighter schedule. Most people with kids race home to pick up children and don't want to stop by the store and schlep back groceries.

Then you have just the stress of taking kids on public transport. You have to carry around a lot of things (snacks, drinks, diapers or change of clothes, toys and books, etc). You normally put that in a stroller but that's a huge pain to manage on a bus or subway.

Japan seemed to have invented the mamachari [1] for that sort of thing.

[1] https://www.nippon.com/en/features/jg00091/

I live in a city with two young kids. We do very little driving. We live an easy walk to the grocery store and school. A bus stop is on the corner, with buses every few minutes. A car really isn't necessary, and the kids like taking the bus, though we don't do it often. For longer trips, a backpack gets stuffed with snacks and stuff, and we're good to go. The only thing we use a car for regularly is to get to swimming lessons, which is a bit off the beaten path. None of the things you bring up are a problem for us at all.

That's great and I'm happy for you.

For me, getting to my parents would take me 2 hours vs 30m and I'd have to adhere to a strict schedule. inlaws would take maybe 4 hours versus 1.5, since there is much better transit to them. So basically my kids would see them a lot less often at a much greater expense.

Shopping locally would cost me an extra few hundred a month and take me maybe 20 hours extra a month.

If the kid is sick I'd have to schlep him to the doctor which would take 30m each way as opposed to a ten min car ride. Hope it's not raining.

I can also drive to more restaurants so I have more choices

Having a car is a convenience that makes my life considerably easier. I gladly trade money for time and convenience. And I can often even get both with more options form shopping

The experience of going car-free in a place designed around cars doesn't tell you much about what it would be like to live in a car-free city.

> Do you have any children? I can't imagine car free city is good when you have two or more young children. For one, groceries are a problem as you likely need to stock more food to cook. Sure you can go to the store every other day but that takes a lot of time and is more expensive. Plus you are on a lot tighter schedule. Most people with kids race home to pick up children and don't want to stop by the store and schlep back groceries.

Millions of people with children in larger European cities live without requiring a car to buy groceries, bring their kids to activities, etc. Also when kids are old enough the transportation infrastructure is available for them to be independent and go do their things by themselves.

I can't imagine how you cannot imagine that this already happens, in many places, and it's not an issue at all.

On top of that… cars have only been around for about a century. Plenty of people raised kids before then.

Prove it!

Well most kids would be productive human resource as soon as they are able to walk without support in that past. They would also keep themselves entertained with other kids on the street and may also get fed in neighbor's home plenty of times.

I grew up in the US in a small city. My parents owned a car periodically, but only one, and the vast majority of my peers were in car-less families.

We all did most of everything day-to-day just fine between walking, bikes, and busses. The kids over say 6 mostly transported themselves to wherever they were going without their parents. Of course, we also NEVER took our toys, clothes, or books outside of the house (wtf???) nor snacks (we ate and drank at meals) and only brought clothes somewhere if we were planning on staying the night there. If I needed clothes I'd carry them myself. I literally couldn't imagine my parents carrying around my clothes at a point that I was physically able to carry them myself. The thought makes me laugh. For babies there are diaper bags, my parents never needed more than a single diaper bag even though they had multiple kids in diapers at the same time.

Not having a car only was a problem for day trips, like the amusement park 60 miles away. We'd always make sure to bring friends and family who didn't have a car whenever we went to those sorts of places.

I have children. 12 and 8, but we were also in Taiwan once earlier when they were 5 and 1.

It's very easy to get around. The MRT stations are nothing like the ones in the US. Bathrooms are incredibly well kept and clean at every station. If anything, I feel like it's easier than pulling strollers in and out of a trunk. That said, the sidewalks are very questionable in many parts of the city once you are off of the main roads so there is some danger for small kids.

But Taiwan may also be somewhat unique in that relatively few folks cook in their daily lives due to the low cost of eating out (really amazing place if you love food). Additionally, markets tend to be quite abundant so you are rarely going very far to get food. Houses tend to have smaller kitchens and smaller refrigerators as well so you don't store as much food as you would here.

The US is somewhat unique because of the high friction of getting food. Perhaps that's why we can have businesses like Instacart and we have such large refrigerators because the friction and cost of transport to get food is so high.

I still think it has to be more efficient to eat out and let economies of scale take over than for each of us to cook. I even say this as an avid home cook. It's incredible that in the US it costs orders of magnitudes more to have an efficient machine of humans and logistics produce the food

I live in Europe and I used to cycle everywhere myself when I was a kid.

I live in the US and I did the same when I was a kid - cycle, walk, or bus. Not everywhere, but many places. I even took the bus to the mall with my friends when none of us had any money because it was something to do.

I couldn't imagine being a kid and living in a location where the only way I'd be able to go anywhere was to have a parent drive me. No thanks, ugh.

In Manhattan, there was a supermarket on almost every block. Going to get groceries was only slightly longer than the trip to your refrigerator. I remember food being more expensive in Manhattan, but on a recent vacation to Paris, food was cheap and extremely high quality. Similarly in Italian cities a few years ago.

Things are structured differently in large cities around the world to accommodate a walking lifestyle.

As for schlepping baby stuff around, it's inconvenient but a relatively short period of your child's life in the scheme of things. But I do suppose it would be a grind if you have 3 or more children and going through that baby stage for many years on end.

> You normally put that in a stroller but that's a huge pain to manage on a bus or subway.

Not in any bus or subway car build in the last 20 years.

In every EU city I rode mass transit in the last decade, all transit vehicles are "low side wagons", meaning you can just roll on from the platform/curb, the doors are wide and the area right behind the door is a large space for wheel vehicles.

People bring wheelchairs, strollers, bikes, ect. without any problems, without needing help getting on. The platforms have elevators, for the people not comfortable taking a stroller onto an escalator.

The only exception I can think of are historic drams, but those are rare.

I can easily fit a Costco run on my e cargo bike.

I find cities in Taiwan frustrating to navigate without personal transport, at least a bicycle.

Having lived in Kaohsiung for a bit, I observed that very few people use public transport unless they go to/from intercity rail or airport. Buses in particular are unreliable (mostly used by older people), and MRT alone is obviously not enough for the sparse city.

    > I find cities in Taiwan frustrating to navigate without personal transport, at least a bicycle.

Complete opposite experience; we found it actually enjoyable to navigate without personal transport.

Some days, we walked > 10 miles; goes perfectly with stuffing your face with street food.

To be fair, we were there as tourists and only for 12 days, but in any of the major metros, we did not feel like our experience would have been better with a car. Maybe bikes.

As tourists, it is likely you didn’t have to get places on schedule. In regular life it becomes a bottleneck.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com