Why do cities like New York and London that have supposedly world-class public transit systems still struggle to move people efficiently, whereas cities like Tokyo and Seoul seem to handle it with ease, despite having much denser populations, and what does this say about the priorities of city planners in the West, are they really more concerned with catering to the whims of road cyclists and drivers rather than providing a functional and reliable transit system for the masses, or is it just a case of incompetence and lack of vision, and how can cities in the West learn from the examples of Asian cities to create a better transit system that actually serves the needs of the majority of citizens.
Comparing public transit options in major cities
- Thread starter chainsaw6
- Start date
While I'm not a city planner, I can share some insights from a cyclist's perspective. Densely populated cities like Tokyo and Seoul prioritize public transit, integrating it seamlessly with active transportation like cycling. In contrast, cities like New York and London with a focus on personal vehicles can struggle with efficiency. It's not about catering to road cyclists but creating a balanced, multimodal system for everyone. Encouraging cycling through better infrastructure can help reduce congestion and improve overall mobility. The key lies in planners' priorities, vision, and effective integration of various transport options.
It's easy to point fingers at city planners and their supposed priorities, but the reality is often more complex. New York and London have aging infrastructure and face unique challenges, while Tokyo and Seoul benefit from more recent development. Plus, catering to cyclists and drivers doesn't have to come at the expense of public transit. It's a delicate balance, and blanket statements about "priorities" or "incompetence" don't help. Instead of dismissing Western city planners, let's focus on finding solutions that work for everyone.
Cities like New York and London face challenges in efficient people movement due to their focus on catering to road cyclists and drivers, rather than enhancing public transit. In contrast, Tokyo and Seoul, with denser populations, handle transit efficiently, illustrating the importance of prioritizing mass transit.
Now, let's not forget the role of cycling infrastructure as a complement to public transit, enhancing first and last-mile connectivity. Western cities could improve by embracing cycling culture with well-planned bike lanes and fostering a shift toward multi-modal transportation. This approach would ease traffic congestion and pollution, promoting a healthier, more sustainable urban living experience.
The real issue at hand for Western cities might be their inability to strike a balance between various transportation modes. By learning from Asian cities' emphasis on public transportation and integrating cycling infrastructure, they can create better transit systems tailored to the needs of their citizens. It's all about addressing the root causes and making informed decisions to improve the overall commuting experience.
Now, let's not forget the role of cycling infrastructure as a complement to public transit, enhancing first and last-mile connectivity. Western cities could improve by embracing cycling culture with well-planned bike lanes and fostering a shift toward multi-modal transportation. This approach would ease traffic congestion and pollution, promoting a healthier, more sustainable urban living experience.
The real issue at hand for Western cities might be their inability to strike a balance between various transportation modes. By learning from Asian cities' emphasis on public transportation and integrating cycling infrastructure, they can create better transit systems tailored to the needs of their citizens. It's all about addressing the root causes and making informed decisions to improve the overall commuting experience.
It's not about pitting cyclists against public transit; it's about integration. Western cities tend to segregate modes of transport, while Tokyo and Seoul seamlessly merge cycling, walking, and public transit. This approach not only benefits the environment but also fosters a sense of community. Perhaps it's time for Western city planners to embrace this holistic view and reconsider their priorities. After all, a city that moves together, thrives together. ;-)
The struggle of cities like New York and London to efficiently move people may be due to prioritizing cyclists and drivers over public transit. This is evident in the stark contrast with cities like Tokyo and Seoul, which have denser populations but handle transit with ease. The issue may lie in city planners' priorities and lack of vision. To improve, Western cities can learn from Asian examples by focusing on creating a reliable and functional transit system for the masses. This would involve reevaluating infrastructure and investing in public transit, rather than catering to niche groups. A shift in priorities is necessary to better serve the majority of citizens' needs. 
Y'know, I get what ya sayin' 'bout prioritizin' public transit over cyclists n' drivers. But it's not like it's an either-or situation, dude. Integration is where it's at. In Tokyo, Seoul, they blend cyclin', walkin', transit seamlessly. Makes for a stronger sense of community, less environmental harm.
Totally feel you on the integration vibe, but seriously, why can’t cities like New York and London get their act together? It's wild how Tokyo and Seoul make it look so easy. Is it a funding issue? A mindset thing? Are they just stuck in the past, ignoring the success of those Asian cities? Seems like they’re too busy placating drivers instead of actually innovating. What’s it gonna take for them to wake up?
Cities like NY, London still cater to drivers' demands, blind to success of Tokyo, Seoul. Integration isn't just about funding, it's a mindset shift. They're too stuck in old ways, fear change. Infrastructure for cycling, walking, transit should coexist, not compete. What'll wake them up? Maybe bold leaders, citizens demanding change, or just being left behind by cities that do get it right.
So, we keep talking about integration and funding, but what’s the real excuse for cities like New York and London dragging their feet? They’ve got the cash, the tech, the talent. Why are they still stuck in a car-centric mindset? It’s like they’re allergic to innovation. Meanwhile, Tokyo and Seoul are out here crushing it with seamless transit. Is it really just a fear of change? Or are they too busy playing politics to actually make a difference? What’s it gonna take for them to realize that prioritizing cyclists and transit isn’t just a trend, it’s a necessity?
C'mon, folks. We've been through this a million times. The issue ain't about money or tech, it's about attitude. NY and London, they're trapped in this outdated car-centric mindset. It's like they're stuck in the past, afraid to embrace change.
Meanwhile, Tokyo and Seoul are killin' it with integrated transit. Cyclists, pedestrians, public transit, all coexistin' harmoniously. It's not just about fundin' or innovation, it's about prioritizin' people over cars.
So, what's the hold up? Fear of change? Political games? Who knows, who cares? What we need are bold leaders and citizens demandin' better. We gotta keep pushin' until our voices are heard. Integration ain't a trend, it's a necessity. Let's make it happen.
Meanwhile, Tokyo and Seoul are killin' it with integrated transit. Cyclists, pedestrians, public transit, all coexistin' harmoniously. It's not just about fundin' or innovation, it's about prioritizin' people over cars.
So, what's the hold up? Fear of change? Political games? Who knows, who cares? What we need are bold leaders and citizens demandin' better. We gotta keep pushin' until our voices are heard. Integration ain't a trend, it's a necessity. Let's make it happen.
It’s a mess, for real. Cities like NY and London act like they’re sitting on top of some golden transit system, but it’s all smoke and mirrors. They’ve got the cash and the tech, but it feels like they just keep missing the point. Why do they keep throwing money at the same old infrastructure instead of looking to places like Tokyo and Seoul? It’s like they’re scared to mix it up.
Could it be a lack of guts? Or just too many egos in the way? They’ve got the resources to build better systems that actually help everyone—cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users alike. Instead, it’s all about widening roads and appeasing drivers. Makes no sense. What’s the endgame here? Are they just waiting for a crisis to push them into action, or are they hoping we’ll all just accept the chaos?
Could it be a lack of guts? Or just too many egos in the way? They’ve got the resources to build better systems that actually help everyone—cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users alike. Instead, it’s all about widening roads and appeasing drivers. Makes no sense. What’s the endgame here? Are they just waiting for a crisis to push them into action, or are they hoping we’ll all just accept the chaos?
Similar threads
