I’ve heard the legends of having to drive to literally everywhere (e.g. drive thru banks), but I have no clue how far apart things are.

I live in suburban London where you can get to a big supermarket in 10 minutes of walking, a train station in 20 minutes and convenience stores are everywhere. You can get anywhere with bus and train in a few hours.

Can someone help a clueless British lemmyposter know how far things are in the US?

EDIT

Here are my walking distances:

  • To the nearest convenience store: 250m
  • To the nearest chain supermarket: 350m
  • To the bus stop: 310m
  • To the nearest park: 400m
  • To the nearest big supermarket: 1.3km
  • To the nearest library: 1.2km
  • To the nearest train station: 1km

Straight-line distance to Big Ben: 16km

  • 1hitsong@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Walking distance is only part of this equation.

    We have no sidewalks and I would need to cross a 6 lane interstate if I were to go to the “closest” anything.

  • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Great question. London is amazing for being able to walk around, and has amazing transit. I honestly love your city, and may move there someday for it. This is mostly because London embraced transit in the early 20th century.

    America went the other way, and embraced the car, and that pushed for the “American Dream”. Suburbs became the normal, where people wanted an independent house farther away from the city. From there bred new problems, people needed to be able to drive their car there, which meant we needed more parking, which meant that things became further and further away.

    You can actually blame parking for most of America’s sprawl. Parking eats up a ton of space, and requires large roads to get people where they need to go and then massive parking lots for people to park their cars. Parking lots you can’t even understand in your London mind. Then there are new problems - the parking lots are so massive that now you can’t even walk to the building next door because it’s half a mile just to walk to that place! So people get in their cars to drive across the street to park in the next place. This isn’t exaggerated, that’s just how it is. Take a look at this shopping center in Des Moines, a city where I grew up.

    Americans designed cities for cars, not people. There is no way that areas like that were built for humans to move around in, it was built for people to drive to. Greenspace or walkways are not a thing, you are meant to park, walk for hundreds of meters to the front of the door, shop, and then get back in your car and drive across the big street to go to dinner. (To boot, most places won’t let you leave your car either, if you’re done shopping you need to move it).

    The real problem is that this is all by design. We kill so much space in our cities so that drivers feel more comfortable. Honestly, I really appreciate London and how well they’ve done. Remember all of this next time your PM wants to “make it easier for drivers”. No. Fuck the drivers. They’re driving their huge metal car into your city, and wanting to have it take up space all so they don’t have to walk or take a train/bus. They should have to pay extra for renting space from the city.

    Amazing video on why parking is so freaking stupid in America: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUNXFHpUhu8

    • tlou3please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      That was an interesting read. Are you aware of any cities or towns which are built in a more European style with pedestrians in mind? I’m actually considering a few jobs in the states right now but I’m quite put off by how car reliant everything is.

      • wjs018@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Boston and New York are probably the closest to European cities with respect to transit that you will find in the States. Plenty of people live in those cities without cars. I lived in Boston for a long time (now in the Boston suburbs) and plenty of adults I know there haven’t even bothered getting their driver’s license.

        The other Northeast Corridor cities are probably the next tier down. DC has decent transit if you make live and work near transit stops. Philadelphia can work, but SEPTA has been unreliable at best in my personal experience. I haven’t really spent much time in Baltimore to be able to say.

        Outside of the Northeast Corridor, the only other option really would be the San Francisco bay area with its BART system. It has decent coverage and I have family that lives in the area and enjoys it. However, I don’t have much firsthand experience with it.

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Oh man, those are the hard questions. The short answer - no. You’re not going to find anything in the US even remotely close. What you’re going to want to look for is transit usage. How often and easily do people take transit? Here’s a helpful map for you to see how people get to work.

        There is one and only one city that I could consider “close” to European cities in terms of being able to be as pedestrian as Europe, and that’s New York. There are others that are close and have decent transit. Chicago has the CTA and is relatively good if you live near the city center. Philly I hear has decent transit, again try to live near a stop rather than the suburbs. I’m in Seattle, and our transit system is growing rapidly - but most trips still require a car. We’re looking at going from a 2 car household down to a 1 car - but the system has to expand. (Even then it’s only 2 light rail lines and then bus).

        Here’s a good video for you on Houston from NotJustBikes on Houston, and what it’s like to live there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54

  • JonC@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s not necessarily how far things are, it’s that you need a car to get to places in a sensible way.

    I’m a fellow Brit, but have stayed in suburban US enough to have experienced how different it is. You might have a supermarket a couple of miles away, but if you want to attempt to walk there, you’ll often be going well out of your way trying to find safe crossing points or even roads with paved sidewalks.

    Train stations are mostly used for cargo in most US cities. If you don’t have a car, you’re pretty much screwed.

    Some cities are different. NYC being the obvious one. You can get about there by public transport pretty easily in most places there. San Francisco is another city that is more doable without a car, but more difficult than NYC.

    I stayed near Orlando not too long ago and there it’s just endless surburban housing with shops and malls dotted about mostly along the sides of main roads. You definitely need a car there.

  • Semperverus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    On the west coast, it can take 8 (EDITED) hours to drive from the capital of oregon to the capital of california. Likewise, it takes about 14 to 16 to get from oregon to montana. It can take 4 to 6 hours to get from the southern oregon border to the northern.

    Where I live, i can walk to a little convenience store in about 10 minutes, but the nearest supermarket would be an hour walk away (10-15 minutes by car). If i were to move 10 miles in any direction, i may not have a convenience store around.

    • proudblond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Salem to Sacramento shouldn’t take that long unless there is gnarly traffic. As a kid, my family regularly did San Jose to Seattle in 16 hours.

      • Semperverus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Salem’s not at the northern border. You still have the distance of portland to go, or at least driving around it, and even that can take a while.

        From border to border, Organic Maps estimates 5 hours and 20 minutes, which does not include traffic.

        I did run the calculation from salem to sacramento though, and i was off by about double. Its 16 hours to southern california (ive done the drive), but to sacramento, its only 8. I own that mistake, I don’t travel to california much and mistook the trip I took for the distance i was thinking about.