[joshuamorton]

SF has decent public transit. Disliking public transit is fine, but ignoring it is something else entirely. Muni and Bart do make it possible to get around most of SF without walking or using uber/lyft.

And, given where I live, my medical, grocery, and a significant chunk of my social needs are truly within walking distance. The only one that isn't is work, and that would be accessible via public transit if I was willing to compromise on commute times a bit (or if I changed employers/offices).

Carson City has 4 bus routes serving 150 square miles, San Francisco has close to 100 serving less than 50. Those aren't remotely comparable.

[masonic]

  Disliking public transit is fine,

... and is something I didn't write, nor feel.

The parent comment asserted walkability. If your environment is walkable, that means you don't need transit/carshare for everyday needs.

  Carson City has 4 bus routes

Again, walkable means walkable without transit. My father lived there with daily needs within walking distance. SF is not only not the "only" walkable city, SF isn't generally walkable overall for all everyday destinations (especially hilly streets).

[joshuamorton]

Walkability in the city-planning sense is defined by "lack of need for a car". Improved public transit improves walkability (see the walkability scores on pretty much any site ever), as does mixed use development.

Carson City has a walk score of 34 (although apparently there's a 4 block area in downtown that gets up to the mid 70s). SF has an average of 86. My apartment scores 99. Like I said, there isn't a genuine comparison to be had.

[crazygringo]

Exactly this. New York City is the very definition of a "walkable" city because you walk to the subway, stand on the subway, walk to work.

Not because you live within walking distance of work, which almost nobody does. That definition of "walkable" would be so tiny to render it almost meaningless.

[masonic]

  Muni and Bart do make it possible to get around most of SF

Possible? Yes. They serve most attractions in SF. Not feasible to most of SF, not by a long shot. Look at your transit options between southern Sunset and Dogpatch, for example.

BART cuts one diagonal swath through the SF core only, and it doesn't even connect directly to Caltrain in SF county. It's hardly the Underground.

[joshuamorton]

> Look at your transit options between southern Sunset and Dogpatch, for example.

L transferring to the KT? It doesn't even require a bus.

>BART cuts one diagonal swath through the SF core only, and it doesn't even connect directly to Caltrain in SF county. It's hardly the Underground.

Indeed, I'm not suggesting transit in SF (or the bay area as a whole) is perfect. Far from it. But compared to anywhere else west of the Mississippi (and most of the places east of it), there's nowhere better.