[JumpCrisscross]

> What if you ever want to leave the city limits?

In case you're being serious, you rent a car or take an Uber. A metropolis might as well be defined by its lack of car ownership.

Even when you're renting or being driven, you go as far as you can via train. (The Metro-North goes to an Appalachian trailhead [1].) It's safer, simpler, cheaper and nobody has the deadweight loss of being unpaid chauffeur.

[1] https://www.mta.info/stations/appalachian-trail

[peepeepoopoo107]

Hrmm, so you do need a car after all. It's really amusing listening to people from the Bay Area pass down edicts for how everyone else should use transportation, given that their decrees are a complete non-starter in well over 99% of the United States. Calling it "out of touch" would be a bit generous.

[defrost]

> Hrmm, so you do need a car after all.

Not a car that's exclusive to one person though.

You're delibrately overlooking that part and that doesn't reflect well on you.

[Neonlicht]

My brother doesn't own a car. When he goes on holiday he takes a train to the airport to fly to another city.

[jamiek88]

Why did you create an account just for this argument? Seems odd.

[JumpCrisscross]

> you do need a car after all

Straw man. We were debating dedicated parking.

> so you do need a car after all. It's really amusing listening to people from the Bay Area

The Bay Area is car centric--most people have a driver's license. I live in Wyoming and lived in New York. You need a car in Wyoming. You don't in Manhattan. High rises make sense in the latter. They'd be stupid here.

If you're dense enough to make high rises necessary, you're too dense for cars to make sense. Parking for high rises is a dead giveaway the project is being pursued for appearances. (San Francisco's skyscrapers are dominated by commercial buildings that double as advertising.)