• JoBo@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    It is a positive.

    “You don’t have the infrastructure for driving very quickly.”

    Good! My city is cut into islands by huge roads that are very difficult to cross. London is very walkable, as it should be. And its public transport is so good*, most people don’t need a car anyway.

    *because London gets so much more investment than the wasteland that is the rest of the UK. We only exist to give the illusion that we’re a country and not a tax haven based on a massive casino.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The biggest problem of London is the massive sprawl of low-density housing that is Zone 3 and outwards to the M25, which is why the city has so much polution that it used to keep on breaking the EU polution limits way more times per year than allowed back when the UK was still in the EU.

      However, that structural problem (which dates back to the post-War period and is hard to solve) aside, it’s very well served in terms of public transportation and has become cycling friendly over the years (not as much in terms of having a great infrastructure for it but more because as more and more people did it drivers became more and more used to it and infrastructure started taking it into consideration, so it became safer and more convenient).

      It’s not quite Berlin or pretty much any Dutch city, but for a city with 10 million people (if you count the whole Greater London Area) it’s pretty decent.

    • psud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      London gets extra like New York gets extra. Both are huge, both are wealthy, both are stupidly expensive to live in, both are walkable