There are only six American downtown districts that are dense enough to support mass transit, which you need if you’re going to be carless: New York City (Midtown and Downtown), Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston and San Francisco. That’s it. The breaking-point for density and mass transit feasibility seems to be about 50 persons per acre, which means families living in flats and apartments, rather than single-family houses, even row houses. Not necessarily high-rise apartments, but at least walk-ups.I'm glad Philadelphia makes that list, since it's true that you can live in Philadelphia without a car. It's a fact some of SEPTA's most passionate critics tend to forget, possibly because many of them have not lived for long outside of one of those five cities. But I think he probably overstates the case just a little. Once you've got mass transit, it can constitute its own organizing principle for a city offering car-free (or nearly car-free) living to those living in transit-adjacent corridors. That's largely the problem with selling people on the virtues of public transit. It's not quite like offering a service like high-speed internet access or central water, where there's demand in the places people already live. Mass transit is a service that creates its own demand, its own new constituencies, simply by coming into existence. In that sense, "demand" for public transit has to be reckoned in a more abstract way than demand for coffee shops, bars, grocery stores and other commercial endeavors.
Philadelphia is lucky to have the transit corridors it already has. They've made the kind of density we enjoy (or at least some of us enjoy) possible. Few cities have demonstrated the courage to build mass transit corridors with a future like Philadelphia in mind.
That's why I may never ever leave.
