Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I liked the idea of trams when I was in Amsterdam. Couldn't figure it out though, so never went on it.
From what I remember, most of the tourist sites were close to together in the old city center. Sometimes walking distances were a bit long, but when you're a tourist walking a bit extra and seeing things on your way isn't a plus not a downside. I imagine the trams would be slow for anything but short distances, I rode their regular (commuter?) railroad. It felt a bit like the NYC commuter rail but somehow felt better run and the coverage was better.
Oh just didn't seem like a tourist town, I'm guessing you were on a road trip, and you stayed there overnight as it as right off the I-5 highway? There are some intersections where it makes more sense and safer drive across rather than walk. Rather annoying design IMO. This one I wouldn't walk across:
There's a train station nearby to Manhattan. Its official parking lot requires a permit so the last couple times I've parked on a residential street a few blocks away, then walked to the local shops before the train.
Around here, a few big roads don't even sidewalks:
From the town center to other town centers there's infrequent (hourly, sometimes better on weekdays) bus service, excluding a route to the local large university, which gets much more service. In the 1920s, Northampton and Easthampton had a tram running every 20 minutes, other towns were likely similar. Biggest issue to improving transit is that a lot of jobs and shops are no longer in the town center, plus some people (maybe half) live in rather isolated areas away (usually with large lots in the forest, similar to where ilovemycomputer90 lives?). So it'd be difficult for any good transit system to cover what we have now well for many.
How is boston/ cambridge, Ma for people without a car... not for tourists but If you were to actually live there with no car, is it more pedestrian friendy? On google street view Boston seems to be OK for public transport
From what I remember, most of the tourist sites were close to together in the old city center. Sometimes walking distances were a bit long, but when you're a tourist walking a bit extra and seeing things on your way isn't a plus not a downside. I imagine the trams would be slow for anything but short distances, I rode their regular (commuter?) railroad. It felt a bit like the NYC commuter rail but somehow felt better run and the coverage was better.
I mostly walked, but took a taxi a couple times to get across town. My first time in a taxi was this year in Canada and then when I was in Amsterdam. Never been in one in NYC or anywhere else in the US.
I've probably said this before, but I think the best way to describe Amsterdam is chaotic but functional. NYC is chaotic and a mess.
Tramways in Amsterdam are great. I've taken one till the end-of-the-line in a nondescript suburb and it's really fast outside the city center and even inside when it's grade-spearated, like there: https://maps.google.fr/maps?q=amster...7.17,,0,-16.98
Oh just didn't seem like a tourist town, I'm guessing you were on a road trip, and you stayed there overnight as it as right off the I-5 highway? There are some intersections where it makes more sense and safer drive across rather than walk. Rather annoying design IMO.
It was an organized trip, so I had no car. But as an European, I wouldn't have had the reflex to jump in a car to cross an intersection. Not the best way to visit a region btw, lots of pointless stops in outlet malls and tacky touristy roadside shops.
From the town center to other town centers there's infrequent (hourly, sometimes better on weekdays) bus service, excluding a route to the local large university, which gets much more service. In the 1920s, Northampton and Easthampton had a tram running every 20 minutes, other towns were likely similar. Biggest issue to improving transit is that a lot of jobs and shops are no longer in the town center, plus some people (maybe half) live in rather isolated areas away (usually with large lots in the forest, similar to where ilovemycomputer90 lives?). So it'd be difficult for any good transit system to cover what we have now well for many.
Fortunately, here, suburban densities are conductive to public transport, even if it's often impractical compared to the car.
I've probably said this before, but I think the best way to describe Amsterdam is chaotic but functional. NYC is chaotic and a mess.
What? Amsterdam is a walk in the park. I can see no chaos whatsoever. Really surprised that you said that, because I haven't noticed anything. Ever. Must be because you're not used to Europe.
The public transport is organized at least. With even different roads for buses.
And I haven't been in that many large cities. Or maybe I'm so chaotic that I can't notice chaos around me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not the best way to visit a region btw, lots of pointless stops in outlet malls and tacky touristy roadside shops. 
Amsterdam is a walk in the park. I can see no chaos whatsoever. Really surprised that you said that, because I haven't noticed anything. Ever. Must be because you're not used to Europe. 
