## 4 Discussion  
The results presented in the previous section demonstrate that the social, political, environmental, and economic factors that have historically shaped each urban area have drastic consequences on the way cities are inhabited and how they respond to people's and the environment's needs. Therefore, the decisions that create a given urban form and arise from both formal and informal urbanization processes cannot be taken lightly. It is important to repeat that the results are a preliminary evaluation of how two local areas are performing in terms of urban accessibility, but to achieve a full diagnosis and analysis of the specific interventions that each area needs, further information must be gathered. More detailed exploration of the variables concerning demographics, infrastructure capacities, social preference, willingness to pay, and others that prove to be relevant to each region must be included [4]. In both MEDC and LEDC cities, access disparity remains one of the most significant urban issues that must be tackled. Therefore, there is an urgent need to change urban planning paradigms from creating car-centered cities to creating proximity-based cities. Such an approach would result in more inclusive cities that enable individuals or groups of individuals to access the city's opportunities easily and comfortably, regardless of socioeconomic situation or even disabilities. The previous results show that the car-centered urban planning approach that both the MMA and SFBA have taken during the Twentieth Century has resulted in car dependence and an unsustainable urban structure as a result. Therefore, neither the MMA nor the SFBA are ready to become 15 Minute Cities if only micromobility transport methods are considered. Enabling such urban transformation in both cities is not an easy task. There are important social, cultural, economic, and political factors that have to be tackled. Hence, the transformation must be planned actions that are well articulated in the short, medium, and long term. One of the biggest challenges in both cities is to change social preference related to car use. Among the population of the MMA and SFBA, the car serves as a symbol of freedom and even status; thus, people often buy a car as soon as they can afford it. This is one of the main reasons people refuse to use public transport, as they have to plan their day based on given transport schedules. However, such a preference for individual transport represents an important opportunity to convince people to shift from cars to sustainable individual transport modes such as walking, cycling, or using any other micromobility transport modes that bring them freedom while they commute without significant greenhouse gas emissions. Safety is another important barrier for people to make a modal shift from cars to micromobility. Therefore, cities have to build the required infrastructure, such as bike lanes and wide-enough sidewalks, to guarantee that people can safely and comfortably use micromobility transport alternatives to move around the city. Additionally, it is important to reduce crime rates as people feel more exposed when they are walking or cycling. Finally, in terms of mobility, it should be noted that the scale and structure of both cities currently forces people to travel long distances to access different opportunities. Redesigning such urban structures requires medium to long time interventions; thus, intermodal transport networks should be utilized to make such commutes shorter and more convenient for people. This means that a robust and high-quality public transport system has to exist. In terms of redesigning and rethinking the urban structure of both cities regarding the availability of opportunities (destinations), there is also much work to be done. As mentioned, many of the destinations have been built thinking people will use cars to get to them; hence, they tend to operate on large scales.