4 ms·

Except the part where you can very easily not have a car in NYC and just spend $120/m on the subway + $200/m on Uber. You actually come out ahead.

xienze 10y ago
Sure, and how much does your apartment cost? People in SF and NYC always seem to forget to factor in the price of admission (i.e. the efficiency apartment that costs 2x my mortgage) when bragging about how much money they're saving without a car.
pmorici 10y ago
You could easily not have a car in Kansas City or any reasonably large city if that's a choice you want to make.
- morgante 10y ago
  I have to assume you're trolling at this point. The quality of public transport varies massively between cities. Almost every city in America besides NYC is built under the assumption of car ownership and, for that reason, the vast majority of people have cars. NYC is the only city in the US where the majority of people go without one, because the infrastructure is in place to support it.
  - dionidium 10y ago
    > NYC is the only city in the US where the majority of people go without one, because the infrastructure is in place to support it. I think you've actually got this backwards. People in NYC would prefer to own a car, just like everybody else in America. The difference is that in NYC it's a lot more expensive and difficult (traffic, parking, etc). That, coupled with the presence of a strong transit system, results in low rates of car ownership. In Kansas City, to take your example, there actually is decent bus transit [0]. But owning a car is also dirt-cheap and far more convenient than owning one in NYC. So people own cars. I live and work directly on a train line in St. Louis, but I still own a car, because, why not? Cost of ownership is very low -- parking is included at my apartment (and free and easy basically everywhere else) -- and it gives me more options. But I definitely don't need it. In summary: 1) You absolutely can get around by transit in many (most?) largish Midwestern cities; 2) People own cars anyway because it's cheap and convenient; 3) People choose transit not when it's merely convenient, but when it's more convenient than car ownership. [0] http://ridekc.org/assets/uploads/documents/SystemMap.pdf http://ridekc.org/assets/uploads/documents/SystemMap.pdf
    - TuringNYC 10y ago
      This comment is exactly on point. I also used to think you could go without a car...then I had two children. Taking one infant or toddler on the subway was difficult. Taking two were nearly impossible. Many stations have no elevator, so you lug the stroller+child up and down stairs and hope someone helps you out. Uber? Not so much -- it is illegal to have a child in a taxi w/o a car seat. We used to carry around a child seat on our storller. Then we had two children and it is literally impossible, so we purchased the car. I'm not trying to argue over the merits of living in a city vs a suburb. The parent stated that cars cost the same in KC and SF and I'm providing a realistic alternative -- they do not because of parking and ancillary costs. At this point it is obvious we need to move out of the city and it is down to an optimization problem of how much space we want vs how many hours a week i can see my child (e.g., I can live in NJ, but i wont be back home in time to see kids 4+ days out of the week.) I imagine the calculus is the same in SF, but I cannot say firsthand.
    - morgante 10y ago
      > I think you've actually got this backwards. People in NYC would prefer to own a car, just like everybody else in America. What a weird remark. Have you considered that there might be people who don't fetishize cars like you do? I very specifically hate driving. I specifically choose which cities I live in so I can avoid driving. I've tried transport in most cities outside of NYC. It's really not on the level of NYC. Yes, there is a bus system but it's hardly comparable to a subway system where I can get anywhere in the city throughout the night with minimal waits.
      - dionidium 10y ago
        >Have you considered that there might be people who don't fetishize cars like you do? I feel like you might have this loaded as a sort of generic thing you say to people, but it doesn't apply here. I'm talking about the tradeoffs people make in general. Calling me a car fetishist is a non sequitur.
        morgante 10y ago
- ghaff 10y ago
  Maybe--depending upon your commuting and family situation and what compromises you're willing to make. However, NYC (esp. Manhattan/parts of Brooklyn) is a qualitatively different situation with respect to car ownership and public transportation--and just the culture associated with them--than pretty much any other US city.
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  The difference in quality of public transportation between NYC and Kansas City is Grand Canyon-sized.

xienze 10y ago

Sure, and how much does your apartment cost? People in SF and NYC always seem to forget to factor in the price of admission (i.e. the efficiency apartment that costs 2x my mortgage) when bragging about how much money they're saving without a car.

pmorici 10y ago

You could easily not have a car in Kansas City or any reasonably large city if that's a choice you want to make.

morgante 10y ago
I have to assume you're trolling at this point. The quality of public transport varies massively between cities. Almost every city in America besides NYC is built under the assumption of car ownership and, for that reason, the vast majority of people have cars. NYC is the only city in the US where the majority of people go without one, because the infrastructure is in place to support it.
- dionidium 10y ago
  > NYC is the only city in the US where the majority of people go without one, because the infrastructure is in place to support it. I think you've actually got this backwards. People in NYC would prefer to own a car, just like everybody else in America. The difference is that in NYC it's a lot more expensive and difficult (traffic, parking, etc). That, coupled with the presence of a strong transit system, results in low rates of car ownership. In Kansas City, to take your example, there actually is decent bus transit [0]. But owning a car is also dirt-cheap and far more convenient than owning one in NYC. So people own cars. I live and work directly on a train line in St. Louis, but I still own a car, because, why not? Cost of ownership is very low -- parking is included at my apartment (and free and easy basically everywhere else) -- and it gives me more options. But I definitely don't need it. In summary: 1) You absolutely can get around by transit in many (most?) largish Midwestern cities; 2) People own cars anyway because it's cheap and convenient; 3) People choose transit not when it's merely convenient, but when it's more convenient than car ownership. [0] http://ridekc.org/assets/uploads/documents/SystemMap.pdf http://ridekc.org/assets/uploads/documents/SystemMap.pdf
  - TuringNYC 10y ago
    This comment is exactly on point. I also used to think you could go without a car...then I had two children. Taking one infant or toddler on the subway was difficult. Taking two were nearly impossible. Many stations have no elevator, so you lug the stroller+child up and down stairs and hope someone helps you out. Uber? Not so much -- it is illegal to have a child in a taxi w/o a car seat. We used to carry around a child seat on our storller. Then we had two children and it is literally impossible, so we purchased the car. I'm not trying to argue over the merits of living in a city vs a suburb. The parent stated that cars cost the same in KC and SF and I'm providing a realistic alternative -- they do not because of parking and ancillary costs. At this point it is obvious we need to move out of the city and it is down to an optimization problem of how much space we want vs how many hours a week i can see my child (e.g., I can live in NJ, but i wont be back home in time to see kids 4+ days out of the week.) I imagine the calculus is the same in SF, but I cannot say firsthand.
  - morgante 10y ago
    > I think you've actually got this backwards. People in NYC would prefer to own a car, just like everybody else in America. What a weird remark. Have you considered that there might be people who don't fetishize cars like you do? I very specifically hate driving. I specifically choose which cities I live in so I can avoid driving. I've tried transport in most cities outside of NYC. It's really not on the level of NYC. Yes, there is a bus system but it's hardly comparable to a subway system where I can get anywhere in the city throughout the night with minimal waits.
    - dionidium 10y ago
      >Have you considered that there might be people who don't fetishize cars like you do? I feel like you might have this loaded as a sort of generic thing you say to people, but it doesn't apply here. I'm talking about the tradeoffs people make in general. Calling me a car fetishist is a non sequitur.
      - morgante 10y ago
ghaff 10y ago
Maybe--depending upon your commuting and family situation and what compromises you're willing to make. However, NYC (esp. Manhattan/parts of Brooklyn) is a qualitatively different situation with respect to car ownership and public transportation--and just the culture associated with them--than pretty much any other US city.
TulliusCicero 10y ago
The difference in quality of public transportation between NYC and Kansas City is Grand Canyon-sized.