4 ms·

true --- NYC is more expensive than the cities mentioned, but all of the cities you mentioned require a car (yes I know Chicago has a train, but it's not super

true --- NYC is more expensive than the cities mentioned, but all of the cities you mentioned require a car (yes I know Chicago has a train, but it's not super convenient, the other two cities absolutely require a car). A car requires a car payment, an insurance payment, gas, maintenance (tires, oil, general problems). Not to mention while your sitting in traffic, you cant work or a read a book or study math, learn a new language etc. Long car-based commutes degrades your lifestyle. I think most people that have this perception NYC is outrageously expensive, but they do not take into account the expenses they endure when they live in other locations. Groceries are not double the cost of other cities here either. If you go to whole foods, that might be true but there are a ton of options to find fresh, reasonably priced food.

lysistokill 8y ago
Of all the cities in the US, you probably least need a car in Boston. Most parts are super walkable and the public transit is decent too.
chuckgreenman 8y ago
I live in Cincinnati, have no car and my commute is less than 20 minutes a day bicycling. In most cities you really don't need a car.
- misiti3780 8y ago
  you are in the absolutely minority of people living in that city
lightcatcher 8y ago
Chicago definitely does not "absolutely require" a car. I've lived here for a few years without one, and 80-90% of my friends in the city don't own one. The trains don't go everywhere, but train + bus + bike share + Lyft make it very easy (and probably more convenient) to not own a car.
bamboo_7 8y ago
Boston does not require a car. Got rid of my car 10 years ago. Only problem is that rent is more expensive near the subway. But we have buses and many many international workers and students. Very livable without a car.
eropple 8y ago
Boston doesn't require a car. I have one...but I have one because my girlfriend and I have two dogs and my family lives out of state.
phakding 8y ago
> yes I know Chicago has a train, but it's not super convenient This is as far from truth as it gets. Having a car in Chicago is a liability and one can go anywhere from anywhere within city limits and even to suburbs with public transport. I have seen the chicago public transport being put above NYC in many rankings
poipoipoipoi 8y ago
Not... Exactly true. I agree that losing an extra 10 minutes to a sit-down train vs. a car is a big deal. However, the New York subway is jam-packed and failing, so you have to stand 24 hours a day, dodge other riders... You can't do work on the subway, so subway is basically equivalent to the car, except the car is much, much less likely to break down.

lysistokill 8y ago

Of all the cities in the US, you probably least need a car in Boston. Most parts are super walkable and the public transit is decent too.

chuckgreenman 8y ago

I live in Cincinnati, have no car and my commute is less than 20 minutes a day bicycling. In most cities you really don't need a car.

misiti3780 8y ago
you are in the absolutely minority of people living in that city

lightcatcher 8y ago

Chicago definitely does not "absolutely require" a car. I've lived here for a few years without one, and 80-90% of my friends in the city don't own one. The trains don't go everywhere, but train + bus + bike share + Lyft make it very easy (and probably more convenient) to not own a car.

bamboo_7 8y ago

Boston does not require a car. Got rid of my car 10 years ago. Only problem is that rent is more expensive near the subway. But we have buses and many many international workers and students. Very livable without a car.

eropple 8y ago

Boston doesn't require a car. I have one...but I have one because my girlfriend and I have two dogs and my family lives out of state.

phakding 8y ago

> yes I know Chicago has a train, but it's not super convenient This is as far from truth as it gets. Having a car in Chicago is a liability and one can go anywhere from anywhere within city limits and even to suburbs with public transport. I have seen the chicago public transport being put above NYC in many rankings

poipoipoipoi 8y ago

Not... Exactly true. I agree that losing an extra 10 minutes to a sit-down train vs. a car is a big deal. However, the New York subway is jam-packed and failing, so you have to stand 24 hours a day, dodge other riders... You can't do work on the subway, so subway is basically equivalent to the car, except the car is much, much less likely to break down.