4 ms·

I don’t think you received great answers besides New York. I myself am trying to move from SF to New York. The reality is that in the US New York is the only ci

by baby 3y ago

I don’t think you received great answers besides New York. I myself am trying to move from SF to New York. The reality is that in the US New York is the only city that seems livable if you are not a car. Chicago is the only one I can think of that’s dense and has life as a pedestrian, but the winter there is intense. It’s too bad because real estate is cheap there.

ghc 3y ago
You definitely don't need (or want) a car in Boston. Boston is extremely pedestrian friendly and correspondingly hostile to cars. 95% of the people who complain about getting around here are commuters from outside the city.
- helen___keller 3y ago
  Unfortunately this isn’t true in all of greater Boston or even within the whole metro core. If you live in Watertown, Quincy, Waltham, Newton, etc etc you are going to have a very different experience My main complaint with Boston is that even if you’re happy with just the walkable city center, it’s still tough commuting if you can’t walk/bike and you aren’t going to/from downtown Boston. For example if someone in Somerville takes a job in Boston Landing they’re looking at a multiple seat commute over an hour most likely, to effectively travel maybe 5-10 miles. Driving still ends up winning.
  - Gravityloss 3y ago
    If you're going 5 miles, biking sounds like a realistic alternative?
    - helen___keller 3y ago
      Yep, the drive and bike times for my example are roughly the same at rush hour according to google. For someone interesting in biking as a commute, Boston/camberville is probably one of the best places to live+work. If you can deal with the winter anyways
  - klysm 3y ago
    Somerville to Boston landing is kind of a tough example, but I agree it’s annoying that there’s no way to go “sideways” on most public transport in Boston - everything goes to the center
  - ghc 3y ago
    This is true of even the most public-transit-centered cities like Tokyo and NYC. It's easy to find commutes that are short as the crow flies but cover a much longer distance on public transit.
- LeanderK 3y ago
  > You definitely don't need (or want) a car in Boston I have never been to Boston, but if this is true then why is the public transport map so weird? There's the subway for inter-city travel but if you're commuting then commuter rail does not seem practical at all because of this weird gap? To me it made the impression of a neglected system, presumably because everyone commutes by car. Is there still space downtown for e.g. bicycle lanes? Otherwise this surely would have been fixed for decades now. Or is it just painful to commute because there's a livable downtown with public transit, bike lanes etc., which was not completely sacrificed for cars, but just without a great commuter solution?
  - ghc 3y ago
    The public transit system is shaped by natural barriers and landfill, so the weird layout really has nothing to do with neglect (though there's plenty of that too!). The subway system actually covers a large area including Boston and the urban area surrounding it. The commuter rail mostly serves the urban cores of suburban communities outside Boston, so people drive to the commuter rail and then commute by train from there. Before covid (no idea what the numbers are now) only 40% of people in the Boston metro commuted by car alone, roughly the same share as those who took the commuter rail and subway. 20% of people commuted by car and bike. The share of people who commute by car in the core of Boston is extremely small. At least 50% of roads in the city are single lane and one way. Parking is expensive and scarce. Driving 2 miles (as the crow flies) can easily take an hour, which makes walking pretty competitive as a mode of transit.
mattcaldwell 3y ago
Zero need for a car in most of DC, NOVA, and MD inside the beltway.
- baby 3y ago
  What’s nova and md? No need for a car != agreeable to live as a pedestrian. For example, I don’t need a car in SF but I wouldn’t compare it to a real and agreeable walkable city like we have in europe or asia. It’s mostly large streets designed for cars, residential areas, with shops only allowed to exist in limited commercial streets.
  - wildrhythms 3y ago
    NOVA = Northern Virginia MD = Maryland Both considered commuter hubs for DC. And I think they're alluding to being able to utilize the DC metro 'inside the beltway' (I-495) hence the distinction there, which is true to an extent, but I wouldn't live in NOVA or MD without a car personally. There is Amtrak service to areas outside of the beltway, but my experience with Amtrak has been extremely poor. I know many people in DC and they all own a car because the metro, while great for getting in and out of DC, is somewhat limited when it comes to going anywhere else.
hifromLA 3y ago
I agree even though you’ll always get responses talking about other US cities where it’s technically possible to live without a car. I found living without a car in SF not so ideal because it ultimately means living your life in a pretty small subset of the overall metro area. That slice of the metro area is also disproportionately gentrified and has that kind of yuppie vibe (with prices to match). I feel the same from visiting other cities like Seattle, Chicago, DC, Philly, etc. New York is the only US city I’ve been to that I would say is actually comparable to other global cities. All the other US cities pale in comparison.
tayo42 3y ago
Never thought of it buts it's funny in away that the cities with the shittiest winters are the best walkable cities. Really so cal, texas, South east, and west should be walkable but their car centric nightmares filled with traffic
- nytesky 3y ago
  The key to being a walkable city is to developed as a city BEFORE cars. Then they had dense grids because most people walked or took wagons at best. Cities didn’t develop in southern hot climates until really the advent of air conditioning, which aligns roughly with the rise of cars.
ckdarby 3y ago
Coming from a Canadian, you're in for a shock if you think New York doesn't have intense winters as well.
- wildrhythms 3y ago
  I live here and the winters are not that bad. I lived in the midwest and west previously and they were 10x worse due to needing to potentially drive somewhere in it (and the supermarkets being wiped out in the days leading up to inclemate weather). Here in NYC you just put your boots and coat on and go on your way. The subways still run when it's snowing. The coldest day of the year only dipped below 0°F once in the past 15 years.
- MrMan 3y ago
  [dead]

by baby 3y ago

ghc 3y ago

You definitely don't need (or want) a car in Boston. Boston is extremely pedestrian friendly and correspondingly hostile to cars. 95% of the people who complain about getting around here are commuters from outside the city.

helen___keller 3y ago
Unfortunately this isn’t true in all of greater Boston or even within the whole metro core. If you live in Watertown, Quincy, Waltham, Newton, etc etc you are going to have a very different experience My main complaint with Boston is that even if you’re happy with just the walkable city center, it’s still tough commuting if you can’t walk/bike and you aren’t going to/from downtown Boston. For example if someone in Somerville takes a job in Boston Landing they’re looking at a multiple seat commute over an hour most likely, to effectively travel maybe 5-10 miles. Driving still ends up winning.
- Gravityloss 3y ago
  If you're going 5 miles, biking sounds like a realistic alternative?
  - helen___keller 3y ago
    Yep, the drive and bike times for my example are roughly the same at rush hour according to google. For someone interesting in biking as a commute, Boston/camberville is probably one of the best places to live+work. If you can deal with the winter anyways
- klysm 3y ago
  Somerville to Boston landing is kind of a tough example, but I agree it’s annoying that there’s no way to go “sideways” on most public transport in Boston - everything goes to the center
- ghc 3y ago
  This is true of even the most public-transit-centered cities like Tokyo and NYC. It's easy to find commutes that are short as the crow flies but cover a much longer distance on public transit.
LeanderK 3y ago
> You definitely don't need (or want) a car in Boston I have never been to Boston, but if this is true then why is the public transport map so weird? There's the subway for inter-city travel but if you're commuting then commuter rail does not seem practical at all because of this weird gap? To me it made the impression of a neglected system, presumably because everyone commutes by car. Is there still space downtown for e.g. bicycle lanes? Otherwise this surely would have been fixed for decades now. Or is it just painful to commute because there's a livable downtown with public transit, bike lanes etc., which was not completely sacrificed for cars, but just without a great commuter solution?
- ghc 3y ago
  The public transit system is shaped by natural barriers and landfill, so the weird layout really has nothing to do with neglect (though there's plenty of that too!). The subway system actually covers a large area including Boston and the urban area surrounding it. The commuter rail mostly serves the urban cores of suburban communities outside Boston, so people drive to the commuter rail and then commute by train from there. Before covid (no idea what the numbers are now) only 40% of people in the Boston metro commuted by car alone, roughly the same share as those who took the commuter rail and subway. 20% of people commuted by car and bike. The share of people who commute by car in the core of Boston is extremely small. At least 50% of roads in the city are single lane and one way. Parking is expensive and scarce. Driving 2 miles (as the crow flies) can easily take an hour, which makes walking pretty competitive as a mode of transit.

mattcaldwell 3y ago

Zero need for a car in most of DC, NOVA, and MD inside the beltway.

baby 3y ago
What’s nova and md? No need for a car != agreeable to live as a pedestrian. For example, I don’t need a car in SF but I wouldn’t compare it to a real and agreeable walkable city like we have in europe or asia. It’s mostly large streets designed for cars, residential areas, with shops only allowed to exist in limited commercial streets.
- wildrhythms 3y ago
  NOVA = Northern Virginia MD = Maryland Both considered commuter hubs for DC. And I think they're alluding to being able to utilize the DC metro 'inside the beltway' (I-495) hence the distinction there, which is true to an extent, but I wouldn't live in NOVA or MD without a car personally. There is Amtrak service to areas outside of the beltway, but my experience with Amtrak has been extremely poor. I know many people in DC and they all own a car because the metro, while great for getting in and out of DC, is somewhat limited when it comes to going anywhere else.

hifromLA 3y ago

I agree even though you’ll always get responses talking about other US cities where it’s technically possible to live without a car. I found living without a car in SF not so ideal because it ultimately means living your life in a pretty small subset of the overall metro area. That slice of the metro area is also disproportionately gentrified and has that kind of yuppie vibe (with prices to match). I feel the same from visiting other cities like Seattle, Chicago, DC, Philly, etc. New York is the only US city I’ve been to that I would say is actually comparable to other global cities. All the other US cities pale in comparison.

tayo42 3y ago

Never thought of it buts it's funny in away that the cities with the shittiest winters are the best walkable cities. Really so cal, texas, South east, and west should be walkable but their car centric nightmares filled with traffic

nytesky 3y ago
The key to being a walkable city is to developed as a city BEFORE cars. Then they had dense grids because most people walked or took wagons at best. Cities didn’t develop in southern hot climates until really the advent of air conditioning, which aligns roughly with the rise of cars.

ckdarby 3y ago

Coming from a Canadian, you're in for a shock if you think New York doesn't have intense winters as well.

wildrhythms 3y ago
I live here and the winters are not that bad. I lived in the midwest and west previously and they were 10x worse due to needing to potentially drive somewhere in it (and the supermarkets being wiped out in the days leading up to inclemate weather). Here in NYC you just put your boots and coat on and go on your way. The subways still run when it's snowing. The coldest day of the year only dipped below 0°F once in the past 15 years.
MrMan 3y ago
[dead]