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.
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.
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?
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.
Really so cal, texas, South east, and west should be walkable but their car centric nightmares filled with traffic
Cities didn’t develop in southern hot climates until really the advent of air conditioning, which aligns roughly with the rise of cars.
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.
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.