Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,749 posts, read 23,822,981 times
Reputation: 14665
Advertisements
How bizarre that Denver, LA, and gasp... Salt Lake City would rank higher than Boston. Indeed all three cities have increased their mass transit exponentially and the walkability factor along with urban infill is rapidly improving in Denver, SLC, & LA but they are all light years away from having the cohesiveness and walkability of Boston.
Nobody necessarily takes these things as gospel, but you need to read it. Its not just about mass transit.
The article clearly states in the very first paragraph that public transportation is the most important factor in living without a car. But then proceeds to basically ignore underground heavy rail and commuter rail. That's ridiculous.
BTW, Washington DC is pretty much tied with Chicago as having the 2nd most extensive underground rail system in the U.S., after New York City.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 11-07-2011 at 07:29 AM..
The article in OP focuses heavily on buses and bicycles for "transit" and not so much on underground rail and commuter rail. It doesn't seem to even take into consideration metro ridership percentages.
Doing so favors western U.S. cities more. It figures, consider the source.
This list makes no sense. To me there are actually very few cities (even neighborhoods in these cities where car free life is a real tangible possibility). Also without walking distance to car share programs I would immeadiately discount the ability live car free. This doesnt even make sense. Plus all are in aggregates, average scores etc. MEANINGLESS to me, these are better determined neighborhood by neighborhood
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,749 posts, read 23,822,981 times
Reputation: 14665
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
This list makes no sense. To me there are actually very few cities (even neighborhoods in these cities where car free life is a real tangible possibility). Also without walking distance to car share programs I would immeadiately discount the ability live car free. This doesnt even make sense. Plus all are in aggregates, average scores etc. MEANINGLESS to me, these are better determined neighborhood by neighborhood
True, I think most walkable neighborhood could be a more interesting and lengthy discussions, even bringing up legitimately walkable neighborhoods in cities that aren’t widely thought of as walkable. Good thread idea.
I have traveled to 48 states and lived in 7 of them. The only cities I would consider living in without a car are Boston, NYC, Philly, DC, Chicago, SF and Portland.
As somebody who has lived in several of these cities, as well as takes pt when visiting or on business.. This list is BUNK. I hope nobody actually uses it to gauge where to live w/o a car LOLOLOLOL... shocker! Denver, SLC, and San Jose without a car are a JOKE. The others are certainly doable, but not in order.
Notable missing cities include Chicago, DC, Philly, New Orleans. Good that the writer took into account population size...The article also claims "cities" to live in without a car, then proceeds to include the entire metro area.
There is no way that some of the cities on this list are better than DC. I have a car, but I haven't driven it in weeks. I live in northern VA and work in DC. I get around just fine (metro & bus).
This list makes no sense. To me there are actually very few cities (even neighborhoods in these cities where car free life is a real tangible possibility). Also without walking distance to car share programs I would immeadiately discount the ability live car free. This doesnt even make sense. Plus all are in aggregates, average scores etc. MEANINGLESS to me, these are better determined neighborhood by neighborhood
Agreed, although I think LA's spot on this list is deserved, cities like Philadelphia, Boston and probably even Chicago as a whole are more walkable than LA. I can't think of a lot of spots in Boston you have to have a car to live comfortably. Granted, LA is so big that its walkable areas probably add up to the same square mileage as the city of Boston (or bigger) .
This list makes no sense. To me there are actually very few cities (even neighborhoods in these cities where car free life is a real tangible possibility). Also without walking distance to car share programs I would immeadiately discount the ability live car free. This doesnt even make sense. Plus all are in aggregates, average scores etc. MEANINGLESS to me, these are better determined neighborhood by neighborhood
Easy kid.....we can talk about ice cream later....
Some of the criteria are good, but in general you are right its about neighborhoods....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
