So you don't "need" a vehicle in Chicago? Then stop bumming rides! (Lincoln: house, neighborhood)

[ERS-One]

Originally Posted by UTN100

Still doesn't come close to matching the convenience of a car.

And $350 won't go very far if your daily errands are by taxi.

Not to mention that taxis are only available in 10% of the city, if that.

People who choose to go car-less don't do errands by taxi.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by UTN100

Still doesn't come close to matching the convenience of a car.

And $350 won't go very far if your daily errands are by taxi.

Not to mention that taxis are only available in 10% of the city, if that.

I wouldn't recommend living car-free in a part of the city that isn't conducive to car-free living any more than I would recommend living car-free in Silicon Valley. Which is to say, I wouldn't recommend it.

If the question is "Can you live comfortably in Chicago without owning a car?" The answer is yes.

If the question is "Can you live in every part of Chicago at every income range without owning a car and have a comfortable lifestyle appropriate to your income range?" The answer is no.

I suspect the answer would be no in most every American city, including New York City. There are parts of New York where cars offer a distinct advantage, even if in large parts of New York the cost/benefit balance favors going car-free for most income ranges. Likewise if the question is "Is going car-free the best choice for everyone in Chicago?" That answer is definitely no, but it doesn't mean that if you want to be able to give up your car and still enjoy a good life here it can't be done. It does require more forethought here than it would in, for example, New York or Paris, but it is an available lifestyle choice, especially for people who are at an income level where they could choose to live in places like New York or Paris comfortably, too.

I've written several times on here that in Chicago going car-free is a fortunately available choice for the poor, a cost-effective lifestyle choice for the upper-middle class including most professionals who would want a "nice" car if they had one, but financially not always the best choice for the lower-middle and middle-middle class who probably wouldn't want a BMW even if they could afford one. This is because to live comfortably without a car does require spending more on taxis and Zipcars and delivery services, and mostly (not always, but mostly) requires living in a more-expensive neighborhood. You could own a car in Chicago for as little as $200/month (amortizing the difference between purchase price and trade-in or resale value across the length of ownership, adding in insurance for an 10-year-old car assuming you're a good driver, and state/city taxes), if you don't drive it too often. But it won't be an especially nice car and that assumes you don't need any major repairs, which is probably not a safe assumption, but $250/month over a 5-year span might be doable including repairs. But to keep that cost low, you can't drive a lot all the time, and you have to park on the street which can be a hassle at times (street cleaning, snow removal, etc, etc, etc). Those sorts of hassles wouldn't appeal to most upper-middle-class people, so they'd want parking. Even if they got a used car, they'd prefer a car that was new enough to still be under warranty. They'd have more insurance coverage. They'd be more likely to risk getting a parking ticket because the cost would only be a moderate inconvenience instead of a financially destabilizing blow. So the costs of car ownership for better-off people in a city (this doesn't apply as much in the suburbs) are usually 3-4 times as high as sort of the minimum cost of car ownership possible for the very frugal. Once you compare that reality to what you can do with $750-$1,000/month in terms of taxis and Zipcar, it starts to be more clear why some upper-middle and professional class people opt to voluntarily be car-free.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

It's almost as if car sharing was set up as a business, and management made some intelligent decisions with regards to their customer base.

Indeed. And another intelligent decision was getting you to say car "sharing" rather than car renting.

In any event most of the city lacks this zipcar model of car renting.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by emathias

I wouldn't recommend living car-free in a part of the city that isn't conducive to car-free living any more than I would recommend living car-free in Silicon Valley. Which is to say, I wouldn't recommend it.

If the question is "Can you live comfortably in Chicago without owning a car?" The answer is yes.

If the question is "Can you live in every part of Chicago at every income range without owning a car and have a comfortable lifestyle appropriate to your income range?" The answer is no.

I suspect the answer would be no in most every American city, including New York City. There are parts of New York where cars offer a distinct advantage, even if in large parts of New York the cost/benefit balance favors going car-free for most income ranges. Likewise if the question is "Is going car-free the best choice for everyone in Chicago?" That answer is definitely no, but it doesn't mean that if you want to be able to give up your car and still enjoy a good life here it can't be done. It does require more forethought here than it would in, for example, New York or Paris, but it is an available lifestyle choice, especially for people who are at an income level where they could choose to live in places like New York or Paris comfortably, too.

I've written several times on here that in Chicago going car-free is a fortunately available choice for the poor, a cost-effective lifestyle choice for the upper-middle class including most professionals who would want a "nice" car if they had one, but financially not always the best choice for the lower-middle and middle-middle class who probably wouldn't want a BMW even if they could afford one. This is because to live comfortably without a car does require spending more on taxis and Zipcars and delivery services, and mostly (not always, but mostly) requires living in a more-expensive neighborhood. You could own a car in Chicago for as little as $200/month (amortizing the difference between purchase price and trade-in or resale value across the length of ownership, adding in insurance for an 10-year-old car assuming you're a good driver, and state/city taxes), if you don't drive it too often. But it won't be an especially nice car and that assumes you don't need any major repairs, which is probably not a safe assumption, but $250/month over a 5-year span might be doable including repairs. But to keep that cost low, you can't drive a lot all the time, and you have to park on the street which can be a hassle at times (street cleaning, snow removal, etc, etc, etc). Those sorts of hassles wouldn't appeal to most upper-middle-class people, so they'd want parking. Even if they got a used car, they'd prefer a car that was new enough to still be under warranty. They'd have more insurance coverage. They'd be more likely to risk getting a parking ticket because the cost would only be a moderate inconvenience instead of a financially destabilizing blow. So the costs of car ownership for better-off people in a city (this doesn't apply as much in the suburbs) are usually 3-4 times as high as sort of the minimum cost of car ownership possible for the very frugal. Once you compare that reality to what you can do with $750-$1,000/month in terms of taxis and Zipcar, it starts to be more clear why some upper-middle and professional class people opt to voluntarily be car-free.

Stop, you're reasoning doesn't fit with UTN's meme.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by ERS-One

People who choose to go car-less don't do errands by taxi.

Not all do, but if the choice is actually voluntary, and not really a financial choice, then quite a few do at least some errands by taxi. I know I do. There have been times in the past 12 years that I've basically commuted by taxi.

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by UTN100

Still doesn't come close to matching the convenience of a car.

And $350 won't go very far if your daily errands are by taxi.

Not to mention that taxis are only available in 10% of the city, if that.

I'm guessing you've never lived without a car or live in a dense area of the city. I've been car free for 8 years and never have any reason to ask people for rides. Trains and buses to work, $7 cab rides home from the bar. That's 90% of my life.

I rent a car a few times a year to go back to Iowa and stock up on stuff. I buy a ton of things off Amazon. Free shipping, no sales tax and it's normally cheaper than any store anyway.

I've certainly never taken a taxi just to run errands. I walk up the street to Target or the Grocery store once a week.

I have probably 20 close friends who don't own cars and haven't for years. We all make $60K to around $120K a year and no one ever talks about getting a car. My grandma handed me a new car earlier this summer when my grandpa died and I felt really bad when I told her I just plain didn't want it. Too much hassle and too expensive.

I have a friend who's a lawyer and makes well into the 6-figures and hasn't had a car since he was 18.

It's all about where you live, what your priorities are and where you work. It can easily be done without a car, and you save a LOT of money. 99% of the time I take a cab I certainly wouldn't be driving anyway because it's late at night and I'm really drunk or I'm in a rush to get somewhere that I wouldn't want to mess with a car anyway.

[Chicago60614]

I like how the OP created the thread, then went racing for the hills the second it got moved to a forum on her home turf.

[Alacran]

He's dementor guys....

[Jandur]

Originally Posted by UTN100

Outside of the poors, who have no choice, almost all Chicago households have cars.

Unless you're in college or something, you will have a pretty crappy existence taking an hour bus ride to the Costco for toilet paper, waiting on an El station for 30 minutes at 2 AM and -20 degrees, or taking a date on the ****-smelling CTA.

Street parking is relatively easy, unless you're an idiot. I lived in Lakeview, and never had problems street parking.

Or I can take a cab.

[expatChicagoan]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

I'm guessing you've never lived without a car or live in a dense area of the city.

I've certainly never taken a taxi just to run errands. I walk up the street to Target or the Grocery store once a week.

I have probably 20 close friends who don't own cars and haven't for years. We all make $60K to around $120K a year and no one ever talks about getting a car.
It's all about where you live, what your priorities are and where you work. It can easily be done without a car, and you save a LOT of money.

+1.

When you live and work in the loop, I don't see the need for a car. You can take your granny cart to Dominick's to get your groceries; you can walk to and from work, restaurants, entertainment etc. A zipcar is convenient for when you need to purchase larger items.