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.
this list is a joke. Another example of people creating a formula and deciding to go forward with the results regardless of the fact that it obviously doesn't make sense.
How in the world in Boston only at number 10? Is this serious? Great public transportation, great walkability. And yet it's somehow behind San Jose? Even this website acknowledges that San Jose has the 34th highest walkscore and yet it somehow rates ahead of Boston that has the third highest walk score? Someone better go back to the drawing board and re-figure out how these factors should be weighted.
No Washington DC? No Chicago? No Philadelphia? But we have San Jose, Salt Lake City, and Denver?
Not to mention one of the key factors in this study is nonsensical. Jobs reachable within in 90 minutes? What does that even mean? 90 minutes from where? What kind of jobs? why 90 minutes? I mean honestly that is a super long commute time? If a job is 90 minutes by public transportation away from do they really think that qualifies as an asset?
These studies always just annoy me, very poorly done, and then they put out a list and act as though it means something. The idea of even doing such a list and considering an entire metro area is just absurd anyway. A list like this should only focus on the city itself. Like the ability to get from one part of the metro to another really improves my ability to live in a city without a car. The whole point of a city that is easy to live in without a car is the fact that you don't have to travel far away to get to things you need.
In NYC, you have to transfer systems from commuter rail at Grand Central or Penn to the NYC subway. You have to pay again and you lose time transferring. Chicago's Metra doesn't have many station's in the city so a transfer to the "El" is required also.
Actually from looking over a map there are 66 metra stops within the city. There are 5-6 main stations downtown, but then another 60 stations out in the city neighborhoods. I tend to just use the L or buses, but I know lots of people at work who live on the north and south sides of the city who always use Metra cause it's faster.
Actually from looking over a map there are 66 metra stops within the city. There are 5-6 main stations downtown, but then another 60 stations out in the city neighborhoods. I tend to just use the L or buses, but I know lots of people at work who live on the north and south sides of the city who always use Metra cause it's faster.
That is true, but they are heavy on lines coming from the south and north. Almost all of those are on the pink and red from the south and green along the northern coast. Most of Chicago requires a transfer to the "El". Since we are talking about getting around without a car, this isn't really about commuting downtown for work, it's about getting around the Metro area without a car. That's why I said you can't do it faster or cheaper than the D.C. metro because it's one system.
They are talking about penetration into neighborhoods, walkability, cycling etc......It says nothing about what type of transit is the best or most convenient. Growing up in northern California in a typical suburban situation, we had city bus service in our neighborhood, we could go anywhere quickly. Doesnt mean its the metro, but you see what Im saying.....
To compile this list of the best cities to live in without a car, 24/7 Wall St. examined the 100 largest metropolitan areas. In each city, we looked at the percentage of neighborhoods covered by public transit, the frequency of service for those neighborhoods and the share of jobs reachable within 90 minutes or less by public transit for people living in those neighborhoods, all provided by the Brookings Institution. We also looked at the "walk score" for the primary city of each metropolitan area, provided by research group Walk Score. This number represents how accessible amenities are for residents of a city on foot. Finally, we considered the percentage of commuters who bike to work, using data from the Census Bureau. Having cities that allow easy car-free living has other benefits. Nick Spang of Walk Score told 24/7 Wall St. via email: "Walkable neighborhoods are one of the simplest and best solutions for the environment, our health and our economy." These are 24/7 Wall St.'s best cities to live in without a car.
1. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA
> Transit coverage: 91.7% (5th highest)
> Service frequency (minutes): 8.5 (12th highest)
> Jobs reachable in 90 minutes: 34.8 (30th highest)
> Walk score: 84.9 (2nd highest)
> Commuters who bike: 1.65% (6th highest) San Francisco is held in high regard for its many successful transit systems, including the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority and the Bay Area Rapid Transit district. These systems cover nearly 92% of neighborhoods — the fifth highest rate in the country. San Francisco also has the second highest walk score and is excellent for bicyclists. Commuter rails within the city allow bicyclists to mount with their bicycles, and there is a bike shuttle across the Bay Bridge to help cyclists during rush hour.
That is true, but they are heavy on lines coming from the south and north. Almost all of those are on the pink and red from the south and green along the northern coast. Most of Chicago requires a transfer to the "El". Since we are talking about getting around without a car, this isn't really about commuting downtown for work, it's about getting around the Metro area without a car. That's why I said you can't do it faster or cheaper than the D.C. metro because it's one system.
It seems people are reading or grasping your point. I concur.
The only system in the US that will get you from far out suburbs to most places in city proper without a transfer of systems in a fast amount of time is Washington DC. NYC you have to take commuter rail and transfer to the NYC subway. San Fran, you have to take Bart and transfer to Muni. And places like LA you have to take the bus. From a speed stand point, Metro is really the only system that can get you to your destination without transferring systems adding to the cost of the trip and travel time. LA definetly beats most places for bus travel. That is a very slow way to travel though. We are talking multiple hours.
The NYC region has public transit that extends much further then DC's though, the commuter rails go way into the suburbs.
Although you do have to transfer at Penn or Grand Central for the subway, both stations are major transit hubs and have multiple subway lines running through them.
The only system in the US that will get you from far out suburbs to most places in city proper without a transfer of systems in a fast amount of time is Washington DC. NYC you have to take commuter rail and transfer to the NYC subway. San Fran, you have to take Bart and transfer to Muni. And places like LA you have to take the bus. From a speed stand point, Metro is really the only system that can get you to your destination without transferring systems adding to the cost of the trip and travel time. LA definetly beats most places for bus travel. That is a very slow way to travel though. We are talking multiple hours.
Maybe you can say one system but as an example a monthly SEPTA pass allows for free underground central connections to all subways, subway surface, Light rail, regional rail, streetcar, and buses. But changing from regional rail to subway in the core is no different than the metro, maybe 50 ft further to walk but they basically function very similar and may or may not require a connection like the Metro
The only system in the US that will get you from far out suburbs to most places in city proper without a transfer of systems in a fast amount of time is Washington DC. NYC you have to take commuter rail and transfer to the NYC subway. San Fran, you have to take Bart and transfer to Muni. And places like LA you have to take the bus. From a speed stand point, Metro is really the only system that can get you to your destination without transferring systems adding to the cost of the trip and travel time. LA definetly beats most places for bus travel. That is a very slow way to travel though. We are talking multiple hours.
Now this is just a foolish distinction. How is transferring from one Metro line to another different in a meaningful way from a commuter rail to subway transfer? And your point about price is silly, too, as the Metro is very expensive. Everything you've said can be said about Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston, for example, where a single authority operates commuter rail and subway, the only distinction being equipment. Also, in all three of my examples, the commuter rail offers multiple stops throughout the city, acting more like a Metro style hybrid. Boston has at least 19 commuter rail stations within city limits.
Now this is just a foolish distinction. How is transferring from one Metro line to another different in a meaningful way from a commuter rail to subway transfer? And your point about price is silly, too, as the Metro is very expensive. Everything you've said can be said about Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston, for example, where a single authority operates commuter rail and subway, the only distinction being equipment. Also, in all three of my examples, the commuter rail offers multiple stops throughout the city, acting more like a Metro style hybrid. Boston has at least 19 commuter rail stations within city limits.
True, but commuter rail doesn't run every 3-5 minutes like DC's metro does during rush hour. I guess, I'm talking about city center frequency in the suburbs. That's why I said same system meaning same frequency too.
Maybe you can say one system but as an example a monthly SEPTA pass allows for free underground central connections to all subways, subway surface, Light rail, regional rail, streetcar, and buses. But changing from regional rail to subway in the core is no different than the metro, maybe 50 ft further to walk but they basically function very similar and may or may not require a connection like the Metro
Like I said to the other guy, I guess I'm talking about one system meaning frequency as well. Commuter Rail doesn't run every 3-5 minutes like DC's metro does during rush hour. I guess I'm saying same system and frequency you get in the city center as way in the suburbs. Only DC's metro gives that without even transferring to a new system.
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.
