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.
No doubt Chicago, DC, and Boston are on another level than Seattle. Along with NYC, Philly, and SF they are easily the best cities to live in without a car in the US.
Seattle is in the tier below, although I'd argue it rates favorably compared to most cities in the US. If you live in Downtown, Belltown, Capitol Hill, Queen Anne, First Hill, or any of the other inner neighborhoods, living without a car is actually pretty easy and many people do it.
Also, neighborhoods outside the urban core like Ballard, Fremont, U District, Roosevelt, Phinney/Greenwood, and several others are fairly self-sustaining with their own commercial districts. If you don't have a car and live in one of these areas, you can still walk to stores, restaurants, bars, etc. However, given the fact that many of these neighborhoods are fairly spaced out from each other and Seattle's clunky geography, if you're trying to go between neighborhoods (outside the urban core) not having a car can be a pain in the ass. The bus system is fairly comprehensive but you have to wait, it sits in traffic, and is just generally not as convenient as driving. They're building out a light rail/subway system that will have its own right of way, and once it's completed the situation should be improved.
However, in Boston, DC, and Chicago transit is far more advanced and - at least in DC and Boston - even the outer neighborhoods are much more connected to each other and easier to get between.
Another disadvantage for Seattle is that, while much of the city's residential population live in urban environments, there are also more single family residential areas than the other cities on this list. Obviously it's more difficult to live without a car in a single family area.
I live in Arlington, VA, very close to a Metro stop and I think Seattle's transportation is better. There is a difference between depending on public transit only at rush hour and depending on it 24/7. Those of you who haven't been in D.C. in awhile may not realize that the Metro is undergoing extensive track work during late evenings and weekends, which causes delays and which will be going on through 2017 (translation: through 2025). I have visited Seattle several times and find the bus system quicker for getting around the city in off-hours. I also find that Seattle's neighborhoods are more self-contained, where you can walk to the supermarket and to other services more easily than the D.C. area. I depend on a grocery delivery service because the closest supermarket is about a 3/4 mile away, too far to carry more than one bag of items. The buses in Arlington run about every 1/2 hour on weekends, if you're lucky. (In D.C. they are more frequent.)
No doubt Chicago, DC, and Boston are on another level than Seattle. Along with NYC, Philly, and SF they are easily the best cities to live in without a car in the US.
Seattle is in the tier below, although I'd argue it rates favorably compared to most cities in the US. If you live in Downtown, Belltown, Capitol Hill, Queen Anne, First Hill, or any of the other inner neighborhoods, living without a car is actually pretty easy and many people do it.
Also, neighborhoods outside the urban core like Ballard, Fremont, U District, Roosevelt, Phinney/Greenwood, and several others are fairly self-sustaining with their own commercial districts. If you don't have a car and live in one of these areas, you can still walk to stores, restaurants, bars, etc. However, given the fact that many of these neighborhoods are fairly spaced out from each other and Seattle's clunky geography, if you're trying to go between neighborhoods (outside the urban core) not having a car can be a pain in the ass. The bus system is fairly comprehensive but you have to wait, it sits in traffic, and is just generally not as convenient as driving. They're building out a light rail/subway system that will have its own right of way, and once it's completed the situation should be improved.
However, in Boston, DC, and Chicago transit is far more advanced and - at least in DC and Boston - even the outer neighborhoods are much more connected to each other and easier to get between.
Another disadvantage for Seattle is that, while much of the city's residential population live in urban environments, there are also more single family residential areas than the other cities on this list. Obviously it's more difficult to live without a car in a single family area.
The outer neighborhoods in Boston are not really that well-connected other than by the slightly-above-average MBTA bus system. For instance, I lived in Brighton but had a lot of business to conduct in Cambridge. My only options were to Green Line into Park St. and then take the Red Line back out to Cambridge, which was pretty time consuming (~ 1.25 hours to 1.5 hours), or catch the 66 or 86 bus (depending on how much I want to walk) which took about 45 minutes. Man, it sucked having to rely on the 86 to get you around.
However if you live on the Red, Orange or Blue Lines you can get into the city center and then back out to areas on those same lines quite quickly.
Basically the biggest disadvantage for me living car-free in Boston was when it came to job-searching. I'm sure this is pretty much the same in the other three cities but my search radius was severely limited by a lack of car, especially in the Boston suburbs.
Seattle is certainly no DC or NYC, but it has pretty good transit coverage even in the suburbs. As with any city, the coverage is going to largely depend on which suburb you're in. But for the most part, much of Seattle is easy to get around without a car. The thing that really hurts Seattle though is the lack of a rail. The rail coverage in Seattle is VERY limited, and I understand they're building it out, but that can take time. Seattle is also a lot less spread out. The biggest issue with Seattle is that it's bus based, so sometimes taking public transit doesn't help you bypass a lot of issue with traffic. A bus can get stuck in traffic just like a car. That's what sucks most about Seattle's transit honestly. And when you get a lot further from Seattle's core, it gets a lot worst. When you start talking about the further out suburbs like Mill Creek, Lynwood, Snoqualmie, Issiaquah, Tacoma, and Everett, it's time to get a car at that point.
However Seattle isn't bad like place in Atlanta, where you don't have to go very far before you get into the "F you, get a car" territory.
Seattle has a great 24hr bus system and a expanding subway , and streetcar network . It already has a extensive commuter rail network. I lived downtown for three years without a car it was comfortable. It helped to have department stores , Grocery stores, And lots of entertainment downtown. I didnt go to the suburbs very often I had all I needed downtown.
Wouldn't it be hard to live without a car in most cities if you didn't live near a rail line?
Not at all if you lived near a good bus line. In fact it would probably be better because buses can go in any direction and make as many turns as cars whereas trains can only go back and forth and are limited in the areas in which there are tracks. I am carless and I much prefer to live on a good bus route than a rail line.
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.
