On a scale from AUSTIN to NYC...

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by bentobox34

If NYC is 10, I would give SF 5 or 6. Almost everyone I have known from SF owned a car and used it frequently for trips within the city. Boston and Philly both have higher percentages of no car households than SF.

Overall rating is of the public transit system, and is not a rating of "how many people drive a car" in the city. You could (theoretically) have a great public transit system that could rate a 10 and still have a lot of people driving; they're not directly dependent on one another (although they are usually definitely linked).

That being said, SF scores an 8 because it's certainly possible to live relatively painlessly without a car in the city, and because (for the most part) the transit system works pretty well at getting people around. Yes, it's not the best, and has problems. This is why it is not a 10 (NYC), or a 9 (Boston, Chicago, DC), but it is definitely above most other U.S. offerings. A 5/6 rating is kind of ridiculous...Have you been to most of the major cities in the U.S.?

As far as car ownership is concerned, I know plenty of people who live car-free in SF, and live pretty comfortably. Plenty of these people choose not to have a car, and actually feel that having a car would be a detriment to their lives. I also know plenty of people with cars (admittedly, mostly in the outer regions of SF).

But, just like your anecdotal information doesn't prove anything (except that you know a lot of people in SF with cars...), mine really doesn't say anything either. Statistics show that SF is lower than Boston and Philladelphia in car-free households, but not by a gigantic amount. SF was around 30% in 2010 (Car-Free Households in San Francisco Above 30 Percent | Streetsblog San Francisco), and Boston and Philly are probably somewhere around 35% or higher as of 2010 (List of U.S. cities with most households without a car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

However, no city comes close to matching NYC (above 55%!). Even Chicago, which is widely-cited as having one of the best public transit systems in the country (which it does) has near the same amount of car-free households as SF. Again, car ownership isn't always directly correlated with how good a transit system (although usually the factors are related).

I think SF's higher car ownership can be explained a few ways without relating specifically to the quality of MUNI and BART (within SF city limits).

• In the outer neighborhoods, it is much easier to find parking and the parking that one does find is much cheaper (often free).

• Many people that live in SF actually don't work in SF. Transit out of SF can be lacking if you're starting your trip in an outer neighborhood away from the transit lines out of the city. For this reason, many people need or choose to have a car.

• And finally, many people just choose to have car because they can afford it (regardless of where they live in SF)

All of the people that I know that own a car fit into one of these categories. And most of these people that I know that do own cars use them primarily for out-of-town travel. When in SF most use MUNI or just simply walk.

Originally Posted by bentobox34

Honestly, NYC is the only city in the USA where you find people from all ends of the economic spectrum, at all stages of adult life (young adulthood, raising families, old age), living lives that are normal for their community without a car.

I don't disagree that NYC is the ultimate car-free city in the U.S. However, just because NYC is so great for this doesn't mean there aren't other great cities for car-free living in the U.S.

One can certainly live a pretty good life in SF without a car. And you won't feel like a loser riding the bus here. I think an interesting factor in judging how good a city's transit system is can be related to the stigma or lack-of stigma for not having a car/riding the bus to get around. In SF, there is no stigma, and conversely living car-free and/or using transit to get around is even considered "cool" by many people.

[gotigers123]

San Francisco has better public transit than Philadelphia for sure. It's certainly behind NYC, Chicago, and Boston.

Living there without a car is very easy and preferred in my opinion. The vast majority of people I knew in my age group (mid to late 20s) did not have a car. The only downside is not having a car for weekend trips out of the city.

[Austinite101]

I'd say 8. If NYC is a 10, it is the only 10 in the US. They are the king of public transportation. And if you think Austin's a 1, I'd hate to know what the other Texas cities are lol.