The Best (US) Cities for Living Without a Car

[Pedestrian]

Written by Amy Musser on February 6, 2017

What makes a city livable? People have differing views, but for many city-dwellers, proximity to restaurants, grocery stores, parks and jobs are some of the key perks of urban living, especially if those destinations are accessible without a car . . . .

Redfin compiled the latest Walk Score rankings to see which U.S. cities with populations greater than 300,000 have the highest composite Walk Score, Transit Score and Bike Score rankings . . . .

Ranking
1. San Francisco

Even though San Francisco takes second place in every category (walking, biking and transit) the overall score is the highest in the nation. This isn’t a surprise to Redfin agents. “It’s true that most people in San Francisco don’t own cars. It’s said that if you want to own a home that has parking, plan on adding about $300,000 to the cost of your home,” said Redfin real estate agent Mia Simon. “The good news is that nearly every neighborhood in San Francisco is walkable and the BART and MUNI can basically get you anywhere you need to go. It’s very common for prospective buyers to schedule a series of home tours and travel between tours on foot and via public transit to get a feel for what life would be like at their new home without a car.”



2. New York

New York has the highest Walk Score and Transit Score rankings in the nation. Its Bike Score, on the other hand, falls to seventh place. “Even with the bike-share programs accelerating across the city, many streets don’t have special bike lanes and traffic is a deterrent for many people who might otherwise consider biking,” said Redfin agent Jonathan Makolondra. “That said, New Yorkers are certainly accustomed to getting around the city and surrounding boroughs without a car. The MTA subway system is extensive and walking is a great way to take in the sights and sounds of the city.”

3. Boston

It turns out that Boston is a great city for every mode of transportation that doesn’t involve a car. The city ranks third in the nation for Bike,Transit and Walk Score. “In general, Boston is just a really easy city to get around without a car,” said Redfin agent Megan McShane. “In addition to being known as ‘America’s Walking City,’ the T provides access to all the most popular neighborhoods via subway, bus, trolley and boat, and the commuter rail services the outlying suburbs” . . . .

https://www.redfin.com/blog/2017/02/...out-a-car.html

For discussions of the remaining top 10 cities, go to the link.

[mhays]

Wow, that shows the problem with this company's lists.

Commute mode splits, how parking relates to development, population density, and other factors play in.

[Pedestrian]

^^Rank them your way (with explanation).

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

^^Rank them your way (with explanation).

Why don't you explain why you agree with the list? So far it's just a quote, except defending why your city ranks highly.

[the urban politician]

There is no way SAN Francisco should be #2 in transit score.

Easily Chicago and probably Washington DC are better.

And again, how the hell is SF #2 in bike score? With those hills?

Redfin needs to stick to selling homes. Car ownership in SF is relatively high for a well-transit served city.

Dumbest list ever

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

There is no way SAN Francisco should be #2 in transit score.

Easily Chicago and probably Washington DC are better.

And again, how the hell is SF #2 in bike score? With those hills?

I don't wish to debate you but I will give you an explanation which you probably won't accept. I live in SF but I grew up in DC and have been there since the Metro was built. I've been to most of the other cities on the list except Minneapolis (#1 bike score with those winters?!).

I also live without a car in San Francisco.

San Francisco's transit policy, largey met, is to have no citizens more than 2 blocks from a transit stop and, generally, once on a transit vehicle you can get to your destination with no more than 1 transfer. Other than New York, I have not experienced that as being the situation in other cities, certainly not Washington. Where the city is usually seen as falling short is the length of its rail transit network. But San Francisco is physically smaller (7 miles square) than most of the others and while riding a rail vehicle is preferred by most, the bus gets you there too.

As for the city's bike friendliness, the weather certainly helps (no hot summers or cold, snowy winters) and the city has laid out bike routes covering the city that largely avoid the hills. Residents for any period know how to get most places (exept someplace on top of a hil) without climbing a hill. And for when you have to go uphill, the busses all have bike racks on the front.

[homebucket]

I don't know what the debate is. Of those on the list, I've been to SF, NYC, Boston, Chicago, Miami, Seattle, and Oakland.

I don't think it's that farfetched as some of you are making it seem that SF could be 1st. Keep in mind it is a composite score. It's a dense, compact city, and has lots of sights to see, making it very walkable. Rail, while not as extensive as some of the other cities, is still decent, and can get you to most parts of the city. Like Pedestrian said, there are bus stops within two blocks of 90% of all residences in the city. Of the above cities that I've been to, SF has the highest number of recreational cyclists and bike commuters, despite the hills. And like Pedestrian said, there are many alternative routes you can take to avoid the steepest hills.

Of the top 10, the only one I'm surprised about is Miami. Only South Beach is walkable. Getting to other sprawled out parts of the city required driving, and I never saw anyone ride the bus/rail or ride their bike.

[the urban politician]

Miami more walkable than Chicago and D.C.?

These guys are on shrooms. Actually, they are on mescaline and shrooms, laced with LSD

[mhays]

Miami is way too high. It's the BS of the walkscore list only grading proximity not quality of walking environment or lack of barriers.

Of course I'm also looking at Seattle as a homer...should rank a couple spots higher on transit.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by mhays

Miami is way too high. It's the BS of the walkscore list only grading proximity not quality of walking environment or lack of barriers.

Have you been to Miami? South Beach is definitely more walkable than any part of Seattle.

[tdawg]

South Beach is part of a separate city (Miami Beach), not the city of Miami.

[Crawford]

SF doesn't have particularly good transit, at least not for a city of its weight class. I would probably rank it behind NYC, DC, Chicago, Boston, and Philly.

And any list that doesn't have NYC at #1 is silly. Yes, I'm a homer, but there's a gigantic gap between NYC and every other U.S. city in terms of transit orientation and % car-free households. Something like 70% of U.S. rail passengers are in the NYC area. 55% of households don't own a car, in the other U.S. transit oriented cities, the share is like half that.

Also, Walkscore sucks. It's only useful for knowing if there's stuff in proximity. It says nothing about the relative quality of walkability.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Crawford

SF doesn't have particularly good transit, at least not for a city of its weight class. I would probably rank it behind NYC, DC, Chicago, Boston, and Philly.

And any list that doesn't have NYC at #1 is silly. Yes, I'm a homer, but there's a gigantic gap between NYC and every other U.S. city in terms of transit orientation and % car-free households. Something like 70% of U.S. rail passengers are in the NYC area. 55% of households don't own a car, in the other U.S. transit oriented cities, the share is like half that.

Also, Walkscore sucks. It's only useful for knowing if there's stuff in proximity. It says nothing about the relative quality of walkability.

Agreed. Sometimes I think LA has better transit, which is nuts considering how walkable SF is in comparison.

BART and Muni have been terribly mismanaged.

[eixample]

One problem of these scores is that cities like San Fran and Boston cover a far smaller geographical area compared to cities like Chicago and Philadelphia. Philly's scores, for example, are skewed a bit by more suburbany areas in the outer parts of the city. If you took the core area of Philly that is comparable to the area of the whole city of Boston, I am sure the scores would improve.

[Innsertnamehere]

Boston is #2 in bike score? I found the bike infrastructure to be rather lacking there. And while the subway has good coverage around the city, its very, very old and isn't the most pleasant to use. Reliability suffers as a result as well.

[mhays]

South Beach (especially the walkable part) also a very small area, and I bet that car ownership is high even there. South Beach isn't known for transit or job proximity.

Look at commute mode splits as a far more important data point.

[Steely Dan]

2 things:

1. any list of this sort for US cities that doesn't have NYC as #1 should probably be immediately tossed into a trash can.

2. for these kinds of exercises that look solely at city limits, small cities that don't include annexed suburban areas will always look better on paper than larger cities that incorporate hundreds of square miles into their city limits that will bring overall averages way down. if we controlled the major cities to a more consistent 50 sq, mile "urban core", it's possible that we might get some different results.



all that said, the usual suspects are all at the top of the list, so whatever, it's probably not far off, but NYC not being #1 is a serious head-scratcher.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

2 things:

1. any list of this sort for US cities that doesn't have NYC as #1 should probably be immediately tossed into a trash can.

In this list New York WAS ranked #1 in walk score and transit as it should be but it fell way down in bikeability, as it should, because of the heavy traffic, lack of designated bike lanes and weather. You appear to be arguing that bike friendliness just shouldn't be a factor, in which case New York would be #1 in this list, but that is a debatable question.

At my age I don't bike, but I will repeat I live in SF but spend enough time in NY and get by without a car in both cases. I'd say they are pretty close. The distances in NY are farther so it's good they have a good subway system but that's mainly useful in Manhattan for going uptown/downtown. New York's bus system is NOT as good as San Francisco's and it matters going crosstown. As for walkability, again they are pretty close. Both cities have areas where it's less than ideal but I happen to live in a neighborhood with a "walk score" of 96 (last time I checked it).

Might as well throw this in: It's a map of designated SF bike routes, many (if not most) of which now have designated bike lans marked on the pavement:


https://www.sfmta.com/maps/san-franc...ke-network-map

By contrast, here is a transit map. You can see how close they come to the goal of no one having to walk more than 2 blocks to transit:


https://www.google.com/search?q=SF+M...NruYrxIyyfo1M:

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

New York's bus system is NOT as good as San Francisco's and it matters going crosstown.

You are out of your mind lol. New York's bus system is so large it doesn't even have a unified map. The map for NYC buses is split by boroughs, and then there are zoom-in sections. There is no bus map that covers the whole city limits like there is for the subway.

Here is just the bus map for Brooklyn:

http://fr.nycmap360.com/carte/image/...s-brooklyn.jpg

[kgbnsf]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

2 things:

1. any list of this sort for US cities that doesn't have NYC as #1 should probably be immediately tossed into a trash can.

all that said, the usual suspects are all at the top of the list, so whatever, it's probably not far off, but NYC not being #1 is a serious head-scratcher.

The biking factor hurt NYC. For those that say NYC should be above all else- Should biking be a factor in a list like this? If so, should it have less importance in weight to the other attributes?

NYC is not a renowned 'biking city' compared to others. I think most of us would agree on that point. Strip out the biking weight and NYC would be #1. But, I feel that biking is a factor that deserves equal weight to the others. It is an alternate transport method that meets the same goals.