Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think the Bay Area outside of SF is only barely qualified for a carless lifestyle, and most of it is not "big city". I lived for three years in Mountain View with only a bike, but still had to rent a car now and then. There's the Caltrain corridor (which I lived on), but if you get out into the suburbs of San Jose, Sunnyvale, etc. you pretty much need a car.

Chicago is better in that regard, but Houston and Dallas both have a train (and some buses), like much of the Bay Area, which also has a train (and some buses)...you can live on that line and live without a car most of the time, if everything works out (like your commute also happens to be on that line). But, most people in those cities have a car, as is true of much of the Bay area. And, it's probably not useful to treat "Bay Area" as a singular city. There's really only one big city in the Bay Area that works for this argument, so someone accustomed to the Bay Area life could very well have a car.

Cars suck, of course, and every great city should stop relying on them. But, the necessity of a car is not the only factor in what makes a big city great, even though it's important.



Fair point, I don't know that the poster lives in San Francisco. But it's not the only big city in the Bay Area that works for this argument - Oakland and Berkeley with their multiple train lines would like a word about that!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: