Hacker News Reader

Comment by spamizbad | Hacker News Reader

Chicago and NYC do car-free better than the Bay Area, where not owning a car is really only viable in SF and a few small surrounding communities.

View on HN

SF has a phenomenal climate though in comparison. The public transportation is lacking but I mind walking or bike a lot less in SF winters as opposed to NYC winters.

I biked to work nearly every day in NYC. The weather really isn't that bad.

And in NYC if ever I had some other obligation after work instead of my usual commute that was bikeable to. In California nearly every time an errand popped up I couldn't bike that day.

"Really isn't that bad" is your experience. The physical reality is that average January lows in NYC are 20 degrees lower than in SF.

Agreed. It's definitely doable in the winter but is objectively less "easy" (have to pull out/put on weather gear) and more dangerous (lower visibility when it's snowing or raining, and fewer cyclists are out in general so cars don't expect you as much).

I didn't bike when it was raining or snowing but was still able to bike many more days than in California because after work errands didn't wreck my whole plan.

> The physical reality is that average January lows in NYC are 20 degrees lower than in SF.

The physical reality is that 20 degrees lower isn't that bad. Humans have thrived in colder climates for thousands of years. Being a human being in a modern day NYC/Chicago winter is a cakewalk, unless you are among the small subset of people who treat anything below 60F like its a death sentence.

Are you arguing that a majority of people prefer winter weather in NYC to winter weather in SF?

The initial claim up-thread was "SF has a phenomenal climate though in comparison."

Sure, but SF is temperate year-round. Winter weather cycling's definitely doable but I immensely prefer cycling in SF year round, where I don't have to plan ahead or remember any warm gear. And I find not being able to bike for errands surprising, unless you lived outside of SF proper? I exclusively ran errands walking/biking/by bus for several years.

And Boston and DC. I wouldn't live in SF without a car unless I was a biking enthusiast.

Also I find that many people who proudly refuse to own a car in SF just end up ubering everywhere.

To be clear I (the original poster in this thread) have lived without a car in the bay area for almost a decade, and I don't Uber anywhere.

NYC is definitely more walkable--and just as expensive. Boston is about as walkable, I think (I haven't spent much time there)--and also pretty expensive!

>Boston is about as walkable

Boston is definitely walkable. My wife and I shared a car when living there, and I'd literally go weeks without actually getting in the car (she worked in a suburb, so she needed it for daily driving). Everything was generally within 1/2 mile, including school for the kiddo, sports fields, parks, grocery, hardware, etc. Transit was also convenient and plentiful.

Idk. Pre-covid, I probably used Uber/Lyft two days a month.

Some people do "Uber Everywhere", but I mostly biked/baywheels/muni.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com