zlacker

And pretty much all the people I know in Boston also own cars because they visit friends outside of the city, go out of town for weekend activities that often involve transporting a lot of gear, etc. So, yeah, you can get by day to day but people I know also want a car.

>>ghaff+(OP)
There's nothing wrong with that either. The Dutch, known for their bike and ped friendly streets and great transit, are also known to love their summer trips where they drive around and tow camping trailers. Japanese families in less urban areas frequently have a car for family trips or for shopping for home goods. There's no way transit will ever completely displace the car, the economics will never pencil out.

Having the option to drive when there's copious amounts of transit is empowering. It lets you go hiking into the mountains where it wouldn't be economical to run even a bus at greater than 1 hr headways or haul your ski and snowboarding equipment to the slopes. It lets you ferry around your aging parents who are starting to have cognitive issues. It means when your children are still very young you can keep them from being a nuisance on the bus. Being forced to drive because there's no transit and you know your brake pads are shot and scraping against your rotors but you don't have the money or time to fix your car is dreadful.

>>ghaff+(OP)
Yeah I mean that’s totally fine. When I lived in Boston it was much more common to see people rent cars for that purpose, but either way it’s completely okay.

The infrastructure should support that sort of trip out of the city. It’s intra-city car use that’s a disaster, and our infrastructure should not support that.

>>ghaff+(OP)
No idea about Boston, but in Copenhagen the result is a family probably owns one car for these trips, rather than two.

>>Symbio+Be
If that's the only use, probably. Although a lot of jobs in the Boston area are in the surrounding suburbs and commuter rail is mostly unsuitable for those for people who want to live in the city.