First of all I guess not owning a car is even worse in rural or suburban areas than in say (downtown) Atlanta or (downtown) LA. That being said, both cities are among the worst offenders when it comes to sprawl and car oriented development. I still vividly recall an outline of Atlanta overlaid with one of Barcelona (which was barely visible against the huge area of Atlanta) with the information that both places have similar numbers of inhabitants. The conclusion how many people in either city live closer than x to the next transit stop was rather self-evident. That being said, I guess the bad places are slowly but surely moving in the right direction.... - Well LA is at least - and we should be careful not to reproduce stereotypes once they are no longer true. That being said, Atlanta recently managed to have lower ridership on its metro compared to the previous year in a year of rising gas prices and exploding transit growth. Somewhere some decisions regarding public transit in Atlanta went horribly wrong. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

While it is technically a mode to get around without your own car, it is still a method ultimately getting around by car (if we want to be technical about it). Ultimately every point in the US that is accessible by car is also accessible by hitchhiking. Which would ultimately make this article an article on Hitchhiking in the USA with a bit of buses and Amtrak tacked on awkwardly... Or am I seeing this wrong? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I rewrote the sentence. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Though country specific guides on hitchhiking might have their place on WV.... With the US (or another major, well covered country) probably making for a good test case as to whether such an article would be viable... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, given that someone has knowledge to write about the subject. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is there any one consistent policy regarding the possibility to take your own bike with you on a train or bus? Given that we currently spell out the difficulties of biking from place to place, it may be good to at least mention whether the alternative of having your bike carried for you is indeed feasible. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you can take your bike on the train. Amtrak says they "may be subject to additional packing requirements and service fees", but in practice, I doubt there is ever a problem with just taking it onto the train. I think the same is true of buses, which tend to have plenty of stowage, except that if you're concerned about your bike being crushed in the storage area, you might want to pack it well in a big box or something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well I think we should mention this in the article, as it is far from universal. In Germany for example, bus operators require advance notice and ICE trains don't carry them at all - though the new trains DB will acquire in the next decade or so explicitly call for bike storage Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

While most high-income countries in Europe and Asia would be easy to cross by public transport, Canada without a car could be more of a challenge. Maybe Australia without a car as well? /Yvwv (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been to Australia, but I know they do have a transcontinental railway. However, there are vast areas of the country that you can't get to by train. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it was I who posted this in our requested articles with a sentence along the lines of "if this proves successful, we can attempt a similar article for other places" - so by all means, please go ahead. I will probably not be able to contribute much of substance, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

What does the article need for guide status in your opinion? Markers and a dynamic map, maybe? ϒpsilon (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

It still lacks a coherent narrative to a degree... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'd be too scared to cycle here. My friends who cycle here extensively have in some cases been involved in several accidents, and it's well-known that there are very commonly obstacles in bike paths, including police cars, delivery vehicles and heedless pedestrians, and many of the drivers of cars and other motorized vehicles are quite aggressive toward bikes in this city. I would suggest removing New York from the list of cities that are particularly good for cycling, but perhaps some other folks have different views on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree with removing it. I'll go ahead and do that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how relevant it is that people in the US consider public transportation a form of welfare, or even how true that is. I believe that maybe some people do, but the main reason it's not popular here is because of how spread out everything is. Jedieaston (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not true. Read this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also, note that China is larger in area than the U.S., yet it has abundant high-speed rail and subway systems. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Removed some of the phrases which don't really add to the story. /Yvwv (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

it's generally a good idea for us to say less about politics than more because Wikivoyage doesn't require sources. This leads to stuff being added that someone thinks is true, but just isn't. A recent edit added a comment about tolls not being spent on transportation with the edit summary "my understanding is that many added tolls, etc. see only 20% of their money go to transportation". A quick Google search shows that no state spends more than 100% of tolls on transportation. It would be better if contributors confirm statements like this before adding them. That probably won't happen, so I think we should look at cutting down on unsourced (and possibly untrue) political background stuff, rather than requiring sources. Ground Zero (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I’m not saying where funds for roads come from, but rather the fact (from what I’ve read) that toll revenues don’t actually go to the transportation services they’re supposed to be going towards. But yes, it is irrelevant. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry: I still don't follow you. If Hawaii gets from gas taxes, tolls, user fees, and user taxes only 71% of what it spends on state and local roads, more than any other state, how can road tolls not be going into transportation services? Every state is spending more on state and local roads than it gets from all of those revenues combined. Ground Zero (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think that is useful because it provides a background as to why public transport in the US is so poor compared to say, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea or even China. That said, it's probably true that the low population density does play a role, and you can see parallels in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which also have poor public transport and are very car dependent. But this attitude towards public transport probably explains they there is no high-speed train from Boston to Washington D.C. (which would pass through other major cities like Hartford, New York City, Philadelphia and Baltimore), even though that is a very densely populated corridor with the perfect conditions for high-speed rail to be profitable.

And I don't think explaining the culture behind this is necessarily a political statement. For instance, I don't necessarily agree with the American gun lobby, but when foreigners criticise American gun culture, I do try to provide a historical background to the US so people understand why the right to bear arms is such an integral part of American culture. I don't have to agree with the culture, but it certainly helps to understand the context. The dog2 (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

We do have a problem, though, in that we don't require references to reliable sources. Having a lot of political background, which is only background and is not practical travel information, means opening the door to people writing based on their own opinions and recollections. This can lead to text that is biased and even patently wrong on occasion. Instead of spending a lot of time arguing over why America got the transportation system it has, let's focus our efforts on providing practical information that travellers can actually use. Wikipedia is a much better source for information because it reduces the scope for people writing based on their own points of view. Ground Zero (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek, Mx. Granger: From a quick read, I've noticed that many of the cities listed in "Good cities" section are only really good in the downtown/CBD area – which has mostly reflected my experience as well. Would it perhaps be better off to add a third section called "Manageable cities" for the cities in-between similar to Australia without a car? //shb (t | c | m) 05:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, great idea! But even Las Vegas is manageable if you're willing to deal with it like CityNerd did. So I think the categories should be "Easy", "Medium" and "Hard". Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Even better idea. //shb (t | c | m) 12:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

My impression is that the best cities are New York, Chicago, DC, and San Francisco (maybe also Boston, I've never been but have heard good things about its transit system). Salt Lake City and Portland are not quite the same tier but also have pretty good systems. I think all of those should probably stay under "Good" (or "Easy"). I also got a good impression of Minneapolis on this front but have only spent one day there. I haven't spent enough time in any of the other destinations on the "Good" list to have an opinion about them.

Of course "good" here means good by US standards; by international standards I think New York is the only major US city with a decent transit system. Also, it means good from a traveller's perspective. If downtown is easy to get around without a car and that's where all the tourist attractions are, it doesn't matter as much to us if outlying residential areas are poorly served by transit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You don't think D.C., Chicago and Philadelphia have decent transit systems? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Maybe my comment was a little unfair, it might be more reasonable to call them decent but not on par with major European or East Asian cities. Still...in Chicago, transit often takes twice as long as driving, even between major attractions. DC has good connectivity to and from downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods but can be a pain between other parts of the city. (Take these comments with a grain of salt – it's been several years since I visited either city.) As for Philadelphia, I've never been there; its transit system might be better than I realize. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, Chicago is a place where the transit is decent by American standards, but really, if you want to go beyond the Loop and Magnificent Mile, it's much more convenient if you have a car. There are neighbourhoods not served by the L system (e.g. Hyde Park), and you most certainly need a car if you want to head out to the suburbs. Like if you want to go to the famous Lem's Bar-B-Q (the standard bearer for Chicago-style barbecue), that's one place that will be hard to reach without a car. The dog2 (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

How is bus coverage for these places in Chicagoland? I should say, I didn't have trouble getting anywhere I wanted to go, except that there was some kind of temporary problem on the way to Ravinia that meant we couldn't go to the normal stop on the commuter train and had to take an Uber or Lyft from the next stop, and we went as far north as Wrigley Field on the El. And by the way, according to Google Maps, if I wanted to get to Lem's Bar-B-Q by public transit from the Hilton on S. Michigan where the National Flute Association convention was held in August, 2023, it would take 39 minutes via the Red Line and 75 bus, or I could just walk 0.9 miles/20 minutes from the 79th St. Red Line stop. That does not seem at all out of line to me, if the walk is safe (I have no idea about that). Also, I thought transit was excellent in Denver; most of it is buses, but that counts. Granger, do visit Philadelphia when you have the opportunity. It's a great city with excellent attractions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you're talking about the suburbs, there is the PACE bus system, but it's very infrequent. And the Metra commuter rail system is also very infrequent outside rush hour. You can get to say, the Mitsuwa Japanese supermarket in Arlington Heights or the H-Mart Korean supermarket in Niles using public transport, but it will take a very long time. Lem's Bar-B-Q is still in the city, but it's still manageable if you combine the L with a bus. Lem's is in a visibly low-income area, so some people might find it uncomfortable to walk from the nearest L station. But the shop itself is always crowded so it should be safe there, although you will stand out if you're not black. The dog2 (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

So, should we keep Chicago in easy cities or not? I think our standards should be about getting around the city itself, not the entire metropolitan area. If Chicago gets taken out of the list, what remains? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think Chicago should stay in the list of good (or easy) cities. When I said Of course "good" here means good by US standards; by international standards I think New York is the only major US city with a decent transit system, my point was that we should not limit the list of good cities to New York, but rather continue to include cities that are good by US standards even if they're weak by international standards. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'd say keep it because it's still doable by public transport, and the public transport is good by American standards. I was just giving some context as to what the situation is like in Chicago as someone who has lived there. The dog2 (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I too would keep it in the good cities list because most travellers should be able to reasonably visit the city without viewing the lack of a car as some kind of hinderance. //shb (t | c | m) 00:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK, I made a stab at it. Are we sure Nashville shouldn't be in moderate cities? When I was there in 1998, I stayed in a Quality Inn or something across the Cumberland River from Downtown, had no problem walking across the bridge and walking around Downtown, and it was easy for me to catch a bus to and from Centennial Park and the Vanderbilt University campus, which were the only attractions I visited that were far enough away that I couldn't walk to them. I don't remember how I got to and from the airport, probably by taxi. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure about Nashville, but was going to suggest that Los Angeles should be in the moderate section. Its public transit has improved a lot in recent decades. Most attractions are served, and as the article says, "Public transit is generally still slower than cars over long distances, but it does avoid wasting time looking for parking, and the light rail system largely escapes L.A.'s notorious traffic." —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree – LA might be bad for a global city and global standards, but the recent light rail improvements do make it considerably better than many other US cities. //shb (t | c | m) 13:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's been a long time since I tried to get around L.A. by public transit. I remember being dropped off at LACMA by my cousin who lives in Venice and then it taking 2 1/2 hours to get back via 3 buses, including waiting a half an hour in traffic getting onto the Santa Monica Freeway, which we crossed. The built-in map app on my iPhone seems to be saying the trip could now be done in about an hour via 2 buses with a minimal amount of walking, so that would be an improvement, but I'm a bit skeptical. I know more subway lines have been built, but aren't large areas of the city still unserved, and doesn't that make a city with such widely spread out attractions difficult to get around without a car? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The spread-out attractions make LA difficult to get around whether or not you're using a car, but I think the transit side of things has improved since you were there. In addition to the rail lines, there's an improved network of buses, some of which are reasonably fast due to limited stops, signal priority, dedicated bus lanes, etc.

It depends where exactly you're going, but when I visit I'm happy getting around by transit for most of the attractions I'm interested in. (I've been there several times in the past few years, always sleeping in Santa Monica.) It's not as good as DC or Chicago, but I think it's better than the likes of Las Vegas or Atlanta. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK, that's good to hear. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

In the other direction, what about Pittsburgh? I've only been there with a car, staying in the northern suburbs at my girlfriend's aunt's house, so I don't have the experience of taking the public buses there. The inclines (funicular railways) are certainly an excellent thing! Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also, Cincinnati and Columbus are not mentioned. I'm guessing they'd be hard cities? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply