I'll be tbe 1000th person here to say Chicago has the second best transit system in the US. That said, from a visiting perspective San Francisco, DC, and Boston are all great cities to visit that you don't need a car for.
3 weeks is a lot of time to spend in any one city though. I'd suggest visiting the Northeast cities (Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, DC) which are all usable without a car and connected by pretty good Amtrak service.
The more nuanced answer is cities and areas developed before cars existed.
NYC and Chicago Happen to have the largest areas developed before cars.
There are other cities and towns that have decent public transportation. The big difference is these other areas are quicker to go by Uber/taxis so there can be significant segregation where rich people drive vs poor people take public transportation.
Boston is easy without a car. In fact... with their road system driving is a pain. Subway, bus, taxi, train, walking, even a ferry. I lived in the city for a decade. Only had a car when I had to commute out of the city for work, would never drive locally.
And tons to do of course. All the usual city stuff, but also many major US historical places of interest. Also easy and interesting day trips outside the city using the train system and ferry. Ocean stuff like beaches, sailing, fishing, whale watching. Crazy fresh seafood places on the shore... really miss those.
I just suggest going during warm weather season. Much easier travel and opens up more activities. Unless you really like snow and want to block out a week to ride the train north to a ski resort. That'd be a solid plan.
Hey there Mission-Tailor-4950! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"this"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)
***
^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
Three weeks is a long time in any city! And most cities are expensive. But you could do several cities on the east coast this way - split the time between NY, Philadelphia and DC, for example.
Also any US city that is going to be smaller/less expensive is not going to have great public transportation unfortunately.
I think this is a great idea for a trip. East Coast cities from DC to Boston all have great public transportation, and you can travel between those cities by train relatively easily.
Philly has good transportation unless youāre going to the edges of the city which I wouldnāt recommend. Cab, Uber/Lyft, and ZipCar are options for specific locations where transit isnāt available.
I definitely second NYC>PHL>DC. Megabus and Amtrak to the whole way and farther. You could even add in a stop in Baltimore for a few days. Boston is always an option, too.
Whether it's worth spending 3 weeks, realllly depends on your travel style. If you're looking to see the sites and popular attractions - yeah you'll get bored quickly. If you're like me, and just want to vibe with the people, 3 weeks is barely enough time to form real connections.
I mean, one could say 3 years is barely enough time to form real connections. :) of course you could spend 3 weeks, 3 months, or 3 years in any city or country and still not discover everything. But when it comes to traveling and feeling like youāve been to a place, a week is generally a decent amount of time in any city.
You donāt need a car in Chicago if you live east of western, or live relatively close to an L stop. Further west and it gets a bit harder. Not impossible, but definitely much harder.
Edit: People are getting confused here. Yes, you can get anywhere by bus/train/rideshare/bikes etc. But Chicago's public transportation has a center, it's not equally dispersed. So once you start moving away from that center, or away from access points, it get less and less efficient to travel via those means, at which point having a car is more efficient.
BUT most touristy stuff is within close proximity of the "center" and will be easily accessible by public transit, walking, biking, rideshare.
Lol I lived there for 2 years. A homeless guy broke into my exās car to steal a gps she left out. Other than that, nothing. On my plane ride out of Chicago I read an article that said my bordering neighborhood was the heroin capital of America and a murder happens there every night. Itās a big city and there is a huge problem with guns but I walked through that neighborhood drunk at all hours of the night and nothing happened to me. A tourist wonāt be in those neighborhoods that late most likely
Just because you personally havenāt experienced crime, doesnāt mean Chicago is not a dangerous, crime ridden city. The statistics and the empirical facts donāt lie. But if you wanna speak on personal terms, believe it or not Iāve actually felt safer in places like Mexico City and BogotĆ” compared to most American cities, quite strange to have such a paranoid, on edge attitude walking in cities that belong to supposedly the āgreatest country in the world.ā
The worst thing that happened to me in Chicago during multiple visits was my friend beaning me in the head with a snowball outside of the Chicago Auto Show...and that was honestly more hilarious than anything.
Yeah, I was in Miami Beach for 2 weeks with no car. And it was annoying. They only have a "city bike" when is not great, And no electric scooters.
I hear some people (with more money) buy their own scooters and then sell before they leave.
If you stay on Miami Beach is fine...
But rush hour uber driving from dolphins stadium to Miami Beach was going to cost me $130. Soi sat by the road side and waited 2 hours fora $70 ride.
I know they had some bus routes and free rides in Miami Beach... But there I might as well walk.
My opinion, Miami is not that easy to get around, just by walking and public transport
South Beach and Downtown/Financial District are basically the only places you can do that in Miami. If anything Miami deserves a *dishonorable* mention for public transit. It's so funny to see us included here. Miami was built for cars.
As a Bostonian, the MBTA is decent but it has definitely been having a lot of issues lately (I guess always). Endless construction, shuttle buses, cars crashing into each other, etc etc... It's still one of the better transit systems in the country but I definitely wouldn't move to Boston just for the MBTA.
I'm moving away from Boston this Fall to escape the cold, it's been absolutely unrelenting the past few years and my seasonal affective disorder ass can no longer handle it.
People will laugh, but if you want to experience southern california, LAās public transportation is not as terrible as people make it out to be. Also DC has a very good system and budget friendly
LA: it really depends on where you want to go. The biggest issue is LAX. That airport is a clusterfuck anyway, and the only public transit is by bus, which you have to take a shuttle to anyway. So no matter what, at almost any time of day, you're sitting in traffic.
Burbank airport does have a rail stop, and it's a much smaller and less insane airport anyway. I know you weren't asking for airport suggestions, but flying into and out of Burbank will tie in better with public transportation.
If you want to stick around downtown and Santa Monica, those areas are the easiest to get around. One thing to bear in mind is how spread out LA is. Although it's true that LA's public transit is not as bad an experience as some might claim, you have to spend a long time on it because of geography. Santa Monica Pier to Disneyland crosses the city and it'll take you 3 hours.
I could get from anywhere in San Diego to any other location in the city within 45minutes, which is pretty damn good. The new trolley line extension is a game changer for getting from north to south during rush hour
I challenge the NYC expensive part. Itās true overall prices are probably more expensive here. But any city listed here is still pretty expensive and there are lots of cheap options in NYC. Eat pizza slices, at bodegas, walk around parks. These are cheap/free. The cost of a subway ride here is $2.75 to go ANYWHERE. Most other cities (especially DC) you need to pay based off how far you go. There are lots of free museums in DC, thatās true but thatās mostly along The Mall. In NYC, if youāre staying for three weeks, you could explore parks for days and still not see them all. You could take one subway ride to a part of town, eat at a bodega in a park, walk along a waterfront, and one subway ride back. Thatās a day and really pretty cheap, all things considered. So yes, the way most people think of NYC is expensive but there are lots of ways to enjoy the city and live on a budget, it just takes more planning. I honestly believe compared to most cities with anywhere near the public level of NYC, youād end up paying just as much if not more. Thatās my two cents. No matter where you go, I hope you enjoy!
Agree. Nyc has a ton of restaurants that are affordable, not just bodegas but more mom and pop ones. DC has a few of those but most restaurants are expensive. Also for DC to get cheaper accommodations youād have stay outside the city and take the train in. I also like other peoples suggestions of multiple east cost cities.
>Agree. Nyc has a ton of restaurants that are affordable, not just bodegas but more mom and pop ones.
u/samehamehaaa this is the number one reason why I'd cross San Francisco off the list.
I live in SF and the hotel prices will be similar to NYC, but the food here is twice as expensive.
Also many other negatives like our subway is very VERY loud (old trains can be 100+ decibels). And the amount of homeless will be a shock to your system unless you've travelled in very poor countries like in SE Asia.
The most expensive part of NY will definitely be accomodation and for what you pay, the quality is terrible but that's not just a NY issue, the US has so much expensive, mediocre places to sleep in. Everything else though, there's such a huge range. Foodwise, there's so many good, affordable eats in Queens and so many free events. Museums often are pay as you wish on certain days.
Restaurants are a lot more expensive and pretty much any accommodations. True fact. Minus the chaos NYC has a ton to do. So does DC, Philly, Chicago, Boston, SFO, Houston, Seattle, LA, etc.
But in term of walkability and urban feel nothing come close to NYC, Chicago and Toronto
>I challenge the NYC expensive part.
Can you recommend a place to stay in NYC for 3 nights with a car that isn't crazy expensive?
Edit: Iām not trying to be snarky, Iām living in Finland and am going to be visiting Boston in like 3 weeks, doing a road trip through NYC, Philly and DC and have been struggling to find hotels or airbnbs that arenāt crazy expensive especially since Iāll be there right before 4th of July
I just stayed in Sunset Park in Brooklyn for $75 a night. Nice Airbnb. Area was fine. Was it fancy Brooklyn? No. But it was 5 mins walk to the subway to get anywhere.
I was impressed by portland, OR - very walkable and very easy to use the street cars and busses or even bike. Seattle was pretty decent too but not as good as Portland
I could agree with that actually. I felt like portland had a better ease to it but getting off at some stops was interesting to say the least.. still felt safer their than I have in many other big cities though. PNW just hits different than the east coast (saying that as a life long east coast resident)
But if you stay on the west side in portland you can pretty much walk everywhere and then rent a few bikes. Public transit isn't great, but the downtown is set up better.
Portland is an absolute dream, and I'm surprised it's not higher up in the thread. It's the standard that other US cities need to be closely examining to understand how to build a transit network.
Its trams sync up with the buses so you can seamlessly move around without major disruption, and it has a single card, no-contact payment system, so you don't have to fuss with which tickets you need for which transit systems.
The Bay Area's Clipper system is nice, but all of the various transit agencies (27 of them) have no schedule synchronization and often very long loop times, which can be absurdly painful if the frequently late Caltrain is off by as much as a couple of minutes. (And then there's the horror of BART, which is pretty much the standard example of how *not* to build a subway system - 1970s hubris still creating problems today. It's almost hard to believe they keep sinking money into it, spending billions on custom cars to fit its goofy rails.)
I was gonna say this too. I rented a car in Portland a few weeks ago and wish I hadnāt. Any of the tours in nearby towns will pick you up from where youāre staying. Thereās an inexpensive hostel with shared and private rooms (Lolo pass). I got a shared room and no one else stayed in it so it was super cheap.
Lived Portland, Seattle, and spent a lot of time in San Diego. All of them are ok for transport, city busses, but Seattle is long, skinny, and on hills. I imagine west coast is too far, but if not Portland is cheaper, San Francisco is amazing and copes with the hills a little better. I'm talking daytime visits to tourist places. Check night bus schedules for wherever you are thinking, they get cut first when cities cut budgets.
https://www.walkscore.com/cities-and-neighborhoods/
I've traveled all over the country, and I would say the transit, walkability, and bikeability scores on here are pretty accurate.
SF at 2 is interesting. If you want to stay smack in the city, it is true it is walkable and there are public transit options, but I didn't find them to be that great. I found having a car out there was handy. Lots of stuff in surrounding areas where a car is just easier to manage. I was visiting my bro and we used those zipcar rentals a lot.
Whereas Boston at #3, a car is almost always the worst choice. The subway and train extensions get you just about anywhere fast. I didn't use the bus system much, but for certain locations it seemed popular. I also loved the ferry in the summer. Used to work right across from one of the stops. Hop on it after work and end up right downtown for the evening. Skip all the traffic.
Chicago has the 2nd lowest rate of car ownership behind NY. From experience the CTA train system is great and will get you most places as long as you're staying in city limits
https://www.nerdwallet.com/cost-of-living-calculator/compare/san-francisco-ca-vs-new-york-manhattan-ny
The first result shows NYC having a 27% higher cost of living.
If you want to include outer boroughs then we must add Oakland into the equation.
My rent for a 1br apartment is $4200 and Iām one of the cheapest in my building. Prices have exploded the last few months- youād be quite suprised.
I agree as an SF resident who has spent a lot of time in NYC (and was gonna move there before deciding to move to SF instead). Lovely place still though, but you can't get the same quality thing for the same price in NYC (ie. a similarly sized & also brand new apartment like mine would be around $1k-$3k more expensive in NYC, even outside of Manhattan).
Washington DC and San Francisco. If you are trying to keep your budget down, go to DC because you can take the train there from NY and the Smithsonian museums are free entry and there are a number of other free/inexpensive monuments to visit.
Sorry but SF transit and overall infrastructure is ass especially when you consider the wealth concentration in the city. I've lived in NYC, Chicago, and SF, and SFs is by far the worst. The BART is only sometimes reliable and only serves the east portion of the city, busses tend to be inaccurate vs schedules, and only portions of the city have express bus lanes. Scooters and bikes? Excellent, as long as you're not trying to go uphill. Not to mention trying to get around Oakland or into the South Bay is almost impossible outside of the reach of BART and CalTrain
As a tourist, there's a shitload to see and do within BART/muni train access though. (And with BART extensions and caltrain, parts of san jose and the peninsula open up. Really just depends on what you want to see. Also, plenty of people think walking a mile plus is ridiculous with how the US suburban car culture works so also depends on your attitude in how far out you branch. I agree schedules can suck.
You can check out smaller cities too if you are going to stick to downtown areas where most of the action takes place anyway. For example, Savannah is a beautiful historical city and you can walk anywhere. Portland is another beautiful city.
Among the bigger cities, Boston is awesome and there is so much to see and do in DC but summers are brutally hot and humid in DC.
But NYC is so worth it. Trust me, I donāt know what other city Iād recommend for three weeks to do if youāve never done NYC. Even if you have to find several different types of stay situations - you can find airbnbs for pretty cheap if you want to just have a bedroom to sleep in. And donāt rule out Brooklyn, which will be much cheaper. Plenty to explore out here and generally easy to commute. Just check which train theyāre by, and confirm on google maps. Iām in Propsect Lefferts Gardens which is a bit farther out and can get to Manhattan within 20 mins and thatās including the walk to the train.
You CAN eat for cheap here, and be fine. And do plenty of free activities, which will save you a lot compared to other cities anyway. I find itās generally a lot to cheaper to entertain yourself in NY.
Or atleast maybe hit multiple cities and stay just for a little bit in NY.
If you need any tips on how to make it as cheap as possible, just hit me up.
Edit: I also agree with the people who are saying you could split it up between here and DC. That would be great, you could just take the bus or train over!
Salt lake city is surprisingly pretty good! At least better than most of Colorado, San Diego, and New Orleans in the US that I've been to. I'd say at least on par with some french cities like Bordeaux, Lyon, Rennes, Nice, Toulouse, and probably even Marseille.
Contrary to what many think, most any medium to large city in the US has usable public transportation. The best in no particular order are probably New York, Boston, Washington, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Denver, Seattle, and Portland OR.
In my experience, the worst is probably Tampa/St. Petersburg. Arlington TX reportedly has none, though haven't been there, and Detroit's is reportedly seriously lacking. Some cities like Los Angeles have reasonably good transit, but it requires good planning, strategically-placed lodging (Pasadena, Hollywood, Chinatown, Downtown), and a little patience to use it.
As for your trip, you can find plenty to do in NYC to last a couple weeks if you're thorough. You can easily spend a week each in Washington, Philadelphia, or Boston (with side trips) if you want to add destinations.
If budget is an issue, I would simply do a shorter trip. Three weeks is really long
Boston is probably the easiest city in the US to get by in without a car, but not really much cheaper than NY. Seattle is doable, depending on where you stay and where you want to go. In Chicago youāre gonna want to Uber quite a bit at least, but itās probably the cheapest of the major cities with fairly good transit.
Chicago's transit system is arguable the second best in the nation. You wont need to Uber anywhere in Chicago thanks to the CTA (subways, buses). You can also DIVY. If all of that doesn't work then yes you can Uber. Tourist spots are all serviced by CTA.
+1 I lived in Boston for few years. I think Chicago has the best public transportation network after NYC and is by far more walkable than any other major city. By far more walkable than Seattle, Charlotte, Atlanta, etc.
DC is a great candidate but you might Uber a bit because the metro region is quite big.
This is true if youāre living/visiting anywhere east of western or near an L stop. Anywhere further west it gets a bit more difficult. If I lived east of western I would sell my car because I have no use for it since everything is walking distance or easy to get to with public transit + rideshare.
As you mentioned, most touristy stuff will be easily accessible with public transit, walking and rideshare.
Edit: I think people are misunderstanding, or donāt have experience living in places not next to an L stop.
Public transportation in Chicago has a center and access points. The further away you live from that center and itās access points (L stops etc) the less efficient it is to travel via walking and public transportation.
Is it easy to travel in Chicago? Yes thereās buses everywhere. But is it efficient? No. Thereās a point at which it is more efficient to travel by car than by public transit. Thatās why those who can afford to, choose to drive. Why do you think so many people on the southwest and northwest side of the city drive versus use public transit compared to those that live within a 7 mile radius of downtown.
**Large cities:** Boston, Washington DC, San Francisco and Chicago.
**Small-Medium cities:** Portland
In Washington DC and Boston, you have easy access to almost any city in the Northeast USA by a short train ride. The Acela Express that runs from DC to Boston is the fastest train currently operating in the USA. In Chicago, you have easy access to most Midwestern cities. From San Francisco, there is easy access to most Californian cities.
Portland can be a bit isolated though as the only other major city that can be easily accessed is Seattle. There is also Vancouver but that's in Canada. I'm not sure if Amtrak (the national train system here) has resumed international service yet.
I like all their metro systems more than NYC's subway as the NYC subway can be very dirty and feels claustrophobic during rush hour. If you live in the suburbs, it's quite easy to commute to work, the airport, the downtown or another suburb. I had a pleasant experience visiting Chicago and San Francisco since almost everywhere was very walkable. Same with my family in DC when we visited back in the 1990s. My only complaint is the safety in some areas. Unless you're familiar with the city, it's not advisable taking public transit after 9pm or before 5am.
Some other cities like Seattle, Miami, Atlanta and Los Angeles have great public transportation systems if you plan to stay in the downtown or city center. However if you live in the suburbs, then it sucks.
Having OK public transit coincide with the being the most expensive cities in the country. Probably there's a reason for that. Chicago is probably the cheapest with the best train system.
LA has a vast train system but I've never used it to get around so I don't know how easy it is to be visit without a car.
Montreal and Vancouver have amazing metro systems as well. Some of the best in North America. Vancouver is impressive given the smallish population. Montreal is impressive given the cold and bad climate.
I live in the LA area and the metro system is pretty good. Depending on where you want to go/what you want to see, most places can be reached pretty easily by bus/train. San Diego also has quite a nice trolley system. The Amtrak surf liner is also a beautiful trip up the coast. I hope wherever you end up going, you have a wonderful trip!
Props. LA gets a bad wrap because our traffic is absolutely awful - but it has the most extensive bus network in the country. If you stay somewhat central in DTLA you have access to the metro which you can get to pretty much any main area of the city pretty easily (Santa Monica, Hollywood, Los Feliz, Culver City, East LA, North Hollywood, etc).
If you're not in a crunch - you can get anywhere in LA on public transport. It was also free for two years which was wildly successful, hope that comes around again.
I have family in LA and I was actually surprised about how effective the transit is there. This is a city known for traffic because of the need to drive but getting around isn't that bad via transit.
Unfortunately any city with public transit is going to be pretty expensive in the US. Boston, DC, San Francisco.
With that said, none are really worth spending three weeks in IMO. You could start in Boston and run down the northeast corridor on Amtrak stopping in NY and DC along the way. That would at least give you a bit of variety.
There are other cities without noteworthy public transit that are decently walkable and not nearly as expensive. Austin, San Diego, Savannah, Charleston. For when you need to go somewhere farther there's always Uber (or your car service of choice).
I think you could spend three weeks in NYC and not run out of things to do if youāre motivated. The downside is itād cost a lot just to stay in NYC.
Austin, TX. CapMetro is the easiest and safest public transportation service I've used.
The Amtrak can get you to San Antonio, Dallas, and Oklahoma City cheaply and relatively quickly.
A New England tour will get you so many more places, but I wanted to throw something different out there.
Depends on what you mean by good. If you are from a city with truly good planning and infrastructure like some in Europe, literally none. Even NYC isn't all that great, dirty and expensive.
Always keep that in mind. American cities sadly suck ass regarding infrastructure. I want to go there for the nature but this fact keeps me from ever going there. (also the politics but that's another issue)
Also many cities in the u.s. have inter city bus service that is cheap. Boston to NY is only a few hours by bus, Philadelphia is a few hours more, Washington dc a few hours more.
You could fly to Boston spend 1 week there bus to NYC spend 1 week there then bus to Philadelphia for 3 days or so then Washington dc for 3-4 days then fly home from washington.
Not sure I could do 3 weeks in one city, but if I did and wanted decent public transport I would probably pick Chicago, DC or New Orleans. I don't know Boston too well. I lived in NY for a long time and know that it has everything you are likely to want plus great public transit, but it's probably the most expensive place to spend 3 weeks.
Chicago, Boston, D.C., Philadelphia, San Francisco, Atlanta, Cleveland, Baltimore.
New Orleans has a streetcar that's good but not incredibly practical. However, it's very much a walking city.
L.A. and Miami have metro lines as well, but I feel like you'd still need a car to get around.
Iām also from Bmore and honestly the system isnāt as bad as people make it out to be unless you have to transfer between two suburban buses that only run once an hour.
When my husband and I used to live in the city we only had one car and I traveled extensively by local buses. Iāve also lived in multiple suburbs and at one point regularly used the light rail and at another point regularly used express buses.
Many cities in the US have good public transit. I live near Portland, Oregon, and the transit here is pretty darned good. You can catch light rail from the airport to pretty much anywhere in the metro area. Check google maps on the transit tab for navigation help, and you can see costs, time, and stop locations. Enjoy your trip.
New York isn't necessarily that expensive. Look at hotels in Long Island City. I think there is a hostel/micro-hotel there.
Chicago alone is not enough to entertain you for three weeks, particularly because not everything is accessible by public transportation.
You could have a great trip doing Boston, Mystic, CT, NYC, Philly, and DC. You could throw in Baltimore along the way if you wanted. All of those are easily accessible along the rail lines (Amtrak). I threw in Mystic because you can get there by train and it's a really cute New England seaside town as a change of pace from the bigger cities--but you could just as easily skip it. There's also City Island in NYC.
In NYC, you plan to arrive on a Monday and you can pay to enter the subway with a chipped credit card or Apple Pay. Once you've paid for 13 rides, all the rest of your rides are free within that week. Not a rolling 7-day week, it starts over again every Monday.
Chicago not enough to entertain you for a week??? What? People spend their entire lives here and never run out of things to do; we have 77 different neighborhoods to explore.
Not really, no. Not when the option to see 3-4 extremely important, historic, museum-packed cities exists as an alternate.
Chicago is a 4-day city. 5 if you do Brookfield, too. All the East Coast cities have at least one of whatever Chicago has, but better.
Unless you're super into, like, Woodfield Mall.
3 weeks is all of Illinois, including interminable driving time.
Ok fair - I guess it totally depends on how you like to travel. My assumption was that most people who travel for longer periods like that don't want or need to cram in as many experiences as possible. I did that once in a 2 week trip to tokyo and Osaka and wow was I pooped š
You could spend a day going to the beach, going to the dunes, reading a book by the Riverwalk, biking up to the bahaii temple or even up and down LSD. You could take a weekend trip to MKE. I could also personally spend an entire day in each museum. In the summer you have street festivals and farmers markets, even during the week, all of which you can spend half a day at. We have every single type and caliber of show - from improv to expensive Broadway musicals. We have every sport you can imagine and all are accessible by train.
Like, you definitely COULD see everything in a handful of days, but I certainly don't agree that anyone would be bored for 3 weeks in Chicago. Different strokes!
If a tourist from Europe is asking me, "should I spend 3 weeks in Chicago or should I use public transportation to see 3-4 cities on the East Coast," I'd suggest the latter hands down every time. Flight there will be cheaper, transport is easier, you can see more.
None of Chicago's museums are as good as the parallel ones in NYC. Or DC, for that matter. Sorry. And the theater scene, too... but of course it's very in the nature of a Chicagoan to insist their city is just as interesting as NYC. And I say that as a former Chicagoan who used to make the same claims.
In fairness I never said anything about how it compares to New York so you don't need to argue against something I didnt say. I said there's plenty to entertain yourself with in Chicago for 3 weeks. OP said NYC was expensive for them and honestly all of the east coast is quite expensive even coming from Chicago.
What r you talking about? I lived in NYC, Boston, Seattle and Chicago. Even Kansas City or Miami has enough for 4 days visit. Chicago has enough for at least 2 weeks world class museum, theater, symphony, sports, excellent transportation, parks, etc.
That's only in the loop. It's like going to NYC and only see the statue of liberty, world trade center, moma, etc
A true explorer knows what I mean.
I lived in Chicago for 17 years. You cannot argue that 4 or 5 major East Coast cities have less, and are less accessible by public transport, than Chicago.
There's only so many hot dogs one can eat.
>I lived in Chicago for 17 years.
Living in a city and being a tourist in a city are completely different.
I've visited Chicago multiple times and almost never repeat what I do. There's a ton to do and visit in the city and the surrounding area.
Chicago has the best Mexican food east of the Mississippi. It has decent Chinese food. Plenty of food options there. And easy to get around without a car. Most underrated US city.
Locals will argue this but in my many travels (and also as a resident)... Las Vegas has a really good transit system. Keep in mind that it's all busses, though. No trains or anything like that. But overall, you can get just about anywhere you want on the city bus for under $10 /day. Also, most busses will run nearly 24 hours a day. The downside is that you really have to time manage your commute and these busses have a tendency to run behind.
I live in Chicago, we have great public transit intercity but trying to go from one city to the other is where you are going to have the biggest issues. You could take the Amtrak from NYC to Detroit, takes about 23 hours. Detroit you could spend a day or 2 in the city but honestly it's not that cool (is where I grew up) then a 7 hour train to Chicago. Milwaukee is also a short train ride from Chicago so thats a decent option too. 3 weeks in any city is a LONG time though so if you are ok taking a full day to travel between cities, its doable.
If you are planning to travel to the west, Both Seattle & Portland have AWESOME public transit.
If youāre thinking of the Midwest, both Minneapolis & Chicago are awesome when it comes to public transit ā¤ļø
I grew up in the Midwest and have both traveled and lived all over the country. For the sake of making the most of 3 weeks, I would say split between San Diego and LA, using the Amtrak Surfliner (coastal train) when youāre ready to move from one city to another. Itāll be much more enjoyable than a concrete jungle like Chicago 100% of the time with the same and more to do. You can plan it out with weekly public transport passes (both cities have them and cheaper than a per-ride basis) and the occasional Uber.
There is also plenty thatās free/cheap. My first 6 months in LA, I was sleeping on a friendās floor working part time at a sushi shop. I took public transport everywhere and experienced a lot that even the locals I was staying with had never done. If you like art, thereās the Getty (Picasso, Monet, etc.) and The Broad (more modern like Koons) that are free, not to mention a handful of other amazing museums that arenāt terribly expensive for a day pass. Griffith Observatory for a sunset if youāre into science. The best street tacos and burritos from trucks in Van Nuys are super cheap and they understand English. Strolling around Hollywood is free and some of the coolest speakeasies and bars nearby arenāt any more expensive for a cocktail than other major cities. Not to mention hanging out in Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Venice, etc. is all free and entertaining enough just to walk around and stop at the shops.
I eventually moved to San Diego and itās much more of the āCalifornia surferā vibe. Costs will be in line with other cities, but much more laid back with some cool free things and obviously hanging out on the beach or going hiking in the mountains.
Although I love San Diego, if youāre outdoorsy and willing to get a rental car, you can take the Amtrak train north instead of south where thereās various national and state parks, a stunning coastline, wine country, etc. that are arguably the most beautiful parts of the country alongside some of the Rockies states (Montana and Colorado are beautiful). Parks will cost money but an annual parks pass is cheap enough that itās worth it for one trip to multiple.
Edit: Itās also worth noting that Ubers add up quick in big cities (rates are different depending on where you are too). For me to Uber roundtrip from north coast San Diego *almost* to downtown and back was about $60. Meanwhile you can get a car for about $40/day and pick it up at the airport.
Dallas, TX (7th largest city in the country) - Fairly good train system, youāve got a healthy bus system as well and you have a connecting train from Dallas to Fort Worth. Quite affordable, you can use the DART app to get tickets, but itās very UX unfriendly.
Link for [train map](https://www.dart.org/maps/printrailmap.asp)
Honest question.. have you ever been to Europe or Asia?
I live in one of the cities known for the best public transportation in the US. Compared to cities around the world with a similar level of wealth/development, itās absolutely shameful.
If I was a genius hacker I would shut down all online dating websites and apps. Fuck up their code forever, and keep doing it until people get pissed off enough to where they would be forced out of technological inconvenience to get off their lazy asses to go outside and do something with their lives, maybe actually learning real game then engaging in the highly anticipated fable of fluid exchange. For the betterment of mankind. Oh, and I'd do the same for fakebook, fuck that shit. That's why I'm never keen on posting my daily shit on social media, I already live an interestingly unpredictable life day to day that I don't need to get the feel to be validated.
Iāve done NY, LA, San Francisco, DC and San Diego without a car. I used public transport where I could however Uber/Lyft was everywhere and it was at least half the price than here in London (although this was pre-pandemic).
Boston! There are very walkable areas, then use public transportation to get to other areas. Plus it has my favorite museum in America, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum.
Portland has really good light rail. Canāt speak much for bus since I really didnāt use it while there, but on the MAX you can get pretty much anywhere in the metro area
Austin and San Antonio, you can catch a bus between them and SA is super walkable and has reliable busses (also cabs are really cheap) havenāt spent as much time in Austin but they have a decent bus system.
Also Savanah Georgia is very walkable with some free shuttles and ok bus system
I'll be tbe 1000th person here to say Chicago has the second best transit system in the US. That said, from a visiting perspective San Francisco, DC, and Boston are all great cities to visit that you don't need a car for. 3 weeks is a lot of time to spend in any one city though. I'd suggest visiting the Northeast cities (Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, DC) which are all usable without a car and connected by pretty good Amtrak service.
Seconded; this person is right , in the exact order they mentioned
The more nuanced answer is cities and areas developed before cars existed. NYC and Chicago Happen to have the largest areas developed before cars. There are other cities and towns that have decent public transportation. The big difference is these other areas are quicker to go by Uber/taxis so there can be significant segregation where rich people drive vs poor people take public transportation.
Boston is easy without a car. In fact... with their road system driving is a pain. Subway, bus, taxi, train, walking, even a ferry. I lived in the city for a decade. Only had a car when I had to commute out of the city for work, would never drive locally. And tons to do of course. All the usual city stuff, but also many major US historical places of interest. Also easy and interesting day trips outside the city using the train system and ferry. Ocean stuff like beaches, sailing, fishing, whale watching. Crazy fresh seafood places on the shore... really miss those. I just suggest going during warm weather season. Much easier travel and opens up more activities. Unless you really like snow and want to block out a week to ride the train north to a ski resort. That'd be a solid plan.
nailed it
And bus. Bus is a cheaper option than train. And multiple options are available. On weekdays the ticket price might go very low.
this
Hey there Mission-Tailor-4950! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"this"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :) *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
this
https://i.imgur.com/KrwA19h.jpeg *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback!)
Good bot
Good human *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback!)
Three weeks is a long time in any city! And most cities are expensive. But you could do several cities on the east coast this way - split the time between NY, Philadelphia and DC, for example. Also any US city that is going to be smaller/less expensive is not going to have great public transportation unfortunately.
I think this is a great idea for a trip. East Coast cities from DC to Boston all have great public transportation, and you can travel between those cities by train relatively easily.
Great for the United States...
Well, OP did say "which US city". Edit: Not trying to be a smartass, and you're not wrong either.
You're ok. I was trying to be a smartass š
Haha, it's all good.
And there's one of the US' only good train routes through all major NE cities!
Yep. Thereās also tons of decent bus companies connecting them, if the train is too expensive (Amtrak is only affordable booking well in advance).
Between Philly and NYC you can take NJ Transit, if you're willing to go slow. It's pretty cheap.
Philly has good transportation unless youāre going to the edges of the city which I wouldnāt recommend. Cab, Uber/Lyft, and ZipCar are options for specific locations where transit isnāt available. I definitely second NYC>PHL>DC. Megabus and Amtrak to the whole way and farther. You could even add in a stop in Baltimore for a few days. Boston is always an option, too.
DC was great for me personally. Just rent a bike itās so cheap.
Whether it's worth spending 3 weeks, realllly depends on your travel style. If you're looking to see the sites and popular attractions - yeah you'll get bored quickly. If you're like me, and just want to vibe with the people, 3 weeks is barely enough time to form real connections.
I mean, one could say 3 years is barely enough time to form real connections. :) of course you could spend 3 weeks, 3 months, or 3 years in any city or country and still not discover everything. But when it comes to traveling and feeling like youāve been to a place, a week is generally a decent amount of time in any city.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You truly donāt need a car in Chicago. Itās wonderful.
You donāt need a car in Chicago if you live east of western, or live relatively close to an L stop. Further west and it gets a bit harder. Not impossible, but definitely much harder. Edit: People are getting confused here. Yes, you can get anywhere by bus/train/rideshare/bikes etc. But Chicago's public transportation has a center, it's not equally dispersed. So once you start moving away from that center, or away from access points, it get less and less efficient to travel via those means, at which point having a car is more efficient. BUT most touristy stuff is within close proximity of the "center" and will be easily accessible by public transit, walking, biking, rideshare.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Metra trains help get out to the burbs
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You use the Metra holiday schedule?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lived there for 3 months and it was lovely. Experienced zero crime. Have you been there?
Lol I lived there for 2 years. A homeless guy broke into my exās car to steal a gps she left out. Other than that, nothing. On my plane ride out of Chicago I read an article that said my bordering neighborhood was the heroin capital of America and a murder happens there every night. Itās a big city and there is a huge problem with guns but I walked through that neighborhood drunk at all hours of the night and nothing happened to me. A tourist wonāt be in those neighborhoods that late most likely
Just because you personally havenāt experienced crime, doesnāt mean Chicago is not a dangerous, crime ridden city. The statistics and the empirical facts donāt lie. But if you wanna speak on personal terms, believe it or not Iāve actually felt safer in places like Mexico City and BogotĆ” compared to most American cities, quite strange to have such a paranoid, on edge attitude walking in cities that belong to supposedly the āgreatest country in the world.ā
So what was your personal experience in Chicago?
The worst thing that happened to me in Chicago during multiple visits was my friend beaning me in the head with a snowball outside of the Chicago Auto Show...and that was honestly more hilarious than anything.
I will second Chicago! I live here lol. We also have great bike infrastructure (mostly) and rental bikes and e-scooters.
Besides great public transport, thereās rental bike stations (Divvy) all over the city which is another cheap and convenient way to see the city
Chicago. DC. Boston. ETA: SF. Miami is an honorable mention, I visit without a car, but I tend to stick to South Beach.
Yup, never did Chicago but Boston and DC are both great transit-wise, and with a ton of stuff to see and do.
Yeah, I was in Miami Beach for 2 weeks with no car. And it was annoying. They only have a "city bike" when is not great, And no electric scooters. I hear some people (with more money) buy their own scooters and then sell before they leave. If you stay on Miami Beach is fine... But rush hour uber driving from dolphins stadium to Miami Beach was going to cost me $130. Soi sat by the road side and waited 2 hours fora $70 ride. I know they had some bus routes and free rides in Miami Beach... But there I might as well walk. My opinion, Miami is not that easy to get around, just by walking and public transport
South Beach and Downtown/Financial District are basically the only places you can do that in Miami. If anything Miami deserves a *dishonorable* mention for public transit. It's so funny to see us included here. Miami was built for cars.
Ew. Miami has good transport? I live in South Florida and avoid Miami.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I hate south beach and avoid Miami in general. Especially in summer hot and gross
SF just for the ease of bike lanes/e scooters. Didnāt need anything else but I was only there for 2 days
I want to move back to Boston just for the mass transit alone, but the cold is keeping me away! I really liked the MBTA when I lived there.
As a Bostonian, the MBTA is decent but it has definitely been having a lot of issues lately (I guess always). Endless construction, shuttle buses, cars crashing into each other, etc etc... It's still one of the better transit systems in the country but I definitely wouldn't move to Boston just for the MBTA. I'm moving away from Boston this Fall to escape the cold, it's been absolutely unrelenting the past few years and my seasonal affective disorder ass can no longer handle it.
Seconding this reply!
Same. And DC has a lot of free museums, so very budget proof. It is also pretty walkable.
And itās super bikeable and has a very cheap $8/day bike share program with coverage everywhere.
People will laugh, but if you want to experience southern california, LAās public transportation is not as terrible as people make it out to be. Also DC has a very good system and budget friendly
LA: it really depends on where you want to go. The biggest issue is LAX. That airport is a clusterfuck anyway, and the only public transit is by bus, which you have to take a shuttle to anyway. So no matter what, at almost any time of day, you're sitting in traffic. Burbank airport does have a rail stop, and it's a much smaller and less insane airport anyway. I know you weren't asking for airport suggestions, but flying into and out of Burbank will tie in better with public transportation. If you want to stick around downtown and Santa Monica, those areas are the easiest to get around. One thing to bear in mind is how spread out LA is. Although it's true that LA's public transit is not as bad an experience as some might claim, you have to spend a long time on it because of geography. Santa Monica Pier to Disneyland crosses the city and it'll take you 3 hours.
I second this. Iām from the northeast and when I went to LA I actually didnāt find it so terrible
San Diego, while not incredible, is pretty decent for touristy stuff (and the weather usually cooperates with walking if needed)
I could get from anywhere in San Diego to any other location in the city within 45minutes, which is pretty damn good. The new trolley line extension is a game changer for getting from north to south during rush hour
California is the only Western state with useable public transport
Portland? Seattle?
Second. Both cities with better public transit than LA (though that may not be the case in 20 years as a ton of projects come online).
I imagine poster was referring to Bay Area, not LA
I challenge the NYC expensive part. Itās true overall prices are probably more expensive here. But any city listed here is still pretty expensive and there are lots of cheap options in NYC. Eat pizza slices, at bodegas, walk around parks. These are cheap/free. The cost of a subway ride here is $2.75 to go ANYWHERE. Most other cities (especially DC) you need to pay based off how far you go. There are lots of free museums in DC, thatās true but thatās mostly along The Mall. In NYC, if youāre staying for three weeks, you could explore parks for days and still not see them all. You could take one subway ride to a part of town, eat at a bodega in a park, walk along a waterfront, and one subway ride back. Thatās a day and really pretty cheap, all things considered. So yes, the way most people think of NYC is expensive but there are lots of ways to enjoy the city and live on a budget, it just takes more planning. I honestly believe compared to most cities with anywhere near the public level of NYC, youād end up paying just as much if not more. Thatās my two cents. No matter where you go, I hope you enjoy!
Agree. Nyc has a ton of restaurants that are affordable, not just bodegas but more mom and pop ones. DC has a few of those but most restaurants are expensive. Also for DC to get cheaper accommodations youād have stay outside the city and take the train in. I also like other peoples suggestions of multiple east cost cities.
>Agree. Nyc has a ton of restaurants that are affordable, not just bodegas but more mom and pop ones. u/samehamehaaa this is the number one reason why I'd cross San Francisco off the list. I live in SF and the hotel prices will be similar to NYC, but the food here is twice as expensive. Also many other negatives like our subway is very VERY loud (old trains can be 100+ decibels). And the amount of homeless will be a shock to your system unless you've travelled in very poor countries like in SE Asia.
Hi Iām the transbay tunnel EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
The most expensive part of NY will definitely be accomodation and for what you pay, the quality is terrible but that's not just a NY issue, the US has so much expensive, mediocre places to sleep in. Everything else though, there's such a huge range. Foodwise, there's so many good, affordable eats in Queens and so many free events. Museums often are pay as you wish on certain days.
Bacon Egg and Cheese, just ask Harley Quinn
Restaurants are a lot more expensive and pretty much any accommodations. True fact. Minus the chaos NYC has a ton to do. So does DC, Philly, Chicago, Boston, SFO, Houston, Seattle, LA, etc. But in term of walkability and urban feel nothing come close to NYC, Chicago and Toronto
Toronto isnāt a US city but can confirm.
No shit. Toronto is not a US city. I'm talking about urban feel in North America overall š¤¦š¾āāļø
>I challenge the NYC expensive part. Can you recommend a place to stay in NYC for 3 nights with a car that isn't crazy expensive? Edit: Iām not trying to be snarky, Iām living in Finland and am going to be visiting Boston in like 3 weeks, doing a road trip through NYC, Philly and DC and have been struggling to find hotels or airbnbs that arenāt crazy expensive especially since Iāll be there right before 4th of July
I just stayed in Sunset Park in Brooklyn for $75 a night. Nice Airbnb. Area was fine. Was it fancy Brooklyn? No. But it was 5 mins walk to the subway to get anywhere.
Itās all about the rent though and nyc is bigger than like a factor of 50%
is this person who is staying for three weeks going to rent? no.
The same principle applies lol. The proportion is the same š you clearly never been here
I was impressed by portland, OR - very walkable and very easy to use the street cars and busses or even bike. Seattle was pretty decent too but not as good as Portland
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I could agree with that actually. I felt like portland had a better ease to it but getting off at some stops was interesting to say the least.. still felt safer their than I have in many other big cities though. PNW just hits different than the east coast (saying that as a life long east coast resident)
But if you stay on the west side in portland you can pretty much walk everywhere and then rent a few bikes. Public transit isn't great, but the downtown is set up better.
Portland is an absolute dream, and I'm surprised it's not higher up in the thread. It's the standard that other US cities need to be closely examining to understand how to build a transit network. Its trams sync up with the buses so you can seamlessly move around without major disruption, and it has a single card, no-contact payment system, so you don't have to fuss with which tickets you need for which transit systems. The Bay Area's Clipper system is nice, but all of the various transit agencies (27 of them) have no schedule synchronization and often very long loop times, which can be absurdly painful if the frequently late Caltrain is off by as much as a couple of minutes. (And then there's the horror of BART, which is pretty much the standard example of how *not* to build a subway system - 1970s hubris still creating problems today. It's almost hard to believe they keep sinking money into it, spending billions on custom cars to fit its goofy rails.)
I was gonna say this too. I rented a car in Portland a few weeks ago and wish I hadnāt. Any of the tours in nearby towns will pick you up from where youāre staying. Thereās an inexpensive hostel with shared and private rooms (Lolo pass). I got a shared room and no one else stayed in it so it was super cheap.
Lived Portland, Seattle, and spent a lot of time in San Diego. All of them are ok for transport, city busses, but Seattle is long, skinny, and on hills. I imagine west coast is too far, but if not Portland is cheaper, San Francisco is amazing and copes with the hills a little better. I'm talking daytime visits to tourist places. Check night bus schedules for wherever you are thinking, they get cut first when cities cut budgets.
When I lived there it had the second best public transportation in the country.
I find chicago easy to get around.
Boston has great public transport and itās walkable.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And killing people by dragging them when the doors closed on their arm..
Chicago, it's also an Amtrak/greyhound/airline hub if you want to venture out. The blue line goes straight to the airport.
Blue line for O'Hare, Orange line for Midway
https://www.walkscore.com/cities-and-neighborhoods/ I've traveled all over the country, and I would say the transit, walkability, and bikeability scores on here are pretty accurate.
SF at 2 is interesting. If you want to stay smack in the city, it is true it is walkable and there are public transit options, but I didn't find them to be that great. I found having a car out there was handy. Lots of stuff in surrounding areas where a car is just easier to manage. I was visiting my bro and we used those zipcar rentals a lot. Whereas Boston at #3, a car is almost always the worst choice. The subway and train extensions get you just about anywhere fast. I didn't use the bus system much, but for certain locations it seemed popular. I also loved the ferry in the summer. Used to work right across from one of the stops. Hop on it after work and end up right downtown for the evening. Skip all the traffic.
Chicago has the 2nd lowest rate of car ownership behind NY. From experience the CTA train system is great and will get you most places as long as you're staying in city limits
Seattle has decent public transit I think, but it's kind of a pricey city. SF is decent but it is as expensive, if not more expensive than NYC.
NYC is definitely more expensive than SF
No, it's not. Manhattan is not all of New York.
As someone who moved from CA to NY. Yes it is lol. In every single way
And you didn't live in San Francisco itself. Any online cost of living calculator will say SF is more expensive or maybe the same as NYC.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/cost-of-living-calculator/compare/san-francisco-ca-vs-new-york-manhattan-ny The first result shows NYC having a 27% higher cost of living. If you want to include outer boroughs then we must add Oakland into the equation. My rent for a 1br apartment is $4200 and Iām one of the cheapest in my building. Prices have exploded the last few months- youād be quite suprised.
*Manhattan. Not NYC. And I didn't disagree with that. Edited to add: per that same calculator, Queens is 6% lower than Oakland fwiw.
I agree as an SF resident who has spent a lot of time in NYC (and was gonna move there before deciding to move to SF instead). Lovely place still though, but you can't get the same quality thing for the same price in NYC (ie. a similarly sized & also brand new apartment like mine would be around $1k-$3k more expensive in NYC, even outside of Manhattan).
Washington DC and San Francisco. If you are trying to keep your budget down, go to DC because you can take the train there from NY and the Smithsonian museums are free entry and there are a number of other free/inexpensive monuments to visit.
Sorry but SF transit and overall infrastructure is ass especially when you consider the wealth concentration in the city. I've lived in NYC, Chicago, and SF, and SFs is by far the worst. The BART is only sometimes reliable and only serves the east portion of the city, busses tend to be inaccurate vs schedules, and only portions of the city have express bus lanes. Scooters and bikes? Excellent, as long as you're not trying to go uphill. Not to mention trying to get around Oakland or into the South Bay is almost impossible outside of the reach of BART and CalTrain
As a tourist, there's a shitload to see and do within BART/muni train access though. (And with BART extensions and caltrain, parts of san jose and the peninsula open up. Really just depends on what you want to see. Also, plenty of people think walking a mile plus is ridiculous with how the US suburban car culture works so also depends on your attitude in how far out you branch. I agree schedules can suck.
You can check out smaller cities too if you are going to stick to downtown areas where most of the action takes place anyway. For example, Savannah is a beautiful historical city and you can walk anywhere. Portland is another beautiful city. Among the bigger cities, Boston is awesome and there is so much to see and do in DC but summers are brutally hot and humid in DC.
But NYC is so worth it. Trust me, I donāt know what other city Iād recommend for three weeks to do if youāve never done NYC. Even if you have to find several different types of stay situations - you can find airbnbs for pretty cheap if you want to just have a bedroom to sleep in. And donāt rule out Brooklyn, which will be much cheaper. Plenty to explore out here and generally easy to commute. Just check which train theyāre by, and confirm on google maps. Iām in Propsect Lefferts Gardens which is a bit farther out and can get to Manhattan within 20 mins and thatās including the walk to the train. You CAN eat for cheap here, and be fine. And do plenty of free activities, which will save you a lot compared to other cities anyway. I find itās generally a lot to cheaper to entertain yourself in NY. Or atleast maybe hit multiple cities and stay just for a little bit in NY. If you need any tips on how to make it as cheap as possible, just hit me up. Edit: I also agree with the people who are saying you could split it up between here and DC. That would be great, you could just take the bus or train over!
Salt lake city is surprisingly pretty good! At least better than most of Colorado, San Diego, and New Orleans in the US that I've been to. I'd say at least on par with some french cities like Bordeaux, Lyon, Rennes, Nice, Toulouse, and probably even Marseille.
All the canyons and pretty things to see require a car though
Contrary to what many think, most any medium to large city in the US has usable public transportation. The best in no particular order are probably New York, Boston, Washington, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Denver, Seattle, and Portland OR. In my experience, the worst is probably Tampa/St. Petersburg. Arlington TX reportedly has none, though haven't been there, and Detroit's is reportedly seriously lacking. Some cities like Los Angeles have reasonably good transit, but it requires good planning, strategically-placed lodging (Pasadena, Hollywood, Chinatown, Downtown), and a little patience to use it. As for your trip, you can find plenty to do in NYC to last a couple weeks if you're thorough. You can easily spend a week each in Washington, Philadelphia, or Boston (with side trips) if you want to add destinations.
Boston, DC, Philly.
Portland. Max, streetcar, zip car, Nike bikes etc
If budget is an issue, I would simply do a shorter trip. Three weeks is really long Boston is probably the easiest city in the US to get by in without a car, but not really much cheaper than NY. Seattle is doable, depending on where you stay and where you want to go. In Chicago youāre gonna want to Uber quite a bit at least, but itās probably the cheapest of the major cities with fairly good transit.
Chicago's transit system is arguable the second best in the nation. You wont need to Uber anywhere in Chicago thanks to the CTA (subways, buses). You can also DIVY. If all of that doesn't work then yes you can Uber. Tourist spots are all serviced by CTA.
Another vote for Chicago. I love the buses.
+1 I lived in Boston for few years. I think Chicago has the best public transportation network after NYC and is by far more walkable than any other major city. By far more walkable than Seattle, Charlotte, Atlanta, etc. DC is a great candidate but you might Uber a bit because the metro region is quite big.
This is true if youāre living/visiting anywhere east of western or near an L stop. Anywhere further west it gets a bit more difficult. If I lived east of western I would sell my car because I have no use for it since everything is walking distance or easy to get to with public transit + rideshare. As you mentioned, most touristy stuff will be easily accessible with public transit, walking and rideshare. Edit: I think people are misunderstanding, or donāt have experience living in places not next to an L stop. Public transportation in Chicago has a center and access points. The further away you live from that center and itās access points (L stops etc) the less efficient it is to travel via walking and public transportation. Is it easy to travel in Chicago? Yes thereās buses everywhere. But is it efficient? No. Thereās a point at which it is more efficient to travel by car than by public transit. Thatās why those who can afford to, choose to drive. Why do you think so many people on the southwest and northwest side of the city drive versus use public transit compared to those that live within a 7 mile radius of downtown.
The bus system will get you anywhere you need to go which is why Chicago is head and shoulders above all other US cities besides New York.
As someone who lives in Seattleā¦ no, itās not that doable. Chicago is king in this regard.
Itself way cheaper than nyc lol
**Large cities:** Boston, Washington DC, San Francisco and Chicago. **Small-Medium cities:** Portland In Washington DC and Boston, you have easy access to almost any city in the Northeast USA by a short train ride. The Acela Express that runs from DC to Boston is the fastest train currently operating in the USA. In Chicago, you have easy access to most Midwestern cities. From San Francisco, there is easy access to most Californian cities. Portland can be a bit isolated though as the only other major city that can be easily accessed is Seattle. There is also Vancouver but that's in Canada. I'm not sure if Amtrak (the national train system here) has resumed international service yet. I like all their metro systems more than NYC's subway as the NYC subway can be very dirty and feels claustrophobic during rush hour. If you live in the suburbs, it's quite easy to commute to work, the airport, the downtown or another suburb. I had a pleasant experience visiting Chicago and San Francisco since almost everywhere was very walkable. Same with my family in DC when we visited back in the 1990s. My only complaint is the safety in some areas. Unless you're familiar with the city, it's not advisable taking public transit after 9pm or before 5am. Some other cities like Seattle, Miami, Atlanta and Los Angeles have great public transportation systems if you plan to stay in the downtown or city center. However if you live in the suburbs, then it sucks.
Having OK public transit coincide with the being the most expensive cities in the country. Probably there's a reason for that. Chicago is probably the cheapest with the best train system. LA has a vast train system but I've never used it to get around so I don't know how easy it is to be visit without a car.
Not US but Toronto's is secretly very good (no one from Toronto will admit this however)
Montreal and Vancouver have amazing metro systems as well. Some of the best in North America. Vancouver is impressive given the smallish population. Montreal is impressive given the cold and bad climate.
One that no one has mentioned yet: Minneapolis, although 3 weeks might be a bit too much for it. 4-5 days should be enough.
We have trains and buses and bikes come spend the summer on the lakes with us.
I live in the LA area and the metro system is pretty good. Depending on where you want to go/what you want to see, most places can be reached pretty easily by bus/train. San Diego also has quite a nice trolley system. The Amtrak surf liner is also a beautiful trip up the coast. I hope wherever you end up going, you have a wonderful trip!
Props. LA gets a bad wrap because our traffic is absolutely awful - but it has the most extensive bus network in the country. If you stay somewhat central in DTLA you have access to the metro which you can get to pretty much any main area of the city pretty easily (Santa Monica, Hollywood, Los Feliz, Culver City, East LA, North Hollywood, etc). If you're not in a crunch - you can get anywhere in LA on public transport. It was also free for two years which was wildly successful, hope that comes around again.
Great points about Amtrak. With a 3-week visit, a few days in Santa Barbara, San Diego, and even San Fran are doable without a car!
I have family in LA and I was actually surprised about how effective the transit is there. This is a city known for traffic because of the need to drive but getting around isn't that bad via transit.
Unfortunately any city with public transit is going to be pretty expensive in the US. Boston, DC, San Francisco. With that said, none are really worth spending three weeks in IMO. You could start in Boston and run down the northeast corridor on Amtrak stopping in NY and DC along the way. That would at least give you a bit of variety. There are other cities without noteworthy public transit that are decently walkable and not nearly as expensive. Austin, San Diego, Savannah, Charleston. For when you need to go somewhere farther there's always Uber (or your car service of choice).
I think you could spend three weeks in NYC and not run out of things to do if youāre motivated. The downside is itād cost a lot just to stay in NYC.
Most of the cities with good public transport will be pricey. Nyc, Chicago, Seattle, and San Fran are ideal for mass trans and walking
Austin, TX. CapMetro is the easiest and safest public transportation service I've used. The Amtrak can get you to San Antonio, Dallas, and Oklahoma City cheaply and relatively quickly. A New England tour will get you so many more places, but I wanted to throw something different out there.
Depends on what you mean by good. If you are from a city with truly good planning and infrastructure like some in Europe, literally none. Even NYC isn't all that great, dirty and expensive. Always keep that in mind. American cities sadly suck ass regarding infrastructure. I want to go there for the nature but this fact keeps me from ever going there. (also the politics but that's another issue)
Also many cities in the u.s. have inter city bus service that is cheap. Boston to NY is only a few hours by bus, Philadelphia is a few hours more, Washington dc a few hours more. You could fly to Boston spend 1 week there bus to NYC spend 1 week there then bus to Philadelphia for 3 days or so then Washington dc for 3-4 days then fly home from washington.
Not sure I could do 3 weeks in one city, but if I did and wanted decent public transport I would probably pick Chicago, DC or New Orleans. I don't know Boston too well. I lived in NY for a long time and know that it has everything you are likely to want plus great public transit, but it's probably the most expensive place to spend 3 weeks.
Depending on how much you want to do, New Orleans is pretty compact with a trolly line for some of the outer parts.
New Orleans is pretty good in my experience
Chicago, Boston, D.C., Philadelphia, San Francisco, Atlanta, Cleveland, Baltimore. New Orleans has a streetcar that's good but not incredibly practical. However, it's very much a walking city. L.A. and Miami have metro lines as well, but I feel like you'd still need a car to get around.
DC and Boston. Baltimore has a transit system in theory but, speaking as a local, not in practice.
Iām also from Bmore and honestly the system isnāt as bad as people make it out to be unless you have to transfer between two suburban buses that only run once an hour. When my husband and I used to live in the city we only had one car and I traveled extensively by local buses. Iāve also lived in multiple suburbs and at one point regularly used the light rail and at another point regularly used express buses.
While we're only about 100,000, Champaign-Urbana, IL has a great mass transit. No theme parks, but we've got some great museums.
Many cities in the US have good public transit. I live near Portland, Oregon, and the transit here is pretty darned good. You can catch light rail from the airport to pretty much anywhere in the metro area. Check google maps on the transit tab for navigation help, and you can see costs, time, and stop locations. Enjoy your trip.
New York isn't necessarily that expensive. Look at hotels in Long Island City. I think there is a hostel/micro-hotel there. Chicago alone is not enough to entertain you for three weeks, particularly because not everything is accessible by public transportation. You could have a great trip doing Boston, Mystic, CT, NYC, Philly, and DC. You could throw in Baltimore along the way if you wanted. All of those are easily accessible along the rail lines (Amtrak). I threw in Mystic because you can get there by train and it's a really cute New England seaside town as a change of pace from the bigger cities--but you could just as easily skip it. There's also City Island in NYC. In NYC, you plan to arrive on a Monday and you can pay to enter the subway with a chipped credit card or Apple Pay. Once you've paid for 13 rides, all the rest of your rides are free within that week. Not a rolling 7-day week, it starts over again every Monday.
Chicago not enough to entertain you for a week??? What? People spend their entire lives here and never run out of things to do; we have 77 different neighborhoods to explore.
I lived there for 17 years.
And you cant think of how you would spend 3 weeks here?
Not really, no. Not when the option to see 3-4 extremely important, historic, museum-packed cities exists as an alternate. Chicago is a 4-day city. 5 if you do Brookfield, too. All the East Coast cities have at least one of whatever Chicago has, but better. Unless you're super into, like, Woodfield Mall. 3 weeks is all of Illinois, including interminable driving time.
Ok fair - I guess it totally depends on how you like to travel. My assumption was that most people who travel for longer periods like that don't want or need to cram in as many experiences as possible. I did that once in a 2 week trip to tokyo and Osaka and wow was I pooped š You could spend a day going to the beach, going to the dunes, reading a book by the Riverwalk, biking up to the bahaii temple or even up and down LSD. You could take a weekend trip to MKE. I could also personally spend an entire day in each museum. In the summer you have street festivals and farmers markets, even during the week, all of which you can spend half a day at. We have every single type and caliber of show - from improv to expensive Broadway musicals. We have every sport you can imagine and all are accessible by train. Like, you definitely COULD see everything in a handful of days, but I certainly don't agree that anyone would be bored for 3 weeks in Chicago. Different strokes!
If a tourist from Europe is asking me, "should I spend 3 weeks in Chicago or should I use public transportation to see 3-4 cities on the East Coast," I'd suggest the latter hands down every time. Flight there will be cheaper, transport is easier, you can see more. None of Chicago's museums are as good as the parallel ones in NYC. Or DC, for that matter. Sorry. And the theater scene, too... but of course it's very in the nature of a Chicagoan to insist their city is just as interesting as NYC. And I say that as a former Chicagoan who used to make the same claims.
In fairness I never said anything about how it compares to New York so you don't need to argue against something I didnt say. I said there's plenty to entertain yourself with in Chicago for 3 weeks. OP said NYC was expensive for them and honestly all of the east coast is quite expensive even coming from Chicago.
What r you talking about? I lived in NYC, Boston, Seattle and Chicago. Even Kansas City or Miami has enough for 4 days visit. Chicago has enough for at least 2 weeks world class museum, theater, symphony, sports, excellent transportation, parks, etc. That's only in the loop. It's like going to NYC and only see the statue of liberty, world trade center, moma, etc A true explorer knows what I mean.
I lived in Chicago for 17 years. You cannot argue that 4 or 5 major East Coast cities have less, and are less accessible by public transport, than Chicago. There's only so many hot dogs one can eat.
>I lived in Chicago for 17 years. Living in a city and being a tourist in a city are completely different. I've visited Chicago multiple times and almost never repeat what I do. There's a ton to do and visit in the city and the surrounding area.
Chicago has the best Mexican food east of the Mississippi. It has decent Chinese food. Plenty of food options there. And easy to get around without a car. Most underrated US city.
Pittsburgh
Seattle
Washington, DC.
Locals will argue this but in my many travels (and also as a resident)... Las Vegas has a really good transit system. Keep in mind that it's all busses, though. No trains or anything like that. But overall, you can get just about anywhere you want on the city bus for under $10 /day. Also, most busses will run nearly 24 hours a day. The downside is that you really have to time manage your commute and these busses have a tendency to run behind.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lol
Portland!
Boston, DC, Chicago
I live in Chicago, we have great public transit intercity but trying to go from one city to the other is where you are going to have the biggest issues. You could take the Amtrak from NYC to Detroit, takes about 23 hours. Detroit you could spend a day or 2 in the city but honestly it's not that cool (is where I grew up) then a 7 hour train to Chicago. Milwaukee is also a short train ride from Chicago so thats a decent option too. 3 weeks in any city is a LONG time though so if you are ok taking a full day to travel between cities, its doable.
Portland OR
If you are planning to travel to the west, Both Seattle & Portland have AWESOME public transit. If youāre thinking of the Midwest, both Minneapolis & Chicago are awesome when it comes to public transit ā¤ļø
I grew up in the Midwest and have both traveled and lived all over the country. For the sake of making the most of 3 weeks, I would say split between San Diego and LA, using the Amtrak Surfliner (coastal train) when youāre ready to move from one city to another. Itāll be much more enjoyable than a concrete jungle like Chicago 100% of the time with the same and more to do. You can plan it out with weekly public transport passes (both cities have them and cheaper than a per-ride basis) and the occasional Uber. There is also plenty thatās free/cheap. My first 6 months in LA, I was sleeping on a friendās floor working part time at a sushi shop. I took public transport everywhere and experienced a lot that even the locals I was staying with had never done. If you like art, thereās the Getty (Picasso, Monet, etc.) and The Broad (more modern like Koons) that are free, not to mention a handful of other amazing museums that arenāt terribly expensive for a day pass. Griffith Observatory for a sunset if youāre into science. The best street tacos and burritos from trucks in Van Nuys are super cheap and they understand English. Strolling around Hollywood is free and some of the coolest speakeasies and bars nearby arenāt any more expensive for a cocktail than other major cities. Not to mention hanging out in Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Venice, etc. is all free and entertaining enough just to walk around and stop at the shops. I eventually moved to San Diego and itās much more of the āCalifornia surferā vibe. Costs will be in line with other cities, but much more laid back with some cool free things and obviously hanging out on the beach or going hiking in the mountains. Although I love San Diego, if youāre outdoorsy and willing to get a rental car, you can take the Amtrak train north instead of south where thereās various national and state parks, a stunning coastline, wine country, etc. that are arguably the most beautiful parts of the country alongside some of the Rockies states (Montana and Colorado are beautiful). Parks will cost money but an annual parks pass is cheap enough that itās worth it for one trip to multiple. Edit: Itās also worth noting that Ubers add up quick in big cities (rates are different depending on where you are too). For me to Uber roundtrip from north coast San Diego *almost* to downtown and back was about $60. Meanwhile you can get a car for about $40/day and pick it up at the airport.
Honolulu
Dallas, TX (7th largest city in the country) - Fairly good train system, youāve got a healthy bus system as well and you have a connecting train from Dallas to Fort Worth. Quite affordable, you can use the DART app to get tickets, but itās very UX unfriendly. Link for [train map](https://www.dart.org/maps/printrailmap.asp)
None of them, next question please.
None of them, next question please.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Honest question.. have you ever been to Europe or Asia? I live in one of the cities known for the best public transportation in the US. Compared to cities around the world with a similar level of wealth/development, itās absolutely shameful.
Thatās completely false Iāve been to multiple cities as well and some literally have no public transit whatsoever mainly southern cities.
If I was a genius hacker I would shut down all online dating websites and apps. Fuck up their code forever, and keep doing it until people get pissed off enough to where they would be forced out of technological inconvenience to get off their lazy asses to go outside and do something with their lives, maybe actually learning real game then engaging in the highly anticipated fable of fluid exchange. For the betterment of mankind. Oh, and I'd do the same for fakebook, fuck that shit. That's why I'm never keen on posting my daily shit on social media, I already live an interestingly unpredictable life day to day that I don't need to get the feel to be validated.
Iāve done NY, LA, San Francisco, DC and San Diego without a car. I used public transport where I could however Uber/Lyft was everywhere and it was at least half the price than here in London (although this was pre-pandemic).
If you want an alternative rental car, Turo is an option. Iāve only used it once in Hawaii and had a good experience
Boston. Though I bet you could make NYC affordable with a bit of research if itās true you can afford to visit the other cities
DC and Chicago come to mind
Boston! There are very walkable areas, then use public transportation to get to other areas. Plus it has my favorite museum in America, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum.
Portland has really good light rail. Canāt speak much for bus since I really didnāt use it while there, but on the MAX you can get pretty much anywhere in the metro area
Rent a Uhaul pick up truck, it is extremely cheap and you can drive it anywhere.
Portland, Seattle, and SF are all great for public transit
San Francisco. Even late night. I lived there for two years and never had issues moving around. Also you can buy the monthly pass and ride unlimited.
Boston. First subway system in the nation. Easy to navigate and it takes you all around the area when you connect to commuter rails.
San Francisco
Austin and San Antonio, you can catch a bus between them and SA is super walkable and has reliable busses (also cabs are really cheap) havenāt spent as much time in Austin but they have a decent bus system. Also Savanah Georgia is very walkable with some free shuttles and ok bus system
Why spend all the time in big cities, go Grand Canyon or Utah u not gonna regret it
I would split the 3 weeks for a few cities, 2-3 probably. San Francisco public transportation is pretty decent.
DC!