So, if Bostonians and New Yorkers can live carless, why does the same not apply to the denizens of other metropolitan areas? Why do cars seem to be a requirement even for short distances? Because we do not have anything close to the transit infrastructure those places do.

Mysha,                                                        
The key concept is "if Cleveland had gone the other way" Most of the decisions that shaped our use of cars vs public transport were made before I could drive, let alone vote on the issues that caused this situation. In the 60s, we were in the grip of the great freeway building frenzy.

In Ohio we had a Republican Governor who was dedicated to the proliferation of freeways at the expense of public transport. He balked at lots of things that would have made the world a better place, like bottle deposits and recycling. Before my first car,there was popular bumper sticker "Ohio, the litter state, James A. Rhodes, Governor" There was even a failed attempt to ruin a prime, historic section of the eastern suburbs, including paving over the Shaker Lakes! (about that time Cleveland also had a goofy mayor whose hair caught fire during a photo op, and whose wife declined an invite to dinner at the White House because it was her bowling night.) The politicians who ran things then caused the decline in so many ways.

So we never built the public transit infrstructure that Boston or New York or Chicago did, and those of us who have trouble walking distances are at a disadvantage when it comes to using the reduced coverage Regional Transit system we do have. I voted for every levy/scheme/system that came up to improve public transit, but that was too late in the flow of how things work in greater Cleveland.

Joanne in Cleveland with a very nice car that will get lots of carpool use.