Our kids went into DC at around that age. Our daughter went up to Baltimore for a film festival by herself when she was 16; she was a natural at navigating public transit.
Cool. Several others didn’t.
Yet another ambiguous case: As a teen, I went to school by getting on one public transit train and transferring to a different public transit train. All three points (my house, my school, and the transfer point) were within city limits… but the transit point was in the “most downtown” building in the city. Did I “go into The City”? What if I transferred at the same station, but started in a western suburb and ended in an eastern suburb? What if, on the way, I walked a couple of hundred feet to buy something in the mall in that same building: Does that couple of hundred feet of walking, all indoors, change anything?
We live in the far-flung exurbs of Dallas/Fort-Worth. Technically we’re now within the city boundaries, as it grew outward and eventually annexed us. But we still have an oasis of space and quiet (for now anyway).
I go into the inner portions of the city as little as possible, maybe once a year. Never voluntarily, only when forced due to medical issues or jury duty.
So yes, I regard going into the city as a huge PITA, with no upside that I experience. City interiors are hostile places. Filled with warning signs about parking, bike lanes, threats from predatory tow-companies, and aggressive drivers in an incomprehensible contest to beat me to the next traffic light.
I was forced into ‘da City’ two days ago, as the only available specialist was in the downtown hospital district. I had to negotiate a mess of traffic, and spent considerable time trying to find parking in the only available garage. This consisted of multiple trips up and down 6 levels until a spot finally opened.
After negotiating two elevators and a block of sidewalk, I found myself squeezed into a waiting room that was (literally) smaller than our bedroom. I guess I’m just spoiled by having all the open space in our house and environs out in the 'burbs.
I’m using this definition as well although it fits differently in the Dallas Fort-Worth metroplex, especially including “theaters/sports”. Also, the term “out in the suburbs” is difficult to define, as the majority of the 9300 square miles is continuous suburban sprawl. The inner areas which I avoid are the downtown regions of both cities, and the middle (Arlington) area of sports/entertainment/amusement parks.
I’m in the city (or thereabouts) for work, so for anything involving shopping or similar errands, I tend to do that on workdays. And I have choir rehearsals in town some evenings as well.
Trips into town on weekends or other days when I’m not already there - maybe once or twice a month.
I’m struggling to think what about bike lanes makes a CBD a hostile place. My experience is very different. Places with lots of bike support also tend to be way more walkable as well and are some of the best cities I’ve ever been in - as opposed to motherfucking Houston, the worst city on Earth.
I believe the argument is that on existing streets adding a bike lane means reducing the number of vehicle travel lanes, thereby slowing down traffic due to less lanes to drive on.
I’m not seeing how slowing traffic makes for a hostile place. Quite the opposite. Unless school zones are considered hostile now.
Also, bicycles are vehicles. The number of vehicle travel lanes stays the same. Or could increase, since you can put bicycle lanes on both sides of a route for the space of one car lane.
Sorry, trying to balance brevity with details.
I’m coming from over 30 miles away through heavy traffic, and my only option is to drive. Texas sometimes does a crappy job integrating bike traffic, often using their lanes for bikes, bus stops, and some portion re-used as the right turn lane for car traffic. Sometimes they’re also used by restaurants for valet drop/return space. The signage is confusing to me, and only those who live in the area are familiar with who uses what section and when.
Walkability (and bike-ability) certainly add to an neighborhood for the residents, but are not really usable for those who must drive in. And slap-dash bike lanes that are little more than some paint and a few signs added to already heavily used street traffic (imo) can be dangerous for the bikers. So I’m carefully trying to find an entryway, navigate busses and angry drivers, make absolutely certain I’m not turning into a bicyclist, and figure out if it’s OK (from the last sign) to cross into the bike lane to turn, etc. If I frequented the area I probably wouldn’t find it so stressful.
I hope this isn’t too political, but there is a breakdown in understanding how interests are represented in jurisdictions.
I live in a car dependent suburb. If I want to go into the city, I can’t realistically bike there or take transit. When I go in I want to have the maximum number of car lanes on the surface streets combined with the maximum number of unrestricted parking spaces near where I am going. So I don’t want to see bike lanes taking up driving lanes or parking spaces.
But I don’t vote in the city. The people who live in the city want to have bike lanes and RESRICTED parking spaces. That makes the city more livable for them, because they want to park their car near their home at 6pm. They want to be able to bike somewhere instead of moving their car and looking for a parking space.
The business in the city want to cater to both city residents and suburban customers. They are often the ones lobbying for the interests of suburbanites visiting city businesses and organizations. But of course the owners of the businesses either don’t live in the city or don’t feel that their one vote fully represents how important they are.
The biggest agitator I know personally against bike lanes in the city near me owns 11 restaurants most of them in the city. He of course lives in a leafy suburb and he’s outraged that some homeless guy has more voting power than he has in the city. So he is agitating for his state legislature do something to stop the city from exercising local control over many things.Unsurprisingly he is also adamant that the state not impose any mandates on the leafy suburb’s local government.
So I’m in the SF Bay Area and it one of those urban areas that really does function like quasi-metropolis. Especially the inner ring around the bay proper. Three hub cities - San Francisco (cultural capital, pop 827,000), San Jose (pop 997,000) and Oakland (pop 443,000). Then myriad smaller satellite cities in a nine county metro area. Non-Bay Area folks will often refer to them as suburbs of San Francisco - cities like Burlingame (pop 31,000), San Rafael (pop 61,000), Richmond (pop 115,000) or Berkeley (pop 124,000). Almost nobody considers any cities to be suburbs of Oakland despite proximity, but with the rise of Silicon Valley, cities like Palo Alto (pop 67,000) might be these days considered to be suburbs of both SF and SJ.
But it is really just one big contiguous metro area. While SF does have the most museums, parks, fine dining, the opera and whatnot and is the de facto cultural hub, the Bay Area as a whole is quite prosperous. Which means you can find all of the above all over, especially thing like fine dining.
I went to college in SF, I used to live in SF, I still have a couple of friends in SF (fewer all the time, most people disperse after college as it is very expensive) and I used to visit SF almost weekly to monthly. But that was well over a decade ago - I very rarely do anymore. Traffic getting in or out is frequently nightmarish (bridges), parking in certain areas like downtown is as well. I’ve experienced its charms, but I can find so many comparable and easier to access things to do outside of it that I rarely bother anymore. Very specific temptations will draw me in on a whim or a fit of nostalgia, but it happens less and less often.
If I’m going into San Francisco specifically, I almost always use BART. As you say, the bridge traffic is horrible and parking is insane.
This is what I do as well. I live in the Sacramento area, but if for some reason I want to go to San Francisco I drive to one of the outer suburbs and take BART into the city. Or if the schedule allows I sometimes just take the Capitol Corridor train down and not drive at all.
I’ll often take light rail if I want to go to downtown Sacramento as well. Traffic / parking there isn’t as bad, but I really just don’t like driving in downtown urban areas in general.
And that makes me a little confused by all the people saying you don’t go to the city because of traffic / parking. Honest question: What is preventing you from using public transit?
Is this your first day in America?
Joking aside, public transit is notoriously awful in a lot of US cities.
As previously stated
If you go in for any sports, show, or concert you don’t want to just miss the train but you want to see the whole performance
Or literally nonexistent.
Yes, and it’s honestly it’s not great in Sacramento either, but one thing it is good at is getting people to/from downtown (which is what I think of as “the city”). IMO that’s actually why it sucks for getting around in general – it’s so focused on downtown that it sucks for getting you anyplace that isn’t downtown. But in most cities I’ve been to, getting you to the downtown core is about the one thing public transit is decent at.
When I go to SF I’m rarely going to a spot near a BART station. Having commuted daily for years to school on a bus-to BART-to light rail (or alternatively transbay bus-walk to light rail and back again) that minimally took me an hour and half each way, I refuse to go that convoluted ever again 
.
When I was serving on a Federal jury downtown BART was perfect - I’d park in North Berkeley, grab a BART and just walk a few blocks to the courthouse. But no way I’m taking public transit to, say, the Strybing Arboretum in Golden Gate Park. Too much struggle.
I live in a city with really good public transit - problem is that the suburbs outside the city (and some parts inside the city limits) don’t have such good transit . So someone might have to drive a half hour or more to get to the commuter train station and park there, Depending on the time/day, the commuter train might run once an hour which means if you are going to an event with actual start end times, you might have to choose between getting there an hour early or arriving late and also choose between leaving early or waiting an hour or more for the next train. The infrequent trains could add two hours to the round trip.
Luckily, I live only 5 minutes from a BART station. Or actually, it wasn’t luck: proximity to a station was one of the key considerations when I was purchasing a home. In any case that means it’s simple for me to use when I go into SF.
Now I agree, it’s not that great if your destination is in Golden Gate Park. When I go to the DeYoung Museum I usually drive. But by far most of the time I’m going to downtown, the theater district, or the civic center.