Mobile 155

When I first came to this forum there was a lot of talk that sounded a lot like a them verses us when it came to car free or car light living. what it really seemed to come down to is one group simply couldn't accept that the other group decided to live wherever they lived for different reasons and those reasons seemed very legitimate to the people making the decision at the time. Those of us that left the central core of the central city found value in the move. Those that stayed found value in staying.

The problem as I see it brighter side seems to care why the other one made the choice they did and the only presented solutions I have read mostly indicate moving back to the urban core and close to mass transit. Is that the best that can be done? If so things may never get better for any of us. I happened on this article the addresses some of the things we debate almost every time and wondered if there was any common ground between us or are we doomed to be on different sides of these issues?

How Can We Make the Car-Free Movement More Inclusive? | Groundswell

1nterceptor

There won't be one answer that will suit everybody. Each person has a unique situation;
kids/no kids, retired, wants to be close to work, taking care of a parent, can't drive because of a disability, etc., etc.

Machka 

That has seemed to be the usual viewpoint. And it is considered hip and trendy to live in the urban core. Over the past, say, 20 years or so, converting urban core buildings to loft apartments and/or building apartments has been a popular move. Whereas in the 60s/70s/80s people moved out into the suburbs, the 90s and into the 2000s has seen people moving into the cities.Of course, that makes the urban core expensive.

Rowan and I briefly considered a few urban core options when we were looking for a place to live here, but burst into laughter and started looking further afield.

Personally, I prefer small town living. In an ideal world, I'd live and work in a small town of about 5000-ish people and that town would have all the basic amenities. But within 50 kilometres, there would be a larger town of about 50,000-ish people and that town would have more ... better shopping, a branch of the local university, etc.

I could happily be car free most of the time in the small town ... walking to work, walking to get groceries, etc. and would avail myself of an excellent public transportation system to the larger town as needed. Of course, there would be an excellent public transportation system from there to the large city about 100 km away.


This idea isn't completely far-fetched.

The place we lived in Victoria was quite similar to my description above, as was a town I lived in for about 11 years growing up and into my early 20s. They were both a little smaller (about 2500), but had the basic amenities I mentioned. 2500 is about as low as I'd want to go and a little bit larger (up to 5000) would be better.

The town in Victoria was within 100 km of a larger town of 30,000 in one direction, and Melbourne (large city) in the other direction. Public transportation wasn't "excellent" but it did exist.

The town I lived in while growing up was about 30 km from a small city of about 55,000 and about 450 km to Edmonton (that's a little longer than I'd like, but a person can fly between the two).

And maybe it was because I grew up in that sort of situation, and really liked it, that I see a close version of it as my ideal.


Meanwhile, Rowan and I opted for an affordable place in a little community (suburb) south of the city. It's not completely ideal, but we did put a lot of thought into it and looked into a lot of different options before settling on one. We've been there a little while now and we like both the house and the area, so that's good. For now, it is working for us.

And here's the thing ... if we can do mindfully select a dwelling that suits us, others can too.

Mobile 155

The person in the link I posted reminded me of when I first started to advance in the company I worked for. I was in contention for a promotion but it would more or less require that I moved to Santa Monica. I went to look at the location and even with rent control housing cost in Santa Monica were way above what I was paying in North Orange County. Any raise I would have made would have been eaten up in housing. I turned the job down. The person in the link brought that idea to the table for her job in DC.
Mind you Santa Monica is a very nice place to live but that would be about all I could have afforded to do.

Roody

I've been carfree a couple times while living in small towns (pop. 1,000 and about 9,000). I basically liked the experience. The only problem was that I wasn't working in the towns, but in nearby cities. Transportation to and from work without a car was practically impossible on a daily basis, and I ended up moving back to the city before long. If I'd had a local job, I probably could have settled right into the larger of the two towns. It had all the necessities of life, and it was easy to bike to any place in the town and surrounding countryside. Even walking was a good option, and there was also an on-demand bus service. In both towns, I was single with no children in my care.(The first time was before my son came along, and the second was after he was an adult.)

I don't know why the OP phrased this as a competition thing between town and city. Maybe it's just a reflection of our current combative society?

I never felt that anybody was being disrespectful when they talked about the small town or city. They were just expressing a personal preference. I know that Mobile155 and some others have been derogatory about cities, calling them "hot and dirty" and crime-ridden. But I don't take that personally. It's a perception that's pretty common, whether right or wrong.

I happen to enjoy living in the city. I have only been a crime victim once in the city (attempted bike-jacking), and even then, no real harm was done. I also had my home broken into when I was living in the first small town I mentioned, pop. 1,000.

The summer heat can be a little worse in the city, I guess. but that might be a good thing in the winter.

But I also love being in the country or in small towns. Almost all my vacations are in small cities or wilderness areas.

I think that carfree living can be accomplished any place at all, if the person is adaptive and creative. I also think that wherever we live, as carfree people it makes sense to try and make our lives a little better by encouraging better infrastructure for everybody, not just cars.

Roody

The size of the city is poorly correlated to the price of housing. I pay $800/month to rent a four bedroom house in Lansing (pop. >100,000) The mortgage payment for the house would be considerably less, of course. The cost to rent a similar house in the small town near here (where I lived at one time) would be about $200 more, with many fewer city services.

Artkansas 

I understand. When I went to Santa Monica College, I bicycle commuted from Inglewood.

cooker

My view is that everybody is entitled to their own lifestyle but not their own facts.

Walter S

An area with insufficient population density will not necessarily economically justify a good mass transit system.

Dahon.Steve

Yes.

It's not that hard at all and it's as natural as breathing. I get up in the morning and never have to worry about starting a car or driving to work. In fact, I haven't driven to work in over 25 years. Unless my health fails me, I fully expect to be without a car the rest of my life.

As I read the story, it was obvious the writer was again under estimating the cost of driving. She was quick to report that Metro was 20 dollars a day while driving was only $6.50 in gas. She forgot to include tolls, tickets, parking, insurance, repairs and replacement cost of the vehicle. Heck even the IRS estimates gas millage at 54 cents a mile so a 21 mile trip from Fairfax VA to Chevy Chase will set you back almost 23 dollars!!

The writer pointed out that living cost within a mile of the Metro was very high. Fair enough. She should look for housing that's less than a mile and a half and bike to the station! I did that for years before discovering the express bus and it was enjoyable. Housing starts to get affordable once you pass the one mile mark away from the train station.

What was so sad is the writer is a recent grad earning slightly more than the minimum wage. She's forced herself into believing that all she's paying each day is $6.50 a day in gas. Millions of Americans are doing the same thing each day and are living in denial. This is why most people are working poor having little or no savings living right on the edge. All the savings is going right into personal transport.

When I was her age, driving was not an option because my 20K a year job didn't pay enough. So what did I do? I took the bus and train was was happy.

cooker

As previously discussed, in calculating the deduction rate for mileage, the IRS is factoring in a portion of those fixed ownership costs, not just gas mileage, so unless she commits to selling her car she won't see any savings by leaving its home when she has such an expensive transit fare as her alternative.

So basically in her situation, she might be better off economically not owning a car, but if she owns a car, it's cheaper to drive it to work than to own it and leave it at home.

Ekdog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobile 155

The problem as I see it brighter side seems to care why the other one made the choice they did and the only presented solutions I have read mostly indicate moving back to the urban core and close to mass transit. Is that the best that can be done? If so things may never get better for any of us. I happened on this article the addresses some of the things we debate almost every time and wondered if there was any common ground between us or are we doomed to be on different sides of these issues?

How Can We Make the Car-Free Movement More Inclusive? | Groundswell

The answer is in the article you linked to:

"Making public transportation accessible--financially and physically--should be a top priority if we're to make Car Free Day more than a gesture: one day when we might use a little less gas and burn a few more calories."

How about some posts about how to improve public transportation instead of your usual naysaying, anti-transit and pro-car rants?

Dave Cutter

IMHO... it seems that for many in the car free movement.... it is an extension of their Environmental beliefs. I think much of the Environmental movement closely mimics other religions. It might take a few hundred years to evolve... but Environmentalism very closely compares to the early years of the Amish Religion. I wonder if future car-free devotees might even be called Gorish.

Dahon.Steve

Impressive.

I don't know if you could find an $800.00 dollar apartment in New Jersey. In my town, $800.00 dollars a month will get you a studio or one bedroom at best. Cities are no longer building apartments or homes with many rooms because they don't want large families moving into town because it increases the cost of school the children. Then again, it's not like women today are looking to have six kids anymore.

Mobile 155

do you find your suggestions about what I should post about inclusive? Is that your idea of a common ground? Is there an approved list somewhere?

denis123

Isn't it the case most of the time? If this is about car free living, don't one has to count all the cost of owning a car when making a cost comparison. When she computes the cost related to using mass transit, she counts the cost of the gas for driving to the metro station and the cost of parking at the metro station. When she computes the cost of driving, she doesn't count anything other than the gas to drive to work. She doesn't count anything for parking at work. If she is parking for free, this is likely because her employer assumes the cost of parking at its faciities.

I didn't learned anything from this article. Its analysis is very incomplete and it is full fo the same cliches that we hear all the time.

cooker

All true. However, since she is currently a car owner, and lives miles from her job(s), then every morning when she leaves the house she has two choices if she wants to save money on her commute: either (A) drive, or (B) sell the car and maybe move and maybe find different jobs. Selling the car and possibly moving and looking for other work is a huge step and not that easy to take for most people

cooker

You make this analogy a lot, and I don't accept it, but even if it were true, how do you see people of different religions - my pro-environmental religion and your anti-environmental religion for example - finding common ground?

Mobile 155

So to be clear those that don't care for dense living should just give up on being part of the movement? Are the two sides doomed to be at odds forever? Are even those attempting to live off the grid the enemy?

Is there any truth in the link that the closed to the best mass transit lines the more expensive housing becomes? If so how does that look as more people participate?

cooker

Nobody is "the enemy". This is a debate on ideas, not people. People can live however they want, and they have to adjust their expectations accordingly. if they live in exurbia, they'll get cheaper land but they won't get cheap and convenient public transit and they may have a hard time finding work within biking distance. So if they want to live car-free or even car-light, they'll face challenges they wouldn't face in the city. They can still do it of course, as you and Machka and Rowan demonstrate.

cooker

And yes, housing is more expensive the more conveniently it is located, including the convenience of public transit access. I assume rural housing is also more expensive the closer you are to an interstate, as long as you are not sitting right next to it.

Seattle Forrest

That's pretty easy. Have people live and work and otherwise need to be in the same area. Instead of having people scattered across vast wastelands like North Dakota, put them in cities. This doesn't work for the anti-social, however.

Mobile 155

I didn't say enemy though some seem to consider that the case. My question is only if both sides can be part of the solution or is mass transit and dense living the only solution? Is the idea of living where housing is less and more room is available but you need to dive any less valid than living close together with higher housing costs and mass transit? Is there a solution that allows both some skin in the game or must one group give up their lifestyle to assist in the other's idea of the solution? Would the replacement of ICE not accomplish much of the same result?

I-Like-To-Bike

That's pretty easy, just them in cities, eh?
See: https://www.bikeforums.net/living-car...l#post18552137

Mobile 155

Good point. That as much as anything speaks to my question. The solution of mandating the approved lifestyle. There is no common ground in those cases.

It goes against a core principle I have grown up with of people doing what they want with the money they earn as long as it is not against the law. If someone wants a 10,000 square foot home on 25 acres of mountain top and they can afford it so be it. Same with someone wanting to live in 700 square feet in a high rise over looking other high rise buildings. Neither offends me.