Roody

Forbes says that it's important to live in a suitable neighborhood if you're trying to live carfree. Basically, they say there are three criteria for a carfree neighborhood:

1. Grocery store is nearby. "If you choose an apartment that is more than half a mile (if you’re in great shape–otherwise it should be more like a quarter of a mile) away from a grocery store, you will regret it."
2. Good public transit. "With the exception of a grocery store, you don’t really need to be right on top of any particular amenity, as long as you can get to it relatively easily via transit."
3. Bikability. "If you are going car-free for the first time, consider biking as a form of active transportation! This healthy, fun and exciting way to get around is currently growing in popularity across the country."

What pointers would you add (or subtract) to the list in Forbes?
Did you deliberately choose your home's location so you could be carfree or carlight?
What qualities of your neighborhood make it good or bad for carfree living?

Source:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rent/201...without-a-car/

wolfchild

What about employment oppourtinities ??..What about good schools if the person has kids ??. What about safe neighbourhoods with low crime rates ??. What about the cost of rental/real estate properties ??.
In my area the closest large grocery store is 2 miles away. Walmart is 3 miles away. Medical doctors/dental is within less then 1 mile. Employment is 8 miles...Everything else other then neccessities/comforts of life is much further, but it's still bikable or reachable with public transit. Few times per year I bike 50 miles just to visit my favourite store where I buy most of my clothing and biking/outdoor gear.

Dahon.Steve

Good article.

I actually think public transit should be the # 1 concern to living carfree. With a monthly bus or rail card, the grocery store can be miles away because your transportation costs will be fixed. Futhermore, the bus or rail service must come frequent or you'll end up hating the system. Visit transit sites and look for bus lines that arrive every half hour (or 45 minutes) during the weekends and 15-20 minutes during rush hour.

I would also add that bus or rail service does not have to be one block from your door. (as in my case) Here's where the cycling comes in handy as it allows you to reach public transit stops quickly. Combining a multimode commute (bicycle/bus/train) gives you the ablity to live in less expensive neighborhoods with affordable housing. Often times, living next to a lightrail station can be quite expensive but the bicycle gives even those with a modest income the ability to take advantage expensive transit lines used by the upper middle class.

Transit lines that take to to jobs is is critical. There's nothing better than an bus or rail line that allows you to take advantage of multiple job opportunites. Being able to arrive at work and have the city and state subsidize your transport is going to save you thousands of dollars over many years. It's very important the bus or rail line provides frequent service especially during rush hour.

As someone pointed out that schools and safe neighborhoods are important. However, these are actually difficult to determine or make use if one has a car or not. A good school may not accept your kids even if you have a car that can take them because you live in a different district. In my district, the best schools are often private and expensive and one who drives or choose to live carfree has to factor in the additional cost. Safe neighborhoods may only be that way during the day and can become bad at night. Quite often, safe neighbhoods are expensive to live in. Again, there are alot of variables involved in determining good schoos and safe neighborhoods but the major problem is can you afford them?

A bus or rail line will travel though many neighborhoods, both good and bad. Therefore, it's important that one visit the transit stops at night to determine which ones would be safe. I find that if you discover a safe transit stop, it usually has good schools and the neighborhood isn't too bad. (or even excellant) Go figure.

surreal

I think Wolfchild makes some good points about general considerations when selecting a new neighborhood, whereas the Forbes article focuses on carfree-specific considerations. Carfree or not, you'll still want employment, low crime, housing costs that meet your needs, and good schools if you have kids. These factors are not impacted by being car-free or not.

That being said, I chose my apt and my job b/c they seemed like sustainable choices. Whether carfree, car-lite, or car-everyday, it makes more sense to live close to work, the grocery, an active downtown, and public transportation (even if you drive, it's good to have options if the car breaks down, gets stolen, is on-loan, etc...). I chose my neighborhood b/c it's within a few miles of work, a few blocks of the grocery, a few blocks of local light rail (the busline is right there, too, but I haven't been on a bus since 1996), and I can easily make the rent here. It's low crime (or, at least, low violent crime--- let's be fair and call it "low arrest"), and has purportedly good schools, but these were not huge factors for me. I think my wife was more concerned about the perceived crime rate than I was.

More recently, as I've earned my Master's Degree and have been nonchalantly looking for a new job, I have been eliminating prospective jobs that would not allow me to continue living in a sustainable situation. I could conceivably move away from my current location, but I'd only do so if it met all of the same criteria.

Roody

I agree that schools and housing costs are irrelevant to a carfree discussion. But I disagree about your inclusion of crime. I think crime is more important if you're carfree than if you own a car. You are more vulnerable, or at least feel more vulnerable, if you're carfree. Obviously you will be walking, cycling, and waiting for a bus a lot more if you're carfree.

There have been three fatal shootings within two blocks of my house this summer. All occurred outdoors. I don't feel like somebody is gunning for me either randomly or specifically, but I do fear being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I walk to work in the afternoon-- less than three blocks. But when I get off work at 11:30PM, I ride in a car. Neither my co-workers nor my family will let me walk home after dark. So this neighborhood is definitely bad for carfree living, but bearable if you're carlight like I am.

surreal

I suspect the crime situation is more about a feeling than it is about actual factors. It's well beyond the scope of this thread, but different kinds of attacks and attackers are more likely to select victims by mode of conveyance. An obvious example would be that few pedestrians get carjacked, but beyond that, criminals sometimes choose victims by selecting a nice parked car, finding a comfortable spot to lurk, and attacking the motorist as they return to their car.

All of my years cycling thru Camden, NJ (considered high-crime by many), I was never attacked. Some folks suggested this was b/c I looked "tough"; this may be flattering and I am a fairly big guy, but I think the truth is closer to this: cycling thru Camden to class on a track bike with 40lbs of lit books strapped to my bike, I probably looked crazy and broke. That's hardly a tempting combo for thieves.

OTOH, of course, there have been trends where motorists have been shooting cyclists with BB guns in Philly and other cities. I've also read a few threads online about ppl on foot with aluminum bats who stand near the curb and take random swings at passing cyclists. So, to be sure, the risks are there for cyclists, too.

I just feel that crime effects everyone, and when there is financial motivation behind a crime, motorists transitioning from car-to-foot are a more likely target than the folks on bikes or waiting at the bus stop.

Artkansas 

I notice that the article is really talking about being car-free and walking. The bicycle is just a bonus. Which is why they describe having a grocery so close as necessary. But more than a grocery, I think you want a good range of services close by, banking, restaurants, post office/fedex, drug stores, big box stores, gyms, bike stores, clothing stores, libraries, accountants, doctors, parks or green spaces, public transit, movie theaters and the like.

Oh, sorry, I was describing where I live.

Roody

I think you're right. The article says you should live within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of a grocery store. You could do 2 to 5 miles just as quickly on a bike, plus you can carry more on a bike.

Newspaperguy

For anyone considering going car-free in a smaller community, a good regional public transportation service is essential. A lot of small towns are easy for a pedestrian or cyclist to manage, but most are lacking in some of the shops and services people will need.

phoebeisis

Affluent neighborhood-
otherwise it will be high crime if it is in many parts of the USA
Low income means crime -violent crime-in many parts of the USA

Nice safe "European type neighborhoods" are expensive neighborhoods- manhattan etc-if you are talking about the USA.
And nice neighborhoods- become expensive once they are discovered-prices go up.
Explains why this article would be in Forbes

surreal

Manhattan certainly has a higher crime rate than my current hometown does... and it's much cheaper to live here. Manhattan, of course, has many advantages over Haddonfield, NJ-- but safety is not one of them. Nor is affordability. (Not that Haddonfield is cheap, either, but it's all relative.)

Bottom line, actual crime rates and "safety" are pretty hard to examine and measure. Even when stats are available, they tend to be a few years out of date, and IMO questionable anyway. Many crimes go unreported and/or unpunished-- ultimately, unmeasured. Also, violent crimes are a lot different, as I see it, than non-violent ones.

It's easiest to get a "feel" for an area if you visit--look before you leap-- and even moreso if you have friends/family in a prospective area, to act as a guide.

Roody

Crime maps can also be useful. Usually they're on the PD's website.

mtb123

The focus of this article is intra-city neighborhood selection. But why not take this optimization challenge a step further. Relocate to a new/town and self select into a bike friendly community. Now obviously you have to be able feed your family and everyone can't just pack their bags and move to Boulder, CO. But there are choices out there and it seems many people settle for a less than optimal environment, while complaining endlessly on bikeforums about roads and drivers, and hoping for a federally funded bike lane to save the day.

Again, maybe this isn't realistic for the average bike commuter, but I think that a little creativity and some strategic career planning could open up relocation options that many people have never considered.

Per the OP:

Great post! I really like these type of optimization problems. I prioritized my current living situation based on the location of work, grocery stores, and access to the MUP. I am car light, not car free, so public transportation is a non-factor for me. My bike commute takes less time than driving a car, finding a parking spot, and walking to my building. That is nice because there is no incentive to drive. I have a strange obsession with cold milk so I like to be really close to the grocery store.

mtb123

These are some challenging trade-offs for people to work through. I grew up in the St. Louis area where affluence, safety, and good schools often equates to suburban living and ridiculous car commuting in stop-n-go traffic. Personally, I am willing to pay a rent premium for a more bike friendly location. On the margin I would be willing to sacrifice a small amount of safety (or as surreal points out, it may just be perceived safety) for a more bike friendly location. I would also be willing to make a small sacrifice in school quality. I would trade a great school district for a good school district.

surreal

MTB123, My town is far from being the perfect bike-friendly town, but it has much going for it: every block of road is @ or <25mph, there's plenty of restaurants, a grocery, pharmacy, library, shops, parks, bikeable trails (not awesome singletrack, but a fun romp on the way home from work), no school buses except for students who need one for medical reasons, etc. The middle school near my house has something like a billion bikes on its racks every school day. Beautiful.

The only problems are the millions of horrendous potholes (I tend to ride 26" bikes, so no big deal for me), and they redesigned 2 intersections on the edge of town, where the speed limit switches from 25 to 40 as you enter the neighboring town. They added traffic lights, which is good, but they eliminated shoulders and put some weird stone "islands" in the road to (i guess) help distinguish the LH turn lane from the other lane.

I deal with those challenges pretty well, b/c it's really no big deal. I think, if things got worse, I'd adapt further. Yes, I'd still complain, but that's part of how i adapt. =D I think the best thing one can do to increase the bike-friendliness of a given town is to be a visible/positive presence on your bicycle. But, if/when we leave, I'm going to insist on moving to a town with viable bikeability.

GlenBandit

Carfree in the middle of LA FTW

GlenBandit

mtb123

Great point. You don't have to have "bike lanes" and MUPs for a place to be bike friendly. Im sure a lot towns have little pockets with quiet streets like you are describing.


Super jealous! This sounds awesome. Would be perfect for the cross bike I commute on.

I am in my last year of grad school and will be relocating in the next year. Since the job market is good (in my field) I plan to prioritize the places I send applications based on bikeability.

goldfinch

Consider the weather.

Mpls is a wonderfully bikeable city but winter car free is tough. I did it when I was in college but that was when I was in college. I relied on buses in the winter.

Newspaperguy

Often, when one chooses a place to live, work opportunities become the driving factor. All other elements become secondary. The exception is when people move to retire. At that point, work opportunities don't matter while other factors take on a new importance.

Some have jobs which will be available in almost any community and for them, the idea of moving for quality of life issues may make sense. For the rest, the quest is to find the best neighbourhood near one's workplace.

daihard 

That's be my ideal neighbourhood!

I am only a couple of blocks away from the grocery store. Everything else is about only a mile away so I can easily get there on my bike. We have good public transport as well.

Ironically, the farthest amenity for me (about 4 miles) is my LBS...

wolfchild

That's what I have to put up with. Almost every winter has those few days where getting around on a bike is very difficult and slow..If I wanted to avoid harsh winter my only alternative would be to move 4000 miles away to the west coast where the winters are mild. Moving so far away is not a very practical thing for me to do at this point of my life. I don't think that weather should be a deciding factor when considering a car-free lifestyle. Sure it's a little tough at times but it's perfectly doable. Remember that eskimos and other sub-arctic tribes survived without motorized transportation for thousands of years...At least I have public transit if things get really bad.

howeeee

Inspite of the sensationalized problems in Detroit, professionals and young people are flocking to downtown Detroit. Young people are having fun living car free, the city is now perfect for bike riding. There are 4 lane streets that are somewhat empty. On top of that there are about 5 manufactures making commuter bikes in Detroit. There are trendy suburban cities that are now losing young people to downtown Detroit.

Sure prices will go up, but probably it is cheaper to live in Downtown Detroit than many major cities. Young people from the suburbs feel they are being part of something much bigger when they go downtown.

Dont buy into the "only expensive neighborhoods" are good for living carfree, the opposite is true in many places.

surreal

I agree; i think there is a pervasive classist assumption that low SES=crime&danger while high SES=law-abiding safety. While most honest ppl do understand a correlation between poverty and finiancially-motivated crime, there is a lot of crime going on in every neighborhood. Theft, drug abuse, and violence exists at every level in our multi-tiered social system. The differences in how the crimes are reported, investigated, punished, and sensationalized in the media make any stats on crime rate questionable.

Many serial killers are upper-middle class....

-Rob

PS- I'm fascinated by the goings-on in Detroit. I wonder if they need special educators there.... (I'm off to google it)

Roody

Your post reminded me of the Indians who lived in our area of Michigan and southern Ontario. They did most of their hunting in the winter. French explorers wrote that the Indian hunters would move along at a jog or a trot for many miles, looking for game or chasing a wounded deer through the snow. Often they wore nothing more than deerskin shirt and leggings. But they kept moving and they were used to the cold.

It's the same thing if you're cycling in the cold weather. I rarely wear anything more than long underwear, a light wool sweater, and either a thermal sweatshirt or a light shell on very cold days.