Google sponsored links
Anyone ever noticed how being an outdoor enthusiast (mountain biking, rock climbing, skiing, backpacking, etc.) is extremely car-centric? After moving to the big city (San Francisco) I sold my car, and later sold my motorcycle since it was looking pretty lonely sitting around while I got around via bicycle. Eventually I started working at REI and my love of mountain biking was rekindled. But there aren't any decent trails nearby so when I go mountain biking I get one of my riding friends to pick me up and we drive south to my favorite trails. I can maintain a little bit of non-automobile purity by riding my cyclocross bike across the Golden Gate Bridge and exploring the trails in the Headlands area of Marin, which is fun, but it doesn't really compare to bombing downhill along some twisty singletrack on my 29er. And there certainly isn't any good skiing or snowboarding nearby.
I dream of high speed rail to Lake Tahoe and Yosemite...
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
or just go to tahoe & yosemite...
says the guy that'll be leaving tomarrow :D
When I lived in Flagstaff, AZ I hardly ever drove to trails because the town was so small and surounded by trails. Even that's started to change as the city's grown. Here in Las Vegas, I was thinking the same thing you were, I went out just yesterday for a mtb ride, we had to drive about 20 minutes, but four people and four bikes in one vehicle was a pretty good carpool.
i definitely know what you mean... in Portland i REALLY wanted to be completely car-free but with mountain biking, snowboarding and mountain climbing as my 3 main hobbies (plus kayaking, backpacking, rock climbing) there was almost no way to be active in these sports without a car --- ESPECIALLY mountain bike racing where to do a series race you have to travel all over the state. and kayaking i pretty much gave up b/c of the excessive car shuttling involved...
as to the "move to Germany" comment: yeah, here it is a LOT easier. for mountain biking the train is great; for mountain climbing, hiking and rock climbing you can use train-bike, but lots of snowboarding/skiing without a car is difficult... the train connections get you to the mountain between 10:00am and 1:00pm so you miss the first tracks, so unless you arrive a day early AND overnight then you only have 2-3 ski area choices (the local overpriced zug-spitze and the low-lying areas that are only good when the snow really rocks)
anyway, my solution was to ALWAYS carpool and make sure that the "6 mountain bikers and 6 cars" thing did not happen --- i rigged my vehicle up to carry 5-6 people and 5-6 snowboards/mountain bikes. so my vehicle was not being used just to transport ME, but to transport multiple people and lots of sports gear. yes, of course we were transporting for fun and pleasure, but every act you do has some negative impacts: my goal is to minimize the impacts which in the US car-centric culture, the "car-pool only for hauling gear" thing i did is actually doing pretty good. (hey, my opinion) - and then for the "in-town" local rides where eveyone else drove to the trails i would ride the extra 10-20 miles to the trailhead.
P.S. also for mountain bike racing, in Germany it can be also be difficult w/o a car (e.g. optimally you want to get to the race EARLY and have a safe place to store your gear during the race). i once arrived via the earliest train, rode 5 miles to the start and then had 5 minutes before the official start of the mountain bike race (so the ride to the start was my warm-up and it worked b/c of pre-registration and i scrambled to get my number attached and all in the 5 minutes before the start gun, but hey, the stress and worry if the train will be late doesn't help you perform to the max). for another race (a mountain trail run up the Zugspitze with 7600ft vertical over about 17km) i arrived by train and RAN to the start, arriving unregistered less 10 minutes before the start (argg!). so my day was 25km instead of 17km of running!! (i walked back at the end)
I have to laugh while watching families roll out of town on Friday afternoons with the SUV roof racks loaded up with everything outdoors. Inflatable rafts, boats, mountain bikes, road bikes, tents, awnings, coolers, motor bikes, snowboards ect. I can never see what's in those "Rocket Boxes" that are so "necessary" now, but no doubt more things to enjoy that OUTDOOR LIFESTYLE, . I bet it takes 5 hours to pack up the Navigator for a weekend trip. "Come on family, lets see how many things we can do this weekend at the lake. We're gonna have fun if it kills us!". If these guys use half of what they bring, I'd be shocked. :rolleyes:
According to the automobile and truck makers, you NEED a car to enjoy an outdoor lifestyle. That marketing contributes to a huge poseur phenomena.
Just try being a dive instructor or get into technical diving ( deep, trimix diving) without a car. I fought the trend of my dive buddies and never bought a truck or SUV to drag all of my stuff around and just used my Honda Civic, but with all the gear I needed for just a single day of diving ( two sets of doubles half a dozen stage bottles, argon, light packs, drysuits, cameras, ect) I couldn't carry even one other person with me- even if they didn't have any gear at all!
Of course this was just ONE reason why I gave it up in favor of freediving instead- cheaper, more athletic, and you feel more free in the water. Last time I took that car out freediving I had 4 freedivers, and all of their gear, in the car and we all were comfortable! With my freedivng gear I can pack everything on a bike, or my burely trailer if I have a monofin along, and can ride to a local lake.
Now my only probelm is that the local lakes are so dirty in the summer time I can only dive them a few months out of the year- mostly winter. Since gas has gone up I am too cheap to even drive the 2-3 hours that I used to for a clean lake to dive in- prefering to kayak in a local dirty lake rather than shell out the cash for gas.
Over time I have also given up down-hill skiing in lieu of cross-country and mountain biking in the winter time. I just don't want to drive and pay the money.
I've looked into the bike trailers for my kayak, but it will be a couple more years before I can dump my car- two small kids at home and a wife who isn't ready for that yet. Still, my aim is to drive as little as possible.
Back to the original question, yes it is hard to lead an outdoor lifestyle without a car.
Jon
Don't you think there is a problem of cramming so much in so little time? Or doing fairly short excursions rather than a long one?
During the year, my bicycle trips are around town, within a day's ride. But when comes the summer holidays, I pack the tent, sleeping bag and gear and go touring. I tour on roads because it's what I like best and what works best in our area (too many bugs in the forests), but if I were to prefer off-road cycling, it would be fairly easy to leave home with a loaded MTB and tour on really "bad" forest roads and trails.
As to "why I don't drive 2-3 hours before I cycle", I see a few reasons:
– I don't find it ecological/reasonable to burn gasoline just to have fun... especially since I can have fun locally.
– Apart from utility cycling or walking, I cycle or walk to relax. What would be the point of adding a stressful drive before and especially after the relaxing part? For the same reason, I skied when I lived in Trois-Rivières and could go cross-country after a 1-km walk. Now I cycle throughout Winter instead.
– After a full cycling day, I'm tired. I don't want to be a sleepy driver on the road.
Don't you think there is a problem of cramming so much in so little time? Or doing fairly short excursions rather than a long one?
yes, it's more "stressful" but for REALLY active "outdoor" athletes (who aren't full-time pros so thus have to do "real" work for a living) it is pretty hard to do any other way. for one, the body handles training/exersion best in smaller amounts (1-6 hours), 4-6 times/week with lots of rest and recovery between, so an 8-day trip and then a week at work is less effective than 8 training days mixed evenly over 2 weeks. and i also work a regular 5-day/week job so i _have_ to (ok, also _want_ to) "cram" my training in before or after work (yesterday i got up at 4:25am and did a mountain bike tour before work - today i'm leaving work at 4:45 and will do a night ride with lights) -- (i'd love to take every other week off work just for training but i don't get paid enough to mountain bike and my other job would not see so much vacation so positively) -- so you need to either live DIRECTLY next to your "training area" or travel there frequently. i would love to live in the mountains (it's always been my dream) but then i would be 40+ miles from my job so bike commuting would be out... so i live in the city NEAR the mountains...
and yes, even in the city, you can generally do a fair amount of training from the doorstep - i have a set of trails 4km from my house that i ride 1-2 times per week, but a) for more challenging terrain (the biggest hill by me is only 300ft vertical and i generally train about 9,000 to 12,000ft per WEEK so i'd have to ride that hill like 30+ times/week), b) to compete/train with other athletes and c) for variety. in most sports like mountain biking, rock climbing, snowboarding, alpin skiing, ski/snowboard touring, kayaking, surfing, mountain climbing, etc. it is necessary to often travel a fair distance to "do" the sport.
i go to the mountains 1-3 times per week year round where the mountains are 40 to 100 miles away from where i live. about half of the trips are by train and about half with carpool (tonight's ride will be 4 people and bikes in my relatively economical station wagon). otherwise i don't drive a car as i bike to work (that's also training) and bike in the city for shopping and actitivies and whatnot (Munich also has a good subway if there's a "reason" like rain or girlfriend to not take the bike)
--> if i want to be a top mountain biker i either have to a) live in the mountains which means travel a long way to work 5 days per week (here the train would be an option but it would still be >1 hour travel time each way), or b) live in the city and travel to the mountains --- for now i do the latter and minimize my auto usage by not driving a huge SUV i don't need (wagon has as much space and more economical) and carpooling as much as possible.
(oh yeah, i was car-free for 3 years with car-sharing (outside of moving used 4 times in 3 years), but now i am again car-lite - as i was in Portland - which for me means means bike/walk/subway for all things local in and around the city and limited car usage only for long distances where the train is not feasible - so car driven 0-6 trips/month)
I think its acceptible to use a car as a piece of gear to get to the mountains. Just don't drive the infernal things in town.
People that drive 10 miles to go on club bicycle rides I have a problem with.
My car is mountains only, or for extrememly occasional errands like buying plywood or whatever. It needs about 10 or 20 tanks of gas a year on average.
It's been a long time since I've been to San Franscisco so don't recall the regional scaling, but I bet you could ride right out of town for great weekend trips into the mountians.
Biking right out of Seattle, weekend trips get me into some serious wilderness. We're talking glaciers, bears, and desolation. Tons of peaks and wilderness areas are within striking distance for the three day weekend assults.
For next season I want to have a system worked out to haul skis to the mountains on my LHT (without a BOB if possible) to do backcountry skiing off the North Cascades Highway.
For next season I want to have a system worked out to haul skis to the mountains on my LHT (without a BOB if possible) to do backcountry skiing off the North Cascades Highway.
when i was in Portland i really wanted to do a "human powered ascent" of Mt Hood from Portland... i.e. mountain bike with BOB from the city (ca. 250ft) to the Timberline Lodge (ca. 6000ft) and then per snowshoes/skis to the summit (ca 11,000ft) and then ski down, ride back... in 1-2 days. although i climbed Mt Hood several times and also rode to Mt Hood (in the summer) i never managed to combine both.
although here in Germay i have done a train-bike-climb ascent of the Zugspitze (9600ft) but the ski/snowboard route down is not so ideal (there is one but it is STEEP and involves a MAJOR mid-descent rapell)
and i did manage to do a 2-day circumnavigation of Mt Hood -- 1/2 via mountain bike and 1/2 on foot via Timberline Trail... (but we drove to the trailhead and basically the i rode the MTB part in lieu of the return shuttle -- i.e. i rode back to the car via bike and then picked up everyone so we only needed one vehicle)
I just took a look at a California map -too bad you don't live in Placerville or Grass Valley. fogtown looks a little far across the central valley to get to the mountains easy. Does BART run east out from Oakland or any other regional transport? You could multi modal it. Can you ride mass transit to Stockton or Sacramento? Then it looks doable for three day weekends to have a hella time without a car.
BART doesn't go beyond the Bay Area (hence the name). Amtrack is a possibility but from what I've been able to figure out, it really takes a full day to take the train and it doesn't really get you where you would want to go. Even if you ride BART to its westernmost points and then start bike touring, you would need 2 days to get to the mountains and 2 days to return.
Anyway, my point wasn't so much about Bay Area logistics as it was about enjoying outdoor sports. I've given up rock climbing since I moved here (San Francisco) from Colorado because of the greater distances involved. It seems almost hedonistic to me these days to put my mountain bike on top of a car to get to the good trails, but it is the only way. I'd also like to go snowboarding or skiing more often this winter and that means carpooling with other people. In a perfect world there would be a high speed rail service from the heart of SF straight to Lake Tahoe with bus shuttles to individual resorts. (And the same thing from Denver, CO to Summit County. And yes, I know about the Winter Park ski train but it is weekends only and kind of expensive).
Hell, I'd love to plan a trip where I ride my bike to the mountains and then rock climb or ski, but so far none of the outdoor people I know are interested in joining me (and I work at REI!). Obviously, most people in America don't have the time to do that. That's why Goran Kropp (rest in peace) is my hero. If you haven't heard of him, he rode his bike from Stockholm, Sweden to Mt Everest with all of his climbing gear, summited Everest, and rode back.
Goran's friend, Erden Eruc, there with Goran the day his climbing anchors pulled at Frenchman's Coulee,
has started trips commerating Goran and achieving his own personal best. Erden has already ridden his bicycle -with all his climbing gear in a BOB- from Seattle to Denali in Alaska, summited the highest peak in North America, and rode back to Seattle.
Erden is currently gearing up to row an ocean rowing boat to South America, ride his bike to Aconcagua, summit the highest peak in SA, ride to the boat and row back.
This guy is an ANIMAL of an athlete and totally one of the good guys.
Erden's website about his multimodal expeditioneering..
www.around-n-over.org/
ski hauling system (and anything else)
www.xtracycle.com
Not easily removable, though, so it helps to have a 2nd bike.
I've figured routes, and am just trying to find a free weekend to drag a buddy of mine out to the wichitas (about 110 miles by the route I'll take), camp there that night, and ride back the next morning. Oh, I'll be SORE.
Probably some of my lamer friends will drive out there and meet us.
I think its acceptible to use a car as a piece of gear to get to the mountains. Just don't drive the infernal things in town.
I've been pondering this for a time myself. As an ultralight backpacking enthusiast, if I had my way I would be hitting the trail every weekend, but since I not only have no car but cannot drive, my excursions are very limited (also by the fact I am a student). It is usually a day's bicycle ride, at least, to the more remote locations, and this means basically no hiking time, esp. when the trailhead is in the mountains. At least here in Uppsala one can ride a bicycle 15 minutes, then exercise the right to walk off-trail and get to some simulated remote locations in the local nature reserve.
I found Switzerland to be a wonderful place for hiking, if you do not crave remoteness. This past summer I hiked about 265km of the Alpenpassroute and passed through large and small towns every day.
How do you other hikers get your hike on? I prefer to solo or go with a good friend, and so hesitate to join a club or some such, but perhaps that is the best option?
Satyr, I don't know how it is in Sweden, but joining a club is a good way to do outdoor activities in the States if you don't have a car. You put up with a lot of total idiots, but hey, that's life.
Thor, with a three day weekend in Seattle, it's entirely possible to ride to a serious assthrashing mountain Friday, climb it Saturday, and ride back to town on Sunday. Quite a few mountains actually.
Totally feasable, though I haven't done it yet, would be a day trip with a mountain climb thrown in. In Seattle it is totally doable. I recommend moving north.
I have to laugh while watching families roll out of town on Friday afternoons with the SUV roof racks loaded up with everything outdoors. Inflatable rafts, boats, mountain bikes, road bikes, tents, awnings, coolers, motor bikes, snowboards ect. I can never see what's in those "Rocket Boxes" that are so "necessary" now, but no doubt more things to enjoy that OUTDOOR LIFESTYLE, . I bet it takes 5 hours to pack up the Navigator for a weekend trip. "Come on family, lets see how many things we can do this weekend at the lake. We're gonna have fun if it kills us!". If these guys use half of what they bring, I'd be shocked. :rolleyes:
You forgot the trailer with the riding lawnmower! :rolleyes:
I see no solution to this problem: Mass transit goes only to places where masses of people are going. That is exactly where I DON'T want to be. Therefore, if I must drive, I will.
I see no solution to this problem: Mass transit goes only to places where masses of people are going. That is exactly where I DON'T want to be. Therefore, if I must drive, I will.
I am sure this depends on the area you live in. In Switzerland, busses that delievered packages and also carry passangers (Postbus) ruitinely go to, well, just about everywhere. Of the 12 or so summits I walked over this past summer, a postbus went to every single trailhead. Was a bit hard on the morale to be walking for hours on a gentle, winding, paved roads, watching the rain clouds and mist descend on the summits, while a postbus would barrel past me. But such is the price of purity.
Of course, Switzerland utilizes just about every ounce of land.
You are right about that. In my few trips to Europe I was amazed at the places you could get to by train, bus or on foot. But that's just because the countries are small and very densely populated, and unless you ascend to the clouds, there is just no getting away from people. In Europe you can walk from city to city. In the part of Canada I come from, the closest small city to the east is 200 miles away. To the west, you have to go 500 miles to find a place with more than one traffic light. Mass transit is barely feasible there, and even in Ottawa the transit system is designed to get people downtown in the morning and back to the burbs at night. You can use the buses for urban outings, but that's all. On the bright side, you don't have to drive far to gain some solitude -- 20 minutes to the north or west will do it.
Was a bit hard on the morale to be walking for hours on a gentle, winding, paved roads, watching the rain clouds and mist descend on the summits, while a postbus would barrel past me. But such is the price of purity.
Was that because you wanted to do those specific trips purely on your own power, or because you never want to ride in a motor vehicle?
If it's the second choice, isn't that purity a bit too fanatic? I assume you receive snail mail and have not told everyone you know never to send you a greeting card? Ergo, you think postal buses are morally acceptible. Since they're going there anyway why not grab a ride?
Robert
I-70 corridor between Vail and Denver is good example. It's EXTREMELY congested on weekends, so there's talk of widening (horrible environmental impact), banning semi trucks from Friday to Sunday, or a high speed train from Denver to Vail, covering all ski resorts in between.
Problem is, and it's understandable, that people just want to dump their gear into car, drive to the resort, unload and ski.
A train would require driving (or however you get there) to a station in Denver, arrive at a certain time, take the train to a stop, then if you're skiing in Summit County where the resorts aren't right off the highway (like Copper Mtn and Vail), you'd have to take another form of local transportation to the lifts.
Also elevations of 10,000 ft plus would be a factor for weather.
So in this case it's hard to make a train convenient for people lugging skis, boots, jackets, lunch, etc, etc. Although Winter Park has a train from Denver to Winter Park, which is very successful. It's a 2 - 2.5 hour trip, but that's an excellent time seeing as how driving back to Denver on I-70 can take 3-4 hours to go 70 miles on a Sunday afternoon.
www.skitrain.com
I am sure this depends on the area you live in. In Switzerland, busses that delievered packages and also carry passangers (Postbus) ruitinely go to, well, just about everywhere. Of the 12 or so summits I walked over this past summer, a postbus went to every single trailhead. Was a bit hard on the morale to be walking for hours on a gentle, winding, paved roads, watching the rain clouds and mist descend on the summits, while a postbus would barrel past me. But such is the price of purity.
Of course, Switzerland utilizes just about every ounce of land.
hey Satyr,
i agree to a point, but there are still some similar problems in Europe.
first i have to preface that the train/bus system in Switzerland tends to be much better than that in the Bavarian Alps (Germany) and particularly Austria...
for skiing at the nearby resorts in Germany you can take a train or bus - although sometimes you face a little more restriction on timing (i.e. for people who like to party after skiing - called "Apre ski" which is basically drinking and singing which i usually don't - it is often a problem as the last bus usually leaves like an hour after the lifts close) - it is generally ok and sometimes there is even a "combo" ticket for train/bus + lift ticket that makes it REALLY cheap (e.g. instead of lift ticket alone for €40, €44 for lift + round trip train/bus).
but for skiing in Austria it is virtually impossible to use general mass transit (from the north - i.e. Germany - which constitutes over 50% of the skiiers) as the first train/bus combo will get you to the slopes some time between 11:00 and 12:30 or so - much too late! so you would have to arrive the night before! there are although many tourist buses (i.e. private) that take skiers to the resorts, so Austria does not see the "need" to provide solid public mass transit to the ski areas... (although the traffic on the autobahn on a sunday evening in the winter is HORRENDOUS)
on the other hand, in Germany if you go to the ski resorts it is simply wise to take the train as it allows you to get there and back mudch faster as you skip all the traffic (no-traffic by car is about 1hr, train about 1:15 plus time form home to train station and car in traffic 2-4 hours)
unfortunately in the Austrian/German Alps, every year more and more people choose to drive, part of which is attributable to the fact that the quality of the German train system has been decreasing steadily the last 10 years or so since privatization/cost savings, and partly simply the "comfort" factor of taking one's own vehicle...
the primary difference between the Alps and say the Rockies is that at least in the Alps you have a CHOICE: limit your choice to a ski area with good mass transit, find a private tour bus to get to the others, or drive and deal with the traffic; in Denver you only have the 3rd option: to deal with the traffic.
I-70 corridor between Vail and Denver is good example. It's EXTREMELY congested on weekends, so there's talk of widening (horrible environmental impact), banning semi trucks from Friday to Sunday, or a high speed train from Denver to Vail, covering all ski resorts in between.
Problem is, and it's understandable, that people just want to dump their gear into car, drive to the resort, unload and ski.
A train would require driving (or however you get there) to a station in Denver, arrive at a certain time, take the train to a stop, then if you're skiing in Summit County where the resorts aren't right off the highway (like Copper Mtn and Vail), you'd have to take another form of local transportation to the lifts.
Also elevations of 10,000 ft plus would be a factor for weather.
So in this case it's hard to make a train convenient for people lugging skis, boots, jackets, lunch, etc, etc. Although Winter Park has a train from Denver to Winter Park, which is very successful. It's a 2 - 2.5 hour trip, but that's an excellent time seeing as how driving back to Denver on I-70 can take 3-4 hours to go 70 miles on a Sunday afternoon.
www.skitrain.com
you hit on many of the main points, but i think the most difficult part relates to assumption behind "So in this case it's hard to make a train convenient for people lugging skis":
people compare driving in the ideal case (i.e. no traffic and good weather) to the train.
but when traffic is factored in the train could easily be faster and "more convenient".
what is missing is the committment of the HUGE amount of money that would go to widening I-70 to the train system.
with a rail system you have following advantages:
1) reduced auto traffic = less air pollution
2) lessened need to widen I70 (i.e. long term)
3) more OPTIONS as people could still drive or take the train
4) better bad weather options as trains are usually much less bad-weather susceptable than roads/cars
5) less pavement for parking in the mountains
-- no to mention other "side" benefits like not creating as much noise or the unsightliness of huge parking lots in the mountains...
but in order to happen there must be a major investment in the train (Americans often complain that Trains are so expensive but this primarily b/c with a train the costs are relatively clear-cut whereas with roads/cars so many of the costs are "hidden" like police and emergency response, sanding and snowplowing not to mention road maintenance and air pollution etc.) and obviously then the ticket price must be comparible to what it would cost to drive. (preferably cheaper)
anyhow, basically the problem will probably just get worse and worse until the traffic is so bad that people are willing to invest in a "solution". then is the critical point if this large amount of money will be dumped into simply widening the road and "hiding" many costs and pushing the problem 10-15 years into the future or if the investment will be made in a rail system...
P.S. Swizterland is a good model as their ski trains are often MUCH cheaper and more convenient than driving. (driving is much more expensive in Europe so being cheaper is not so hard)
Just my 2 cents...
I'm fairly outdoorsey, and car-free. When I want to go hiking, snowshoeing, etc. I just rent a car for a day. If you shop around, rental prices are usually around $25-30/day (including insurance), sometimes even less during the winter. Unless you do something every weekend, renting is more cost efficient: Even if you rent a car every weekend (say 8 days), the cost is still only going to be about $250-300/month. In most major cities insurance and parking cost at least $125-150/month, and this doesn't include registration and maintenance.
So do the math... If need a car less then 5 days/month, renting is cheaper. The main advantage of owning a car is convenience - you can leave and return when ever you want, where as with renting you need to pick and return the car at a certain time. Even considering this, owning doesn't seem cost efficient to me.
Just my 2 cents...
I'm fairly outdoorsey, and car-free. When I want to go hiking, snowshoeing, etc. I just rent a car for a day. If you shop around, rental prices are usually around $25-30/day (including insurance), sometimes even less during the winter. Unless you do something every weekend, renting is more cost efficient: Even if you rent a car every weekend (say 8 days), the cost is still only going to be about $250-300/month. In most major cities insurance and parking cost at least $125-150/month, and this doesn't include registration and maintenance.
So do the math... If need a car less then 5 days/month, renting is cheaper. The main advantage of owning a car is convenience - you can leave and return when ever you want, where as with renting you need to pick and return the car at a certain time. Even considering this, owning doesn't seem cost efficient to me.
hey Alan,
i agree but i think the issue in this thread was more the environmental aspect of it...
and regardless of whether you rent a car or drive your own one can burn a lot of fuel for outdoor activities -- so in many ways the "outdoor" lifestyle is can be viewed as not environmentally friendly.
i personally have accepted this and attempt to minimize as much as possible by:
1) carpooling
2) using train if possible
3) driving a relativley fuel-efficient auto although most of the "super-efficient" cars as not ideal for outdoor activities b/c they tend to have less cargo capacitiy (in my case a wagon which can still carry a lot but gets ok mileage)
4) when possible biking to the trailhead (i.e. works for something 5-20 miles away but not for a trip to somewhere 50+ miles away)
of course a real advantage to the renting strategy is that one is not tempted to use the car for other activities. i am car-lite which for me means that i do not drive in the city (bike commute to work and for shopping) and in my case the temptation is personally easy to follow but my girlfriend quite often wants to drive in the city out of convenience - e.g. is it is raining or she is tired or whatever)
4) when possible biking to the trailhead (i.e. works for something 5-20 miles away but not for a trip to somewhere 50+ miles away) except with a 3 day weekend you can extend this to 100 miles out with a day for non-bike recreation in the middle, even if you don't use any multi modal transportation...
Nathank, all your points are well founded. I find hypocritical all the 'environmentalists' when they drive to the trailhead in a SUV that gets 16 MPG. It is a sad example of american selfcentered behavior.
Something else to consider...
The way most U.S. cities are designed forces people to travel long-distance to access wilderness. If U.S. cities were designed with fewer car spaces and fewer roads, there would be more space available to be left undeveloped, and thus be used for outdoor recreation.
Portland has done this to some extent - Forest Park is a large Urban forest with hiking and biking trails that is well with biking distance of the city. There are also other nice trails scattered throughout the city. I know it's not the same as getting out to the boonies and camping, but it's still nice and convenient.
Something else to consider...
The way most U.S. cities are designed forces people to travel long-distance to access wilderness. If U.S. cities were designed with fewer car spaces and fewer roads, there would be more space available to be left undeveloped, and thus be used for outdoor recreation.
Portland has done this to some extent - Forest Park is a large Urban forest with hiking and biking trails that is well with biking distance of the city. There are also other nice trails scattered throughout the city. I know it's not the same as getting out to the boonies and camping, but it's still nice and convenient.
Alan,
you are exactly right!
(did you notice i used to live in Portland?) but yes, Portland is one of the very few US cities that tries to maintain an "urban" area surrounded by a non-developed area. unfortunately even Portland continues to sprawl a little more out every year (they frequently expand the Urban Growth Boundary) but it is MUCH better than it otherwise would be! and yeah, i used to live and work right next to Forest Park (my office was on the border so i used to go trail running at lunch there and i rode 1-2 times/week in the park)
on this point Europe really has North America beat as in Munich (between the size of Portand and Seattle) the radius of development from the center is about 10km, so from where i live (2km from the center) i only have to ride 3-10km to be "out of the city" which means on country roads with farmland and small villiages as opposed to developed surburban sprawl as outside the US metro areas. AND i also live right on the river which goes through the city which has a greenway... so i go out my front door, cross the street and am on the bike path along the river. then 3km along the bikeway the mountainbike single trails start! (i lead a weekly MTB ride there every Wednesday)
P.S. @Alan: from your post it shows that you live in the Northwest where people are much more conscious of sprawl, urban desing and environmental issues
and yes, unfortunately in most cases, "the way things are" requires that one either reduce/alter "outdoor activities" or use an auto to travel to places that are not developed - often long distances :(
in Portland i was also car-lite and did about half of my "outdoor activities" in the city parks -- i had a vehicle only for out-of town trips to the mountains and always made sure my friends and i carpooled as much as possible.
P.S. @Alan: from your post it shows that you live in the Northwest where people are much more conscious of sprawl, urban desing and environmental issues.
Yeah, that's certainly true, though from what I've seen, Portland is much more environmentally conscious, at least in practice, than Seattle. Seattle parks are a joke compared to Portland, and of course Portland's light rail is nice (they actually have light rail!).
My father lives in the Phoenix, AZ area and it's such a contrast. You have to drive everywhere in that city :mad:
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.