Living Car Free - How does your location affect you?

I see people on the CarFree forum and the commuters forum mention things like "well if I lived in a bigger city" or "The city I live in is great for commuting" and other various things of this nature. I'm starting to get the idea that a lot of people who live "Car Free" or "Car Light" tend to live in bigger cities. This has me wondering what type of places you guys live and how it affects your choice to live with out a car.

I hear a lot of people tell me that they can't believe I don't drive anywhere "in this town". I live in a small city of a couple hundred thousand and it by no means caters to people with out cars. Buses only run from like 6am-5pm and they are far and few between, there is NO bike lanes ANYWHERE, and the bus people refuse to put bike racks on the bus (though they deemed it necessary to be the first city with wireless Internet on the buses)

I have myself thought "man it would probably be easier if I moved to Chicago, or went back to New Orleans or Seattle or something". So now I'm just wondering what your opinions are on this?

I doubt I would be car lite if I lived in my hometown in SE Wa state. The mass transit system is horrible and the summers ran somewhere north of 110F. At least the winters were very easy.
I suppose it is doable. Just more difficult than living in an area with a decent mass transit.
I like the use the mass transit system to compliment my bike commute.

I live in a city (Lansing, MI) that might be a little bigger than Cedar Rapids. I think cities of this size have their advantages. They are "bike-size" because most destinations are within 5 to 10 miles of the city center. Traffic is not too bad, except during actual rush hour. There are many cultural and shopping attractions, especially if you're near a big university and state capitol like I am. There are "cool" areas that attract carfree people, even though I don't live in one. I don't know, it's just nice. I grew up in a big city (Detroit) and I've lived in smaller cities, small towns and the country. But this is perfect for me, probably for the rest of my life, or at least until I retire.

Move to Chicago. Find an apartment within 3 miles of Wicker Park. Discover what easy and graceful carfree living can be like. We have a decent job market and 1.5 million ladies of the female kind, and unlike Iowa, they come in more than one shade. :)

No, seriously. Get out of Iowa while you're young. You can always move back.

Move to Chicago. Find an apartment within 3 miles of Wicker Park. Discover what easy and graceful carfree living can be like. We have a decent job market and 1.5 million ladies of the female kind, and unlike Iowa, they come in more than one shade. :)

No, seriously. Get out of Iowa while you're young. You can always move back.

That's actually where I planned to look if I went to chicago, funny you mention it. I'm just worried about the whole job thing and the fact that the cost of living is WAY higher than here. One of the perks of being in my town is that it's dirt cheap. Like decent 1 bedroom apt is $200-300 and general merchandise tends to be cheaper. I may start submitting my resume to some places over there soon though.

I live in suburbia, of a moderately sized city. (EDIT: moderately sized is a population of about 1.6 million)

On the upside:
Good infrastructure - roads well maintained, MUPs, bike lanes, etc.
Plenty of bike shops
Most things I need are in the city

On the downside:
Most of my regular destinations are a fair distance away - 10-40km (7-30mi)
Big "centers" (shopping, entertainment, events, restaurants) cater for cars - Wouldn't it be better if there were lots of little shops, entertainment centers, restaurants that were evenly spread throughout the city?

That's actually where I planned to look if I went to chicago, funny you mention it. I'm just worried about the whole job thing and the fact that the cost of living is WAY higher than here. One of the perks of being in my town is that it's dirt cheap. Like decent 1 bedroom apt is $200-300 and general merchandise tends to be cheaper. I may start submitting my resume to some places over there soon though.
Damn. I just signed a lease on a cute one-bedroom for $630 + electric. And that's cheap compared to some cities, or even some parts of this city.

Where you live can make or break a cycling effort for many in America
because big government, big oil & big car makers all redesigned America
to promote the use of the car. To undo this wrong cyclist of all stripes
must try to ride as much as they can while being vocal in demanding
roadway space & bike friendly mass transit everywhere they can......
even at the ballot box.

Then it's important to ride to be seen as the more people who see
you the more cyclist move into the public's mindset as a norm to
be supported. Cycling must be pushed by cyclist from a sport or
hobby to a valid mode of personal transport. Just as the rest of
world sees cycling. It's your chance to be on the cutting edge of
change in America by doing nothing more that ride your bike &
vote for cycling.

The bigger the better as far as cities are concerned.

In a related vein, they had a little piece in the Toronto Life about smog, comparing various north american cities.

Calgary/L.A 0.75 cars per person

Toronto 0.48 cars per person

Mexico city 0.41 cars per person

New York 0.22 cars per person

With the notable exception of L.A. it would appear that there is a negative correlation between size and car ownership.

It looks as if about half or more New Yorkers are carfree, probably due to convenience of other modes of transportation vs. passenger cars. It seems likely to me that the majority of new yorkers are using some combination of walking/subway/taxi rather than cycling, but I could be wrong.

We live and I work in city of 42k, county of ~250k. My wife works in much bigger city in the next county to the north (city ~200k, county ~750k). I can go pretty much anywhere, do pretty much anything, in a point to point distance < 7 miles. If we lived where she worked (~30 miles up), or even halfway between, I don't think I'd be able to bike-commute (to here) *and* have flexibility for childcare (if daycare issues arise, say) that I do right now.

In general, you want a city that's is geographically compact and densely populated. That's why NYC has such a low percentage of cars per person: Mass transit and walking/biking is much more efficient than driving in most cases.

Here in Seattle, it's sort of a mixed bag. If you live and work in Seattle, it's very compact geographically that you can easily bike just about anywhere, and the inner city bus service is very good.

However, much of the job growth is in Bellevue, which requres a trip across bridges - the commute sux regardless of whether you drive, bike or take the bus.

Places I've lived carfree:

Pinetop, Arizona: Small town .... combined with the other neighboring towns, 30,000-40,000 population, a large percentage that was summer only... they went back to the desert for the winter.

Orlando, Florida: Military boot camp and follow on training

Alameda, California: Stationed across the bay from San Francisco

Bremerton, Washington: Stationed at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, across from Seattle

Newport News and Hampton, Virginia: the Norfolk Metro area

Denver (actually live in Lakewood), Colorado

Oregon city, Oregon (Portland Metro)

The EASIEST town to be carfree in (Other than occasional snow in winter) was Pinetop... the smallest.

Why? The roads were wide, the area was geared towards outdoors activity, and there were several stores nearby. It also seemed more laid back, lots of retired people tooling around, and people coming to enjoy their vacations. Also, being a small town, chances were pretty good that if it was somebody from town, they probably knew me... and so did the motorist beside/in front of/behind them. People look out for their neighbors in a place like that. The worst was in the winter when the folks from the valley would come up to go skiing.

The HARDEST areas would be large suburbs without any non-residential development, and WAY out in rural areas, where you have to travel large distances to get anywhere. Not that it's not doable, especially if the roads are good (ie: good shoulders to get out of the way of cagers). I travelled a LOT of miles in the mountains of Arizona, and there were a lot of good roads to ride on.

I live in a city of 16,000. I am car lite, everything I need is in town, and I am retired. Lots of very poite, bike friendly people.

To the OP: If I were you, I'd go to Chicago. Large, geographically compact cities with lots of mixed-use neighborhoods are ideal for a car-free lifestyle. Several cities in NA meet those criteria, and Chicago is one of them. Yes, it's way more expensive than Cedar Rapids. But they pay more, too, and compared to other large cities, Chicago is reasonable. You're more likely to meet young women who are amenable to a car-free lifestyle. (If for no other reason than the population is larger, plus it's politically blue...) More importantly, you'll have a chance to grow as a person. If it doesn't work out, you can always go back. But if you don't go, you'll always wonder. Speaking as an older person (I'm 45), I've never regretted the things I've done, even the really stupid things. But I have regretted the things I haven't done. Think about it.

BTW, avoid suburbs at all costs. They even suck for people who have cars, but for people who don't have cars, they're hideous. IMHO, they are the slums of the future.

couple hundred thousand is small? i guess i live in a microscopic town then with only 28,000...i can ride around town no problem but as you can imagine there's not a whole lot of places to ride to in terms of businesses and stuff...i ride out in the desert more than in town...

what is unbelievable is how few people will bike in a 'town' like this

BTW, avoid suburbs at all costs. They even suck for people who have cars, but for people who don't have cars, they're hideous. IMHO, they are the slums of the future.
Why go there when you can go to the slums of the present?

I live in a city of 16,000. I am car lite, everything I need is in town, and I am retired. Lots of very poite, bike friendly people.

Yes, I also live in a small community of 2500 that is very bike friendly. Sad part is that I used to
be able to buy anything & everything I needed in town until they opened a super Wal-mart 22 miles
away. Now our downtown is a ghost town. We're down to our last grocery store and if it goes I'll
have to drive either 16 mi or 22 mi just to get milk.:( :(

I live in a town of 40000, and it is perfect for living car free in my situation. Even when I owned a car I had to try really hard to find a reason to drive it. Even if you don’t want to bike you can get to just about anywhere in town in under an hour on foot. I live a fifteen-minute walk from school and 15 minute walk from work. I live right beside a shopping centre and movie theatre. Considering this my area is pretty quiet. I also have some great mountain bike trails a few minutes walk away from me. If I need to go to a big city the capitol is about 100kms away, and the second biggest city in the country is less than that.

The town recently lost its biggest employer; for me that is good news because it means that hopefully the cost of living will go down, as well there is no more stink of air pollution from the paper mill. The best part of that is that after I graduate if I want to stay I will have no problem finding a job that pays well; even in this depressed town I am almost guaranteed a job in my field.

The winters are still cold here but I can walk anywhere I want in a short time, and there are lots of places to cross country ski. Heck if we have snowmobiles going down the sidewalks I think I can ski just about anywhere without a problem.

I live in Columbus Ohio, population of metro area is about 1.1 million. Like most cities its perfectly suitable to car free life. Mass transit doesnt mean much if you ride a bike unless youve got a family to move around that doesnt ride bikes. Rent here is cheap, even downtown. Bike lanes? WTF are those, and why are they even needed? Car free life is what YOU make of it, NOT what you LET others dictate to you.

My location in Denver just two miles east of the actual downtown is perfect. It's a nice grid neighborhood, houses and residents of all economics, and unlike the actual downtown there's houses with yards, and plenty of green space.

Easy to get anywhere via bike or bus. I've never biked regularly in heavy urban cores I've visited, (Chicago, S.F., Buenos Aires and Mexico City). but would would have to be on my toes a LOT more than taking a nice cruise down the residential grid of my area.

Going to the highrise area downtown Denver is completely different than my neighborhood. More lights, cars, busses, and I know all the streets and potholes in my neighborhood and commute like the back of my hand...

So I wouldn't change anything about my location and neigbhorhood.

I don't think the main factor is the size of the city or village. The main factor is whether or not various land uses are in close proximity of one another. When residential, industrial and commercial areas are mingled, it's easier for people to get around without a car. When you have discrete areas for each use--like residential suburb, industrial park and central business district or shopping mall--you're setting up a situation where people feel thay must have cars. Jane Jacobs was the first to write about this years ago, and now more planners are finally starting to get the message.

When you have discrete areas for each use--like residential suburb, industrial park and central business district or shopping mall--you're setting up a situation where people feel thay must have cars. Jane Jacobs was the first to write about this years ago, and now more planners are finally starting to get the message.

DUH!!!!! Didn't any of these fools ever play Sim City?????? :p

I live in a small city of a couple hundred thousand and it by no means caters to people with out cars. Buses only run from like 6am-5pm and they are far and few between, there is NO bike lanes ANYWHERE, and the bus people refuse to put bike racks on the bus

Sounds like Little Rock, though you forgot to mention that the streets were designed for Model Ts with no extra room and haven't been widened since so there is no room for bicycles and cars and somehow, most of the potholes are at the edge of the road.

I lived car free for ten years in Denver (8) and Oklahoma City (2). Putting wifey thru college or paying off a house left me too poor to buy a car. Both cities had an adequate bus system and/or I walked or biked places. Now we are in a place where the wife has no choice but to have a car for work and i lucked out to get an old truck for $400.00 for emergencies.

Sounds like Little Rock, though you forgot to mention that the streets were designed for Model Ts with no extra room and haven't been widened since so there is no room for bicycles and cars and somehow, most of the potholes are at the edge of the road.

LOL! many of our streets are quite narrow. The main roads tend to be wider, but as you said it seems that all the potholes, cracks, dips, roots, and other junk is filling up the right side of the road. Luckily I ride to work in the middle of the night so I can just take the lane. Coming home is a whole different story though.

My town has about 90,000 people and is a mix of several things. The older downtown area is great for bicycles and pedestrians. I live close enough to that area that I can go just about anywhere in town on my bike except for the outer fringes. Those fringes are the parts that are simply horrible for bikes and peds. They are the epitome of suburban sprawl, with no though whatsoever to any means of transport besides cars. And surprise surprise, those areas suck if you're driving a car as well. :rolleyes: Luckily there is a large variety of stores and shops in the older parts of town that I can avoid those outskirts completely. The main roads are horrible no matter where you go around here, but I can choose from many small side streets that most motorists avoid because it's not fast enough for them, which is ironic as all the motorists on the main roads actually makes them slower. :lol: For the most part, my town is a decent place to be car free (although I'm just car-lite right now) as long as you know the streets very well.

DUH!!!!! Didn't any of these fools ever play Sim City?????? :p
Probably not. I made some good carfree Sim Cities. Once you get into the future, the game gives you clean power plants ("fusion" and solar) that can be placed next to residential areas. I live near a big coal powered generating plant right now. It's pretty quiet. We don't get much pollution from it because the 500 foot smokestacks send most of the dirt hundreds of miles away, usually to fall as acid rain on New England. In Sim City, if you build your power plant on the border of your city, the neighbors get half of the pollution, so that part of the game is true-to-life.

In Sim City, if you build your power plant on the border of your city, the neighbors get half of the pollution, so that part of the game is true-to-life.

Hah... I never really realized that. Just shoved the stuff like that off to the side for convenience. :p

Kind of a short-sighted plan for real life, though... but come to think of it, I guess all the coal power plants do that, don't they? Get the pollution up high enough and the prevailing winds disperse it across a larger area, making it less obvious.

I live in a town of about 15,000. I have two grocery stores within 3 miles, as well as the movies. Most of what I need is right across the river to the next town. If I need to, I can cross a very dangerous bridge (with no break down lane at all) to get there and it takes me about 20-25 to get there. If I take the safe route, its very out of the way and takes me about 50 minutes to get there. I tend to take the long way once a week and do all my chores there. I am only car light at the moment, but plan to go car free once/if I am in a relationship. It's too challenging for me at the moment to be car free by myself. Actually, the only real reason I need the car is go meet my friends for mountain biking and skiing. Oh, work is a very nice 5 mile commute.

Chris

The climate, and day to day weather, effects me much more than the cyclability of a city. I've got so tired of riding in the rain or wind that I just don't bother with it any more, especially in the dead of winter. One day about 4 years ago, I just said to myself, "I've had enough of this!"

i grew up in philadelphia, but about a year ago i moved out to lancaster, pennsylvania for college. it's hard living car-free out here, so i've assumed a car-light lifestyle. the hills can be pretty steep here (so steep in some places that i've primarily garaged my fixie in favor of my geared bike), and point a and point b can be very far apart.

i mainly only drive when travelling back and forth to philadelphia now, and pretty soon i'll be biking that too.

i grew up in philadelphia, but about a year ago i moved out to lancaster, pennsylvania for college. it's hard living car-free out here, so i've assumed a car-light lifestyle.
Isn't Lancaster the epicenter of Amish life? Ironic that it's so hard to be carfree there!

This past year I took a course on Urban Geography (which is more exciting than it sounds), and one of the things we covered was urban planning. A good thing for bike commuting, and foot commuting/traffic (non-motorized transit) that's in larger, denser cities is mixed-use development. In suburban sprawl, there are Places To Live, Places To Work, and Places To Shop, and they're seperate from each other. Whereas in urban areas you might have apartments on top of retail, that kind of thing. The basic principle in development was that people generally will travel no more than 45 minutes to an hour (one way) to get where they're going -- work or retail. If you're on a bike, that hour might be 8 to 10 miles (depending on your speed). If you're in a car, that hour could be 60 miles. I would say that generally, older urban areas -- like say, NYC or Boston (and I guess Chicago, but I have no experience with it) -- are going to be more bike friendly in terms of distances, because they were established prior to car use (or car invention), as well as having a premium on land.

I'm starting to get the idea that a lot of people who live "Car Free" or "Car Light" tend to live in bigger cities.
I don't think there's anything to be ashamed about owning/operating a car. I do, yet I prefer to ride my bike to work 30 miles round-trip most days. It's so much more rewarding in so many ways.

I don't judge people who drive, but I don't envy them, either.

Location matters. I don't know what I'd do without a car in a place my parents live (suburbia). I don't know what I'd do WITH a car in a place where I live (midtown Toronto). So choose your locations wisely, if you can afford the luxury of such a choice.

San Francisco is 7 miles by 7 miles. The public transportation is very good for being in the states. I can get pretty much anywhere faster on my bike than in my car. The car gets moved once a week for the street cleaner and untill I get my xtracycle I go to the store in the car too.

It would be very easy to be car-free here. The rain is what keeps me on the bus in the winter. There are also car share programs here that make not owning a car very easy, when you really need one its just a block or two away. I guess thats cheating in the true 'car-free' rule book.

The thing that has kept me car-lite as opposed to car-free is my dog. It is too hard to go home (new mexico) and have someone watch him here or try to find a rental car that he can go in. So for now, the car stays, but I'm kinda lookin for a good answer to the dog so I can get rid of the car.