I'm ready for a US Car-Free City

[oilfreeandhappy]

I recall visiting Venice a few years back. I remember how peaceful and quiet it was, even though there were hundreds of thousands of tourists there.

I think this is just what the US needs - a brand spanking new CAR-FREE city. The Press would jump all over this. The city would have free advertising, just based on the novelty. I'll bet that if some entrepeneur started something like this, he'd get a ton of interest. This investor could purchase a large tract of land, near some city, and connect with a major Metropolitan area's light rail. And just like people must park their cars at the train station in Venice, they'd have to do this in Serenityville (how's that for a name?).

I found this link, and it has some interesting designs for Car-Free cities.
http://carfree.com/

I'll bet there are a number of industries that would love to have their home-base in this kind of city. Not only would the city be quiet, but there would be NO auto accidents. To maintain the quiet atmosphere, I think internal combustion engines, in general, should not be allowed (gasoline powered lawnmowers, etc). I've attached a poll. I'm curious what others think.

[Platy]

A fully functioning car free city would be a pretty tall order.

What might be possible would be for an older small town on a major recreational trail to become a popular destination for recreational cycling and hiking. If the concept worked well, some regular visitors might become year-rounders. It might develop along the same lines as an artist colony.

[Alekhine]

I love Venice.

We should all of us choose a common place to live, move there, and gradually take over its real estate, infrastructure, and politics. ;)

I couldn't live in a place that didn't have a large body of water nearby though. I need my sailing fix or I start to freak out. I vote for Astoria, Oregon, where The Goonies was filmed. We could get an exodus of nearby Portlanders there and start afresh.

[wahoonc]

I love Venice.

We should all of us choose a common place to live, move there, and gradually take over its real estate, infrastructure, and politics. ;)

I couldn't live in a place that didn't have a large body of water nearby though. I need my sailing fix or I start to freak out. I vote for Astoria, Oregon, where The Goonies was filmed. We could get an exodus of nearby Portlanders there and start afresh.

There a couple of resort areas that come to mind, as far as I know Makinac Island (http://www.mackinacisland.org/) is car free as is Baldhead Island (http://www.baldheadisland.com/) off the coast of the Carolinas. I would love to see a carfree city or at the very least a car light city, where the parking was on the outskirts of town. It would be easy to do if you built it up on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. I think you would have major regulatory hurdles to overcome to make it work, but still a great idea over all. But with these two examples I am sure it could be done.

Aaron:)

[kf5nd]

when peak oil hits, there will be many car-free US cities

See US GAO report on crude oil supply that came out on 3/29/07.

No one at the rudder of this ship of state.

[wahoonc]

when peak oil hits, there will be many car-free US cities

See US GAO report on crude oil supply that came out on 3/29/07.

No one at the rudder of this ship of state.

+1 and for those of you who sail and know the terminology I seriously think the ship of state is three sheets to the wind:eek: as well as being "UWWNWO" (under way with no way on)

Aaron:)

[oilfreeandhappy]

A fully functioning car free city would be a pretty tall order.

I'm curious why it is, that you think this?

[gerv]

I'd be happy to see a 50% car-free city. That could be realistic in North America actually. I believe Japan is like this. Quite a few people have cars, but they still use public transportation. [which begs the questions of why they bother to buy cars in the first place, but...]


http://www.cellularabroad.com/japancar.html
If you are travelling to the larger cities, renting a car in Japan would probably be more of a hindrance than a convenience. Parking is a rare commodity, as space is so precious in Japan, and therefore very expensive and inconvenient. Furthermore, the roads are all toll roads, so you will be required to pay to drive on them, stopping periodically at booths along the way to make your payment. Traffic is very heavy, unless you are outside of the big cities, so again, an automobile does not really make sense when compared with the public transportation system, which runs virtually everywhere at a far less cost and hassle. Also, in Japan you drive on the left side of the road as in England – not an easy thing to get used to. If you do decide you would like to rent a car, you will need an international driver’s license. Most of the major rental car companies do exist in Japan, and you can inquire with your hotel as to the closest and most convenient one should you really need to rent a car.

[gerv]

A fully functioning car free city would be a pretty tall order.

What might be possible would be for an older small town on a major recreational trail to become a popular destination for recreational cycling and hiking. If the concept worked well, some regular visitors might become year-rounders. It might develop along the same lines as an artist colony.

Platy... I think this kind of exists already. There are some trails in Minnesota and Wisconsin that seem to fit your description. They aren't car-free yet, but it sounds like the next evolution for them.
http://www.rootrivertrail.org/lanesboro-main.php

[Platy]

I'm curious why it is, that you think this?
Well, I'd love to have you prove me wrong on that. It's just my opinion.

[Platy]

Platy... I think this kind of exists already. There are some trails in Minnesota and Wisconsin that seem to fit your description. They aren't car-free yet, but it sounds like the next evolution for them.
http://www.rootrivertrail.org/lanesboro-main.php

That's more or less what I had in mind, thanks for pointing that out.

[oilfreeandhappy]

I'd be happy to see a 50% car-free city. That could be realistic in North America actually. I believe Japan is like this. Quite a few people have cars, but they still use public transportation. [which begs the questions of why they bother to buy cars in the first place, but...]
Many City Councils strive towards such numbers today, and they don't even come close. Once you build the roads, they will come - that is, soon they'll be loaded with gas-guzzling, loud, belching cars and trucks. A car-free city would have no roads, only trails and walkways ala Venice. Freight and transfer of goods, trash, etc. in and out of the city is by rail, or truck from the perimeter.

[EnigManiac]

A virtually car-free city (and why would it have to be in the US? Can't we have one in Canada?) would be, well, virtually impossible. Since that option wasn't there, I have not voted.

I'd like police, fire and ambulance to arrive quickly should I need them, so they would need to be exempt, as would delivery vehicles, construction, repair and city works vehicles, among many other commercial and business-related vehicles. There are those in our communities who are unable to walk or ride and they need to have equal access to all public areas as well. And, no matter where such a fantasy city is built, weather sometimes dictates that a motor vehicle or public transit is safer and more convenient.

What is needed is not so much a car-free city, but a city designed for people first and cars second, not the other way around. Perhaps Amsterdam could be the model. The city would have main avenues and streets that exclude motor vehicles (except emergency vehicles, of course) and roads for cars routed around so that deliveries can still be made efficiently and those who are unable to walk or ride would still have access to shops and services. Public trains/trams/buses would also have superior access to all destinations and, together with the non-vehiclular avenues, would be built first so that the infrastructure is already in place. Any expansion of the city or construction of new neighbourhoods, subdivisions and condo complexes would need to include accomodation for public transit/non vehicular access in the plans, mandatory green space and limited parking to discourage residents from using cars.

If you make everything easily accessible by bike or public transit and less atrractive (and costlier) by car, residents will use what is easiest. And if you build it they will come...no matter where it is.

[bragi]

A fully functioning car free city would be a pretty tall order.


I think you're probably right, no cars/trucks at all would be a tough one. You'd have to allow some form of public transportation (i.e., buses), and allow the occasional truck for moving and deliveries. However, I think not allowing any cars for personal transportation is very possible, and would reduce the number of autos by a good 90%. Living in such an environment would vastly improve everyone's quality of life. If such a city existed, I'd definitely consider livng there.

[wheel]

I think car free zones will be first. Paris anyone?
You could humanize vehicles. Look at golf carts or those small EV vehicles. Of course then restirct them to only emergency services, mass transit, deliveries, etc.

You could limit delivers at one time during the day say 5 am to 8am
You could build a subway system for Mass transit, Emergency vehicles, etc
You could build a canal system

There is the free state project they might help you out
http://www.freestateproject.org/

[Snow_canuck]

Gas $4.50/Liter. Done.

[oilfreeandhappy]

A virtually car-free city (and why would it have to be in the US? Can't we have one in Canada?) would be, well, virtually impossible. Since that option wasn't there, I have not voted.

I'd like police, fire and ambulance to arrive quickly should I need them, so they would need to be exempt, as would delivery vehicles, construction, repair and city works vehicles, among many other commercial and business-related vehicles. There are those in our communities who are unable to walk or ride and they need to have equal access to all public areas as well. And, no matter where such a fantasy city is built, weather sometimes dictates that a motor vehicle or public transit is safer and more convenient.

What is needed is not so much a car-free city, but a city designed for people first and cars second, not the other way around. Perhaps Amsterdam could be the model. The city would have main avenues and streets that exclude motor vehicles (except emergency vehicles, of course) and roads for cars routed around so that deliveries can still be made efficiently and those who are unable to walk or ride would still have access to shops and services. Public trains/trams/buses would also have superior access to all destinations and, together with the non-vehiclular avenues, would be built first so that the infrastructure is already in place. Any expansion of the city or construction of new neighbourhoods, subdivisions and condo complexes would need to include accomodation for public transit/non vehicular access in the plans, mandatory green space and limited parking to discourage residents from using cars.

If you make everything easily accessible by bike or public transit and less atrractive (and costlier) by car, residents will use what is easiest. And if you build it they will come...no matter where it is.

And herein lies some great arguments against a car-free city. Actually, based on your argument, you might have chosen the "Constitutional" option. But lets look at these issues one by one.

1. Emergency vehicles: Police, fire, and ambulances. There are electric vehicles that can travel very fast (0-60 MPH in seconds), and can use trails. Similar to emergency vehicles in our existing cities, they would be equipped with sirens, and all the necessary equipment. They would be smaller, lighter vehicles (because trails don't have the structure to handle real heavy vehicles). Concerning law enforcement, I would think a car-free city would have distinct advantages. Outlaws would not be able to quickly get away from the police.
2. Elderly: Any great city has provisions for elderly and handicapped. My fair city has a subsidized dial-a-ride program that picks up the elderly in vans for $2, and takes them to their destination. I see no reason that this cannot occur with the similar "trail" vehicles as above. Even pedicab services could be used.
3. Weather: Has anybody noticed that hardly anybody uses umbrellas anymore? We have snowstorms here along the Colorado Front Range that virtually shut down our city, sometimes for days. Trails would be maintained, similar to roads in today's cities. Here in my city, they actually have electric vehicles to maintain the trails. They are equipped with rotating brushes, and do as good a job as the snow plows. Our city's budget gets zapped during some of these snowstorms. A trail system would be much easier to maintain under budget. Nothing is safer in harsh weather than walking.

Many of the US city planners would argue with you that their cities are designed for "people first". I agree with much of what you say here. But the fact is, if you build roads, you will have lots of cars, and sprawl, and everything we have in our cities today.

[oilfreeandhappy]

http://www.freestateproject.org/
Interesting project, but it's not a car-free city.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

Speaking of cycling cities, how about Sidney, Aus (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/architect-peddles-idea-of-cycling-city/2007/03/31/1174761811919.html)?

Interesting new piece and it's related to the topic!

[Dahon.Steve]

when peak oil hits, there will be many car-free US cities

See US GAO report on crude oil supply that came out on 3/29/07.

No one at the rudder of this ship of state.

Where is this report? Do you have a link?

[Wogsterca]

A fully functioning car free city would be a pretty tall order.

A brand new city, built as car free, would actually be fairly easy, you just connect any outside road to a parking area outside the city limits, and the parking area would be connected to a subway station, people coming by bicycle could take a connecting path, the train station would be within the city itself. Buses and trucks would connect to a special terminal, that is again just outside the city limits.

What would be difficult is an already built up, car based city, probably the easiest would be to move everyone out, carpet bomb the entire city, and build it up new. Some cities where the city core has been abandonned, could be redeveloped from the core out, you start by building a railway station, then under that you build a subway hub, as you redevelop you extend subway lines out like spokes in a bicycle wheel. As people move back into the redeveloped core, they will move out of the outer edges, giving new areas for redevelopment, the issue is that a carfree city, even at the same population, is going to be much more compact.

See the book Carfree Cities by J.H. Crawford, for how to build a car free city.

[EnigManiac]

And herein lies some great arguments against a car-free city. Actually, based on your argument, you might have chosen the "Constitutional" option. But lets look at these issues one by one.

1. Emergency vehicles: Police, fire, and ambulances. There are electric vehicles that can travel very fast (0-60 MPH in seconds), and can use trails. Similar to emergency vehicles in our existing cities, they would be equipped with sirens, and all the necessary equipment. They would be smaller, lighter vehicles (because trails don't have the structure to handle real heavy vehicles). Concerning law enforcement, I would think a car-free city would have distinct advantages. Outlaws would not be able to quickly get away from the police.
2. Elderly: Any great city has provisions for elderly and handicapped. My fair city has a subsidized dial-a-ride program that picks up the elderly in vans for $2, and takes them to their destination. I see no reason that this cannot occur with the similar "trail" vehicles as above. Even pedicab services could be used.
3. Weather: Has anybody noticed that hardly anybody uses umbrellas anymore? We have snowstorms here along the Colorado Front Range that virtually shut down our city, sometimes for days. Trails would be maintained, similar to roads in today's cities. Here in my city, they actually have electric vehicles to maintain the trails. They are equipped with rotating brushes, and do as good a job as the snow plows. Our city's budget gets zapped during some of these snowstorms. A trail system would be much easier to maintain under budget. Nothing is safer in harsh weather than walking.

Many of the US city planners would argue with you that their cities are designed for "people first". I agree with much of what you say here. But the fact is, if you build roads, you will have lots of cars, and sprawl, and everything we have in our cities today.

When I responded to the thread, I did not distinguish between alternative-fueled vehicles for emergency services, city works, etc. and gas-powered vehicles because the poll asked if we wanted to live in a car-free city and, presumably, that meant even alternative-fueled cars would be disallowed. After all, as you point out---they can go very fast and be operated just as recklessly and destructively, even if they don't contribute to pollution.

However, if electric or alternative-fuel vehicles are exempt from a car-free city, then, yes, services could be provided without pollution-causing vehicles and maybe they could even operate on 'trails.' However, there would still be a large number of these types of vehicles and I would propose that, other than for urgent, emergency needs, those vehicles would be restricted to inconveniently-placed roadways (in order to sicourage casual, convenience or pleasure-driving).

If roads are built, that doesn't mean we immediately will have people in cars and sprawl. The reason we have that now in all our cities is because our society encourages it, our self-centered attitudes promote it, our city and suburban designs enhance it. When we begin to change the attitudes of our society, when they begin to be less selfish and me-centered, we might begin to see the first steps toward a car-free city.

[liberige]

It already exists. It is called Lancaster County, PA. You know, the Amish? Nothing connected to the mechanized world? No trade? No electricity? No UPS? No Whole Foods? No Starbucks?

I am all for bicycle power, but if you are proposing that a bunch of hippies join a commune and renounce civilization, fagettaboutit!

[kjohnnytarr]

I can't imagine myself in a car free city today. I love being car free, but it would exclude to many people, not to mention the whole truck issue.

Don't worry though, it'll happen. Nobody had to plan a horse free city 100 years ago, it just happened. Same thing will happen again, naturally and in due course.

[liberige]

Of course, if a municipality reverts to 19th century norms, it could shackle its prisoners in chain gangs and force them to do all the things that machines do for us today... maybe even providing out-sourced prison services for the rest of the state, which could pay for all the infrastructure costs of building a bicycletopolis...

[fat_bike_nut]

Of course, if a municipality reverts to 19th century norms, it could shackle its prisoners in chain gangs and force them to do all the things that machines do for us today... maybe even providing out-sourced prison services for the rest of the state, which could pay for all the infrastructure costs of building a bicycletopolis...

That brings up one thing I'm worried about if we reverted to the 19th century...taking the bad with the good.

I think your idea's good and all, but I'm referring to the way laws were back then. Namely, that we'd all end up in a situation where slavery would exist again.

[wahoonc]

IIRC Baldhead Island allows golf carts and the EMS vehicles are electric too. What do they use on Makinac Island? I have no problem with limited use of specialized vehicles, the real problems come with unrestricted use of cars. I like the concept that Wogsterca brought up, and I know just the place...Highland Park, MI there is still some infrastructure in place to be used but massive amounts of blight that need to be removed, and Roody wants to convert a couple of square blocks in to a farm:D :p If all of these places hellbent on "revitalization" would pay attention to what they are doing it would be very easy to set up pedestrian and cyclist friendly towns and neighbourhoods. Alleys anyone?

Aaron:)

[WishYouWasMe]

I provided a basic model for a car free city in the "High Speed Rail" forum

[Platy]

There is at least one currently acceptable carfree arrangement of urban space. It's the mixed-use skyscraper, with elevators providing universal free mass transit in the vertical dimension.

I doubt the OP was thinking about the "city in a skyscraper" proposed by architectural visionaries, but it would technically qualify as car free.

[liberige]

Norway (Oslo) has got a pretty good model: undeground motorways and boulevards. Berlin did it too with Pottsdammer Plats, and to a lesser extent, Boston's Big Dig. As long as corrupt and inept American contractors aren't responsible for the projects, it has shown to be enormously beneficial to the residents and economy. Turning roadways into greenbelts, retail, job sites and housing, with streets dominated by pedestrians and bicycles has much more interpersonal appeal and is more efficient in its use of land.

Of coure, Norway is a special case, seeing that the country is (ironically) the number 3? producer of petroleum products in the world and consequenlty is so flush with cash that its treasury can't find enough social projects to spend all its money on.

Nonetheless, the absense of street-level freeways or traffic intersections seems like a pretty appealing concept. Given the cost of real estate in some US Markets, it almost makes economic sense to pursue the option of undergrounding 10- or 12-lane motorways and instead building a mixture of parks and commercial/residential development & eco-freindly/human-friendly/community-friendly transportation alernatives over the land previously occupied by cement jungle.

New Orleans and western cities with earthquake fault lines may face insurmountable geological challenges, though :(

[Wogsterca]

Of course, if a municipality reverts to 19th century norms, it could shackle its prisoners in chain gangs and force them to do all the things that machines do for us today... maybe even providing out-sourced prison services for the rest of the state, which could pay for all the infrastructure costs of building a bicycletopolis...

Just because you give up one technology, doesn't mean you give up all technology, just that you work a little differently. A car free city can still have all the modern conveniences, just many of them will actually work better. For example a sidewalk cafe where your not breathing diesel exhaust the whole time your sitting there, :rolleyes:, would be much more enjoyable There can still be roads, just instead of a road being 100' wide with a 55MPH speed limit, the road might be only one lane, and mostly occupied by pedestrians and cyclists. The occassional time you need an emergency vehicle (ambulance, fire truck, police paddywagon, etc), they could clear the road, to get through. These vehicles could be electrically powered, to keep the ambiance of the city.

[Wogsterca]

IIRC Baldhead Island allows golf carts and the EMS vehicles are electric too. What do they use on Makinac Island? I have no problem with limited use of specialized vehicles, the real problems come with unrestricted use of cars. I like the concept that Wogsterca brought up, and I know just the place...Highland Park, MI there is still some infrastructure in place to be used but massive amounts of blight that need to be removed, and Roody wants to convert a couple of square blocks in to a farm:D :p If all of these places hellbent on "revitalization" would pay attention to what they are doing it would be very easy to set up pedestrian and cyclist friendly towns and neighbourhoods. Alleys anyone?

Aaron:)

New Orleans had the perfect reason to become a car free city, most of the infrastructure was destroyed post Katrina, so they could have built up as a car free city. However I have a feeling they blew their chance.

[Platy]

...undeground motorways and boulevards...(
The city of Guanajuato in Mexico buried its downtown motorways, creating a significant car free pedestrian district. It seems to be an elaboration of the typical Mexican city layout of interconnected public plazas. In the evening, crowds follow roving bands of musicians, everyone singing along until about 3 AM. I thought it was like the French Quarter of New Orleans, without the rowdiness. It's a remarkable downtown area, much favored by Mexican tourists, not quite as well known to people in the U. S.

[Platy]

New Orleans...
New Orleans needs to be saved. If necessary, we should kick out the Army Corps of Engineers and bring in the Dutch to get the job done right.

There are many things about New Orleans which are good from a transportation point of view. The streetcar system was much loved and it worked well. The older parts of town are pedestrian and bike friendly. The passenger train depot is integrated very well with the intercity bus terminal. New Orleans exists, and it must always continue to exist, because it's a natural convergence place for water, air and ground transportation.

[Lecterman]

I vote for Astoria, Oregon, where The Goonies was filmed.

Have fun climbing the hill to the Astoria Tower. Yeesh

[Wogsterca]

New Orleans needs to be saved. If necessary, we should kick out the Army Corps of Engineers and bring in the Dutch to get the job done right.

There are many things about New Orleans which are good from a transportation point of view. The streetcar system was much loved and it worked well. The older parts of town are pedestrian and bike friendly. The passenger train depot is integrated very well with the intercity bus terminal. New Orleans exists, and it must always continue to exist, because it's a natural convergence place for water, air and ground transportation.

I think the fact that Louisianna is a primarily poor black state has more to do within it the the Army Corps of Engineers. One of the big problems is that they filled in large areas of salt water marsh, and then built walls around it, and paved the bottom, turning the whole city into a giant bathtub, then they effectively removed the budget to maintain the wall. So as with any man made structure the walls deczyed and when the hurricane breached the wall, all the water rushed in, and flooded the paved bottom. This was never an IF scenario, it was a when scenario. Salt water marshes act as buffer zones, where major storms like Hurricanes, get buffered by the marshes, protecting the land behind, proper, native ground cover keeps the soils in place, and are often resistant to large storms.

To rebuild the city, they should really move it a little further inland:rolleyes:

[oilfreeandhappy]

Just because you give up one technology, doesn't mean you give up all technology, just that you work a little differently. A car free city can still have all the modern conveniences, just many of them will actually work better. For example a sidewalk cafe where your not breathing diesel exhaust the whole time your sitting there, :rolleyes:, would be much more enjoyable There can still be roads, just instead of a road being 100' wide with a 55MPH speed limit, the road might be only one lane, and mostly occupied by pedestrians and cyclists. The occassional time you need an emergency vehicle (ambulance, fire truck, police paddywagon, etc), they could clear the road, to get through. These vehicles could be electrically powered, to keep the ambiance of the city.
I was going to respond with a very similar thread, but you've said it very well. I was not talking about living like the Amish, or living in a hippy commune. And as somebody pointed out, I didn't distinguish between electric vehicles, but I think you would need some small, high-speed, electrically powered, maneuverable vehicles for emergency services.

[WishYouWasMe]

yikes...let me post it where someone can see....

this was my plan for producing a car-free/reduced car city..I take it seriously..and it will eventually be a 10-15 page report on my theories and why they work and benefit everyone..and I will present it to local governments combined with other reports done by other governments(like Oregon).

Enviromental impact would be less because because you'd have high density communities connected by train radiating into lower densities with rural density being achieved for 5-10 miles in cities connected by bike trail(paralleling train tracks to reduce impact.) The people who owned houses on these paths would not have developing rights so they couldnt sell the land to developers preserving a sense of place and forest conservation. In theory these communities connected by train could be 15-20 miles apart from the center city(radiating fashion), 4-10 miles apart from each other(in linear fashion), with hi-dense commercial/retail/low dense multi-fam residential employment centers 10-15 miles apart from the northernmost and southernmost poles of this theoretical circle.

[Alekhine]

Have fun climbing the hill to the Astoria Tower. Yeesh

I will! I love climbing, even on a fully loaded tourer. That's why ye olde god of velocipedae passed down to us the knowledge to invent granny gears with which to winch our way to the top.

[Wogsterca]

I was going to respond with a very similar thread, but you've said it very well. I was not talking about living like the Amish, or living in a hippy commune. And as somebody pointed out, I didn't distinguish between electric vehicles, but I think you would need some small, high-speed, electrically powered, maneuverable vehicles for emergency services.

They really wouldn't need to be that fast, emergency services typically deal with response times, say your response time is within 5 minutes, and you service 25,000 properties, per station. Those 25,000 properties will be a lot closer together, and you will not have gridlock to deal with, so vehicle speed might not need to be as fast, to accomplish the same task.

[oilfreeandhappy]

yikes...let me post it where someone can see....

this was my plan for producing a car-free/reduced car city..I take it seriously..and it will eventually be a 10-15 page report on my theories and why they work and benefit everyone..and I will present it to local governments combined with other reports done by other governments(like Oregon).

Enviromental impact would be less because because you'd have high density communities connected by train radiating into lower densities with rural density being achieved for 5-10 miles in cities connected by bike trail(paralleling train tracks to reduce impact.) The people who owned houses on these paths would not have developing rights so they couldnt sell the land to developers preserving a sense of place and forest conservation. In theory these communities connected by train could be 15-20 miles apart from the center city(radiating fashion), 4-10 miles apart from each other(in linear fashion), with hi-dense commercial/retail/low dense multi-fam residential employment centers 10-15 miles apart from the northernmost and southernmost poles of this theoretical circle.
Where do I sign up? I want to retire there.

[wahoonc]

Where do I sign up? I want to retire there.

When I hit time to retire I am going to be looking for a pedestrian/cycling friendly place to live, with reasonable weather. With global warming that might be Minneapolis-St Pauls:D Right now Portland, OR looks to be a leader but I have a few years to go...

Aaron:)

[deputyjones]

IIRC Baldhead Island allows golf carts and the EMS vehicles are electric too. What do they use on Makinac Island? I have no problem with limited use of specialized vehicles, the real problems come with unrestricted use of cars.

I am pretty sure Mackinac uses gas (or diesel) fire engines and ambulances (I have some friends that worked up there for the ambulance service). You are really only talking about a total of about 10 vehicles that only need to be used during an emergency though.

[donnamb]

When I hit time to retire I am going to be looking for a pedestrian/cycling friendly place to live, with reasonable weather. With global warming that might be Minneapolis-St Pauls:D Right now Portland, OR looks to be a leader but I have a few years to go...

Aaron:)
Aaron, if you're even remotely serious, start looking at real estate now. One of the disadvantages of creating a community that people want to live in is that property values go way up. Thus far, no bubble popping for Portland, either. :(

[oilfreeandhappy]

Great cycling and pedestrian facilities are a key. However I think a state-of-the-art transit system is also very important - Light rail connecting the City Central to the outer links, in every direction, Trollies or in-street rail cars down major shopping areas and the City Central, etc.

[wahoonc]

Aaron, if you're even remotely serious, start looking at real estate now. One of the disadvantages of creating a community that people want to live in is that property values go way up. Thus far, no bubble popping for Portland, either. :(

We are tentatively planning a trip out that way later this year...just don't know when.:rolleyes: the only one currently etched in stone is the one in September to New Brighton, MN for the ABCE Tour.
(http://www.abcetour.com/)
Aaron:)

[donnamb]

We are tentatively planning a trip out that way later this year...just don't know when.:rolleyes: the only one currently etched in stone is the one in September to New Brighton, MN for the ABCE Tour.
(http://www.abcetour.com/)
Aaron:)
When you know, PM me. There's nothing I enjoy more than showing potential Republic of Cascadia immigrants around. It would also give my some time to round up a pair of loaner bikes. :D

Beware, though: if randya gets wind of it, he won't stop until you agree to go Zoobombing. :p

[deputyjones]

Beware, though: if randya gets wind of it, he won't stop until you agree to go Zoobombing. :p

Since I had to look it up:

Zoobomb is a weekly bicycling activity in Portland, Oregon during which participants ride bicycles rapidly downhill. Zoobomb began in Fall of 2002.[1]


The riders make use of the Portland TriMet MAX (carrying their bikes) to travel to the Oregon Zoo stop, giving the event its name. From there, participants ride their bikes down the long, steep hills in the vicinity. This process is often repeated several times throughout the night.

There is an emphasis on unusual bicycles, first and foremost the children's bicycles or "minibikes," but extending to tall bikes, swing bikes, choppers, non-functional bicycles, etcetera. Though many riders bring their own bicycles, the participants maintain a "Zoobomb pile". This is a sculptural tower of minibikes anchored to a bicycle rack at the Zoobomb meeting point. These are spare bikes that are used as loaners for would-be Zoobombers who don't have their own bike. The pile has become a local landmark.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Zoobomb.gif

[wahoonc]

When you know, PM me. There's nothing I enjoy more than showing potential Republic of Cascadia immigrants around. It would also give my some time to round up a pair of loaner bikes. :D

Beware, though: if randya gets wind of it, he won't stop until you agree to go Zoobombing. :p

I always wanted to sponsor a downhill race after the Assault on Mount Mitchell (http://www.freewheelers.info/assault.html) IIRC the winning time is 5:20:00 or so:eek: with the last guys coming in around the 12 hour mark...I wonder how fast you could get down it..

Donna will do, I am trying to make it a driving trip (shhh don't tell anybody;) ) so I will have bicycles with me.:D

Aaron:)

[kf5nd]

http://www.evworld.com/library/gao_peakoil.pdf



Where is this report? Do you have a link?