As I made choices in my life I gravitated toward living in a place where car free is easy. I was thinking that if everyone who had an interest in ditching the car did the same thing that certain places would attract car free people creating a political climate to encourage more car free people to move there. This process would remove car free people from other areas creating a more intense car culture in those places. A similar thing happens with ethnic groups. Last year I went to a Smithsonian exhibit on refugees. They said the government settlement policy was to spead the refugees thinly across the country so they wouldn't form communities. The thing is that over the years they found each other and aggregated in certain areas. I wonder if other car free people have moved from car free unfriendly to car free friendly places? From the questions on this list it seems that some people are thinking that way. If enough people do it then we can look forward to regions where car free is the majority. I would worry that the anti-bike sentiments I experience in the suburbs or from suburbanites would intensify, making them even more dangerous for us.

Well, I found all the folks on Bike Fo. ;)




I lived in So Cal for many years, so it was naturally fairly easy. But now I moved to Little Rock and have searched for and found other cyclists so that I can improve things here.

You'd think so...but look at all the noncar free folks that frequent this forum.

I wonder if other car free people have moved from car free unfriendly to car free friendly places? From the questions on this list it seems that some people are thinking that way. If enough people do it then we can look forward to regions where car free is the majority.
Instead of moving to locations where most people don't use cars, it's much important for us to show, through our day-to-day actions, that it is possible to have a comfortable car-free or car-light lifestyle.

Without trying, we take on the role of evangelists or role models, showing others how to cut their dependence on automobiles. Others are watching us and some may eventually be interested in following our example.

If we live in car-free or car-light communities, the rest of our societies will not understand how our way of life can work for them.

Lately I've been looking for a new place to live. My current place is not at all bad for living car free. However, there are a hand full of magic neighborhoods in town that are superior in that respect.

I think once a neighborhood gets sprinkled with a little car free magic, it does start to attract people who take advantage of it. Then there is a positive feedback cycle. The neighborhood slowly develops more transit connections and things like bike paths. This process takes decades.

One magic neighborhood I'm looking at was a car only residential subdivision in 1972. Now 35 years later it looks like a perfectly feasible place for car free families to raise children. I'm trying to understand what were the original factors 35 years ago that started its development on the magic path.

The magic neighborhoods I've seen locally aren't exactly exclusive country club type developments with manicured landscaping. People who aren't looking at them with car free eyes would probably see them as depreciated and declined. However, if you look closer you may see a certain community spirit and people walking around on the sidewalks at all hours apparently feeling safe.

One magic neighborhood I'm looking at has two supermarkets, two pharmacies and a bank within 0.3 miles. Within a two mile radius are several major strip shopping centers with everything you need to support daily living, and also express buses to downtown. The strip centers have hidden back outlets to a grid of quiet, wide neighborhood streets, several with bike lanes and MUPs.

Instead of moving to locations where most people don't use cars, it's much important for us to show, through our day-to-day actions, that it is possible to have a comfortable car-free or car-light lifestyle.

Without trying, we take on the role of evangelists or role models, showing others how to cut their dependence on automobiles. Others are watching us and some may eventually be interested in following our example.

If we live in car-free or car-light communities, the rest of our societies will not understand how our way of life can work for them.

I understand that. I come from a long line of missionaries who were preaching in the wilderness and spreading the gospel.

But I also understand the OP's point, that in grouping together there is power. That immigrants cluster together because by doing so, they can nurture their culture more and live it more. I used to work in a factory where there were many Hmong employed. Not only did their social structure increase their productivity because to do well not only benefited them good as individuals, but also meant their friends would likely be hired. This increased everyone's income because more Hmong got employed and the leaders within the group also became the supervisors in the company.

As a cyclist, being a solitary car-free cyclist its very difficult to be car-free. You struggle with a structure that is adapted to car-dependent living. You are just an exception. And perhaps you cannot be as fully car-free because you must deal with the car-dependent structure instead of flourishing within a car-free structure.

For example, instead of roads, there are bike paths. Instead of freeways there are trains that accept cars full of bicycles and their riders. Stores have no parking lots but bike racks. The cities are smaller because of the lack of parking lots, freeways and large highways, so there is more green space within the city and around it. Neighborhoods are not walled in, but rather small zones centered on parks, surrounded by small stores, the stores keep costs low by being connected by internet so that many things can be ordered rather than wasting space being stocked on the floor. In the parks are small community centers for neighbors to meet, interact and work together.

This is just a theoretical example, so don't get bogged down in the details and whether they would or would not happen. The whole point is that a bike-centric urban area would be very different from a car-centric urban area. And that this kind of synergy that would create a unique bike-centric lifestyle won't happen to solitary car-free cyclists, and even if they can imagine such a place in their hearts, there is no way they can make the car-centric concieve it to want it. So the car centric remain ignorant and the solitary car-free cyclists continue to struggle within the dominant paradigm. It's very literally the difference between Isla Vista, Santa Cruz and Los Angeles.

So no matter where you are, like the immigrants living within a foreign culture, you must join together with your fellow car-free humans to create a center of your own culture.

Instead of moving to locations where most people don't use cars, it's much important for us to show, through our day-to-day actions, that it is possible to have a comfortable car-free or car-light lifestyle.

Without trying, we take on the role of evangelists or role models, showing others how to cut their dependence on automobiles. Others are watching us and some may eventually be interested in following our example.

If we live in car-free or car-light communities, the rest of our societies will not understand how our way of life can work for them.

I think your expectations of your fellow Americans are way to high. I will be happy if people just stop driving to gyms that are 5 minutes walk away and stop driving absurdly large SUVS and pickup trucks (or SUVs at at all).

I'm car-light because I enjoy walking and cycling a lot more than I enjoy driving. But I doubt I would have realized the possibilites of going car-light if I hadn't seen others around me practicing it.

Instead of moving to locations where most people don't use cars, it's much important for us to show, through our day-to-day actions, that it is possible to have a comfortable car-free or car-light lifestyle.

This is an excellent point. I think that leading by example tends to illustrate an ideal without the necessary polarization that segregation might lead to. After all (to quote Red Green), "We're all in this together."

Of course there will be people who just don't 'get it.' And that's fine. I'm not riding my bike to educate people. If someone asks me why I'm riding my bike [in really inclement weather as an example], I'll tell them I'm car free.

And as most of you can appreciate, as soon as you tell them this, you're almost immediately questioned with scenarios that are problematic for cyclists. If they generally seem curious (as opposed to just debating the issue), I'll elaborate - otherwise I'll leave it at that.

I make decisions about where I may live, with respect to where I may be working, what the community has to offer, year round weather, infrastructure, and (probably what most can be associated with the OP's question)...how much of a green philosophy exists there. So I do choose to surround myself with like-minded people, but a lot of them still have cars.

I understand that. I come from a long line of missionaries who were preaching in the wilderness and spreading the gospel.

But I also understand the OP's point, that in grouping together there is power. .....


So no matter where you are, like the immigrants living within a foreign culture, you must join together with your fellow car-free humans to create a center of your own culture.

Actually, I was just remarking that it seems to be a natural human tendency. Not that we must do it or that it is good but we like to do it. You have given some explanations as to why it might be a good idea for car free people to flock together in communities. If we spread thinly across the country as our numbers increase we might have a different effect on the dominant culture than if we clump together. It seems to me that the spread thinly model is more difficult to achieve because some car free people would have to voluntarily live in places where car free is difficult and thus go against their own path of least resistance.

As I made choices in my life I gravitated toward living in a place where car free is easy. I was thinking that if everyone who had an interest in ditching the car did the same thing that certain places would attract car free people creating a political climate to encourage more car free people to move there. This process would remove car free people from other areas creating a more intense car culture in those places. A similar thing happens with ethnic groups. Last year I went to a Smithsonian exhibit on refugees. They said the government settlement policy was to spead the refugees thinly across the country so they wouldn't form communities. The thing is that over the years they found each other and aggregated in certain areas. I wonder if other car free people have moved from car free unfriendly to car free friendly places? From the questions on this list it seems that some people are thinking that way. If enough people do it then we can look forward to regions where car free is the majority. I would worry that the anti-bike sentiments I experience in the suburbs or from suburbanites would intensify, making them even more dangerous for us.

To be totally car-free, one must be able to ignore the anti bike/walking/mass transit bias anywhere and choose to do what you do because simply that is what you want to do with your life. I live in Southern California, where cars and other vehicles were/are king for many, many years. It is changing since people can't simply afford to fill up and pay for vehicle expensives (insurance, maintenance, liability, etc.) any longer. The middle class lifestyle is moving far beyond most people can afford now.

To be totally car-free, one must be able to ignore the anti bike/walking/mass transit bias anywhere and choose to do what you do because simply that is what you want to do with your life.

So, when we avoid going to certain parts of town because of the hostility toward bikes we're not car free because we're still being controlled by the car culture? This is a point of view that I haven't been exposed to before. I'm reading two points of view on this thread; car-free people aggregating themselves into communities is a good thing, or something to be avoided.

To be totally car-free, one must be able to ignore the anti bike/walking/mass transit bias anywhere and choose to do what you do because simply that is what you want to do with your life. I live in Southern California, where cars and other vehicles were/are king for many, many years. It is changing since people can't simply afford to fill up and pay for vehicle expensives (insurance, maintenance, liability, etc.) any longer. The middle class lifestyle is moving far beyond most people can afford now.

Very, very good point.

I understand that. I come from a long line of missionaries who were preaching in the wilderness and spreading the gospel.

But I also understand the OP's point, that in grouping together there is power. That immigrants cluster together because by doing so, they can nurture their culture more and live it more. I used to work in a factory where there were many Hmong employed. Not only did their social structure increase their productivity because to do well not only benefited them good as individuals, but also meant their friends would likely be hired. This increased everyone's income because more Hmong got employed and the leaders within the group also became the supervisors in the company.

As a cyclist, being a solitary car-free cyclist its very difficult to be car-free. You struggle with a structure that is adapted to car-dependent living. You are just an exception. And perhaps you cannot be as fully car-free because you must deal with the car-dependent structure instead of flourishing within a car-free structure.

For example, instead of roads, there are bike paths. Instead of freeways there are trains that accept cars full of bicycles and their riders. Stores have no parking lots but bike racks. The cities are smaller because of the lack of parking lots, freeways and large highways, so there is more green space within the city and around it. Neighborhoods are not walled in, but rather small zones centered on parks, surrounded by small stores, the stores keep costs low by being connected by internet so that many things can be ordered rather than wasting space being stocked on the floor. In the parks are small community centers for neighbors to meet, interact and work together.

This is just a theoretical example, so don't get bogged down in the details and whether they would or would not happen. The whole point is that a bike-centric urban area would be very different from a car-centric urban area. And that this kind of synergy that would create a unique bike-centric lifestyle won't happen to solitary car-free cyclists, and even if they can imagine such a place in their hearts, there is no way they can make the car-centric concieve it to want it. So the car centric remain ignorant and the solitary car-free cyclists continue to struggle within the dominant paradigm. It's very literally the difference between Isla Vista, Santa Cruz and Los Angeles.

So no matter where you are, like the immigrants living within a foreign culture, you must join together with your fellow car-free humans to create a center of your own culture.


i like your theoretical example....live smaller and simpler.....not sure it'll ever happen but it sure would be nice

theres somethin about knowing for sure that you'll have no chance of getting hit by a car....would make more people get out there and ride

altho getting a firetruck or an ambulance down a bike path wont be easy unless its a one car lane size bike path.......could work

id move there tomorrow

One magic neighborhood I'm looking at was a car only residential subdivision in 1972. Now 35 years later it looks like a perfectly feasible place for car free families to raise children. I'm trying to understand what were the original factors 35 years ago that started its development on the magic path.

This is an aspect we sometimes forget. Suburbs that originally started as "car-only" may get zoned for a commercial development that makes some amenities close and walkable. I think the neighbourhood I live in would have been more isolated years ago.

I guess if people start walking and biking in a suburb, maybe after time it becomes a neighbourhood?

i like your theoretical example....live smaller and simpler.....not sure it'll ever happen but it sure would be nice

theres somethin about knowing for sure that you'll have no chance of getting hit by a car....would make more people get out there and ride

altho getting a firetruck or an ambulance down a bike path wont be easy unless its a one car lane size bike path.......could work

id move there tomorrow

You don't really NEED to get a firetruck or ambulance down a bike path... options for tending to injuries and such include porting the person out on a stokes-type stretcher, or even using a bicycle ambulance. When my wife sprained her ankle 3/4 mile up a trail, the park rangers carried her out on the stretcher, as there was no way possible to get a helicopter to the area, and it was up a narrow canyon... no way to get motorized or other transport up there.

The problem with having bike paths that are car-width and longer and accessible to cars is that people WILL drive on them! In NYC a cyclist was killed on a segregated bike path by a car driving down it... others have said that it's not that uncommon for someone to use that particular path as a shortcut!

The Platte River Trail here in Denver is wide enough to drive on.... I've seen railroad trucks driving on it, police cars, parks and rec vehicles and huge gas powered lawnmowers. Never seen a private vehicle on it, though.

more than 1/2 the people here in my apt complex are car free, real easy to see why too

cheap to live in, less than 1.5 miles to center of downtown, right off the main east west road, and most things close at hand even if you have to walk

this whole area all around downtown is easily suited for car free, long time ago it used to be served by street cars

I moved here on purpose, living 11 miles west of downtown made no sense, not and be car free and work downtown. Although plenty of people do it, but I'd much rather travel at my own pace than do the bus.

We're looking for a new place to live... concentrating on two neighborhoods... one is south of downtown, right next to the lightrail and has tons of shops, stores, and restaurants within walking distance

the other is about 1.5 or 2 miles from downtown, near the city park and zoo... also lots of smaller stores and restaurants in the area... plus this area is very close to our doctors.


We're currently about 10 miles from downtown... the nearest grocery store is almost 2 miles away. And the nearest convenience stores are almost as far... it really sucks when you want a soda and don't feel like a 3+ mile ride to go get it. :(

My SO (significant other) just put in an offer on a house in the magic neighborhood I mentioned earlier. It's equally convenient for car based or car free living. The topography is flat for about two miles in any direction, which is unusual for Austin. There's about a 50% price premium compared to car dependent suburbs much further out.

There are two major grocery stores each about 3 blocks away. The neighborhood is bikeable with plenty of short cuts available. I think cars and bikes can co exist comfortably there. Transit is a bit weak, but since neither of us is employed that's not a critical issue, it's a 2.5 mile bike ride to pick up the express bus to downtown. Austin is way behind the curve on light rail, so that wasn't a consideration.

We should have more discussions on LCF about how to evaluate a neighborhood for car free living. You can't generalize it as downtown=good and suburb=bad. There are many important subtleties and fine points, and there may be several strategies to consider. SO and I have learned a lot about what makes a good car free neighborhood by reading LCF, everyone seems to have good insights into important issues.

You'd think so...but look at all the noncar free folks that frequent this forum.

Exactly, there is no way it would work. As soon as you have an area set up for car free, it will be so nice that car-lite and car-classic and car-bingeing folks will want to live there. Once they set up home in the area they will start whining about all sorts of excuses (like you see posts about here every day or so) for why they need a car and therefore why the local taxes should start being used to accomadate them.

The liberterian party has been trying something similar for years, but they are divided between whether the state they want to take over is on the east or west coast.

You don't really NEED to get a firetruck or ambulance down a bike path... options for tending to injuries and such include porting the person out on a stokes-type stretcher, or even using a bicycle ambulance. When my wife sprained her ankle 3/4 mile up a trail, the park rangers carried her out on the stretcher, as there was no way possible to get a helicopter to the area, and it was up a narrow canyon... no way to get motorized or other transport up there.

The problem with having bike paths that are car-width and longer and accessible to cars is that people WILL drive on them! In NYC a cyclist was killed on a segregated bike path by a car driving down it... others have said that it's not that uncommon for someone to use that particular path as a shortcut!

The Platte River Trail here in Denver is wide enough to drive on.... I've seen railroad trucks driving on it, police cars, parks and rec vehicles and huge gas powered lawnmowers. Never seen a private vehicle on it, though.

In my neighborhood the cops sometimes drive down the sidewalk or the train tracks because the car lane is one way!

Exactly, there is no way it would work. As soon as you have an area set up for car free, it will be so nice that car-lite and car-classic and car-bingeing folks will want to live there. Once they set up home in the area they will start whining about all sorts of excuses (like you see posts about here every day or so) for why they need a car and therefore why the local taxes should start being used to accomadate them.

I think this counter force to car free segregation happened in my neighborhood. I and some of my neighbors sold our cars when we arrived. Newer arrivals don't seem to get it. Even if they bike to work and walk to the stores and clubs they keep their cars and complain bitterly to the local council member about the lack of parking and parking enforcement when they block emergency lanes. It seems like they're trying to destroy the ambiance that attracted them to the neighborhood in the first place.

It seems like they're trying to destroy the ambiance that attracted them to the neighborhood in the first place.

I think this might be a major part of the "human condition". For example 20 years ago people started moving to Phoenix from the northern midwest in droves. They got there and loved the change in climate; but the first thing they started doing was figuring out how to grow a lawn like they had back in Illinois (answer: you water it with 10's of gallons a day). Result: in not to long a time there will be some pretty major water problems in Phoenix.