Living Car Free - WSJ Article

WSJ advises car free, or at least car-lite. (http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122996650443826683.html)

Unfortunately the WSJ isn't read by the very people who need this info. :(

Posting this link on this web site helps but it really should be e-mailed to your friends and family.

Believe me, I have. But I have a feeling that not too many people on this board read the WSJ very often.

When you see this kind of article in the Wall Street Journal, you've got to think things are changing...



These are not trifling costs. Drivers are hemhorraging money. The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics calculated that in 2006 vehicles sucked down nearly 17 cents of every family dollar.

Maybe it's time for smart families to consider some really tough choices.

Life without a car may seem inconceivable. They are useful and can be fun. In most parts of America, you really can't survive without one. And they've been hammered into the culture and the national psyche.

But a lot of things are happening these days that nobody expected. Rules are changing. People need to make every dollar count.

Trading down to the cheapest car possible is one move. Dumping one vehicle from a two-car household is tougher to do, but offers real savings. Moving into a city with a downtown, and getting rid of your cars completely, can save you even more. When you factor in the savings, city real estate might actually work out in your favor.

WSJ advises car free, or at least car-lite. (http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122996650443826683.html)

Good article. Thanks for posting.


I emailed the writer and thanked him for the excellent article. I also gave him a link to our website and forum.

From the article:

"Drivers are hemhorraging money. The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics calculated that in 2006 vehicles sucked down nearly 17 cents of every family dollar."

I think that says it all and why most of us became car free. When you're spending 17% of your income on a motorcar, it effects your whole lifestyle to the detriment. People don't believe me when I state that 150 years from now, our great, great grand children will be car free. I don't believe this percentage will go down and in fact, will go up as the price of petrol increases with each decade.

In about 50 years, I suspect this number will be 40% of every family dollar or more for those who want to remain dependant on motor transport.

This is really interesting; when a writer in the WSJ is, in all seriousness, advising his readers to ditch one or more of their cars if they can, you know we're in in the midst of something significant.

Believe me, I have. But I have a feeling that not too many people on this board read the WSJ very often.

Almost every day since 1979.

Overall the article is great in that anything that makes us carfree people seem less insane is a good thing. However, I do wish that the writer had not focused on ONLY the cost benefits of not owning a car. Sure they are important but it just furthers the stereotype that people who choose not to own a car do it because they cant afford it, or because the economy is bad right now. Am I reading too much into this or what? Correct me if I am wrong but I just feel like money is not the only benefit or necessarily even the primary benefit of the carfree lifestyle.

I think the writer is a personal finance columnist. It's his job to write about ways that people can save money or grow their investments. I think he is letting people know they can/should challenge their assumptions about how many cars the average household should own, and the financial benefits of doing so.

So, yes, you are reading too much into this.

Correct me if I am wrong but I just feel like money is not the only benefit or necessarily even the primary benefit of the carfree lifestyle.
Enlighten me, if not money, what is the primary benefit of the car free lifestyle that the WSJ writer should be promoting? The inner peace derived from asceticism?

Perhaps your definition of car free lifestyle would be enlightening, and what it requires besides voluntarily doing without a privately owned motorized vehicle.

Good article. Thanks for posting.


I emailed the writer and thanked him for the excellent article. I also gave him a link to our website and forum.

From the article:

"Drivers are hemhorraging money. The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics calculated that in 2006 vehicles sucked down nearly 17 cents of every family dollar."

I think that says it all and why most of us became car free. When you're spending 17% of your income on a motorcar, it effects your whole lifestyle to the detriment. People don't believe me when I state that 150 years from now, our great, great grand children will be car free. I don't believe this percentage will go down and in fact, will go up as the price of petrol increases with each decade.

In about 50 years, I suspect this number will be 40% of every family dollar or more for those who want to remain dependant on motor transport.

I cannot find the source but IIRC in the 1920's the expense of owning a car was over the 20% mark of the average salary at that time. The article I read had a table showing the costs of every thing as a percentage of median income from around 1920 up thru 2002. Interesting to see how people's spending has changed over the years.

I also agree with Steve that the total percentage cost of owning cars is going to increase...for two reasons, increased cost of fuel as well as overall reduction in salaries.

Aaron:)

Enlighten me, if not money, what is the primary benefit of the car free lifestyle that the WSJ writer should be promoting? The inner peace derived from asceticism?

Perhaps your definition of car free lifestyle would be enlightening, and what it requires besides voluntarily doing without a privately owned motorized vehicle.

I think you're just pickin' on zeppinger.

For me--and I'm pretty sure this is true for you also--there are many advantages of less reliance on the car, besides just saving money. It seems pointless to detail these other benefits since you know them as well as I do.

About the only thing the article could have used more of was the how. No real info on ways you could ditch a car, like cycling or transit. I thought he also put too much emphasis on living downtown to do it. Plenty of cities have good transit infrastructure or good cycling infrastructure to make it possible.

About the only thing the article could have used more of was the how. No real info on ways you could ditch a car, like cycling or transit. I thought he also put too much emphasis on living downtown to do it. Plenty of cities have good transit infrastructure or good cycling infrastructure to make it possible.

And even more don't...:(

I think the article was well written and it was written from a financial point of view. Perhaps some references to where to find more information on car light/free would have been in order. But hey it was the WSJ and that is about as mainstream as you can get.

Aaron:)

I think you're just pickin' on zeppinger.

For me--and I'm pretty sure this is true for you also--there are many advantages of less reliance on the car, besides just saving money. It seems pointless to detail these other benefits since you know them as well as I do.

I still want to know what he thinks are the primary reasons, other than financial, for adapting the vague concept of a car free lifestyle? Especially reasons that might sway a non true believer in asceticism.

This article might persuade someone that riding bicycles is frugal by recognizing the opportunity cost of giving up a car for greater financial flexibility to save for something or pay off bills (a good solid choice). If one is able to do this and takes the advice of the article -then score 1 for our obscure community and Brett Arends.

I think the article was well written and it was written from a financial point of view
Aaron:)

There really are no ways to cut back anymore. Think about it, the auto is the second largest expense other than housing. Other than moving the whole family into a flop house, you really can't cut back anymore.

Food is expensive period. Cut back here and you're stuck eating can foods with loads of salt, sugar and chemicals. Utilities, home heating are expensive and are a requirement. Telephone or Cell phone are a requirement today. So what are you left with to cut back? Entertainment? cable? Clothing?

Come on..

There really are no ways to cut back anymore. Think about it, the auto is the second largest expense other than housing. Other than moving the whole family into a flop house, you really can't cut back anymore.

Food is expensive period. Cut back here and you're stuck eating can foods with loads of salt, sugar and chemicals. Utilities, home heating are expensive and are a requirement. Telephone or Cell phone are a requirement today. So what are you left with to cut back? Entertainment? cable? Clothing?

Come on..

The average American could stand to cut back on foods, way to many consume empty calorie processed foods. A basic cellphone is fine, I see grade school kids with better phones than I have. For the past 50+ years the US has been in a high consumption mode, it couldn't last forever. I know plenty of people that do just fine without cellphones, clothing? as long as you are covered and warm you are good to go, designer stuff is over priced and over rated. Entertainment? Just how do entertainers get paid? IMHO it damn sure isn't for the quality stuff that I see coming out of Hollywood. I attend free concerts in the park, if I want to hear some awesome blues there are 3 guys that play pretty regularly down at my local train station...for tips. People have plenty of places they can cut back, problem is too many have become accustomed to living way beyond their means and now is the time for adjustment.

Aaron:)

The public library is free, and you can get most of your entertainment there. As for clothing, you can by basic stuff, not designer. You can even go to Goodwill/Salvation Army/St. Vincent's and get used. You could also learn to sew and make your own. As for housing, many people are 'overhoused'--if that is a word.

There really are no ways to cut back anymore. Think about it, the auto is the second largest expense other than housing. Other than moving the whole family into a flop house, you really can't cut back anymore.

Food is expensive period. Cut back here and you're stuck eating can foods with loads of salt, sugar and chemicals. Utilities, home heating are expensive and are a requirement. Telephone or Cell phone are a requirement today. So what are you left with to cut back? Entertainment? cable? Clothing?

Come on..

Dahon, I'm suprized at you :eek: and disappointed :notamused: that you are being so narrow minded.

Your point quoted just reeked with "everybody else can suffer but not me" so I suggest that you
take time to learn the ways of the past when people didn't have and didn't need the modern
gee whiz stuff we take for granted today. There IS life without ALL of the modern stuff of today.

There really are no ways to cut back anymore. Think about it, the auto is the second largest expense other than housing. Other than moving the whole family into a flop house, you really can't cut back anymore.
..

Unfortunately, we may start seeing middle-class families in these conditions pretty soon.

Dahon, I'm suprized at you :eek: and disappointed :notamused: that you are being so narrow minded.

Your point quoted just reeked with "everybody else can suffer but not me" so I suggest that you
take time to learn the ways of the past when people didn't have and didn't need the modern
gee whiz stuff we take for granted today. There IS life without ALL of the modern stuff of today.

But I think Steve's main point was valid. Yes, peopl could cut back on communications and entertainment, but the real expenses are housing and transportation. Any significant cutbacks or savings will usually be in those areas.

OTOH, even the "bargain" prices of $100/month for phone, internet and cable TV are pretty steep. Add in $75 or more for a cell phone, and some people might be able to cut back there. Personally, I don't have internet access at home, cable TV or a land line phone. My cell phone is pay-as-you-go and costs a little over 10 cents a minute. I still manage to stay entertained and in touch with friends and family.

Dahon, I'm suprized at you :eek: and disappointed :notamused: that you are being so narrow minded.

Your point quoted just reeked with "everybody else can suffer but not me" so I suggest that you
take time to learn the ways of the past when people didn't have and didn't need the modern
gee whiz stuff we take for granted today. There IS life without ALL of the modern stuff of today.

You misunderstood me.

Personally, I don't know where to cut back anymore that will create a substantial savings. Utilities, food, clothing and even public transportation are all expensive. Even if you cook all your food, stop eating out and cut the cable television, you're probably saving $50-75 dollars a week depending on the size of the family.

I can just imagine if I had a house with the property taxes in my city going through the roof! Home heating oil is just outrageous and between these cost and a huge mortgage, there is just very little money left. Most families would just "Get By" if they had only these costs to support. However, if you want to add one or two motorcars into this equation, then unless you expand your income, there is no way you can cut back enough on the above to pay for the car(s). Anything else is penny pinching.

"A Real Auto Bailout: Escape Your Car"

That was the title of the article that stated this thread. It's the only bailout the American pubic is going to see!

You misunderstood me.

Personally, I don't know where to cut back anymore that will create a substantial savings. Utilities, food, clothing and even public transportation are all expensive.

"Expensive" is relative. "Expensive" compared to what?


Even if you cook all your food, stop eating out and cut the cable television, you're probably saving $50-75 dollars a week depending on the size of the family.

$50-$75/week can add up pretty quickly.


I can just imagine if I had a house with the property taxes in my city going through the roof! Home heating oil is just outrageous

Then don't heat with oil! There are other ways. Electric and natural gas cost less. And, by adding a little more insulation, you can cut down on your heating costs.


and between these cost and a huge mortgage, there is just very little money left. Most families would just "Get By" if they had only these costs to support.

Then don't have a 'huge' mortgage. I know many people who have more house than they need.


That was the title of the article that stated this thread. It's the only bailout the American pubic is going to see![/QUOTE]

"Expensive" is relative. "Expensive" compared to what?



Then don't heat with oil! There are other ways. Electric and natural gas cost less. And, by adding a little more insulation, you can cut down on your heating costs.

![/QUOTE]

Five years ago it cost $160/month to heat a two-room apartment using electric baseboards. Kept the thermostat @ 60 degrees, too.

It might be a positive sign in negative times, up 'til six months ago WSJ was debating whether it was better to light cigars with 100 or 50 dollar bills, and defining "sacrifice" as giving up designer jeans and an iPod Nano for Christmas.

"I still want to know what he thinks are the primary reasons, other than financial, for adapting the vague concept of a car free lifestyle? Especially reasons that might sway a non true believer in asceticism."

Some people just plain do not like driving, they dont like parking, or burning oil and causing warfare to fuel our "vague concept of a car-SUV-dependent lifestyle." Some people choose to be car free to lose weight and become more healthy. Some people, now get out a pen and paper because this one is really hard to think up yourself I-Like-To-Bike, just plain enjoy riding a bike as a mode of transit. Roody is right, take a look at ANY other post on this forum and you can come up with loads of other important, and yes even primary, reasons that someone would choose to ride a bike rather than a car. You act as if in a world where cars were given away and ran on pure air, no one would choose any other mode of transportation. Personally, I dont like car culture or the way Americans think of themselves as individuals rather than a part of a much larger whole. Which is one reason everyone here thinks that it is their God given right to drive a 5,000 pound death machine wherever they want to go at a moments notice. Environment and cost of human life be-damned.

Thats my rant for the day, thank you :)

"I still want to know what he thinks are the primary reasons, other than financial, for adapting the vague concept of a car free lifestyle? Especially reasons that might sway a non true believer in asceticism."

Some people just plain do not like driving, they dont like parking, or burning oil and causing warfare to fuel our "vague concept of a car-SUV-dependent lifestyle." Some people choose to be car free to lose weight and become more healthy. Some people, now get out a pen and paper because this one is really hard to think up yourself I-Like-To-Bike, just plain enjoy riding a bike as a mode of transit. Roody is right, take a look at ANY other post on this forum and you can come up with loads of other important, and yes even primary, reasons that someone would choose to ride a bike rather than a car. You act as if in a world where cars were given away and ran on pure air, no one would choose any other mode of transportation. Personally, I dont like car culture or the way Americans think of themselves as individuals rather than a part of a much larger whole. Which is one reason everyone here thinks that it is their God given right to drive a 5,000 pound death machine wherever they want to go at a moments notice. Environment and cost of human life be-damned.

Thats my rant for the day, thank you :)

Got it. You feel that riding a bike is a black or white, right or wrong lifestyle choice, and those who choose to ride a bike have made their lifestyle bones (like you) and are now entitled to ride it like a High Horse of Moral Superiority. I can see how that would be be a priority for someone who gets all self righteous because he rides a bike.

Five years ago it cost $160/month to heat a two-room apartment using electric baseboards. Kept the thermostat @ 60 degrees, too.

And how much would it have cost if you had been using an oil furnace?

what I find funny is that the price of 1 gallon of gas is about HALF the price of 1 gallon of milk.

"Got it. You feel that riding a bike is a black or white, right or wrong lifestyle choice, and those who choose to ride a bike have made their lifestyle bones (like you) and are now entitled to ride it like a High Horse of Moral Superiority. I can see how that would be be a priority for someone who gets all self righteous because he rides a bike."

I don't think that I was self righteous. My original point was simply that there are many reasons other than financial ones, that a person might choose to ride a bike. I never said that it was necessarily a lifestyle choice. You could choose to take the bike to work one and the car the next, what difference does it make anyways? I don't understand why you are crusading against me. If you want to have some big moral dilemma about other peoples choices of transportation.... be my guest. I was being polite and making a point, which still stands. I also think a lot of people on this forum would agree with me. I also never said that riding a bike was "right or wrong, black or white." You ASKED for examples of why OTHER people may choose cycling over driving. Sorry for answering your question. Not...

You ASKED for examples of why OTHER people may choose cycling over driving. Sorry for answering your question. Not...

You are correct, NOT. I asked about your statement about the non monetary PRIMARY reasons of those who choose a car free LIFESTYLE. Whatever a car free LIFESTYLE happens to entail according to you.

NOT about reasons or benefits for choosing whether to ride bicycle or a privately owned motor vehicle for various trips.

Bottom Line: What is this so-called CAR FREE LIFESTYLE and what priorities/beliefs/values are expected to be a member of the lifestyle club? A lot of people who live in abject poverty and misery would be members of the Car Free Lifestyle if the only qualification is not owning a motorized vehicle. Are bikes required? Good health? Ascetic values? Underutilized College Education? Rejection of parents' values? What?

You misunderstood me.

Personally, I don't know where to cut back anymore that will create a substantial savings. Utilities, food, clothing and even public transportation are all expensive. Even if you cook all your food, stop eating out and cut the cable television, you're probably saving $50-75 dollars a week depending on the size of the family.

I can just imagine if I had a house with the property taxes in my city going through the roof! Home heating oil is just outrageous and between these cost and a huge mortgage, there is just very little money left. Most families would just "Get By" if they had only these costs to support. However, if you want to add one or two motorcars into this equation, then unless you expand your income, there is no way you can cut back enough on the above to pay for the car(s). Anything else is penny pinching.

"A Real Auto Bailout: Escape Your Car"

That was the title of the article that stated this thread. It's the only bailout the American pubic is going to see!

I'm sorry but when I read a post like this I see "I don't wanna change" or "I don't wanna think
outside the box" to find real ,and sometimes gritty, ways to save and survive.

I'd strongly suggest that you re-think your personal paridgms and prioritys to find ways to live
better for less today. After all it is possible and IS being done by millions.

This might be of interest. (http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/123121951587500.xml&coll=7)

And this. (http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/2009/01/09/end-of-the-car-as-status-symbol/)

This might be of interest. (http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/123121951587500.xml&coll=7)

And this. (http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/2009/01/09/end-of-the-car-as-status-symbol/)

It may be happening in Japan, but the seeds of this trend are firmly embedded in US youth. I keep running into younger commuters who seem to be more inclined to step away from the motor car. Mostly, I think it's the high cost of motoring for people under 25.

Unfortunately, they don't stick with it over the winter. Mainly because the backup to biking -- public transportation -- is pretty tenuous. If public transportation was better here, I think I'd see more young people without cars.

I'm sorry but when I read a post like this I see "I don't wanna change" or "I don't wanna think
outside the box" to find real ,and sometimes gritty, ways to save and survive.

I'd strongly suggest that you re-think your personal paridgms and prioritys to find ways to live
better for less today. After all it is possible and IS being done by millions.

I think you're misunderstanding Steve a bit. He's basically saying that the house and the car are the low hanging fruits in the househiod budget. He agrees with you that it is possible and desirable to save moneys in other budget items, but your efforts there will never be as "fruitful" as efforts to cut back in housing and transportation. Ditch a car and you might save $600 a month (or much more). Ditch your cable TV and you'll not save much more than $50 to $100. Steve isn't saying that it's bad to save the $50--just that it's even better to save the $600.

It may be happening in Japan, but the seeds of this trend are firmly embedded in US youth. I keep running into younger commuters who seem to be more inclined to step away from the motor car. Mostly, I think it's the high cost of motoring for people under 25.

Unfortunately, they don't stick with it over the winter. Mainly because the backup to biking -- public transportation -- is pretty tenuous. If public transportation was better here, I think I'd see more young people without cars.

Japan's economy has been in recession since those 25 year olds were little kids. If our recession lasts that long, you'll for sure see a carfree trend among our twenty-somethings.

You are correct, NOT. I asked about your statement about the non monetary PRIMARY reasons of those who choose a car free LIFESTYLE. Whatever a car free LIFESTYLE happens to entail according to you.

NOT about reasons or benefits for choosing whether to ride bicycle or a privately owned motor vehicle for various trips.

Bottom Line: What is this so-called CAR FREE LIFESTYLE and what priorities/beliefs/values are expected to be a member of the lifestyle club? A lot of people who live in abject poverty and misery would be members of the Car Free Lifestyle if the only qualification is not owning a motorized vehicle. Are bikes required? Good health? Ascetic values? Underutilized College Education? Rejection of parents' values? What?

As usual, you read way too much into the phrase "carfree lifestyle." It just means the way of living of a person who doesn't own or use a car, as contrasted with friends, neighbors and relatives who do own cars.

Your diatribes on this non-issue remind me of Fox News's "War on Christmas"--a big brouhaha about absolutely nothing.

As usual, you read way too much into the phrase "carfree lifestyle." It just means the way of living of a person who doesn't own or use a car, as contrasted with friends, neighbors and relatives who do own cars.

Your diatribes on this non-issue remind me of Fox News's "War on Christmas"--a big brouhaha about absolutely nothing.

I'll remember your definition of the phrase car free lifestyle the next time one of our BF car free lifestyle comrades brings up the issue of the evils of TV, pop culture, fast food, suburban living, materialism or any other of the rash of non-bicycling related assumptions made about the desirable lifestyle priorities and preferences of the Car Free Club.

as usual, you read way too much into the phrase "carfree lifestyle." it just means the way of living of a person who doesn't own or use a car, as contrasted with friends, neighbors and relatives who do own cars.

Your diatribes on this non-issue remind me of fox news's "war on christmas"--a big brouhaha about absolutely nothing.

+1

I'll remember your definition of the phrase car free lifestyle the next time one of our BF car free lifestyle comrades brings up the issue of the evils of TV, pop culture, fast food, suburban living, materialism or any other of the rash of non-bicycling related assumptions made about the desirable lifestyle priorities and preferences of the Car Free Club.

These are certainly evils, against which we should struggle, but they are only tangentally (at best) related to bicycling.

And how much would it have cost if you had been using an oil furnace?

I'm sure a lot less. to heat a five-room house in 2002/3 I spent about $275 for heating oil which lasted 2 1/2 months. More square footage to heat, less expense.

I think you're misunderstanding Steve a bit. He's basically saying that the house and the car are the low hanging fruits in the househiod budget. He agrees with you that it is possible and desirable to save moneys in other budget items, but your efforts there will never be as "fruitful" as efforts to cut back in housing and transportation. Ditch a car and you might save $600 a month (or much more). Ditch your cable TV and you'll not save much more than $50 to $100. Steve isn't saying that it's bad to save the $50--just that it's even better to save the $600.

No, not true at all. Life is a series of nickles & dimes so just picking the low hanging fruit does little
but make you feel better. The REAL effort (and what I was talking about) ,and real reward, comes in
all those nickles & dimes you find to elimnate from your personal wastful spending habits.

Let's not miss the fact that a few solid successes with savings from low hanging fruit will help
anyone go after the savings that require some life changes to get.

No, not true at all. Life is a series of nickles & dimes so just picking the low hanging fruit does little
but make you feel better. The REAL effort (and what I was talking about) ,and real reward, comes in
all those nickles & dimes you find to elimnate from your personal wastful spending habits.

Let's not miss the fact that a few solid successes with savings from low hanging fruit will help
anyone go after the savings that require some life changes to get.

I totally agree with you, and I have a feeling that Steve does too.

I'm sure a lot less. to heat a five-room house in 2002/3 I spent about $275 for heating oil which lasted 2 1/2 months. More square footage to heat, less expense.

Precisely; 'expensive' always begs the question of 'as compared to what.'

Gas would probably have been less still.

All the articles I see seems to be with the idea of a city that has decent public transit and the layout of the city is decent enough so you can get to places easily enough on a bike. However, in sprawling cities where they just build houses upon houses and put in strip mall here and there, public transit wasn't considered.

Here in Omaha the further you live west, the less public transit there is and there isn't any good bike paths that run east/west of the city - just bike paths that follow creeks; some of those don't connect to all of them anyway.

I think with the current price of fuel, people are not going to sell the car and start using mass transit nor are cities going to start up mass transit. If the fuel prices remained at $3.50 and up, then people would be changing their ways.

For me, I know that the last few budgets (every 2 weeks) the fuel budget has been a lot lower due to the lower price of fuel, however with me commuting to work, it has really helped too.

Michael

All the articles I see seems to be with the idea of a city that has decent public transit and the layout of the city is decent enough so you can get to places easily enough on a bike. However, in sprawling cities where they just build houses upon houses and put in strip mall here and there, public transit wasn't considered.

Then such cities will become less attractive in the future; people will not want to move there, and people who are there already will wish to move away.

Obviously you meant adopting.

"Vague concept"? There is nothing vague or conceptual about something that I live every day. It is concrete and factual - I have an empty driveway, quite simply because there is no car or any other motor vehicle on it. It is not a concept, it is a fact.

There is no complex logic that prevents anyone from seeing my empty driveway. It is easy for all to see. No nebulous theory stands in the way. It is not abstract, it is real.

Perhaps it is both vague and a concept for you, because your mind is incapable of comprehending life sans a motor vehicle.

If you rent a car occasionally, or use a Zipcar-type service, are you really car-free? If you accept car rides from friends who own them, are you really car-free? Some would say not.

I just did a little cleanup, gentlemen, so let's keep this thread out of Ad Mominem land. Thanks much for your cooperation, on all sides.

If you rent a car occasionally, or use a Zipcar-type service, are you really car-free? If you accept car rides from friends who own them, are you really car-free? Some would say not.

Why not raise the bar to the highest point possible; instead of car-free think of the goal as being more like free-of-cars. In that case, all cars would have to be removed from the continent along with advertising, cars in movies, references in books, etc. and only then would we be free-of-cars.

On the other hand, if one is not a hair splitting pedant, then not actually owning a car ought to be enough to satisfy most interpretations.