Living Car Free - List from Wikipedia

I saw this list and noticed that, it contradicts my impressions from the street, at least for the handful of the cities that I've spent time in. For example I would have guessed that Baltimore would be much further down the list than Philadelphia. Also I don't see Portland Oregon, is it a nice place to live car free with a high car ownership rate also?

****************************************************************
The following is a list of United States cities of 100,000+ inhabitants with the 50 highest percentages of households without automobiles, according to data from the 2000 Census. The Census measured the percentage of households that did not own or otherwise have access to an automobile, as opposed to households that had 1, 2, 3, or more automobiles.

1. New York City, New York 55.7%
2. Newark, New Jersey 44.17%
3. Jersey City, New Jersey 40.67%
4. Washington, D.C. 36.93%
5. Hartford, Connecticut 36.14%
6. Baltimore, Maryland 35.89%
7. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 35.74%
8. Boston, Massachusetts 34.91%
9. Buffalo, New York 31.42%
10. New Haven, Connecticut 29.74%
11. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 29.45%
12. Paterson, New Jersey 29.32%
13. Chicago, Illinois 28.85%
14. San Francisco, California 28.56%
15. Cambridge, Massachusetts 27.72%
16. New Orleans, Louisiana 27.32%
17. Yonkers, New York 27.05%
18. Miami, Florida 26.71%
19. Syracuse, New York 26.56%
20. Rochester, New York 25.32%
21. Elizabeth, New Jersey 25.21%
22. St. Louis, Missouri 25.17%
23. Cleveland, Ohio 24.57%
24. Bridgeport, Connecticut 23.77%
25. Atlanta, Georgia 23.58%
26. Cincinnati, Ohio 23.37%
27. Providence, Rhode Island 22.92%
28. Springfield, Massachusetts 22.52%
29. Detroit, Michigan 21.9%
30. Richmond, Virginia 21.63%
31. Milwaukee, Wisconsin 21.36%
32. East Los Angeles, California 21.24%
33. Louisville, Kentucky 20.47%
34. Dayton, Ohio 19.97%
35. Minneapolis, Minnesota 19.7%
36. Oakland, California 19.62%
37. Waterbury, Connecticut 19.46%
38. Gary, Indiana 19.37
39. Honolulu, Hawaii 19.36%
40. Allentown, Pennsylvania 18.84%
41. Erie, Pennsylvania 18.2%
42. Worcester, Massachusetts 18.11%
43. Savannah, Georgia 17.64%
44. Lowell, Massachusetts 17.05%
45. Berkeley, California 17.01%
46. Norfolk, Virginia 17.01%
47. St. Paul, Minnesota 16.83%
48. Birmingham, Alabama 16.77%
49. Los Angeles, California 16.53%
50. Seattle, Washington 16.32%

24% of Atlatans without a car? They must be counting the dead people in the cemetaries.

texas didn't even make the list somehow that doesn't surprise me, I see more people driving a used beat up car that they can't afford to maintain. I hate it when they pass me, cough.

24% of Atlatans without a car? They must be counting the dead people in the cemetaries.

And 21.9 % of Detroiters. But they only count the city proper, not the metro area. Atlanta and Detroit both have a lot of poor people who can't afford cars.

I notice big cities on the list, college towns, and the Northeast predominates.

24% of Atlatans without a car? They must be counting the dead people in the cemetaries.

As of the 2000 census
Atlanta city limits population: 416,474
Population under the age of 19: 109,143


And 21.9 % of Detroiters. But they only count the city proper, not the metro area. Atlanta and Detroit both have a lot of poor people who can't afford cars.

More like about a quarter of the population is too young to own a car.

As of the 2000 census
Atlanta city limits population: 416,474
Population under the age of 19: 109,143



More like about a quarter of the population is too young to own a car.

I'm not sure about this.

The Wikipedia article says the census data is percentage of households that don't have a car, not percentage of individuals. Presumably, most minors live in a household that's headed by somebody who is old enough to own a car.

I saw this list and noticed that, it contradicts my impressions from the street, at least for the handful of the cities that I've spent time in. For example I would have guessed that Baltimore would be much further down the list than Philadelphia. Also I don't see Portland Oregon, is it a nice place to live car free with a high car ownership rate also?

I assume the census does not exclude households because they do not happily choose their car free status.

Your impressions may be influenced by selective vision of selected neighborhoods in the cities.

How much time did you spend in extremely low income areas of the cities. Presumably that is where you will find the largest slice of car free people. Perhaps you were just looking for people who looked like yourself.

Verily, it's easy to find lots of "car free" people in any city if you're willing to count the poor. However, it's not nearly as interesting talking to (or about) people who aren't car-free by choice.

it's not nearly as interesting talking to (or about) people who aren't car-free by choice.

No, but that doesn't make them any less car-free.

Interesting. Government and UN agencies (and probably ILTB) still count a larger percentage of car ownership as an indicator of economic progress. Many of us would count the percentage of car freeness as an indicator of some other sort of progress.

Interesting. Government and UN agencies (and probably ILTB) still count a larger percentage of car ownership as an indicator of economic progress. Many of us would count the percentage of car freeness as an indicator of some other sort of progress.

I don't doubt that many of "us" who post on this list would think that about themselves. I doubt if you, or anyone else who touts car free status as economic progress, have discussed the issue with too many people, especially adults with family responsibilities, who are car-free but not by choice.


Again, the provincial self righteous One has spoken from the heights of his high horse and pronounced what he considers good for the public, IS the public good.

No, but that doesn't make them any less car-free.

Do you honestly believe that this list's regulars represent the interests or concerns of families who are car free not by choice but due to their low income? Or have the slightest clue about those "other people's" interests or concerns?

Do you honestly believe that this list's regulars represent the interests or concerns of families who are car free not by choice but due to their low income? Or have the slightest clue about those "other people's" interests or concerns?

I imagine that was tsl's point, but he may have been too subtle for you to understand.

I believe that a lot of the regulars here are indeed aware of, and care about, the plight of those who are involuntarily carfree due to poverty. Personally, I think the kinds of infrastructure improvements that would make it more convenient for me to be voluntarily carfree would also benefit those who are involuntarily carfree. I personally work as I can to improve things like public transit and complete streets in my own community. I know that many others do the same.

How about you? Are you out there fighting for the downtrodden, or is your impassioned defense mainly just another troll to get the thread off topic and get me and others paying attention to you?

Now I'll stand by for your time tested diatribe about my moral high horse. You're so predictable that I always know what you'll say before you know it.

How about you? Are you out there fighting for the downtrodden, or is your impassioned defense mainly just another troll to get the thread off topic and get me and others paying attention to you?

Now I'll stand by for your time tested diatribe about my moral high horse. You're so predictable that I always know what you'll say before you know it.

My post is exactly on topic about the OP's unique personal take on the List from Wikipedia. What is obvious is that you consider any opinion that diverges from your own perception of reality or the reality that you dream about is off topic.

Sure nothing like a person who rides his car-free high horse and keeps that extolled status by using a car owned by another family member to take care of family responsibilities.

These stats may be misleading. For example, I haven't driven since january. I own a car, but I'm basically living car free.

My post is exactly on topic about the OP's unique personal take on the List from Wikipedia. What is obvious is that you consider any opinion that diverges from your own perception of reality or the reality that you dream about is off topic.

In case you forgot, I was agreeing with you on that main point about the OP's perception that one city is more carfree than another. I also agree with your implication that most people are carfree for financial reasons rather than as a true free choice. I disagreed with your comment that people on this forum don't know or care about people who are carfree due to poverty. I think people here do care, and there have been posts and threads reflecting their concern. However, the main focus of this forum has been issues related to being voluntarily carfree and using a bike for major transportation needs. I don't think that's something that anybody needs to apologize for.


Sure nothing like a person who rides his car-free high horse and keeps that extolled status by using a car owned by another family member to take care of family responsibilities.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about here. Although I was right that you would use the phrase high horse. It's your favoritest thing to say.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about here. Although I was right that you would use the phrase high horse. It's your favoritest thing to say.

Tell us again how you take your father from place to place in his car rather than one of your own. I certainly don't criticize you for doing the right thing by him, but what's the difference between you and other people who "need" a car to take care of family responsibilities, or other chores that they consider important? A matter of degree, perhaps but the same could be said for this list's Unabomber Wannabe with his threats of future violence against those who don't comply with his vision of a better world without any technology/devices that doesn't meet his approval.

These stats may be misleading. For example, I haven't driven since january. I own a car, but I'm basically living car free.

By that token, everybody is car-free, except when they aren't.

Tell us again how you take your father from place to place in his car rather than one of your own. I certainly don't criticize you for doing the right thing by him, but what's the difference between you and other people who "need" a car to take care of family responsibilities, or other chores that they consider important? A matter of degree, perhaps but the same could be said for this list's Unabomber Wannabe with his threats of future violence against those who don't comply with his vision of a better world without any technology/devices that doesn't meet his approval.

Ok, I'll buy a car of my own so that I can take my dad to his doctor appointment twice a month, and then his car can just sit in his garage, and my car can sit in the garage for the rest of the month also. Or I'll make my 83 year old father sit in a Burley trailer and I'll pedal his ass to the doctor. But if driving my dad 5 or 10 miles a month makes me the Unabomber, nobody better be opening any letters from me.

I am guilty of taking a bus 200 miles every 4 weeks to visit my dad. I don't feel good about that, but I don't know of any better way to get there. At least the bus gets 11 mpg and usually carries more than 20 passengers, but I guess I am dependant on Greyhound and Indian Trails to fulfill my family responsibilities. (Funny--you usually say that regular posters here don't have any family responsibilities, seeing as we're communist hippies and now terrorist bombers.)

For the record, I have never suggested that everybody in America can live without a car. I especially have posted several times about a family I know where the single mom is on disability, she lives in a small town so her kids can go to good schools, and they definitely need a car to get to doctor's appointments and school functions, etc. I have even "hypocritically" helped them with paying for car repairs. If they lived in Freiburg, Germany they might take the tram, but in Bath, Michigan they need a car. I wish I lived in a city, state, country where poor people could rely on public transit, but I don't. I sign Smart Street petitions and go to city meetings to try and change that, but I haven't resorted to any letter bombs.

Of course I have also called BS on people who say they need a car for frivolous reasons. Like hauling kitty litter or the 45 mile commute to work because they have to live in a McMansion in the exurbs. I do encourage people who are interested to explore alternatives to their many unnecessary car trips. But to date I haven't sent these miscreants any letters that go BOOM. Hmmm....considering it....No, I won't go that route, but thanks very much for the idea.

The key issue is not that everybody in the world as it exists can be carfree.

Rather, some who own cars could easily get rid of them. And nearly everybody could drive less than they currently do. And just about every community could make changes that would make cars less necessary.

These stats may be misleading. For example, I haven't driven since january. I own a car, but I'm basically living car free.

I was posting to explore how statistics like this might be misleading. I haven't visited every city on the list but I was thinking that with people on the forum there should be many people who have visited a few of the cities and compare notes as to how good the numbers measure how easy it is to be car free in each city. I also wonder why, since I read on this list how great Portland is for car free why it doesn't appear. A simplistic interpretation is that great car-free infrastructure doesn't reduce percentage of car ownership.

I was posting to explore how statistics like this might be misleading. I haven't visited every city on the list but I was thinking that with people on the forum there should be many people who have visited a few of the cities and compare notes as to how good the numbers measure how easy it is to be car free in each city. I also wonder why, since I read on this list how great Portland is for car free why it doesn't appear. A simplistic interpretation is that great car-free infrastructure doesn't reduce percentage of car ownership.

I think the reason is that these are almost all people who are carfree for financial reasons. The correllation is with poverty, not voluntary carfreedom. I suspect that the only cities where poverty is not the answer would be NYC and San Fransisco--our two densest cities, and both are affluent. Portland probably doesn't make the list because there aren't as many poor people--hence fewer carfree people.

Here are two maps of Lansing. In the first map, orange represents areas where more than 20 % of households are carfree. In the second map, red indicates areas where more than 15 % of households are living below the poverty level. Notice that there is considerable overlap between the red and orange areas, indicating a correlation between poverty and being carfree.

http://www.walkbikelansing.com/images/lansNMT_VEHICLE_ACCESS.gif

http://www.walkbikelansing.com/images/lansNMT_POVERTY.gif

Ok, I'll buy a car of my own so that I can take my dad to his doctor appointment twice a month, and then his car can just sit in his garage, and my car can sit in the garage for the rest of the month also. Or I'll make my 83 year old father sit in a Burley trailer and I'll pedal his ass to the doctor. But if driving my dad 5 or 10 miles a month makes me the Unabomber, nobody better be opening any letters from me.

I am guilty of taking a bus 200 miles every 4 weeks to visit my dad. I don't feel good about that, but I don't know of any better way to get there. At least the bus gets 11 mpg and usually carries more than 20 passengers, but I guess I am dependant on Greyhound and Indian Trails to fulfill my family responsibilities. (Funny--you usually say that regular posters here don't have any family responsibilities, seeing as we're communist hippies and now terrorist bombers.)

For the record, I have never suggested that everybody in America can live without a car. I especially have posted several times about a family I know where the single mom is on disability, she lives in a small town so her kids can go to good schools, and they definitely need a car to get to doctor's appointments and school functions, etc. I have even "hypocritically" helped them with paying for car repairs. If they lived in Freiburg, Germany they might take the tram, but in Bath, Michigan they need a car. I wish I lived in a city, state, country where poor people could rely on public transit, but I don't. I sign Smart Street petitions and go to city meetings to try and change that, but I haven't resorted to any letter bombs.

Of course I have also called BS on people who say they need a car for frivolous reasons. Like hauling kitty litter or the 45 mile commute to work because they have to live in a McMansion in the exurbs. I do encourage people who are interested to explore alternatives to their many unnecessary car trips. But to date I haven't sent these miscreants any letters that go BOOM. Hmmm....considering it....No, I won't go that route, but thanks very much for the idea.

I guess I'm just too subtle for you.

The Unabomber reference was not about your posts but rather to this charmer:
http://67.201.16.77/showpost.php?p=8924085&postcount=9

http://67.201.16.77/showpost.php?p=8930252&postcount=13

http://67.201.16.77/showpost.php?p=8933382&postcount=17

Since you participated in the same thread I thought you would have figured it out. My bad.

Re: your use of an automobile, that is fine, your need for the use of a privately owned motor vehicle is relatively light; that is your choice. But it is not your decision or our Unabomber wannabe Car Free Philosopher to decide what is necessary or frivolous for other people based on your personal choice/philosophy in lifestyle.

I think the reason is that these are almost all people who are carfree for financial reasons. The correllation is with poverty, not voluntary carfreedom. I suspect that the only cities where poverty is not the answer would be NYC and San Fransisco--our two densest cities, and both are affluent. Portland probably doesn't make the list because there aren't as many poor people--hence fewer carfree people.

Your correct answer is so obvious that I find it difficult to believe that anyone who wasn't deluded by his own provincialism asked the question.

Dayton is 34, and there really aren't that many bike riders.

Car free (or car less, depending on your viewpoint) does not mean or neccessarily make bike riders.

If I had to guess, a larger proportion of adults with access to their own motor vehicles participate in recreational bike riding than those without. As far as transportational cycling, a goodly number of car less low income people (especially recent immigrants) are bike riding, at least until they have sufficient assets to make another choice; but I doubt if those are the people represented by the car free folk of this list, or the posters on any other list on BF.

Verily, it's easy to find lots of "car free" people in any city if you're willing to count the poor. However, it's not nearly as interesting talking to (or about) people who aren't car-free by choice.

Oddly, I think the exact opposite. If a recent Asian immigrant woman with 4 kids tries to live without a car because she is poor, she has the same needs and desires that I do as a white middle class woman. She still has to buy rice. She still needs to buy vegetables and get to the doctor. She still needs to wash her family's clothes... and since she has 4 kids, she doesn't have as many choices about how to do these things.

If I focus my political activity and economic activity on things that let her function easily, my life is also made easier. Because trust me, there's no way that hauling 4-7 loads of laundry a week is anything but a strain on our hypothetical Asian lady. If the city is dense enough that she doesn't have to haul laundry around... I don't have to either. Since I'm buying rice at the local Asian groceries, that's a few more dollars for them to make rent... so hopefully they stay in business and both of us can continue to have rice to eat. (rice at most stores around here costs 2-3x as much as in the Asian groceries)

Oddly, I think the exact opposite. If a recent Asian immigrant woman with 4 kids tries to live without a car because she is poor, she has the same needs and desires that I do as a white middle class woman. She still has to buy rice. She still needs to buy vegetables and get to the doctor. She still needs to wash her family's clothes... and since she has 4 kids, she doesn't have as many choices about how to do these things.

If I focus my political activity and economic activity on things that let her function easily, my life is also made easier. Because trust me, there's no way that hauling 4-7 loads of laundry a week is anything but a strain on our hypothetical Asian lady. If the city is dense enough that she doesn't have to haul laundry around... I don't have to either. Since I'm buying rice at the local Asian groceries, that's a few more dollars for them to make rent... so hopefully they stay in business and both of us can continue to have rice to eat. (rice at most stores around here costs 2-3x as much as in the Asian groceries)

Yes! This is exactly the right point to be made, IMO. This is what I've been trying to say, but not doing such a good job.

The solution is not, as another poster implied, to hope that the poor get cars so that they can have a better life. That is only trading one problem for another. It would be far better if the poor (in this country and in China) can leapfrog over car technology to NEW carfree technologies, and therefore have a better life. And at the same time, the wealthy can adopt that new technology. They might not like it as much as their cars, but it will work as well for them. And of course the average member of this forum--a wealthy person who is already carfree or carlite--will benefit from the newer carfree systems also.

The two maps I posted above illustrate this very well. They were created to show that poor people will be great beneficiaries of plans to improve non-car transit. (In this case, that new "technology is the Complete Streets plan to prepare the infrastructure for new carfree systems--as well as older systems, like bikes and walking.)

Oddly, I think the exact opposite. If a recent Asian immigrant woman with 4 kids tries to live without a car because she is poor, she has the same needs and desires that I do as a white middle class woman. She still has to buy rice. She still needs to buy vegetables and get to the doctor. She still needs to wash her family's clothes... and since she has 4 kids, she doesn't have as many choices about how to do these things.

If I focus my political activity and economic activity on things that let her function easily, my life is also made easier. Because trust me, there's no way that hauling 4-7 loads of laundry a week is anything but a strain on our hypothetical Asian lady. If the city is dense enough that she doesn't have to haul laundry around... I don't have to either. Since I'm buying rice at the local Asian groceries, that's a few more dollars for them to make rent... so hopefully they stay in business and both of us can continue to have rice to eat. (rice at most stores around here costs 2-3x as much as in the Asian groceries)

This makes me think.... I can't think of a single car-free by choice immigrant or refugee. I know and have known many people who settle here from other countries. They seem to work hard to become American super consumers.
I know some who stayed car free a bit longer than a typical American might but
not for long. Oh, a guy I work with, lives in the far suburbs and NEVER drives to work but I'm pretty sure he owns a car because he talks about driving places on weekends. All the car-free by choice folks who I know were born here.

This makes me think.... I can't think of a single car-free by choice immigrant or refugee. I know and have known many people who settle here from other countries. They seem to work hard to become American super consumers.
I know some who stayed car free a bit longer than a typical American might but
not for long. Oh, a guy I work with, lives in the far suburbs and NEVER drives to work but I'm pretty sure he owns a car because he talks about driving places on weekends. All the car-free by choice folks who I know were born here.

You can't characterize by ethnic group. There are probably a lot of well-off immigrants in New York and San Fransisco who are carfree by choice, along with their native-born counterparts. Conversely, there are a lot of native-born poor people who--like many poor immigrants--would gladly buy a car as soon as they have the down payment.

The fact that you haven't met these people doesn't mean that they don't exist. That's why statistics like the Wikipedia list are so valuable if properly interpreted--the data help us to see the big picture and understand more about people we've never met.