Living Car Free - Can the suburbs ever be carfree?

Vauban, Germany is an example of a new carfree (really carlight) suburb. Here's a couple excerpts from a NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/export_html/common/new_article_post.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2009%2F05%2F12%2Fscience%2Fearth%2F12suburb .html&title=In%20German%20Suburb%2C%20Life%20Goes%20On%20Without%20Cars&summary=A%20young%20development%20in%20Vauban%20illustrates%20a%20trend%20of%20planning%20communitie s%20to%20thrive%20without%20automobiles.&section=Science%20%2F%20Environment&pubdate=May%2012%2C%202009&byline=By%20ELISABETH%20ROSENTHAL) for your consideration:


VAUBAN, Germany — Residents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up their cars.

Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vauban’s streets are completely “car-free” — except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs, and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park — large garages at the edge of the development, where a car-owner buys a space, for $40,000, along with a home.

As a result, 70 percent of Vauban’s families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here. “When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,” said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.

Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called “smart planning.”

Automobiles are the linchpin of suburbs, where middle-class families from Chicago to Shanghai tend to make their homes. And that, experts say, is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes, and thus to reduce global warming. Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe — a proportion that is growing, according to the European Environment Agency — and up to 50 percent in some car-intensive areas in the United States.

While there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs and focusing specifically on environmental benefits like reducing emissions. Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile, may be the most advanced experiment in low-car suburban life. But its basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking. In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway.



In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting “car reduced” communities, and legislators are starting to act, if cautiously. Many experts expect public transport serving suburbs to play a much larger role in a new six-year federal transportation bill to be approved this year, Mr. Goldberg said. In previous bills, 80 percent of appropriations have by law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport.

In California, the Hayward Area Planning Association is developing a Vauban-like community called Quarry Village on the outskirts of Oakland, accessible without a car to the Bay Area Rapid Transit system and to the California State University’s campus in Hayward.

Sherman Lewis, a professor emeritus at Cal State and a leader of the association, says he “can’t wait to move in” and hopes that Quarry Village will allow his family to reduce its car ownership from two to one, and potentially to zero. But the current system is still stacked against the project, he said, noting that mortgage lenders worry about resale value of half-million-dollar homes that have no place for cars, and most zoning laws in the United States still require two parking spaces per residential unit. Quarry Village has obtained an exception from Hayward.

Besides, convincing people to give up their cars is often an uphill run. “People in the U.S. are incredibly suspicious of any idea where people are not going to own cars, or are going to own fewer,” said David Ceaser, co-founder of CarFree City USA, who said no car-free suburban project the size of Vauban had been successful in the United States.



Besides, convincing people to give up their cars is often an uphill run. “People in the U.S. are incredibly suspicious of any idea where people are not going to own cars, or are going to own fewer,” said David Ceaser, co-founder of CarFree City USA, who said no car-free suburban project the size of Vauban had been successful in the United States.

In Europe, some governments are thinking on a national scale. In 2000, Britain began a comprehensive effort to reform planning, to discourage car use by requiring that new development be accessible by public transit.

“Development comprising jobs, shopping, leisure and services should not be designed and located on the assumption that the car will represent the only realistic means of access for the vast majority of people,” said PPG 13, the British government’s revolutionary 2001 planning document. Dozens of shopping malls, fast-food restaurants and housing compounds have been refused planning permits based on the new British regulations.

In Germany, a country that is home to Mercedes-Benz and the autobahn, life in a car-reduced place like Vauban has its own unusual gestalt. The town is long and relatively narrow, so that the tram into Freiburg is an easy walk from every home. Stores, restaurants, banks and schools are more interspersed among homes than they are in a typical suburb. Most residents, like Ms. Walter, have carts that they haul behind bicycles for shopping trips or children’s play dates.

For trips to stores like IKEA or the ski slopes, families buy cars together or use communal cars rented out by Vauban’s car-sharing club.


The article also includes some information on the design considerations that when into making Vauban less car-dependant.


What do you think?
What are the advantages and obstacles to designing carfree suburbs in your region?
Is it possible to be carfree in suburbs as they exist today?

I'm way jealous of the folks living in a community where a significant portion of the community has cars banned from it. There are lots of cars in my current urban neighborhood and I would much prefer to avoid having their noise and pollution around me, especially since pollution sometimes gives me allergies and mild asthma.


Is it possible to be carfree in suburbs as they exist today?

For many suburbs, it is definitely possible, but it often requires a lot of skills/knowlege suited to car free living, and may still be inconvenient in a lot of ways.

In Wallingford and Swarthmore, two suburbs of Philadelphia where I lived for a while, it is definitely possible to live car free - I know because I've done it. It can be stressful because cars go fast on major streets (up to 55 miles per hour despite 35mph speed limits) and some drivers expect cyclists to always stay out of their way, rather than treating us as traffic. From Wallingford and Swarthmore, restaurants, libraries, grocery shopping, and clothes shopping are easy to get to. Bike shops aren't far either. Some adults travel at least short distances on major roads with a kid in a bike trailer, and it's not all that rare to see a teen or pre-teen riding a bicycle for transportation. Public transit is available but not convenient for most people.

I live in a suburban development that's largely come into existence in the last 20 years, and is pretty easy to live a car light lifestyle in, if not car free. The grocery store is a 10 minute walk away from much of the community, it has bus service, local schools, and several MUPS that were designed to work with all of these. Yet I'm always struck by how few people are actually out walking and riding to get to these places, even in a community that's well designed for those activities- a relatively rare thing in the suburbs. We need to get people away from the mindset that jumping in the car to get everywhere is the normal way of doing things.

Is it possible to be carfree in suburbs as they exist today?

Probably not. But that doesn't mean these communities won't evolve over time. The neighbourhood where I live could have been considered a suburb about 50 years ago. Over time, grocery stores, coffee shops, bakeries, etc have been added. (Of course, Walmart was also added...). It might have meant a lot of walking at one time to live here w/o a car, but nowadays it does not. You can easily catch the bus downtown to work. You can walk to the grocery store. So the infrastructure is there.... the only problem is that few people in my neighbourhood actually do without.

Is it possible to be carfree in suburbs as they exist today?

Probably not. But that doesn't mean these communities won't evolve over time. The neighbourhood where I live could have been considered a suburb about 50 years ago. Over time, grocery stores, coffee shops, bakeries, etc have been added. (Of course, Walmart was also added...). It might have meant a lot of walking at one time to live here w/o a car, but nowadays it does not. You can easily catch the bus downtown to work. You can walk to the grocery store. So the infrastructure is there.... the only problem is that few people in my neighbourhood actually do without.

And there you have hit the nail on the head. :thumb: Many could but why would they? We live in a car centric society and it is more than happy to stay that way. Many can embrace a different lifestyle but there seems to be little chance that most people are influenced by people taking the bus or riding a bike. The car is a vital part of our society and economy while bikes and busses are almost an afterthought. I ride my bike because I like it. Everyone I know that drives their car does so because they like it. No one seems to be looking for a change in the status quo.

If a town is going car free, then public transpotation has to take the place of the motorcar. Vauban is only possible because of the tram that rides down the middle of town. The jobs themselves are not located in the city therefore requiring those living in the city to commute.

This is a far cry form the suburbs today which are often poorly served by public transit and the way in which many are layed out, make it inefficient or costly to create a bus route. If there is a bus shelter, it's usually placed on a highway of all places.

It might be possible, but getting jobs closer to homes is going to be the hard part, along with serving sprawled out lollypop subdivisions with mass transit. When I was leaving from home headed to the great Midwest this past week I drove past at least 4 new subdivisions under construction on what used to be farm land. The closest grocery store, gas station, town is over 12 miles away via narrow two lane roads. This is STILL the typical building pattern in my part of the country and is expected to continue. They have built a few new strip malls and I am sure more will come, but they have not included ANY infrastructure for pedestrian or cycling, it is still autocentric. The planning board(s) are developer friendly, follow the money trail. BTW several of the newer planned subdivisions are being paid for by the federal government to house military personnel, they are better planned and have schools and recreation centers in the subdivisions, but those are not available to the general public.

Aaron:)

Intriguing. One thing that I noticed was the local regulation required to make this happen. I suppose it's OK as long as everyone understands the limits to their decisions inherent to living in the community. I would vehemently disagree with the concept if it were attempted on a national basis.

The advantages would be less noise, pollution, a greater sense of community, lower energy costs. The disadvantages would be less freedom to choose where you go and when you go. I am curious as to how emergency vehicles would be affected. If you lost your employment you might be more limited as to where you find new employment and it might be harder to sell your home as you must find someone who has similar values. I suppose if you moved into this community you would have come to terms with those limitations. The idea that it costs $40K to own a car would pay for alot of mass transportation or car rentals when vacationing.

I think you could plan a car free suburb in a US community near a large population center where the majority of people worked in a central location ie New York, Chicago, SF, Boston etc. Many midwest cities do not have the mass transportation infrastructures to transport people efficiently once they get to the city and jobs in those locations would likely be spread out throughout a larger area. Trying to retrofit the model to existing suburbs would require an intrusion into personal freedoms that I would find reprehensible. I think some who live in current suburbs might like the opportunity to live in a car free environment but it would be an anomoly such as the Amish.

I looked up the city on-line. A fascinating experiment. Kudos to the group with the vision to pull it off. It will be interesting to see if it can be duplicated in other European and perhaps North American cities. www.livablestreets.com/streetswiki/vauban-freiburg-germany

I live in the city but I do travel (bike or bus) to the suburbs from time to time. For me, the problem with the suburbs is not the distances, but the way they are designed.

Most suburban arterials have merges and diverges rather than the traditional 90 degree intersections. Major intersections are often controlled by Yield signs and Stop signs rather than traffic signals. This is especially true where freeways intersect with streets, and where two divided arterials come together. I find these merges and diverges to be dangerous for cycling, since you must look back frequently and cross wide traffic "mouths". And what's risky for cyclists is often suicide for pedestrians.

IMO, these merges and diverges should be completely rebuilt. Intersections should be squared, and traffic signals should be installed. This would make suburban riding much safer and more pleasant.

You'd need a lot of things

- Decent mass transit, both within the sprawl to get people from one place to the other, and FROM the middle of suburban hell to places that actually matter
- Infrastructure that encourages walkability/bikeability - i.e. businesses, grocery stores, etc. within close range rather than concentrated at a strip mall 30 miles away. Of course, this is otherwise known as "living in a city."
- And of course, probably even more difficult than implementing either of the above - a mindset change. At least in America, Americans don't WANT to give up their cars. And the fact that huge sections of our developed areas were built on the idea that you drive everywhere, means that people who live there have no other choice, because everything they would need to go to is outside of reasonable biking distance. Even if they wanted to make the effort to get in shape and brave the rain, etc., there's still the time consideration - people don't have time to bike places when they live so far removed from everything.

You'd need a lot of things

- Decent mass transit, both within the sprawl to get people from one place to the other, and FROM the middle of suburban hell to places that actually matter
- Infrastructure that encourages walkability/bikeability - i.e. businesses, grocery stores, etc. within close range rather than concentrated at a strip mall 30 miles away. Of course, this is otherwise known as "living in a city."
- And of course, probably even more difficult than implementing either of the above - a mindset change. At least in America, Americans don't WANT to give up their cars. And the fact that huge sections of our developed areas were built on the idea that you drive everywhere, means that people who live there have no other choice, because everything they would need to go to is outside of reasonable biking distance. Even if they wanted to make the effort to get in shape and brave the rain, etc., there's still the time consideration - people don't have time to bike places when they live so far removed from everything.

In some places, like Southern California is was easier to bring the things to where the people went or moved to. People living in the bigger cities have to drive out of the city for work but can shop in the city itself. So the shopping malls came to the suburbs and the jobs moved to the industrial parks. We moved from people fleeing the big city for the suburbs to mass urban sprawl. But zoning made industrial parks far more practical that the high taxes companies had to pay to stay in the larger cities. So bring the stuff to the people and they would have to drive to the city and as someone said public transportation would work.

On your last point, I have read studies on why people moved to the suburbs in the first place and close to the top of every survey were high housing costs and Crime in the city they moved from. Both reasons are still a major concern to many people.

But I don’t believe people, at least the majority, will ever be willing to tough it out in bad weather. No reason to if there is an alternative like mass transit or of course they have their own car. Where I live it is less expensive to move the businesses than to lure the people back into central living. So the Suburbs could be car free if they moved more business closer to the suburbs. However with urban sprawl the suburbs are becoming less dependent on the bigger cities for goods and services.

I’m fortunate I guess that I live in somewhat bike friendly area. There are several interconnected small cities with reasonable bike access between those cities and a weather pattern that allows all year cycling. But our mass transit is horrid and the state is cutting back on mass transit funding.

This country is so big and different from state to state that what might work in one part of the country would not work in another.

Western Europe has a bunch of other attributes that make something like this work. I'd argue that we need to import some of these to North America as well:
- compact cities that are actually very unfriendly to cars. I've cycled in Paris, Kortrijk, Brugge, The Hague, Amsterdam and Rotterdam and a bunch of smaller cities in France and Benelux. For the most part, it was easier to get around by bike than by car.
- a tradition of shopping locally. Every village has a baker, butcher, market and pharmacy, usually owned locally. Of course, it sucks to be touring in France in August, when all these places are closed.
- excellent mass transit everywhere.

If I lived in this part of Europe and couldn't afford to live in the center of the city, I would choose a development like this because I know I could get my food locally and take a short train ride into the city when necessary.

There are places in North America where this could work (Toronto, New York and Montreal come to mind) but even there the big box mentality has killed off the local shopping, which I think is the key to being able to make the compromises necessary to live car free.

even there the big box mentality has killed off the local shopping, which I think is the key to being able to make the compromises necessary to live car free.

I can't really speak to Toronto and New York, but for the parts of Montreal and Philadelphia where I've been the local-shopping option is generally available: homes in the suburbs are almost all within a mile of some sort of "village center" where, if you shop there, you won't be forced to buy stuff from anywhere else more than once every few months.

On of the problems with these types of ideas in America is that the people that would most benefit from them can not use them. What if you had no idea how long your current job would last and you faced the possibility that you would be assigned to, yet another, temp job in some remote part of the urban area tomorrow?

How well can this really work for people holding down several part time jobs and trying to get from one to the next as quickly as possible.

To make the US bike-able we need to fix the job market. Then work on attitudes.

Or, first, make sure that it can be done, then lead the way. If you are trying to lead the way to something that people really do not believe can be done you will not convince them and, without force, they will not follow.

Can the suburbs ever be carfree?

no.

You can't make such a broad generalization, there are suburbs that can be and ones that can't, there are inner cities that can be and ones that can't. My city there is no way you could be car free, there is nothing for miles but houses, or downtown a bunch of office buildings, my suburb could easily be car free with a couple minor changes. All they need to do is drop the 45mph speed limit down to 35 or lower on a couple roads because trying to bike in traffic going 50-60mph is just too difficult. I can get as far as those main roads on 25-25mph roads then get stuck as I have to go on one of the 45mph roads and the cars flying by at 60 are just too much.

On your last point, I have read studies on why people moved to the suburbs in the first place and close to the top of every survey were high housing costs and Crime in the city they moved from. Both reasons are still a major concern to many people.

Racism, and unfair taxation policies (suburbanites have always gotten to use city services without paying taxes to the city)


But I don’t believe people, at least the majority, will ever be willing to tough it out in bad weather. .

Copenhagen

Thats not true, suburbs a lot of times pay the city taxes to the city that provides their services, or they incorporate and pay taxes for their own services.

I will start by saying I love my big SUV, but the way things are going in the world today I see a massive depression coming and the bike will be all of our friend. I really see us slipping into 3rd world status as our way of life will be changed for the worse. I think people will be forced to live closer to the city as the suburbs will not be practical by bicycle for commuting.

I will start by saying I love my big SUV, but the way things are going in the world today I see a massive depression coming and the bike will be all of our friend. I really see us slipping into 3rd world status as our way of life will be changed for the worse. I think people will be forced to live closer to the city as the suburbs will not be practical by bicycle for commuting.
The thing about a depression scenario is that people won't have the financial resources to move to more ideal locations. The adaptation would have to be "in place".

I'd see extended families living together in suburban homes. For example, younger families (having incomes but not houses) living with retired boomer grandparents (having houses but not incomes). This will allow extended families to do more car sharing and combining of trips. Economically, shared living arrangements will reduce housing and utility costs, as well as eliminating a lot of expensive child and elder care problems.

I'd expect household incomes to be cut roughly in half in a depression scenario, due to high unemployment. Family members who are employed in the money economy will likely have to commute, and the commuting will likely be by car. So I'd expect every family to try to maintain at least one car in good serviceable condition for long distance commuting.

Family members not employed in the money economy would have more flexibility in car usage. People would probably keep all the cars they own now, but I'd expect in the future it could become more difficult to maintain all of them in reliable operating condition. So we'd expect to see some family cars become beaters. They'd be useful for local hauling and errands in the neighborhood.

Continuing with the depression scenario. The suburban family members who are most likely to reduce their car usage will be teens and unemployed adults. Some of these may hang around the house as much as they can, others will get around on bikes and by public transportation. I'd imagine there would be a greater public awareness of issues related to bike/ped safety. We might even see a renewed interest in arranging things so that children could be out in the neighborhood safely going to and from school or visiting their friends.

I'd expect cars to not be parked in suburban garages in an extended depression. The garage space will be too useful for other things. For example, people don't throw away anything in a depression if there's any possibility it could be repaired or reused. Or the garage may be filled with garden stuff, or auto repair stuff, or things like that.

I look at things different than most, I can't see the point in having some little car if it can't do much more than carry a couple people, not really any advantage over a bike. A SUV/Truck and a bike complement each other nicely. What you save in gas $ riding the bike for day to day commuting you can afford a truck/suv for hauling or going camping in the woods towing a boat to the lake. There are lots of places I've been that you need a real 4x4 to get to that a small commuter car can't go but I don't need to drive the 4x4 every day to work since I can bike there.

The oncoming great depression will force us, (not by choice) to give up the the great lifestyle we have enjoyed for a very long time. I don't like they way things are going, but we owe the world and we can't ever pay it back, so hyper inflation will set in and that bike tire will cost you over $100, yeah it sucks but thank our politicians for this mess.

...inflation will set in and that bike tire will cost you over $100...
Or deflation could set in and the bike tire will cost $6, but you're unemployed and have other living expenses so you can't spare the $6.

In any case, I think under hardship conditions it would be easier to keep a bike running than to keep a car running. Most parts of older bikes are repairable. In fact, I think the older the bike, the easier it would be to repair without new parts. Old style steel bikes with cottered cranks, loose bearing bottom brackets and friction shifters could probably be fixed even if all you had was a blacksmith shop. Tires would be a problem. As long as the bead is intact and there's enough tread left, I think low pressure tires can be patched with leather and rubber cement. I'm not so sure about high pressure tires, and I don't know if anything could be done about tread wear.

Racism, and unfair taxation policies (suburbanites have always gotten to use city services without paying taxes to the city)



Copenhagen

Please explain? I don’t believe most people want to live in Copenhagen do you? I would visit there in a heartbeat but it is cold in the winter and I am not moving where the snow is higher than I am tall. Is there a massive waiting list of Americans trying to immigrate? :lol:

But how does racism fit in? Punch in the raw numbers and big cities have more crime and much higher personal crime. This is just raw number gathering without regard to race. I don’t know that property taxes are higher either because the city gets property taxes even from the suburbs in my state. But please explain how racism is responsible for crime and cost of living in the large cities. Feel free to use Detroit’s crime rate to explain.

I'm just gonna make a wild guess that the racism comment is an allusion to the white flight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight) phenomenon.

Down in Portland they've experienced black flight as of late. They started gentrifying the "hood" areas. Rents got too high for poor folk of all races, so they need to find new places to live. Blacks that had lived in the hood since the 60s have to move out to less hip, cheaper parts of town out on the outskirts of town. Starving artists have to make a new pocket of the city their home after warehouse lofts start going for $2500 a month instead of $500, so only the artists that "made it" or trust fund artists and stock brokers that wanna feel arty live there now.

Please explain? I don’t believe most people want to live in Copenhagen do you? I would visit there in a heartbeat but it is cold in the winter and I am not moving where the snow is higher than I am tall. Is there a massive waiting list of Americans trying to immigrate? :lol:

But how does racism fit in? Punch in the raw numbers and big cities have more crime and much higher personal crime. This is just raw number gathering without regard to race. I don’t know that property taxes are higher either because the city gets property taxes even from the suburbs in my state. But please explain how racism is responsible for crime and cost of living in the large cities. Feel free to use Detroit’s crime rate to explain.

I would have no problem with Coppenhagen, in fact I had a job offer from there but with one tiny little sticking point...need to be an EU citizen.

Aaron:)

I wasn't aware Copenhagen was known for massive snowfall totals.

But I don’t believe people, at least the majority, will ever be willing to tough it out in bad weather. It's a sad fact: most people are wusses. It's funny how Canadians in particular brag about how "tough" they are, living in this "harsh" climate, and yet they spend hardly any time outside of their climate-conditioned houses and cars. Gee, the only implications of winter for them are winter tires and a heating bill.

I'd see extended families living together in suburban homes. For example, younger families (having incomes but not houses) living with retired boomer grandparents (having houses but not incomes). *squirm* Good luck to them. God knows, this is a far bigger sacrifice than surrendering a car.


Economically, shared living arrangements will reduce housing and utility costs, as well as eliminating a lot of expensive child and elder care problems. It won't eliminate or even reduce the child and elder care problems. It will simply reduce the number of ways to deal with them: you won't any longer be able to solve them with money.


I'd expect household incomes to be cut roughly in half in a depression scenario, due to high unemployment. I'm curious: what makes you think a huge depression is coming? Is it the depleting oil supply, or something different? I mean, I thought we were starting to slowly climb out of the most recent economic hole.


I'd expect cars to not be parked in suburban garages in an extended depression. The garage space will be too useful for other things. For example, people don't throw away anything in a depression if there's any possibility it could be repaired or reused. Or the garage may be filled with garden stuff, or auto repair stuff, or things like that. On the other hand, it would be of vital importance to make sure the car lasts as long as it can, and keeping it in a garage is certainly better for it. Moreover, crime rates will probably soar in the depression scenario, so car theft would be a bigger problem, and people would try to safeguard their prized possession.

Garden stuff can always go into the basement or shed: there is lots of space in suburban basements and backyards.

*squirm* Good luck to them. God knows, this is a far bigger sacrifice than surrendering a car.

It won't eliminate or even reduce the child and elder care problems. It will simply reduce the number of ways to deal with them: you won't any longer be able to solve them with money.

I'm curious: what makes you think a huge depression is coming? Is it the depleting oil supply, or something different? I mean, I thought we were starting to slowly climb out of the most recent economic hole.

On the other hand, it would be of vital importance to make sure the car lasts as long as it can, and keeping it in a garage is certainly better for it. Moreover, crime rates will probably soar in the depression scenario, so car theft would be a bigger problem, and people would try to safeguard their prized possession.

Garden stuff can always go into the basement or shed: there is lots of space in suburban basements and backyards.
I'm trying to be careful to discuss the depression scenario without making a specific prediction. But yes, I don't think the long term economic fundamentals look very good. As I see it, the big problems are unemployment and too little personal income to support existing personal debt. I think the oil supply issues are currently dormant due to lower demand but are still out there waiting to choke off a recovery. What is the optimistic scenario?

I wasn't aware Copenhagen was known for massive snowfall totals.

You could be right. With 23 days of precipitation last December and 9 of those below freezing it could still be a bit like Seattle and not have that much snow. But I still contend that most people in the US will not be willing to go out on a bike in such weather. I mean by most people more than half. We live in a culture of convenience and that means if you want people to do anything you have to make it easy to do. Look at all of our commercials and see what new and improved typically means. It is most often easier to use with less user interface.

People didn’t move to the suburbs because of racism at least in California. San Fernando Valley was a massive suburb and all races moved there. The tax advantage I don’t see either. The only thing the suburbs may be responsible for is an increase in shopping malls, big box stores and industrial parks. If you have a successful business building a new plant in an industrial is a whole lot cheaper on new property than in a big city where something has to be torn down before something new can be built.

People in this forum have decided to be car free or at least car light because they thought it was a good idea and they individually saw an advantage to it. I believe that even car free people know more bike free people than they do car free people. I consider myself car light and a cycling enthusiast. But I would not consider riding my bike, either of them, in below freezing weather or the snow. No reason to when there are 4x4 vehicles with heaters.

Nope, no white people moved out of Englewood back in the day.
Central LA has always been the happiest place in the county.
Just because the valley isn't an all white Aryan Nation enclave doesn't mean that whites never fled inner city LA in the 60s and 70s.

It is true that it's tough to get folks out on the bike in the winter. I'd even imagine Euro cycling meccas' ridership drops considerably in the winter, while commutes via bus and streetcar likely increase.

Around here when it snows there's a strange phenomenon. The sidewalks are their absolute busiest when it snows, since no one thinks of driving all the way to Costco, they manage with what they can get by walking to 7-11, Fred Meyers or Safeway.

You could be right. With 23 days of precipitation last December and 9 of those below freezing it could still be a bit like Seattle and not have that much snow. But I still contend that most people in the US will not be willing to go out on a bike in such weather. I mean by most people more than half. We live in a culture of convenience and that means if you want people to do anything you have to make it easy to do. Look at all of our commercials and see what new and improved typically means. It is most often easier to use with less user interface.

People didn’t move to the suburbs because of racism at least in California. San Fernando Valley was a massive suburb and all races moved there. The tax advantage I don’t see either. The only thing the suburbs may be responsible for is an increase in shopping malls, big box stores and industrial parks. If you have a successful business building a new plant in an industrial is a whole lot cheaper on new property than in a big city where something has to be torn down before something new can be built.

People in this forum have decided to be car free or at least car light because they thought it was a good idea and they individually saw an advantage to it. I believe that even car free people know more bike free people than they do car free people. I consider myself car light and a cycling enthusiast. But I would not consider riding my bike, either of them, in below freezing weather or the snow. No reason to when there are 4x4 vehicles with heaters.

I ride my bike 365 days a year, and love it. So do a growing number of other people around here. It's one of those things that seems impossible until you try it, then it seems very desirable. Unfortunately, it's hard to get people to try it.

BTW, I would no more drive a heated 4x4 than walk across a bed of hot coals.

I wasn't aware Copenhagen was known for massive snowfall totals.

Seems like it would be more like the North American west coast, a little cooler, much less rain, probably more snow.

http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=8160&refer=

compare to Portland Or:
http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=89627&refer=

I ride my bike 365 days a year, and love it. So do a growing number of other people around here. It's one of those things that seems impossible until you try it, then it seems very desirable. Unfortunately, it's hard to get people to try it.

BTW, I would no more drive a heated 4x4 than walk across a bed of hot coals.

You may not but the point is what do “most people” do? Do you know the only car company that hasn’t lost market Share? Subaru. And what kind of drive system do they have? AWD. When someone asks a hypothetical question we can respond with what we believe is an honest assessment of what people will do or we can respond with wishful thinking. My honest assessment is the American public is not interested in toughing it out when they have any other options.

If the question is can the suburbs ever be car free then you have to take into consideration if the people living in those suburbs want to be car free. I don’t believe they do and if they don’t live in the sun belt I believe ever fewer will consider it.

Nope, no white people moved out of Englewood back in the day.
Central LA has always been the happiest place in the county.
Just because the valley isn't an all white Aryan Nation enclave doesn't mean that whites never fled inner city LA in the 60s and 70s.

It is true that it's tough to get folks out on the bike in the winter. I'd even imagine Euro cycling meccas' ridership drops considerably in the winter, while commutes via bus and streetcar likely increase.

Around here when it snows there's a strange phenomenon. The sidewalks are their absolute busiest when it snows, since no one thinks of driving all the way to Costco, they manage with what they can get by walking to 7-11, Fred Meyers or Safeway.

So you are saying the population of Seattle spread out to Bellevue, Mercer Island, Lakewood and the like because? Or that the Hispanics moving to the suburbs of San Diego were racially motivated to move? Poway, Rancho Bernardo, Lemon Grove was started because of white flight? Don’t think that can be supported. But if you are talking the American dream of owning your own home or lower housing costs and that is a racial problem I have to wonder how that could be true. Was that brown flight? If the make up of a suburb community is pretty evenly spread between the racial population percentages is that suburb still a racial issue for the city? Or have we come to the point that we simply blame the people that aren’t living in the city for the crime the city has?

I'm trying to be careful to discuss the depression scenario without making a specific prediction. But yes, I don't think the long term economic fundamentals look very good. As I see it, the big problems are unemployment and too little personal income to support existing personal debt. I think the oil supply issues are currently dormant due to lower demand but are still out there waiting to choke off a recovery. What is the optimistic scenario? I doubt that demand fluctuations make a big difference in the big picture of global oil supply. I also doubt the demand drop due to the depression was significant, and that slight variations in oil usage patterns over a year or two would make a difference at this point. I think oil depletion is an issue that's mostly separate from the current economic drop, and much bigger, too.

The optimistic scenario?... God knows! With luck, we'll make alternative energy sources work well enough to completely replace oil. We'll also learn to curb our appetites when it comes to gobbling down non-renewable resources and lighten up on Mother Earth while still maintaining a stable economic situation and a comfortable standard of living (at least for those of us who were enjoying it in the first place... raising it in the developing countries would be tremendous, but even maintaining what we've got would be impressive enough). Are earthlings mature enough at this point to pull off such a stunt? Doubt that... but one can always have hope.

So you are saying the population of Seattle spread out to Bellevue, Mercer Island, Lakewood and the like because? Or that the Hispanics moving to the suburbs of San Diego were racially motivated to move? Poway, Rancho Bernardo, Lemon Grove was started because of white flight

I'd like to reiterate what I said a little while ago, that in So Cal, as well as Seattle, for the most part, suburbs were not "created" by white flight, but that during the 60s and seventies some US inner cities experienced a good deal of whites moving out. There are books on this theory if you want to learn more about it. Please don't get hung up on this tangent.


Don’t think that can be supported. But if you are talking the American dream of owning your own home or lower housing costs and that is a racial problem I have to wonder how that could be true. Was that brown flight? You feel free to advance your own theories. I'm not extremely familiar with SD county population makeup and how it's changed over the last 40 years, sorry.



Or have we come to the point that we simply blame the people that aren’t living in the city for the crime the city has?I don't personally. I'm sure there are "there go the neighborhood" types, even today, however.

I was just theorizing what that other poster was trying to convey to you. I don't wish to argue with you over whether white flight ever took place on a city by city basis. I also don't wish to go with you from one suburb to another and argue over whether it was "created" by white flight. That's just plain ridiculous.

I'm anxiously awaiting your next post...something along the lines of:

"but what about Mesa, Tempe and Scottsdale, I mean, is every one that moved there white, or something?"

I'd like to reiterate what I said a little while ago, that in So Cal, as well as Seattle, for the most part, suburbs were not "created" by white flight, but that during the 60s and seventies some US inner cities experienced a good deal of whites moving out. There are books on this theory if you want to learn more about it. Please don't get hung up on this tangent.

You feel free to advance your own theories. I'm not extremely familiar with SD county population makeup and how it's changed over the last 40 years, sorry.

I don't personally. I'm sure there are "there go the neighborhood" types, even today, however.

I was just theorizing what that other poster was trying to convey to you. I don't wish to argue with you over whether white flight ever took place on a city by city basis. I also don't wish to go with you from one suburb to another and argue over whether it was "created" by white flight. That's just plain ridiculous.

I'm anxiously awaiting your next post...something along the lines of:

"but what about Mesa, Tempe and Scottsdale, I mean, is every one that moved there white, or something?"

I wouldn’t go on once the point has been made. It is just too knee jerk to blame problems on simple catch phrases. My original comment was that people justified moving in the first place by listing crime and better pricing of property as a motivation for moving to the suburbs in the first place. Those considerations haven’t changed all that much. But these forums are for discussing points of view as I understand it.

My response originally was based on how the American consumer has voted with their wallets to change the face of the country. Suburbs came into existence to meet a need the people themselves seemed to have. So the question would still be what would make the consumer willing go car free? Only two things seem to motivate the US consumer, being forced by circumstances or convenience. So if you were to ask will the “suburbs ever go car free you also have to ask if they have a motivation to do so. My conclusion is, no. If you were ask what it would take to make “some” people living in the suburbs go car free or car light I would say, you have to provide infrastructure. It does no good to debate how people got into the suburbs in the first place. They are there and all races are there as well.

Good post Roody. As for the majority of people, they don't change until they have to. Car ownership is going to have to be much more expesive relative to the average income for car ownership to start to drop in the U.S. I don't see them changing due to environmental issues. My own family slips in tiny jokes about me and my concerns for the environment once in a while.

Good post Roody. As for the majority of people, they don't change until they have to. Car ownership is going to have to be much more expesive relative to the average income for car ownership to start to drop in the U.S. I don't see them changing due to environmental issues. My own family slips in tiny jokes about me and my concerns for the environment once in a while.

I personally believe that many people if not most will cut everything else first before they dump the car. There are a few of us that think outside the box and realize just how expensive a car can be and realize that it may not really be necessary for our situation.

Aaron:)

I wouldn’t go on once the point has been made. It is just too knee jerk to blame problems on simple catch phrases. My original comment was that people justified moving in the first place by listing crime and better pricing of property as a motivation for moving to the suburbs in the first place. Those considerations haven’t changed all that much. But these forums are for discussing points of view as I understand it.

My response originally was based on how the American consumer has voted with their wallets to change the face of the country. Suburbs came into existence to meet a need the people themselves seemed to have. So the question would still be what would make the consumer willing go car free? Only two things seem to motivate the US consumer, being forced by circumstances or convenience. So if you were to ask will the “suburbs ever go car free you also have to ask if they have a motivation to do so. My conclusion is, no. If you were ask what it would take to make “some” people living in the suburbs go car free or car light I would say, you have to provide infrastructure. It does no good to debate how people got into the suburbs in the first place. They are there and all races are there as well.

Thank you for getting more on-topic. :)

I don't think (and never said) that most suburbanites will give up their cars. I do believe that many could give them up and some will give them up. Weather is really a copout, as anybody who has actually tried cycling or walking in the winter could tell you. But that's another debate, for another thread.

What I'm thinking is that while suburbanites will never give up their cars, the type of cars probably will change a lot in the near future. When we finally make a last gasp (literally) effort to curtail pollution from cars, we will have to abandon petroleum. It doesn't look like electric cars (or any other alternative to gas) will have the range, cheapness, or convenince of current vehicles. Some current models of electric cars run only about 40 miles per charge, or example.

What will suburbanites do if they are limited by technology or expense to driving only 40 miles a day? Will they relocate, triggering a flight (white or otherwise) back to the cities? Will they rezone or rebuildl--giving up their beautiful lawns and the treasured isolative lifestyle? Will they subdivide their homes so they don't waste dwindling energy resources on A/C and heat? Or will they say the hell with it, and continue their profligate lifesyles until the world is finally uninhabitable for most life forms, suburban or otherwise?

Or will they say the hell with it, and continue their profligate lifesyles until the world is finally uninhabitable for most life forms, suburban or otherwise?

This, regardless of if it stays financially feasible.

This, assuming it stays financially feasible.

That's what credit is for.

I think a lot of the suburbanites around here would consider bikes if:

1. There was a church, grocery store, karaoke joint, gym and Taco Bell every mile.
2. Lots of Liz Hatch types rode around in the bike lanes all the time.
3. Fishin' and huntin' bikes ready to roll off the shop floor. I dunno how you get an elk home on a bike, though. Seems like most of the hunters an fishermen would be halfway knowledgeable about how to dress for the weather, at least.
4. Costco went out of business.

Thank you for getting more on-topic. :)

I don't think (and never said) that most suburbanites will give up their cars. I do believe that many could give them up and some will give them up. Weather is really a copout, as anybody who has actually tried cycling or walking in the winter could tell you. But that's another debate, for another thread.

What I'm thinking is that while suburbanites will never give up their cars, the type of cars probably will change a lot in the near future. When we finally make a last gasp (literally) effort to curtail pollution from cars, we will have to abandon petroleum. It doesn't look like electric cars (or any other alternative to gas) will have the range, cheapness, or convenince of current vehicles. Some current models of electric cars run only about 40 miles per charge, or example.

What will suburbanites do if they are limited by technology or expense to driving only 40 miles a day? Will they relocate, triggering a flight (white or otherwise) back to the cities? Will they rezone or rebuildl--giving up their beautiful lawns and the treasured isolative lifestyle? Will they subdivide their homes so they don't waste dwindling energy resources on A/C and heat? Or will they say the hell with it, and continue their profligate lifesyles until the world is finally uninhabitable for most life forms, suburban or otherwise?

I think they will work very hard at developing a vehicle to accommodate the suburb lifestyle. The Cash For Cars program shows where the government believes we should be investing our money. If the economy all goes south and makes that impractical then there is no reason to move anywhere, back to the city or otherwise. In the east the jobs that the rust belt once provided have gone anyway. In the west the places people can find work don’t involve downtown either. The Western model produced industrial parks to get around the zoning problems and construction permit problems the inner city had.

I believe the suburbs will have to develop their own labor infrastructure and lifestyle separate from the city they moved from in the first place. As you have often pointed out the population is getting bigger and there simply isn’t any place for suburbanites to slot in to back in the cities.

I had mentioned several places outside of San Diego and how they went from suburb to their own small city. The reason was simple; you could get a house of your own with a yard and no common walls with any neighbors for a lot less than buying a place in the city. It was, and to a degree still is, a dream most Americans aspired to.

To continue this American type of life style we either have to develop the infrastructure for mass transit, or for the few brave souls like you, bike connections to places of employment.

I also believe that before people start giving up AC and heat you will see Nuclear Power plants popping up like mushrooms all over the country. Or you will see a relaxing or the restrictions on coal fired plants like we haven’t seen since the beginning of the industrial age.

Excuse the digression but your description of cycling in the winter reminds me of the Nuns in “Lilies of the Fields.” They walked miles to church on dusty dirt roads for years till they got a contractor to build their Chapel. He had a car and while they could still have walked, when he offered a ride they took it. Far more Americans are like those nuns than like someone who will ride their bike in the freezing weather of winter. Just my opinion but from talking to people in community meetings in our city I think it is a pretty good gage of how my fellow citizens feel.

That's what credit is for.

Good point. See edited post.

Seems like it would be more like the North American west coast, a little cooler, much less rain, probably more snow.

I spent several days in Copenhagen one November years ago and all it did was rain. Rain and freezing rain was all I saw but my guess is that they see some heavy snow in January and February.

I honestly don't think that American suburbs will ever be car free until there is a massive change in values. We can develop all the infrastructure we like, but Americans value cars as a means of self-expression not transportation. Here is an excerpt from an article I wrote in a local paper about the advantages of cycling versus electric cars, it pretty well sums up my attitude:

"There are two major obstacles to this {cycling for transportation** possibility. The first is ego; we have grown to identify our autos as a means of social acceptance and can’t separate ourselves from the symbol of our accomplishment. My experience has proven that adults in the USA classify bicycles in three categories: children’s toys, exotic machines for fitness fanatics, and transportation of last resort for the poverty stricken and disadvantaged. Most people are not fitness fanatics, but they are afraid of what other people might think and would be humiliated if they were seen riding their bike to the store, post office, bank or office even though it just makes sense. The second problem is greater—people are just plain lazy. Americans would rather sit down and eat than do anything else (gas stations don’t sell chili dogs by accident)."

More people are doing it, but the vast majority sit back and bask in the glow of self-importance a fancy car gives them. The economical,environmental and health benefits mean nothing compared to the gratification they receive from Madison Avenue.