Nice Carfree Article
06-05-06, 10:44 PM
#1
Urban "Dirtbag"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
06-06-06, 10:01 AM
#2
Humvee of bikes =Worksman
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
6 Posts
If there were more mass transit that served a wider area of both rural and
urban areas more people could / would go either car lite or car free and
conserve ever dwindling oil reserves. Less "consumer" shopping as a hobby
would help also.
urban areas more people could / would go either car lite or car free and
conserve ever dwindling oil reserves. Less "consumer" shopping as a hobby
would help also.
06-06-06, 11:48 AM
#3
Sophomoric Member
That was a good article. I appreciated that the writer found an interviewed a successful carfree person, rather than the usual hokey first-person account that ends with the poorly prepared writer concluding that carfree living is too difficult or even impossible.
A lot of people on this forum write that they can't be carfree because they have children. One stupid old fart even dares to say that it's irresponsible for parents to be carfree. I hope they all read this article to see just how possible and responsible carfree parenting can be.
A lot of people on this forum write that they can't be carfree because they have children. One stupid old fart even dares to say that it's irresponsible for parents to be carfree. I hope they all read this article to see just how possible and responsible carfree parenting can be.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
06-07-06, 07:47 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 261 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times
in
10 Posts
From the article:
>>>>>But despite the obstacles, Allsopp said the family is firm on going car-free.
"If it was ever too much, he would stop working," Allsopp said. "We would choose no work over getting a car."<<<<
I think that statement says it all. These are hard core transportation cyclist for life. I still think they should move to an area that has better bus, rail and lightrail transportation. There are plenty of communities like this all over the world so it's not impossible. You have to admire a woman who pulls that trailer all the time instead of taking the bus. Very rare indeed.
>>>>>But despite the obstacles, Allsopp said the family is firm on going car-free.
"If it was ever too much, he would stop working," Allsopp said. "We would choose no work over getting a car."<<<<
I think that statement says it all. These are hard core transportation cyclist for life. I still think they should move to an area that has better bus, rail and lightrail transportation. There are plenty of communities like this all over the world so it's not impossible. You have to admire a woman who pulls that trailer all the time instead of taking the bus. Very rare indeed.
06-07-06, 02:22 PM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 531
Bikes: Still researching
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dahon.Steve
From the article:
>>>>>But despite the obstacles, Allsopp said the family is firm on going car-free.
"If it was ever too much, he would stop working," Allsopp said. "We would choose no work over getting a car."<<<<
I think that statement says it all. These are hard core transportation cyclist for life. I still think they should move to an area that has better bus, rail and lightrail transportation. There are plenty of communities like this all over the world so it's not impossible. You have to admire a woman who pulls that trailer all the time instead of taking the bus. Very rare indeed.
>>>>>But despite the obstacles, Allsopp said the family is firm on going car-free.
"If it was ever too much, he would stop working," Allsopp said. "We would choose no work over getting a car."<<<<
I think that statement says it all. These are hard core transportation cyclist for life. I still think they should move to an area that has better bus, rail and lightrail transportation. There are plenty of communities like this all over the world so it's not impossible. You have to admire a woman who pulls that trailer all the time instead of taking the bus. Very rare indeed.
I admire them for going car free in Edmundton, possibly the worst place in North America to be car free.
06-09-06, 01:43 PM
#6
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 21
Bikes: 2006 Kona Coiler Supreme, 2007 Dobermann Pinscher.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It is certainly tough to be carfree in Edmonton. I've been trying and it only truly works for me during the summer. This past winter, though very mild, still meant that I only commuted by bicycle for half the work week on average. Icebike.com offers lots of tips for Edmontonians who are are carfree.
Let me describe for you what Edmonton is like, it may not be the worst place in North America to be carfree, but it is very much against the norm and therefore, a real challenge.
Edmonton is the capital city of Alberta, the richest province in Canada. Growth and wealth are primarily due to the presence of hundreds of billions of barrels of oil trapped in our oil sands, oil which Bush referred to when he stated the need for oil independence. What's sometimes funny to me, is when people in this subforum are encouraged by your president's comments regarding oil addiction; how some forum posters misinterpret it as an indication that your government is pursuing alternative renewable energy.
In fact, when Bush says, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world", he is likely also talking about depending on the U.S's most stable trading partner, Canada, for oil. Proven oil reserves within Alberta's oil sands are second only to Saudi Arabia's current reserves of which Alberta has 70% proven. As extraction and refining technology improves, the recoverable reserves continues to grow, and predictions range from 50 - 100 years of oil production. To contrast the explosive growth in Alberta, in January of this year, "Bush [called] for the DOE to spend $335 million on clean coal initiatives... Funding for solar energy research would increase... from $83 million to $148 million, while spending on wind-technology research would increase... to $44 million", (Gartner, Wired News, 2006, retrieved from https://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70142-0.html) while industry investment into Alberta oil sands totals $3 - $4 billion per year. Approximately $28 billion has been invested by industry, a majority which is comprised of American companies, in the last 5 years (Government of Alberta, Alberta’s Dramatic Crude Oil Growth in an Environment of Conventional Crude Oil Decline, U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, 2005). It may appear I'm boasting, rather I'm just trying to describe the setting in which I live. Read this article for negative effects of oil sands production: https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...G46CMUPL60.DTL
Our province is clearly wealthy. In times like these, the Alberta government rakes in between $8 and $14 billion dollars of royalty revenue per year from the energy industry (natural gas, conventional oil, oil sands, coal, and minerals). The oil sands contributes a growing amount of the royalty revenue from $200 million in 2003/04 to an estimated $1.7 billion in 2006/07 (Government of Alberta, About Royalties, 2006, retrieved from https://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/842.asp).
While government revenue is up, so is government spending on all the typical Canadian expenses: infrastructure (transportation, communications, utilities), agriculture and resource management, social services, and education. Some notable differences between spending by our provinces and American states include the large chunk that we spend on health, 37% of this years budget equalling $10.4 billion, and the chunk we spend on education, 27%. So we do have universal health care and we don't need to pay for most types of health care. Another notable expense is that the provincial government gives a rebate on every household's natural gas bill (when times are good and gas is expensive). Finally, a symbol of just how rich our province is on resources, this year: every man, woman, and child as a resident of Alberta was given a cheque for $400 tax free.
What does all this money mean for citizens? Infrastructure, population growth, and the ability to develop a land of boreal forest and plains into oil sands, and urban landscapes. I'm not saying that Alberta is transforming its wild regions into cities with abandon; but sometimes it feels that way. For example, Edmonton has a low population density of 99.6 people/km^2 and has an area of "684 km^2, one of the largest cities by area in North America — larger in area than Chicago, Illinois, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Detroit, Michigan" (Wikipedia). Low density, loads of money, and a cold climate means everyone here has a car. Urban sprawl is a very obvious feature of this city, the nearby ravine that I used to ride has recently been sliced into and a large 6 lane bridge built over it; fertile farmland has been gobbled up by housing developments all around.
It is very difficult to go carfree in this city, I own a car as well... in fact there are 6 cars in my family for 5 family members. The state of our economy, attitudes toward money and owning a mountain of possessions have lead to pressure where simple living isn't really possible. At least living without a car is nearly impossible. A consumerist attitude has formed and although Albertans enjoy a high standard of living, with high average incomes, there are many people who are in debt due to uncontrollable spending or lack of forethought in terms of savings for retirement. We also have large disparity between rich and poor like any big city. In my opinion our provincial and municipal government has not addressed the future satisfactorily, concentrating on sprawling infrastructure, and making it difficult for poor people to live in the city.
So I applaud the Allsop's in becoming completely car free. Especially when our public transit system is pathetic, slow, busses are too infrequent and the Light Rail Transit (subway) only travels 12.6 km, despite being first established in 1978. My daily commute alone takes me 14.5 km and I can't use any of the Light Rail on my route. The LRT is finally expanding to my area and will eventually arrive, laughably, in 2010. My area has been developed for the last 25 years that the transit system was first begun!
If Edmonton is the worst place in North America to be car free, it's not because of the cold weather, but the lifestyle that the majority of the population leads; opposite to the "simple life" that people in here espouse. This type of resistance makes it very difficult to go car free.
Let me describe for you what Edmonton is like, it may not be the worst place in North America to be carfree, but it is very much against the norm and therefore, a real challenge.
Edmonton is the capital city of Alberta, the richest province in Canada. Growth and wealth are primarily due to the presence of hundreds of billions of barrels of oil trapped in our oil sands, oil which Bush referred to when he stated the need for oil independence. What's sometimes funny to me, is when people in this subforum are encouraged by your president's comments regarding oil addiction; how some forum posters misinterpret it as an indication that your government is pursuing alternative renewable energy.
In fact, when Bush says, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world", he is likely also talking about depending on the U.S's most stable trading partner, Canada, for oil. Proven oil reserves within Alberta's oil sands are second only to Saudi Arabia's current reserves of which Alberta has 70% proven. As extraction and refining technology improves, the recoverable reserves continues to grow, and predictions range from 50 - 100 years of oil production. To contrast the explosive growth in Alberta, in January of this year, "Bush [called] for the DOE to spend $335 million on clean coal initiatives... Funding for solar energy research would increase... from $83 million to $148 million, while spending on wind-technology research would increase... to $44 million", (Gartner, Wired News, 2006, retrieved from https://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70142-0.html) while industry investment into Alberta oil sands totals $3 - $4 billion per year. Approximately $28 billion has been invested by industry, a majority which is comprised of American companies, in the last 5 years (Government of Alberta, Alberta’s Dramatic Crude Oil Growth in an Environment of Conventional Crude Oil Decline, U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, 2005). It may appear I'm boasting, rather I'm just trying to describe the setting in which I live. Read this article for negative effects of oil sands production: https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...G46CMUPL60.DTL
Our province is clearly wealthy. In times like these, the Alberta government rakes in between $8 and $14 billion dollars of royalty revenue per year from the energy industry (natural gas, conventional oil, oil sands, coal, and minerals). The oil sands contributes a growing amount of the royalty revenue from $200 million in 2003/04 to an estimated $1.7 billion in 2006/07 (Government of Alberta, About Royalties, 2006, retrieved from https://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/842.asp).
While government revenue is up, so is government spending on all the typical Canadian expenses: infrastructure (transportation, communications, utilities), agriculture and resource management, social services, and education. Some notable differences between spending by our provinces and American states include the large chunk that we spend on health, 37% of this years budget equalling $10.4 billion, and the chunk we spend on education, 27%. So we do have universal health care and we don't need to pay for most types of health care. Another notable expense is that the provincial government gives a rebate on every household's natural gas bill (when times are good and gas is expensive). Finally, a symbol of just how rich our province is on resources, this year: every man, woman, and child as a resident of Alberta was given a cheque for $400 tax free.
What does all this money mean for citizens? Infrastructure, population growth, and the ability to develop a land of boreal forest and plains into oil sands, and urban landscapes. I'm not saying that Alberta is transforming its wild regions into cities with abandon; but sometimes it feels that way. For example, Edmonton has a low population density of 99.6 people/km^2 and has an area of "684 km^2, one of the largest cities by area in North America — larger in area than Chicago, Illinois, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Detroit, Michigan" (Wikipedia). Low density, loads of money, and a cold climate means everyone here has a car. Urban sprawl is a very obvious feature of this city, the nearby ravine that I used to ride has recently been sliced into and a large 6 lane bridge built over it; fertile farmland has been gobbled up by housing developments all around.
It is very difficult to go carfree in this city, I own a car as well... in fact there are 6 cars in my family for 5 family members. The state of our economy, attitudes toward money and owning a mountain of possessions have lead to pressure where simple living isn't really possible. At least living without a car is nearly impossible. A consumerist attitude has formed and although Albertans enjoy a high standard of living, with high average incomes, there are many people who are in debt due to uncontrollable spending or lack of forethought in terms of savings for retirement. We also have large disparity between rich and poor like any big city. In my opinion our provincial and municipal government has not addressed the future satisfactorily, concentrating on sprawling infrastructure, and making it difficult for poor people to live in the city.
So I applaud the Allsop's in becoming completely car free. Especially when our public transit system is pathetic, slow, busses are too infrequent and the Light Rail Transit (subway) only travels 12.6 km, despite being first established in 1978. My daily commute alone takes me 14.5 km and I can't use any of the Light Rail on my route. The LRT is finally expanding to my area and will eventually arrive, laughably, in 2010. My area has been developed for the last 25 years that the transit system was first begun!
If Edmonton is the worst place in North America to be car free, it's not because of the cold weather, but the lifestyle that the majority of the population leads; opposite to the "simple life" that people in here espouse. This type of resistance makes it very difficult to go car free.
Last edited by quintessence22; 06-09-06 at 02:04 PM.
06-12-06, 02:45 AM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Newcastle Australia
Posts: 1,185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you think Edmonton is bad read about Sydney's transportation woes, at least you guys have the money to fix problem unlike the state government who recently tried to sell the Snowy Hydro scheme - a national icon. Thankfully the sale caved in. Most of our money woes stem from the expense of hosting an olympic games, debt retirement when investment was needed, and tax breaks.
Sydney also suffers a very large urban sprawl problem and little to none urban planning at any stage. Sydney is also meant to be getting more rail lines, but they have been promised since the mid 90s and are planned to be finished in 2017. Yes 2017 when they were first proposed in the 90's.
Im just glad I live up the coast in a smaller city.
Sydney also suffers a very large urban sprawl problem and little to none urban planning at any stage. Sydney is also meant to be getting more rail lines, but they have been promised since the mid 90s and are planned to be finished in 2017. Yes 2017 when they were first proposed in the 90's.
Im just glad I live up the coast in a smaller city.
06-12-06, 11:22 AM
#8
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,972
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,535 Times
in
1,045 Posts
Originally Posted by adgrant
Personally I think choosing no work over getting a car is nuts. Even with no car, you still have to pay for a roof over your head, you have to pay for heat (particularly in Edmundton), food and possibly health care.
06-12-06, 12:06 PM
#9
Plays in traffic
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,971
Bikes: 1996 Litespeed Classic, 2006 Trek Portland, 2013 Ribble Winter/Audax, 2016 Giant Talon 4
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
9 Posts
"If it was ever too much, he would stop working," Allsopp said. "We would choose no work over getting a car."
06-12-06, 12:31 PM
#10
Sophomoric Member
Many people are working for their cars. Far from driving the car, the car is driving them to work longer hours and ovetime. Maybe a responsible person would choose to forego the car and spend more time with their loved ones.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
06-13-06, 08:42 AM
#11
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,972
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,535 Times
in
1,045 Posts
Originally Posted by tsl
I'll admit, that sound a little extreme, but I'm not far from that spot myself. I'm carfree because I don't want to have to work that hard to support a car. Eight years ago when I dumped the financial demands of a car, I was able to go to a much less stressful job--and one with fewer hours--that still pays for everything else.
06-13-06, 08:46 AM
#12
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,972
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,535 Times
in
1,045 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
Many people are working for their cars. Far from driving the car, the car is driving them to work longer hours and ovetime. Maybe a responsible person would choose to forego the car and spend more time with their loved ones.
06-13-06, 10:32 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 261 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times
in
10 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
Many people are working for their cars. Far from driving the car, the car is driving them to work longer hours and ovetime. Maybe a responsible person would choose to forego the car and spend more time with their loved ones.
Last edited by Dahon.Steve; 06-13-06 at 10:45 AM.
06-13-06, 11:34 AM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 531
Bikes: Still researching
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dahon.Steve
They say a car takes 20% of your income to support. Well lets be conservative and say it costs 10% of your income. That means ALL your income for the first month of the year must pay to support and maintain an engine. That's a lot of hours and overtime.
This biggest expense for most people is housing. It is quite easy to live car free in NYC, easier than having a car if you only leave the city occaisonally. The catch is you could spend more than 50% of your income for housing. Housing costs typically consume about 30% of income (except on the coasts of course).
Aside from housing, a very good reason to keep a good job in the U.S. is health benefits.
06-13-06, 11:39 AM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 531
Bikes: Still researching
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by quintessence22
If Edmonton is the worst place in North America to be car free, it's not because of the cold weather, but the lifestyle that the majority of the population leads; opposite to the "simple life" that people in here espouse. This type of resistance makes it very difficult to go car free.
