Dahon.Steve

You would figure that as we get older, becoming carfree would be harder. However, those of us who live in transit rich communities can avoid the hardship altogether. Those who are bicycle dependent will have it harder no question.

Since I'm older, the peer pressure to own a car is gone. It's liberating to be at the point of your life where you can remove the second biggest household expense and not have to worry what other people think. I cut the cable cord years ago and it was just as liberating. You would think losing car ownership would restrict my travel but that's all I do during the weekend.

At this point, I'm actually too broke to own a car. I own a house and there's no way my income can support a new car and a mortgage. I cringe of the thought of having to make those monthly car payments.

Dahon.Steve

One more thing. I now time the buses and trains with Apps. I found using Android Apps allow me to avoid waiting 20 minutes or more at the bus stop. I always arrive at the bus stop 10 minutes before it arrives. It's like owning your own vehicle!

I also noticed a number of people doing the same! It's funny to see the bus 3 blocks away and someone walking slowly to the bus stop having timed it perfectly.

RomansFiveEight

This comes up all the time. Let's make cars difficult to own and that'll solve all the worlds problem! Maybe it's because I spend a lot of time working with low income families and I'm especially sensitive to it; but why don't YOU tell the single mother of three who works two jobs and drives a 15 year old car she just PRAYS doesn't break down that she needs to start putting her kids in a tow-behind carrier and taking an extra couple of hours of her day to commute by bike in an area where the climate can include severe thunderstorms and heavy snow? Oh and she'd LOVE to be able to afford to live in a trendy downtown area where everything is close by; but she lives in a small rural community where housing is cheap and she's close enough to her two jobs.

I mean hey, I've got nothing against living car-light/free. I think it's extraordinary. It helps the environment, reduces our dependency on foreign oil and keeps folks fitter and healthier. I just think these sort of "Let's make cars only accessible to rich people" solutions are short-sided. And that doesn't even begin to deal with folks with physical disabilities, etc. Incentivizing those who choose alternative options sound great! But when we penalize people for driving cars we throw a LOT of people under the bus (no pun intended). Especially folks who don't live in areas where mass transit is an option.

Machka 

There is a tendency to produce 'one size fits all' solutions on this forum, without any consideration to the variety of conditions and situations people encounter.

Ekdog

Your last sentence is the key. Why isn't there decent mass transit in so many parts of the United States, and what are you doing to change that? You should be outraged that poor mothers like the one you mention should be forced to rely on the most expensive form of transit we know, the private car. Some are even poorer and have no car at all and no way to get to a job if they had one. You're a man of the cloth and a respected member of your community. Why aren't you pushing for mass transit instead of lashing out at anyone who speaks out against a system that keeps so many desperately poor?

RomansFiveEight

Well, for starter, not everyone lives in an urban area. I live in a rural community. I would LOVE to have mass transit in this area; but the only way it would 'work' would be if it were very expensive. Mass transit 'works' in urban areas because a lot of users spread the cost of building and operating that infrastructure. In a town of 3,000 people that spreads out quite a ways, I can't fathom how busses, for example, would work. And where would they go? We have school busses for kids, of course. Though the cost is tremendous. New York City has 2,800 miles worth of bus routes spread across hundreds of busses and millions of users. In order to have the same sort of bus coverage just in this county; assuming we start by just supporting those who live and work in this county; and maybe an extra bus or two to St. Louis for those who commute into the city to work; we could easily have tens of thousands of miles of bus routes serving just a few tens of thousands of people (and that assumes EVERYONE starts using the bus).

There are actually a lot of things we DO do. For example, we have commuter lots along the interstates where folks can meet up and ride together to work, saving gas. Of course, even getting TO the interstate could be 7 or 8 or 10 or 15 miles. And sure, any fit young cyclist would think that's no problem. But again, that's time some families just don't have and it's not always feasible. But the commuter lots work great. Usually packed with cars that are parked there while their owners all climb into someone elses vehicle; usually, they rotate who drives.

I've lived in Urban, Suburban, and Rural areas. And one thing I've noticed is that most rural folks have no concept of what it's like to live in an urban environment; and likewise, most urban folks have no clue what the world looks like outside the city limits.

And finally, that sort of entirely misses the point. I would love to see better mass transit options. I would love to see ways to reduce dependency on the automobile or at least it's improvement (improvements to electric cars, for example). But what was proposed, and what I was commenting on, wasn't a suggestion that we improve mass transit, improve cars, or incentivize those who use alternative transportation. The solution proposed was that we heavily tax and penalize car drivers so that only wealthy people can use them. That's the solution I'd have a problem with.

Roody

I think you're making sense.

IMO, car disincentives should be equal for everybody, not income based. So I don't support high user fees for auto ownership and driving.

Instead, I think we should look at income neutral options to limit driving. For example, closure of selected roads and less availability of parking.

If you haven't read it already, I think you will be interested in this article about discrimination in transit:

America?s transportation system discriminates against minorities and poor: Federal funding for roads, buses, and mass transit still segregates Americans.

RomansFiveEight

Yeah that article essentially deals with urban communities. But then, when you're talking about mass transit you usually ARE talking about urban communities. And I have seen that, for sure. Right here in St. Louis, for example. MetroLink (the cities train service) goes out to all of the wealthy white suburbs. It hits some of the minority-dominant suburbs, but not most. St. Louis has relatively sparse mass transit anyway (but then it's small, for a metro area, and spread out), but while it covers areas like downtown and the wealthier areas; areas dominantly occupied by minorities and the poor are essentially unserved. Though they aren't necessarily using cars either; they are just walking a long way to the bus. After a storm I volunteered to help cleanup a particular neighborhood in St. Louis that was dominantly poor and black. I saw quite a few people leaving early in the morning to catch a bus a couple miles away. I talked to one lady, whose home was damaged by this tornado, and she actually mentioned how she never sees any of the "rich people" (by which she means the lower-middle/middle class folks who live where the nearest bus stop is) at the bus stop. It's mostly people from her neighborhood.

Rural areas and semi-rural areas are a whole other ball of wax. So spread out that mass transit becomes difficult AND driving becomes more expensive. (In some ways. I live here too and paying to park a car is about as foreign a concept for us as the World Series is for the Chicago Cubs. Insurance is cheap because crime is low and the likelihood of a fender bender is equally low. Less cars, less minor accidents. Most of us have room to and know how to do our own maintenance, which saves a lot of money too. But then you balance that with more miles driven, etc.). For most middle class families it's just a fact of life. There's some super-urban sprawl here. Folks who did live in the suburbs and as they got older, decided they wanted the small town life. So they either retired out here or just don't mind the long commute. Plenty of folks born and raised out here though, everything from very high income (the house across from mine sold for $8.5m), to very low income. The low income folks are definitely 'car poor'. And I wish there were better solutions for them. Many commute to manufacturing jobs in the city and how cool would a bus from the commuter lot to the edge of STL's mass transit be. But I know the cost would be tremendous and most folks out here wouldn't use it, only those with the lowest income. Plenty of folks carpool but that's as far as they're willing to go.

Incentivizing is a great thing, too. When I visited Chicago a few years ago I did a little research beforehand and saw just how expensive it was to park. I originally wanted to take AMTRAK to Chicago. Just get someone to drop me off at the train station and pick me back up afterwards. That's easy enough; heck I do that all the time when I fly (who wants to pay for parking at the airport when you can bum a ride from a friend or relative?) Again, living in a rural community means the nearest commercial airport is about an hour drive. Anyway, AMTRAK was surprisingly expensive and in doing the math, I could drive there and back (including fuel, maintenance, etc. I actually keep track of every expense for my car for the life of the car and know my 'cost per mile') for about half the price as the train. But, just outside of Chicago is a suburban community with a commuter train that'll take you right into downtown Chicago for a few bucks. And parking in it's parking lot is a whopping $1 for 24 hours. Once in downtown it was walking 99% of the time for me, the occasional bus, or even a cab (though I know a cab is essentially as bad as a car. I mean, it IS a car.) It was great! And that's the kind of incentive that keeps cars out of Chicago. I guess you could make the commuter train prohibitively expensive and the parking at the commuter train steep and then it would've been cheaper for me to take the train all the way from STL to Chicago; but I imagine that cheap commuter parking/train is a godsend for folks living in the suburbs and working in Chicago.

RomansFiveEight

We are called to care for our environment, and be good stewards of the earth. But part of the problem is short-sightedness, as I mentioned. We can blame society all we want for creating a dependency on foreign oil and emissions but there are lots and lots of people in this country who, for whatever reason, would be significantly impacted by steep taxes and other penalties for driving cars. Whereas the wealthy folks would be essentially unfazed.

Personally, I know on this forum a common theme is getting everyone to move into downtown and take a bus or a bicycle; but I think a far more realistic goal is hyper-efficient cars and cars using alternative fuels. Teslas are cost-prohibitive right now but even folks out here in this rural community could easily use one. The range is more than enough to get anywhere they need to go; even without the supercharger stations. In the future when an electric car is as cheap as any other car, and the market has reliable used electrics; that'll be really exciting. (And, of course, the range is in the 300 mile range). And, unlike steep fines for car owners, crippling infrastructure or crossing your fingers and hoping everyone buys a bicycle; that sort of a solution can be universally adopted because the people WANT it, as opposed to the people being forced into it. Cheap, reliable transportation. There are plenty of luddites in the world but most folks I know would absolutely love an electric car with a decent range. I know I would. But, not in my price range. At least not one with a decent range; plenty of 75~100 mile range cars for a bit more than what I paid for my car. But if I could've bought a 300 mile range electric car I would've!

Machka 

The Tesla

Tesla Model S: The car blowing everyone away




And I think it is only the beginning. Yes, it is expensive now, and it will continue to be expensive for a few more years or maybe longer, but eventually the price will drop as more companies start developing them and as the technology improves.


Of course, that doesn't solve the problem right this instant.

Machka 

I like this idea. ^^


And I completely understand about the buses in rural areas. It's why Rowan drives to work. There is a bus that goes down to the ferry terminal but it runs at a time which is more convenient for the tourists and would get him to work about 2 hours late. And it just wouldn't be cost efficient to put a bus service in that would be convenient for the small handful of people who want to get there earlier.

RomansFiveEight

Well part of the reason the Tesla is expensive is that it's a premium car. It's not an electric Chevy Impala, it's an Electric BMW or Mercedes; it's a high end luxury automobile. And it's a brilliant strategy. Since electric car technology IS expensive and is already more expensive than a gas propulsion system in the same car; Tesla figured out that they can target a more lucrative audience by making it a high end car. If someone is going to spend a lot for a car, they should get a lot for a car. But I am excited for the day when their technology becomes available on the sort of cars middle class and low income people drive. Low income folks coming later as they generally only buy used cars. Heck, even middle and upper middle class folks buy a lot of used cars; it's a good way to get a good deal. So when they've been on the market and are sold in large numbers for a few years; they will become even more affordable as they hit the used market. Provided, of course, that they also become reliable enough at that point that they won't need very expensive battery replacements (one of the caveats of an electric car. While modern automobiles, if they get the maintenance they need, often last 150~200,000 miles before any major repair is needed; electric cars need their several-thousand-dollar electric battery replaced after some time. But that's the sort of technological improvement I'm hungry to see!).

Heck, my last car (before the one I own now) had 297,000 miles on it. Still runs, I gave it to a nephew. No major repairs. Original engine and transmission. Replaced a battery ($70), and had to fix a suspension component when I slid on ice and hit a curb (~$250); but that's it. The entire time I owned the car, no major repairs.

Roody

Those are mostly straw man arguments, and not very impressive. For example, most environmentalists don't advocate for steep taxes and most are not luddites. Modern environmentalists tend to advocate positive measures as being more effective, more popular, and more in line with social values such as as economic equality and economic prosperity. For exampl, positive incentives to switch to more sustainable energy and transportation should stimulate the economy and put more people to work, as well as helping the environment.

I do support a very small number of negative measures (disincentives), such as car restriction on selected urban roads and less availability of "free" parking.

But I think positive incentives will do much more to reduce pollution. Mainly, rather than drastic restrictions on car ownership/driving, I would like to see positive measures such as:

• Adoption of sustainable/renewable energy production. (This is already in process, but could be sped up some. It should be a big boon to the economy as well as the environment. At this time, renewables are even showing price equivalence to coal and nuclear.)
• Better land use, especially in urban/suburban areas so that trip lengths, especially commutes and errand runs, can be reduced. (This is very long term--50 to 100 years. But we might as well get started, as this is another way to get more jobs to people and more income to investors.)
• Improved infrastructure for bikes/walking and better public transit. (This will mostly impact urban/suburban areas, but that's where the vast majority of the population lives. This will be a HUGE stimulus for jobs and the economy. It will also greatly improve access to jobs and education for unemployed/low income people.)

RomansFiveEight

I wasn't referring to environmentalists in general. Especially as someone who is very concerned about the environment, the earth and it's resources. I was referring to one specific poster above who felt that we should be like the other poster claimed their country was where the taxes and fees meant that cars cost six-digits. To which a non car owning urbanite might think "Yeah, that's great!" because it means less cars in the way of their bicycle and less emissions to boot. But it's also forgetting about the millions and millions of Americans who don't have the same access to mass transit or who aren't in the same close/tight urban environments. The former we need to improve; and since not everyone wants to move to the latter (For a lot of people, living in an urban environment is about the worst form of hell you could prescribe. As a matter of fact both of my neighbors are from larger metro areas where they lived in the city and couldn't get out fast enough. Personally, I didn't mind living in a more urban area. But if I had to choose I definitely prefer it out here.); the solution is the exact sort of stuff you describe. Improve transit, and improve the cars. The cars are NOT going away; so lets find ways to make them not use so much unsustainable fuel and produce so much emissions.

Ekdog

I don't mean to sound harsh, but it seems to me that if a person makes such a lifestyle choice, he should have to pay for it. As it stands, we're all subsidising--both economically and and environmentally--those millions of trips to and from the country/suburbs/exurbs.

Roody

The whole Singapore thing was an unfortunate side trip. Singapore is a country, but it's also 100% urbanized, a dense city of 5.5 million inhabitants. So it makes more sense to compare it to other cities, not to another country like the USA. So maybe we could all drop that line?

Obviously, urban and rural areas have very different circumstances and problems, so will require very different solutions. I happen to think cars will continue to be a major aspect of rural lif even as their use diminishes in urban areas. (To be clear, I imagine a lot of well-off city dwellers will continue to own cars, but I think they will use their cars a lot less in their daily lives.)

[HR][/HR]

As for buses in small towns. Our small towns and rural areas do have on-demand buses that you have to call to schedule rides. For the average person, they're not very desirable. They can be better than nothing for elderly, disabled, and very low income people. I could tell you some amusing stories about those buses whn I lived carfree in a small town (pop. 9,000).

Basically, I could get around the town well by walking and the weird shuttle bus. A bike would have been ideal, but I didn't have one back then. A bike could have carried me anywhere in town in less than 20 minutes!

What I really needed was a commuter bus that would have taken me to my job in the city, about 22 miles away. This would have also served for shopping, entertainment, and other reason that country people go to the big city.

Actually, given a bicycle and a commuter bus, I would have been perfectly happy living in a small town without a car. Actually, it probably would be even better than the city.

RomansFiveEight

How much should they have to pay for it? They already have to pay more gas taxes (just by virtue of buying more gas); and they pay proportionally for their property taxes, income taxes, etc. In fact, they/we pay income taxes that go to provide infrastructure in urban environments. Part of most states budgets includes programs for their urban areas and those taxes aren't JUST paid by the folks living in those areas. (Something I support; by the way. A prosperous St. Louis and Kansas City makes things better for us here in the rest of MO).

And again, what about the folks who certainly can't afford to live in an urban area? Their choice, instead of a low-cost, very-low-crime small town; is to live on the north or east side of St. Louis; one of the deadliest places in the United States that some months has had more murders than Baghdad. Is that what low-income families should be forced to choose since they can no longer afford to own their old beat up car that they used to get to work?

Again, if you live in a big urban environment, you might not have a concept of what it looks like outside of one and how millions of people do rely on cars. Look, I ride my bicycle as much as I can. I routinely commute with my bike. I live in a small town but it just so happens my wife and I both work in this small town. While we do have to go a couple towns over to get fresh groceries (that's another issue for another day. But like most rural-dwellers, we grocery shop once every week or two); we both live only a couple of miles from work. So we can both routinely bicycle to work (provided the weather cooperates of course). Occasionally I need to drive. And I'm not going to apologize for owning a car that lets me do what I need to do. I bought my car in December of 2013 and it has 21,000 miles on it now. I bought an efficient, low-emissions car. But my work and what I do takes me all over, and frequent trips to hospitals all over this part of the state. It's just a reality. Steep penalties for owning a car just don't make sense in the US of A. Improving mass transit, incentivizing more efficient cars; that makes a lot of sense. Certain penalties do make sense. Like the gas guzzler tax. While farmers and construction workers don't have to pay that tax for the pickup trucks they need to do their work (and before you bash them; where do you think your high rise apartment and the food in it's fridge came from? Lots and lots of diesel fuel.) But if folks want to buy inefficient, high-polluting cars they have to pay an additional tax. But everyday Americans who just want the cheapest form of reliable transportation they can get aren't penalized. Some of the gas guzzler tax money is then used to provide tax credits to extremely low emission vehicles; like the Chevy Volt; which is a 'plug in hybrid'. Which can travel something like 15 miles all-electric and then a small gas motor kicks in. You can get a $7500 tax credit for buying that car (well, an income tax credit. You still have to fork the money out up front. It's kind of a weird/silly credit.) That sort of stuff makes a lot of sense.

I know you live in Spain, but if you ever get to the US; go visit one of our many small towns. It's not rows and rows of shiny SUV's and people with diamond encrusted watches getting into them. That's the suburbs and they have access to mass transit. In fact looking out my office window, most of the cars I see are at least 5 or 10 years old. The median income of this community is about half of what it is in the rest of the state. There are no jobs here, so they have to commute. But you can buy a 2 bedroom house for $20,000~$40,000; and there's tons of rental opportunities on the cheap. My wife is a property manager in fact and has all kinds of trailer houses, clean and in great shape, for about $300 a month. Small houses for just a little more. You can't even sleep on a park bench in New York City for that. And it's what these folks can afford. Plenty of mid and high income folks too; but they'll keep their cars and just pay the penalties (and then not spend their money elsewhere). These low income folks will probably end up homeless because they'll lose their job, and won't be able to find one within walking distance. We have school busses, so that'll get their kids to school. And we have programs to provide the kids a hot lunch. But nothing to give them clean clothes or a roof over their head. But, hey, there'll be less cars in the city?

RomansFiveEight

The only on-demand bus we have available is for the elderly. We do have one! I have actually looked into it. I pastor the 150 year old church right in the middle of town and I've had my fair share of folks calling or stopping by because they are just desperate for a way to work. We've provided gas vouchers before and even managed to scrounge up rides. And I inquired about bus services but there isn't such a service out here. These are folks whose car broke down. If they are elderly or disabled, a bus will come get them. Otherwise, on their own. A mix of low income and poor financial planning that is just rampant out here. Really breaks my heart. For some context; we're a town of about 3,000. There is a town of about 9,000 nearby and that's where a lot of folks from here commute to work (if they don't commute to St. Louis); and where you'll find most of the stores, etc.

When it comes to urban areas; that's why I love the solutions you proposed. There's no reason to invest in automobile infrastructure. There's no reason to invest in infrastructure that improves a system of transportation that in an urban environment. Heck, turn some driving lanes into bus lanes. And why are HOV lanes only on the interstate? If you drive an electric car or a car that isn't solely occupied (i.e., carpool) you get a special lane! Everyone else, cram into the one last remaining lane. Put a tax on parking spots, etc. That all makes great sense in an urban environment! Tax the infrastructure to fund the infrastructure! Use that tax revenue to provide better mass transit and perhaps even incentivize the ownership of far more efficient vehicles. Heck, with the incentives available now I'd have bought the electric focus over my gas focus in a heartbeat if I lived in the city. Although I probably wouldn't need a car anyway then.

That's the stuff that makes sense. Blanket rules for everyone just don't work because people fall through the cracks. And I know it's common in urban environments (and I heard it when I lived in them) to say that living out here is some sort of lifestyle choice. But largely you're talking about where people grew up, where all of their family and friends are, etc. And for others, you're talking about somewhere they can afford to live. For the former crowd, I'm sure it makes sense to a fit, healthy, car-free urbanite to just pack up and move to the city. But it doesn't make sense to these folks.

PhotoJoe 

P&R talk and quoting posts edited. Let's keep the P&R in P&R. Thanks.

enigmaT120

I couldn't get our county's dial a ride bus to come out to Falls City, population about a thousand. The transit folks determined that there wasn't enough interest. I ride my bike 9 miles to Dallas to catch the bus, but I don't think anybody else does. I wonder if the people who could use the bus just don't show up to the meetings to give their input.

Roody

They would go to the meetings, but they don't have any transportation.

Seriously, you will get a lot more done about transit if you find people who share your views and band together. It doesn't have to be real formal--just a group of citizens who will attend public meetings together and meet with planners and officials.

Also, a lot of special interest groups will share some interest in improving public transit. These would include senior groups, handicappers, even retailers. If you start a community group for transit, those groups might want to consult and coalition with you.

Roody

Interesting DIY project to get people more interested in walking. It might work for cycling alos.

Tactical Urbanism by Mike Lydon and Anthony Garcia offers DIY community-based solutions for what?s ailing our cities.

Ekdog

I'm was born and raised in the States, so I know full well that the suburbs are full of people who don't have a dime to their name. Many of them pop up here whenever there's a thread about buses and let us know how riding one is beneath them. They usually oppose funding for buses and trains too. Taxpayer subsidies of Big Oil don't seem to bother them.

RomansFiveEight

Well, again, I'm referring to rural areas. And while mass transit would be great; it's not always available. Hence, again, the reason I'm saying one-size-fits-all ban/penalize car solutions leave a lot of people out in the cold. I absolutely support programs to improve mass transit. But I'm not even talking about the Suburbs. There's only a few dozen large metro areas in the United States with the type of infrastructure you're describing, and that are large enough to even have suburbs. While most folks live there (and so improving mass transit in those areas and incentivizing their use; perhaps by not penalizing the cars themselves but making it more difficult to use them IN the cities) will make a tremendous difference. But there are still tens of Millions of Americans who do not live in any major urban city or suburb. In fact many don't even live in the "metropolitan statistical areas" which generally are far reaching. For example, where I live, 1,100 families; only 70% of which graduated high school and about 5% have college degrees, is about a 45 minute drive from the STL Suburbs and mass transit. That's where some of them work, too. And this is the 'city" here. It's only a few square miles. There are hundreds of square miles surrounding it which are unincorporated (not a part of any city), sparsely populated, rural. With a lot of poverty; with a scoop of middle class folks and a sprinkling of wealthy folks. (Many wealthy people from the 'burbs also own land out here where they might keep horses or something). The police force is the county Sheriff, Fire and EMS protection comes from volunteer departments, and mass transit is just not gonna happen. It's far too sparsely populated. And that's what I'm referring to; NOT the suburbs. I would absolutely support, encourage, and HAVE voted/supported/encouraged better mass transit in suburban and urban areas in addition to incentivizing very efficient automobiles (and electric cars, zero emission vehicles) etc.

Machka 

@RomansFiveEight ... it's unfortunate, but you can talk yourself blue in the face here and certain people will never understand. They just don't have a broad range of life experience and/or choose not to remove the blinders and see what real life is like in places other than their own.

As you said earlier ...

I too have lived in urban, suburban, and rural areas ... and what you say is true.

People who have only experienced one of those living situations have a great deal of difficulty imagining life in another ... and, for reasons I don't entirely understand, want to criticise those who have chosen or have ended up in a life situation that is different from theirs.


From my experience, life situations change. We never know one year to the next where we're going to be and what we're going to be doing. Sometimes, we don't know one month to the next.

As I pointed out earlier, and in relation to the original topic of this forum, I have spent some of my life carfree ... I lived on the edge of a city then, in a suburb surrounded by all the things I needed, and my work was in a neighbouring suburb easily accessed by bicycle or bus. If I were to find myself in a similar situation again, I could envision being carfree again. Even into old age (as specified in the original post).

I have also spent some of my life "car heavy", driving long distances each week. At my peak then, I was driving 1000 km each week. That was a choice I made based on finances. It was less expensive for me to drive from my home to the university I was attending, and also from home to work, than it was to move closer to either university or work. The cost of housing near the university was extremely expensive ... and there was no housing close to work. I sat down and did the calculations ... and the obvious choice was to drive. If I were in a similar situation again, I'd very likely choose to drive again.

And I have spent a good deal of my life car-light. Most of my life. I prefer not to drive if I can avoid it, and will look for other options whenever possible. And I can envision that most of the rest of my life will likely be car-light as well. I can imagine as I head into old age that I might live in a place close to all the things I need, as I did when I was car-free, and walking or cycling or taking the bus as much as possible. But I can also imagine having a car just in case I needed it.

I'm flexible and can adapt to whatever the circumstances are in a new place.

And sure, it would be nice if there were better and more public transportation options. I'd love for there to be an inexpensive, fast train network throughout Australia, including Tasmania. I'd be delighted if my area was serviced by more frequent buses. But I'm also enough of a realist to know that these things are not likely going to happen for various reasons.

I also know that personal, individual, independent methods of transportation (currently, the automobile) are here to stay.