CliffordK

I'm pretty much car-free (non-driving) and out of town.

I've used mass transit in the past, but nothing local lately. The bike gets me around for what I need.

So, while one person may choose walking to the store or work, another person might choose a 10+ mile ride for those things. A busy bus route or tram route might be important for one person, and of little concern for another.

Likewise metro areas have their benefits (everything is close), and their problems TRAFFIC.
Rural areas are just the opposite. Longer distances, but less traffic.

Dave Cutter

I have no trouble accepting the faith's of others.

But then again... I accept my (run-of-the-mill) religion as religion. And I value it as a part of my being... as humans are multi-dimensional. Like it or not... faith/spiritualism/religion/a belief system.... whatever trendy new thing you want to call it. Humans have religions... because it is baked into our DNA.

Only those who can't see past themselves.... think of their faith as truth. Those are the people that demand everyone must believe this... or do that. It is all (of course) much bigger/deeper than most will ever find time or inclination to delve into. But I throw out a few bread crumbs here and there. I know some see the trail.

Mobile 155

I like this answer because it gives responsibility and choice to the individual. The individual can be as car free or car light as they want no matter where they choose to live. That way both groups can contribute to the car light or car free idea as much as they like without being encumbered by some ideology that dictates the only way things can be accomplished. I don't think it is a governmental responsibility to tell us where to live or how to determine how we get from home to work no matter where our choice of home might be.

cooker

That's not really an answer. What common ground can we find as car-free or car-light people if some of us are coming at in part out of an environmental perspective that you prefer to see as a faith rather than as rationally based, while others, perhaps including you, don't link their choices to be car-free or car-light to environmental concerns, or in fact dismiss environmental concerns as somehow being misguided?

cooker

Um...It depends - what are we trying to solve?

cooker

I'm not sure who you think is trying to dictate how people should live or behave.

Walter S

My comment is about economics. Can you not see that dense populations justify densely packed mass transit routes and infrastructure? Do you want to be subsidized by the cities with mass transit that equals theirs? Not a practical idea.

I don't get the "two sides" thing. Experiencing the economies of scale found living in the city is not something you can do. To change that you need to move. Nobody is "doing that to you". It's just a fact. You have to hold your breath when you go underwater too.

Naturally. Any real estate goes up in value as it displays more and more conveniences. But I will say that this one does not matter much in an area with dense mass transit. Bus lines offer convenient travel and spread out to where almost any place is a reasonable walk from the stop. Apartments etc are more expensive next to rail lines, trails, parks. But many many thousands of people travel car free (and not voluntarily) in my city every day and I'd guess most people walk well under a mile commuting. That's not far enough to hardly qualify as exercise in my book.

Mobile 155

Got me on the off the grid. I forgot till after I posted the second post.

And to Walter:


But it are we not more than economy of scale? But let's say you are correct and moving is our only choice? if so there is no middle ground. In other words if they only way those of us that like living where we do can become part of the solution is to move then we have one other option. Decide not to be part of the car free movement and simply go on with our life style and let urbanites solve the problems they have all by themselves? I can live with that if that is what you are saying.

Mobile 155

You have seen at least two posts indicating how people should be made to live densly and another about only allowing single people to live in an area so they won't need to expand or move outward?

Dave Cutter

What? It was a very comprehensive answer. Youre just stuck trying to assign rational thought to faith. The trees seem to block your view of the forest. For you.., there can be no common ground.

cooker

In this thread? Actually no, I don't see those two posts. Are you talking about Seattle Forrest's post? I think he was making a rhetorical point ("if you want good public transit have people live close together"), not advocating a Stalinesque relocation of suburbanites to the city. Jeez man, we're not coming for you - you can relax. I can't find the post you refer to about "only allowing single people to live..[somewhere]".... Who said that?

cooker

Mobile 155 is asking if people with different mid-sets or motivations around car-free or car-light living can find common ground that allows them to be part of the same "movement". What do you think?

Dave Cutter

The common ground is humanity itself. We are all alike and the same, sharing our very limited understanding of time and space. There is no beginning, there is no end. There is only infinite change and transformation.

cooker

I'm still not sure what we are trying to jointly accomplish or find a "solution" for, that may or may not require you to move. What is the objective of the "movement" you are suggesting we might all join forces in?

Dave Cutter

Why not be part helping them select what shirt to wear.... or what to eat for lunch. Is the basic idea... how to think as small, tiny, least personable way we can? Might it not be better to think as big and as concerned for others as we can?

cooker

My interest in seeing world-wide car use reduced is out of concern for others - is that big enough?

gmm213

As for public transit its actually not about population or size at all, its about density. I lived in a city 3.3 sq mi with 11,000 people and grew up in a town about 35 sq mi and 20,000 people. Guess which one had a good dedicated public transport system and which one used the countys system? Which I find odd because the city was very compact with a center and the town was spread out, even the center of town wasnt the most popular unless you were bar hopping

As for being car free vs car light, it depends on how your living. Ive lived in cow towns (a few hundred sq mi with a pop of about 1000) and Ive lived in larger cities, (I currently live in Portsmouth Va about 100,000 with the greater metropolis being just shy of 2,000,000) and everything in between, (11,000 ; 20,000 ; 50,000) and in every town Ive lived both with a car and without. Without a car I found the towns to be a pain but even the small city wasnt bad.

However in Portsmouth because everything spread ou,t unless you rely heavily on public transport, which can be a pain because every city has there own, having a car can be very beneficial. could I live without a car, yes we did it for almost two years. But having a car, being able to go farther away to things, as well as commuting for my wife (its a 30min drive to work public transport would be about and 1hr and 30 min and biking would take hours) allow us to live in a cheaper area thus offesting the cost of the car.

This area is made even more difficult due to the fact that theres rivers everywhere an you either have to go way out of your way to find a pedestrain route (itd take me about 45min to go 100 or so yards across the river) or take a ferry that is around $2 a day at its cheapest ( a day pass is $4) but runs only from about 6am to 9pm in the winter. And taxis can only pick up in the city they are based in.The city next to us Norfolk does have a lightrail which is really nice way to get around but its very limited to where it goes. Hopefully theyll actually expand it like they want, to go to the beach, which requires the next citiy over getting on board.

Lil Bear

I'm not sure what issue you speak of. Who is "us" and who is "them"? Are we talking people not in cars and people in cars? And you mention the only solution might be moving into the city...what is the problem that necessitates this? I read the article... it made me grind my teeth. The author is neither good at budgeting nor writing. Paying less in fuel to make a trip every day sounds great...until both routine and neglected maintenance gets added in, along with wear and tear... From a wholly financial perspective, you just cannot commute in a private vehicle for $7/hour and hope to not fail. As a landlord, I wholly encourage everyone to do this and make me rich. As a bicycler and pedestrian (we're car-light) all I ask is don't hit me, and don't whine about the price of fuel. I'm not even sure if we're on the same page... I hoped to learn more by reading the thread, but it just made my head hurt.

By the by.. I spent some time in D.C. the summer before last. I could pretty much travel the whole city for $5/day. I almost said I have no idea how the author spent so much on public transit, but I do have one idea. She's just horrible at math. Kudos to her for graduating without a fundamental knowledge of it! Sarcastic? Maybe a little... but I did mention a headache...

cooker

There's nothing wrong with her math - she provided the raw numbers and you can check them yourself. She said she commuted from Chevy Chase DC to Fairfax VA and to do the trip in 2 hours she had to drive to the train and pay for gas and parking and a round trip train ticket of $11.80. Now I suppose she might have saved money by biking to the train, but based on her gas costs ($3.48) it would be a long ride, and probably would add a lot of time to the trip. Aside from that, given your knowledge of the area, is there a $5 round trip transit option that she could have used and still done the trip in 2h?

fietsbob

OP in SoCal is in an environment developed to need cars , privatized transportation.
by the companies selling Fuel Tires and Cars and busses.

maybe after Armageddon the rubble can be reorganized into smaller Co Operative communities

but inevitably there will be an Us Vs Them Tribal contest soon after.

tandempower

I don't think they would be if there was more serious respect for moving toward transportation parity. A lot of lip-service is paid to anti-sprawl interests in an effort to get a pass for development. I actually spoke with someone from a real-estate development firm once who was very positive about the fact that many people want to live close to work and are even willing to walk when the weather is really nice. Fair-weather LCF isn't going to solve the problems of sprawl and motor-congestion that come with driving-dependent population growth. The moment you say that people need to take transportation reform more seriously, they tend to get defensive and start arguing for cutting back funding for alternative transportation. They do this to assert the dominance of driving and put you into a subordinate position of having to beg for reform and never insist that it's truly necessary. Once people acknowledge that driving-dependent growth is a dead-end, the respect for transportation alternatives becomes real and suddenly we all start respecting each others' situations and challenges because we're on the same page: trying to achieve a sustainable future within the hinderances of an unsustainable present.

I think this pattern has emerged due to the belief that a free market will generate more LCF-friendly housing if prices are higher in areas that are more LCF-friendly. This has to do with stimulating the supply-side. The down-side is that it makes LCF less affordable for those who would benefit from it being more affordable. Tragically, we have a status-oriented class-society culture where we avoid solving general social problems that apply to everyone, such as driving-dependency. Instead, we look for ways to harness the spirit of class-competition and status to benefit the haves and neglect the have-nots. It's an abuse of classical free market philosophy, but that doesn't prevent it from happening in a free market.

Dave Cutter

Well that's amazing! I had no idea you had that kind of control or power. If a normal person was to make a statement like that... they might be considered delusional.

See.... for ordinary people like myself.... I have to look inward and find what I can change about myself and my behavior that in turn might positively affect the lives of others. Leaders.... make those changes and others see their efforts producing results. And movements grow around those leaders. Or NOT. But putting together a group of followers.... or a cult (I believe is the proper term) requires a charismatic personality. Ether you got it.. or you don't.

All religions have their rituals, ceremonies, and formalized modes of behavior. Devotee's to these religious practices are common. It would seem as though you've found your niche in this area of your life. It may very well be a big part as to what makes you... you. Maybe... that's enough.

I know.... it may be difficult for some to see how someone attending a daily sacrament of the Eucharist (Mass)... as the same as some one avoiding car transport, or recycling used packaging. But as to how the mind works they are exactly the same. Devotion to the rituals. practices, and beliefs are the same in all religions. Even the religions created in our own minds.

Seattle Forrest

You're right, there isn't a single car in the entire midwest.

cooker

LOL
You told me to think as big as I can and then called me delusional for doing it.

Maybe I should never vote, or join an advocacy group, or even express opinions on the internet on what I'd like to see in the future, because, you know, only a delusional person thinks they can make a difference.

Mobile 155

I am beginning to see this LCF issue as two distinct things that have little to do with each other. As far as being car free or car light we don't seem to need common ground because it is just as easy to be car free or car light anywhere you live. The second issue is dense living and mass transit. To those of us that don't live in a dense area or use mass transit it is not our issue. I realize there are some differences between where I live and older traditional urban area in that most people living on the edges of the urban areas are every bit as close to work as traditional urban dwellers. Southern California has embraced industrial parks like the rest of the country has opened up to shopping malls. Traffic in LA is caused as much by urbanites living in LA as anything else. I have read there is like .8 cars registered for everyone living in LA. That is a lot of cars.

So in effect there isn't anything in it for me to vote to support mass transit because it won't work for me anyway. There isn't anything in it for me to support dense urban living because it will not impact how or where I live. But it is an issue for some of you and one that doesn't need my support or concern.

The only time I might enter the dense urban sphere of influence is to go the the airport, I don't fly or haven't in years, or a concert and that is hardly during rush hour or something that needs mass transit.

In reality I may have asked the wrong question.