Is it possible to live in America without a car?



Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2005 16:49:25 -0800, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Still, why would an 'avid' cyclist do a 4 mile ride in civvies
> >anyway?

>
> Why not? 4 miles is peanuts. I bike to stores more than that on a fairly
> regular basis, and I don't get all gussied up for it.
>
> Jasper


Well I do, too, occasionally but if I know I am going to be doing much
riding I wear riding gear, and it the context of the author's story it
would have made more sense for him to say that he'd been stupid not to
complain about the jeans. He had the right gear and failed to use it.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
 
> In the cities where PT is not so good, it's generally pretty damn awful.
> Many acquaintances of mine in such cities complain about hub-and-spoke
> arrangements that make it much, much easier to go in and out that to go
> around, so that a 10 minute drive to the next neighbourhood entails taking
> the bus to city centre and another one out, for a time of an hour or two
> (which is not entirely unknown here).


I remember a public transport trip in Chicago in the summer of 1990. I
wanted to attend a party on Saturday evening. Trip started about 4 PM
Saturday afternoon. I lived in Evanston, north of Chicago. 10 minute
walk to the L station (elecvated train/subway). 30 minutes or so ride
downtown to catch another train. 30 minutes or so waiting for the
train heading to the western suburb. 30 or so minutes riding through
the ghettos of housing projects on the western side of Chicago. Saw a
kid throw a rock at the L train. Then another 20 minutes or so waiting
for the bus to take me close to where I needed to go. Then a 10 minute
or so bus ride. Then a few minutes of walking to the house. I think
in total it took me 2.5 hours to go from a northern Chicago suburb to a
western Chicago suburb. Maybe 15 miles driving distance. I remember
thinking if I had a car, I could have made the trip easily with so much
less wasted time. On a bike it would have taken me an hour but I was
new to town and did not know the safe way to ride to the destination.

Chicago has one of the more extensive public transport systems in the
US. But it can still be very inconvenient if you try to do anything
other than simple go to and from work in downtown Chicago during
business hours Monday-Friday.

One more public transport story. I attended an Oak Ridge Boys
concert/show in St. Charles. A town about 40 miles to the west of
Chicago. L train to get downtown to the regular train station. I then
took the regular train out to the concert. Maybe 2 hours total
involved getting to the concert. BUT, there were no regular trains
running late at night to get me back home after the concert ended. So
I slept in the building/golf country club putting the concert on and
took the regular train back the next morning. Then back on the L to
get home.
 
The Wogster wrote:
> Todd Tracy wrote:
> > http://www.slate.com/id/2131049/
> >

> Yes, under certain conditions.
>
> 1) You live in a city, where there is a transit system, that goes where
> you need to go.


Or live in a small enough town that you don't really need public
tranist or close enough to an urban centre that you can bike/walk or
maybe canoe to shoping, doctors etc. I lived 10 km from the nearest
small town for about 2.5 years and never really needed a car. The only
real hassle was getting to Ottawa as the intercity bus service was
rather poor.

> 2) You are able to use a bicycle or walk to fetch most supplies.


Or a taxi once in a while. Or there is a local delivery service
available? And from my point of view anything that is not too bulky
and weights less than appoximately 40kg can be hauled on a bike. A
trailor probably can get you up to about 100 kg (in fairly flat areas
anyway). I have even seen photos of bicyle moving services hauling
fridges, king size beds etc.

> 3) You don't need to drive for work.


One could argue that this is outside of the original terms since if you
have to drive (and supply your own automobile) this is the equivalent
of a carpenter or mechanic suppling his own tools.

I don't know US figures but StatsCan says that the median commute in
Canada is 6.1 kilometres for women and 7.8 km for men. This would
suggest that a lot of people could commute without a car even if there
was an intermittant need for one for other purposes.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
 
[email protected] wrote:
> > In the cities where PT is not so good, it's generally pretty damn awful.
> > Many acquaintances of mine in such cities complain about hub-and-spoke
> > arrangements that make it much, much easier to go in and out that to go
> > around, so that a 10 minute drive to the next neighbourhood entails taking
> > the bus to city centre and another one out, for a time of an hour or two
> > (which is not entirely unknown here).

>
> I remember a public transport trip in Chicago in the summer of 1990. I
> wanted to attend a party on Saturday evening. Trip started about 4 PM
> Saturday afternoon. I lived in Evanston, north of Chicago. 10 minute
> walk to the L station (elecvated train/subway). 30 minutes or so ride
> downtown to catch another train. 30 minutes or so waiting for the
> train heading to the western suburb. 30 or so minutes riding through
> the ghettos of housing projects on the western side of Chicago. Saw a
> kid throw a rock at the L train. Then another 20 minutes or so waiting
> for the bus to take me close to where I needed to go. Then a 10 minute
> or so bus ride. Then a few minutes of walking to the house. I think
> in total it took me 2.5 hours to go from a northern Chicago suburb to a
> western Chicago suburb. Maybe 15 miles driving distance. I remember
> thinking if I had a car, I could have made the trip easily with so much
> less wasted time. On a bike it would have taken me an hour but I was
> new to town and did not know the safe way to ride to the destination.
>
> Chicago has one of the more extensive public transport systems in the
> US. But it can still be very inconvenient if you try to do anything
> other than simple go to and from work in downtown Chicago during
> business hours Monday-Friday.
>
> One more public transport story. I attended an Oak Ridge Boys
> concert/show in St. Charles. A town about 40 miles to the west of
> Chicago. L train to get downtown to the regular train station. I then
> took the regular train out to the concert. Maybe 2 hours total
> involved getting to the concert. BUT, there were no regular trains
> running late at night to get me back home after the concert ended. So
> I slept in the building/golf country club putting the concert on and
> took the regular train back the next morning. Then back on the L to
> get home.


And I remember waking up one Sunday and discovering that we were out of
coffee. Oh, not a problem I'm on the Danforth in Toronto. I walk a
block to the subway, catch a train to down 3 stops, nip upstairs and
get my freshly roasted and ground coffee and am back home is about 15
minutes. Faster than I could have gotten the car out of the garage,
driven there, found a parking place, driven back, put car in garage and
gotten back into the house.

Much of the time I find myself trying to resist getting rides with
friends. They don't realise that traveling by car is much more of a
hassle for me than is the bike and public tranist. Oh , there are times
when a car is more convenient but most of the time the bike is better
and combined with decent public tranist (bikes on buses is a great
idea) a car rapidly loses much of it's allure.

When I lived in the Ottawa-Hull area it was usually much quicker and
about as comfortable to cycle or use the bus Transitway and the bike to
get places than it was to ride with someone. Spending 20 minutes stuck
on the Queensway is boring and getting stopped at a bridge for half a
hour while Ariel Sharon ( or was it Shimon Peres?) goes by gets
annoying. When on a bike one could ususally slip through traffic jams
and dodge road closures very easily. The police would wave one through
until the last moment. I did get held up (delayed I mean) by the Queen
once by only for about 5 minutes.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
 
"Ken M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Todd Tracy wrote:
>> http://www.slate.com/id/2131049/

>
> It is a myth that you can't live in America without owning a MV. I
> often think that it was probably started by some MV company in an
> effort to boost sales. Perhaps this happened around the time of the oil
> embargo of the 70's. Anyway, I have not owned an MV in over 5 years and
> I get alone fine without one.
>
> Ken
>

I am curious. Where do you live?

BobT
 
BobT wrote:
> "Ken M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Todd Tracy wrote:
> >> http://www.slate.com/id/2131049/

> >
> > It is a myth that you can't live in America without owning a MV. I
> > often think that it was probably started by some MV company in an
> > effort to boost sales. Perhaps this happened around the time of the oil
> > embargo of the 70's. Anyway, I have not owned an MV in over 5 years and
> > I get alone fine without one.
> >
> > Ken
> >

> I am curious. Where do you live?
>
> BobT


Well I must admit I live in a climate that is *more* bicycle friendly
than some others, I am in southwest coastal Florida.

Ken
 
It may be possible, but it isn't easy.

Here's an example: I lived in the SF bay area for several years. I
requently had to fly out for business trips. The bay area has 2 major
airports and 3 train systems. None of the train systems connect to
either of the airports.

They used to shut down BART when it rained because the tracks got wet!

Only in America!
 
I agree with you on the distance thing. I commute 3 miles to work and
it would take me longer to change clothing on arrival than it takes me
to ride there, even at a slow speed to avoid a sweat I am there in 15
minutes. I don't think I would get all *gussied* up even for 7or 8
miles. Beyond that I probably would.

Ken
 
[email protected] writes:

> Here's an example: I lived in the SF bay area for several years. I
> requently had to fly out for business trips. The bay area has 2 major
> airports and 3 train systems. None of the train systems connect to
> either of the airports.


Not true. BART connects to SFO. There is a free shuttle bus
between Santa Clara Caltrain and SJC. (I never go to Oakland
airport so no idea there.)
--
"There's only one thing that will make them stop hating you.
And that's being so good at what you do that they can't ignore you.
I told them you were the best. Now you damn well better be."
--Orson Scott Card, _Ender's Game_
 
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2005 00:24:00 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >It is as easy to live in the US without a car just as easily as it is
> >in any other country without a car. How easy depends on what type of
> >terrain, how built up the area is, and what level of discomfort/hassle
> >a person is willing to endure. The myth that public transportation in
> >the US sucks and is so great in the rest of the world is hooey. In the

>
> It's not a myth that public transport in the US sucks more than in the
> rest of the world. It's not exactly a chauffeured limo here either, but
> even the New York or DC subways versus the London, Paris, or Berlin
> systems (which I've all seen firsthand) is not a favorable comparison, and
> those are supposed to be the places in the US were public transport is
> good.


Sucks less is the key term. In a big city like Berlin, Paris, NYC, or
even DC the systems are fine as long as they go where you want to go.
If you want to go to Bushwick in Brooklyn, or some cozy suburb of
Paris, you are out of luck. I have a theory that visitors (tourists)
get a biased view of a city's PT because they don't ever try to go
someplace strange, like say, where normal people live.

But like you also wrote, the spoke-hub arrangement makes getting around
more time consuming. This is of course due to the larger geographic
areas, and other imposed constraints.

Big cities are one thing, but how do rural areas and sub-urban areas
compare? My contention is that it is about the same.

Some people in some circumstances take PT because it is faster due to
congestion, and only as a commute to work, others take PT because they
cannot afford an option, and use it for everything. These are two very
different circumstances, and this is reflected in scheduling, routes,
etc. Europe has more people in group two, IMO.

Joseph
 
[email protected] writes:

> You only see your family once or twice a year? I don't hate my family
> that much. Or want them to hate me that much if I'm too selfish to
> visit them more than once or twice a year because I'm a cheap bum.


Where I live Thanksgiving is only celebrated once a year. That was,
recall, your rationale for owning a car, so you could see them on
Thanksgiving. Now that you mention it, since one of my siblings moved
out of state last year, the rest of us have chosen to hate him. And
his wife and their dogs. Those bastards! Good thing I rode the bike
or took the train all these years to visit, otherwise I'd have to
check the packages for letter bombs.

> remember my family being nice to me when I was young and think it would
> be very inconsiderate of me to just ignore them. What about friends
> that live 100 miles away? Do you just abandon them as friends? I
> don't have that many friends to spare.


Maybe if you cut back on the car payments you could afford more hours
on your telephone plan :cool:.

> Rent a car? $100 or more for a weekend plus insurance bought from the
> rental agency because without a car and your own insurance, you have to
> pay the price. Once a month car rental. $1200 a year. About the same
> as owning a modestly priced car. But more convenient to have the car
> at your residence.


That might cover the the fuel for most people.

> As I said, its possible to live in the US without a car. Not practical
> or inteeligent.


I hate it when I misspell intelligent :cool:. There are always
rationalizations for anything. For example, lots of Americans think
they need an SUV and can come up with all sorts of reasons. As
someone who has lived without a car for a decade with a round-trip
bike commute that varied from 10 miles to 50 miles, I know that it can
be practical. Not always convenient, but certainly doable.

Joe
 
If you really *love* something like your MV, there will alway be a
reason to keep it.

Personally I didn't love the shape I was in before going carless. I am
in far better physical condition now, than before I used my bike as my
main means of transport.

Ken
 
>
> Well I must admit I live in a climate that is *more* bicycle friendly
> than some others, I am in southwest coastal Florida.
>
> Ken
>

Climate aside, I think the biggest problem is that most newer cities (major
growth after World War II) are designed with the assumption that everyone
has a car and drives to everything. The urban sprawl where I live makes it
a long way traveling between work, the market, gym, book store, office
supply, or whatever. I have been commuting to and from work by bike without
much difficulty but I would find it difficult to not have a car at all. I'm
impressed that you manage it living in SW Florida. Congratulations.

BobT
 
Yeah the city planners have much to learn, in my opinion about the way
to *design* cities. Your right about the post WWII growth, after the
war was over and all the military service men came home, they all
bought new cars, and started the creation of the *baby boom* and needed
housing to raise the kids, so began the urban sprawl. But pre WWII
economies were much more *local* and most people did not travel more
than 10 to 20 miles per day. And that made the bicycle a more viable
means of transport.

Ken
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Todd Tracy wrote:
>
>>http://www.slate.com/id/2131049/

>
>
> I'd agree with the author of the article. Its possible to live in the
> USA without a car, not practical or intelligent to do so though. On
> Thanksgiving I visited family that lives 110 miles from me. It was 20
> degrees and windy on Thanksgiving day. And I went to work for a couple
> hours before driving the 110 miles. Without a car, I would not have
> been able to visit family on Thanksgiving. Seems very impractical and
> dumb to try to live without a car.
>


It can be practical, you just need to become more efficient about time.
For example driving time is wasted time, because you really can't do
other things while driving. However taking a bus or train, means that,
the time spent travelling, is time you can do other stuff, like work.

For example you can work for 2 hours, then spend 4 hours driving, or you
can spend 4 hours working, while travelling by bus or train, add a
couple of hours to get to the bus/train station by transit, and time
wise, your actually able to get twice the work done.

W
 
[email protected] wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>>Todd Tracy wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.slate.com/id/2131049/
>>>

>>
>>Yes, under certain conditions.
>>
>>1) You live in a city, where there is a transit system, that goes where
>>you need to go.

>
>
> Or live in a small enough town that you don't really need public
> tranist or close enough to an urban centre that you can bike/walk or
> maybe canoe to shoping, doctors etc. I lived 10 km from the nearest
> small town for about 2.5 years and never really needed a car. The only
> real hassle was getting to Ottawa as the intercity bus service was
> rather poor.


This is true, as long as your near enough to a hamlet, village or town,
and work in the same hamlet, village or town. IIRC your in or near
Kingston, bus service may suck, ever think of taking a train, Via does
run between the two.....

>>2) You are able to use a bicycle or walk to fetch most supplies.

>
>
> Or a taxi once in a while. Or there is a local delivery service
> available? And from my point of view anything that is not too bulky
> and weights less than appoximately 40kg can be hauled on a bike. A
> trailor probably can get you up to about 100 kg (in fairly flat areas
> anyway). I have even seen photos of bicyle moving services hauling
> fridges, king size beds etc.


I said most supplies, my mom got rid of her car, about 10 years ago, she
takes the bus to the store, gets her load of shopping, then takes a taxi
home, the only problem is that transit in her city does not run on
Sundays, so to get to church, she car pools with someone else, who lives
nearby.

>
>>3) You don't need to drive for work.

>
> One could argue that this is outside of the original terms since if you
> have to drive (and supply your own automobile) this is the equivalent
> of a carpenter or mechanic suppling his own tools.


It is valid though, if you need to drive for work, then going car free,
might not be an option.

> I don't know US figures but StatsCan says that the median commute in
> Canada is 6.1 kilometres for women and 7.8 km for men. This would
> suggest that a lot of people could commute without a car even if there
> was an intermittant need for one for other purposes.


My commute is a long one then, it's ~12km, still within biking distance
though, just it requires going through the notorious Jane/Finch area of
Toronto....

W
 
[email protected] wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>>Todd Tracy wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.slate.com/id/2131049/
>>>

>>
>>Yes, under certain conditions.
>>
>>1) You live in a city, where there is a transit system, that goes where
>>you need to go.

>
>
> Or live in a small enough town that you don't really need public
> tranist or close enough to an urban centre that you can bike/walk or
> maybe canoe to shoping, doctors etc. I lived 10 km from the nearest
> small town for about 2.5 years and never really needed a car. The only
> real hassle was getting to Ottawa as the intercity bus service was
> rather poor.


This is true, as long as your near enough to a hamlet, village or town,
and work in the same hamlet, village or town. IIRC your in or near
Kingston, bus service may suck, ever think of taking a train, Via does
run between the two.....

>>2) You are able to use a bicycle or walk to fetch most supplies.

>
>
> Or a taxi once in a while. Or there is a local delivery service
> available? And from my point of view anything that is not too bulky
> and weights less than appoximately 40kg can be hauled on a bike. A
> trailor probably can get you up to about 100 kg (in fairly flat areas
> anyway). I have even seen photos of bicyle moving services hauling
> fridges, king size beds etc.


I said most supplies, my mom got rid of her car, about 10 years ago, she
takes the bus to the store, gets her load of shopping, then takes a taxi
home, the only problem is that transit in her city does not run on
Sundays, so to get to church, she car pools with someone else, who lives
nearby.

>
>>3) You don't need to drive for work.

>
> One could argue that this is outside of the original terms since if you
> have to drive (and supply your own automobile) this is the equivalent
> of a carpenter or mechanic suppling his own tools.


It is valid though, if you need to drive for work, then going car free,
might not be an option.

> I don't know US figures but StatsCan says that the median commute in
> Canada is 6.1 kilometres for women and 7.8 km for men. This would
> suggest that a lot of people could commute without a car even if there
> was an intermittant need for one for other purposes.


My commute is a long one then, it's ~12km, still within biking distance
though, just it requires going through the notorious Jane/Finch area of
Toronto....

W
 
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:


> Some people in some circumstances take PT because it is faster due to
> congestion, and only as a commute to work, others take PT because they
> cannot afford an option, and use it for everything. These are two very
> different circumstances, and this is reflected in scheduling, routes,
> etc. Europe has more people in group two, IMO.


Yesterday: door to desk = 35 minutes. By bicycle.
Today: door to desk = 75 minutes. By public transport.

I wouldn't even /begin/ to contemplate driving, not least because King Ken
the First would charge me eight of the BRITONS' pounds for the dubious
privet hedge of crawling across the City at 0.5 mph only to discover that
there's nowhere to park when I finally /do/ get to the Nut Mines.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
The Real Slim Shady's gone to play tennis.
 
[snip]

> Rent a car? $100 or more for a weekend plus insurance bought from the
> rental agency because without a car and your own insurance, you have to
> pay the price. Once a month car rental. $1200 a year. About the same
> as owning a modestly priced car. But more convenient to have the car
> at your residence.


[snip]

We rent cars all the time, and it makes a great deal of sense for us.
At least I think it does.

I imagine rental costs vary depending on where you live. Around here,
renting from Friday noon until Sunday noon with insurance and tax costs
about $70 ($30 for the car and $40 for full insurance). If you visited
your family once a month, you would spend about $840 a year. New car.
No maintenance. Road service. Every other rental we get a discount of
some sort.

Seems like a good deal. If I recall correctly, the national average
household expenditure on car ownership is over $7000, according to the
BLS. (I can't find the thing on the internet, though I know it is
there.) I don't know how many cars that is. Since the oil and gas
expenditure in the survey was only around $1200, I suspect that the
expenditure is for something close to one car. But if one assumes it is
for two cars, the expenditure for one car would be around $3500.

Subtract a generous $1000 for gas and oil that one would spend on a
rental (it's more like $500), and the break even point is around 35
2-day rentals a year.
 

Similar threads