104 comments on My Year Without a Car - (Plus a Request)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
104 comments on My Year Without a Car - (Plus a Request)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- campfire at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
The Oil Drum: Local archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Life without a car is not the end of civilization.
I have not owned a car in my life. At the same time I travel a lot by train and by bike. From time to time (like 3-4 times a year) I rent a car e.g. to go skiing or to catch my son in the middle of the night from a distant concert.
I would expect that European societies are able to reduce car traffic by 50% without a severe impact on the standard of life.
@WebHubbleTelescope
I agree that frequent flyers use much more kerosine flying than by driving a car. But a large number of flights are done, because it is cheap to fly compared to former times. I would expect that flights can also easily be reduced by 50% without a severe impact.
Higher fuel prices will advance this change. But I wonder if it is possible to have economic growth with less cars, less planes and less energy consumed?
Yeah, life without a car is indeed not the end of civilization.
I didn't even bother to get a license to drive a car. Back in my teenage years, this was heresy. No license = no coming of age ritual. How could I possibly be a productive member of society? But now in my mid-thirties I can actually say I have no license and have lived to tell the tale.
How? I live in a city. Cities have public transit. If you don't have public transit, and you're not a farmer, then you probably live in an exurb or a failed state. If I were a farmer, I'd probably get a license for something-or-other. Farming is all about the petroproducts. But I'm not a farmer: I consume groceries, but make almost none. My groceries fit in a backpack.
The current Green buzz around cars is all about whittling away at fuel inefficiencies in existing models. The rest of the cost of cars is ignored. I'm only aware of Canadian statistics, but if I were to die tomorrow, it would probably be due to an untimely impact with a car. Or in a car--but I've made that quite unlikely. If I wanted to get a license for something that killed less people than cars, I'd get a license for a handgun. Oh, wait-- cars don't kill people, people kill people. Yeh.
So back to the original post, comparing urban Netherlands with rural Texas is a bit unfair. On the whole, the US has worse transit than Europe, but it varies widely locally, there are a lot of exceptions, and the haphazard post-communist expansion of some Eastern european cities has left them in pretty poor shape transitwise.
Is not having a car inconvenient? I suppose so. Motorists often react to some of the things I do as if they must be an inconvenience. If I had had a car and then gotten rid of it, I'm sure things would seem inconvenient. The key is not to have a car in the first place, and to live in a city. Not having a car saves lots of money, and depending on circumstance, can force healthy choices on you without having to pay for a gym membership.
(And no, I don't mooch drives off of people like some non-drivers I've met.)
I have a vestigal driver's licence from growing up in the suburbs (which I never really used, opting to bike instead, but my parents were pretty insistent that I get one, so...) and I found your post interesting (actually a friend forwarded it to me) because I got a firearms license specifically to highlight the absurdity of having a driver's license (and people's assumptions about everyone having a driver's license -- ended up enjoying the sport of target shooting too). When I was still easily mistaken for someone underage, I'd often have conversations that followed along the lines of:
"May I see some ID please?"
"Here you go." (handing over firearms license)
"Umm, what's this?"
"It's a firearms license; government-issued photo ID."
"Do you have any more normal ID?"
"Like what?"
"Well a driver's license?"
"Are you crazy? Cars kill people"
(Sometimes the person carding me was really on the ball and would respond "Cars don't kill people, people kill people")
Now that is one hilarious conversation... repeated over and over: hope it didn't get too annoying. I toyed with the idea of getting a firearms license, too, but I was never genuinely interested in it enough to actually do it.
I'm in the situation of someone who passed a UK driving test at 20 because I thought it'd be necessary to drive for employment and then didn't have the money to buy a car (nor a job need to) so never drove since passing the test. Consequently, whilst I've got a licence I wouldn't be safe driving.
Regarding mooching lifts: that's sort of split. When I'm on "home turf" I don't, because I'm familiar with all the options and I usually get a say in group events so I can "tweak" details to make them easier for public transport. ("If we book the restaurant half an hour earlier gives me just enough time to catch the last bus.") But when I end up at family events I often have to get a lift because my family members have chosen to live in suburbs/villages where the public transport is scarce, particularly on a Sunday, particularly if the event is planned going late into the evening.
I almost never find not having a car an inconvenience when I'm doing things I (partly) organise, but it can be a significant issue when other people (who assume everyone else is travelling by car) organise things with stipulating specific times to arrive/depart.
Really now? I doubt it.
When you visit your physician, does he/she bicycle or walk to work? What about the receptionist or the nurse? And the checkout person at the grocery store? Etc.
You may go without driving, but everybody you interact with, and depend on, for your food, goods, and services you buy, need to drive. And even if few in your immediate orbit do not drive, that second degree of separation certainly does. You have offloaded your transportation needs to others, and they use cars.
They need to drive? Every one of them? On all the trips they make?
Are you sure?
Because I'm not sure. My experience is that driving is not a rational choice. That is, people don't sit down before every trip and make a rational assessment of whether they ought to drive, bike, walk, take the bus or train, or roll this trip together with some other they want to make for some other purpose another time.
They just start walking, hop on their bike, look at the train timetable, or get in the car - whatever they're accustomed to doing.
"Need" is rarely a part of it.
I checked out your link, and it does not consider the particular land-use patterns. Which is to say, given the lay of the land, where most people need to go is not usually within walking distance. And society as a whole benefits from mobility.
Suppose you are an entry-level clerical worker that just got hired (miracle in these times) at gross pay of $3000/month. Your take-home pay is $2000/month. You can rent a downtown studio apartment in an ok neighborhood for $1200/month, or can rent a one-bedroom apartment in the suburbs for $800/month. (Prices from http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/apa/) A cheap car can be had for $2000 (cost to buy + tags + insurance), plus around $100/month gas for all car use. Your least expensive option is to live in the suburbs, notwithstanding the commuting time.
The densest part of cities have the most expensive real estate, particularly near subway stations (or other mass transport). Many (most?) lower-echelon jobs don't pay enough for the worker to live within easy reach. We all benefit from the lower cost of labor, that requires the lower-paid workers to live far away in cheaper housing, and commute.
The decision is greatly more complicated when children and schools are involved, and when one is worried about crime. If both of these are far worse in the city, as they usually are, the choice is clear. So, if you live in a suburban cul-du-sac, where the distance between intersections is 1/2 mile and the thoroughfares have 10 lanes with a speed limit of 50 mph, you drive. Walking, most bicycling, and taking the bus is just not smart.
And what you actually find is that most lower-paid workers share flats with others, particularly in the inner-city.
Nowhere is it written that a person must live alone and deal with all the bills by themselves.
It's easy to come up with scenarios to show that people are helpless. But when you dig a little, it usually turns out to be bollocks - with a bit of imagination and effort most people can improve their lives.
One of the points of the article was, in a boots-on-the-ground comparison between the Netherlands and Texas, was advantageous to go car-less in the former but better to keep one's car in the latter. The reason was because of the different way the cities were set up. I personally prefer a walking city, but sometimes life doesn't work out that way.
I don't get the impression that what you are preaching (the "rational" alternative to driving) is tempered with actual experience. For example, you can have a roommate but that interferes with one's privacy. Regardless of that, you can have roommate to save rent money either in the suburbs or in the city, so my point still stands about land use patterns, the price of real estate, and commuting.
Are you suggesting I've never had a house-mate and never not had a car in a place poorly-served by public transit?
You know sadly little of my life :) That's okay, how could you? I don't fault you for not knowing, only for not knowing and just making stuff up instead.
I say again: everyone has what are to them very good reasons for not changing their lifestyle in any way whatsoever. Everyone's got an excuse for themselves.
As Yoda said, do or no do, there is no whine.
I know nothing of your life, and have I no interest in learning more. You have tendency to dictate to others ("change their lifestyle"). Good luck with that: you need to get better to be effective.
Environmentalists have tried the gentle approach. It doesn't work.
What creates social change, both good and bad, is small groups of annoying people demanding change. The majority will never want change, but they'll go along with it to make the small group shut up. A majority of blacks did not march with MLK, nor a majority of Indians with Gandhi, and a majority of Germans did not support the Nazis - at least when they first came to power. All change, both good and bad, is created by small groups of annoying people demanding change.
I'm terribly sorry if our desire to have a tolerable lifestyle for future generations causes you some discomfort.
You are comparing me to the Nazis. I am invoking Godwin's law.
Oddly enough, he's comparing himself to the Nazis (and King and Gandhi).
And, he has his comparison wrong. King and Gandhi used non-violence, respect and communication, combined with a willingness to passively accept violence until their opponents could no longer look themselves in the mirror. They raised the level of the debate, and appealed to their opponents better selves (or their pre-frontal cortex, if you like the materialist approach).
The Nazis used fear, scapegoating, manipulation and violence to reduce everyone to thinking with their lizard brains - a completely different approach.
Kiashu sometimes makes the mistake of thinking that ridicule, a subtle form of intimidation, will help his cause. King and Gandhi would not have agreed.
I respect your scepticism - I've met moochers and they're annoying because they give me a bad name.
Your point about offloading my driving needs is only correct insofar as my driving "requirements" get displaced onto others. When I get so many groceries that I take a taxi home, then I'm offloading. If I buy a new mattress and have it delivered to my home, I'm offloading. But when I stop to buy a coffee and hand my money to a clerk who drove to work -- I'm not offloading: my coffee doesn't impinge on how some clerk gets to work. Or my doctor, or nurses, or the vast majority of people I interact with, unless I say (like in the grocery example I just gave), "Please perform this action for me, which I'd do if I had an appropriate vehicle, but I don't."
Though I'm acutely aware how dependent our society is on fossil-fuelled transport, many of the people I interact with don't have an inherent need to drive. To generalize by occupation, that would include most doctors, nurses, and clerks as you mentioned. Obviously there are some occupations like real estate agents, many social workers, area managers who perform site visits, etc. that by and large require driving.
The key is choosing where to live so that you can get away with it. Of course, not all places casually labelled "cities" have lots of spots like that. But many do.
As long as you're paying the cost of lack of car ownership, I wouldn't consider any of your actions "mooching". The cost of someone else's transport should be considered in the amount they charge you. Someone that lives without a car and asks to "borrow" someone elses or asks for a free ride is "mooching". It socially acceptable in moderation, but I know many self-righteous carless people that think they're saving the world simply by not having one, though they will try every opportunity to use someone else's for free.
The moocher is still avoiding the environmental impact of the vehicle's manufacture, which is roughly equivalent to the impact of its lifetime of use.
Nobody is "saving the world" by their actions alone. We cannot expect to have zero impact; we can expect to have less impact. That we cannot do everything does not mean we should do nothing.
You are offloading. Included in the price you pay for that coffee is the labor. I happen to know that at Starbucks the pay is rock-bottom, $7/hour. Nobody working at such low wages can afford to live in the the city; that inexpensive coffee requires that somebody commutes. To live the city and commute without a car, a worker needs around $20/hr. Since wages are usually the highest cost for a business, to pay for non-commuting worker handing you the coffee will make the cost 2-3 times more expensive.
Given that, how much coffee are you going to buy?
Which city?
I've known people working for minimum wage who lived in the middle of their cities and commuted without a car. To dismiss the possibility of something I've personally observed (in more than one city) suggests you're speaking from opinion, not evidence.
There are certainly parts of many cities that low-wage workers can't afford to live in, but it's implausible to suggest without evidence that in most cities that's most parts.
After I wrote this I realized this as well. But getting caught up in this obscures my larger point, which is the reason why there are cities is because more efficient commerce due to more efficient transportation. The efficient transportation include the movement of both goods and labor. This is why city real estate is more expensive. If mobility is restricted then commerce is less efficient, and labor become more expensive and goods and services must become more expensive. And at the very bottom end (minimum wage) the pay is so low that even owning a car is too much of a reach. These people take the bus, but believe me, they don't like it because it takes too long.
So as soon as a worker's income rises a bit they buy a car because of the mobility it provides. One of its key advantages is that the increased range increases the employment options, so a person can get a better paying job. This is an improvement in economic efficiency.
Evidence?
Your claim is almost certainly false, otherwise there could not be the massive price differences between real estate in Detroit and Chicago. It's far more likely that the price of real estate rises for the same reason every other price rises - higher demand.
Indeed, it's highly likely that transportation costs are lower for cities than for outlying areas, as the concentrated nature of cities allows highly-efficient bulk transport methods such as freight trains to be used, as opposed to the much less efficient cars and trucks used for outlying distribution.
Sure, but that doesn't support your original point that low wages for in-city jobs requires commuting workers. On the contrary, it suggests that cars give workers greater choice of jobs, which would tend to increase their bargaining power and hence wages.
It is obvious common sense that travel distances in a city are shorter than those in the hinterlands. This lowers the cost of the transportation of goods and services. What more evidence do you need?
Regarding the difference in real estate prices between Chicago and Detroit: I think attributing it to "demand" is kind of an intellectual cop-out. Demand due to what? Again, it is clear to most any student of history and geography, that the automobile industry headquartered in Detroit has been in decline of late, laying off workers and loosing money. Obviously this depresses the real estate. I suppose that Chicago is more diversified and less susceptible to this downturn.
About my contention that low wages for in-city jobs require commuting workers: again I appeal to common sense. A studio apartment in downtown Washington DC is $1400/month; similar prices are in San Fransisco, LA, Boston. You do the math.
And hence my point that someone living a carless life in a city will have lower second-order transportation costs than someone living in a suburb. Far from "offloading" their transportation needs as you suggested, the level of transportation they indirectly require will be lower, making the benefit larger than just their own non-driven miles.
Not at all; it demonstrates that city real estate need not be expensive, meaning that it cannot have unduly high fixed costs such as transportation.
It's simply a reiteration of the same point: it is not reasonable to assume that someone giving up their car necessarily increases the transportation costs they indirectly incur.
The math? Sure: there are 262 cities with over 100,000 people in the USA, making your cherry-picked 1% unrepresentative. A quick web search turned up studios for $315/mo in downtown Lincoln, Nebraska (to randomly pick a city off that list).
Moreover, a studio apartment is - to my mind, at least - something of a luxury; I'm used to young people - the typical Starbucks baristas - sharing apartments. Even in the most expensive cities, a 4-bedroom apartment is usually less than twice the price of a studio, meaning it's half the cost per resident. Indeed, a quick web search turned up a 4-bedroom in Boston for $1800/mo, less than a mile from a commuter rail station (and 6 miles from city centre, so certainly bikeable anywhere).
Fundamentally, the evidence does not seem to support the contention that low-wage workers cannot live in most cities, and hence does not support the contention that a carless city resident is indirectly mooching off of the driving of others.
82% of the US population is urbanized (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html), and of this, half live in the 23 largest metropolitan areas. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_metropolitan_area). Lincoln NE is not on this list. By in large these place are expensive places to live, with Detroit serving as the exception that proves the rule.
Regarding that $315/month place in Lincoln -- can a person live in Lincoln, anywhere, and not own a car without suffering a crippling lack of mobility? Only the densest cities are viable without a car -- Boston, LA, NYC, San Fransisco, Chicago, maybe San Diego,... The article points out that Dallas was not viable. Given its namesake, I doubt that Detroit is viable either, and that about covers all inexpensive cities.
It always possible to economize by sharing. That is where most of the low-wage carless worker live, after all. But you can do that in both inexpensive and expensive cities, that make it independent of what we are discussing here.
I'm basically a humanist, so I see humans as humans whose lives can be made better or worse by their own decisions, rather than seeing them as helpless victims of the Course of History or some nonsense like that.
Just look at any driver. You'll see them drive half a mile to the shops in decent weather when they're just getting some milk. Or look at any workplace, where one guy lives 2km from work and drives, and another lives 10km from work and cycles. Driving is not a rational choice.
People don’t carefully consider each journey they have to make and decide whether to use car, bus, train, bike or walk it, which will be the most convenient and efficient for this particular trip. They just automatically go to whatever they’re used to using.
Thus I will walk past my woman’s car to go 3km to the shops, while my friend drives 400m down the corner to work in the morning. The same applies to the way we heat and cool ourselves, what we eat and buy, and so on.
We’re not the perfectly-informed rational actors supposed by the free market advocates, we have a culture, sometimes we do things just because we like to do things that way, not because they’re the optimal choice.
Jared Diamond talks about this a bit in Collapse, how as their land cooled the Norse in Greenland continued trying to farm cattle and wear wool from sheep and refused to eat fish and wear seal skins, though they had the examples of the Inuit to show them how it was done. They’d rather die than change. Not really a conscious decision, more a lack of imagination, not being able to imagine any different way of life. That’s culture.
Circumstances vary, and influence our actions; but in the end, we choose how to live our lives. We're not helpless.
Kiashu,
I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but I find myself unconvinced by the article you linked.
Europeans consume 18% as much fuel as US'ers: 50% as many cars per capita, 60% as many kms per car (not the 75% shown in the article), 60% as many liters per km.
Fuel price, and geography, matter.
What cities allow construction of 4-bedroom apartments? They don't pay enough property taxes to support the school costs of the larger families that would occupy them, so cities around here simply don't allow them. It's rare that I even see a 3-bedroom apartment or condo; you want 3 BR, you're usually talking single-family house.
(Then Michigan designates mobile homes as "personal property" and levies no school taxes on them at all, but that's a different beef.)
I have not owned a car in my life.
Nor have I. I don't have a driver's license.
I live and work in Zurich. I use trams and buses to get to and from work and social engagements. The very occasional taxi too.
By train I can get to Cologne in 5 hours, and London in 11. The former is time and cost competitive with a plane, the latter neither. Portugal and most of Spain, you can forget it. The rail links don't appear to exist.
I have owned several cars over my lifetime.
It is (now) amazing to me that here in Southern California, people put the automobile up so high on the "Gotta have" list and put so much money into them. I used to look forward to owning a decent car but never had the Mercedes or Mustang itch or the money. I just got by so I played my cards as well as I could.
Now, all around me, people are going broke because they went into debt to live beyond their means and I'm sitting comfortably in bed reading the news at 49 years of age, retired. Not to gloat, I'm disabled due to a work injury. Forced retirement. It has it's drawbacks.
But I can ride a recumbent trike that I own and am considering giving up the ol' van permanently. I drive a maximum of 8 or 9 miles one way and groceries are less than one mile away. I have already made some test runs. Now I need a small trailer.
To the guy who rides in the Netherlands - do you ever see bicycle trailers being used to carry more than a backpack?
Oh, and I own several guns. Thank goodness that no license or registration is needed here in the United States !
SanDiegoObserver
"To the guy who rides in the Netherlands - do you ever see bicycle trailers being used to carry more than a backpack?"
Follow the link and be surprised, if not plainly awed: http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/
Ronald - Amsterdam
Thank you !