U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-22-2013, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
2,401 posts, read 3,672,591 times
Reputation: 1434

Advertisements

Do we need yet another convenience in the US to make people get even less exercise? I've always been mildly concerned that if these caught on, if it would replace times people would have otherwise walked or rode a bike.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2013, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,896 posts, read 7,656,879 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Assuming you don't have a disability that keeps you from driving (and let's face it, if you did, then you probably wouldn't be able to ride a segway or bike), it is pretty insane to not have a drivers license. Why would a person willingly prevent themselves from being able to if nothing else, rent a car in an emergency?

I live in a city, I could easily live without a car, but you would have to pay me quite a bit to give up my car. Cars have dramatically improved the quality of live for just about everyone. Being auto-dependent is the exact opposite of a 'mess'.
I've never ridden a Segway, but I can assure you that I can ride a bike, and I'm visually impaired. I also know someone who can't drive because they are subject to occasional epileptic seizures. I'm pretty sure they could ride a bike, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
The number of people with disabilities so severe that they cannot legally drive is well under 1%. Are you seriously suggesting that we should give serious consideration to change how everyone lives based on such a small outlier?

I am very much in favor of promoting urban living, and I always expect to live in a city. I still don't understand why people are so vehemently against cars. I still don't understand what being car-dependent is seen as a negative thing. Not having a car is unbelievably restrictive, and really limits what a person can do.
I'm not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
I understand what you are saying, and I agree completely in that I also like to be able to walk/bike if I want to, however I have a hard time understanding why some people treat being auto-dependent as a bad thing. When reading this forum, I often get the feeling that some people view cars as some sort of 'evil', and I always have a hard time understanding why.
I'm just sick of the "why doesn't everyone just drive" attitude that is so prevalent in our society. Because of our over-dependence on cars, most of our cities are much less walkable and much more car-dependent than they were 50-60 years ago. Now, "everyone drives" because it's so much more difficult not to drive in most places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,062 posts, read 16,078,369 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
I'm just sick of the "why doesn't everyone just drive" attitude that is so prevalent in our society. Because of our over-dependence on cars, most of our cities are much less walkable and much more car-dependent than they were 50-60 years ago. Now, "everyone drives" because it's so much more difficult not to drive in most places.
While it's true that it's much easier to drive most places, that hasn't really reduced the ability to walk places. Sure, you've got your Levittowns. But those are (1) more than 50-60 years old and (2) nobody forced anyone to move there. San Francisco remains quite walkable, parts of Oakland, the old neighborhoods in Sacramento and most any city anywhere. I can get around my '70s suburb fine by walking/biking. It's certainly easier to drive, which most people do, but it's not like it's hard to walk or bike. Just it is easier to drive so people take the path of least resistance. I wouldn't certainly wouldn't move to where I did if being able to walk places was much of a concern for me. I'd have paid a bit more and lived in a neighborhood a few miles away that's quite walkable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 11:31 AM
 
9,856 posts, read 13,424,065 times
Reputation: 5453
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
I've never ridden a Segway, but I can assure you that I can ride a bike, and I'm visually impaired. I also know someone who can't drive because they are subject to occasional epileptic seizures. I'm pretty sure they could ride a bike, too.



I'm not.



I'm just sick of the "why doesn't everyone just drive" attitude that is so prevalent in our society. Because of our over-dependence on cars, most of our cities are much less walkable and much more car-dependent than they were 50-60 years ago. Now, "everyone drives" because it's so much more difficult not to drive in most places.
Why is it a bad thing to be more dependent on cars? I am really not trying to be difficult, but I know that it bothers a lot of people. I just don't understand why people have an issue with being fairly car-dependent. Cars are pretty cheap and offer unparalleled mobility...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 11:35 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,988 posts, read 41,959,650 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Why is it a bad thing to be more dependent on cars? I am really not trying to be difficult, but I know that it bothers a lot of people. I just don't understand why people have an issue with being fairly car-dependent. Cars are pretty cheap and offer unparalleled mobility...
I gave my reason earlier. I also like places that some people walking on the street. That doesn't mean I'm against people owning cars, just places where cars aren't the only practical method of getting around. (I can't speak for everyone else)

You're also confusing being anti-car with being anti-car dependent.

Last edited by nei; 02-22-2013 at 11:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 11:37 AM
 
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
2,401 posts, read 3,672,591 times
Reputation: 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Why is it a bad thing to be more dependent on cars? I am really not trying to be difficult, but I know that it bothers a lot of people. I just don't understand why people have an issue with being fairly car-dependent. Cars are pretty cheap and offer unparalleled mobility...
There are many downsides, but how can you say they are "pretty cheap".

Consider a service industry worker (or other modest paying job). If they are auto dependant (either by choice or worse yet, because location dictates they must be) , they're spending on average $8,000/year in associated costs (depreciation, gas, repairs, etc) of having to rely on their auto vs. what it would cost them if mass transit was readily available.

If they make $25,000/year, the cost of being dependant on an auto is far from cheap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 11:41 AM
 
9,856 posts, read 13,424,065 times
Reputation: 5453
Quote:
Originally Posted by capitalcityguy View Post
There are many downsides, but how can you say they are "pretty cheap".

Consider a service industry worker (or other modest paying job). If they are auto dependant (either by choice or worse yet, because location dictates they must be) , they're spending on average $8,000/year in associated costs (depreciation, gas, repairs, etc) of having to rely on their auto vs. what it would cost them if mass transit was readily available.

If they make $25,000/year, the cost of being dependant on an auto is far from cheap.
$8,000/yr is only for a new, financed car. Having a car extends the range a person can look for a new job. It will let them work an hour or so away from where they live, so that the worker making $25,000 has a car, he/she has the ability to hunt for better jobs in areas that are very unreachable without the car. Not having the car would trap that worker to only jobs in his/her immediate vicinity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 11:44 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,988 posts, read 41,959,650 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
While it's true that it's much easier to drive most places, that hasn't really reduced the ability to walk places. Sure, you've got your Levittowns. But those are (1) more than 50-60 years old and (2) nobody forced anyone to move there. San Francisco remains quite walkable, parts of Oakland, the old neighborhoods in Sacramento and most any city anywhere.
Those are usually a relatively small fraction of many metros and often fall into either category:

1) Expensive
2) Rather decayed and poor

It has reduced the ability to walk to places. Here, most businesses used to be concentrated in the center of towns. Now? Some remain, many in scattered strip malls outside. Even one lived in the walkable areas near the center of old towns (such as myself) getting to some destinations without a car is much clumsier than it used to be. Most small cities in NY and New England used to have healthy downtowns. Now? Many downtowns decayed (Hartford, Springfield, etc.) business migrated to the periphery.

As to Levittown, as far as walkability goes, it's worse than most of that era for Long Island. But in the region, few built much afterwards are more walkable, many are less walkable. For Long Island, point (1) is irrelevant, as most is at least 50 years, and not much built post-1970 (Nassau County has about the same population as 1960). But newer areas of New Jersey and elsewhere in the Northeast are generally less walkable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,062 posts, read 16,078,369 times
Reputation: 12636
Wrong.

Go see the thread about auto costs. Someone making $25,000 a year isn't spending an average of $8000 on car expenses. Not even someone making the average income, which was $55,000 in 2007, is spending that much, so certainly someone making less than half the average income isn't.

Notion of auto-dependent by choice really sums it up and is the end of the discussion, however. Actual dependence, like say drug dependence, isn't by choice. Auto-dependence isn't dependence. It's just a fancy way for anti-car people to say choice since they can't wrap their minds around a world where people might actually choose to drive a car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,896 posts, read 7,656,879 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
While it's true that it's much easier to drive most places, that hasn't really reduced the ability to walk places. Sure, you've got your Levittowns. But those are (1) more than 50-60 years old and (2) nobody forced anyone to move there. San Francisco remains quite walkable, parts of Oakland, the old neighborhoods in Sacramento and most any city anywhere. I can get around my '70s suburb fine by walking/biking. It's certainly easier to drive, which most people do, but it's not like it's hard to walk or bike. Just it is easier to drive so people take the path of least resistance. I wouldn't certainly wouldn't move to where I did if being able to walk places was much of a concern for me. I'd have paid a bit more and lived in a neighborhood a few miles away that's quite walkable.
Today, the number of neighborhoods in the US, where one can live comfortably without a car, is dramatically less than the number of neighborhoods where one could comfortably live in without a car 50-60 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top