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.
The interesting thing is that gentrification can often drive car ownership up. Car ownership tends to be positively correlated with affluence. The decline you see in Detroit is probably not driven by urbanists, but rather minorities living in economically depressed neighborhoods. The fastest way to make a neighborhood "car free" is to import a lot of poor people.
That's why I think the best way to determine how "car free" a neighborhood/place truly is is by looking at car ownership rates and income. Most people living in Park Slope, for example, could probably own a car if they really wanted one badly. But they choose not to because it's easy enough to handle daily affairs without one.
Yeah, totally agree. That would be really interesting. I wonder if they have any data by census tract, at least for the 2010 census. I could easily afford a car, parking, etc but I choose not to. It's a smart economics thing really. To me it's "let's see, I could pay for a car and barely use it, or I could take that money saved and basically go to Europe, Asia, etc 2 or 3 times a year all while not losing anything in the process."
Quote:
That's what the National Transportation Household Survey is for.
It's hard to get a sense of how often people in a city drive imo. I like to drive a lot. I know some people who have cars but don't drive much at all (though most people I know don't even have cars). If you look at transit share, walking/cycling share and car ownership, I think you can piece together a decent picture of what a place is probably like on the ground.
Good stuff. I'm not seeing how Los Angeles' percentage of car-free households dropped 3% from the 2000 census (when it was at 16.53%) when all evidence suggests car-free/car-lite households in the city are on the rise:
Also, car ownership does not automatically mean every single errand is accomplished with an automobile. Munchitup has a statistic which showed that 1/5 trips in Los Angeles County are accomplished without a car. If you control for the most densely populated areas (like Central LA), that percentage would undoubtably rise.
Car ownership actually increased in a lot of cities. That's what happens when people's incomes rise or neighborhoods gentrify.
The guy in that Streetsblog article used a 1-year estimate (179,587/1,304,145 = 13.77%). The estimate changed the very next year (181,182/1,332,587 = 13.59%). That's why I'm not a big fan of making pronouncements about trends based on a single year's worth of data, which has a larger margin of error than a 5-year estimate.
In 2009, 12 percent of all trips in the United States were done on foot or bicycle.
Exactly. I see people complaining all the time about how awful parking is in SF and how they struggle to find a parking space. It seems despite how compact and walkable SF is, many people still own and use their cars.
Yeah, totally agree. That would be really interesting. I wonder if they have any data by census tract, at least for the 2010 census. I could easily afford a car, parking, etc but I choose not to. It's a smart economics thing really. To me it's "let's see, I could pay for a car and barely use it, or I could take that money saved and basically go to Europe, Asia, etc 2 or 3 times a year all while not losing anything in the process."
For a lot of the people living in these super-gentrified neighborhoods, it's not an either/or type of deal. They can push the Audi and go to Lisbon during the summer. If you think about it, bottle service at most Manhattan night clubs is more than a car payment.
One way to get some sense of this is by looking at the number of households without a vehicle. While it might not capture the full scale of pedestrian activity, it serves as a decent barometer (imo). If you don't own a car, then you're going to walk for pretty much any trip you make, not just some of them.
Though if the city has a lot of areas where parking scarce, people living a short distance from their destination are likely to walk rather than drive. Those who drive usually can't park right in front of their destination, so they are a pedestrian for a bit, and if their doing multiple trips in a short distance, they're probably walking rather than going back to the car and attempting to repark closer.
One car households with two+ members might also be a useful gauge of how much people don't need a car all the time. I downloaded numbers for NYC boroughs, I can dig them up again.
For a lot of the people living in these super-gentrified neighborhoods, it's not an either/or type of deal. They can push the Audi and go to Lisbon during the summer. If you think about it, bottle service at most Manhattan night clubs is more than a car payment.
Oh, I can go to Europe, Asia, etc even if I owned a car and paid $300/month for my parking. That's not the point. The point is being logical enough to know that I'm not getting any utility out of owning the car and using it literally for 1 hour every month and that money can be better spent doing other things. My example before was showing that with the price of owning a car where I am (high rise, so parking costs more), I can basically do cooler **** and it would have 0 impact on me whatsoever for the net.
I have friends here who are multi millionaires who are in the same boat who don't own any vehicle here - total choice. They know for them it's a total waste of property (and money) even if they are worth a few million dollars as they know it would almost never be used.
Though if the city has a lot of areas where parking scarce, people living a short distance from their destination are likely to walk rather than drive. Those who drive usually can't park right in front of their destination, so they are a pedestrian for a bit, and if their doing multiple trips in a short distance, they're probably walking rather than going back to the car and attempting to repark closer.
One car households with two+ members might also be a useful gauge of how much people don't need a car all the time. I downloaded numbers for NYC boroughs, I can dig them up again.
Like I said, the data won't capture the full experience. It just gives us some idea. If you don't have a car, then you have to walk. Simple.
I think the percentage of commuters who walk is also another decent gauge. If you walk to work, then you're probably walking to a lot of places. NYC has very big city limits and 10% of commuters walk to work. Chicago and Philadelphia are also very big cities that have decent percentages of pedestrian commuters.
For a lot of the people living in these super-gentrified neighborhoods, it's not an either/or type of deal. They can push the Audi and go to Lisbon during the summer. If you think about it, bottle service at most Manhattan night clubs is more than a car payment.
Except those people are a small portion of Manhattan residents. See page 17 showing car ownership by household rates for the "Manhattan Core" — Manhattan south of Harlem. For household earning $130-$199k/year, 3/4 don't own a car. Only when you get to $500k/year and above does car ownership reach 50%.
Except those people are a small portion of Manhattan residents. See page 17 showing car ownership by household rates for the "Manhattan Core" — Manhattan south of Harlem. For household earning $130-$199k/year, 3/4 don't own a car. Only when you get to $500k/year and above does car ownership reach 50%.
I wasn't talking about people in Manhattan specifically. I just mentioned the cost of bottle service in Manhattan because that's what I know. In L.A. or Chicago, the people popping bottles are probably dropping car payments in the club too.
I think the percentage of commuters who walk is also another decent gauge. If you walk to work, then you're probably walking to a lot of places. NYC has very big city limits and 10% of commuters walk to work. Chicago and Philadelphia are also very big cities that have decent percentages of pedestrian commuters.
Yeah, I had a "commute to work" diversity map by census tract for Chicago on Google Fusion Tables. I have to find it but there are a lot of people in the core who walk to work, and now that there's a huge bike share program - that too.
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.
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.
