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.
No guarantee that is economically feasible, either. Maybe if I was a renter but as a homeowner, no dice. You are engaging in what I call capitalistic advice. Like "leave early, beat the crowd" it only works as long as most people don't follow it. If everyone tried to live within a few miles of the major employment areas it would be extremely congested and expensive.
Well you asked "How could we choose that?" (shorter commutes, more walking, biking, and transit) and I'm telling you how I did it. Or are you saying you're doing everyone a favor by driving a long distance to work, and during rush hour? When we bought our house it was a nice 20-minute bike ride to my job. It was a choice we made more for convenience and time savings than for any economic or "green" reasons. Most people choose not to and end up spending more money and time on gas and cars, commuting, insurance, aggravation, stress, etc. To me that wasn't "economically feasible." It's all your choice to do what "most people" do, or not.
You're engaging in "if everyone did it"-ism, which I could turn around and say "if everyone" left urban areas and moved to the suburbs, if everyone who now rides bikes, walks, and uses transit, were all to buy cars and start driving to work, then there'd be endless traffic jams and no place to park. Just like now but much worse, not to mention the increased emissions. Thank God there are people who reject your way of living.
Now in retirement I'm considering moving to an even more walkable/bikable place where I don't have to ask the question "what kind of car should I drive?" since I wouldn't even want one.
Well you asked "How could we choose that?" (shorter commutes, more walking, biking, and transit) and I'm telling you how I did it. Or are you saying you're doing everyone a favor by driving a long distance to work, and during rush hour? When we bought our house it was a nice 20-minute bike ride to my job. It was a choice we made more for convenience and time savings than for any economic or "green" reasons. Most people choose not to and end up spending more money and time on gas and cars, commuting, insurance, aggravation, stress, etc. To me that wasn't "economically feasible." It's all your choice to do what "most people" do, or not.
You're engaging in "if everyone did it"-ism, which I could turn around and say "if everyone" left urban areas and moved to the suburbs, if everyone who now rides bikes, walks, and uses transit, were all to buy cars and start driving to work, then there'd be endless traffic jams and no place to park. Just like now but much worse, not to mention the increased emissions. Thank God there are people who reject your way of living.
Now in retirement I'm considering moving to an even more walkable/bikable place where I don't have to ask the question "what kind of car should I drive?" since I wouldn't even want one.
If your point was to simply boast on how you found a solution, fine. If your point is to offer advice on how the rest of us can find the same solution, it fails. How you did it doesn't mean it's doable for everyone else. It doesn't scale up.
A better solution might be to decentralize the employment centers and increase WFH.
If your point was to simply boast on how you found a solution, fine. If your point is to offer advice on how the rest of us can find the same solution, it fails. How you did it doesn't mean it's doable for everyone else. It doesn't scale up.
As I said, you asked how to "choose" a greener alternative, as if it were some secret or mystery, and I offered an obvious example. Maybe it doesn't work for you but it can and does work for lots of people, and your solution doesn't have to be the same as mine. We're all consumers making choices and I think that if more consumers created more demand for things like urban living and transit, bike infrastructure, etc., then we could better approach "green living" (the name of this forum). Americans are the most car-addicted, energy-hogging world citizens and we can do much, much more to change our habits. And we are changing, just too slowly. I think the unlivable planet is coming sooner than we think to a suburb near you. Hybrids and EV's are just a distraction.
As I said, you asked how to "choose" a greener alternative, as if it were some secret or mystery, and I offered an obvious example. Maybe it doesn't work for you but it can and does work for lots of people, and your solution doesn't have to be the same as mine. We're all consumers making choices and I think that if more consumers created more demand for things like urban living and transit, bike infrastructure, etc., then we could better approach "green living" (the name of this forum). Americans are the most car-addicted, energy-hogging world citizens and we can do much, much more to change our habits. And we are changing, just too slowly. I think the unlivable planet is coming sooner than we think to a suburb near you. Hybrids and EV's are just a distraction.
As I said, a few of us can "choose" that only so long as most of us don't. It's not scalable. A majority of us can't choose that, unless there is some secret or mystery you haven't shared.
Well you asked "How could we choose that?" (shorter commutes, more walking, biking, and transit) and I'm telling you how I did it. Or are you saying you're doing everyone a favor by driving a long distance to work, and during rush hour? When we bought our house it was a nice 20-minute bike ride to my job. It was a choice we made more for convenience and time savings than for any economic or "green" reasons. Most people choose not to and end up spending more money and time on gas and cars, commuting, insurance, aggravation, stress, etc. To me that wasn't "economically feasible." It's all your choice to do what "most people" do, or not.
You're engaging in "if everyone did it"-ism, which I could turn around and say "if everyone" left urban areas and moved to the suburbs, if everyone who now rides bikes, walks, and uses transit, were all to buy cars and start driving to work, then there'd be endless traffic jams and no place to park. Just like now but much worse, not to mention the increased emissions. Thank God there are people who reject your way of living.
Now in retirement I'm considering moving to an even more walkable/bikable place where I don't have to ask the question "what kind of car should I drive?" since I wouldn't even want one.
As I said, a few of us can "choose" that only so long as most of us don't. It's not scalable. A majority of us can't choose that, unless there is some secret or mystery you haven't shared.
So you base your choices on what most people do. OK. That's why we have to have forums like "Green Living" to present alternatives because of the environmental hell created by a "majority of us" who follow the crowd into a scalable oblivion.
In Europe they seem to manage it pretty well. The cities that rank as the most livable are there, and have developed the infrastructure and seamless public transit to match. Even small cities feel far more urban and have more core density than American cities five times the population. America's problem is the illusion of unlimited space, and an oil and gas industry thwarting public transit and urban development.
So you base your choices on what most people do. OK. That's why we have to have forums like "Green Living" to present alternatives because of the environmental hell created by a "majority of us" who follow the crowd into a scalable oblivion.
In Europe they seem to manage it pretty well. The cities that rank as the most livable are there, and have developed the infrastructure and seamless public transit to match. Even small cities feel far more urban and have more core density than American cities five times the population. America's problem is the illusion of unlimited space, and an oil and gas industry thwarting public transit and urban development.
Are we looking for a solution for a few of us or for society in general? Go live in one of those livable cities then.
If all government meddling was eliminated, common sense would probably urge people to :
[] demand electric traction rail for 90% of all land transport,
[] and tolerate ICEs, Hybrids, and BEVs for the remaining 10%.
- - -
However, that would have dire consequences for the special interest hegemony that gained great wealth from the destruction of the railroad option.
- - -
And the great Anthropogenic Climate Change Hoaxers would be shown up as frauds, too.
Yes, I'm excommunicated as a heretic from the Church of the Warming Planet.
Addendum:
Based on the Laws of Physics, rail transport (steel wheel on steel rail) has a 20:1 advantage over pneumatic tire on pavement vehicles, regardless of fuel. This is due to the coefficient of rolling resistance.
I would think that once folks have a choice to spend 1/20 to travel by rail, they may prefer that for 90% of their journeys. This would greatly annoy the hegemony whose wealth is dependent upon Americans being compelled to travel by automobile.
This is also due to 70 years of car-centric development and "single family home" zoning regulations (unique to America and Canada).
Before the 1920s, most towns and cities were designed around rail transport, electric traction (streetcars, trolleys, interurbans) and before that, horse drawn rail cars (due to that pesky Physics).
To really succeed in returning to rail, requires a massive change in development, with mixed use, high population density housing built in parallel to urban rail mass transit (like that which dominated America from 1890s - 1920s). The reduction in fuel consumption would be dramatic. And so would the social character, with far more people walking around in their neighborhoods, instead of being cocooned in an expensive metallic recliner that costs 20% of their working life to support.
... In Europe they seem to manage it pretty well. The cities that rank as the most livable are there, and have developed the infrastructure and seamless public transit to match. Even small cities feel far more urban and have more core density than American cities five times the population. America's problem is the illusion of unlimited space, and an oil and gas industry thwarting public transit and urban development.
The folks who have no knowledge of the past might presume that excuse, but if you roll back the calendar to 1920 and before, 90% of all land transport was by (wait for it) RAIL. . . in all its various forms : heavy (steam), electric traction (streetcars, trolleys, subways), funiculars, and so on. "Sparsely populated" USA had the MOST track mileage than any other country in the world.
What changed?
A conspiracy by GM, Firestone, Standard Oil (Esso, Exxon) and others, bought up or bribed local officials to DESTROY electric traction rail. The replacement by buses caused an immediate drop in ridership and a boost in auto sales (the desired reaction). And by more skullduggery, automobiles became tax payer subsidized while rail was taxed to death. The death knell for passenger rail was the cancellation of mail by rail contracts in 1967 (the start of the Zone Improvement Program - ZIP code). Ironically, the "new" and "improved" mail delivery system cost more, required more labor and was slower ("snail mail") than mail by rail (with its postal cars that sorted enroute, and could pick up / drop off mailbags without stopping the train).
https://www.6sqft.com/trolley-map-fr...ound-brooklyn/
. . .
And once folks had the need to park all those automobiles, compact downtowns were unable to accommodate them, hence we get the suburbs and shopping malls, with their immense deserts of parking lot tarmac.
. . . "What's good for GM is good for America !"
[/sarcasm]
It's why Americans spend the most per capita on transportation, while having a lower auto ownership per capita than Europe (truth!). Apparently having a low cost option allows a higher standard of living, to afford an auto for those times when rail isn't optimal.
Let's get America "back on Track" !
“A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation.”
- - - Gustavo Petro, Mayor of Bogotá, Jun 25, 2013
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.
