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.
...
I really cannot get excited about Zipcar. When I need a car. I call Enterprise (not the airport counter) and they come to my house and take me to the office, and I head out in a very lightly used economy car for ~25/dy. A full day Zipcar rental is $83. Enterprise also rents by the hour at $9/hr same as ZipCar, but you do not need a $60/yr. membership (and $25 application fee) adding overhead to the transaction. You pay your own gas and insurance.
...
BTW one year old's and bicycles go together better than one would think. Ditch the stroller (some of the time) and strap her into a child seat. She is at no more (or less) risk than momma is.
With Zipcar, you don't need personal insurance and gas is included. With Enterprise, you do need personal insurance (and have you ever priced liability insurance as a non-owner - it's NUTS expensive), or you pay the extra $12/day for liability (or you illegally risk it) and if you forget to fill up you pay the outrageous penalty rate for gas. For me, Zipcar is just more convenient. No wasted time filling out paperwork. Half the time I reserve it on my phone app, get in and drive. Enterprise is more convenient than, say, Avis, but it's not as convenient as Zipcar. And I can get a lot done in 2 hours with Zipcar. Plus Zipcar has a wide variety of cars if you live in a dense enough part of the city to be walking distance to multiple lots - half the time I rent an Audi, which Enterprise doesn't have and if they did it'd probably cost $80/day too. Plus, Enterprise is only convenient overnight if you have a place to park near your home.
I do use Enterprise or regular agencies for 2 days or more, and sometimes for 1-day rentals. But for me, Zipcar keeps me from being a car owner. If I had to use Enterprise every time I wanted a car, I'd just own one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke
My opinion: the public transportation system is not all that good that you can live without a car. Not unless you are extremely lucky to find a place to live right on a bus route that happens to go immediately to where you need to work. Not really all that easy to come by.
I agree with this. Portland has better transit than Tulsa, but it's still not really a city where living car-free with kids and a non-downtown job is going to be a good lifestyle choice. I grew up in and around Portland. My mom rode her bike some places with me on the back. And this was pre-MAX (I'm almost 40). But we had a car, too - I think for parents, having a car is, if not strictly a necessity, certainly at the very top of the "want" list. Even in Chicago, which overall has significantly better transit than Portland does, even in the best transit neighborhoods in Chicago, the vast majority of parents choose to have a car, even parents who were/are avid cyclists and who cycle or take transit to work.
Can you make being car-free work in Portland for your situation? Probably. Will it be both harder and, quite possibly, more expensive in the long run than just keeping a car? Almost certainly.
The unspoken fact is that even in cities with better transit than Portland, you end up with this odd economic stratification of who lives car-free. The very poor have no choice and thus are car-free because they can't afford a car. The working poor and lower middle class often can't afford the rent in areas with truly convenient transit, so they live in a cheaper area, buy a cheap used car to get to work because they don't work in places well-served by transit, and their overall expenses are still lower even if the car means their transportation expenses are a bit higher. The very rich nearly always have a car because, well, why not? So that leave the middle class and, especially, upper-middle class the only group that really has a rational economic choice when it comes to whether to be car-free. The cars they prefer to buy are fairly expensive, but when they live car-free, they tend to do it in ways that cost them more, too. They live in expensive neighborhoods well-served by transit, they supplement their "car-free" lifestyle with Zipcar and taxis and deliveries. That's just kind of the way it is. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule, but they're called "exceptions" for a reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke
Hauling a baby around and trying to do any shopping on public transportation would be a nightmare.
It rains a lot, so you are talking about hauling a baby to and from bus stops and standing there waiting for a bus in the rain.
Exactly. I am car-free (I fall into that upper-middle-class category I described above, which is why I also like Zipcar), and I like transit a lot - I'm a huge fan, in fact, and ride it in any city I can when I travel. But I'm also practical. I will say this. I grew up in and around Portland. I grew up reading the Oregonian and Chicago's Mike Royko as syndicated in it. I read the New York Times. I was fascinated by people living without a car in those big cities, and that's part of the reason I'm car-free now. And if that's part of your fascination, then go for it - but don't sell your car for at least 6 months, because it's more expensive to buy another one than to just keep your existing one around for another 6 months while you decide if living car-free in your situation is really something you can stick with. If you decide, "Hey, this is fine," after six months, THEN sell your car. But if you decide, "I'm glad I tried this to say I gave it a shot, but I need this car," you won't have to pay for another car and it'll be right there ready for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sondeera
Don't sell her short. I bike with two in a trailer and one on the front (we usually have the neighbor kid with us - I only have three kids), with my 7 year old following. It takes some getting used to an good planning, but it can be done. We bike to the farmers' market and the regular store, sometimes down to the beach. You need to build up your strength, but it can be done. It's by no means a nightmare. I'm actually looking forward to moving to Portland so I can get MORE done by bike with the kids.
Biking as an option vs. biking because you must are two very different things. Big parts of Portland have a lot of hills, and outside of a few areas, some pretty big distances with big, fast roads to negotiate between destinations. "Possible" and "pragmatic" aren't always in alignment and if biking is always a "must," it can stop feeling empowering and start feeling oppressive.
In the cities with good rail systems, usually you can take your bike on trains (except, often, at rush hours), and so that takes some of the pressure off of jamming them on buses. Most bike riders are content to ride to a train station if they discover themselves too far from where they need to go and the buses can't accommodate their bike.
I agree with this. Portland has better transit than Tulsa, but it's still not really a city where living car-free with kids and a non-downtown job is going to be a good lifestyle choice. I grew up in and around Portland. My mom rode her bike some places with me on the back. And this was pre-MAX (I'm almost 40). But we had a car, too - I think for parents, having a car is, if not strictly a necessity, certainly at the very top of the "want" list. Even in Chicago, which overall has significantly better transit than Portland does, even in the best transit neighborhoods in Chicago, the vast majority of parents choose to have a car, even parents who were/are avid cyclists and who cycle or take transit to work.
Can you make being car-free work in Portland for your situation? Probably. Will it be both harder and, quite possibly, more expensive in the long run than just keeping a car? Almost certainly.
The unspoken fact is that even in cities with better transit than Portland, you end up with this odd economic stratification of who lives car-free. The very poor have no choice and thus are car-free because they can't afford a car. The working poor and lower middle class often can't afford the rent in areas with truly convenient transit, so they live in a cheaper area, buy a cheap used car to get to work because they don't work in places well-served by transit, and their overall expenses are still lower even if the car means their transportation expenses are a bit higher. The very rich nearly always have a car because, well, why not? So that leave the middle class and, especially, upper-middle class the only group that really has a rational economic choice when it comes to whether to be car-free. The cars they prefer to buy are fairly expensive, but when they live car-free, they tend to do it in ways that cost them more, too. They live in expensive neighborhoods well-served by transit, they supplement their "car-free" lifestyle with Zipcar and taxis and deliveries. That's just kind of the way it is. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule, but they're called "exceptions" for a reason.
Exactly. I am car-free (I fall into that upper-middle-class category I described above, which is why I also like Zipcar), and I like transit a lot - I'm a huge fan, in fact, and ride it in any city I can when I travel. But I'm also practical. I will say this. I grew up in and around Portland. I grew up reading the Oregonian and Chicago's Mike Royko as syndicated in it. I read the New York Times. I was fascinated by people living without a car in those big cities, and that's part of the reason I'm car-free now. And if that's part of your fascination, then go for it - but don't sell your car for at least 6 months, because it's more expensive to buy another one than to just keep your existing one around for another 6 months while you decide if living car-free in your situation is really something you can stick with. If you decide, "Hey, this is fine," after six months, THEN sell your car. But if you decide, "I'm glad I tried this to say I gave it a shot, but I need this car," you won't have to pay for another car and it'll be right there ready for you.
Biking as an option vs. biking because you must are two very different things. Big parts of Portland have a lot of hills, and outside of a few areas, some pretty big distances with big, fast roads to negotiate between destinations. "Possible" and "pragmatic" aren't always in alignment and if biking is always a "must," it can stop feeling empowering and start feeling oppressive.
Yes, so does Boston.
In the cities with good rail systems, usually you can take your bike on trains (except, often, at rush hours), and so that takes some of the pressure off of jamming them on buses. Most bike riders are content to ride to a train station if they discover themselves too far from where they need to go and the buses can't accommodate their bike.
I believe this is the best advice being given here. And the most realistic.
OP, there are so many factors involved you will not be able to predict before the move, you really cannot make the decision about what the best transportation choices will be for you until you are actually here and know where your neighborhood, job and various facilites for your child will be. It just might be that you will need a car in order to reach one or more of these. If you can manage by bike or bus that's fine but if you find you need a car because of your individual circumstances, that's fine too.
Thanks to everyone who has posted - I think I will take the majority of the advice and keep the car for now, and try to ease myself into using it less and less, and if it fits, keep it up. =)
I appreciate all the links to outside info, I'll keep them for when I need them, for sure.
The unspoken fact is that even in cities with better transit than Portland, you end up with this odd economic stratification of who lives car-free. The very poor have no choice and thus are car-free because they can't afford a car. The working poor and lower middle class often can't afford the rent in areas with truly convenient transit, so they live in a cheaper area, buy a cheap used car to get to work because they don't work in places well-served by transit, and their overall expenses are still lower even if the car means their transportation expenses are a bit higher. The very rich nearly always have a car because, well, why not?
The unspoken fact is that it is, in fact, nuts to think that being car free can ever be more expensive than owning a car. Even a cheap one. Especially a cheap one. If the o.p. had said that they were transferring from one Intel campus to another, do you think I would have worked so hard to encourage her in the direction she was already leaning? Portland's cost of living isn't off the charts but it is higher than Tulsa's. Just saying. Walmart is not known for their generous compensation of their workers. The o.p. had a chance to make a break with the past. I mean... look at the thread title. But people who are already living car free managed to convince her to bring her car to Portland... ... I wonder if any of you have considered what that entails... I mean... it doesn't sound like she would be able to pay to have it transported here. With a one year old... I'm figuring 2K in gas, hotels and food and pain and suffering. There won't be any getting rid of the car after its already here. Cold turkey is the only way to do it.
Hello!
I'm moving to Portland in about a month, and I'm trying to make some decisions about whether or not (and if so, when) to sell my vehicle. I currently live in Tulsa, OK, which has pretty much zero public transportation, so I know nothing about it other than what I have learned from my research, but from what I've heard/read, I may not even need a car at all in Portland. I will be living near the intersection of NE Fremont and NE MLKJr Blvd, and working at one of the local Walmart stores, at least until I find something better (I am transferring internally from a Walmart I work at here).
I feel like it would be nice to not have to worry about a car payment, insurance, and gas, and instead just buy a monthly TriMet pass (at least I think that's how it works, from what I've read - is it really that simple?) and possibly use a car sharing program like zipcar for things like grocery trips, etc. But my daughter is just over a year old, and I am worried about things like taking her to the hospital in the middle of the night if she's suddenly sick, or the daily struggle of having to carry her and/or a stroller on public transportation.
I would love to hear from other parents of young children who have been through the experience of not having a car and what the advantages and disadvantages might be of both situations.
And of course, any other related advice or suggestions about moving to Portland are definitely welcome!
Thank you in advance to any helpful responses. =)
(Edit: Well I just noticed from the map that apparently I'll be living practically across the street from a hospital, so I guess that's not quite as big of a concern now... LOL)
If this arrangement doesn't work out, see if you can transfer to the Walmart in Cornelius. It's only 2-3 years old, is a nice store, and if you don't mind relocating somewhere on the West side, Bus 57 will drop you off right there. There are a couple of smaller Walmarts in Beaverton, but I think the transit commute to Cornelius may be easier. Worth looking into.
I see just the opposite. People who are not car free are telling her to ditch the car and that she can go anywhere by public transportation or bike. It is precisely because I live here car free that I advised the OP to keep her car until she gets here. The reason is if she gives it up before she moves and finds she needs a car once she has moved to Portland, buying a new one may cost her more than transporting her old one.
I know from long experience that many, many factors go into living car free. It is very difficult to be able to determine whether or not she will be able to do that until she is actually living here. She will need to know where her job and neighborhood will be and whether or not public transportation will be available to her. She will need to know how far away from shopping she will be; can she walk or will she need a vehicle? Will she be able to coordinate getting to her job and work by public transportation? Buses and the MAX don't go everywhere at all times. In order to utilize them you have to be where they do go and that doesn't always fit everyone's needs.
There are lots of other things to consider which is why if you want to be car free you have to consider where you need to go from where you live very carefully especially if you have a child to tote around. If she can arrange that before she moves and she is near good public transportation. Ditch the car before the move. Otherwise I would still advise she bring it with her while she is getting settled.
If she has the car already, she is much better off, in my opinion, figuring out a way to take it with unless she is able to determine for an absolute fact before she moves that she will not need it.
I think someone asking about going car free in Portland would get better advice from people who actually are car free than those who are not when it comes to taking public transportation and that is what her original post was asking about.
Bus 57 will drop you off right there. There are a couple of smaller Walmarts in Beaverton,
This is true. But have you ever actually taken the 57?? Anyway, I believe the plan is to get the o.p. to defect from the Evil Empire and work for an upscale emporium like New Season's or Whole Foods.
Poor OP, she sure is getting a lot of advice she didn't quite ask for, like dumping the car, replacing it with a bike, dissing her place of employment, suggesting she work for stores she has never heard of, rent a car, don't rent a car, etc.
Then there was a response to her saying she wasn't sure she wanted to go the bike route say there was no excuse not to. And a debate of the economic classes who use public transportation.
She posted a "thank you and see you soon" yesterday. I wonder if we scared her away.
This is true. But have you ever actually taken the 57?? Anyway, I believe the plan is to get the o.p. to defect from the Evil Empire and work for an upscale emporium like New Season's or Whole Foods.
I ride it all of the time. What's wrong with it?
I don't consider Walmart an evil empire, but whatever.
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.
