8 ms·

I've purposefully chosen, and paid the higher rent for, an apartment that's on the greenbelt in my city and close to work so that I can use my car less. As a co

I've purposefully chosen, and paid the higher rent for, an apartment that's on the greenbelt in my city and close to work so that I can use my car less. As a couple we still own two cars but really only use them to transport our dog to trailheads. The exercise pays dividends, and at just over two miles from work it takes maybe three minutes longer getting to work than driving to a parking garage. I feel fortunate to make enough money to easily afford the rent, but it's insane that in most places you need a high paying job to escape needing a car. Refugee and low-income housing here is clustered around major streets like six-lane one-way transport corridors. Unless they work downtown or close to a stop on one of the few bus lines that run frequently and reliably, they need cars. Usually the cheapest they can afford, which likely means they need to spend money they don't have to get them passing emissions tests at registration time, deal with breakdowns, high insurance premiums, etc. It doesn't help that most of the planned transit improvements seemingly are focused on greenification of buses rather than just getting more buses on the road to expand routes, make lines frequent enough to use for commuting, etc. My city did pass some new zoning codes which heavily cut back on parking requirements, I'm excited to see how that (slowly) pans out. I expect more high-capacity parking structures to go up, fewer surface lots. People might need to walk further or explore other last-mile options, I have hope that will turn people's eyes towards non-vehicle transportation improvements.

JKCalhoun 3y ago
> As a couple we still own two cars but really only use them to transport our dog to trailheads. You can probably lose one. When the wife and I left the Bay Area for the midwest we kept only one car. It simplified moving and if we needed another we could get one in the midwest. Soon we'll have been a single-car family for two years.
- putnambr 3y ago
  Definitely. We actually own three, the intent of the newer one is to replace the other two eventually. Old cars are a Prius for interstate trips, and an early 2000s Outback for camping/interstate trips where we need to bring more things with. Prius got severely damaged in our parking lot and I used the insurance payout to help with a down payment on a Crosstrek, which will eventually replace the Outback as well. I feel bad for taking up the (free) parking space, but the cost of ownership of the Outback when infrequently used is something like a $40 insurance premium every six months. That's another benefit of not driving much -- low mileage and safe driver insurance discounts.
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    Surely there is some humour in talking about the low-car lifestyle while actually owning three cars. I, for one, was greatly entertained.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    People don't realize how cheap it is to keep a vehicle maintained if you don't use it much at all. And though insurance is officially "tied to the car" it's really tied to the driver; you can't drive more than one car at a time anyway so the third, fourth, tenth vehicle adds less and less.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      When I owned two vehicles as a single person it wasn't that cheap to own my two seater car. It was at least a few hundred in insurance, registration, state inspection, some age-related maintenance. I eventually got rid of it for that reason.
judge2020 3y ago
Isn't the reason the rent is higher because you can forego a car? For example, the average monthly car payment for a used car is supposedly $526[0] and insurance $168[1]. So if you get rid of that, you can afford nearly $700 more per month in rent (assuming you can still qualify by having household monthly gross income of 3x the rent). So, in your case, you only really need to make more to afford a walkable lifecycle if you still want to own a car and have the option to use it to drive to places outside of your walking distance. Of course, completely moving to a lifestyle where all travel is public trasit and airport-based is tough to achieve, but it could be a worthwhile price to pay depending on how often you travel and where (since the time investment is also high for cars in the U.S. with how far apart each city is from the next). 0: https://www.bankrate.com/loans/auto-loans/average-monthly-car-payment/ https://www.bankrate.com/loans/auto-loans/average-monthly-ca... 1: https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/car/average-cost-of-car-insurance/ https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/car/average-cost-of-car-i...
- putnambr 3y ago
  In theory, yes, and a lot of lower income people do put that into practice and live in my same apartment complex. These people also usually own cars. The nearest grocery store is about a mile away, and the nearly bus stop is about the same distance. I occassionally bike to the store and have a bike trailer for groceries, but I have felt like I'm risking my life when carefully biking a trailer-full of groceries across the six lane 'street'. Apart from Uber or hitching a ride from a friend, there's no good transportation option to our airport but I get your point. I think in most cases, given the option between a walkable (to work and restaurants) neighborhood and no car (and no good public transit), and suburbia with a car, most people would choose suburbia. Ease of getting groceries, ease of access to recreation, etc. What's really missing is the transit investment.
  - UtopiaPunk 3y ago
    This still sounds not great :(
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
bertil 3y ago
I’m surprised by the association that Americans make between suburbs and cars. Sure, it’s common there, but it wasn’t always, and it’s not outside of the USA. Take something as far back as New York in the 60s depicted in _Mad Men_: Don Draper commutes by train. He lives a little away from the station, but that’s hardly something a well-timed local bus couldn’t easily bridge. Many people still do today. It’s the same thing in most capitals where I’ve lived, and those big enough to be featured in movies. Suburbanites commute to London, Paris, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Chicago, Tokyo, Moscow, Delhi, Peking, Shanghai, and every large China city by local train. I know places where people don’t, but I can’t think of a single place where that’s not a nightmare.
- deprecative 3y ago
  When you live in an average American suburb you cannot walk down the road to a store. You may or may not have a sidewalk. There will not be reliable public transit. You have to get in the car and drive to do anything. There's no other way. Saying something like "New York" immediately invalidates the rest of your comment as New York (City) is one of the few areas with meaningful public transit. We worship cars here. Cars are like Freedom Jesus. If you do anything to mess with cars you are a filthy communist who should die according to the general public.
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    Saying something like "New York" immediately invalidates the rest of your comment as New York (City) New York != New York City. Don Draper lived in Ossining, which is about forty (40) miles north of Lower Manhattan (New York City). What's being discussed is commuter rail, not dense intracity transit. Commuter rail systems exist across the country and are absolutely a viable way of getting folks out of cars.
    - deprecative 3y ago
      A commuter rail still requires a person to navigate the suburbs to get to the station which requires... cars. I'm not against public transit. I just understand the reality of the United States. If it helps the poors or minorities with tax dollars we don't do it here.
mdorazio 3y ago
> It doesn't help that most of the planned transit improvements seemingly are focused on greenification of buses rather than just getting more buses on the road to expand routes, make lines frequent enough to use for commuting, etc. Important note here: US public transit use is way down from pre-pandemic levels and might never recover [1]. I've spoken to several city transit representatives about this and they're looking for ways to green and downsize their buses as a result of low demand. Adding more buses not only doesn't help if there aren't enough passengers, it makes things worse because buses are massively expensive (think quarter million dollars each), need expensive drivers and maintenance, etc. That's money that cities could be spending on things like improving housing instead. [1] https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles
ilyt 3y ago
Sounds like minimal wage should be regional thing. Want workers working in big city ? Pay up enough that they can live there too.

JKCalhoun 3y ago

> As a couple we still own two cars but really only use them to transport our dog to trailheads. You can probably lose one. When the wife and I left the Bay Area for the midwest we kept only one car. It simplified moving and if we needed another we could get one in the midwest. Soon we'll have been a single-car family for two years.

putnambr 3y ago
Definitely. We actually own three, the intent of the newer one is to replace the other two eventually. Old cars are a Prius for interstate trips, and an early 2000s Outback for camping/interstate trips where we need to bring more things with. Prius got severely damaged in our parking lot and I used the insurance payout to help with a down payment on a Crosstrek, which will eventually replace the Outback as well. I feel bad for taking up the (free) parking space, but the cost of ownership of the Outback when infrequently used is something like a $40 insurance premium every six months. That's another benefit of not driving much -- low mileage and safe driver insurance discounts.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Surely there is some humour in talking about the low-car lifestyle while actually owning three cars. I, for one, was greatly entertained.
- bombcar 3y ago
  People don't realize how cheap it is to keep a vehicle maintained if you don't use it much at all. And though insurance is officially "tied to the car" it's really tied to the driver; you can't drive more than one car at a time anyway so the third, fourth, tenth vehicle adds less and less.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    When I owned two vehicles as a single person it wasn't that cheap to own my two seater car. It was at least a few hundred in insurance, registration, state inspection, some age-related maintenance. I eventually got rid of it for that reason.

judge2020 3y ago

Isn't the reason the rent is higher because you can forego a car? For example, the average monthly car payment for a used car is supposedly $526[0] and insurance $168[1]. So if you get rid of that, you can afford nearly $700 more per month in rent (assuming you can still qualify by having household monthly gross income of 3x the rent). So, in your case, you only really need to make more to afford a walkable lifecycle if you still want to own a car and have the option to use it to drive to places outside of your walking distance. Of course, completely moving to a lifestyle where all travel is public trasit and airport-based is tough to achieve, but it could be a worthwhile price to pay depending on how often you travel and where (since the time investment is also high for cars in the U.S. with how far apart each city is from the next). 0: https://www.bankrate.com/loans/auto-loans/average-monthly-car-payment/ https://www.bankrate.com/loans/auto-loans/average-monthly-ca... 1: https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/car/average-cost-of-car-insurance/ https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/car/average-cost-of-car-i...

putnambr 3y ago
In theory, yes, and a lot of lower income people do put that into practice and live in my same apartment complex. These people also usually own cars. The nearest grocery store is about a mile away, and the nearly bus stop is about the same distance. I occassionally bike to the store and have a bike trailer for groceries, but I have felt like I'm risking my life when carefully biking a trailer-full of groceries across the six lane 'street'. Apart from Uber or hitching a ride from a friend, there's no good transportation option to our airport but I get your point. I think in most cases, given the option between a walkable (to work and restaurants) neighborhood and no car (and no good public transit), and suburbia with a car, most people would choose suburbia. Ease of getting groceries, ease of access to recreation, etc. What's really missing is the transit investment.
- UtopiaPunk 3y ago
  This still sounds not great :(
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

bertil 3y ago

I’m surprised by the association that Americans make between suburbs and cars. Sure, it’s common there, but it wasn’t always, and it’s not outside of the USA. Take something as far back as New York in the 60s depicted in _Mad Men_: Don Draper commutes by train. He lives a little away from the station, but that’s hardly something a well-timed local bus couldn’t easily bridge. Many people still do today. It’s the same thing in most capitals where I’ve lived, and those big enough to be featured in movies. Suburbanites commute to London, Paris, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Chicago, Tokyo, Moscow, Delhi, Peking, Shanghai, and every large China city by local train. I know places where people don’t, but I can’t think of a single place where that’s not a nightmare.

deprecative 3y ago
When you live in an average American suburb you cannot walk down the road to a store. You may or may not have a sidewalk. There will not be reliable public transit. You have to get in the car and drive to do anything. There's no other way. Saying something like "New York" immediately invalidates the rest of your comment as New York (City) is one of the few areas with meaningful public transit. We worship cars here. Cars are like Freedom Jesus. If you do anything to mess with cars you are a filthy communist who should die according to the general public.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  Saying something like "New York" immediately invalidates the rest of your comment as New York (City) New York != New York City. Don Draper lived in Ossining, which is about forty (40) miles north of Lower Manhattan (New York City). What's being discussed is commuter rail, not dense intracity transit. Commuter rail systems exist across the country and are absolutely a viable way of getting folks out of cars.
  - deprecative 3y ago
    A commuter rail still requires a person to navigate the suburbs to get to the station which requires... cars. I'm not against public transit. I just understand the reality of the United States. If it helps the poors or minorities with tax dollars we don't do it here.

mdorazio 3y ago

> It doesn't help that most of the planned transit improvements seemingly are focused on greenification of buses rather than just getting more buses on the road to expand routes, make lines frequent enough to use for commuting, etc. Important note here: US public transit use is way down from pre-pandemic levels and might never recover [1]. I've spoken to several city transit representatives about this and they're looking for ways to green and downsize their buses as a result of low demand. Adding more buses not only doesn't help if there aren't enough passengers, it makes things worse because buses are massively expensive (think quarter million dollars each), need expensive drivers and maintenance, etc. That's money that cities could be spending on things like improving housing instead. [1] https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles

ilyt 3y ago

Sounds like minimal wage should be regional thing. Want workers working in big city ? Pay up enough that they can live there too.