6 ms·

We live in a town in Germany with roughly 250.000 inhabitants, but I grew up in a small village. I always get weird looks from relatives when I tell them that w

by lqet 7y ago

We live in a town in Germany with roughly 250.000 inhabitants, but I grew up in a small village. I always get weird looks from relatives when I tell them that we do not own a car. For some of them, not owning a car is literally equivalent to "cannot leave the house", because buses only serve their village every 2 hours or so, and the service stops at around 8pm. We use car sharing, but only if we have to buy something that really cannot be transported via bike or public transport, like furniture, or for trips to remote places that are very complicated to reach via public transportation. I tried driving to work a few times (~8 km across town), but it takes me roughly 35 minutes by car, compared to 25 minutes by bike, and is much, much more stressful than using my bike. If the weather is very bad, I take the tram. For groceries, we usually walk to the nearest supermarket. Truth is, at least in Europe, I cannot think of any reason why you should own a car in a town with an average public transportation network and some form of car sharing.

thomasz 7y ago
Getting anywhere outside the immediate vicinity of your home with small children is incredibly exhausting without a car, even in cities with somewhat decent public transit systems
- lqet 7y ago
  This is true, I forgot to mention that above, and I do not understand why you are being downvoted for this. We have a small daughter and are planning a 300 km trip next month. Long-distance trains here have special apartments for families with small children, but even with that option we decided to use car sharing.
- eythian 7y ago
  Get a bakfiets.
  - thomasz 7y ago
    Unfortunately, that’s not really a remotely safe option here.
megablast 7y ago
> I always get weird looks from relatives when There are some people like that everywhere. People who will never walk or cycle or catch PT.
- lqet 7y ago
  Well, as I have mentioned above, I don't blame them. It makes a huge difference if it takes you 80 minutes on average to the nearest supermarket via PT (because the bus only runs every 2 hours, and takes 20 minutes) or 10 minutes via car. I would definitely opt for a car in their situation.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- anthonypasq 7y ago
  its physically impossible to live a modern life without a car if you dont live in a city
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    I’m sure there is a definition of “city” and “modern” where’s that’s true.
ryanmercer 7y ago
(I assume the massive downvotes are from the people that have never lived in the Midwest and/or have never lived anywhere other than 'downtown' in a major city, or ancient city that was built before locomotion, and are wholly unfamiliar with suburbs) >I cannot think of any reason why you should own a car in a town with an average public transportation network and some form of car sharing. Because you don't want to waste an hour or more every day standing around waiting on a train/bus? Would like to regularly visit friends and family on the other side of town? Would like to not have to plan your life around transportation schedules? I could maybe see getting by in Europe, I've one friend in Germany that is quite happy taking the train a half mile or so from his apartment for most stuff but even he still owns a car for getting to work, doing groceries, going to his postal box, bringing home stuff for art, going to the woods etc. I cannot fathom life without a car. I'd say my closest friend is 10 miles away, two I go to see fairly regularly are 50 miles away. If I want to go see a movie it's 3-20 miles depending on which theater I want to go to, work is about 10~ miles from my apartment with my two gyms between me and work that I'm at 4x a day each and at another a 5th day. All of the performing arts theaters around Indianapolis are downtown, on the east side or north of Indy in Carmel - all of which are a 20-40 minute drive for me probably 15-25 miles. I can go to these places above in 5-60 minutes in my car, public transportation would require multiple transfers and probably 4-5 hours, with some of them running fairly infrequently, for some of them and a couple of them I simply could not get to with public transportation. Without a car I'd also have no way to get to the meetinghouse of my Church, or to singles firesides at a meetinghouse on the other side of town. Without a car in the spring and summer I'd show up to dates, or to hang out with friends, sweaty and smelly. It will be 86F with the humidity reaching a high of 87% today. Without a car, I couldn't go shooting if I wanted... I can't get on a bus with long arms and a few bricks of ammunition and be like "hey, I know that isn't a stop up there, but can you drop me in front of that range... this stuff is heavy". I couldn't go hunting, I couldn't go fishing, I couldn't go mushroom hunting in the spring, I couldn't go hiking because buses don't go to the woods.
- lqet 7y ago
  I agree, it may not work everywhere, and this is why I mentioned the precondition of having an average public transportation network and some form of car sharing. You are forgetting that time spent driving is essentially dead time, while you can do all sort of things in a train, and with a bike you get exercise for free. So you cannot compare the travel times directly. For example, my work place is roughly the same distance from our apartment as yours. As I have mentioned, it saves me roughly 10 minutes driving there by bike, and I do not have to go to the gym, because I ride the bike for 20 miles daily. I'll give you a few other examples: * If I want to go see a movie in town, I can take the tram (20 minutes, runs every 5 minutes) or the bike (10 minutes), or car sharing (5 minutes walk to nearest station, 10 minute drive, 10 minutes searching for a parking spot in a garage, 10 minutes walking from said garage to the cinema.) * If I want to visit my parents, it is a 2.5h car drive or a 3.5h tram/train/bus ride with 3 changes. Time lost in car: 2.5 hours. Time lost with PT: at most 30 minutes waiting at stations, the 3 hours in the train can be used for reading or working. * If we want to visit the parents of my wife, it is a 50 minute car drive or a 80 minutes tram/train/bus ride. Time lost on car: 50 minutes, time lost with PT: roughly 10 minutes. * If I want to visit someone in a remote village, or take a leisure trip to some remote place, or go hikin, I walk 5 minutes to the nearest car sharing station and take a car from there.
FabHK 7y ago
I've only owned a car for 3 years or so when living in California. For my other locations (university towns in Germany and UK, capital cities in Europe and Asia) there is really no need. (Maybe different if you have kids.)
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Which is fine if you can afford to live there.
0x5002 7y ago
It's always fascinating how people here generalize an entire continent's major cities by anecdotal evidence from one city. This can also be observed by comments from people clearly living in SV or NYC - none of those apply to suburb-dwelling me in the South. I used to live in a ~350k city in Germany. It has public transport - given the college in town, probably also one of "average" quality. Unless you live very close to a tram, you are bound to use a bus which will get you into the city center (~3 mi, 10 min by car), which was scheduled every 30 mins and took another 30 mins. From there, you might get a train (or another bus!), often times scheduled in such a way that you'd have to wait another 30 or so minutes for it. For me, getting to see a friend in the next town over (~15mi) would take me 25 mins by car, including traffic, and 1hr to 90mins by public transport. Going to work, a solid hour by car due to really bad traffic, took 90mins to 2 hrs using public transport (~30 miles). Not to mention common trips that take me from store A to B and back home - every single stop requires you to wait for a bus and often change lines as well. Don't get me wrong - I'd love more public transport in the US (we have some, but it is horrendous where I live). But even for Europe, saying you don't need a car is a very narrow-minded outlook.
- rocgf 7y ago
  Depends how you define 'need', how much you can afford to spend and what your usual routes are, so I agree that generalizing is not that great, but that goes both ways.
- lqet 7y ago
  > It's always fascinating how people here generalize an entire continent's major cities by anecdotal evidence from one city. I apologize for my misleading post, my experience is based on living in multiple major and / or university cities in southwestern Germany, 3-10 days visits to smaller and larger towns all across Europe and frequent visits to Switzerland. > But even for Europe, saying you don't need a car is a very narrow-minded outlook. You seem to confuse me with a no-car evangelist/fundamentalist, because I have never said that. I have merely stated that if you live in a town with some sort of car sharing and an average public transportation system, you do not need to own a car. From what you describe, I would consider the public transportation system in the city you lived in edge-case average for a 350k city, but certainly not optimal. However, a 3 mile distance to the city center (where the train station appears to be) is easily covered by bike. > For me, getting to see a friend in the next town over (~15mi) would take me 25 mins by car, including traffic, and 1hr to 90mins by public transport. Going to work, a solid hour by car due to really bad traffic, took 90mins to 2 hrs using public transport (~30 miles). I would also choose a car for visits to your friend. But you do not visit you friend daily, so why would you need to own a car for that? Even if you visit him weekly, car sharing might be enough, and less overhead. Your daily commute may indeed be a reason for owning a car. However, if I would have to choose between a 1h car ride to work, or a 90 min PT ride, I would still choose public transportation, for the reasons stated below (you can do stuff on PT).

by lqet 7y ago

thomasz 7y ago

Getting anywhere outside the immediate vicinity of your home with small children is incredibly exhausting without a car, even in cities with somewhat decent public transit systems

lqet 7y ago
This is true, I forgot to mention that above, and I do not understand why you are being downvoted for this. We have a small daughter and are planning a 300 km trip next month. Long-distance trains here have special apartments for families with small children, but even with that option we decided to use car sharing.
eythian 7y ago
Get a bakfiets.
- thomasz 7y ago
  Unfortunately, that’s not really a remotely safe option here.

megablast 7y ago

> I always get weird looks from relatives when There are some people like that everywhere. People who will never walk or cycle or catch PT.

lqet 7y ago
Well, as I have mentioned above, I don't blame them. It makes a huge difference if it takes you 80 minutes on average to the nearest supermarket via PT (because the bus only runs every 2 hours, and takes 20 minutes) or 10 minutes via car. I would definitely opt for a car in their situation.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
anthonypasq 7y ago
its physically impossible to live a modern life without a car if you dont live in a city
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  I’m sure there is a definition of “city” and “modern” where’s that’s true.

ryanmercer 7y ago

(I assume the massive downvotes are from the people that have never lived in the Midwest and/or have never lived anywhere other than 'downtown' in a major city, or ancient city that was built before locomotion, and are wholly unfamiliar with suburbs) >I cannot think of any reason why you should own a car in a town with an average public transportation network and some form of car sharing. Because you don't want to waste an hour or more every day standing around waiting on a train/bus? Would like to regularly visit friends and family on the other side of town? Would like to not have to plan your life around transportation schedules? I could maybe see getting by in Europe, I've one friend in Germany that is quite happy taking the train a half mile or so from his apartment for most stuff but even he still owns a car for getting to work, doing groceries, going to his postal box, bringing home stuff for art, going to the woods etc. I cannot fathom life without a car. I'd say my closest friend is 10 miles away, two I go to see fairly regularly are 50 miles away. If I want to go see a movie it's 3-20 miles depending on which theater I want to go to, work is about 10~ miles from my apartment with my two gyms between me and work that I'm at 4x a day each and at another a 5th day. All of the performing arts theaters around Indianapolis are downtown, on the east side or north of Indy in Carmel - all of which are a 20-40 minute drive for me probably 15-25 miles. I can go to these places above in 5-60 minutes in my car, public transportation would require multiple transfers and probably 4-5 hours, with some of them running fairly infrequently, for some of them and a couple of them I simply could not get to with public transportation. Without a car I'd also have no way to get to the meetinghouse of my Church, or to singles firesides at a meetinghouse on the other side of town. Without a car in the spring and summer I'd show up to dates, or to hang out with friends, sweaty and smelly. It will be 86F with the humidity reaching a high of 87% today. Without a car, I couldn't go shooting if I wanted... I can't get on a bus with long arms and a few bricks of ammunition and be like "hey, I know that isn't a stop up there, but can you drop me in front of that range... this stuff is heavy". I couldn't go hunting, I couldn't go fishing, I couldn't go mushroom hunting in the spring, I couldn't go hiking because buses don't go to the woods.

lqet 7y ago
I agree, it may not work everywhere, and this is why I mentioned the precondition of having an average public transportation network and some form of car sharing. You are forgetting that time spent driving is essentially dead time, while you can do all sort of things in a train, and with a bike you get exercise for free. So you cannot compare the travel times directly. For example, my work place is roughly the same distance from our apartment as yours. As I have mentioned, it saves me roughly 10 minutes driving there by bike, and I do not have to go to the gym, because I ride the bike for 20 miles daily. I'll give you a few other examples: * If I want to go see a movie in town, I can take the tram (20 minutes, runs every 5 minutes) or the bike (10 minutes), or car sharing (5 minutes walk to nearest station, 10 minute drive, 10 minutes searching for a parking spot in a garage, 10 minutes walking from said garage to the cinema.) * If I want to visit my parents, it is a 2.5h car drive or a 3.5h tram/train/bus ride with 3 changes. Time lost in car: 2.5 hours. Time lost with PT: at most 30 minutes waiting at stations, the 3 hours in the train can be used for reading or working. * If we want to visit the parents of my wife, it is a 50 minute car drive or a 80 minutes tram/train/bus ride. Time lost on car: 50 minutes, time lost with PT: roughly 10 minutes. * If I want to visit someone in a remote village, or take a leisure trip to some remote place, or go hikin, I walk 5 minutes to the nearest car sharing station and take a car from there.

FabHK 7y ago

I've only owned a car for 3 years or so when living in California. For my other locations (university towns in Germany and UK, capital cities in Europe and Asia) there is really no need. (Maybe different if you have kids.)

C1sc0cat 7y ago
Which is fine if you can afford to live there.

0x5002 7y ago

It's always fascinating how people here generalize an entire continent's major cities by anecdotal evidence from one city. This can also be observed by comments from people clearly living in SV or NYC - none of those apply to suburb-dwelling me in the South. I used to live in a ~350k city in Germany. It has public transport - given the college in town, probably also one of "average" quality. Unless you live very close to a tram, you are bound to use a bus which will get you into the city center (~3 mi, 10 min by car), which was scheduled every 30 mins and took another 30 mins. From there, you might get a train (or another bus!), often times scheduled in such a way that you'd have to wait another 30 or so minutes for it. For me, getting to see a friend in the next town over (~15mi) would take me 25 mins by car, including traffic, and 1hr to 90mins by public transport. Going to work, a solid hour by car due to really bad traffic, took 90mins to 2 hrs using public transport (~30 miles). Not to mention common trips that take me from store A to B and back home - every single stop requires you to wait for a bus and often change lines as well. Don't get me wrong - I'd love more public transport in the US (we have some, but it is horrendous where I live). But even for Europe, saying you don't need a car is a very narrow-minded outlook.

rocgf 7y ago
Depends how you define 'need', how much you can afford to spend and what your usual routes are, so I agree that generalizing is not that great, but that goes both ways.
lqet 7y ago
> It's always fascinating how people here generalize an entire continent's major cities by anecdotal evidence from one city. I apologize for my misleading post, my experience is based on living in multiple major and / or university cities in southwestern Germany, 3-10 days visits to smaller and larger towns all across Europe and frequent visits to Switzerland. > But even for Europe, saying you don't need a car is a very narrow-minded outlook. You seem to confuse me with a no-car evangelist/fundamentalist, because I have never said that. I have merely stated that if you live in a town with some sort of car sharing and an average public transportation system, you do not need to own a car. From what you describe, I would consider the public transportation system in the city you lived in edge-case average for a 350k city, but certainly not optimal. However, a 3 mile distance to the city center (where the train station appears to be) is easily covered by bike. > For me, getting to see a friend in the next town over (~15mi) would take me 25 mins by car, including traffic, and 1hr to 90mins by public transport. Going to work, a solid hour by car due to really bad traffic, took 90mins to 2 hrs using public transport (~30 miles). I would also choose a car for visits to your friend. But you do not visit you friend daily, so why would you need to own a car for that? Even if you visit him weekly, car sharing might be enough, and less overhead. Your daily commute may indeed be a reason for owning a car. However, if I would have to choose between a 1h car ride to work, or a 90 min PT ride, I would still choose public transportation, for the reasons stated below (you can do stuff on PT).