6 ms·

Why would you want to own a car if you could avoid it? (correction applied) Because I can go wherever I want, whenever I want, with my whole family (pets incl

Why would you want to own a car if you could avoid it? (correction applied) Because I can go wherever I want, whenever I want, with my whole family (pets included), with a trunkful of cargo, as I see fit. I keep a bunch of gear in my car which makes me pretty much independent. No way I'd be hauling "go camping on a moment's notice" stuff and other equipment everywhere on the bus. Nor would I have the basic equipment to fix the bus should it break down. 7 years ago, awaiting dinner sitting at the bar at Longhorns and halfway thru a margarita around 9PM, my wife suggested we go see a new litter of puppies from our dog's breeder. Called to ensure we could, and minutes later we were making the 1,000 mile drive there. Next morning little Crossley was part of the family. Personal long-range transport is very freeing. Mass transit & communication devices may be convenient, but rely more on others than some of us are comfortable with.

jseliger 13y ago
(correction applied) Thanks, fixed! Because I can go wherever I want, whenever I want, with my whole family (pets included), with a trunkful of cargo, as I see fit. But at very high cost, per The High Cost of Free Parking, and at high time costs: I'm struck by the way that, when I lived in Tucson, it took seemingly 30 or 40 minutes to get anywhere. Now I live in New York City and it takes about the same, but the default transportation mode is different!
- vacri 13y ago
  In my own experience, if you're working outside peak commuting hours, public transport is horrible. Take a cold winter, services 20 minutes apart. One service is missed, cancelled, whatever, you're now there for 40 minutes waiting for your bus. Of course, you don't know that the service is missed, you're just waiting at a pole. And in my case, it was a connecting service, so repeat the process for the second leg of the journey. Sometimes it would have been just as fast to walk the 75 minutes home - though of course, there's no way of knowing from the outset. My housemates were dyed-in-the-wool public transport users, the 'everything we need' variety, and then I went overseas for three months in which they had use of my car. On return, "we're getting our own car". Driving crosstown for a commute is faster than the 15-minute walk to the bus, the two-leg bus/train commute, and the 10-minute walk from the station. Carrying your groceries on public transport sucks. Apart from a handful of cities, post-midnight travel sucks. Cancelled services suck. Being squished into someone else's armpit during peak commute sucks. Having to commute (walk) to your commute (bus) then commute again (walk) sucks when the weather is bad. Public transport with more than one leg in the trip sucks. Public transport that doesn't go where you want to go sucks. Public transport is awesome and there should be much more investment in it, but there are a ton of reasons why personal cars are fantastic.
  - anthonyb 13y ago
    Bear in mind that you're comparing mostly-decent road transport to generally-awful public transport. Buses, for example, suck - they're always going to be a worse experience than a car (walking 10+ minutes to the stop at each end + waiting, to be stuck in exactly the same traffic). Now if public transport had the same investment as private, it'd be a different kettle of fish. Take a look at http://carfree.com/intro_cfc.html http://carfree.com/intro_cfc.html and http://carfree.com/topology.html http://carfree.com/topology.html as an example of what might be possible with rail and sufficient political will. <5 minutes to a train stop, <30 minutes to anywhere else, <5 minutes to your final destination == max 40 minute trip in a city of 1M people.
    - ecocentrik 13y ago
      Buses don't have to get stuck in the same traffic. Bogota, Columbia and more recently New York City have dedicated cross town bus lanes. Edit: video of the Bogota bus system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6ImWY4IBc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6ImWY4IBc
  - prawn 13y ago
    If there were more users of public transport (e.g., less parking available, etc), it's likely that service and intervals would improve.
    - hoers 13y ago
      This. I live in Berlin, which invested heavily in public transportation over the decades, leading the majority of my friends to not even having a drivers license (me included). You can get anywhere pretty much anytime, often considerably faster than taking a car, especially on day time when you easily spend 30min just looking for a spot. Plus if you combine public transport with a decent bike - no car will ever beat you in this city.
      - ido 13y ago
        Heh, as a new arrival to Berlin I wish it had the quality of transit that Vienna does! :)
- mildtrepidation 13y ago
  There are so many different factors in those two situations that they're barely comparable. Yes, there are many costs associated with car ownership, and I'm sure there are some in terms of behavior that that book may describe. But depending on where you live there are also costs to not owning a car, including the inability to get anywhere, either at all or in a timely manner. I'm looking forward to living in a city (thought not in the US) and going without for a while, but the only reason I'll try it is because I know I'm going somewhere with vastly better public transportation and in proximity to the things I need and want to do. Living without a car makes sense for some people, in some places, in some situations. Sometimes, though, expensive or not, it just doesn't.
- bmj 13y ago
  I'm struck by the way that, when I lived in Tucson, it took seemingly 30 or 40 minutes to get anywhere. I'm currently staying in Tucson for a brief spell, and I am struck by the very same thing! It's kinda crazy. I certainly don't live in a completely walkable city neighborhood back east, but I can be at the office in ~25 minutes on my bike, and most errands can be done on my bike or my scooter. As for high costs, I think it's all a trade-off, right? We're a one car family (I've never actually driven to work in 15+ years), but we travel extensively in our VW van. So, the benefits we get from owning it out-weigh the costs. That said, I've applied the same analysis to owning a car for getting to work--it's far cheaper, and more enjoyable, for me to bike (and occasionally take the bus) rather than deal with another vehicle. I suspect most car-bound commuters (or suburbanites who must drive 15-30 minutes to get anywhere) have done similar math in their head (or on paper), and decided that the benefits of location and car ownership out-weight the costs. Of course, plenty of those folks also likely complain about gas prices and traffic, too!
- ekianjo 13y ago
  Even in Japan if you only rely on Public Transportation (and you probably have heard its one of the best out there, worldwide), there are a number of situation where it just does not work. For example: you want to come back later than 11h30 pm ? Bad luck, most of the metro/train lines have stopped. Or, there's usually always a way to get from point A to B with public transport, but unless you go to major stations or hubs you need to change several times, take an additional bus and walk an additional x minutes. It's very tiring and inefficient, and costly as well, because public transports aren't subsidized here as much as in Europe for example. And of course, if you ever want to carry something large and heavy with you, welcome to hell, with a number of stations with no elevators and just stairs, and lack of space in trains to even put your stuff. It's fairly obvious there are excellent use cases for having a car. Or at least renting one when you need it. ANd that's not even considering : confort, risk of viral transmission (did you take this in account when considering the cost on society ?) and freedom aspects.
  - toddmorey 13y ago
    Yes, although owning, driving, and parking a car in Japan are not pleasant experiences, either. I remember one drive in particular when traffic was stalled so badly people were just leaving their cars idle to go pee on the side of the road. I do think the most ideal setup would be public transport for most occasions combined with car rentals / delivery for large items.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Sure, cars suck for some scenarios. Bikes and public transport work much better there. Frankly, I don't like living in those conditions. Bikes and public transport suck for other scenarios. Right now I'd spend more time just walking to & from bus stops than my entire commute, and biking the 15 miles to work would get me killed by the end of the week. Live where it suits you. Ticks me off that the public transport crowd wants to actively deny me both my money and preferred mode of transport, when I wish to deny them nothing but my involvement.
robomartin 13y ago
> Why would you want to own a car if you could avoid it? I used to live approximately half a mile from the epicenter of the 6.7 magnitude Northridge earthquake. I was actually at my desk programming at 4:31AM when it hit. It was, by far, the most violent quake I have ever experienced. The vertical component was brutal. It actually shot me up off my chair when it compressed the height adjusting air cylinder and propelled me upwards. I have this vivid memory of being up in the air along with all the books in the bookcases surrounding my desk. The lights went out. We all came down. The shaking begun. Anyhow, after it stopped I was covered in a pile of books. I made sure everyone was OK, found my car keys and got out of the house. I threw some tools int the back of the car and immediately drove near CSUN where my girlfriend lived and picked her up. Her place was trashed. We helped a few of her neighbors. We gave a few of them rides to nearby friends and family. We also visited some of our friends in the neighborhood to make sure they were OK. Being the guy with a garage full of tools, I probably helped a dozen, if not two dozen, people with various issues from gas main shutoffs to broken water pipes and a whole range of other things that happen during a bad quake. In the days that followed we helped get water and supplies to those in need and generally made ourselves useful to the extent possible. Of course, we had our own issues to deal with, which required frequent trips to the hardware store to haul construction materials. After that incident I never go to sleep without my gas tank at least half full and never leave my car keys on a table (because I had to dig them out of a pile of stuff when all of it went to the floor). My car was the single most valuable tool during that incident. Many years later. Now married, living elsewhere, with a young child and a couple of dogs in tow our neighborhood was surrounded by fire. The hills around us just went up in flames. We were told evacuation was imminent. My wife, kid and dogs went into our two SUV's while I went in and out of the house prioritizing what to bring into the cars. We actually had to drive a block away from our home before we were told the situation had reversed and we could go back. I realize these are extreme examples, but to say that public transportation is all you need is kind of unreasonable. It's almost like saying that the police force is all you need in order to keep you and your family safe. As a tourist I've always enjoyed public transport in Europe. Love it. If I lived there I would most certainly own a car or two. Public transport isn't going to be there when you need it most. With the advent of electric cars a whole new set of possibilities starts to open up. Electrics with long range capabilities have something no liquid fuel vehicle can offer: easily convertible energy that --with the right equipment-- is compatible with the needs of any home. In the event of an emergency your electric SUV's could very well power your home and basic necessities such as lights, cooking and keeping food safe.
psychometry 13y ago
Giving your preference for buying puppies from a breeder, it's not surprising that your opinions about transportation also only revolve around what you want and not what is moral or best for society or your community.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  A "rescue" bit my daughter in the face and very nearly destroyed her eye. I'll stick with pets of known social and medical histories, thank you very much. BTW: having a car meant I could race her to medical help without having to wait for public transportation (aka ambulance).
  - knowitall 13y ago
    And the nearest breeder lives 1000 miles away?
devilshaircut 13y ago
Well - he made it easy for you because based on how he phrased it, you only had to come up with one reason cars are good. You picked some low-hanging fruit (not an ad hominem attack; your reasoning is sound). Cars are a clear solution to certain problems. That said, I think that these reasons tend to diminish when contrasted with the downsides (not that it matters, but I do own a car, and am not just trying to shill the other side). Example: having a car also contributes to the degeneration of the city. This is a point well-illustrated in the original article. Is it worth owning a car when it is intrinsically tied to urban sprawl and the decay of cultural vibrance? Ownership comes at a cost.
knowitall 13y ago
"minutes later we were making the 1,000 mile drive there. Next morning little Crossley was part of the family." Obviously this kind of lifestyle is possible today. I don't want to take it away from you. I just want to point out that to me this sounds completely insane. I would say "irresponsible" as well, but I assume you simply have no awareness of the larger issues involved and can't be blamed. I'm pretty sure that if you hadn't had the car, you would have been able to find a suitable puppy within a 20 miles radius...
pouetpouet 13y ago
I, too, like to go wherever I want. But it doesn't mean that every active member of the society HAS TO own one. I adore the freedom it gives me on nights/week-ends. But we don't need 2/3 cars per family. Carshare has something to offer too. I am not against cars, but it's way too unbalanced towards cars. Drivers should bear the costs of their habits and not out-source them. City centers must be made more liveable for urban dwellers. That means less surface parking, reducing parking minimums, paid parking, more bike paths, street designs with lower deisgn speed... Some want to live in the suburbs, no one can oppose that, we are free to do so. But if you want to live in a liveable urban neighborhood, this choice needs to be catered too.

jseliger 13y ago

(correction applied) Thanks, fixed! Because I can go wherever I want, whenever I want, with my whole family (pets included), with a trunkful of cargo, as I see fit. But at very high cost, per The High Cost of Free Parking, and at high time costs: I'm struck by the way that, when I lived in Tucson, it took seemingly 30 or 40 minutes to get anywhere. Now I live in New York City and it takes about the same, but the default transportation mode is different!

vacri 13y ago
In my own experience, if you're working outside peak commuting hours, public transport is horrible. Take a cold winter, services 20 minutes apart. One service is missed, cancelled, whatever, you're now there for 40 minutes waiting for your bus. Of course, you don't know that the service is missed, you're just waiting at a pole. And in my case, it was a connecting service, so repeat the process for the second leg of the journey. Sometimes it would have been just as fast to walk the 75 minutes home - though of course, there's no way of knowing from the outset. My housemates were dyed-in-the-wool public transport users, the 'everything we need' variety, and then I went overseas for three months in which they had use of my car. On return, "we're getting our own car". Driving crosstown for a commute is faster than the 15-minute walk to the bus, the two-leg bus/train commute, and the 10-minute walk from the station. Carrying your groceries on public transport sucks. Apart from a handful of cities, post-midnight travel sucks. Cancelled services suck. Being squished into someone else's armpit during peak commute sucks. Having to commute (walk) to your commute (bus) then commute again (walk) sucks when the weather is bad. Public transport with more than one leg in the trip sucks. Public transport that doesn't go where you want to go sucks. Public transport is awesome and there should be much more investment in it, but there are a ton of reasons why personal cars are fantastic.
- anthonyb 13y ago
  Bear in mind that you're comparing mostly-decent road transport to generally-awful public transport. Buses, for example, suck - they're always going to be a worse experience than a car (walking 10+ minutes to the stop at each end + waiting, to be stuck in exactly the same traffic). Now if public transport had the same investment as private, it'd be a different kettle of fish. Take a look at http://carfree.com/intro_cfc.html http://carfree.com/intro_cfc.html and http://carfree.com/topology.html http://carfree.com/topology.html as an example of what might be possible with rail and sufficient political will. <5 minutes to a train stop, <30 minutes to anywhere else, <5 minutes to your final destination == max 40 minute trip in a city of 1M people.
  - ecocentrik 13y ago
    Buses don't have to get stuck in the same traffic. Bogota, Columbia and more recently New York City have dedicated cross town bus lanes. Edit: video of the Bogota bus system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6ImWY4IBc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6ImWY4IBc
- prawn 13y ago
  If there were more users of public transport (e.g., less parking available, etc), it's likely that service and intervals would improve.
  - hoers 13y ago
    This. I live in Berlin, which invested heavily in public transportation over the decades, leading the majority of my friends to not even having a drivers license (me included). You can get anywhere pretty much anytime, often considerably faster than taking a car, especially on day time when you easily spend 30min just looking for a spot. Plus if you combine public transport with a decent bike - no car will ever beat you in this city.
    - ido 13y ago
      Heh, as a new arrival to Berlin I wish it had the quality of transit that Vienna does! :)
mildtrepidation 13y ago
There are so many different factors in those two situations that they're barely comparable. Yes, there are many costs associated with car ownership, and I'm sure there are some in terms of behavior that that book may describe. But depending on where you live there are also costs to not owning a car, including the inability to get anywhere, either at all or in a timely manner. I'm looking forward to living in a city (thought not in the US) and going without for a while, but the only reason I'll try it is because I know I'm going somewhere with vastly better public transportation and in proximity to the things I need and want to do. Living without a car makes sense for some people, in some places, in some situations. Sometimes, though, expensive or not, it just doesn't.
bmj 13y ago
I'm struck by the way that, when I lived in Tucson, it took seemingly 30 or 40 minutes to get anywhere. I'm currently staying in Tucson for a brief spell, and I am struck by the very same thing! It's kinda crazy. I certainly don't live in a completely walkable city neighborhood back east, but I can be at the office in ~25 minutes on my bike, and most errands can be done on my bike or my scooter. As for high costs, I think it's all a trade-off, right? We're a one car family (I've never actually driven to work in 15+ years), but we travel extensively in our VW van. So, the benefits we get from owning it out-weigh the costs. That said, I've applied the same analysis to owning a car for getting to work--it's far cheaper, and more enjoyable, for me to bike (and occasionally take the bus) rather than deal with another vehicle. I suspect most car-bound commuters (or suburbanites who must drive 15-30 minutes to get anywhere) have done similar math in their head (or on paper), and decided that the benefits of location and car ownership out-weight the costs. Of course, plenty of those folks also likely complain about gas prices and traffic, too!
ekianjo 13y ago
Even in Japan if you only rely on Public Transportation (and you probably have heard its one of the best out there, worldwide), there are a number of situation where it just does not work. For example: you want to come back later than 11h30 pm ? Bad luck, most of the metro/train lines have stopped. Or, there's usually always a way to get from point A to B with public transport, but unless you go to major stations or hubs you need to change several times, take an additional bus and walk an additional x minutes. It's very tiring and inefficient, and costly as well, because public transports aren't subsidized here as much as in Europe for example. And of course, if you ever want to carry something large and heavy with you, welcome to hell, with a number of stations with no elevators and just stairs, and lack of space in trains to even put your stuff. It's fairly obvious there are excellent use cases for having a car. Or at least renting one when you need it. ANd that's not even considering : confort, risk of viral transmission (did you take this in account when considering the cost on society ?) and freedom aspects.
- toddmorey 13y ago
  Yes, although owning, driving, and parking a car in Japan are not pleasant experiences, either. I remember one drive in particular when traffic was stalled so badly people were just leaving their cars idle to go pee on the side of the road. I do think the most ideal setup would be public transport for most occasions combined with car rentals / delivery for large items.
ctdonath 13y ago
Sure, cars suck for some scenarios. Bikes and public transport work much better there. Frankly, I don't like living in those conditions. Bikes and public transport suck for other scenarios. Right now I'd spend more time just walking to & from bus stops than my entire commute, and biking the 15 miles to work would get me killed by the end of the week. Live where it suits you. Ticks me off that the public transport crowd wants to actively deny me both my money and preferred mode of transport, when I wish to deny them nothing but my involvement.

robomartin 13y ago

> Why would you want to own a car if you could avoid it? I used to live approximately half a mile from the epicenter of the 6.7 magnitude Northridge earthquake. I was actually at my desk programming at 4:31AM when it hit. It was, by far, the most violent quake I have ever experienced. The vertical component was brutal. It actually shot me up off my chair when it compressed the height adjusting air cylinder and propelled me upwards. I have this vivid memory of being up in the air along with all the books in the bookcases surrounding my desk. The lights went out. We all came down. The shaking begun. Anyhow, after it stopped I was covered in a pile of books. I made sure everyone was OK, found my car keys and got out of the house. I threw some tools int the back of the car and immediately drove near CSUN where my girlfriend lived and picked her up. Her place was trashed. We helped a few of her neighbors. We gave a few of them rides to nearby friends and family. We also visited some of our friends in the neighborhood to make sure they were OK. Being the guy with a garage full of tools, I probably helped a dozen, if not two dozen, people with various issues from gas main shutoffs to broken water pipes and a whole range of other things that happen during a bad quake. In the days that followed we helped get water and supplies to those in need and generally made ourselves useful to the extent possible. Of course, we had our own issues to deal with, which required frequent trips to the hardware store to haul construction materials. After that incident I never go to sleep without my gas tank at least half full and never leave my car keys on a table (because I had to dig them out of a pile of stuff when all of it went to the floor). My car was the single most valuable tool during that incident. Many years later. Now married, living elsewhere, with a young child and a couple of dogs in tow our neighborhood was surrounded by fire. The hills around us just went up in flames. We were told evacuation was imminent. My wife, kid and dogs went into our two SUV's while I went in and out of the house prioritizing what to bring into the cars. We actually had to drive a block away from our home before we were told the situation had reversed and we could go back. I realize these are extreme examples, but to say that public transportation is all you need is kind of unreasonable. It's almost like saying that the police force is all you need in order to keep you and your family safe. As a tourist I've always enjoyed public transport in Europe. Love it. If I lived there I would most certainly own a car or two. Public transport isn't going to be there when you need it most. With the advent of electric cars a whole new set of possibilities starts to open up. Electrics with long range capabilities have something no liquid fuel vehicle can offer: easily convertible energy that --with the right equipment-- is compatible with the needs of any home. In the event of an emergency your electric SUV's could very well power your home and basic necessities such as lights, cooking and keeping food safe.

psychometry 13y ago

Giving your preference for buying puppies from a breeder, it's not surprising that your opinions about transportation also only revolve around what you want and not what is moral or best for society or your community.

ctdonath 13y ago
A "rescue" bit my daughter in the face and very nearly destroyed her eye. I'll stick with pets of known social and medical histories, thank you very much. BTW: having a car meant I could race her to medical help without having to wait for public transportation (aka ambulance).
- knowitall 13y ago
  And the nearest breeder lives 1000 miles away?

devilshaircut 13y ago

Well - he made it easy for you because based on how he phrased it, you only had to come up with one reason cars are good. You picked some low-hanging fruit (not an ad hominem attack; your reasoning is sound). Cars are a clear solution to certain problems. That said, I think that these reasons tend to diminish when contrasted with the downsides (not that it matters, but I do own a car, and am not just trying to shill the other side). Example: having a car also contributes to the degeneration of the city. This is a point well-illustrated in the original article. Is it worth owning a car when it is intrinsically tied to urban sprawl and the decay of cultural vibrance? Ownership comes at a cost.

knowitall 13y ago

"minutes later we were making the 1,000 mile drive there. Next morning little Crossley was part of the family." Obviously this kind of lifestyle is possible today. I don't want to take it away from you. I just want to point out that to me this sounds completely insane. I would say "irresponsible" as well, but I assume you simply have no awareness of the larger issues involved and can't be blamed. I'm pretty sure that if you hadn't had the car, you would have been able to find a suitable puppy within a 20 miles radius...

pouetpouet 13y ago

I, too, like to go wherever I want. But it doesn't mean that every active member of the society HAS TO own one. I adore the freedom it gives me on nights/week-ends. But we don't need 2/3 cars per family. Carshare has something to offer too. I am not against cars, but it's way too unbalanced towards cars. Drivers should bear the costs of their habits and not out-source them. City centers must be made more liveable for urban dwellers. That means less surface parking, reducing parking minimums, paid parking, more bike paths, street designs with lower deisgn speed... Some want to live in the suburbs, no one can oppose that, we are free to do so. But if you want to live in a liveable urban neighborhood, this choice needs to be catered too.