Number of car-free households dropped 2% compared to 2000.

In terms of Arlingotn bikeshare, this is depressing:
"In 2011, Arlington was home to 992 of 14,912 Capital Bikeshare annual members and 123 of 1,915 30-day members."

At least i know why people look at me like a wierdo when I ride the red bikes in Arlington...

by charlie on Feb 27, 2012 9:26 am • link • report

If the cars/population ratio is decreasing in DC, while at the same time the number of car free households is declining that suggests (assuming household size isn't increasing) that there are more "car-lite" households. The car-lite household doesn't get the attention that either carfree, or typical suburban autocentric (with at least one car per licensed driver) do, but I think its an important phenomenon. Its much easier to achieve, and can save lots of money to households that can manage with one vehicle instead of two.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 27, 2012 9:33 am • link • report

That story from UnsuckDCMetro is a fantastic example of how little the policies and culture at Metro have changed, even with Sarles at the helm. Metro's non-response shows that their PR department is almost worse than the problem itself. I'm not sure anybody has the will or desire to make these necessary changes.

by Adam L on Feb 27, 2012 10:01 am • link • report

Great set of breakfast links, Steven.

@AWalkerInTheCity: "Its much easier to achieve, and can save lots of money to households that can manage with one vehicle instead of two." Absolutely right. And relatedly, for households where reducing oil consumption is the objective rather than reducing costs, it points to the viability of substituting a plug-in vehicle for a gas vehicle in 2-vehicle households, even with current, limited capability/range plug-in technology.

by Arl Fan on Feb 27, 2012 10:31 am • link • report

It is quite an oddity to require bars to have parking.

Seems as though that is subsidizing drinking and driving.

by MW on Feb 27, 2012 10:40 am • link • report

We are definitely a car-lite household. My wife and I share a 2006 Mazda 3, but commute by Metro and Bikeshare, so we only use it on the weekends. A fully electric car wouldn't work for us, as we use the car for long weekend trips, and take it to NY and Boston for the holidays, rather than use it for short trips around town. It only has 16,000 miles on it and we keep it well-maintained.

by MrTinDC on Feb 27, 2012 10:55 am • link • report

"Car-free"?

I fear the operant word is “registered.” How many thousands (or tens of thousands) of long-term DC residents keep their cars parked in Washington's alleys and garages, registered in other states?

More importantly, why does the city tolerate this blatant lawlessness, tax evasion and insurance fraud?

by Sydney on Feb 27, 2012 11:12 am • link • report

re plug in electrics - the need for a garage to charge overnight remains a limit on the compatibility of EVs with at least the more intense varieties of urbanism - though there are lots of areas that are less than fully sprawled where the combo of one gas or hybrid vehicle with one EV could be a compromise between one vehicle and two gas/hybrid vehicles.

Of course theres still the cost of an EV - and Im one of those people who is not going to feel guilty about not buying an EV, as long as electricity is still mainly generated by coal. Thats decreasing of course, but AFAICT the marginal baseload KWH is still coal fired.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 27, 2012 11:19 am • link • report

It is funny how we are considered brave pioneers when I tell people we shifted down to one car. This is almost always followed by "we would do it to if we could". I'd love to go car free but the wife's job situation has her reverse commuting for the time being which is thankful in its own right.

by Canaan on Feb 27, 2012 11:20 am • link • report

Yup, where we live lots of folks feel a need for three vehicles in households with two drivers "what will you do when one is in the shop?". This in an area with lots of enterprise rental outlets, and semi decent bus service. We have one car, and are quasi-hipsters by local standards.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 27, 2012 11:26 am • link • report

Being a one car household is great. Like @canaan, my spouse uses the car for a reverse commute. Like @awalkerinthecity, we get lots of questions "but how do you get to work"? I don't know if I could do car free though. I like cars too much (unfortunate consequence of growing up and learning to drive in an area without the horrific congestion and traffic of DMV).

People are basically put in shock when I say I bike the 1.5 miles to the WFC metro. "But what do you do if it rains, or is cold?????!??" Free bike parking and a 10 minute ride > 4.50 a day for parking + gas and a 10 minute drive (traffic lights).

by Nick on Feb 27, 2012 11:40 am • link • report

The purpose of the car-free agitprop is more about getting 20 year olds, after they start making some real money, to not make the car their first big purchase. I'll hazard a guess that a lot more than advertising is playing into that -- the insane prices on used cars right now is not helping.

"car-lite" or one car households is a much better way. For example, instead of running a "Car-free" diet run a compeition to see who can drive less in one year.

I'd say of my friend who DON'T drive to work, they usually drive between 3 to 5K miles a year -- about a 1/3 to 1/2 of the usual amount Americans drive. More low hanging fruit there.

by charlie on Feb 27, 2012 11:57 am • link • report

I'd imagine the increase in car-lite households is going to be very jagged. Right now, the areas close to the center of the city are still filling in with young gentries. It's one thing to bike south of Florida Ave, where the terrain is flat and driving presents some disadvantages (parking, for one). You can accomplish some types of errands, get to work, go to a restaurant, etc. It's another thing to expect people to bike in hilly areas of DC, that don't yet offer many local destinations that one would bike to.

I don't think this trend will continue as the farther out areas of DC continue to gentrify, increasing population density and the number of higher-income households (the kind that can afford 2 - 3 cars). Look at Chevy Chase -- that's the model that most of the city will follow. There are only a few neighborhoods left in DC that can continue to house the young bikers that Charlie mentions. Eventually, no more density will be able to be added close to downtown, and that will signal the end of this trend.

I think if E-bikes became more popular in the US, things might be different. America is fat. Bike culture is primarily adopted by those already fairly fit. We need to get more fat people pedaling. It's not easy to bike up 16th even if you are a fit person. There's a strong disincentive to bike to work if you live up/down a hill, relative to work.

by tresluxe on Feb 27, 2012 1:00 pm • link • report

As a person who was pretty fat when I started biking in 2009, I think there's a lot of opportunity (and it's one of the ways in which Bikeshare provides a good option, allowing people to bike part-way, or bike to a different transportation node).

My wife and I share a car, which she used for a weekly commute to Williamsburg VA for a year and a half, but now the car rarely gets used on weekdays (except for an occasional errand trip). She walks a few blocks to work, and I bike 4 miles across the city to commute. In the last year and a half, we've put about 12,000 miles on the car, mostly long trips.

I have a hard time thinking that we're going to see more people adopting Chevy Chase-esque patterns of traveling, for the simple reason that there's a lot less potential for the space-intensive Chevy Chase style development than there is for denser living with more travel choices in the District.

by Jacques on Feb 27, 2012 1:14 pm • link • report

Poverty less concentrated in DC...

This is good news, for obvious reasons. There's also significant evidence that the century-long trend of concentrating the poorest of the poor together in DC is abating.

While the percentage of children in DC who live in poverty has been increasing, the total number of children who live in poverty has been decreasing. Likely this is an acceleration of the same process whereby middle- and working-class parents leave the city, and only the poorest of the poor remain.

YEAR - PCT% - ([Poor Kids 5-17] of [Total Kids Ages 5-17])

D.C.
2007 24.5% (18,995 of 77,505)
2008 24.3% (18,421 of 75,664)
2009 29.0% (22,325 of 76,892)
2010 30.5% (20,872 of 68,479)

...meanwhile, the number of poor kids who live in MoCo is rising...

Montgomery Co
5.4% (8,610 of 160,378)
6.1% (9,861 of 162,629)
7.1% (11,850 of 167,869)
9.0% (15,298 of 170,236)

..as is PG...

Prince Georges Co
9.6% (14,277 of 148,216)
7.2% (10,339 of 144,117)
8.8% (12,940 of 146,247)
11.4% (16,836 of 147,125)

...and Fairfax Co...

Fairfax
5.6% (9,949 of 177,497)
5.5% (9,728 of 176,254)
6.1% (10,981 of 181,395)
6.7% (12,697 of 190,161)

...pretty much all close-in counties but Alexandria:

Alexandria
13.9% (2,293 of 16,463)
12.9% (2,303 of 17,859)
15.9% (2,438 of 15,353)
15.3% (2,152 of 14,104)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/11/poverty-soars-dc-montco-students/126903

by oboe on Feb 27, 2012 1:34 pm • link • report

@Jacques

I actually had in mind Chevy Chase's residential areas -- not the area surrounding the metro. I got lost in the area just east of Chevy Chase circle this weekend. It's very hilly. I can't imagine the people there -- who are the kind who can afford 3 cars easily -- would ever want to bike to work, the grocery store, or pretty much anywhere. They're going to drive.

The idea is that as the average income in DC's farther out east-of-North Capital neighborhoods rise, so will the number of cars -- given that much of DC is topologically inconvenient for travel by standard bike.

by tresluxe on Feb 27, 2012 1:36 pm • link • report

I am not sure that biking is the only driver of carfreeness. I've always assumed that a lot of the car free households mostly rely on transit, walking, and the occasional use of Zipcar - and maybe some biking (Cabi of course means you could transit in from a hilly area, and then bike around a flat area using a shared bike - adding yet another option)

by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 27, 2012 1:40 pm • link • report

@oboe: there is a problem with that data.

It says that DC child population was 76892 in 2009 and 68479 in 2010, a decrease of 10.9% in a single year.

According to the examiner, this is census data. I wonder if there is typo? Or is the downward jump cause by an inaccurate projection from the 2000 census that was suddenly corrected in the 2010 census?

by goldfish on Feb 27, 2012 1:54 pm • link • report

Wait - in that Flickr picture, someone is putting a CaBi bike on a Circulator, apparently to transport to his ultimate destimation?

by dcd on Feb 27, 2012 1:55 pm • link • report

There are only a few neighborhoods left in DC that can continue to house the young bikers that Charlie mentions. Eventually, no more density will be able to be added close to downtown, and that will signal the end of this trend.

I'm not sure this will necessarily be the case. There are numerous neighborhoods north of Union Station that are accessible via the Metropolitan Branch Trail. Meanwhile, you've got young people moving into the Hyattsville area which should be accessible along the Anacostia River trail, etc...

In any case, I'm not sure that "topography is destiny", at least up to a certain point. The hills going in- and out-bound on the Custis Trail between Key Bridge and the W&OD are pretty rough, and you get a *lot* of traffic along that route every morning, all year round.

by oboe on Feb 27, 2012 1:57 pm • link • report

In practice, I don't find CaBi useful. I'd consider it only a *potential solution* at this point. They need to vastly increase capacity. I'm constantly finding empty stations or getting dock blocked. I'm considering canceling my membership, for all the use I can get out of it.

The other drivers of car-freeness are most useful to people who live downtown. My larger point is that most of the gains we're seeing in car-lite households are happening as the flat core of DC is developed. After we top that area off, we're going to see an increase in multiple car households again.

by tresluxe on Feb 27, 2012 2:01 pm • link • report

@goldfish:

That's what you get for reading The Examiner.

Thought this was amusing as well:
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/SummaryTabA1.pdf

Steady prediction of DC population falling from 2000 to 2030.

They've got 529,785 as their prediction for 2010--only 70,000 off the 2010 census count.

by oboe on Feb 27, 2012 2:07 pm • link • report

@oboe: actually, I do not read the examiner. Thanks for reinforcing why.

A mistake of that size is embarrassing. They never caught it, but then went on to interview experts and get opinions about "what it all means." To think that perfectly innocent trees died for this!

by goldfish on Feb 27, 2012 2:13 pm • link • report

Does the "lesser" concentration of poverty help to lessen poverty?

Not sure what purpose the study serves

by HogWash on Feb 27, 2012 2:15 pm • link • report

@oboe

Right, there are a couple trails that work great for bike commuters. That softens the trend I'm talking about, but I don't think it reverses it. I don't know if E-bikes are often discussed on this blog, but I think they'd address the problem of uneven topology in a way that CaBi can't.

Most people will select the easiest option for commuting, whatever that happens to be. Biking is hard. Metro is easy. Given the rate hikes at metro, I think it's making increasing sense for people who want "easy" to get a E-bike instead of hopping a train. It's just that most people aren't aware it's even an option.

by tresluxe on Feb 27, 2012 2:17 pm • link • report

@HogWash:

Does the "lesser" concentration of poverty help to lessen poverty?

There is some evidence to suggest concentrated poverty is a bad thing.

http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/em/winter11/highlight2.html

by oboe on Feb 27, 2012 2:30 pm • link • report

Of course, the discussion of poverty actually ignores what the definition of poverty is and how it relates to both social services, inter-generational poverty, and wealth/inflation.

by EB on Feb 27, 2012 2:40 pm • link • report

Of course, the discussion of poverty actually ignores what the definition of poverty is and how it relates to both social services, inter-generational poverty, and wealth/inflation.

Sounds true enough. Do go on...

:)

by oboe on Feb 27, 2012 2:48 pm • link • report

Breaking up concentrations of poverty also helps alleviate poverty-related problems such as crime and such. I think its more about relieving some of the ancillary issues overall.

by Canaan on Feb 27, 2012 2:53 pm • link • report

I think at the very least, there's overwhelming evidence that poor kids do better in schools where a majority of the student body is not poor. It makes sense--at a certain point, institutions just get overwhelmed.

I'm sure if they instituted a Summer Jobs Program for Youth in Loudon County, it would be a lot more effective at serving the 10 poor kids who show up than DC is at serving the 1000 or more who come out. (As a bludgeoning example)

by oboe on Feb 27, 2012 3:02 pm • link • report

@Truesluxe

My larger point is that most of the gains we're seeing in car-lite households are happening as the flat core of DC is developed. After we top that area off, we're going to see an increase in multiple car households again.

I don't follow your logic.

First of all, I highly doubt those that are going car-free or car-lite are doing so solely because of bikes, yet alone because of CaBi. Instead, they are doing so because of dense living and transit - which correlate quite nicely with biking (see the CaBi planning heat maps before the system launched).

Instead, as the District sees more and more infill development, that will make those neighborhoods more and more able to support car-free living in the 'hood. As that happens, the key determinant in if one needs a car for residents of those walkable 'hoods will be where their job is.

Pretty much every neighborhood in DC proper has that capability. The baseline density is such that additional infill development, mixing of uses, and expansion of transit will make car-free living possible. Whether it makes sense for any given individual or family will depend on their personal situation with regards to wealth and employment location.

by Alex B. on Feb 27, 2012 3:03 pm • link • report

@Oboe, interesting study.

BTW, I didn't realize that the Summer Jobs programs were aimed at the "poor."

It seems like a no=brainer that kids in minority poor schools do better than majority. I also imagine that being in a school where the "n'hood" is not poor helps performance.

by HogWash on Feb 27, 2012 3:39 pm • link • report

BTW, I didn't realize that the Summer Jobs programs were aimed at the "poor."

Depends what you mean by "aimed". Given that, what, 30% of DC's youth are below the poverty line ( a line that in any decent society would be likely much higher) and given that DCSYEP enrollees are likely to be disproportionately poorer than the set of DC youths in general (since rich kids and middle-class kids often find their own employment--if they even have jobs), it seem likely that at least a majority of the kids in the program come from poor families.

I wasn't able to find any kind of demographic data for the program, though, as you might imagine.

by oboe on Feb 27, 2012 3:59 pm • link • report

@alex b

The premise here is that people will buy as many cars as they need and can afford, so long as there aren't better transit options to them. Downtown, there are better transit options available. I think it's possible to have a range of 0 - 1 cars per household near the core. Uptown, I think the average will settle closer to 2, because there just aren't as many good transit options.

I have in mind much of NE, which has a lot of potential to see a steep rise in incomes as DC gentrifies. An increase in income in DC will result in an increase in car ownership, except where mitigated by 1) bikable proximity to downtown -- i.e., where most people work -- or 2) proximity to metro. If neither 1) or 2) apply to where you live, you're going to buy that second car if you can swing it.

by tresluxe on Feb 27, 2012 4:12 pm • link • report

This is basically the argument for a streetcar network. DC is projected to grow in the coming decades. If we add 100,000 residents, that means we have the option of either a) adding 100,000 more cars on the road (and parked by the side of the road); or b) adding "good transit options".

Really b) is the only choice.

by oboe on Feb 27, 2012 4:20 pm • link • report

I'll add: it doesn't matter how walkable your neighborhood is if you can't easily walk, metro, or bike to work. You're still going to buy that car for the sole purpose of commuting.

by tresluxe on Feb 27, 2012 4:21 pm • link • report

@tresluxe,

I disagree. I don't know why you're focusing on a) biking, and b) Metro. The key indicator is land use and density. Walking is more important than biking. Maybe you imply walking when discussing Metro (since you'll likely walk to the Metro station), but the key thing is land use and accessibility - how much stuff can I walk to? Is there a grocery store within an easy walk? That's a product of density.

I also don't think that proximity to downtown is a great indicator. I know tons of people who live adjacent to downtown, yet work in the suburbs - hence they drive. They live car-lite the rest of the time, but their work location is the strongest indicator of their car ownership status. Now, you likely see some self-selection bias - all the more reason why I think your assertion that people will buy that extra car if they can afford it, regardless of the context, to be false.

by Alex B. on Feb 27, 2012 4:22 pm • link • report

Walker, you're probably right. Personal experience being what it is, our mix by trips (most to least) is probably Metro train, walking, Metro bus, CaBi, Zipcar; and by miles Metro train, Metro bus, Zipcar, CaBi, walking (what can I say, we live a few blocks from the grocery store...we might walk frequently, but not very far).

We would have ditched the cars even if we didn't bike anywhere, and we don't use bikes very much (and, no, that has nothing to do with topography...Ms. D had herself a very bad bike accident once upon a time, and I don't really like biking that much since then). Walking is plenty sufficient to accomplish our everyday needs...of course that's a matter of location, which we chose for convenience to Metro/shopping. Metro is, of course, a necessity. CaBi is nice because it allows me to do some stuff quicker and/or more easily than I otherwise would do it, but it's not a make-or-break on not having a car. It's actually Zipcar that makes not having a car feasible for us. We don't often need a car, but we most definitely do sometimes. A daily rental would just be too expensive and inconvenient. Even if we begged (cost-shared) rides with car-owning friends and cut our car use down to the bare minimum , we'd still be hesitant to go car-free without Zipcar (though we'd almost certainly only have 1 car/2 drivers). I only know 2 people who don't have cars (out of at least 10 I can count off the top of my head) who don't use Zipcar/daily rentals, and they're annoying little *hrmps* who are always talking about how they don't have cars and then begging rides from both car owners and Zipcar users (without paying for gas/rental fees or considering whether the person they're asking for a ride lives all the way across town). So, yeah, I'd say that Zipcar's the great enabler in DC, where the subway/bus routes are not as extensive as some other cities.

by Ms. D on Feb 27, 2012 4:51 pm • link • report

@Oboe, not really semantics. From what I understand, the program is available for all of DC's youth. Getting into the demographics of who it serves isn't really relevant. It's still available to everyone.

Is it wrong to be honest about the fact that many people w/ability to own a car, will choose that over public transportation? I know tons.

by HogWash on Feb 27, 2012 4:55 pm • link • report

@alex b

Proximity to downtown = proximity to jobs. That's a point that can't be argued.

People buy cars to commute. If we put a grocery store on every block in DC, then many people would still have to buy cars to get from home to work and back again.

I didn't argue without context. I argued that based on *need*, people buy cars up to the point that they can't afford any more -- except in cases where a suitable substitute transit option presents itself: a metro that can take dad to work, for instance, at less cost or time. It's important to note the qualifiers there.

by tresluxe on Feb 27, 2012 4:58 pm • link • report

@Tresluxe

Proximity to downtown = proximity to jobs. That's a point that can't be argued.

I'm not arguing that. But if I live next to all of those downtown jobs, yet my job isn't there, but out in the suburbs, then I will have to drive.

That's my point. The location of the home isn't determinant of the need for a car, the location of the job is. To the extent that they correlate, that's a self selection bias.

People buy cars to commute. If we put a grocery store on every block in DC, then many people would still have to buy cars to get from home to work and back again.

Sure, but that's not the argument you were making earlier. You noted that as people moved further and further out, regardless of the density around their home and the walkability and accessibility therein, they would naturally end up buying cars. I don't think that's true. It all depends on the context of the trips they have to make. If you live in a place where the day-today errands are walkable, and your commute is available via convenient transit, then you can plausibly live car-free. And if you can plausibly live car-free, then you can easily live car-lite.

by Alex B. on Feb 27, 2012 5:07 pm • link • report

@alex b

Perhaps some confusion resulted in my short comment immediately after oboe's? That wasn't a response to his comment about streetcars, which I hadn't even read when I posted.

As for streetcars -- it'd be great if they worked out in DC, but I'm skeptical given the current pace/state of streetcar development to date. I personally think it's more likely that we see a lot of gentrification in the "donut" areas of DC (surrounding the core), before people who live in the donut see much/any benefit from streetcars. Those people will, of course, be likely to invest in multiple cars until streetcars become a viable option for them.

by tresluxe on Feb 27, 2012 6:19 pm • link • report

The 40,000 new residents live in new 10-story buildings with expensive garages and no RPP on-street parking. Hence fewer new registrations!

by Turnip on Feb 27, 2012 6:54 pm • link • report

To me the big issue is the disparity between those that chose not to have a car, and those that desperately need a car to survive but can't afford one. If you are undereducated and largely unskilled, with little to no work history, you need a car to get to the suburbs where the service jobs are, more so if you commute will outside of traditional "rush hour." This is why any real "welfare" program for DC's poor must include car ownership, along with basic skills in car maintenance to keep the cars on the road.

Take a cue from the new immigrants. The first thing they do when they get to the US is get a car.

Not everyone can work downtown. To truly take advantage of the entire DC metro area, an area which has weathered the current recession better than just about anywhere else, you need a car.

by dcdriver on Feb 27, 2012 7:15 pm • link • report

tres, I would contend that, even given your qualifiers, owning a car/cars is often more a matter of attitude and upbringing than true need. I hold my brother and sister-in-law up as an example. My sister-in-law works *5* blocks from her house, and there's a full-service grocery store *3* blocks from their house. My brother works about 15 miles from home, in an area with next to no public transit (there are a few buses, but they don't go anywhere near his work). So, they definitely need at least 1 car to get my brother to work. But they also work opposite shifts/long shifts (they each work only 3 or 4 days each week - 3 days one week, 4 the next), so even if she didn't feel like walking for some reason (they live in a cold, snowy environment, so walking may not always be a pleasurable experience, or even feasible if it's snowed a lot and the sidewalks are very slick or impassible), my brother could drop her off/pick her up or she could use the car for that shift rather than having a car dedicated to the purpose of carting her around. Yet, they live in a car-centric area, so they have 2 cars. They are *ideal* candidates for going car-lite, but won't because the only people who do that in their area are poor people, and they're not poor. Yes, when I pressure them about using the cars so much, they do say "we can afford it...," but they also throw up a bunch of "what-ifs" like Walker highlighted (what if the car breaks down (um, it's new so you'll get a rental while it's being fixed? And when the warranty expires, a rental is MUCH cheaper than the 2nd car payment), what if I need something from somewhere other than the local grocery store and brother is at work (um, you sleep/watch TV while he's at work? And you typically go to the mall/Wal-Mart with friends/family, so it's not like you couldn't get there), what if I get sick (um, the hospital you work at, where your doctor works, is only *5* blocks away, and there's another one *3* blocks away and ambulance services if it's a big emergency? And your MIL lives like a mile away and your sister lives like 3 miles away and your best friend lives like 4 blocks away and you're good friends with your neighbors), etc.). I also have another friend who lives in a city with okay public transit, right on a couple of bus lines, who insists she can't get anywhere without a car even though I fly into her city and get to her house without much hassle without a car at least once a year. It's fitting the mold of the area more than need or even desire.

Around these parts, going car-free/car-lite is acceptable and even desirable, so many people do it, even when it presents a certain level of hardship. I live in NE, probably closer to the Metro/services than you were thinking when you mentioned less-walkable areas of DC, but still in an area where most people own cars and aren't even car-lite, and we make car-free living work pretty easily. I'd even go so far as to say that not owning a car is a relief for us, since we never have to worry about break-ins, snow, parking, inspections, etc. Oh, sure, people in my neighborhood are often confused about us not owning a car (when we first moved in, the most common question we got was "your place was so expensive you can't afford a car?" and when we show up in an unmarked Zipcar, we always get asked if that's our new car), but we've never felt that was a good reason to get one, unlike the immediate response of my family ("we're not POOR!") or friend ("the bus is so HARD!"). It took me years to give up my car after moving to DC, even though owning a car was more expensive/more of a hassle than it was worth. It was my perception, not my needs, that was the problem. As more people go car-free/car-lite, people will gradually drop the perception that they need a car/a car for each driver or more when there are good alternatives. We're slowly un-doing car nation in areas where it's possible, but it'll take time for people to fully embrace the change.

by Ms. D on Feb 27, 2012 7:41 pm • link • report

Uh, Turnip, I live in a 2-story building, in a condo that CAME WITH A PARKING SPOT, and still don't have a car, and I'm one of the 40,000 new residents in the last decade (DH moved here just outside of that timeframe). Several of my car-free friends also live in small buildings near less-popular Metros and are in the same boat. Not that it matters too much, most of DC is fine for people without cars.

dcdriver, I do agree that many lower-wage workers fit your description, but increased mixed-use development will continue to place lower-skill jobs within reach of transit, and it's absolutely not necessary for *everyone* to own a personal car to fully experience the area. It's more accurate to say that we're seeing a flip of our parent's generation, where now it's that the more money you have, the less access to a car you need. And, I'd rather see better transit than giving poorer people better access to cars. Cars are burdensome and expensive, and we can do better than making the people who can least afford the cars (and their attendant gas, maintenance, etc.) dependent on cars for jobs.

by Ms. D on Feb 27, 2012 7:49 pm • link • report

MsD, I think what you write about your in-law's is simply a matter of "preference." That is, people (in basically every facet of their lives) "choose" things that may or may not be in line with what someone else "thinks" they should have/need. It's similar to the idea of criticism of suburban life. Some people "prefer" to live in the house, w/the garage, in a fully detached home, away from the city core, in their own little enclaves. Yet, they still make the trek to DC for work. It might be a major inconvenience for some. Might not make "urbanist" sense. But that's their choice.

Similarly, you might think your in-laws really don't "need" the other car. However, what they consider a need is at odds what what you think. They're plenty of things we don't "need."

Most men likely think that most women don't "need" all those daggone shoes and purses. But the closets are full of both. :)

by HogWash on Feb 27, 2012 8:42 pm • link • report

DCDriver,

The problem is getting workers access to jobs. One way is to enable more workers to have cars. Another, possibly more effective way, is to make more jobs accessible by transit. The Silver Line will do that in a big way and other transit projects do it in smaller ways.

by Falls Church on Feb 27, 2012 9:38 pm • link • report

I think it's very tempting to think that the future is going to look just like the present, perhaps with cooler cars. But even if tresluxe and dcdriver are correct, and every household would tend to keep a car or two under the present conditions, this would mean any significant population growth in DC would lead to a really, really horrible driving environment.

There's no question the city's population will grow. There's also little question that the middle-class as a share of total population will continue to increase. So what you're looking at is a situation where keeping a car (and possibly driving around town) will likely become so unpleasant and expensive that the folks who don't have an absolute need but just kind of like to have access to a car will migrate to car-sharing.

Of course, as this happens, all of the myriad public subsidies that go to car owners in this city will likely be trimmed, and continue the cycle.

by oboe on Feb 27, 2012 9:40 pm • link • report

dcd

not to sound too much like Oboe, but if someone is lower to lower middle income, works in a non transit accessible location in the suburbs (making the jobs in tysons transit accessible is all well and good but lots of lower income folks in the region work in retail or other low wage services that tend to be dispersed and if transit accessible at all, only be relatively infrequest local bus service) and needs a car, one has to ask - would it not make more sense for them to LIVE in the suburbs? As frustrating as I find the affordable housing arguments against redevelopment in West Alexandria, for instance, they at least have a point. The low rises near beauregard street are a more logical place for an auto dependent low wage family working in the NoVa suburbs than Anacostia is (and their kids will get a better education to boot).

by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 28, 2012 9:25 am • link • report

we are confusing things. Are we talking about "car free" or "car lite" and are we talking about single people, or couples/families.

First off, for single people, while in theory they could share a vehicle with a roommate, in general for them "car lite" does not exist - they have one vehicle and are fully motorized, or they are car free. I think the arlington carfree diet ads are mainly directed at them. And yes, they can only be carfree if they have SOME kind of non-auto access to their job.

Families are much more complicated. For simplicity lets assume two licensed drivers, both employed. To be carfree they need non auto access to both jobs AND they need access to local shopping and services, INCLUDING (usually) a grocery store. However to be car lite, in theory they could get by with non-auto access to one job and NO local walkability beyond that. IF they have non-auto access to one job and SOME local walkability, they can manage without a walkable grocery store. If they also have a walkable grocery store, then they may need the auto only for the one job for which there is no other good access. If both jobs are nonauto accessible, AND they have good local walkability including a grocery store, they may still want one vehicle - if their preferences for the convenience of auto ownership, combined with their income, is high enough. Though I would imagine zipcar has shifted the curve to a considerable degree for folks like that.

What does that mean for the outer DC nabes? Places EOTR, Brookland, Michigan Park, etc, etc? WRT to vehicle ownership?

1. yes, its true - all other things being equal, as incomes rise there, vehicle ownership will increase
2. To the extent that there are smaller households there, there may be fewer vehicles simply because fewer licensed drivers per household
3. OTOH if car lite 2 driver households are replaced by single people who can't or won't be car free, that would increase vehicles per person
4. Adding density/walkability will be a driver of fewer vehicles ESPECIALLY for potentially car lite multi driver households
5. non auto access to jobs (in addition to local walkability) is important to create car FREE households
6. While that suggests most car free households in the outerzone will be near metrorail stations, or near street car lines if and when they come, there is no reason to rule out high frequency bus lines (a fortiori if they have BRT charecteristics) as providing transit access to employment

by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 28, 2012 9:39 am • link • report

@AWalkerInTheCity

"one has to ask - would it not make more sense for them to LIVE in the suburbs?"

All things being equal, yes, it would make more sense to live in the suburbs. This is why the vast majority of new immigrants to the region live in the suburbs. But, there are costs associated with moving that have to be paid, not the mention many of these people grew up in these same neighborhoods, it is where their friends, family, and support network is. I have met teenagers in DC who have rarely, if ever, been outside of the Beltway. Its incredible but its true.

In some cases, people live in public housing or have housing vouchers and would lose that if they moved, making them essentially prisoners to their current situation (one of the many problems with housing policy in the US).

There are cultural/sociological factors as well. For example, would you feel comfortable moving into an apartment complex in which 95% of the people speak Spanish as the primary language (which is the case in many of the lower-priced complexes in the outer suburbs)? The reality is that people tend to live near other people who are like them (race, income, education, etc).

by dcdriver on Feb 28, 2012 12:22 pm • link • report