Cancel
Advanced Search
KEYWORDS
CATEGORY
AUTHOR
MONTH

Please click here to take a brief survey

A Car-Free Future?
Erica Barnett, 2 Aug 07
Article Photo

There are few possessions to which people are more attached than their cars. Surveys have consistently shown that between a quarter an a third of all Americans bestow names on their cars. One survey found that 84 percent of all people say they “love” their cars, and more than half keep photos of their cars on hand.

Let me say right away that this attachment to automobiles isn’t a phenomenon I applaud, much less understand; my relationship with my car, when I had one, was more indifference than love, in large part because I live in a city (Seattle) where owning a car, much less driving one, is an everyday exercise in frustration and waste. Parking permits are largely useless, and a city law requiring car owners to move their vehicles once every 72 hours, versions of which are common in cities around the United States, force people to drive every three days anyway, like it or not. Driving, meanwhile, has become incredibly time-consuming, with the average American wasting 47 hours a year in traffic. And we're all familiar with the climate impacts of driving, particularly driving alone.

Giving up your car isn’t one of those “simple things you can do to make the world a better place.” It requires major lifestyle changes, new ways of ordering your entire existence. Yet in my experience, the benefits far outweigh the costs. For one thing, owning a car is expensive; once depreciation, fuel, maintenance, repairs, licensing, registration, finance charges, and insurance are factored in, the true cost of owning a car is usually many times higher than the sticker price. In a pilot study undertaken by the city of Seattle, households that gave up one car saved an average of $70 a week.

Less concretely but no less significantly, the psychological costs of owning and driving a car can be significant. Isolation, concerns about theft and property damage, and the psychic toll of sitting in traffic all add up quickly.

People often say, “But I have to own a car. I can’t possibly commute by bus/train/streetcar”; and besides, what about road trips/emergencies/midnight snack runs to Taco Bell? I thought that once myself. Seattle, like many midsize American cities, is not an easy place to get around without a car, but it isn’t that difficult, either, provided you’re willing to think of bus rides as opportunities to read, work, or catch up with yourself. Since I gave up my car, my travel options have expanded to include walking, biking, taking the bus, FlexCar, and the occasional rental; the money I save is nothing compared to the peace of mind that comes with knowing I don’t have to worry about a large, expensive, and environmentally damaging possession that could break down and cost me thousands of dollars at any moment. At the same time, I sympathize with those for whom carlessness does not seem to be an option—parents of small children and those with multiple jobs have challenges that I, as a single, childless person with a home and job in the city, do not share.

Still, people everywhere and in every social and economic situation are looking for—and finding—solutions to auto dependence and other transportation challenges. In this column, I’ll be exploring those innovations and challenges—folks who are promoting urban design for people, not cars; the challenge of rising gas prices
and discretionary spending; the false promise of biofuels and some alternatives; and much more.

Erica C. Barnett

5861630_cfa52cacde.jpg

Photo Credit: Creative Commons

Bookmark and Share


Comments

I often wonder if the biggest problem with cars isn't the concept of vehicles running around with four wheels and gas tanks, as such -- perhaps the biggest problem is that we *drive* cars.

It's obviously not something that we'll be seeing in the next five years, but imagine a world with safe, robotic taxis.

You wouldn't own them, you would call them on your cell phone.

You wouldn't park them, because they'd be busy going off to pick someone else up -- you're taking some other taxi home.

You'd pay less (and wait less) if you permitted your taxi to pick up other passengers in your path.

You wouldn't have to worry about some drunk driver plowing into you -- so what if they're drunk, they're not driving. (Or tired, or eating, or fiddling with their iPod, or...)

I really think that the most feasible way for society to turn implement a shift away from the social and environmental ills of cars today is to put the auto back into automotive. The root of most problems with cars is *driving*.


Posted by: Patrick Hall on 1 Aug 07

It's interesting you point out the robotic angle. I've been theorizing on it for a while.

http://ryan-technorabble.blogspot.com/2006/03/transportation-concept.html

It's going to be very difficult to get people to embrace better public transportation if they're still buying a car, and if you really want the money necessary to develop a system that does that you need to reclaim the money spent on auto's today.

So what you want is a system that replaces the entire car infrastructure, and is more convenient at the same time to help beat down consumer resistance.

Give them their personal space, give them the freedom not to watch the road, give them cheaper. Give us more efficient, less obtrusive, more flexible.

Yet more at: http://ryan-technorabble.blogspot.com/2007/08/benefits-of-robotic-cars.html


Posted by: Ryan Baker on 1 Aug 07

What we need is for a new 'mobility paradigm'; for the car to be a legitimate, sustainable, and productive mobility vehicle of the future, it needs to be re-configured within a mobility system that works integral to other transit means, especially as part of an urbanscape that is integrated with work, living, and leisure needs.

Jaime Lerner, the ex-mayor of Curitiba, Brazil, noted this when he said that ‘the most important thing to work on right now is the mobility system, which is not only a system of transport; it’s the whole understanding of a city. The more we create an integration of functions, the better a city will become’

The 'car' should be viewed as being part of a systemic 'assemblage' rather than as an isolated 'iron cage' of modernity.


Posted by: Kingsley on 2 Aug 07

I live in Boulder. I used to have two cars. Now I have one. For the most part it's been good taking the bus and riding my bike. But we have a five year old and there are a lot of times when it would be really helpful to have the second car.

Getting rid of all cars would be pretty much impossible without some larger systemic alternative. Yes the bus is OK. But as Americans we love our convenience. So it seems like an opportunity for some innovation.

I look forward to reading your future columns where you lay out some solutions toward creating a non-auto, non-polluting world.


Posted by: BoulderPoet on 2 Aug 07

I live in Boulder. I used to have two cars. Now I have one. For the most part it's been good taking the bus and riding my bike. But we have a five year old and there are a lot of times when it would be really helpful to have the second car.

Getting rid of all cars would be pretty much impossible without some larger systemic alternative. Yes the bus is OK. But as Americans we love our convenience. So it seems like an opportunity for some innovation.

I look forward to reading your future columns where you lay out some solutions toward creating a non-auto, non-polluting world.


Posted by: BoulderPoet on 2 Aug 07

We should not just stop driving cars, we should start investing in a world-wide system of Evacuated Tube Transport (magnetic levitation in vacuum tunnels) as soon as possible.

If we rule out teleportation, we will inevitably want to end up with a system that will allow us to step into our vehicles when we leave the door. ETT will allow us to reach that goal.

I envision a massively flexible system where pods of several different sizes are sent automatically through a network of tunnels that covers the globe, accommodating both cargo and people transportation. For people transportation this network would mean you could go from New York to Hong Kong in 5 hours.

For cargo transportation this system means that fully automated warehousing systems around the world could dynamically determine the ideal geographical distribution of goods and instead of driving to the shop it would become more energy efficient to have a few samples sent home from 'the grid' which you can send back right away if they don't please you.

And of course, the ability to step into a pod and get out directly at your friends place would be awesome.


Posted by: Michiel Trimpe on 2 Aug 07

The Carfree Movement in the USA and beyond is tracked daily at http://carfreeusa.blogspot.com

As to the notion of loving our cars, could it be the billions spent on television and billboard advertizing each year that convinces us so? According to the marketplace, Americans also "love" double cheeseburgers.

Perhaps the first step toward a sustainable lifestyle is to safely have our TV sets recycled by the city electronic waste division.


Posted by: Brian Smith on 2 Aug 07

I often wonder whether those folks, who can only see the negative side of cars, really ever had enjoyable roadtrips, family outings to out-of-the-city places, a sudden need to get-away from your parents/significant-other's place, a need to listen to music or nap in a convenient away-from-home place - to be by yourself away from usual haunts.
I think the car symbolizes independence, solitude - but in a way that encourages spontaneity and randomness. I think that it provides a great many of the physical and psychological needs to a person in a mobile and convenient way - shelter, expression of one's values, exhilaration, refuge, comfort, a means of providing another with assistance.
For every traffic jam there is a lonely country road without buses, trains, or sidewalks. For every street without parking, there is a scenic 'vantage point' without subways, steetcars or sidewalk cafes. For every car repair, insurance payment, and gas-fill-up; there is a summer day in a convertible, a winter blizzard without waiting at the bus-stop, an 8-bag grocery day.
A car is your passport to low-density, unhurried, unplanned, unscheduled, bustle-free open spaces. Oh yeah - and how easy and convenient is it to have a real personal conversation, a profane joke, or sing-aloud with your soulmate in a crowded bus, a rush-hour subway stop, and an elbow-tight pedestrian cross-walk? A wise people should never have to choose between these things. Someday, cars will be non-emitting and part of a closed loop manufacturing process that will have negligible environmental effects (it take a leap of faith, but it is not unreasonable) - all we have to do is put up with those 'growing pains' until the automobile reaches a maturity that it gives more than it takes.


Posted by: Jer on 2 Aug 07

The chief problem with the idea of removing cars entirely is that the majority of our transportation infrastructure and urban planning was based on roads, not rails or more economic forms of transportation. This was primarily due to the abundance of cheap fossil fuel energy which enabled such rapid growth. While most of Europe uses cars as well, they will not be nearly as hard hit by peak oil issues because the majority of their cities were built before cars existed. Aside from certain cities like New York and Boston, most of our cities developed later and are not well-equipped to be rail or even mass-transit friendly.

Rather than try to quit cars cold-turkey or dream of exotic long-term solutions such as teleporters or automated taxis, I recommend investing in completely electric vehicles for a number of reasons, the most important of which would be energy independence from foreign oil. Even the worst coal-fired electric plant does not generate enough GHG emissions to match what is produced by extracting fossil fuels and then burning them in a combustion engine, and we are increasing our capacity to generate clean electricity. At the very least we would have a choice of how we generate our electricity, an option we will never have with virtually any other type of fuel (besides possibly biodiesel).


Posted by: Patrick Clough on 2 Aug 07

Thanks to Jer for the comment. People often mistake the troubles associated with cars (which are real) with the existence of cars themselves. Cars do not 'cause' traffic jams, cars do not 'cause' emissions. Not inherently.
Add to the above list of things people use cars for: status, and to make a living (not just taxis).
It is difficult to get transportation planners - much less the general public - to understand, but it is an essential insight: you cannot fix transportation problems through transportation alone. All of it - air quality, water quality, traffic, safety... involves land use, housing affordability, the education system, etc. It requires not only a systemic change in transport, but in other interdependent systems.

As far as the transportation element of that, the *actual* problem, imo, is that we insist on one-size-fits-all solutions. The car-phobes and philes both. Big cars, with one person inside, are a stupid waste in dense urban areas. The infrastructure to support them is an even bigger waste; this is a situation where transit (or even better, pod transport) makes sense.
But considering that even for everyday mass transit, the cost is measured in tens of billions of dollars, we must be strategic about what changes we wish to pursue. How can we best take advantage of the hundreds of billions we have already spent, and will continue spending, on auto-based infrastructure?
It is unreasonable to expect that a transit system, much less a personalized pod, will take you camping. Especially when so much of the joy is in the getting there.
It is also unreasonable, Jer, to think of these problems as 'growing pains.' They are urgent problems that require immediate solutions. The internal combustion engine is an obsolete technology.

The biggest problem isn't driving drunk - it's the sheer scale of the flagrantly wasted resources, which could have gone to better use. No better to waste them on transit, or robots, or anything else, where it doesn't work...


Posted by: justus on 2 Aug 07

The problem with cars, as has been pointed out in the comments above, is not that we use them. It's that we use SO MANY of them. And that we use them in places where they really should not be used or their use should be minimized--like denser urban areas.

To paraphrase Jane Jacobs in The Life and Death of Great American Cities:

"The problem is that instead of replacing 6 horse-drawn carriages with 1 car, we have replaced 1 carriage with 6 cars."

This statement is made after a lengthy quote from another source describing the horrible equine traffic jams of pre-automobile London.

We need to learn to use cleaner cars, use fewer cars, and use them more efficiently. Unfortunately, so much of the infrastructure here in the US is designed for maximum car use, so this is going to be a difficult process.


Posted by: Bolo on 2 Aug 07

Why was this article written? I appreciate the point of view and agree with it but it doesn't really tell me or the average reader anything even remotely useful. I don't think it's all that informed, supported with much substance or makes any kind of impact.

I expect more than just a short editorial rant from the articles on this site.


Posted by: vilehelm on 2 Aug 07

Why was this article written? I appreciate the point of view and agree with it but it doesn't really tell me or the average reader anything even remotely useful. I don't think it's all that informed, supported with much substance or makes any kind of impact.

I expect more than just a short editorial rant from the articles on this site.


Posted by: vilehelm on 2 Aug 07

Why was this article written? I appreciate the point of view and agree with it but it doesn't really tell me or the average reader anything even remotely useful. I don't think it's all that informed, supported with much substance or makes any kind of impact.

I expect more than just a short editorial rant from the articles on this site.


Posted by: Bill on 2 Aug 07

Thanks Erica—an excellent post.

And to all the people who have responded that they just have to have a car. How much more do our cities have to degrade due to car-centric planning before we begin to embrace walking, cycling and public transport seriously in the country? Hybrids, hydrogen and electric cars are just more cars and they do not change the fact that we have created ugly, sprawling anti-human spaces to accommodate them.

In this challenging time all of us need to make personal sacrifices for the sake of future generations (though personally I don't consider getting rid of a car a sacrifice--far from it, it was a relief to shed that expensive burden). With 40,000 people dead every year from auto accidents, plus the war in Iraq and global warming it's simple. You either love your children or you love your cars. You can't love both.

And if you're wondering--I live in Los Angeles without a car as does one out of every six people in this city.


Posted by: Doug Green on 2 Aug 07

Americans don't like to be told what to do. Canadians have a much living better system. They make their city people live in the city and their farm people live on the farms. They zone things differently and don't let non farm people build in farming areas. They understand that most farms are loud and they stink and city people don't like loud or stinky. People from the city come out and build on the farm land then complain about the noise and the odor. Soon the city people "out vote" the farmers and make them move (either outright or by passing so many laws it make it economically impossible to continue to farm).

If you force the population to remain in a smaller area then the public transportation is more affordable and methods of transporting are more palatable. I'm not saying Canada has any different transportation system, I'm saying when you keep urban sprawl from sprawling you have a lot better chance of successfully implementing public transportation. When you live 3 miles from work your options (walk, bike, bus) go way up compared to living 40 miles from work.

But then as an American, I'm not going to let anyone tell me where I can and cannot live - eh?


Posted by: Roger Bannister on 2 Aug 07

Americans don't like to be told what to do. Canadians have a much living better system. They make their city people live in the city and their farm people live on the farms. They zone things differently and don't let non farm people build in farming areas. They understand that most farms are loud and they stink and city people don't like loud or stinky. People from the city come out and build on the farm land then complain about the noise and the odor. Soon the city people "out vote" the farmers and make them move (either outright or by passing so many laws it make it economically impossible to continue to farm).

If you force the population to remain in a smaller area then the public transportation is more affordable and methods of transporting are more palatable. I'm not saying Canada has any different transportation system, I'm saying when you keep urban sprawl from sprawling you have a lot better chance of successfully implementing public transportation. When you live 3 miles from work your options (walk, bike, bus) go way up compared to living 40 miles from work.

But then as an American, I'm not going to let anyone tell me where I can and cannot live - eh?


Posted by: Roger Bannister on 2 Aug 07

Doug:

There's no question that the ideal solution would be to create pedestrian-friendly, bike-friendly, public transportation-friendly cities instead of sprawling suburbs that cater to cars. However, the cost of overhauling the vast majority of cities in the US to achieve this is virtually impossible as a short-term goal. I applaud it as a worthy long-term goal, but it is impractical for the immediate changes that need to happen before it's too late. EVs would be a practical stepping stone in that they (meaning the newer models from Phoenix, Tesla, Zap, etc.) are built with stronger, lighter, longer lasting materials, use environmentally safe batteries that can last up to twenty years (see www.altairnano.com), and can recharge in under 10 minutes using electricity from any source.

When the oil crisis hits, it will cause people to make drastic changes in their lifestyles. Many will lose money because they are stuck using combustion engine cars that they can't give away and be finally forced to learn good conservation habits. This should hopefully pave the way for more practical, realistic expectations for one's home, transportation and energy use. Peak oil should bring the number of vehicles per household down dramatically, possibly to zero (whether they do it voluntarily or not), and EVs would fill in the rest of the gap by keeping fossil fuels and emissions from being an issue while cities invest in better urban planning. It's fine to think about the perfect solution, but we still have to make sure we have a way to get there. As long as our infrastructure doesn't entirely collapse, we will be able to adapt to the changes and create more responsible living environments for ourselves. Unfortunately, it takes a disaster to get some of us to start moving in the first place.


Posted by: Patrick Clough on 2 Aug 07

"with the average American wasting 47 hours a year in traffic."

I think it's actually closer to 96 hours, according to a recent poll.

I live in Santa Fe. My husband and I share one vehicle. I live five minutes from my job, my spouse is a screenwriter and works from home.

We've gotten to the point that we almost feel guilty or wasteful when we drive. I find travel in general, while quite unfortunate (because I used to enjoy it) has become a hassle...one hardly worth the price these days.

I would love to have access to a rail system that was efficient and could take you where you need to go. Again, unfortunately the U.S. just doesn't seem to 'get it' when it comes to mass transit. As your post points out, people (for some very strange reason) love their cars. This is what I don't 'get.' But I suppose I'm in the minority.


Posted by: GirlPaint on 3 Aug 07

"with the average American wasting 47 hours a year in traffic."

I think it's actually closer to 96 hours, according to a recent poll.

I live in Santa Fe. My husband and I share one vehicle. I live five minutes from my job, my spouse is a screenwriter and works from home.

We've gotten to the point that we almost feel guilty or wasteful when we drive. I find travel in general, while quite unfortunate (because I used to enjoy it) has become a hassle...one hardly worth the price these days.

I would love to have access to a rail system that was efficient and could take you where you need to go. Again, unfortunately the U.S. just doesn't seem to 'get it' when it comes to mass transit. As your post points out, people (for some very strange reason) love their cars. This is what I don't 'get.' But I suppose I'm in the minority.


Posted by: GirlPaint on 3 Aug 07

Patrick,

I'm sorry to say that the electricity to run all those electric cars has to come from somewhere and right now it's from burning coal--at least 50% in most places. Here in Los Angeles if I charge up an electric car that electricity comes from burning coal in Utah unless I invest many, many thousands of dollars in a very large photovoltaic system. So by driving an electric car I'm just shifting the problems elsewhere, more than likely to an Indian reservation where a lot of coal plants are located. I'm also still wasting tremendous amouts of space--for every car there are at least seven parking spaces. And it will be a lot easier to change our built environment than it will be to figure how to power all those electric cars without fossil fuels.


Posted by: Doug Green on 5 Aug 07

The simple fact is that we have invested too much in the infrastructure of the automobile to try something else, at least until we have a long-term interim solution.

Ryan's robot taxi idea is great (it's a lot like the infrastructure in an SF story I'm working on) as it would leverage this existing investment in a much more efficient way (all the cars at an intersection can stop and start simultaneously; no parking, etc).


Posted by: Clay on 6 Aug 07

It would be misleading to point at the current state of electricity generation and assume that it is the end state. Tremendous investments are being made in alternative energy sources, so I don't believe that EVs can reasonably be viewed as supporting coal. Remember that the electricity required to charge an EV and the associated emissions is not nearly as much as oil currently is, and the US is sitting on top of one of the world's largest coal resources. I don't advocate coal use at all, but at least we would immediately place ourselves closer to energy independence, which would have the benefit of getting us out of international conflicts over energy interests (which reduces the amount of fuel we spend to deploy military forces to boot.) It also allows us to continue to survive on the current infrastructure as we make improvements. We have to have a bridge in order to transition from our current state to a more ideal long-term vision (better urban planning, automated vehicles, etc.) EVs also have the added benefit of requiring fewer parts and significantly less aftermarket maintenance, which extends the life of the vehicle and greatly reduces the kind of waste we have been seeing in the past.


Posted by: Patrick Clough on 7 Aug 07

I feel like I'm reading Popular Mechanics circa 1955--robot taxis? You all have to be kidding. Robot taxis and EVs don't solve the problem, and the problem is that we have too many cars. We can't all go around in our own little metal and glass cages. We need to put our energies into building walkable, bike-friendly, mass transit oriented communities not in some theoretical future but now. Cars destroy our cities--it doesn't matter whether they are powered by oil or electricity--they simply take up too much space.

The nice thing about bikes and trains--they are both proven 19th century technologies. The problem is I suppose that they don't appeal to the techno/gadget/Wired Magazine reading croud out there . . .


Posted by: Doug Green on 7 Aug 07

Doug,

I completely agree with you that we need to put our energies into walking, biking, and more efficient modes of travel such as ships and trains (especially for cargo.) However, my question to you is how would you convince the rest of the country to do so right now? Removing cars from the equation completely will cause many of our cities to collapse (hence my promotion of EVs as a stopgap measure that gets us closer to where we need to eventually be.) Our current urban/suburban infrastructure does not support walking or bike riding in many parts of the country, and saying "well, they'll have to move closer to the city" doesn't solve the problem. There will be a tremendous amount of energy required (especially fossil fuel use) for the heavy construction/demolition/renovation required to change the layout of our cities, which means even more emissions in the near term (assuming anybody would support such projects before they're needed in the first place.) Most importantly, how can we promote change to people who won't care about it until they are sitting in long lines at gas stations? Convincing folks to invest in a new home market that has bottomed out or telling them to move because someday soon cars won't be an option will not motivate many to change, since it represents too much personal upheaval and giving up the extravagant lifestyles that they have become used to. Once crisis hits, I'm confident that there will finally be a majority interest in conservation and efficiency, but that doesn't help those of us who are trying to prepare for the future right now.

My overriding point here is that to bring about effective change, you have to keep your audience listening to you and agreeing with you all the way to the end. Propose anything drastic before they perceive the need and they'll stop listening. Approaching it from the efficiency angle first (EVs, public transit cost savings, etc.) is much more palatable, appeals to their self-interest and opens the door for further improvements in the future. I don't know about LA, but Portland, OR where I live and Seattle, WA were ranked #2 and #3 for most bike-friendly cities in the US, which means that we're not in a good position to tell people in Iowa, Florida or New Mexico how to deal with their individual situations. What we should invest in right now are technologies and advances that would give us a softer landing when the crisis goes full-scale. We're essentially trying to wean people off a drug and we don't want them to relapse; cold turkey just won't work for most people.


Posted by: Patrick Clough on 8 Aug 07

Patrick,

Check out what the former mayor of Bogata Columbia, Enrique Penalosa did. It's what we need to do here in LA and it's simple--take lanes away from cars and create dedicated bus lanes. All it takes is paint.

Will it happen? No--you are correct that we're hopelessly addicted to driving, and the political and economic pressure caused by our addiction to cars will prevent the kind of change we need to make. We need to take our cities back to what they looked like 100 years ago, but it won't happen anytime soon. As far as EVs go, we'll have to agree to disagree--to me electic cars are like taking one hit off the crack pipe instead of three.

But let's look at the consequences of not doing what Erica suggests. We're on the Titanic folks and it ain't gonna be pretty. Electric cars, biodiesel and ethonol will only prolong the misery.


Posted by: Doug Green on 9 Aug 07

Doug,

I can definitely understand how you would view EVs. I guess I have come to see them as the key to finally breaking the Big Three and the oil industry's stranglehold over most of our economy and environmental policy (since the threat implied in abandoning them is "no more cars for you!".) I have seen some instances in US cities (possibly Seattle? I don't remember) where car lanes have been converted to bus/HOV-only lanes, which I strongly support. I still remember going to attend my cousin's wedding in Los Alamitos seven years ago and driving in from LAX in the HOV-2 lane. It was us and maybe three other cars zooming by a completely gridlocked wall of single people in SUVs. I definitely agree with you on ethanol as well. Unless we invest a lot more energy into researching energy from algae (which takes up no arable land, is harvestable year-round and is more effective at converting sunlight into energy than any other crop), biodiesel and ethanol will generally upset more than they solve. While I try to avoid news sources with obvious sensationalism or bias, there's a decent article in Rolling Stone about the actual numbers behind ethanol. It pretty much proves that it's untenable as even a short-term solution, especially corn. I think the article said that we export 60% of the world's corn and the price changes from using it for ethanol have greatly upset economies in Mexico and other places that depend on it as a staple.

These days much of the most successful improvements we see come at the state and local levels. People shouldn't hold their breaths for sweeping federal legislation. They don't need to. There's already growing support at the state level for emissions controls, urban revitalization and public transit. What's most important is to let your elected representatives know that you support such things, and recommend cost-effective means of making it happen. It's much easier to motivate folks when you provide them with ideas for a solution as well. That and being a living example of how to conserve through one's own actions are the strongest messages one can send to the public.


Posted by: Patrick Clough on 10 Aug 07

Hello to All-
I am loving all of the posts I find on this website - there are tons of creative minds out here. I need your ideas on my project. I am part of a group developing a car-free city called Bicycle City. The website is www.bicyclecity.com and it's still under construction, but the basic ideas are able to be viewed and you can give your feedback there. We want to see change badly, the time is now, and were're building this some way, some how...we just need a little feedback...


Posted by: Kara Kelly on 21 Aug 07



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO:

YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:


MESSAGE (optional):


Search Worldchanging

Worldchanging Newsletter Get good news for a change —
Click here to sign up!


Worldchanging2.0


Website Design by Eben Design | Logo Design by Egg Hosting | Hosted by Amazon AWS | Problems with the site? Send email to tech /at/ worldchanging.com
©2012
Architecture for Humanity - all rights reserved except where otherwise indicated.

Find_us_on_facebook_badge.gif twitter-logo.jpg