Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, April 10, 2009
Transportation Switching to Transit Saves Money
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:20 PM
According to a new study by the American Public Transportation Association, which regularly analyzes gas prices, the cost of public transit, and parking rates in major US cities, taking public transit and getting rid of one car saves an individual, on average, $8,670 a year. In Seattle, because gas prices and parking costs are higher, that number is actually much larger: an average of $10,447 a year.
Read the whole thing on APTA's web site.
4
Nope. Fails because it doesn't consider carpooling. I use less gas, pay less parking, spend less time in the car, and depreciate my car slower because I carpool. Also, when I don't carpool, 50% of the time I ride my cheap-assed motorcycle.
If buses went from the good school districts to the jobs, I'd ride the bus more. But it's 30min to carpool vs 2hrs to go Issaquah-->Bellevue-->Kent by bus. No way I'm losing 3 hours of my day. Ask me again when we have rail.
If buses went from the good school districts to the jobs, I'd ride the bus more. But it's 30min to carpool vs 2hrs to go Issaquah-->Bellevue-->Kent by bus. No way I'm losing 3 hours of my day. Ask me again when we have rail.
5
Of course transit saves money. That's why poor people ride the bus. Those numbers seem a bit inflated as I don't really know many people who are spending what would be about a third to a forth of their income on transportation, but sure it saves money.
The problem is its much less convenient. If I took the bus to get where I need to go in a day it would take at least an extra hour or two. My time is more valuable the amount of extra money it costs me. Much more.
The problem is its much less convenient. If I took the bus to get where I need to go in a day it would take at least an extra hour or two. My time is more valuable the amount of extra money it costs me. Much more.
6
And relying on Metro to get around costs, on average, about 750-1,000 hours per year. I will leave the monetary cost of that time as an exercise for the reader.
7
No car after 20 years, and, god is the bus time consuming.
Love the sit back leisure, study of people, so far no vomit or piss.
But, I am now resricting my mobility and feel a bit like being confined to my village, ie. the 'hood.
Some one said it correctly, the euro solution, car in the garage, used sparingly.
Jack on the Hill
Love the sit back leisure, study of people, so far no vomit or piss.
But, I am now resricting my mobility and feel a bit like being confined to my village, ie. the 'hood.
Some one said it correctly, the euro solution, car in the garage, used sparingly.
Jack on the Hill
8
Big Sven, you'd save a lot more by LIVING in the city.
The school district doesn't have much to do with a kid's educational outcome, it's mostly about the parents. I went to THE WORST school district in New York State (in terms of drop-outs and teen alcoholism/drug use, but not violence) and 2% of my graduating class went to MIT.
Face it, you're afraid of the city, so you're helping turn farmland into suburbs.
The school district doesn't have much to do with a kid's educational outcome, it's mostly about the parents. I went to THE WORST school district in New York State (in terms of drop-outs and teen alcoholism/drug use, but not violence) and 2% of my graduating class went to MIT.
Face it, you're afraid of the city, so you're helping turn farmland into suburbs.
9
The problem with the "car in the garage" solution is that the single biggest cost of owning a car is depreciation, which happens whether you drive it or not. There are also lots of fixed costs -- insurance, rent on that garage, etc.
10
@8: I don't know about Big Sven, but I sometimes wish I could live in the city. But living in the city is a lot more expensive than driving a car.
11
"Some one said it correctly, the euro solution, car in the garage, used sparingly."
ummm....I think most of these costs include insuring the car, paying for the car, registration/inspection & maintenance which you are still basically paying for even if it sits in your garage. Of course, maintenance isn't as much $ for less use...but you get the idea
ummm....I think most of these costs include insuring the car, paying for the car, registration/inspection & maintenance which you are still basically paying for even if it sits in your garage. Of course, maintenance isn't as much $ for less use...but you get the idea
12
#10, Thats why all the poor people and minorities live in the city, right? I live on Capitol Hill, work on the eastside, and all of my coworkers have much higher costs of living and most of them have longer commutes.
13
@8 I live in the city and no way I'd give up my car. I have family and friends who live outside Seattle, like to go on trips, occasionally buy larger items, and enjoy taking my dogs to parks not within walking distance.
14
@12: The east side is expensive, too.
Compare living in Seattle to living in the south end -- say, Kent or Fed Way -- and you'll see what I mean. Rents are much higher in Seattle; you pay for convenience and hipness. Because of the high cost of land in the city most developments there seem to consist of luxury condos that are out of reach for the middle class.
Middle-class folks don't live outside the city because they like driving. It's because it's where they can afford to live. Ever heard the expression, "drive 'till you qualify for the mortgage?"
Compare living in Seattle to living in the south end -- say, Kent or Fed Way -- and you'll see what I mean. Rents are much higher in Seattle; you pay for convenience and hipness. Because of the high cost of land in the city most developments there seem to consist of luxury condos that are out of reach for the middle class.
Middle-class folks don't live outside the city because they like driving. It's because it's where they can afford to live. Ever heard the expression, "drive 'till you qualify for the mortgage?"
15
I've got to corroborate Dwight Moody @8. My father went to Lincoln High in Brooklyn. From Wikipedia:
Built in 1929, Lincoln has graduated several Nobel Prize winners and famous musicians, authors, and sports players. As of 2007, only two high schools in the world have more Nobel laureates than ALHS.
Somehow, if the school district in the Seattle area that produced the greatest intellectual talent were more like Brooklyn and less like the Eastside, I think Big Sven, devoted father though I'm sure he is, would suddenly start looking for some wiggle room from his "We've got to live in the best school district" rule.
Built in 1929, Lincoln has graduated several Nobel Prize winners and famous musicians, authors, and sports players. As of 2007, only two high schools in the world have more Nobel laureates than ALHS.
Somehow, if the school district in the Seattle area that produced the greatest intellectual talent were more like Brooklyn and less like the Eastside, I think Big Sven, devoted father though I'm sure he is, would suddenly start looking for some wiggle room from his "We've got to live in the best school district" rule.
16
Responding further to Big Sven @4.
"For the children" is the most common excuse people give for living an automobile-dependent lifestyle. And yet, I wonder just how much good it does the children. If I were a kid, I'd appreciate the freedom of being able to go places on my own without needing my parents to haul me in the minivan.
My folks are friends with this couple from South Africa. And the husband, a physician, likes to say, "If there's one thing you should never scrimp on with your kids, it's their education."
Now maybe that does mean moving to the best school district available. That's what my parents did for me and my siblings. But let's say, for the same amount of money, you had to choose between (A) a big-lot single-family home in a worse school district and (B) a townhouse or, God forbid, a condo in a better school district. Sadly, stereotypical "American dream" Americans like Big Sven wouldn't even consider (B).
But folks, don't go saying that your children's education is as all-important as you make it out to be.
"For the children" is the most common excuse people give for living an automobile-dependent lifestyle. And yet, I wonder just how much good it does the children. If I were a kid, I'd appreciate the freedom of being able to go places on my own without needing my parents to haul me in the minivan.
My folks are friends with this couple from South Africa. And the husband, a physician, likes to say, "If there's one thing you should never scrimp on with your kids, it's their education."
Now maybe that does mean moving to the best school district available. That's what my parents did for me and my siblings. But let's say, for the same amount of money, you had to choose between (A) a big-lot single-family home in a worse school district and (B) a townhouse or, God forbid, a condo in a better school district. Sadly, stereotypical "American dream" Americans like Big Sven wouldn't even consider (B).
But folks, don't go saying that your children's education is as all-important as you make it out to be.
17
I've got to back up J O H @7: Some one said it correctly, the euro solution, car in the garage, used sparingly. And sgiffy @13: I live in the city and no way I'd give up my car.
I can afford to own a car, and automobile ownership is something I don't want to forsake. The costliness of auto ownership, though, is one reason I try to drive my car as little as possible and take care of it as much as possible.
Surely, total cost of ownership is much greater for someone who drives a lot compared to someone who drives sparingly.
With pedestrian-oriented, transit-oriented communities, hopefully you can get away with fewer cars per household. And I believe structured parking is also part of the answer, even though it costs.
I can afford to own a car, and automobile ownership is something I don't want to forsake. The costliness of auto ownership, though, is one reason I try to drive my car as little as possible and take care of it as much as possible.
Surely, total cost of ownership is much greater for someone who drives a lot compared to someone who drives sparingly.
With pedestrian-oriented, transit-oriented communities, hopefully you can get away with fewer cars per household. And I believe structured parking is also part of the answer, even though it costs.
18
@16: Part of the problem is young kids and apartment/condo living don't really mix. I lived underneath someone who had a toddler for a while and it was like living under a herd of elephants. The kid was really heavy-footed and ran around all hours of the day and night. Kids are like dogs, they need space to run around in.
19
66 "Express" took me 45 minutes to get from 3rd & Seneca (Downtown) to 42nd & 11th (U-District). That's 10-15 minutes of waiting, 30-35 minutes of riding.
Unfortunately they route the 72, 73, etc through the tunnel so I couldn't wait for the other "Express" routes.
It fucking sucked and I hated it.
Buses are fine for commuting, but there's no such thing as running a quick errand in another neighborhood via bus.
I don't have a car (I just don't need it 95% of the time, and for the 5%, I have Zipcar), but if I did, it would have taken 10 minutes.
Unfortunately they route the 72, 73, etc through the tunnel so I couldn't wait for the other "Express" routes.
It fucking sucked and I hated it.
Buses are fine for commuting, but there's no such thing as running a quick errand in another neighborhood via bus.
I don't have a car (I just don't need it 95% of the time, and for the 5%, I have Zipcar), but if I did, it would have taken 10 minutes.
20
@19: The other express routes aren't really any faster. It takes 30+ minutes to get from the tunnel to the U District.
21
Yeah, the convenience isn't good- I never leave Seattle, and rarely even leave my neighborhood unless I'm going to work (I lucked into a good commute there), but when I think about the cost of a car compared to the cost of a bus pass, it's just not worth it. I'd rather live on Capitol Hill and be able to walk to most of what I need for the cost of gassing, insuring, and parking a car. Maybe when I'm older and have to transport more stuff/people around, but as a young single person, what do I need the car for? (Plus, I never feel like I have to be a designated driver.)
22
It's not all or nothing.
You can walk to work some days (e.g. summer or when the snowstorm redirects plows to the mayor's streets), bike others, drive occasionally (or part way), and take the bus the rest of the time.
People aren't pegs that can only fit in one size hole.
You can walk to work some days (e.g. summer or when the snowstorm redirects plows to the mayor's streets), bike others, drive occasionally (or part way), and take the bus the rest of the time.
People aren't pegs that can only fit in one size hole.
23
@8:
Why? My commute to Kent would be just as long.
This is a stunningly ignorant thing to say. There's not a single educator who believes this, much less parent. While parental involvement is more important than the quality of the education, every bit of research says that students who get a quality elementary and secondary education have better outcomes than those who don't.
Who cares? You had a pocket of dedicated parents who beat the odds. Congratuations. Meanwhile, in reality land, schools with more drugs and higher dropout rates produce much, much, much lower college placement rates.
Ummm... what? My house is thirty five years old. I walk down from my house into town to shop and eat meals. My kids and I hike from our front door into one of the largest near-urban wildernesses in the US. Have you ever left the Seattle city limits? You seem to know nothing about the suburbs you are so eager to judge.
@15:
I don't even know what this passive aggressive but strangely worded sentence means. You mean if my school had more minorities, I wouldn't want to live there? I'm afraid of teh negroes, and wouldn't want my kids to miscegenate with them? If you knew anything about any of the topics you are discussing (education, Seattle schools, Issaquah schools, me) you wouldn't make such a bizarre argument. As it happens, my kids' elementary has a large number of ESL kids and poor kids- not "Issaquah poor"- kids who can't afford shoes or jackets. I'm sorry to disrupt your pat vision of the burbs.
@16:
cressona, did you get a head injury recently that you haven't mentioned? Have you recently run out of some kind of critical medication? I ask because you didn't used to be a dipshit.
Wow, the stereotypes just keep coming. My son and I summited Squak Mountain for the first time a week and a half ago. He's eight, and already planning our summer mountaineering adventures. But thanks for your concern.
Oh for fuck's sake. If I were a "stereotypical 'American dream' American" I would live in east Kent where huge new houses are plentiful and cheap, instead of Issaquah where houses are either older and/or smaller (mine) or larger, newer and very, very, very expensive.
There's a certain type of SLOG denizen who goes apeshit when presented with evidence that breeders exist and that for ~20 years we arrange our lives around our kids. You assume that we're somehow hypocrites or delusional or liars. I pity you for your ignorance.
More...
you'd save a lot more by LIVING in the city.
Why? My commute to Kent would be just as long.
The school district doesn't have much to do with a kid's educational outcome...
This is a stunningly ignorant thing to say. There's not a single educator who believes this, much less parent. While parental involvement is more important than the quality of the education, every bit of research says that students who get a quality elementary and secondary education have better outcomes than those who don't.
I went to THE WORST school district in New York State (in terms of drop-outs and teen alcoholism/drug use, but not violence) and 2% of my graduating class went to MIT
Who cares? You had a pocket of dedicated parents who beat the odds. Congratuations. Meanwhile, in reality land, schools with more drugs and higher dropout rates produce much, much, much lower college placement rates.
Face it, you're afraid of the city, so you're helping turn farmland into suburbs.
Ummm... what? My house is thirty five years old. I walk down from my house into town to shop and eat meals. My kids and I hike from our front door into one of the largest near-urban wildernesses in the US. Have you ever left the Seattle city limits? You seem to know nothing about the suburbs you are so eager to judge.
@15:
Somehow, if the school district in the Seattle area that produced the greatest intellectual talent were more like Brooklyn and less like the Eastside, I think Big Sven, devoted father though I'm sure he is, would suddenly start looking for some wiggle room from his "We've got to live in the best school district" rule.
I don't even know what this passive aggressive but strangely worded sentence means. You mean if my school had more minorities, I wouldn't want to live there? I'm afraid of teh negroes, and wouldn't want my kids to miscegenate with them? If you knew anything about any of the topics you are discussing (education, Seattle schools, Issaquah schools, me) you wouldn't make such a bizarre argument. As it happens, my kids' elementary has a large number of ESL kids and poor kids- not "Issaquah poor"- kids who can't afford shoes or jackets. I'm sorry to disrupt your pat vision of the burbs.
@16:
cressona, did you get a head injury recently that you haven't mentioned? Have you recently run out of some kind of critical medication? I ask because you didn't used to be a dipshit.
If I were a kid, I'd appreciate the freedom of being able to go places on my own without needing my parents to haul me in the minivan.
Wow, the stereotypes just keep coming. My son and I summited Squak Mountain for the first time a week and a half ago. He's eight, and already planning our summer mountaineering adventures. But thanks for your concern.
Now maybe that does mean moving to the best school district available. That's what my parents did for me and my siblings. But let's say, for the same amount of money, you had to choose between (A) a big-lot single-family home in a worse school district and (B) a townhouse or, God forbid, a condo in a better school district. Sadly, stereotypical "American dream" Americans like Big Sven wouldn't even consider (B).
Oh for fuck's sake. If I were a "stereotypical 'American dream' American" I would live in east Kent where huge new houses are plentiful and cheap, instead of Issaquah where houses are either older and/or smaller (mine) or larger, newer and very, very, very expensive.
But folks, don't go saying that your children's education is as all-important as you make it out to be.
There's a certain type of SLOG denizen who goes apeshit when presented with evidence that breeders exist and that for ~20 years we arrange our lives around our kids. You assume that we're somehow hypocrites or delusional or liars. I pity you for your ignorance.
24
You can beat depreciation by not buying new cars, or not buying them very often. The depreciation on my '96 Tercel is minimal, since it's already depreciated most of the way, and wasn't ever worth much to begin with.
Insurance is cheap because neither my wife or I have any violations.
Repairs? I've put about $600 into the car in the last five years, and that includes new tires all around to replace the worn ones it came with.
Gas is cheap, period. I drive about a thousand miles a year, and the other car is maybe 8,000. Big whoop.
My time is worth more than the 45 minutes it takes the buses to carry me a mile and a half -- almost twice as long as it takes to walk. Sometimes I'll walk.
Insurance is cheap because neither my wife or I have any violations.
Repairs? I've put about $600 into the car in the last five years, and that includes new tires all around to replace the worn ones it came with.
Gas is cheap, period. I drive about a thousand miles a year, and the other car is maybe 8,000. Big whoop.
My time is worth more than the 45 minutes it takes the buses to carry me a mile and a half -- almost twice as long as it takes to walk. Sometimes I'll walk.
25
Big Sven @23, I seem to have struck a whole vein of dysfunction I wasn't even aware of. In answer to my positing that you wouldn't be so interested in putting your kids in the best school district if the best school district were in a place like Brooklyn:
The funny thing is when I was thinking about a place like Brooklyn, if I was thinking about any "minorities," it was Jews (who aren't even considered a minority by American standards.) What I was referring to was strictly the level of density, pedestrian access, and transit availability. Perhaps I should have offered a more white-bread place than Brooklyn as a comparison.
In answer to my point about children depending on their parents to drive them around in auto-dependent developments:
Sven, you seem to have willingfully misinterpreted what I wrote. I have no doubt that your son is able to climb Squak Mountain or conduct any such wonderful adventures, so long as you're able to drive him to those destinations. I was talking about—and you know I was talking about—kids' freedom to go places without having to depend on their parents to take them there.
And finally:
Wow, so the only way to arrange your lives around your kids is to arrange your lives around your automobiles? I never knew.
Again, I have to go back to the example of my father. He grew up in Brooklyn, he had a good upbringing in Brooklyn, and Brooklyn then or now isn't exactly sprawl. Before we get all sanctimonious, let's keep in mind that most families' decision to live in sprawling, auto-dependent communities isn't a story of "we arrange our lives around our kids" so much as "we arrange our lives around our ideal of material success (and then say we're doing it for the kids)."
More...
You mean if my school had more minorities, I wouldn't want to live there? I'm afraid of teh negroes, and wouldn't want my kids to miscegenate with them?
The funny thing is when I was thinking about a place like Brooklyn, if I was thinking about any "minorities," it was Jews (who aren't even considered a minority by American standards.) What I was referring to was strictly the level of density, pedestrian access, and transit availability. Perhaps I should have offered a more white-bread place than Brooklyn as a comparison.
In answer to my point about children depending on their parents to drive them around in auto-dependent developments:
Wow, the stereotypes just keep coming. My son and I summited Squak Mountain for the first time a week and a half ago.
Sven, you seem to have willingfully misinterpreted what I wrote. I have no doubt that your son is able to climb Squak Mountain or conduct any such wonderful adventures, so long as you're able to drive him to those destinations. I was talking about—and you know I was talking about—kids' freedom to go places without having to depend on their parents to take them there.
And finally:
There's a certain type of SLOG denizen who goes apeshit when presented with evidence that breeders exist and that for ~20 years we arrange our lives around our kids.
Wow, so the only way to arrange your lives around your kids is to arrange your lives around your automobiles? I never knew.
Again, I have to go back to the example of my father. He grew up in Brooklyn, he had a good upbringing in Brooklyn, and Brooklyn then or now isn't exactly sprawl. Before we get all sanctimonious, let's keep in mind that most families' decision to live in sprawling, auto-dependent communities isn't a story of "we arrange our lives around our kids" so much as "we arrange our lives around our ideal of material success (and then say we're doing it for the kids)."
26
cress-
And MY point- and perhaps *I* wasn't being clear- is that my son and I were able to walk from our front door to the trailhead (which is about 1/2 mile from our house) and from there on to the summit. From there we can eventually continue on to Tiger. He's also learning to ride a bike, and I got him a geared bike so he can navigate our very steep hills. He's a little young to bike anywhere by himself (as he would be in the city, too) but he's going to have lots of amazing adventures in Issaquah.
My daughter, on the other hand, refused to learn how to ride a bike. Grrrrrr...
Cress, I used to think the exact same thing, and it was true in the shi shi MN suburb I used to live in, but it's really not true in Issaquah. At least at my school, which is less shi shi than some, the parents in PTA are grounded, liberal, LGBT-friendly, and not snobby at all. I don't know if it's a function of the PacNW being less snooty than some places, but I really think that the reasons people live in at least my suburb are more complicated and benign than some give realize. The mayor and the city council president both live in my elementary's boundary, and they are nice, liberal people. Yes, Sammamish and North Bend are more conservative, which is why WA LD5 has three republicans, but... I don't know what else to say.
I like Seattle. When we first moved here, we were looking in West Seattle. But the indeterminate school boundaries forced us to look elsewhere, and Issaquah is both cheaper and more diverse than Mercer Island and (most of) Bellevue. I go to great lengths to reduce the impact of my lifestyle, but I'm going to keep living in Issaquah. And you wouldn't want all 2.8m of us Puget Sound suburbanites to move into the city, right?!? So let's figure out transit and employment and zoning options to live with this reality while minimizing the environmental and aesthetic impacts.
More...
I was talking about—and you know I was talking about—kids' freedom to go places without having to depend on their parents to take them there.
And MY point- and perhaps *I* wasn't being clear- is that my son and I were able to walk from our front door to the trailhead (which is about 1/2 mile from our house) and from there on to the summit. From there we can eventually continue on to Tiger. He's also learning to ride a bike, and I got him a geared bike so he can navigate our very steep hills. He's a little young to bike anywhere by himself (as he would be in the city, too) but he's going to have lots of amazing adventures in Issaquah.
My daughter, on the other hand, refused to learn how to ride a bike. Grrrrrr...
most families' decision to live in sprawling, auto-dependent communities isn't a story of "we arrange our lives around our kids" so much as "we arrange our lives around our ideal of material success (and then say we're doing it for the kids)."
Cress, I used to think the exact same thing, and it was true in the shi shi MN suburb I used to live in, but it's really not true in Issaquah. At least at my school, which is less shi shi than some, the parents in PTA are grounded, liberal, LGBT-friendly, and not snobby at all. I don't know if it's a function of the PacNW being less snooty than some places, but I really think that the reasons people live in at least my suburb are more complicated and benign than some give realize. The mayor and the city council president both live in my elementary's boundary, and they are nice, liberal people. Yes, Sammamish and North Bend are more conservative, which is why WA LD5 has three republicans, but... I don't know what else to say.
I like Seattle. When we first moved here, we were looking in West Seattle. But the indeterminate school boundaries forced us to look elsewhere, and Issaquah is both cheaper and more diverse than Mercer Island and (most of) Bellevue. I go to great lengths to reduce the impact of my lifestyle, but I'm going to keep living in Issaquah. And you wouldn't want all 2.8m of us Puget Sound suburbanites to move into the city, right?!? So let's figure out transit and employment and zoning options to live with this reality while minimizing the environmental and aesthetic impacts.
27
Oh, there's one other statement Big Sven made I have to take issue with, and perhaps one point where I have to give him credit.
Big Sven @23: I'm sorry to disrupt your pat vision of the burbs.
Actually, I don't have a problem with the suburbs per se. I have a problem—a whole host of problems—with sprawl. And I'm not one of these people who automatically assume city=density and suburbs=sprawl. In fact, what we've been seeing lately in the U.S. (USA Today had a cover story on this last year) is a lot of dense, pedestrian-friendly development coming to suburban town centers. All other things being equal, I'd rather see someone living in a walkable suburban town center than in a sprawling neighborhood whose only virtue is that it's within the Seattle city limits.
And this is where I think I can give Sven his due. He wrote: I walk down from my house into town to shop and eat meals. My kids and I hike from our front door into one of the largest near-urban wildernesses in the US.
Of course, though, if everyone lives in a single-family home, there's a limit to just how walkable neighborhoods can be. Being within walking distance of amenities becomes a matter of being wealthier than other folks. And this is where, once families have made the choice to live in the better school districts, it would be great to see them consider townhouses (or dare I say condos) in those school districts.
Big Sven @23: I'm sorry to disrupt your pat vision of the burbs.
Actually, I don't have a problem with the suburbs per se. I have a problem—a whole host of problems—with sprawl. And I'm not one of these people who automatically assume city=density and suburbs=sprawl. In fact, what we've been seeing lately in the U.S. (USA Today had a cover story on this last year) is a lot of dense, pedestrian-friendly development coming to suburban town centers. All other things being equal, I'd rather see someone living in a walkable suburban town center than in a sprawling neighborhood whose only virtue is that it's within the Seattle city limits.
And this is where I think I can give Sven his due. He wrote: I walk down from my house into town to shop and eat meals. My kids and I hike from our front door into one of the largest near-urban wildernesses in the US.
Of course, though, if everyone lives in a single-family home, there's a limit to just how walkable neighborhoods can be. Being within walking distance of amenities becomes a matter of being wealthier than other folks. And this is where, once families have made the choice to live in the better school districts, it would be great to see them consider townhouses (or dare I say condos) in those school districts.
28
I gotta be honest, the lack of neighborhood schools is a huge turn off for staying in Seattle once I have kids. I like the idea that my kids school is close to where I live an that everyone in the area goes to the same school. I think it fosters community and involvement. I get the issues of segregation and what not, but personally I would I am not sure I'm willing to make the sacrifice.
29
@10- It's cheaper to live in the city than the 'burbs. Look it up.
@13- It's way cheaper to rent a car for occasional trips than it is to own a car year round.
@13- It's way cheaper to rent a car for occasional trips than it is to own a car year round.
30
@28- Seattle has neighborhood schools. My daughter is in kindergarten. She's at an alternative school with is 1.1 mile from my house, the neighborhood school would be .5 miles away.
31
@29 Not when your occasional trips are a few times a week. Plus there is no hassle of having to arrange the rental. I can simply walk out my door and go day or night. If anything the savings are some minuscule as to not be worth the hassle, but when I've ran the numbers its been more expensive to rent. But then I buy used, keep my cars well maintained, and drive them for ten years.
There is no way I could even consider not having a car. The bus is a joke, rental a pain in the ass, and light rail won't be ion my neighborhood for a decade or more.
@30 My family members who are in elementary and middle school go to school across town. Sure you an get the school closest but you also might not.
There is no way I could even consider not having a car. The bus is a joke, rental a pain in the ass, and light rail won't be ion my neighborhood for a decade or more.
@30 My family members who are in elementary and middle school go to school across town. Sure you an get the school closest but you also might not.
32
@ 23 & 26
You are entirely on the money Big Sven in your assessment of certain types of slog denizens. And when you confront them about the reality of their perspective (by which I mean when one in any way mentions them in anything other than a flattering way) they freak out and start refencing their arguments exactly the same way TV talabangelists do. At least in Red States you know who the crazies are because they are thumping a bible - here they look just like normal people until they open their mouths and try to have a dialogue.
You are entirely on the money Big Sven in your assessment of certain types of slog denizens. And when you confront them about the reality of their perspective (by which I mean when one in any way mentions them in anything other than a flattering way) they freak out and start refencing their arguments exactly the same way TV talabangelists do. At least in Red States you know who the crazies are because they are thumping a bible - here they look just like normal people until they open their mouths and try to have a dialogue.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (32) RSS