Do you and your dh car share, or do you feel l having two car is essential ?

[Lardlizard]

To your life ?

We have one each. We live rurally with very little public transport and we have a severely disabled ds so need to get to and from where we are going quickly so both of us are available for him as much as possible.
Before ds and living in an urban area, we had 1 car.

We have 2. We both work at the same place but different start times.

We don’t have a car at all. But we live in a big city with good public transport. I use public transport to get to work, DH cycles. We use the bus to get to the supermarket. DC used the bus to get to school or work.

We share a car. It does mean more logistic planning and complicated arrangements sometimes, and slightly more compromise on my part than is ideal but we couldn't justify two cars. However, DH is up for a job where using public transport would be awkward so he would probably drive. We'd probably get a second car then (hoping associated payrise will cover it) as it would mean I'd be even more restricted and that wouldn't be fair.

Unfortunately public transport isn't that great in some parts of the country. As much as I would like to use it, our local bus service (and we live in a reasonable sized town, not out in the sticks) is shocking. There's no way anyone can rely on it for getting to work/kids to school etc, they just randomly turn up when they feel like it and regularly break down.

We have 2. Both work in opposite directions and both do random long hours. Also no public transport.

One. We both walk or get a taxi/ bus to work and live in a city with good public transport and cheap taxis. General rule is whoever has the kids with them gets the car.

We live in London so we car share with another couple down the road

Yay for you that you have the luxury of that option.

But this thread is full of people who’ve:

Chosen to live rurally where there isn’t any public transport
Chosen hobbies that involve kit / travel
Chosen to have dogs that need exercised
Chosen activités for their children that require lifts / travel

I totally agree that we need far better public transport provision. But how far should the public provision of transport go to support the lifestyle choices of people who want 3-bed-plus-garden-in-a-village rather than a 2-bed-apartment-city-centre? Who choose to go fell-running or climbing every weekend rather than stay at home and knit? Whose children want to compete in their chosen sport rather than just going for a walk in the local park?

These are the really, really hard choices to make regarding lifestyle and climate change. Atm, in the west, we have pretty much total freedom to choose how /where we want to live, travel, visit etc. The only real restraint is whether or not we can afford it. The environmental costs of the above are externalised and ignored. Macron tried to internalise some via a fairly modest fuel surcharge - cue months of sometimes violent protests. Would the reaction be any different in the UK?

The alternative to expecting people to choose to organise their lives to be car-free would be to legislate for it. Would you vote for a government that promises to restrict your lifestyle choices for your own good?

We have one car.

I walk to work (it's about 2 miles) and OH cycles to his although sometimes takes the car if he needs it.

I usually comandeer it at weekends but if he wants it then of course we negotiate.

We couldn't justify 2 cars.

But how far should the public provision of transport go to support the lifestyle choices of people who want 3-bed-plus-garden-in-a-village rather than a 2-bed-apartment-city-centre?

But everyone can't live in cities either.

We don't live particularly rurally - we live in a large village only 6 miles from a town of 50000 people but there is still no public transport.
Ds's disability mean he could not use public transport even if there was some. His disabilities also severely limit his choice of leisure activities - no popping to a nearby leisure centre for us because they don't cater for him. Also no going to a nearby park or playground because he can't cope with the other children. He would have a very poor quality of life without a garden.
Dh's work hours mean travelling when no public transport ( outside of large cities) would be available.

But how far should the public provision of transport go to support the lifestyle choices of people who want 3-bed-plus-garden-in-a-village rather than a 2-bed-apartment-city-centre?

Whereabouts in the city do you think all these people should live? Where should their children go to school? What doctors
surgeries and hospitals should they use?

And most people don't live rurally to have nice three beds with gardens - they live rurally because they can't afford to live anywhere else! Our mortgage is less than £300 a month rurally - the same accommodation in the town I work in would be triple that.

I agree with you @BogstandardBelle

We chose the closest school that ds can get to easily via bus than the higher rated one that would need us to drive him to

He wanted to do a sport in a location where there is no bus route so he can’t do it. We found alternatives

Obviously there are exceptions but 2 cars has become the default

Two cars are essential for DH and me. We live rurally, I drive to the station every morning (zero public transport), DH drives in a different direction at varying times. I also need my car as I ride horses and have a lot of gear so need a 4x4 (also because of the road conditions where we live) plus we have two dogs. From an entirely selfish point of view, I enjoy having my own car that I can use anytime I wish.

Whereabouts in the city do you think all these people should live? Where should their children go to school? What doctors
surgeries and hospitals should they use?

You are talking about cities as they are right now, not as they could / should be. All these services including accommodation can be provided and accessed much more efficiently in high-density communities. It's not as nice a lifestyle (our children share a bedroom, we don't have a garden and we spend 33% of our income on rent alone) but that's what I mean about making the hard choices - not the easy ones to drop meat or use washable wipes.

Do you think the Green Party or WWF or FoE would support the continued support of or provision of services to low density, car dependent, dispersed rural communities if they actually got into power? Of course they wouldn't: if they truly want to address car use and achieve economies of scale in the provision of services, they'd be pushing for much more efficient, high-density, affordable urban development. Ideally they would also force employers and businesses to implement sustainable travel plans which enable their employees and customers to access them via public transport.

There are lots of things that could be done - but people will not choose to actively reduce their standard of living. And the market will not force them. And politicians won't do anything that means they won't get voted in.

But @BogstandardBelle as it stands lots of people cannot afford city or town living.

To live where I work would cost triple what we pay now in terms of our mortgage. It's not that I'm choosing to live rurally to have a nice life - I live there because I cannot afford to live elsewhere!

My mortgage is less than £300 a month for s tiny two bed terrace with a tiny back garden in a pretty poor coastal town. I work 45 minutes away and my fuel costs are £120 a month. DH works the same distance away in another direction so our joint fuel is say £250 a month for ease of figures.

Our mortgage on a similar house in the town I work in would be close to £900 a month. Taking out the £250 we pay for travel, I don't have a spare £400 a month to spend on a mortgage. That's not to mention higher council tax bills, higher costs of things like doggy daycare (£25 a day versus the £10 we pay currently) etc etc.

A lot of people aren't choosing rural because it's nice - they're choosing it because, as it stands, it's all that is affordable to them. DH and I both earn less than 20k per year and don't have children so we aren't entitled to any form of benefits (quite rightly too).

Of course it would be nice if there was amazing public transport and everyone could walk or cycle but until the government and big businesses change the way the country works, that's just not going to happen.

2 cars here. DH works in a city an hour and a halfs commute from the city we live in (there is no way we could we could afford to live in that city) and I work shifts, so go too and from work at all hours of the day and night. Unfortunately 2 cars is a bit of a necessary evil in our house, an expense but we can't do without.

Ideally they would also force employers and businesses to implement sustainable travel plans which enable their employees and customers to access them via public transport.

Yes because this works so well as a policy, doesn't it?

I live 10 minutes walk from my work; deliberately. The area isn't particularly nice, it has the highest council tax in several counties, and it's basically gridlocked with commuters for hours every day. The local councillor described it as houses in the way of the commuters' journey to work.

Work isn't allowed to provide parking for more than 1/3rd of it's 10,000+ employees. If you live closer than 3 miles as the crow flies you aren't allowed to park. So do my colleagues who live in cheaper, nicer areas, with residents-only parking get the bus? Of course not.They choose not to adopt the green travel plan, drive to work and clog up the entire residential area with their cars all day, every day. That is what happens every time a workplace or venue doesn't provide sufficient parking. It doesn't stop people driving. It just moves the problem to somebody else.

We work in the same building so only have the one car. It'd be nice to have a 2nd but not essential

We have two cars.

I use mine fairly for getting to/from the train station, would take 40 mins for me to get the bus to the station as opposed to a 15 minute drive, and same on the way back. That combined with the fact that train times don't suit the bus times means that I need a car daily.

DP's car sits on the drive for 95% of the week, but the two journeys he has to make a week (to collect DSD) are essential and again, a nightmare without a car. He eats her before I finish work.

We usually use his car at weekends because it's marginally better in fuel, but could easily use mine instead

It pains me so much paying for two cars for the sake of an hours driving a week - but the faff of not having it, and the fact it's fully paid off, it seems to make more sense to have both. Saves worrying about getting back if the other wants to pop to the shops too!

We have 3 - one that DP uses to commute to the airport (works away), a pick up truck for heavy stuff around the farm and my midlife crisis!

We have one but OH has a work van. If he didn’t we’d 100% need another car. Hope that never happens

They choose not to adopt the green travel plan, drive to work and clog up the entire residential area with their cars all day, every day. That is what happens every time a workplace or venue doesn't provide sufficient parking. It doesn't stop people driving. It just moves the problem to somebody else.

This used to happen in our street until very recently, as it was free parking in the residential area. So the local authority implemented resident-only parking for our street and miles around us. And now we can park easily in our street for only 20 euros a month, occasional users can pay 2-3 euros an hour (max three hours) if they have an appointment, and it's free at the weekend for people using the big local park. It can be controlled if the will is there to implement and enforce it.

We just have one car. DH doesn't drive, so he either gets a lift to/from work or gets the bus. Dd1 does drive, but if I've got the car for work she has to walk/bus herself around.