I love subtext of this article on the Atlanta snow disaster

[projekt]

Northerner in the South here: Driving skill is out the window when traffic is not moving. I was stuck for over 7 hours because I had been boxed in on an exit ramp. 99.9% of people with day-long drive times on Tuesday were not in accidents, they were in stopped traffic. By the time I got near my apartment, MARTA buses had blocked every road leading to my home. So public transit was not the answer, they couldn't make it in hilly Atlanta. Hindsight is 20/20 but it was incredibly difficult to predict the effect this storm would have, especially with the authorities saying they had it under control. School should not have been in session because they typically close for much less, but many people going to work felt they had no other choice.

Changing the way you live because of this event would be wrong. It's like moving because you had a 100-year flood event. That's what insurance is for. Perhaps with climate change we will see more of these events in Atlanta, but we will also be better prepared.

[Daleth]

What if you can't find a home close to both a school and your employment?  If you can only satisfy one of those requirements and you live in Atlanta you're still screwed, because either your children walked home to a locked house or you're at home and your kid is stuck at school.

No, you weren't screwed--at least not if you paid attention to the weather report (unlike the mayor). Then you would have given your kids a key and/or made backup plans with nearby family or neighbors and/or asked to work from home that day and/or... (feel free to brainstorm).

  What if you have close ties with family and friends and loved ones that you're not prepared to completely cut?  What if you have a specialized set of skills and find it difficult to acquire fulfilling employment elsewhere?  What if you love living in Atlanta and it's exactly where you want to be?  Do you move because somebody on the internet might ridicule you for not moving?

Again, no one said your best or only good option was to move away from Atlanta. The only suggestions were:

(1) Stop pretending that you "have no choice," because you absolutely do; and

(2) Brainstorm more practical/frugal ways to live in Atlanta, i.e., make sure you live somewhere that is within walking or biking distance of at least one of your major activities (kids' school, one or both parents' work, location of frequent errands).

The general idea of cutting costs by eliminating your commute is a very good one.  It's good general advice to give, but it can't possibly be applied to everybody. 

Well, the idea isn't to eliminate your commute, it's to do any of the following with at least one of the spouses' commutes (assuming both spouses work): eliminate it (i.e., work from home); reduce it down to where you can do it by bike, at least in most weather; reduce it down to where you can do it on foot.

Now, why do you say that advice "can't possibly be applied to everybody"? Of course it can--and those who choose not to follow it should at least have the honesty to acknowledge that they CHOSE not to follow it. There may well be a number of excellent reasons not to follow it, but nobody is FORCED not to follow it; we always have a choice.

...and in my individual case, I have no choice.  I have to drive because that's just how it is.  When I was told to move from a city where I had a four mile commute to one where a house couldn't be found as close to employment, schools, the hospital, and a grocery store the option to reject that would have cost me a LOT more than it costs to purchase and operate a vehicle for a few years. 

That is a good reason for you to CHOOSE a commute. You chose it. Why on earth do you prefer to pretend that you're just a victim of circumstance here? Wouldn't you rather see yourself as making economically sound choices based on the options available? You are not a victim or a passive recipient of life circumstances. You had two options (at least two) and you chose the one that made the most sense. Deal with THAT, why don't you.

[jordanread]

I guess there is some line between blunt and rude.  I'm a big fan of the idea of facepunches and think they usually fall on the blunt side and not the rude side.  If you complain about car cost but don't do anything to limit the need for them you deserve a face punch.  If you are weighed the trade offs and are content with spending that money then you don't.

This.^

I won't say that I know what people were thinking or how they took the response, but I think it was a combination of the "That's not an option" piece, and the defensiveness. It seems to rub people the wrong way (and I agree), but it can be construed as something in which someone refuses to look at the options, instead of having already decided it's not an option after thinking carefully.

I know that the majority of people have crazy cases of Excusitis, and I think Mustachians just hate that, because not challenging assumptions (such as something not being on the table) is a major factor of people living paycheck to paycheck. Just my $.02.

Edited to add: What @Daleth said.

[Shor]

Coulda-woulda-shoulda just walked it. Maybe check the traffic before you rush out in to a 2 inch snow storm.. A lot of examples being put up are talking about a 12-18 mile drives. Did they really feel that driving out with everyone else was the correct move?

Also, just in case anyone is still confused even though it's been stated many times: the issue was not the weather. The weather prompted schools and businesses to shut down and toss everyone out on to an infastructure that couldn't handle that kind of throughput without another 20 years and millions of $ for expansion. It's kind of like L.A. traffic, every day because everyone leaves work between 3-6 PM. The only way to avoid it is to not drive that route..

and we are saying here that if it's within an able distance, why are you driving at all?

[MrFancypants]

What if you can't find a home close to both a school and your employment?  If you can only satisfy one of those requirements and you live in Atlanta you're still screwed, because either your children walked home to a locked house or you're at home and your kid is stuck at school.

No, you weren't screwed--at least not if you paid attention to the weather report (unlike the mayor). Then you would have given your kids a key and/or made backup plans with nearby family or neighbors and/or asked to work from home that day and/or... (feel free to brainstorm).

  What if you have close ties with family and friends and loved ones that you're not prepared to completely cut?  What if you have a specialized set of skills and find it difficult to acquire fulfilling employment elsewhere?  What if you love living in Atlanta and it's exactly where you want to be?  Do you move because somebody on the internet might ridicule you for not moving?

Again, no one said your best or only good option was to move away from Atlanta. The only suggestions were:

(1) Stop pretending that you "have no choice," because you absolutely do; and

(2) Brainstorm more practical/frugal ways to live in Atlanta, i.e., make sure you live somewhere that is within walking or biking distance of at least one of your major activities (kids' school, one or both parents' work, location of frequent errands).

The general idea of cutting costs by eliminating your commute is a very good one.  It's good general advice to give, but it can't possibly be applied to everybody. 

Well, the idea isn't to eliminate your commute, it's to do any of the following with at least one of the spouses' commutes (assuming both spouses work): eliminate it (i.e., work from home); reduce it down to where you can do it by bike, at least in most weather; reduce it down to where you can do it on foot.

Now, why do you say that advice "can't possibly be applied to everybody"? Of course it can--and those who choose not to follow it should at least have the honesty to acknowledge that they CHOSE not to follow it. There may well be a number of excellent reasons not to follow it, but nobody is FORCED not to follow it; we always have a choice.

...and in my individual case, I have no choice.  I have to drive because that's just how it is.  When I was told to move from a city where I had a four mile commute to one where a house couldn't be found as close to employment, schools, the hospital, and a grocery store the option to reject that would have cost me a LOT more than it costs to purchase and operate a vehicle for a few years. 

That is a good reason for you to CHOOSE a commute. You chose it. Why on earth do you prefer to pretend that you're just a victim of circumstance here? Wouldn't you rather see yourself as making economically sound choices based on the options available? You are not a victim or a passive recipient of life circumstances. You had two options (at least two) and you chose the one that made the most sense. Deal with THAT, why don't you.

I have mentally checked out of this conversation, but I will add one more thing that may help with interpreting my statements.

When I say "no choice" I am doing so from the position that the alternate choices are so clearly undesirable to be rendered as "not an option."  I didn't feel like I needed to explain that because I seems that it is generally implied that every single action you initiate in life is the result of a decision.

Hence, when I say I or others have "no choice" but to accept a vehicle commute in my/their personal life, I'm choosing to say "no choice" because it means typing fewer words than if I were to say "I evaluated all of my other options, and they all lead to decidedly undesirable outcomes" every single time I might apply the idea of being confronted with a dilemma where one option clearly stands out as the correct one.

For example, you suffer a heart attack.  You might say that you had "no choice" but to seek medical attention.  Typing up a bunch of paragraphs about how that's not true and how you actually had a choice in the matter is the very definition of pedantic.

[jordanread]

When I say "no choice" I am doing so from the position that the alternate choices are so clearly undesirable to be rendered as "not an option."  I didn't feel like I needed to explain that because I seems that it is generally implied that every single action you initiate in life is the result of a decision.

Hence, when I say I or others have "no choice" but to accept a vehicle commute in my/their personal life, I'm choosing to say "no choice" because it means typing fewer words than if I were to say "I evaluated all of my other options, and they all lead to decidedly undesirable outcomes" every single time I might apply the idea of being confronted with a dilemma where one option clearly stands out as the correct one.

That makes sense. I wouldn't take it personally, as an outlook like this (based in personal responsibility) seems to be more of the exception than the rule. :)

[sheepstache]

Just to be clear though, when someone says "move" or "drive less" we should take them to mean that they are ordering 100% of the population to move and get rid of their cars immediately regardless of individual circumstances.

[MrFancypants]

Gotcha.  I'll come out and say that the way I entered this thread was in itself, pretty rude.  I apologize for that and I'll even wave the "I'm a hypocrit" flag..  Clearly this contributed to some of the communication issues that have plagued discussions here.

I still stand by my basic points, but next time I'll broadcast them in a different tone.

[thelamb]

Hard for me not to chime in on this...  I've felt for many years (and this feeling is only getting stronger and stronger) that the number one issue facing this country, possibly the world at large, is suburban sprawl.  Possibly a bit hyperbolic.  But I could write a book, in fact many have (see Green Metropolis or Walkable City) that you can directly draw a line from sprawl to obesity, heart disease, global warming, our various wars in the middle east, many senseless car accident deaths, strains on local governments, income inequality, etc. 

Now, the problem with thinking this way is that many people live in the suburbs and being one that doesn't that quite frankly hates them and hates cars is that you come off as a pretentious, know-it-all asshole and people get rather defensive.  This thread, although some of the arguments made were slightly different, is a decent case in point (it does seem everyone made nice though, which is good). 

I'm hoping situations and articles like this start to change the conversation for the greater good.  Suburbs to me simply mean places built around cars versus places built around pedestrians and transit.  It doesn't have to be about cool, chic downtown versus quiet, boring what-have-you.  This isn't about finger-pointing, at least not all the time, it's simply about city planning, how and how much public investment is used, how federal subsidies support oil and a car-based model, how outdated zoning regulations make density difficult, how parking requirements for new buildings get in the way of better development...

Anyway, I hope some good can come out of this terrible incident and the problem at hand can be looked at as more of a system and as less of an indictment of individual choices.   

[chasesfish]

Outside of the hijacking of this thread for people to have personal arguments, there's another point that's interesting in this about Atlanta:

People are migrating in-town, especially prior to having middle and high school age kids.  Ground zero for the Atlanta housing market rebound is in-town properties, including raise and rebuild.  This is my last week here before moving somewhere else in Georgia, but I tried to pay 2.5x what my current house is worth just to move back in town, then lost when the buyers wanted to go through a second round of bidding.

Transit aside, there is not enough available housing in-town right now. 


I do think the Sandy analogy is correct - This hit an area not prepared to deal with it.  Say what you want about commuters, but there's nothing funny about busloads of elementary school kids stuck in 20 degree weather and with no reasonable way to evacuate.

[rocksinmyhead]

Hard for me not to chime in on this...  I've felt for many years (and this feeling is only getting stronger and stronger) that the number one issue facing this country, possibly the world at large, is suburban sprawl.  Possibly a bit hyperbolic.  But I could write a book, in fact many have (see Green Metropolis or Walkable City) that you can directly draw a line from sprawl to obesity, heart disease, global warming, our various wars in the middle east, many senseless car accident deaths, strains on local governments, income inequality, etc. 

Now, the problem with thinking this way is that many people live in the suburbs and being one that doesn't that quite frankly hates them and hates cars is that you come off as a pretentious, know-it-all asshole and people get rather defensive.  This thread, although some of the arguments made were slightly different, is a decent case in point (it does seem everyone made nice though, which is good). 

I'm hoping situations and articles like this start to change the conversation for the greater good.  Suburbs to me simply mean places built around cars versus places built around pedestrians and transit.  It doesn't have to be about cool, chic downtown versus quiet, boring what-have-you.  This isn't about finger-pointing, at least not all the time, it's simply about city planning, how and how much public investment is used, how federal subsidies support oil and a car-based model, how outdated zoning regulations make density difficult, how parking requirements for new buildings get in the way of better development...

Anyway, I hope some good can come out of this terrible incident and the problem at hand can be looked at as more of a system and as less of an indictment of individual choices.

+1000
it really troubles me. and I feel like now that we've built all this shit around cars in the last several decades, it's going to be tricky to reverse it. but hopefully it can be done...

[sheepstache]

Gotcha.  I'll come out and say that the way I entered this thread was in itself, pretty rude.  I apologize for that and I'll even wave the "I'm a hypocrit" flag..  Clearly this contributed to some of the communication issues that have plagued discussions here.

I still stand by my basic points, but next time I'll broadcast them in a different tone.

Seriously, this forum is not for the opinionated and argumentative ;)

[dragoncar]

Mustachianism?  Is this a religion or a self improvement site?

Do not blaspheme Mr. Money Mustache, prophet of the great frugal follicle, whose name thou shalt not speak but may only refer to by His sign: $.  May His fiat reign forever.  May His enemies be struck down with affluenza.  Blessed be His Açaí berries.

[Dr. Doom]

Do not blaspheme Mr. Money Mustache, prophet of the great frugal follicle, whose name thou shalt not speak but may only refer to by His sign: $.  May His fiat reign forever.  May His enemies be struck down with affluenza.  Blessed be His Açaí berries.

Fun.  I suspect he also has One Weird Trick for Reducing Belly Fat.  Gotta get on his good side so he'll share that with me.

[Jack]

Outside of the hijacking of this thread for people to have personal arguments, there's another point that's interesting in this about Atlanta:

People are migrating in-town, especially prior to having middle and high school age kids.  Ground zero for the Atlanta housing market rebound is in-town properties, including raise and rebuild.  This is my last week here before moving somewhere else in Georgia, but I tried to pay 2.5x what my current house is worth just to move back in town, then lost when the buyers wanted to go through a second round of bidding.

Transit aside, there is not enough available housing in-town right now. 

Look farther south. Old Fourth Ward, Reynoldstown, Edgewood, Kirkwood, East Lake, East Atlanta, and Ormewood Park are all good neighborhoods that are still affordable (unless they've gentrified more in the last year than I thought). Neighborhoods further south and west are now starting to gentrify (especially ones along the Beltline), although you still need to be pretty adventurous to make that choice.

[jordanread]

Now, the problem with thinking this way is that many people live in the suburbs and being one that doesn't that quite frankly hates them and hates cars is that you come off as a pretentious, know-it-all asshole and people get rather defensive.  This thread, although some of the arguments made were slightly different, is a decent case in point (it does seem everyone made nice though, which is good). 

My initial response to this was that I don't know it all, and pretentiousness means that I present myself as more awesome than I actually am, which we all know is a lie (I truly am that awesome). Then I realized I was being an asshole... :D

Anyway, I hope some good can come out of this terrible incident and the problem at hand can be looked at as more of a system and as less of an indictment of individual choices.

That would be awesome, but I've found that the national conversation regarding these issues usually winds up in a "who to blame" rather than a "how to fix it" manner. Is it just me, with my extreme aversion to 'excusitis', or is this actually what seems to be happening?

[rtrnow]

I've just skimmed the comments here, but wanted to add my $0.02 as an Atlantan who spent luckily only 3 hrs in that mess. There were mistakes from the city leadership and yes the problem was everyone hitting the roads at once. Hell that would have been an awful rush hour in great weather.

The issue I see with a few comments here is that in Atlanta one has to have a car. Yes, I chose to drive that day, but it was my lazy choice. I commute by bike 7 miles each way most days. I hear lots of complaints about biking in Atlanta bit it's not really bad. While MARTA is not the most useful that too can get you most places in the city and I have used it to commute as well. Atlanta has a big advantage in that it's a cheap big city. You can live in town in great neighborhoods for much less than most places. The biggest problem in this city, random snow event aside, is that people choose to live in the burbs and then bitch about their commute.

[thelamb]

That would be awesome, but I've found that the national conversation regarding these issues usually winds up in a "who to blame" rather than a "how to fix it" manner. Is it just me, with my extreme aversion to 'excusitis', or is this actually what seems to be happening?

Apologize if I didn't get the full gist of your comment.  I def see some "excusitis" as part of it and room for personal accountability.  In C-bus, you got some very walkable, cool places in the urban core, then rest is all completely driving-centric.  I've often heard, by those in the driving areas, "oh, I could never live 'down there', because..."

• "housing is too expensive" - yeah, the ppsqft is slightly more but you can def find great places for you what you pay now if you're willing to go a tad smaller
• "it's too dangerous" - not really, you're more likely to die in a car crash then get shot (this is the fear) or much more likely to have heart issues due to weight issues (directly linked to your commute time)
• "it's too noisy" - if you live directly above a bar, perhaps.  otherwise, this is just silly

... and so on. 

That being said, for many couples that could make this jump it always seems like it would eliminate one's daily commute, make all other day-to-day stuff easier and more walkable/bikeable, while the other person gets the shaft and would now have a commute 4x as long as today.  Not all commutes are suburb to city.  They are just as often suburb to suburb.   

As for the national conversation, I don't know.  I really feel it's gotta become about the system as a whole.  People have to get fed up with wasting so much of their lives in the daily commute, so much of their personal money on the private ownership of cars, and understand that they might have to accept small increases in taxes or a shift in how public budgets are used towards public infrastructure, more transit options, etc. 

[chasesfish]

Outside of the hijacking of this thread for people to have personal arguments, there's another point that's interesting in this about Atlanta:

People are migrating in-town, especially prior to having middle and high school age kids.  Ground zero for the Atlanta housing market rebound is in-town properties, including raise and rebuild.  This is my last week here before moving somewhere else in Georgia, but I tried to pay 2.5x what my current house is worth just to move back in town, then lost when the buyers wanted to go through a second round of bidding.

Transit aside, there is not enough available housing in-town right now. 

Look farther south. Old Fourth Ward, Reynoldstown, Edgewood, Kirkwood, East Lake, East Atlanta, and Ormewood Park are all good neighborhoods that are still affordable (unless they've gentrified more in the last year than I thought). Neighborhoods further south and west are now starting to gentrify (especially ones along the Beltline), although you still need to be pretty adventurous to make that choice.

My office was in Vinings, those options would not have improved my situation.   I just got a nice job move to Athens, so no worries.

[chasesfish]

I've just skimmed the comments here, but wanted to add my $0.02 as an Atlantan who spent luckily only 3 hrs in that mess. There were mistakes from the city leadership and yes the problem was everyone hitting the roads at once. Hell that would have been an awful rush hour in great weather.

The issue I see with a few comments here is that in Atlanta one has to have a car. Yes, I chose to drive that day, but it was my lazy choice. I commute by bike 7 miles each way most days. I hear lots of complaints about biking in Atlanta bit it's not really bad. While MARTA is not the most useful that too can get you most places in the city and I have used it to commute as well. Atlanta has a big advantage in that it's a cheap big city. You can live in town in great neighborhoods for much less than most places. The biggest problem in this city, random snow event aside, is that people choose to live in the burbs and then bitch about their commute.

+1 - Atlanta has really high incomes and a relatively low cost of living for a big city.  If you can keep your job away from the Vinings/Sandy Springs/Buckhead triangle, there are plenty of affordable living options close by. 

[jordanread]

That would be awesome, but I've found that the national conversation regarding these issues usually winds up in a "who to blame" rather than a "how to fix it" manner. Is it just me, with my extreme aversion to 'excusitis', or is this actually what seems to be happening?

Apologize if I didn't get the full gist of your comment.  I def see some "excusitis" as part of it and room for personal accountability.
[...]
As for the national conversation, I don't know.  I really feel it's gotta become about the system as a whole.  People have to get fed up with wasting so much of their lives in the daily commute, so much of their personal money on the private ownership of cars, and understand that they might have to accept small increases in taxes or a shift in how public budgets are used towards public infrastructure, more transit options, etc.

That was pretty much what I meant. It does need to be about the entire system, but when this made news and everything, I didn't hear much about changes at all. It was just pointing fingers, and that's what I meant about the national conversation. I hardly ever follow the news because nobody is talking about solutions.