What's wrong with freeways?

[Slick Vik]

Yes, people are privately paying for new cars all the time. No extra road stress - same trips that were always being taken. Self-driving cars are designed to be in mixed traffic with human driven cars. Google's cars have hundreds of thousands of miles in mixed traffic with no accidents - they've been tested just fine. No rail system ever built has reduced congestion - look at the data. Developers build to meet overall demand - any development attracted next to rail is lost in another part of town, so the net economic benefit is neutral.

Trying to get the conversation back to its focus, I'm going to give you two scenarios. Please tell me which you'd prefer to live in and why.

Scenario 1: Dense walkable neighborhood. Your ideal urban paradise. When you want to go somewhere out of walking range you dial up an automated car or shuttle to come right to where you are and take you directly there.

Scenario 2: Exactly the same dense walkable neighborhood. You still live in your ideal urban paradise. But when you want to go somewhere out of walking range, you must walk several blocks to the rail station, wait for it, and then ride it only to destinations linearly along that line near its stops - or otherwise requiring some sort of additional rail or bus transfer to get to another subset of destinations. A wide range of destinations are not easily reached, or at least not in a very reasonable trip time, because of the required connections and walks. The trains also run much less frequently at night, greatly reducing evening mobility.

Scenario 1 is a pipe dream, so scenario 2.

[ToryGattis]

Scenario 1 is a pipe dream, so scenario 2.

 

I wasn't asking your assessment of the viability of the scenarios, I was asking your preference assuming each is viable.  Please re-answer the question, including reasoning for your choice.

[Slick Vik]

I wasn't asking your assessment of the viability of the scenarios, I was asking your preference assuming each is viable. Please re-answer the question, including reasoning for your choice.

Assuming anything is viable maglev is best

[Fringe]

Scenario 3. I keep my car and go and come as I please. The first two will not happen in our lifetime.  

[august948]

Assuming anything is viable maglev is best

 

Assuming anything, helicopter service from my house to anywhere I want to go is the best.

 

[ToryGattis]

Assuming anything is viable maglev is best

 

Again, that was not the scenario presented (maglev is intercity in any case, not intra-city, except for occasional oddballs like the the Shanghai airport to downtown express).  I'm not saying assume anything is viable - I'm trying to understand your thoughts and tradeoffs between the two scenarios presented. Please give a thoughtful response to the original two scenarios presented. 

[Slick Vik]

Again, that was not the scenario presented (maglev is intercity in any case, not intra-city, except for occasional oddballs like the the Shanghai airport to downtown express).  I'm not saying assume anything is viable - I'm trying to understand your thoughts and tradeoffs between the two scenarios presented. Please give a thoughtful response to the original two scenarios presented. 

 

Between those two scenarios, I'm okay with scenario two, because I don't mind walking and when rail is built for a certain corridor, it gives people and developers confidence that corridor will stay in the long term, creating a dynamic area. Also it gives people the option to live a walkable life. I don't like being dependent on automobiles and the road system, whether it be gasoline or hybrid or self driving cars, it's all pushing towards auto dependence. What good is a self driving car if it's stuck on the same roads with the same traffic? Unless all cars are self driving then traffic and congestion won't go away, because there is the mix of humans and electronic cars. As far as your assertion of rail never clearing up congestion, when have freeways ever cleared up congestion? It has never been proven, In fact, expansion simply encourages more people to get on the roads, giving the opposite effect. Yes, hybrids and electrics are certainly better for the environment, but it still encourages sprawl whcih makes it more difficult for police, firefighters, and the city to service a growing city in general. Houston has grown out long enough, it's time to grow up now.

[IronTiger]

Between those two scenarios, I'm okay with scenario two, because I don't mind walking and when rail is built for a certain corridor, it gives people and developers confidence that corridor will stay in the long term, creating a dynamic area.

That last part sounds like something a marketer/developer would say. The question that Mr. Gattis posed was not if you're okay with either one, is which one you prefer. The first option isn't less walkable.

 

 

Also it gives people the option to live a walkable life. I don't like being dependent on automobiles and the road system, whether it be gasoline or hybrid or self driving cars, it's all pushing towards auto dependence. What good is a self driving car if it's stuck on the same roads with the same traffic?

Again, you're talking about "auto dependence" when you want to depend entirely on rail and walking, which limits mobility.

 

 

 

when have freeways ever cleared up congestion? It has never been proven

That book that I mentioned in the first post had surface roads cleared up by the addition of freeways, and had photos to prove it. (I'd like to see someone do the same for rail corridors, and not because people are trying to avoid that road). Yes, the Katy Freeway did tend to fill up again after it expanded, but that's because Katy and Park 10 area expanded like wildfire as well, and that's a consequence of a good economy. If the Texas economy imploded in the next five years and people started flowing out, I'd guarantee you'd see less traffic.

 

 

 

 

still encourages sprawl whcih makes it more difficult for police, firefighters, and the city to service a growing city in general.

At some point, if not already, Houston will stop growing out. Dallas did years ago. Besides, a city with a growing population will of course have problems for emergency vehicles. 

 

The question I posed was trying to investigate why people had a grudge against freeways, but all I'm getting is a mix of  evasiveness and propaganda. There is no reason to dislike freeways unless you also disliked the idea of private vehicles.

[DNAguy]

I think we're getting the cart b/f the horse on the whole 'self driving car' thing.

 

The technology that will give us self driving cars will actually be utilized in mass transit 1st. Why? B/c it reduces the need for drivers, thereby reducing the cost of providing the mass transit service. It will provide a more consistent and safer product. So cheaper, faster, better bus and rail.

 

A Transtar-like command center will eventually run the bus / rail systems in addition to what it provides now. This technology could possibly unleash the advantage that buses posses over rail: being able to stray from a fixed route if need be (within reason of course). This has the possibility of eliminating the 'bus stigma'. A true game changer for sunbelt cities that grew up after the automobile.

 

Only until this is perfected will the technology disseminate to the masses and only after this does the 'on demand' driverless car thing take place.

 

But that's, like, my opinion; man

[Slick Vik]

That last part sounds like something a marketer/developer would say. The question that Mr. Gattis posed was not if you're okay with either one, is which one you prefer. The first option isn't less walkable.

 

 

Again, you're talking about "auto dependence" when you want to depend entirely on rail and walking, which limits mobility.

 

 

 

That book that I mentioned in the first post had surface roads cleared up by the addition of freeways, and had photos to prove it. (I'd like to see someone do the same for rail corridors, and not because people are trying to avoid that road). Yes, the Katy Freeway did tend to fill up again after it expanded, but that's because Katy and Park 10 area expanded like wildfire as well, and that's a consequence of a good economy. If the Texas economy imploded in the next five years and people started flowing out, I'd guarantee you'd see less traffic.

 

 

 

 

At some point, if not already, Houston will stop growing out. Dallas did years ago. Besides, a city with a growing population will of course have problems for emergency vehicles. 

 

The question I posed was trying to investigate why people had a grudge against freeways, but all I'm getting is a mix of  evasiveness and propaganda. There is no reason to dislike freeways unless you also disliked the idea of private vehicles.

 

1. The first option is less walkable, you know good and well most people in Houston like to be no further then their driveway from their car.

 

2. You're not getting it. I'm not depending on rail and walking, I'm giving myself three additional options: Walking, rail, and bicycle, whereas auto dependence means you don't have any option besides driving, which for Houston is the case 95% of the time.

 

3. The freeway didn't fill up because of the economy, it filled up because of induced demand. You build more lanes, it encourages more cars to fill them up. You eliminate them or leave them as it is, it encourages alternatives.

 

4. Houston hasn't stopped growing out yet. The sprawl is getting worse.

 

5. Do you like seeing ten lane freeways? They are ridiculous and unnecessary. I hear the same thing from anyone coming in from out of town.

I think we're getting the cart b/f the horse on the whole 'self driving car' thing.

 

The technology that will give us self driving cars will actually be utilized in mass transit 1st. Why? B/c it reduces the need for drivers, thereby reducing the cost of providing the mass transit service. It will provide a more consistent and safer product. So cheaper, faster, better bus and rail.

 

A Transtar-like command center will eventually run the bus / rail systems in addition to what it provides now. This technology could possibly unleash the advantage that buses posses over rail: being able to stray from a fixed route if need be (within reason of course). This has the possibility of eliminating the 'bus stigma'. A true game changer for sunbelt cities that grew up after the automobile.

 

Only until this is perfected will the technology disseminate to the masses and only after this does the 'on demand' driverless car thing take place.

 

But that's, like, my opinion; man

 

Vancouver SkyTrain doesn't have drivers.

[IronTiger]

The first option is less walkable, you know good and well most people in Houston like to be no further then their driveway from their car.

Read the question again.

2. You're not getting it. I'm not depending on rail and walking, I'm giving myself three additional options: Walking, rail, and bicycle, whereas auto dependence means you don't have any option besides driving, which for Houston is the case 95% of the time.

Total BS and you know it. The "Complete Streets" is one example of how wrong this is.

3. The freeway didn't fill up because of the economy, it filled up because of induced demand. You build more lanes, it encourages more cars to fill them up. You eliminate them or leave them as it is, it encourages alternatives.

The original freeway was choked...because Houston GREW between the late 1960s and the early 2000s.

4. Houston hasn't stopped growing out yet. The sprawl is getting worse.

Right now, the way Houston is growing and developing edge cities, freeways are the best solution right now, for better or for worse.

Do you like seeing ten lane freeways? They are ridiculous and unnecessary. I hear the same thing from anyone coming in from out of town.

There are lots of things that visitors are often confused or unhappy about Houston. Does that make Houston wrong somehow?

While 10 lane freeways may seem excessive, it probably is better than two roughly parallel freeways. Ridiculous? Maybe. Unnecessary? Of course not.

[Slick Vik]

Read the question again.

Total BS and you know it. The "Complete Streets" is one example of how wrong this is.

The original freeway was choked...because Houston GREW between the late 1960s and the early 2000s.

Right now, the way Houston is growing and developing edge cities, freeways are the best solution right now, for better or for worse.

There are lots of things that visitors are often confused or unhappy about Houston. Does that make Houston wrong somehow?

While 10 lane freeways may seem excessive, it probably is better than two roughly parallel freeways. Ridiculous? Maybe. Unnecessary? Of course not.

 

1. I said which option I prefer.

 

2. It's not BS. Complete streets is a good step forward, but I live in Houston and have to deal with it and know the reality.

 

3. It filled up partly because of growth, but also because there was zero effort to make any alternative forms of transportation.

 

4. Freeways have been the only option for decades, that's the problem. When anyone tries to bring up another idea, they are drowned out by the brainwashed and corrupt.

 

5. No city needs a ten lane freeway.

[ig2ba]

How does that induced demand theory work in Detroit? Or Buffalo?

 

Or even in this fair city? The Fort Bend Parkway Parkway, opened a decade ago, is the second-emptiest freeway in the Houston area, with less than 10,000 vehicles per day. Segment I-2 of the Grand Parkway opened 5 years ago. It is still the emptiest freeway in Houston, with no sign of any traffic in the near- or mid-term. By the induced demand theory, these roads should be experiencing much more traffic, with subdivisions and strip malls being built. But we don't. There are others, even in this growing city, that have not seen/will not see daily traffic in their first two decades of existence.- Crosby Freeway, Hardy Toll Road, FM 1764. What's the theory on them?

 

Induced demand is already understood by everybody except car-haters to mean "pent-up demand", where the expansion was needed for years, and only after it is constructed do you see an increase in veh/day.

[IronTiger]

1. I said which option I prefer.

To each his own.

 

It's not BS. Complete streets is a good step forward, but I live in Houston and have to deal with it and know the reality.

With what you were saying, it was false: you can ride a great deal on a bike and don't have to be auto dependent. The idea that freeways somehow cut off rail, biking, and walking is total nonsense.

 

3. It filled up partly because of growth, but also because there was zero effort to make any alternative forms of transportation.

I hate to inform you, but running light rail down the center would not significantly change the traffic problem, but would be a huge money waster as well. As our friends up on the other end of I-45 showed us, longer light rail lines do not an effective transit make.

 

4. Freeways have been the only option for decades, that's the problem. When anyone tries to bring up another idea, they are drowned out by the brainwashed and corrupt.

Another total nonsense idea with no basis in reality. Trains, like we've talked about, have been around even longer than freeways. Just because the cost/benefit for trains is far worse than equivalent freeways doesn't mean they're "brainwashed and corrupt". To be fair, light rail proponents are often called untrue names as well.

 

5. No city needs a ten lane freeway.

...and yet, Houston needs billions (if not trillions) of light rail to meet some sort of "mobility" standard...

[Slick Vik]

How does that induced demand theory work in Detroit? Or Buffalo?

 

Or even in this fair city? The Fort Bend Parkway Parkway, opened a decade ago, is the second-emptiest freeway in the Houston area, with less than 10,000 vehicles per day. Segment I-2 of the Grand Parkway opened 5 years ago. It is still the emptiest freeway in Houston, with no sign of any traffic in the near- or mid-term. By the induced demand theory, these roads should be experiencing much more traffic, with subdivisions and strip malls being built. But we don't. There are others, even in this growing city, that have not seen/will not see daily traffic in their first two decades of existence.- Crosby Freeway, Hardy Toll Road, FM 1764. What's the theory on them?

 

Induced demand is already understood by everybody except car-haters to mean "pent-up demand", where the expansion was needed for years, and only after it is constructed do you see an increase in veh/day.

 

The majority of those are toll roads. 1764 is not a freeway.

[ig2ba]

1. I said which option I prefer.

 

2. It's not BS. Complete streets is a good step forward, but I live in Houston and have to deal with it and know the reality.

 

3. It filled up partly because of growth, but also because there was zero effort to make any alternative forms of transportation.

 

4. Freeways have been the only option for decades, that's the problem. When anyone tries to bring up another idea, they are drowned out by the brainwashed and corrupt.

 

5. No city needs a ten lane freeway.

 

I'm interested why you think no city needs a 10 lane freeway. Do some cities need 8-lane freeways? Or do you think 6 lanes is the minimum? Or 4? Or a "super two"? Where is the desired cutoff width for you, and why?

 

What about a 10 lane road (like South Main)? Is that needed? If not, what's your maximum? Is your cutoff for # of lanes different for freeways than for freeways?

 

More than 30 metro areas in the United States have some freeways or portions of a freeway that are 10 lanes wide. Do you think every single one of them has made a mistake? Including even transit-friendly cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and New York?

[ToryGattis]

Between those two scenarios, I'm okay with scenario two, because I don't mind walking and when rail is built for a certain corridor, it gives people and developers confidence that corridor will stay in the long term, creating a dynamic area. Also it gives people the option to live a walkable life. I don't like being dependent on automobiles and the road system, whether it be gasoline or hybrid or self driving cars, it's all pushing towards auto dependence. What good is a self driving car if it's stuck on the same roads with the same traffic? Unless all cars are self driving then traffic and congestion won't go away, because there is the mix of humans and electronic cars. As far as your assertion of rail never clearing up congestion, when have freeways ever cleared up congestion? It has never been proven, In fact, expansion simply encourages more people to get on the roads, giving the opposite effect. Yes, hybrids and electrics are certainly better for the environment, but it still encourages sprawl whcih makes it more difficult for police, firefighters, and the city to service a growing city in general. Houston has grown out long enough, it's time to grow up now.

 

Well, I already specified that scenario 1 was equally as walkable and dynamic.  But the congestion argument is a legitimate one - it is unclear whether self-driving cars will open up enough capacity.  It is possible that grade-separated rail could be faster under some scenarios (as it is at rush hour in Manhattan).  I don't believe that will generally be the case, but it's a legitimate perspective.

 

As far as I can tell now, your root objection is simply this: you have an extremely strong personal lifestyle preference for very high density and walkability with a very active street life, and you don't believe that will be possible as long as cars are convenient and common (whether driven or automated) because of peoples' general personal preference for lower density/more space, so they are "bad" because they keep the kinds of neighborhoods you want from being built.  You feel like if you can make auto travel painful and expensive enough, plus provide the rail alternative, these types of neighborhoods will get built.  Again, I don't agree - I definitely think they could form within an automated car/shuttle network - but at this point it just comes down to personal opinion.  What I was trying to find out was if you could be transportation agnostic if you got the lifestyle you wanted, and that does not seem to be the case.

 

That does lead me to a followup question.  Assume Houston somehow develops enough rail and dense walkable neighborhoods to meet the demand of everyone in Houston that wants to live that way.  Would you be ok if the rest of the metro area remained auto and freeway-centric, or do you want to force everyone to live the same lifestyle preference you have?  And if so, why?

[Slick Vik]

That does lead me to a followup question.  Assume Houston somehow develops enough rail and dense walkable neighborhoods to meet the demand of everyone in Houston that wants to live that way.  Would you be ok if the rest of the metro area remained auto and freeway-centric, or do you want to force everyone to live the same lifestyle preference you have?  And if so, why?

 

That seems fair, make the inner loop a dense area, and let the rest of Houston be what it is. However, I would like to some rail connections from the suburbs into the city, like BART, but only after a decent network is built within the city itself, otherwise we would become like DART in Dallas.

[ToryGattis]

That seems fair, make the inner loop a dense area, and let the rest of Houston be what it is. However, I would like to some rail connections from the suburbs into the city, like BART, but only after a decent network is built within the city itself, otherwise we would become like DART in Dallas.

 

A bit of common ground!  I agree we don't want to match DART, and I like the idea of offering dense, walkable neighborhoods in the core of Houston to people who want them (I live in one myself).  The planned light rail network should offer a chance for that to happen.  I seriously question the economic cost-benefits of the network, but at this point it seems to be a done deal (except for the Universities Line question mark).  

 

So, at least for a decade or two, Houston evolves a dense core inside the loop around the light rail network, while maintaining a lower density auto and freeway-centric metro around it (ideally with a good network of congestion priced HOT lanes for commuters, IMHO).  After that, we can see if longer distance commuter rail to the suburbs makes sense.  I still don't think it will, but am perfectly happy to revisit that analysis in the mid to late 2020s after the U-line completes the core network.

[ig2ba]

The majority of those are toll roads. 1764 is not a freeway.

 

I've never heard this toll road corollary to the induced demand theory before. Is this a new addition to the theory? I wonder then, why Beltway 8's added lanes in the last couple years were filled as soon as they opened, Westpark Tollway was congested from the very start, and Katy HOT lanes have been heavily used since opening, even though they are adjacent to free lanes.

 

These people don't seem to have gotten the memo that the induced demand theory only applies to free roads:

http://illinois.sierraclub.org/w%26w/Sprawl/route53.html

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-01/news/ct-met-tollway-projects-20110701_1_tri-state-tollway-tollway-officials-executive-director-kristi-lafleur

http://www.houstontomorrow.org/livability/story/ny-times-grand-parkway-threatens-katy-prairie/

 

 

 

And FM 1764 is a freeway, albeit only 5 miles long. The freeway portion is actually much less populated than the non-freeway portion, in addition to being further from the refineries and with a higher elevation. Induced demand says that this area should be growing and seeing more traffic, but this hasn't happened.

[ig2ba]

...

That does lead me to a followup question.  Assume Houston somehow develops enough rail and dense walkable neighborhoods to meet the demand of everyone in Houston that wants to live that way.  Would you be ok if the rest of the metro area remained auto and freeway-centric, or do you want to force everyone to live the same lifestyle preference you have?  And if so, why?

 

As this pertains to self-driven cars, I tend to think that self-driving cars will initially make the biggest splash in areas with relatively high density, but not the highest density, and not medium density. And this is especially true human-driven cars continue to be used for years after the self-driven cars.

 

Here's how I imagine it, in order of descending density:

• Manhattan, city of San Francisco, possibly The Loop in Chicago: Great public transit is already available, and someone can get to another location miles away by walking a couple blocks, getting on a train, then walking a couple blocks at the end. Unless you are transporting something large or have many grocery bags, a self-driving car offers little advantage to the individual and might (?) cost more. In the case of Manhattan, average speeds on the roads might be 5 mph if there are still human-driven cars on the road, much slower than a train, so it might be slower than transit.
• Much of Los Angeles metro area; other boroughs of New York City; Boston; Oakland, Berkeley San Jose; Downtown/Midtown, Galleria area of Houston: Most people who can afford a car have a car. There are many parking garages, but also many surface lots. Most on-street parking is taken during the day. Finding a parking spot is difficult, as is the 10 minute walk to the parking garage and swirling down each level of the parking garage. Many city blocks are taken up just for parking, and these cars sit idle most of the day. --------------> With self-driving cars, there is no need to hunt for a parking spot, nor even bring your own car to your workplace. Self-driven Park+Rides would work just as vanpools do now, and can be any size vehicle from a sedan to a van to a bus. There would be no need to have vanpool-mates, nor to abstain from drinking and socializing when it's your turn to drive home. Some blocks would no longer need a surface lot and could be redeveloped into commercial or residential use. Fewer people who live and work in one of these areas would even need a car in their daily routine, so they might not buy a car at all. If they did need a car on the weekends, they could call a self-driving car, share it with others and go where they need to, much more cheaply than a taxi.
• Suburbs outside Beltway 8: On-street parking is very lightly used, with a lot of excess capacity. Parking lots at strip malls are only close to capacity 1-2 weeks per year (around Christmas) but otherwise rarely full. Though there are a few locations where it might make sense to have public self-driving cars where everyone goes to the same location (e.g., Bellaire Blvd., Sugar Land or The Woodlands town centers, City Centre^TM, and maybe near pubs), self-driving cars are mostly private, and for those who want one.
• Exurbs: Assuming that you can drive, but can't afford the increased price of a self-driving car, drive your car as you always have.

[mkultra25]

There are lots of things that visitors are often confused or unhappy about Houston. Does that make Houston wrong somehow?

 

The less charitable among us might be tempted to respond to such visitors with sentiments similar to the German composer/organist Max Reger's retort to a scathing review:

 

I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have your review before me. In a moment it will be behind me.

[Ross]

That seems fair, make the inner loop a dense area, and let the rest of Houston be what it is. However, I would like to some rail connections from the suburbs into the city, like BART, but only after a decent network is built within the city itself, otherwise we would become like DART in Dallas.

 

Are you going to force me to give up my quarter acre lot in Timbergrove in the name of density? Why is density good? Why is walking good? I've lived in dense cities (London, Bangkok, Cairo), and used a car in Cairo and Bangkok far more often than I walked. Walking is overrated. Especially to and from the grocery store or lumber yard.

 

[Slick Vik]

Are you going to force me to give up my quarter acre lot in Timbergrove in the name of density? Why is density good? Why is walking good? I've lived in dense cities (London, Bangkok, Cairo), and used a car in Cairo and Bangkok far more often than I walked. Walking is overrated. Especially to and from the grocery store or lumber yard.

Density is good because it creates an active street life. Walking is good exercise. Believe it or not but billions of people walk daily because they like walking. Houston sounds like the perfect city for you since you dislike walking and want to drive everywhere.

[kylejack]

Are you going to force me to give up my quarter acre lot in Timbergrove in the name of density? Why is density good? Why is walking good? I've lived in dense cities (London, Bangkok, Cairo), and used a car in Cairo and Bangkok far more often than I walked. Walking is overrated. Especially to and from the grocery store or lumber yard.

 

 

Don't need to seize property to increase density. Just decrease or eliminate minimum parking requirements for businesses, among other things that can be done.

[Ross]

Density is good because it creates an active street life. Walking is good exercise. Believe it or not but billions of people walk daily because they like walking. Houston sounds like the perfect city for you since you dislike walking and want to drive everywhere.

 

No, they walk because they have to. In every third world country I've worked in, the main goal of local employees was to make enough money to buy a car so they would not have to walk everywhere. Walking may be good for you, but I don't want to be forced to do it wile running my daily errands.

 

[IronTiger]

No, they walk because they have to. In every third world country I've worked in, the main goal of local employees was to make enough money to buy a car so they would not have to walk everywhere. Walking may be good for you, but I don't want to be forced to do it wile running my daily errands.

Backing your statement up: At about the time of Bush 1's Presidency, in China, the majority of the people in the streets were bicycling. Urban dream to some, perhaps: but the economy got better in China, and people could afford more. By the time G.W. came into office, there were far more cars on the road.

[Slick Vik]

No, they walk because they have to. In every third world country I've worked in, the main goal of local employees was to make enough money to buy a car so they would not have to walk everywhere. Walking may be good for you, but I don't want to be forced to do it wile running my daily errands.

 

 

So everyone in the world that goes for daily walks are just invisible to you?

[IronTiger]

That's not what he said: you were implying that EVERYONE walks because they want to just a few posts up.

[august948]

So everyone in the world that goes for daily walks are just invisible to you?

 

Walking for enjoyment of a pretty day or to get some excercise is one thing.  That can be done most places and in fact is one of the selling points of many of the suburban master planned communities.  Walking to get groceries for a family of four (or five or six or, in my case seven) or to Lowes to get some lumber for a project is quite another thing.