Re: Cohousing traffic studies
From: R Philip Dowds (
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 04:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Katie —

I was hoping my points about informal car and trip sharing were consonant with 
your “disagree” about shopping errands.  Your most interesting point is the 
possibility that cohousing satisfies many of our social engagement needs that 
would otherwise be cross-connected into the larger community, and generating 
car trips accordingly.

But are we sure that’s a plus?  I guess any car trip negated is always a plus.  
But some of us at Cornerstone wonder, sometimes, if we are too insular, too 
isolated from our broader North Cambridge neighborhood, and our City affairs.  
Should we speculate that the personal social networks of those who live in 
cohousing are more introverted, or less diverse, than those promoted by 
“regular” housing?  Intensive, rather than extensive?  Do we need to get out 
more?  (An irrelevant question during the pandemic …)


> On Aug 26, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Kathryn McCamant <kmccamant [at] 
>> wrote:
> Philip said: 
> Holding demography and location constant, I would not expect passenger 
> vehicle usage to vary much from cohousing models to “regular” models.
> -----------
> I disagree. I think that cohousing in any location has much reduced trips for 
> 1) taking kids to playdates, and 2) those quick trips to the grocery store. 
> For example, I would always just work my way down the walkway to find an 
> onion before I hopped in my car to go buy one.  And much more of our social 
> life is "on site." 
> I would be really great to get data comparing an existing cohousing community 
> to other multi-family housing in a similar location. Because we don't have 
> good data, we have to use the standard multi-family estimates for car trips. 
> Senior communities get extra fewer car trips as a standard. 
> Katie 
> -- 
> Kathryn McCamant, President
> CoHousing Solutions
> Nevada City, CA 95959
> T.530.478.1970  C.916.798.4755

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.