Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I must be amazingly efficient. I operate 2 cars and 3 motorcycles on less than half of what the average person spends on a car.
It does make sense, though, as a car is just transportation for me. The people that spend 10K+ a year on their vehicles probably need to use them for work as well to haul tools, machinery, or other people around. For them, though, their livelihood depends on the vehicle so they can't just give it up.
Okay.
But apparently, that is what "the average person" does, however illogical it may be.
No wonder the country may be headed towards bankruptcy
I don't know that that's so "apparent". I know a lot of people who do not finance their cars, keep them more than 5 years, etc. The people who do these numbers take a list of "assumptions" and go from there.
Shooting the messenger -
From one of the SC threads, where we were discussing a highway needing repair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDL
I think your opinion would be different, if you regularly traveled this segment of roadway
Sure.
But the reason that the neglect is happening is because of tight finances.
Chuck Marohn explains it well, and it is worth listening to his podcast.
I am sorry to say, but Marohn thinks that problems of poor road maintenance are simply going to get worse and worse. It is yet another reason to seek ways of getting less dependent on cars.
This trend will be hard to fight IMHO. But I suppose the habit here is to shoot the messenger, rather than listening to the message !
== ==
Here's a link to the podcast that I mention above:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geologic
As for the Cross-subsidies, that non-drivers (like me) make to the Car-dependent, Chuck Marohn talks about this in his latest Strong Towns podcast:
Basically, highways are VERY expensive to maintain, and most states are not getting anything like enough money to cover the costs from gasoline taxes. (For instance, North Carolina will need an extra $22 Billion over the next 30 years to fund its highway-related costs*, says Marohn.) So the shortfalls from gasoline tax are now getting funded through new bond issues, and through the state sales tax. If ALL of the costs of maintaining the highways were put into gasoline taxes, then the price of gasoline would go up by $2-3 per gallon.
This is tolerated politically because so many people drive, and the car-dependent are able to use the political process down the throats of the Carfree - although this is patently unfair. The problem now is that highway maintenance costs are rising much faster than revenues from the gasoline tax, and so it is getting harder and harder to fund these costs through cross subsidies.
Did people see my earlier post on whether those numbers are for average cost per car or per household? It'd be nice to see the original source rather than from a news commentary. It's frustratingly easier to find the latter from internet searches.
I have heard that figure from other sources as well.
So it seems credible to me
Whatever the actual figure in 2012, it is a big amount - And it may be worthwhile for many to move somewhere, where they can ditch their cars
How does that make economic sense? Every large metro in the US, where it's possible to live car free, has a very high cost of living. The difference in rent or a mortgage payment alone would likely wipe out any savings from living car free. And when taxes are added in, the net effect for many would be even more costly. In addition, there are many "soft" costs that some associate with a large metro that make living there even less appealing.
If people want to live in a large metro because they enjoy the city, then they should. If people do not, then they shouldn't. It's not up to me (or you) to determine how others should live based on their method of transportation.
I own a lot of cars... all bought right second hand and with the exception of the one new car I have ever bought... every car I have sold was for more than I paid.
Last count I have over 20 insured and the policy for those is less than $1500 total... they range from my oldest collector car built in 1905 to my 1968 Mustang.
Just about everyone realizes just about every car faces significant depreciation the first few years...
Buy good used and take depreciation off the table.
Did people see my earlier post on whether those numbers are for average cost per car or per household? It'd be nice to see the original source rather than from a news commentary. It's frustratingly easier to find the latter from internet searches.
if its from the BLS household expenditures survey, I would imagine its per household.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
