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.
The numbers seem WAY off to me, but I (like some other posters) buy and use a car simply for transportation. It's not a status symbol (I drive a Hyundai!).
I usually buy my cars new with a good warranty and then keep them for at least 10 years. I bought my last one, a 2008 model, in early 2009 and paid the 5-year loan off in just under 3 years (the interest rate was <5% IIRC). Next month I will have had this car for 4 years and it just went over 7,000 miles. I HATE long commutes so always live close to my workplace, hence the tiny mileage.
I am sure there are SOME people for whom those numbers make sense, but I don't know too many people who buy cars as status symbols, spend $200 a month on gas (I probably average $10-$20 a month), etc.
Next month I will have had this car for 4 years and it just went over 7,000 miles. I HATE long commutes so always live close to my workplace, hence the tiny mileage.
7,000 miles for 4 years? In addition to a really short commute, sounds like you don't use your car for much else. I'd probably bicycle commute most of the time if my commute was your distance.
The numbers seem WAY off to me, but I (like some other posters) buy and use a car simply for transportation. It's not a status symbol (I drive a Hyundai!).
I usually buy my cars new with a good warranty and then keep them for at least 10 years. I bought my last one, a 2008 model, in early 2009 and paid the 5-year loan off in just under 3 years (the interest rate was <5% IIRC). Next month I will have had this car for 4 years and it just went over 7,000 miles. I HATE long commutes so always live close to my workplace, hence the tiny mileage.
I am sure there are SOME people for whom those numbers make sense, but I don't know too many people who buy cars as status symbols, spend $200 a month on gas (I probably average $10-$20 a month), etc.
You only spend ten to twenty dollars a month on gas? My parents probably spend north of $300 a month on their vehicles.
The numbers seem WAY off to me, but I (like some other posters) buy and use a car simply for transportation. It's not a status symbol (I drive a Hyundai!).
I usually buy my cars new with a good warranty and then keep them for at least 10 years. I bought my last one, a 2008 model, in early 2009 and paid the 5-year loan off in just under 3 years (the interest rate was <5% IIRC). Next month I will have had this car for 4 years and it just went over 7,000 miles. I HATE long commutes so always live close to my workplace, hence the tiny mileage.
I am sure there are SOME people for whom those numbers make sense, but I don't know too many people who buy cars as status symbols, spend $200 a month on gas (I probably average $10-$20 a month), etc.
You must be in that bottom 20% of car-spending.
There is nothing-at-all wrong with spending less. I think it is the smartest 20%
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 understand your point, but I think you may have confused cause and effect - or maybe it is a "chicken and egg situation, and I would just put them in the opposite order:
Being carfree ALLOWS people to spend more on their housing, and that's what forces prices up. People can choose where to live and many choose a denser area (for a whole host of reasons) and so prices in the urban attractions near good transport connections go up.
If you want to make money, then you should invest in an area with jobs, intelligent dense urban design, and improving transport links. I may start a new thread about this.
Suggestions (for such locations, where transport is improving) are very welcome.
I understand your point, but I think you may have confused cause and effect - or maybe it is a "chicken and egg situation, and I would just put them in the opposite order:
Being carfree ALLOWS people to spend more on their housing, and that's what forces prices up. People can choose where to live and many choose a denser area (for a whole host of reasons) and so prices in the urban attractions near good transport connections go up.
If you want to make money, then you should invest in an area with jobs, intelligent dense urban design, and improving transport links. I may start a new thread about this.
Suggestions (for such locations, where transport is improving) are very welcome.
Oh, baloney! That's not what makes housing so expensive in "the city". Land values, historical pricing, etc. Most people who live in "the city" own cars. There have been many posts on here about this.
Oh, baloney! That's not what makes housing so expensive in "the city". Land values, historical pricing, etc. Most people who live in "the city" own cars. There have been many posts on here about this.
LOL.
What do you think DRIVES land values?
I have lived in some of the greatest cities in the world:
London, New York, Hong Kong, Boston, Chicago
And I think it is fair to say that ALL really great cities have:
+ A walkable core (at least), and
+ Good mass transit system
To be in the "great" classification, by international standards, you need both - and much more besides. But these are necessary conditions IMHO.
Lots of things. Ability to live w/o a car is usually not a main driver of RE prices. Walkability can be, but that's not the same. Many low-income areas are serviced by public transit and a lot of the people living there do not have cars.
I admit that I do not recall EXACTLY where that figure came from, but I believe that the figure was USD 8,000-9,000 per annum was the "average fully-loaded cost" of running a car for the average American, as reported on a recent Strong Towns.org podcast.
No, it isn't. The 2006 survey which came up with $8003 was based on the average cost per household of vehicle ownership and operation. However, the average number of cars per household in 2006 was about 1.9.
Furthermore, it's not the average cost for the average american. It's the average cost across ALL American households, a distribution which is somewhat skewed. The median third of Americans spend an average of $7310 on their car by the same survey.
Many people do not fully-load the costs of car-owning. And even worse, some of the costs of car owning are passed on to others, through the way we finance our highways - They are subsidized by the Federal government, so non-driver are now paying for some of the costs of car owning. I wonder how much longer that cross-subsidy will continue?
There's all sorts of cross-subsidization going on, and the money is very difficult to follow, but one thing remains clearly true: Mass transit is more subsidized than highways.
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.
In addition to a really short commute, sounds like you don't use your car for much else. I'd probably bicycle commute most of the time if my commute was your distance.
