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.
T
In NYC a year's pass to all transit will cost you $2600 a year -- plus cost the tax payer another $1200. Hmm. $3800 a year. Of course, you have to pay the premium to live in NYC.
That's because the NY metropolitan area as a whole is not dense enough, and/or its transit system is less efficient than Hong Kong's - which is probably the finest in the world, and generates a surplus every year, rather than requiring a subsidy.
$150/mo on gas
$74/mo on insurance
$45 for oil/tire rotation four times per year ($180/year), so $15/mo
$250/mo parking
$700/year misc expenses $59/mo
So $548/mo without my car payment and it is worth every penny. It would be absolutely miserable to have to wait for public transit/walk everywhere (my house has a 95/100 in walkability from Get Your Walk Score - Find Walkable Apartments and Rentals). The time savings that having a car gives me alone is easily worth it. Without a car I would have to spend
$97.50/mo public transit
$320/mo zipcars/rentals
$50/mo parking
Which means I could save $80.50 by not owning a car. That being said, having a car saves me about ten hours per month, and spending ten hours to save $80.50 is absolutely not worth my time. Even with a $400/mo car payment added to that, the extra time I would waste by not having the convenience of a car isn't worth the cost savings.
You've left out the capital cost.
Do you expect your old car to run forever?
The time to consider being carfree is when you have to contemplate the cost of replacing your car
Where I live they are lookif at dropping publ;ic tranport as the subsidy is too high with coming federal cuts and the fare cost to support would be too high .It cost 1.3Milon a year. The fares only cover 300K. The rest is devided betwen local and federal govement.Lots of public subsidised things will be goig the same way i future. Actaully they can subsidise taxi cheaper they said for low income. Some areasw i realise do not have the infrastructure or parkig i large cities which will cause a new problem facig tax payers with cuts.
What is really need is a redesign of the areas around the transit system.
That can increase riderships, and thereby reduce the subsidy - an maybe eliminate it, as in HK
That's really the only thing that matters. Who cares if people elect to spend an average of $8000. It's completely elective spending. No one needs a Lexus. Maybe at the bottom 20% isn't exactly what it really costs. They likely don't drive much and encounter difficulties when their jalopies break down, but the $5000 figure is completely doable.
Now, if you look at what public transport actually costs to provide, $5000 isn't even remotely unreasonable. In NYC a year's pass to all transit will cost you $2600 a year -- plus cost the tax payer another $1200. Hmm. $3800 a year. Of course, you have to pay the premium to live in NYC. San Francisco will run you only $888 dollars, but sets the tax payer back another $3150. And again, you have to pay the premium to live in San Francisco. Suburbs with worse transit aren't subject to things like NYC or San Francisco's city income taxes/employment taxes, sales taxes are lower, real estate is cheaper... Transportation does cost a bit more, but what I've found is I can get anywhere in the suburbs just as fast even though things are more spread out. It really just comes down to personal preference. Transportation is slightly cheaper but where it's good generally carries hefty housing costs. Now, if one goes out to the suburbs... public transit is all kinds of suck plus it costs more. The total cost based on farebox recovery or 12.8% and the $65 31-day pass is nearly $6000 a year here. And for that you get crap service. A car is clearly the way to go in auto-centric places. Cheaper, better for the environment, way faster. It might be a bit more expensive than transportation in a city runs, but then housing is a third what it costs in San Francisco, lower taxes. Money no object I'd rather live in San Francisco, but for most of us money is an object.
You've left out the capital cost.
Do you expect your old car to run forever?
The time to consider being carfree is when you have to contemplate the cost of replacing your car
I could afford a $400/mo car payment and it would still be worth it to own a car instead of wasting time by not owning one. Adding $400/mo car paymnet puts me at $480ish per month more that I pay for owning a car which is under what I would be paid for working those ten extra hours I give up every month when I give up my car.
And putting the finances aside, the lack of mobility/lack of freedom you have by giving up a car is worth putting a price tag on as well.
I could afford a $400/mo car payment and it would still be worth it to own a car instead of wasting time by not owning one. Adding $400/mo car paymnet puts me at $480ish per month more that I pay for owning a car which is under what I would be paid for working those ten extra hours I give up every month when I give up my car.
And putting the finances aside, the lack of mobility/lack of freedom you have by giving up a car is worth putting a price tag on as well.
Sorry, but I dont fully grasp what you are saying...
"worth it to own a car instead of wasting time by not owning one"
(How do you waste time by not owning a car?)
"under what I would be paid for working those ten extra hours I give up every month when I give up my car"
(where do the ten hours extra come from?)
From my point of view, it sounds like you live in the wrong place - relative to your place of work, and you are trying to fix that problem by owning a car. But that creates a car-dependency, and exposure to rising "car costs", including the rising price of gasoline.
You may not find it easy to think my way, but I would suggest that out-of-the-box thinking like this could help you solve a problem, you did not even know you had.
Sorry, but I dont fully grasp what you are saying...
"worth it to own a car instead of wasting time by not owning one"
(How do you waste time by not owning a car?)
"under what I would be paid for working those ten extra hours I give up every month when I give up my car"
(where do the ten hours extra come from?)
Standing waiting for busses/subways, walking to rental car/zip car places, etc. would cost me about 10 hours per month more than the time I send on my car.
Quote:
From my point of view, it sounds like you live in the wrong place - relative to your place of work, and you are trying to fix that problem by owning a car. But that creates a car-dependency, and exposure to rising "car costs", including the rising price of gasoline.
I live in Pittsburgh, three different bus lines run a block from my house every ten minutes all day long. It would be difficult for me to find a place that is more walkable than where I live now. As I said before, my house scores a 95/100 at Get Your Walk Score - Find Walkable Apartments and Rentals.
Quote:
You may not find it easy to think my way, but I would suggest that out-of-the-box thinking like this could help you solve a problem, you did not even know you had.
I don't want 'out of the box thinking'. I want a quick and easy way to get around where I don't have to rely on bus/subway schedules, and don't have to worry about the 20 minute walk to the nearest zipcar station when I need to get out of the city. I don't want to have to worry about transit schedules if a meeting comes up in the middle of the day and I need to get across town. Having a car saves me time and headaches every month, so giving up a car seems like it would be somewhat stupid. I have absolutely no interest in standing outside waiting for a bus, subway or train when I can pay a little bit more for the convenience and freedom of my own personal transportation.
If gas moves to $10/gallon, I will rethink things, but I think making the decision not to drive NOW because gas COULD increase doesn't make much sense.
Highway subsidies, only about half paid by drivers, patrolling costs (tickets don't pay for it all), "free" parking, actually paid by the building owner, drive through windows, and subsidies to oil companies. No doubt there are many more, but that's all I can think of.
Now, if you look at what public transport actually costs to provide, $5000 isn't even remotely unreasonable. In NYC a year's pass to all transit will cost you $2600 a year -- plus cost the tax payer another $1200. Hmm. $3800 a year. Of course, you have to pay the premium to live in NYC. San Francisco will run you only $888 dollars, but sets the tax payer back another $3150.
Your cost to user is off — San Francisco is $888/year/person, New York City is $1248/year/person so you're not comparing the same amount of people. Unless for New York City, you've added in a commuter rail/bus pass — unlikely for most without a car.
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.
