It costs more money to live without a car

At a NY Times blog post pining for a car-free America, one contributor writes:

But the bottom line is household economics. American families who are car-dependent spend 25 percent of their household income on their fleet of cars, compared with just 9 percent for transportation for those who live in walkable urban places.

No, you've got it backwards, a car-free existence is more expensive. I live in Manhattan, so I can tell you how expensive it is to live here. It costs a lot less money to live in some non-walkable place in the midwest and own a car or two.

I also lived in Arlington VA, and it was walkable but much more expensive than most other places in the USA as well, and you still needed a car to drive to work.

For whatever the reason, packing in people so close together that car-free life is feasible also has the effect of raising the price of everything else, and thus we can only conclude that densely populated areas are economically inefficient.

* * *

See my lengthier followup post, It's LESS expensive to own a car, part II.

Comments

[Del Fuego]

This has been my experience in Denver. If you live Downtown you can walk easily but your rent might cost you twice as much as if you lived Not Downtown - in Arvada or Aurora or wherever. For obvious reasons Downtown has more professionals without kids and the outer areas have everyone else.

The 25% figure seems like bs to me. I spend less now on my car and gas than I did on bus passes when I lived Downtown. It's probably 50$ to 150$. Course I am lucky enough to live close to where I work in a very spread out Metro area. I'm sure plenty of people spend 200 or more a month on gas and commute terribly. Typical of a Times poster to generalize though.

[trumwill]

I suspect that 25% includes car payments and/or repair bills.

[blue anonymous]

> we can only conclude that densely populated areas are economically inefficient.

I'm really econo-tarded, but isn't there a local inflation possibility here too? Big city = abundant good jobs, right? (I'm always wanting to move out in the country but I hear it can be tough to get work. Missoula Montana had some very low rents on cheapo apartments and rooms back in summer 2001, but seemed pretty sparse on jobs.)

Good jobs ergo gonzo land prices. And thus merchants selling olive oil and toilet paper have to make higher profits to pay for their shop and for the land they live on - ??

(By the way, what's a good intro text for a snow-pure econo-virgin, who has a strong technical background?)

[http://feministx.blogspot.com/]

"and thus we can only conclude that densely populated areas are economically inefficient."

HS, you have got to know that big cities offer much richer life experiences than suburban areas. How do you factor in "more intelligent, creative and successful friends" into the economic value equation for life in big cities?

It's not so inefficient. You get more bang for more buck in the big apple.

[Kevin K]

"HS, you have got to know that big cities offer much richer life experiences than suburban areas."

In my suburban neighborhood I grew up in, I actually liked my neighbors. And you didn't have to be a hedge fund douche bag to live pretty well and to be able to afford a fun hobby.

For every "intelligent, creative and successful" person in a big city there are 2 members of the underclass. Of course, I live in DC so there's that.

[Luke]

Don't live in Manhattan. Brooklyn is a few more minutes on the train and significantly cheaper.

Also, there's no way you'd make as much money in the Midwest. Many avocations don't make as much money even when adjusted for cost of living and some simply aren't available.

[William]

You can "only conclude" that if you are interested in jumping to conclusions. Good for traffic, I guess.

The reasons that big cities are expensive is that the amount of space is relatively limited, and a lot of people with money want to live there. High demand, limited supply. Why? The reasons vary, but other people have hit on them: more on offer, higher-paying jobs, better bang for the buck, and proximity to the kind of people who like or need those sorts of things.

The increased real estate costs feed back into almost everything, and higher expectations play a role, too; people expect more from Golden Gate Park than some town park. That, rather than some ineffable suburban efficiency, is why city living seems expensive. However, by AAA numbers, giving up the standard 2 cars saves $16k per year. Those non-walkable places need to be cheap indeed to compensate for the $1250/month cars add to your basic living expenses.

In terms of raw resource usage, city living is much more efficient, which is why a lot of enviros are big fans of the new urbanism.

[Bellisaurius]

Direct costs

Car:
Let's say you go cheap, and get a 10,000 (probably used at this price point) car that you plan on keeping for 10 years, on a 4 year loan at 10%. About 13,000 total, or about 1300/year (annualized for the life of the vehicle). A 30 day bus pass in chicago was 80dollars till recently, or about $960/year.

I haven't even calculated gas, maintaining, or license and registration type fees, and it's already cheaper to use public transit in a city, and 10 years is a good length of time to keep a car.

Cities also have lower usages of gas and electricity (smaller rooms to heat), they have lower capital investments to install things like communication and water/sewage infrastructure because of the concentrated floor plan.

One pays for life in a city, but the amenities are there, and the oppurtunities as well.

Now, one could argue that public transit is subsidised, but so is country living- Forestry, trains, less used roads, and installation of infrastructure come to mind- are highly subidised by the federal government (rural red states get back more money per capita than urban blue ones). I'm not questioning the policy, just pointing out the issue is not black and white.

[Tom]

I think you also need to consider the time that you are NOT sitting in traffic when figuring the merits of car-free living. So many people are always angry when driving. Giving up the car gets you more freedom of movement, ironically.

BTW, i live car-free in New Orleans, as do many others.

[Anonimnik]

I politely disagree with the conclusion.

The issue is that you live in Manhattan. If you come out here in Queens, there are great places in decent neighborhoods on the subway, with rents at 50% of the comparable Manhattan rents. Unless you are single and self-conscious about being a bridge-and-tunnel guy. For a couple, it is great: the commute to midtown can be shorter than it is from the higher UWS.

Elsewhere, you would likely have 2 car payments + insurance + maintenance + having to drive vs. read during your commute. So take your suburban rent, add those car-related expenses and subtract NYC taxes to get a better picture. Your mileage may vary, especially if there are other benefits accruing to you from being in the city: int'l airfares, social life, career or whatever.

[Wade Nichols]

"HS, you have got to know that big cities offer much richer life experiences than suburban areas."

Why of course! By living in NYC, eschewing a car and riding the subways, I get to experience: panhandlers of different ethnicities and their various sob stories; those wonderful break dancing black youths!; those wonderful black youths selling M&M's candies on the subway!; minority youth being their usual selves - loud, obnoxious, and listening to rap music on their mobile phones and blessing the entire subway car with their glorious urban soundtrack; those smelly homeless guys on the E train that bring their life's belongings on the car with a shopping cart! It's really worth it to reduce my carbon footprint, and get to experience all that at the same time!

I think the factor that they don't mention in the Times article, is that it's easier for people to rely on public transportation when they live in homogeneous places such as Portland. These types of areas have greater "social trust" then NYC does, by far.

Also, I just saw this article mentioned on Arts and Letters Daily:

"The Luxury City vs. the Middle Class"

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/may-2009/the-luxury-city-vs-the-middle-class/

Here's a few choice quotes:

"New York and other top cities have been suffering the largest net out-migration of residents of virtually all places in the country."

"Costs, particularly relating to child-raising, are killing the urban middle class."

"‘In Manhattan people with kids have nannies. In Queens, we have grandparents."

[Wade Nichols]

(By the way, what's a good intro text for a snow-pure econo-virgin, who has a strong technical background?)

I'm actually reading Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics" right now, I got it from the public library. I'm only 40 pages into it, but's it's extremely readable. He does a very good job of explaining why rent control laws create housing shortages, and how government price controls in agricultural products also can create shortages.

I believe he intentionally omits graphs and equations, and provides everyday examples rather than focusing on the "egghead" aspects of introductory economics text books that you have to endure in college.

[sabril]

It may very well be cheaper (personally and socially) to live car free in a big city. However, one big problem is that it's also cheaper for poor NAMs. So you end up having to spend a lot of money to segregate yourself and your children. So it often ends up being a lot more expensive.

The automobile isn't just a way of getting from point A to point B. It's also a social institution which allows the middle class to keep themselves and their children away from poor NAMs. From that perspective, it's not very expensive at all.

As a side note, it's amazing how many social issues (socialized medicine; gun control; transportation; etc.) really come down to race and class.

[Wade Nichols]

Excellent points, Sabril! I couldn't have said it better myself.

I've come across several people in NYC that actually drive into their jobs in Manhattan. They would never say so (they are card carrying liberals), but I suspect a large part of the reason they drive is their fear of the underclasses on the subway.

[The Engineer]

Take Manhattan out of the equation. Any other city in America, and cars are FAR cheaper than public transportation, if you value you time at a rate in dollars rather than cents.

Public transportation is a vast waste of time. That's why automobiles simply burried streetcars back in the day.

You have to be a friggin' idiot to spend 25% of your income on your car.

There are times when public transportation is faster than cars, like commuting during rush hour from the 'burbs to downtown Chicago. But they're few and far between.

BTW, SWPL's hate cars. Except for the Prius, which they love.

[research]

HS,

The problem is that market prices may not reflect hidden costs to society from pollution, obesity, environmental damage due to oil extraction, etc. that result from use of cars (or energy in general).

It might be better for society in the long run to impose a big tax on gasoline usage.

[Wade Nichols]

"The problem is that market prices may not reflect hidden costs to society..."

There's hidden costs in every social program or government action. We've had all sorts of government welfare programs for the underclass since the 1960's, yet remind me again what is the average black out of wedlock birth rate (70%)? New York and San Francisco have stringent rent control laws, yet why is there no affordable housing available in those 2 cities? Why is homelessness the highest in the U.S. in these 2 cities?

"It might be better for society in the long run to impose a big tax on gasoline usage."

And then the cost of everything else will rise in accordance with the big tax on gasoline. And then where do you expect government to create jobs for all the unemployed? Do we really want European style unemployment rates in the U.S.?

[cjwynes]

Generally, I think taking mass transit is a symbol of the lower class. The ditzy urban development idealists haven't helped -- can you imagine somebody from anywhere north of 8 Mile Rd in Detroit actually riding on something called the "People Mover"?

Clearly, being driven in a private car is the classiest option. If you don't merit that, I think driving your own car is still MUCH higher class than riding public transportation. For one thing, you can show your class with the kind of car you drive. For another, you have the luxury of solitude in your morning commute. (This is why carpooling is also low class.) And of course on public transportation you are herded in cheek to jowl with the proles.

Now, when I was in London last year I took the underground everywhere, which was my first time using an urban mass transit system, and my opinion of it was surprisingly favorable. However, I did not travel it during the morning commute hours, so it may have been a different experience at that time. Regarding the class issue, I was staying with an investment banker and attending the wedding of a contract negotiator for ExxonMobil and neither of them had any problem with taking the underground, though we did use cabs a few times. Seems the proles mostly take the bus over there.

[Rob]

25% of household income on cars - maybe at median nationwide income, but certainly not NYTimes readers median income. If keep your cars for 10 years and don't speed or get in accidents, it probably doesn't cost much more than $2500 a year for the fixed costs of one car. Add in another 30c a mile and 15K miles, and you're up to $7K/yr for one car.

But, for that $7K, you can get to Costco or wherever to buy your stuff, instead of the local yuppiemart in the city. You can buy a house instead of a 1br condo. Your kids can go to public schools. There's a lot of savings that a car allows vs. living in a city.

And let's admit the fact that even an average Honda Accord is far more comfortable than a bus or subway, with the exception of being stuck in traffic. You get a clean, comfortable seat, you can carry all of your stuff, you can listen to whatever music you like, etc.

[sabril]

"There's a lot of savings that a car allows vs. living in a city."

I totally agree. And like you say, it's worth a lot to travel with some privacy.

What is the cost to society of all the people who get groped, attacked, or otherwise harassed on the subway?

[sabril]

"with the exception of being stuck in traffic"

There are also occasional unforseeable delays when you take the train or bus. And with a car, it's often easier to switch to a different route.

[Buckaroo]

The comments would be way more useful if everyone didn't immediately try to grind their favorite axes on the current, fairly limited, issue.

People obviously choose the area where they will live based on a conceptually weighted average of its attributes. Equally obviously the weights will vary widely from person to person and will depend on the individual's stage in life. It strikes me that the available (practical) modes of transportation and their relative cost in areas under consideration generally figure into this equation but not all that high.

The useful question to ask is "given where you have chosen to live (for whatever set of reasons), what are the upsides and downsides of having a car vs. relying on alternatives?". If you live in Wyoming, I would imagine the question reduces to "F150 or Ram pickup?". But if you live in a dense(ish) urban area then knowing that the combined effective cost of having a car (depreciation, gas, repairs, maintenance, insurance, parking, opportunity cost of not having the money to invest, etc.) probably averages $5K/year may be a useful number to have in your head when looking at alternatives (and their cost!).

I realize that the above doesn't lend itself to heated exchanges about what's good for society vs. what is evil about SWPLs but not everything needs to be an ideological battle.

[miles]

http://www.carmax.com/enUS/view-car/default.html?AVi=0&id=5763019&N=4294967083&D=20&zip=37167&No=0&Ep=homepage:homepage Make&Rp=R&PP=20&sV=List&CD=10+14+240+9&Q=25ef953a-bb35-4fec-b83a-0bebda16c119

There is a Chevy Cobalt with low mileage for just $9599.

If you keep that car for five years, it costs you less than $2000 a year. Carmax checks them out and has them in good running condition before you buy them, so if you change the oil every 3-5K miles, it shouldn't give you much trouble. I just got a year's worth of insurance on a more expensive car for $800 a year, so insurance will probably jack the price of driving up to roughly $2600 a year.

If you fill up your tank every two weeks at $30 a tank, you'd be spending $780 a year in gas (I drive a little more than this personally). That would put the price of driving that car up to $3300 a year.

$3300 a year for a cute little Cobalt that seats four comfortably, and five in a pinch, and the freedom of being able to DRIVE wherever you want to go beats riding the friggin' bus with the underclass. Your physical safety, the stress of physical fear, the noise, the increased chances of catching every cold and flu (and worse), your TIME of waiting on subway platforms or for cabs............there is no comparison. If you take car of the car and not drive it "hard", you'd probably get a year 6 and 7 out of it also.

[J1]

"HS, you have got to know that big cities offer much richer life experiences than suburban areas. How do you factor in "more intelligent, creative and successful friends" into the economic value equation for life in big cities?"

You need to get out more. My megachurch Sunday School class when I lived in the Dallas area had two lawyers, two MBAs, a chemical engineer and a software designer. And those were the stay-at-home moms. It was taught by a guy with a PhD in Electrical Engineering. Likewise, the sterile suburb I grew up in was, for starters, about 25% Jewish. Growing up, I did not know an adult who wasn't a college graduate.

I know a lot of people who live in urban areas, and as a group they don't even approach the level of professional and educational accomplishment of my friends and neighbors out here in the burbs.

Don't get me wrong - I love Manhattan, but you need to quit reading James Kuntsler and consider getting in touch with reality.

[BrunoBrazil]

The reasons that big cities are expensive is that the amount of space is relatively limited

Well, let them build the skyscrapers.

Japan has residential buildings of 60 floors. Greater supply will align with demand and lower prices.

[Sheila Tone]

"The problem is that market prices may not reflect hidden costs to society from pollution, obesity, environmental damage due to oil extraction, etc. that result from use of cars (or energy in general)."

I bet there's actually a negative correlation between car ownership and obesity. Any of you GSS studs care to take me up on it?

[James]

(By the way, what's a good intro text for a snow-pure econo-virgin, who has a strong technical background?)

I would recommend the podcast, "Econtalk". Fantastic podcast that will teach you all about libertarian and economic thinking.

[Bill Johnson]

Let's see - pay too much for locally bought food, pay too much for rent, pay too much for utilities - I can see why transportation is such a smaller PERCENT of expenses - and PERCENT is where the discussion started.

And Mr. the bus is cheaper - ever tried to get a bus to take you off-route? So add in taxi fees as well. And subtract all the time you spend waiting for transport - how much is your time worth?

You don't have clear easy answers either - so why not just enjoy your life AND LEAVE MINE THE #@%$ ALONE?

[Jerry in Detroit]

OK. I'm going to use this as an opportunity to grind my favorite axe. I'm all for clean air, clean water, "saving" the environment and all that but, for God's sake people, get the science right before spending trillions of dollars on these eco-wet dreams. Solar power, for instance, requires covering most of the Southwest in solar power plants to be useful. Excuse me but wouldn't this be an environmental catastrophe? Wind power requires millions of windmills along both coasts. This will kill millions of birds, are a safety hazard by themselves and an eyesore. NIMBY is killing this pipe dream before it even gets started. The missing science in solar and wind power is energy storage; we have no way to efficiently & economically store the vast amounts of power generated when we don't need it for times when solar & wind power isn't generating. Biofuels require additional water consumption which depletes many local aquifers and deplete the soil over time, something city-dwelling eco-freaks haven't considered. Finally, check the facts; CO2 levels are not excessive when compared to paleontological records. The truth IS out there if one makes the effort to look.

[Lisa]

I finally went car free 2 years ago for financial reasons. Parking, gas, insurance, maintenance averaged about $450 a month. Now I have a Fast Pass for $45 dollars a month and it gets me anywhere in the city--also includes riding the Cable Cars--yes, I live in San Francisco. No more
parking nightmares, circling and circling the block when visiting friends or going out, more money for food, clothes, etc. I wish I would have sold my car years and years ago.