Advocacy & Safety - Natural Resource Defense Council - costs of car ownership

Just read this quote from Metro Pulse (http://olive.metropulse.com/Olive/ODE/metro/), our local alternative weekly on p. 59.
"...sprawling communities where the only transportation option is the private automobile have statistically higher foreclosure rates than neighborhoods with an array of transit options including public transit, biking, or simply walking."

It then proceeds to explain how the average household spends 17% of pre-tax income on transportation; the suburban household spends 25% on transportation, with 94% of it going toward cars. In "walkable" urban neighborhoods, the spending is 9% instead. This reduction in spending can go toward nicer houses, or other things. In fact, said article is pointing to a house with a two-car garage :D for sale for $269,900.

Here's more reason to support completing the streets!

Just read this quote from Metro Pulse (http://olive.metropulse.com/Olive/ODE/metro/), our local alternative weekly on p. 59.
"...sprawling communities where the only transportation option.....!

Well again there are many factors, far far far beyond the cost of 'transportation' which affect Sprawl. Zoning laws require minimum lotsizes, raodside frontages, restrict apartment complexes and multifamiy housing, prevent the very commercial uses that would make suburban trips less lengthy. The tax treatment of mortgage interest and artificially low mortgage rates prevailing in recent years are also big factors.

roughstuff

Anyone know where I could get a copy of the actual report? I'd imagine differences in foreclosure rates between suburban and urban environments would be more effected by home ownership rates. There aren't going to be many foreclosures where everyone rents.

I believe the article in question is located here (http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/LocationEfficiency4pgr.pdf). Granted, the source is biased toward being pro-pedestrian, pro-cyclist, and pro-city, but it appears that they did control for income in the study.

Lots of people buy very expensive cars for every day driving, be in large SUVs, luxury cars, sports cars, etc, which can explain the high cost for transportation.

I don't care what the percentage says because cost of car ownership is still merely causing any dents to drivers wallet. It is far to cheap to drive in America compared to Europe or Asia. If cost of driving has reached people's pocket deep enough here, then we would see huge movements in developing/planning mixed use buildings/housing with a functional mass transit. We still have long ways to go before we start seeing this.


H23NC,

I'm not so sure. It's funny how the price has been dressed up in such a way that it seems almost invisible. After all, once someone gets a car and is making payments on it, the payments need to be made whether it's being driven or not. And way too many areas of the country de facto require a car to get around.

Lots of people buy very expensive cars for every day driving, be in large SUVs, luxury cars, sports cars, etc, which can explain the high cost for transportation.

That's a good point. The car serves a few purposes:
* Everyday get around.
* Move the largest thing you'll ever need to move.
* Status.

Those last two get very expensive. I'd guess that if everyone drove an economy car that 25% figure might fall more in the 15% range.

The 25% figure is shocking though. You might be able to use that to convince individuals to buy smaller cheaper vehicles, or take a bus if there were one (there isn't). They probably spend 25% on their house too... So, realizing you spend as much on your car!

I'm not so sure. It's funny how the price has been dressed up in such a way that it seems almost invisible. After all, once someone gets a car and is making payments on it, the payments need to be made whether it's being driven or not. And way too many areas of the country de facto require a car to get around.

It's true. There are some mile driven costs:
* Gas
* Insurance (partially, I don't think anybody offers much more than low, medium, and high mileage)
* Some maintenance
* Some wear and tear

There are a lot of 2 and even 3 car families though. Finding a way to eliminate one of those cars can save you quite a bit of money. Even if it's the least driven car (for precisely the reasons you mentioned).

..... It is far to cheap to drive in America compared to Europe or Asia. ....
H23NC,



It is not CHEAP to drive here, it is EXPENSIVE to drive there. The price of oil and its distillates is fungible and every country pays very much the same price. The difference is sales and other taxes. If we were to assess many of these countries a user fee to pay for the US military's cost of keeping sea lanes open and pipelines protected, this differential would be even GREATER. And it would reduce our budget deficit.

As a citizen I look at the gas tax as any other..whether it should be used for combination of 3 traditional functions:

(1) raise revenue, and/or
(2) discourage the chosen activity, and/or
(3) redistribute income.

To me the gas tax at current levels is just fine, as it pays the lions share of the costs of transport. True, a higher gas tax would make car travel more expensive and lead to high density living like in Asia and Europe that everyone seems to get so excited about. But there are far easier and precise ways to achieve the latter, at lower cost, reducing (not increasing) the power of government in our lives, and more fair to low income consumers (who would disproportionately pay the higher gas taxes, anyway).

roughstuff

It is not CHEAP to drive here, it is EXPENSIVE to drive there. The price of oil and its distillates is fungible and every country pays very much the same price. The difference is sales and other taxes. If we were to assess many of these countries a user fee to pay for the US military's cost of keeping sea lanes open and pipelines protected, this differential would be even GREATER. And it would reduce our budget deficit.

As a citizen I look at the gas tax as any other..whether it should be used for combination of 3 traditional functions:

(1) raise revenue, and/or
(2) discourage the chosen activity, and/or
(3) redistribute income.

To me the gas tax at current levels is just fine, as it pays the lions share of the costs of transport. True, a higher gas tax would make car travel more expensive and lead to high density living like in Asia and Europe that everyone seems to get so excited about. But there are far easier and precise ways to achieve the latter, at lower cost, reducing (not increasing) the power of government in our lives, and more fair to low income consumers (who would disproportionately pay the higher gas taxes, anyway).

roughstuff

And what would be the easier and precise ways to achieve the higher density?
IMHO, the fairest way to tax gas would be to simply tax it at a level where it pays for 100% of the roads, minus any sidewalks, bike lanes, and wide outside lanes. Reductions can then be made in property tax rates, and income tax rates to offset the increased gas tax. A "prebate" for those with less money can even be worked in, to make the tax still somewhat progressive.

It is not CHEAP to drive here, it is EXPENSIVE to drive there. The price of oil and its distillates is fungible and every country pays very much the same price. The difference is sales and other taxes. If we were to assess many of these countries a user fee to pay for the US military's cost of keeping sea lanes open and pipelines protected, this differential would be even GREATER. And it would reduce our budget deficit.

As a citizen I look at the gas tax as any other..whether it should be used for combination of 3 traditional functions:

(1) raise revenue, and/or
(2) discourage the chosen activity, and/or
(3) redistribute income.

To me the gas tax at current levels is just fine, as it pays the lions share of the costs of transport. True, a higher gas tax would make car travel more expensive and lead to high density living like in Asia and Europe that everyone seems to get so excited about. But there are far easier and precise ways to achieve the latter, at lower cost, reducing (not increasing) the power of government in our lives, and more fair to low income consumers (who would disproportionately pay the higher gas taxes, anyway).

roughstuff

You have an excellent point with regard to the fact that oil and its distillates are fungible. Therefore, other than protection from pirate attacks, there is not a need for a big and mighty military to "protect" and "secure" it.

What would be the easier and precise ways to achieve the higher population density other than a gas tax?

IMHO, the fairest way to tax gas would be to simply tax it at a level where it pays for 100% of the roads, minus any sidewalks, bike lanes, and wide outside lanes. Reductions can then be made in property tax rates, and income tax rates to offset the increased gas tax. A "prebate" for those with less money can even be worked in, to make the tax still somewhat progressive.

You have an excellent point with regard to the fact that oil and its distillates are fungible. Therefore, other than protection from pirate attacks, there is not a need for a big and mighty military to "protect" and "secure" it.

What would be the easier and precise ways to achieve the higher population density other than a gas tax?

IMHO, the fairest way to tax gas would be to simply tax it at a level where it pays for 100% of the roads, minus any sidewalks, bike lanes, and wide outside lanes. Reductions can then be made in property tax rates, and income tax rates to offset the increased gas tax. A "prebate" for those with less money can even be worked in, to make the tax still somewhat progressive.

You really believe one would be used to reduce the other?

Something about the word 'fungible' has always tickled me.


Anyway...instead of helping density by INCREASING gas prices, we can do it by REDUCING zoning regulations. The latter reduces the power of government over our lives, enables us to live more cheaply on smaller lots/housesizes, frees up open space for parks and recreation, etc. A gas tax rakes money away from us....zoning changes gives us money and power back.

If i could i would live on a tiny lot with an insulated pre-fab house I got from WalMart (they are not 'houses,' they are oversized tool sheds and all that...but it would be fine for me. But no...zoning laws restrict such things. Ever wonder why you can't find a corner store close by? Zoning restrictions. ad nauseum.

roughstuff

I'm not so sure. It's funny how the price has been dressed up in such a way that it seems almost invisible. After all, once someone gets a car and is making payments on it, the payments need to be made whether it's being driven or not. And way too many areas of the country de facto require a car to get around.
Yeah, most people forget what they spend on buying cars/paying insurance. There was a news story last night where gas "soared" up a nickel a gallon in the last week (again). Some college student bought a second car to better himself about 10mpg.

Yeah, most people forget what they spend on buying cars/paying insurance. There was a news story last night where gas "soared" up a nickel a gallon in the last week (again). Some college student bought a second car to better himself about 10mpg.

If you wanna see just how deep the commitment to conservation, fossil fuel reduction, mass transit, and energy efficiency is to the enlightened and promising youth of today, consider banning cars for students who reside in the dormatories. Dream on!

Many college campuses are 30, 40% parking lots by surface area.

roughstuff

local university. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=quincy+university+quincy+il&sll=39.935602,-91.409873&sspn=0.016387,0.038581&ie=UTF8&hq=Quincy+University&hnear=Quincy+University,+Quincy,+IL+62301&ll=39.939858,-91.386123&spn=0.003891,0.009645&t=h&z=17) Somewhat centrally located, so most students can walk to class. There's still almost a whole city block dedicated to parking, plus two parking lots for the gym. ~1,250 students
and
community college (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=john+wood+quincy+il&sll=39.939858,-91.386123&sspn=0.004097,0.009645&ie=UTF8&hq=john+wood&hnear=Quincy,+IL&ll=39.913855,-91.336464&spn=0.003892,0.009645&t=h&z=17). There's the one I'm going to this year. ~2500 students and I've only seen 2 others riding a bike to the one bike rack on campus.