Why are Americans spending a $1,000 a month to sit in traffic?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

According to AAA, the average car commuter spends $715 a month for the privilege of commuting in a vehicle which, according to numerous studies, ruins your marriage, measurably increase stress levels and rates of depression, encourages heart and lung disease via air pollution and is a contributing factor for obesity.

That figure doesn’t include the lost time and productivity our commutes cost us, nor does it factor in the health consequences, so let’s say conservatively that spread over a lifetime, those amount to a little over an extra couple thousand a year, or enough to bring our total up to a round figure like $1000 a month. (Studies of the productivity costs of congestion alone put it at around $1000 a year.)

On top of all that, we tell pollsters that we hate our car commutes and that they interfere with our lives. So why do we persist?

I think the answer is simple: We’re so conditioned to think that car ownership is normal and mandatory that most of us don’t even consider the alternative. We don’t even get to the point that we consider where we could live on an extra $1000 a month (and that’s just the cost of a single car!) All of us except the youths, of course, who are poorer and more technology-obsessed than ever, leading to a profound decline in the rate at which they obtain driver’s licenses, reports Lisa Hymas at Grist.

There are also, of course, massive systemic issues with the way our cities are built, and this can’t be discounted. Even in the face of mounting evidence that oil is only going to become more expensive and our densest urban areas are as congested as we can tolerate, local governments continue to push for more sprawl.

Fortunately, all of us can vote with our wallets, and local governments are starting to wake up to that reality. In Washington, DC, the Office of Planning is paying residents up to $12,000 to more or less bribe people to move closer to work. Then there’s the larger trend toward telecommuting and the fact that bike commuting in already-dense cities like New York has doubled in just the past four years.

Meanwhile, websites like WalkScore and PadMapper help you find a home that doesn’t require a car. This is all well and good for the young and unattached, but the larger trend here — families moving back to the cities they abandoned in the 60’s — will mean everything from revitalizing downtowns to putting effort into school systems that were largely abandoned by the wealthy and well-educated.

[lostinblue 1,989]

The Great Society promoted by President Lyndon B. Johnson and many Democrats caused the decline of the major cities. The destruction of African American families and a push towards the projects as a living environmemt led to the decline of the inner cities. The riots and further high crime rates caused the flight of middle income households to the suburbs.I know of several streets in a city near me where a hispanic or white cannot set foot after dark in the black section of the street as they are met by a group of men to run you off or even kill you.Who wants to move downtown.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=7034770&page=1

Have a Buck? Buy a House!

By ERIC HORNG

March 8, 2009

A dollar doesn't buy much these days. But in Detroit, it can buy you a house.

Real estate agent Ian Mason, who specializes in selling foreclosed properties, showed us a two-bedroom, 800-square-foot home that his agency recently sold for a single dollar.

Any takers Steve?You tell me why that only sold for a Dollar. Just another failure of the great society.

Edited December 28, 2011 by lostinblue

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

According to AAA, the average car commuter spends $715 a month for the privilege of commuting in a vehicle which, according to numerous studies, ruins your marriage, measurably increase stress levels and rates of depression, encourages heart and lung disease via air pollution and is a contributing factor for obesity.

That figure doesn’t include the lost time and productivity our commutes cost us, nor does it factor in the health consequences, so let’s say conservatively that spread over a lifetime, those amount to a little over an extra couple thousand a year, or enough to bring our total up to a round figure like $1000 a month. (Studies of the productivity costs of congestion alone put it at around $1000 a year.)

On top of all that, we tell pollsters that we hate our car commutes and that they interfere with our lives. So why do we persist?

I think the answer is simple: We’re so conditioned to think that car ownership is normal and mandatory that most of us don’t even consider the alternative. We don’t even get to the point that we consider where we could live on an extra $1000 a month (and that’s just the cost of a single car!) All of us except the youths, of course, who are poorer and more technology-obsessed than ever, leading to a profound decline in the rate at which they obtain driver’s licenses, reports Lisa Hymas at Grist.

There are also, of course, massive systemic issues with the way our cities are built, and this can’t be discounted. Even in the face of mounting evidence that oil is only going to become more expensive and our densest urban areas are as congested as we can tolerate, local governments continue to push for more sprawl.

Fortunately, all of us can vote with our wallets, and local governments are starting to wake up to that reality. In Washington, DC, the Office of Planning is paying residents up to $12,000 to more or less bribe people to move closer to work. Then there’s the larger trend toward telecommuting and the fact that bike commuting in already-dense cities like New York has doubled in just the past four years.

Meanwhile, websites like WalkScore and PadMapper help you find a home that doesn’t require a car. This is all well and good for the young and unattached, but the larger trend here — families moving back to the cities they abandoned in the 60’s — will mean everything from revitalizing downtowns to putting effort into school systems that were largely abandoned by the wealthy and well-educated.

You mean they want the 1% to move BACK? Funny how the 1% is some sort of trash until you want them to pay for stuff.

Freedom is the reason

Show me even ONE public transportation system that operates without huge subsidies from the people that DON'T use it. People who enjoy freedom (Americans) ride public transportation when they MUST, not because they WANT to. Any American who CAN buys a car and drives themselves.

The main reason cities are doing this is to try to regain the population (tax base) they have lost as people flee the failed social experiments of cities. People voted with their feet and all that is left are the deadbeats. That is what happens when you drive out the 1%

[SMR 368]

You mean they want the 1% to move BACK? Funny how the 1% is some sort of trash until you want them to pay for stuff.

Freedom is the reason

Show me even ONE public transportation system that operates without huge subsidies from the people that DON'T use it. People who enjoy freedom (Americans) ride public transportation when they MUST, not because they WANT to. Any American who CAN buys a car and drives themselves.

The main reason cities are doing this is to try to regain the population (tax base) they have lost as people flee the failed social experiments of cities. People voted with their feet and all that is left are the deadbeats. That is what happens when you drive out the 1%

I disagree. I own a car and drive to work because there is no public transportation system that will get me to work. If there was a bus/train/trolley, etc., I would gladly ride that to work. It's safer, less stressful, and gives me time to read a good book, etc. I'd be willing to pay as much as $10 each way for public transportation. There would be no subsidy there. I don't drive a car because I can. I drive a car because I have to.

[slim 1,525]

I work close to home (about five miles) and commute during hours when there is no traffic. I took a pretty good reduction in pay to work at this place but it's largely balanced out by the fact that I don't have the longer commute anymore which, basically means I'm making about the same amount at this job.

Having a vehicle is still the largest expense in my monthly budget. I've often thought about working within walking distance but the further reduction in pay just wouldn't be worth it right now. Plus, my wife and I are on different shifts so having only one car would be rather inconvenient. It would be possible, but $12,000/year seems to be worth it for us since we make more than that because of our vehicles.

[Nina~ 431]

Houston has sucky public transportation. However my work provides a vanpool service which is great. For $40 a month, they pay for gas + maintenance + toll charges. If I drove myself to work everyday, I'd pay $40 per week just on toll. My only complaint with the vanpool is that I have to stick to a rigid schedule because of the others riders. I would much prefer to hop on a train or a bus so I would have a little more freedom to stay late or leave work early when I need to.

I agree with SMR! Even if I preferred driving my own car to work, I would still gladly subsidize public transportation if it means less drivers on the road, less accidents and less gridlock. I would recoup my money by spending less on gas, less on insurance premiums, and more time with my family. Plus it creates a lot of local jobs for drivers, mechanics, maintainers, engineers, etc. It's a win-win situation either way.

[slim 1,525]

My only complaint with the vanpool is that I have to stick to a rigid schedule

I would still gladly subsidize public transportation

Read those two together.

If you think your vanpool schedule is bad...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My commute this morning was about 30 seconds. That's how long it took me to get from the breakfast table to my "office" - which today happens to be the extra bedroom in my home that houses my desk and PC. If I do go into the office which I do 3-4 days a week (not this week, though), I'm looking at 10.7 miles which is roughly 20 min worth a drive regardless of the time of day. One of the reasons for me to live where I live and to work where I work is to not waste 10 to 20 hours a week commuting to work. Always has been.

[Susita 175]

I think the answer is simple: We’re so conditioned to think that car ownership is normal and mandatory that most of us don’t even consider the alternative.

If there was an alternative where I live, I'd consider it. The only other alternative to owning your own vehicle and driving to and from work is taking the bus, which I cannot do. I have to bring my children to school in the morning on my way to work (they go to the early program). The buses out here do not run on a reliable schedule and do not pass by my children's elementary school. I would have to take 3 different buses totaling 2 1/2 hours to get from my house to my job. It takes me 20 minutes to commute to work. Between my husband & I, we average $350/month on gas and our insurance is very reasonable (less than $80/month). We own our vehicles outright so we don't have car payments.

So it didn't work out too bad for us.

[slim 1,525]

My wife and I both have payments... I'm not sure what we're going to do with all that money once we have the vehicles paid off. (Ammo?)

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'd much rather drive myself to work, have the freedom to go out to lunch during work, have the freedom to stop and get a coffe in the morning, freedom to stop at the grocery store on my way home, etc... Rather than sitting on a smelly bus/train with people who forgot how to bathe, or are filled with god knows what illness.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I was in a car accident at the end of August and my car was totalled. The other driver was uninsured, and I didn't have comprehensive due to the age of my car. This dragged the replacement out for a month, and I had to ride the bus to work and to physical therapy. Honestly, it wasn't the length of time it took to get anywhere that bothered me so much (adding about 2 hours to my commute daily) but that I was injured and in pain, and waiting around 20 minutes or more for a bus, and then changing for another bus, then waiting around some more, was occasionally agonising.

Where my boyfriend lives, in another part of town, buses are frequent and he lives within three blocks of a Metro station. He gets around town on those and his motorcycle, and twice-weekly walks home from work for fitness (he lives six miles from work). I wouldn't mind making the switch to more public transport if it were as frequent over in my side of town as it is in his, and leaving the car for weekends or when I really needed it. I lived in London for well over a decade and though I complained frequently about the public transport system there, at least it was existent and generally got you near to where you wanted to arrive.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I disagree. I own a car and drive to work because there is no public transportation system that will get me to work. If there was a bus/train/trolley, etc., I would gladly ride that to work. It's safer, less stressful, and gives me time to read a good book, etc. I'd be willing to pay as much as $10 each way for public transportation. There would be no subsidy there. I don't drive a car because I can. I drive a car because I have to.

So just move to a city where they have that. You are the guy they are looking for.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

My commute this morning was about 30 seconds. That's how long it took me to get from the breakfast table to my "office" - which today happens to be the extra bedroom in my home that houses my desk and PC. If I do go into the office which I do 3-4 days a week (not this week, though), I'm looking at 10.7 miles which is roughly 20 min worth a drive regardless of the time of day. One of the reasons for me to live where I live and to work where I work is to not waste 10 to 20 hours a week commuting to work. Always has been.

My office is also at home but I do have to go to job sites, in the company's vehicle with the company's gas, so who cares?

I fill my van with gas and it lasts 2 months.

[SMR 368]

I was in a car accident at the end of August and my car was totalled. The other driver was uninsured, and I didn't have comprehensive due to the age of my car. This dragged the replacement out for a month, and I had to ride the bus to work and to physical therapy. Honestly, it wasn't the length of time it took to get anywhere that bothered me so much (adding about 2 hours to my commute daily) but that I was injured and in pain, and waiting around 20 minutes or more for a bus, and then changing for another bus, then waiting around some more, was occasionally agonising.

Where my boyfriend lives, in another part of town, buses are frequent and he lives within three blocks of a Metro station. He gets around town on those and his motorcycle, and twice-weekly walks home from work for fitness (he lives six miles from work). I wouldn't mind making the switch to more public transport if it were as frequent over in my side of town as it is in his, and leaving the car for weekends or when I really needed it. I lived in London for well over a decade and though I complained frequently about the public transport system there, at least it was existent and generally got you near to where you wanted to arrive.

I think the problem is that most Americans haven't used good public transportation and thus assume that a car is the answer. It clearly depends on how developed the area is, but public transportation has its place. And when it's available and works, it's really a thing of beauty. It's far more convenient than a car (and cheaper, even unsubsidized). I don't know about the subways and city buses, but there is a thriving industry of private public transportation in Russia. It has no subsidies but is a fantastic and reasonably priced way to get around.

The other problem is that many Americans have somewhat unreasonable expectations as to what public transportation should cost. Labor in the US is expensive so unsubsidized public transportation won't cost $1. It also won't be $20 and will be a good deal most of the time.