Add Some Advice For The 1 Out Of 3 People Who Could Not Afford A $500 To $600 Car Repair Without Going Into Debt

I take it you live in the south. You do know that here in the north for 5 months we get this stuff called snow. And even during the summer I sure as hell wouldn’t ride a bike in Boston on a bike. It’s dangerous enough in a car.

Most jobs in metro Boston are actually in Boston. 1.2 million for a 1500sq/ft Brown stone is not what I considerable affordable.

I think the lack of good public transportation in this country is a shame.

It’s ironic that the same invention that made it possible for people to commute to work from distant suburbs also made it necessary for people to commute to work from distant suburbs. Before cars became “necessary” shopkeepers lived upstairs or behind the shops they owned. Laborers lived in company towns. We didn’t have the kind of zoning laws that inflated the value of commercially zoned areas to the point that it was too expensive to live there.
Fixing this problem with government subsidized mass transit is a classic case of “thinking inside the box”.
Those that “think outside the box” ask why can’t we go back to living at our jobs? Why can’t the upper floors of downtown skyscrapers be apartments for the people that work in those buildings?

1 Like

Actually no it’s not. Public transportation works. cities like Washington DC and NYC prove that. Many cities use to have much better Public transportation. If public transportation was good enough to eliminate cars in cities it would actually save money.

With most families having both parents working and kids activities such as soccer there still will be places and times to travel. Are both parents going to work in the same building ? Not likely.

Agree, mass transit works in DC and NYC because those cities still operate on the “Hub and Spoke” model of “work downtown and live in the suburbs”

Most of the rest of the US no longer has that model. It is a “live in one suburb and work in another.” Detroit’s inner city is all but bereft of jobs so workers live in the suburbs and work in another. Detroit has mass transit but it is little used. Chicago straddles both models as it still has a strong city center but many people in the suburbs work in another. Chicago has strong mass transit but many can’t uise it because it doesn’t go where they need it to or the trip downtown and out to another suburb takes far longer than just driving/ Plus you need to pick up the kiddies from daycare in yet another suburb and take them to sports. Phoenix has a strong downtown with mass transit but the metro area is so broad it also have a very strong suburb to suburb commuter group.

And don’t cite the “new migration to the cities by the young” as an eventual solution because those studies are flawed. A “city” is 25,000 people. That covers nearly every suburb in every metro area. Mass transit planners have essentially no solutions for the modern middle American way of life as it has developed over the last 50 years…

How did we live before cars?
Both parents having to have a job is a rather recent phenomenon. Not having the financial burden of owning and maintaining a car makes it possible to live on a single income, especially when you free the family of having to pay for day care for the kids.
A lot of our problems are artificial. Just like a lot of our suburban traffic jams are artificially created by developer’s insistence of laying out trunk and branch street systems where everybody lives on a dead end street. In order to get to a place that’s only two blocks away, you have to drive to the trunk street, which is heavily congested and drive to another branch that accesses the address you intend to go to, instead of just driving to the next block.
In downtown Austin, the traffic isn’t really all that bad, mostly because those streets were laid out back in the horse and buggy days. Finding a parking spot is a nightmare though. It’s the suburbs where the traffic jam nightmares occur.

Many skyscrapers have businesses on lower floors and apartments/condos on upper floors. This is high cost housing, though. Lower buildings, like 3 or 4 floors, have living space above the storefronts already.

Also remember that there are more than 3 times as many people now as in 1920 when the housing model you tout was the only thing available. Where would the extra 220 million people live?

I drive 54 miles one way every day, and can afford to do so. I could also live much closer, but in areas that I would not want to live. If I took public transit, I could ride the train to D.C., take the subway a few stops, and then take a very long bus ride to work. Google Maps tells me that it would take about 4 hours one way. The train and subway are not long trips. It is the bus that takes most of the time, and this is in a city with supposedly excellent public transit.

What most people seem to forget is that, up through the 1950s, most people worked either in the same town in which they resided, or they worked w/in about a 10 mile radius, in an area that was served by streetcars–and later by bus lines. In the '60s & '70s, as people developed a desire for more open space around themselves, there was a migration to the suburbs, and–unfortunately–the transportation from those suburbs to the cities was usually not good or non-existent, thus mandating cars for many or most of those suburbanites.

Up through the '50s and even into the early '60s, a lot of industry was concentrated in the older cities, but as the cost of doing business in the city rose, those factories moved much further afield. If a suburbanite was lucky enough to live near the newly-relocated factory, that was great–but in so many cases they were now even further away from their workplace than previously, so cars were still necessary for them.

Many younger people–and jobs–are now migrating back to our older cities, and as a result many of those younger people no longer even have driver’s licenses! The only problem with this new situation is that housing in the newly-fashionable cities has become unconscionably expensive. A NYC apartment that is about the size of my walk-in closet might now rent for $3k per month, so these younger folks can’t afford a car even if they might want one.

And back in the GOOD OLE DAYS before all these profit robbing regulations and taxes were enacted the titans of industry offered jobs to all those able to walk to work

https://www.loc.gov/item/ncl2004000300/PP/

LOL

Read much?

2 Likes

Unfortunately? That is a matter of opinion!

I would not want to live in a city and I certainly would not want to have to use public transportation. I enjoy cars and driving.

My parents moved from the city to the burbs in the early 1950s. They did so knowing they would have to commute distances in their own vehicles.

For decades I commuted nearly 40 miles (one way) to work and back, as did my wife. We chose to do this. I found the drive to be peaceful, relaxing, and it gave me time away from interruptions.

Many people in many countries have envied U.S. citizens and their use of private transportation, rather than having to use public transportation, the key word being private. It comes with freedom.
CSA

4 Likes

The next time that you visit NYC, or Boston, or Philadelphia, or Atlanta, or Chicago, or Los Angeles, please be sure to tell us how much you enjoyed driving in those cities.
:smirk:

I dunno. I think some of you folks need to get out more. You view the country through the eyes of Boston, DC, NYC. There is a vast expanse of space and millions of square miles between the two coasts. This is Car Talk and cars gave and give great freedom of movement, cheaply, not afforded by any type of mass transit. Urban planners don’t like it but the car gives people the option to vote with their feet (err car keys).

I remember back in the 50’s when my dad quit his hometown $1.10 an hour job over a dispute of a 10 cent raise. He commuted for $2.40 an hour. Can’t do that on a train or bus. I drove 50 miles to work in the city and it took me an hour. Many of those folks that lived in the city and took the bus spent an hour on the bus. Some choice.

Of course just my opinion through the eyes of the open country midwest, same as its just your opinion from the congested east coast. So let’s just vote.

3 Likes

I get it, and I agree, motorized transportation gives us freedom to go where we want when we want, but people who live in cities that have good mass transit, such as NYC, DC, Atlanta, Dallas, etc., are offering the same mobility without the burden of car payments and car insurance payments. Having access to mass transit infrastructure, and freeing up the time and money spent maintaining and insuring a vehicle can be liberating too. A monthly transit pass is much less expensive than the cost of maintaining a car. If I’m lucky enough to outlive my ability to drive, I plan to move to a city that has a low cost of living, a low crime rate, no state income tax, and effective mass transit so I can continue to live with the same amount of freedom I have now.

The freedom granted by owning a car doesn’t come for free, and freedom from car and insurance payments and maintenance costs is pretty valuable too. Imagine what one could accomplish with the money saved by using mass transit.

…and that argument ignores the fact that electric mass transit, such as light rail and heavy rail, is much cleaner and efficient than many of the alternatives. Breathing clean unpolluted air does afford some the freedom of living with reduced asthma rates.

When you find that let me know and I will join you.

3 Likes

My sis had a condo on mag mile in chicago, I think to buy a parking spot in the building was 40k, then $1400 a year in taxes. She moved to a suburb, now owns a car, but uses public transportation for work.

I don’t mind driving in Chicago, but going there for conventions etc. skip the work car, do the train, L, subway and busses, I enjoy it!

Okay, I’ll do that! I’ve never visited any of those cities. I avoid them for the very reason you cite. The chances I will are slim to none, but I’ll get back to you when I do. :wink:
CSA

Never?
Really?
To quote another forum member who also lives in the hinterlands…
You really need to get out more!
:smirk:

Aberdeen, South Dakota fits those requirements except alas, no bus that I know of. Don’t need a bus though if you can walk a few blocks. Or if you don’t like the big city of 10,000, there are any number of towns from 100-500 people that would be glad to sell you a house for a couple thou.

Seriously, in Time this week (which has turned into an almost worthless magazine) has an article on increased interest in a guaranteed income for every adult. We have the EIC that was a start and in general I have not been a big fan because I thought it tends to discourage self-reliance and industriousness, but maybe I’m wrong. Maybe instead of spending all the billions in payouts and staffing for umpteen government programs, it would be better to just have one-an expanded SS program for everyone regardless of income. Then do with it what you will. Buy a car, fix a car, take the bus, move to Arkansas or Boston. Nobody would care. Think of a world without food stamps, SNAP, WIC, Section 8 housing, insurance subsidies, and on and on and on and all the people supporting these programs. Just one simple program for everyone. Work and live better or sit home and eat fried chicken-no one would care.

I don’t know what it would cost but I like the idea of a base salary where everyone would pay 10% of that for taxes, period. No free ride. Everyone contributes and no complaints. I’m a person that likes solutions, not temporary patches, so maybe that’s it. McGovern talked about it and Nixon tried to implement part of it, but I like the idea of a total clean sweep of all the agencies in favor of one single simple program. For all the money I pour into food shelves, Salvation Army, and so on, I could afford a tax increase instead.