4 ms·

It is funny where people come down on this. I'm far better off not owning a car than if I had one, for instance, whether you measure in money or aggravation. Pu

by _jal 6y ago

It is funny where people come down on this. I'm far better off not owning a car than if I had one, for instance, whether you measure in money or aggravation. Public transport here is lovely, rentals of multiple flavors plentiful, and maybe I'm strange, but when I owned a car, I knew what it cost me to own per mile or per day of ownership. It was routine for me to mentally estimate the cost of a trip. But on the other hand, I own a lot of specialty tools that probably only see a few minutes of use per year each, if that. Not having them means waits, sometime long waits, or making something to make do. Someone who chose to have kids probably prefers the car. What makes sense to own depends on what you do.

etothepii 6y ago
I suspect your per mile / per day costs were not the marginal ones. Once you've bought a car and insured it the cost per mile is "just" the gas and a penny for wear and tear.
- _jal 6y ago
  Cars wear out (depreciation), and insurance costs over time. It is simple math. But of course you count the cost of the car and not just the gas, otherwise you're not actually comparing costs.
  - NoOneNew 6y ago
    >Cars wear out (depreciation) No. Depreciation is something you consider if you intend to resell the vehicle. It's independent of wear and tear. It's a financial concept, not an engineering/mechanical concept. Jeep Wranglers, for example, hold a better value compared to the average even if they have higher mileage and age, especially if its in a mountainous local market. Wear and tear is mechanical repairs and maintenance. Oil changes, tire changes, spark plugs, etc. A good amount of people buy a certain car and maintain it, intending to run the vehicle into the ground completely. If you really want to do the "simple math", don't forget about the opportunity costs associated with the wait times, scheduling around someone else's schedule and delays due to public transit and rideshares. That's where you realize just how much a car actually saves you. I used to live in Seattle and Portland for a few years (each). I bit that poisonous apple of, "I don't need a car since I'm going to live in the city". 15-20 minute car commutes would be about an hour on average on public transit (that's if they ran on time). Never. The. Fuck. Again.
    - Snitch-Thursday 6y ago
      > A good amount of people buy a certain car and maintain it, intending to run the vehicle into the ground completely. See my 4runner that's older than I am. I am happy to give it its $400 per year in oil changes and amortized tires, along with $1500 repairs every other year because I know its repair ROI is extremely high (vs. whatever car make the reader believes is unreliable); every repair I make to it represents another XX,000 miles on the road. (The 4WD and e-locker helps too)
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        I feel like you can easily get per mile wear and tear costs to be 10 cents or less on Toyotas if you run them into the ground. And with fuel at 10 cents to 20 cents per mile assuming a $2.50 to $4.00 per gallon fuel cost and 20 miles per gallon, and insurance is another 5 cents to at most 10 cents per mile ($600 to $1,200 per year for 15k+ miles), you should be able to get the cost of a mile down to somewhere between 20 cents to 40 cents.
    - _jal 6y ago
      Yes. And you don't get any input. If I purchase something that provides a capability for a given period of time, there is precisely zero reason why I should not think of it as a fractional cost per use. And there are many reasons why I find it a useful thing to do. I have no idea why this should be controversial. > I used to live in Seattle and Portland Your actual claim is you prefer living the car lifestyle somewhere non-urban. Good on you, but irrelevant to me.
    - giantDinosaur 6y ago
      Yes, if you live in a city with terrible public transit (from the sounds of it, every US city except about three.) Very much not the case in cities with excellent PT, where car trips can be far worse.
      - majewsky 6y ago
        Many cities with good public transit are still bogged down by politicians giving preference to car traffic over PT and bicycles, making journeys by PT slower and journeys by bike more dangerous than they need to be.
aflag 6y ago
I haven't owned a car in the past 5 years. But that's mostly because I never took the time to take a driving license in the new country I moved in (and the public transport being so good). However, I really miss it, if I hadn't been so lazy with my driver license this far I'd definitely buy a car, even if I used it once a month or less (driving to work makes no sense here). Sure, it's expensive. But you can just wake up one weekend and decide to drive to a different city, see something you haven't seen before. Also, if you need to buy something you're missing, you can just take your car and go comfortable. No need to wait for a bus or a train in the cold or rain. In these five years I barely left the city, but if I had a car, I think I'd have gone to many places over weekends.
- _jal 6y ago
  Between Zipcar and day-rentals, moving heavy things things or randomly taking a trip are trivial. I don't have a garage, so if I bought a car, I'd likely have to go walk a few blocks to it. When I rent one, the "extra hassle" is I spend a minute on a phone app reserving it first. I don't see it as a barrier, and at least at my use, way cheaper than a car. But the real gain is not dealing with parking, moving for street cleaning, parking tickets, broken windows, etc.
- majewsky 6y ago
  > driver license That's the problem for me. I don't have a driver's license because public transit is good enough for 99.9% of trips. There are situations where it would be nice to be able to drive a car (esp. to get a rental car for countryside vacations, or for large Ikea purchases). But getting a driver's license doesn't make sense when you never really use it and fall out of practice, so my money is better invested in the national public transit flatrate card.

by _jal 6y ago

etothepii 6y ago

I suspect your per mile / per day costs were not the marginal ones. Once you've bought a car and insured it the cost per mile is "just" the gas and a penny for wear and tear.

_jal 6y ago
Cars wear out (depreciation), and insurance costs over time. It is simple math. But of course you count the cost of the car and not just the gas, otherwise you're not actually comparing costs.
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  >Cars wear out (depreciation) No. Depreciation is something you consider if you intend to resell the vehicle. It's independent of wear and tear. It's a financial concept, not an engineering/mechanical concept. Jeep Wranglers, for example, hold a better value compared to the average even if they have higher mileage and age, especially if its in a mountainous local market. Wear and tear is mechanical repairs and maintenance. Oil changes, tire changes, spark plugs, etc. A good amount of people buy a certain car and maintain it, intending to run the vehicle into the ground completely. If you really want to do the "simple math", don't forget about the opportunity costs associated with the wait times, scheduling around someone else's schedule and delays due to public transit and rideshares. That's where you realize just how much a car actually saves you. I used to live in Seattle and Portland for a few years (each). I bit that poisonous apple of, "I don't need a car since I'm going to live in the city". 15-20 minute car commutes would be about an hour on average on public transit (that's if they ran on time). Never. The. Fuck. Again.
  - Snitch-Thursday 6y ago
    > A good amount of people buy a certain car and maintain it, intending to run the vehicle into the ground completely. See my 4runner that's older than I am. I am happy to give it its $400 per year in oil changes and amortized tires, along with $1500 repairs every other year because I know its repair ROI is extremely high (vs. whatever car make the reader believes is unreliable); every repair I make to it represents another XX,000 miles on the road. (The 4WD and e-locker helps too)
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      I feel like you can easily get per mile wear and tear costs to be 10 cents or less on Toyotas if you run them into the ground. And with fuel at 10 cents to 20 cents per mile assuming a $2.50 to $4.00 per gallon fuel cost and 20 miles per gallon, and insurance is another 5 cents to at most 10 cents per mile ($600 to $1,200 per year for 15k+ miles), you should be able to get the cost of a mile down to somewhere between 20 cents to 40 cents.
  - _jal 6y ago
    Yes. And you don't get any input. If I purchase something that provides a capability for a given period of time, there is precisely zero reason why I should not think of it as a fractional cost per use. And there are many reasons why I find it a useful thing to do. I have no idea why this should be controversial. > I used to live in Seattle and Portland Your actual claim is you prefer living the car lifestyle somewhere non-urban. Good on you, but irrelevant to me.
  - giantDinosaur 6y ago
    Yes, if you live in a city with terrible public transit (from the sounds of it, every US city except about three.) Very much not the case in cities with excellent PT, where car trips can be far worse.
    - majewsky 6y ago
      Many cities with good public transit are still bogged down by politicians giving preference to car traffic over PT and bicycles, making journeys by PT slower and journeys by bike more dangerous than they need to be.

aflag 6y ago

I haven't owned a car in the past 5 years. But that's mostly because I never took the time to take a driving license in the new country I moved in (and the public transport being so good). However, I really miss it, if I hadn't been so lazy with my driver license this far I'd definitely buy a car, even if I used it once a month or less (driving to work makes no sense here). Sure, it's expensive. But you can just wake up one weekend and decide to drive to a different city, see something you haven't seen before. Also, if you need to buy something you're missing, you can just take your car and go comfortable. No need to wait for a bus or a train in the cold or rain. In these five years I barely left the city, but if I had a car, I think I'd have gone to many places over weekends.

_jal 6y ago
Between Zipcar and day-rentals, moving heavy things things or randomly taking a trip are trivial. I don't have a garage, so if I bought a car, I'd likely have to go walk a few blocks to it. When I rent one, the "extra hassle" is I spend a minute on a phone app reserving it first. I don't see it as a barrier, and at least at my use, way cheaper than a car. But the real gain is not dealing with parking, moving for street cleaning, parking tickets, broken windows, etc.
majewsky 6y ago
> driver license That's the problem for me. I don't have a driver's license because public transit is good enough for 99.9% of trips. There are situations where it would be nice to be able to drive a car (esp. to get a rental car for countryside vacations, or for large Ikea purchases). But getting a driver's license doesn't make sense when you never really use it and fall out of practice, so my money is better invested in the national public transit flatrate card.