5 ms·

Car ownership is highly correlated with income, people in the bottom 10%ile of income are much less likely to have a car than people of higher income. If you lo

Car ownership is highly correlated with income, people in the bottom 10%ile of income are much less likely to have a car than people of higher income. If you look at modeshare for people in the bottom 10% it’s a much much larger share of biking, public transit, walking, and carpooling than others. Cars are one of the top sources of bankruptcy for people in the bottom 10% of income (car repairs, car accidents, making car payments). Car dependent life is a huge stressor to people in the bottom 10% of income

kodah 5y ago
That is only in cities. Across the majority of the US your statement is not true. Poor people across the Midwest and South need a car because walking, biking, bussing, and trains are not available to them.
- Retric 5y ago
  Poor across the Midwest and south want a car but often live without. The difference is simply how important people consider cars and how expensive they are to keep. Being able to park for free makes a huge difference at the edge.
  - kodah 5y ago
    That's not true to my experience at all. We usually budgeted for a car first and a house second. Mass transit in most forms isn't cost efficient below a certain density, so at most you'll have a light bus system or rail system available to you. In regards to your "often live without" statement, I met very few people in the South who didn't have cars. For the reasons I stated above, they're practically a necessity. Data also doesn't indicate that people are often going without cars except in major, wealthy cities: https://www.governing.com/archive/car-ownership-numbers-of-vehicles-by-city-map.html https://www.governing.com/archive/car-ownership-numbers-of-v...
    - Retric 5y ago
      From your 2015 data: Miami, Florida has 19.9% of households without cars, New Orleans, Louisiana at 18.8%. Even Birmingham, Alabama is at 15.8% and Atlanta, Georgia has 15.2% of households without cars. That’s much higher than say Arlington, Virginia at 13.4% which is connected to one of the best public transportation networks in the US. A handful of places on that list sat at 2% without cars, but most of the south was over 5% without cars largely due to poverty. PS: Not that I think the data is very accurate Murrieta, California seemingly went from 3.5% (2015) down to 0.7% (2016) which seems extremely unlikely for a single year. The poor are often missed in official statistics like census unless significant effort is used to track them.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - kodah 5y ago
        20% of a city not having a car sounds pretty typical, and from that data looks average. The wealthiest cities seem to correlate to not having cars, with San Francisco leading. The smaller towns on that list, and especially the ones in the Midwest and South are anywhere from single digit to 20%, with Cleveland having the highest number. So what's your point? Edit: the whole point of my reply was to say that mass transit is effective in dense, wealthy cities. In the Midwest and South those same sentiments will not work because our highest density is in the middle of the city. The farther you go out is quickly drops off. Given that, it makes sense to make cars cheaper and easier to maintain for people there, while focusing on mass transit in areas where it will work. Unfortunately, in areas like SF (where I currently live) it's NIMBYs who get in the way and waste everyone's time while acting like they support mass transit expansion.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        Retric 5y ago
        New Orleans, Louisiana where 18.8% of households live without cars has a 23.7% poverty rate and a median income of $41,604, that’s well below the national average. Dallas Texas where 10.2% of households live without cars has a 18.9% poverty rate, median income of $52,580, so it’s larger, wealthier, and denser yet has significantly more cars. Also, 20% is unusually high. Nationwide it’s about 8.7% and that’s heavily influenced by NYC. Excluding just NYC and that number falls closer to 7%. PS: It’s really region specific but in general the wealthy are more likely to own a car in their area but different areas don’t have anything close to the same breakdown. https://slate.com/business/2019/05/maps-car-ownership-income-population-density-green-new-deal.html https://slate.com/business/2019/05/maps-car-ownership-income.... Just look at El Paso vs San Jose on the bottom graph.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  The poorest people in the Midwest can be seen walking down the sides of busy highways that have no sidewalks, carrying large loads of groceries for miles at a time.
  - kodah 5y ago
    You're just echoing my point. This city centric view that "cars aren't needed", "cars are a failure" is not helpful. The Midwest and South do not have the density to support those statements, moreover, most folks end up having to budget for a car first, then a home because of this. Making cars easier to afford and maintain would benefit the South and Midwest a lot more.
hattmall 5y ago
Poor people without cars really aren't the issue, if you can't afford a car in America, you are extremely poor and really an outlier. Pretty much anyone working even minimum wage can afford a car. The problem is a ballooning costs of ownership and all the other systemic failures that keep the majority of lower income people ~60% of the US trapped in a situation where they can not accumulate any substantial savings, assets or wealth and are merely surviving.
- amrocha 5y ago
  The reason they can't save is exactly that they're forced to buy a car. It costs several thousand per year for maintenance, insurance and gas. It's the second most expensive thing people spend money on. And all these things should cost even more money, the only reason they don't is government subsidies.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    It doesn’t cost several thousand a year to insure and maintain a cheap old Japanese car, which poor parts of the country are full of.
    - bsder 5y ago
      He said: "maintenance, insurance and gas" It very much does cost several thousand. My insurance alone was almost $1K per year. Gas was about $100 per week, but, in rural areas, that's probably $50 per week. That's about $2,500 per year. In addition, most poor families have ONE, and only one, car. Putting it in for maintenance not only costs money for the maintenance but also money for alternate transportation. I had a 20 year old Honda and a 20 year old Pontiac. It cost me about $2K per year for maintenance on each (I calculated that if it reached $5K per year it was time to get a new car). However, because I had two, I could put one in the shop and use the other without thinking. This is a luxury that the poor do not have.

kodah 5y ago

That is only in cities. Across the majority of the US your statement is not true. Poor people across the Midwest and South need a car because walking, biking, bussing, and trains are not available to them.

Retric 5y ago
Poor across the Midwest and south want a car but often live without. The difference is simply how important people consider cars and how expensive they are to keep. Being able to park for free makes a huge difference at the edge.
- kodah 5y ago
  That's not true to my experience at all. We usually budgeted for a car first and a house second. Mass transit in most forms isn't cost efficient below a certain density, so at most you'll have a light bus system or rail system available to you. In regards to your "often live without" statement, I met very few people in the South who didn't have cars. For the reasons I stated above, they're practically a necessity. Data also doesn't indicate that people are often going without cars except in major, wealthy cities: https://www.governing.com/archive/car-ownership-numbers-of-vehicles-by-city-map.html https://www.governing.com/archive/car-ownership-numbers-of-v...
  - Retric 5y ago
    From your 2015 data: Miami, Florida has 19.9% of households without cars, New Orleans, Louisiana at 18.8%. Even Birmingham, Alabama is at 15.8% and Atlanta, Georgia has 15.2% of households without cars. That’s much higher than say Arlington, Virginia at 13.4% which is connected to one of the best public transportation networks in the US. A handful of places on that list sat at 2% without cars, but most of the south was over 5% without cars largely due to poverty. PS: Not that I think the data is very accurate Murrieta, California seemingly went from 3.5% (2015) down to 0.7% (2016) which seems extremely unlikely for a single year. The poor are often missed in official statistics like census unless significant effort is used to track them.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - kodah 5y ago
      20% of a city not having a car sounds pretty typical, and from that data looks average. The wealthiest cities seem to correlate to not having cars, with San Francisco leading. The smaller towns on that list, and especially the ones in the Midwest and South are anywhere from single digit to 20%, with Cleveland having the highest number. So what's your point? Edit: the whole point of my reply was to say that mass transit is effective in dense, wealthy cities. In the Midwest and South those same sentiments will not work because our highest density is in the middle of the city. The farther you go out is quickly drops off. Given that, it makes sense to make cars cheaper and easier to maintain for people there, while focusing on mass transit in areas where it will work. Unfortunately, in areas like SF (where I currently live) it's NIMBYs who get in the way and waste everyone's time while acting like they support mass transit expansion.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - Retric 5y ago
        New Orleans, Louisiana where 18.8% of households live without cars has a 23.7% poverty rate and a median income of $41,604, that’s well below the national average. Dallas Texas where 10.2% of households live without cars has a 18.9% poverty rate, median income of $52,580, so it’s larger, wealthier, and denser yet has significantly more cars. Also, 20% is unusually high. Nationwide it’s about 8.7% and that’s heavily influenced by NYC. Excluding just NYC and that number falls closer to 7%. PS: It’s really region specific but in general the wealthy are more likely to own a car in their area but different areas don’t have anything close to the same breakdown. https://slate.com/business/2019/05/maps-car-ownership-income-population-density-green-new-deal.html https://slate.com/business/2019/05/maps-car-ownership-income.... Just look at El Paso vs San Jose on the bottom graph.
DarylZero 5y ago
The poorest people in the Midwest can be seen walking down the sides of busy highways that have no sidewalks, carrying large loads of groceries for miles at a time.
- kodah 5y ago
  You're just echoing my point. This city centric view that "cars aren't needed", "cars are a failure" is not helpful. The Midwest and South do not have the density to support those statements, moreover, most folks end up having to budget for a car first, then a home because of this. Making cars easier to afford and maintain would benefit the South and Midwest a lot more.

hattmall 5y ago

Poor people without cars really aren't the issue, if you can't afford a car in America, you are extremely poor and really an outlier. Pretty much anyone working even minimum wage can afford a car. The problem is a ballooning costs of ownership and all the other systemic failures that keep the majority of lower income people ~60% of the US trapped in a situation where they can not accumulate any substantial savings, assets or wealth and are merely surviving.

amrocha 5y ago
The reason they can't save is exactly that they're forced to buy a car. It costs several thousand per year for maintenance, insurance and gas. It's the second most expensive thing people spend money on. And all these things should cost even more money, the only reason they don't is government subsidies.
- rayiner 5y ago
  It doesn’t cost several thousand a year to insure and maintain a cheap old Japanese car, which poor parts of the country are full of.
  - bsder 5y ago
    He said: "maintenance, insurance and gas" It very much does cost several thousand. My insurance alone was almost $1K per year. Gas was about $100 per week, but, in rural areas, that's probably $50 per week. That's about $2,500 per year. In addition, most poor families have ONE, and only one, car. Putting it in for maintenance not only costs money for the maintenance but also money for alternate transportation. I had a 20 year old Honda and a 20 year old Pontiac. It cost me about $2K per year for maintenance on each (I calculated that if it reached $5K per year it was time to get a new car). However, because I had two, I could put one in the shop and use the other without thinking. This is a luxury that the poor do not have.