Seattle Forrest

If you're not using your car regularly, your insurance will probably reclassify it as a pleasure vehicle and your premiums will be reduced. If your insurer won't do that, find one who will, because it's pretty common. I've done this several times while commuting exclusively by bike.

Seattle Forrest

That's pretty close to exactly what I'm saying. I'll try rephrasing my point though, see if I can be a little clearer.
In the two cases I'm most familiar with, not having a car would reduce the pool of jobs available, and that would result in a lower income. Which would offset the savings from using public transit. Maybe I'd make $100 less a month and on balance I'd come out ahead by $644; maybe the numbers break down differently. But in any case a salary change would be a direct result of not using the car, so it's something I would have to consider when I try to figure out how the economics would affect me. And that's what this thread is all about, how the economics affect you, supposedly to the tune of $744 per month. It's just a missing variable in the formula, that's all. And it's probably missing because it would be pretty hard to account for on anything but an individual basis.

denis123

In my case, it was not possible to get a cheap insurance in the neighbourhood where I lived. The main reason I sold my car is that I was not using it regularly. It then become even less worth to own a car and it was still expansive when considering all the costs.

mrodgers

Rough estimate, bought my car in 2010 for $7000. Traded a car for $300 that I was given. Owned it now 6 years. I spend about $25/week on gas. $600/year insurance. 6 x $36 registation and x $25 for state inspection. I've put tires on it 3 times at $1400. Thermostat was $35 and rear brakes $50 first time with rotors and $20 last week pads only. 150,000 miles currently on it and will keep it probably another 4 years. It calculates out to $277/month for me.

$744/month is a ridiculously inflated average.

kickstart

Purchase price, licence, insurance, maintenance, and fuel for my motorcycle over the past 8 years average out to $180 if I were to commute on it every day, but in reality I only use it 4 or 5 days a month so its more likely to actually be around $160 a month.

Technically public transit would be cheaper, but it would be pointless to use as the first bus stop is 4 miles from our house, my commute is only a little over 8 miles, and it would take significantly longer than riding my motorcycle, or bike.

Dahon.Steve

For those who are carfree, ownership of a vehicle it is an unnecessary redundant service. We have full control over our lives and don't require ownership of an engine. This is what draws the lurkers on this forum because they want to make their automobile unnecessary. Isn't this what you want ILTB?

kickstart

Please don't marginalize those who don't want to be entirely dependent on them, but also don't desire to entirely exclude them.

Rollfast

Ride a bike. You'll never have a crowded seat again.

I-Like-To-Bike

You apparently never looked at the AAA figures or didn't notice that depreciation is the largest slice in the cost cost of owning a car, or don't know how depreciation is calculated. The averaged yearly cost of depreciation though would be greatly reduced by not trading in a new car every five years with relatively low mileage on it like in the AAA methodology.

I-Like-To-Bike

Sure, especially if they use similar statistical exaggeration techniques to meet a desired result on calculating the "return rate".

I-Like-To-Bike

You might be better served if you recognized that your statements about "those who are carfree" may apply only to those who have a choice AND are voluntarily carfree.

denis123

You apparently never made a calculation on the cost of depreciation. They give an example of a minivan with a cost of depreciation of $4039 per year. This corresponds to a 60% depreciation over 5 years for a purchase price of $34000. If you keep the car 10 years, assuming a 85% depreciation, this would make a deprication of $2890 a year, a saving of less than $1200 per year, or less than 12% of the annual cost of the car. If you add the extra costs of repairs as the car age, you have very little saving left. People always grossly underestimate the cost of owning a car.

denis123

If you invest $700 per month with a return of 5% per year, you would have roughly $1400000 after 45 years. As simple as that.

Rob_E

People who can afford to may underestimate the cost of owning a car. By that math, you can buy a ten year old minivan and it only has to run for a year to come out ahead of the person who bought it new. Insurance would be a lot less, too. By setting up depreciation as the biggest cost of car ownership, you also highlight the easiest way work around that issue: Buy a car that's already depreciated.

I'm aware that a lot of people buy a new car without realizing how much it's really going to cost them. But I also realize that a lot of people don't have the means to buy a new car. You tell them that they're losing $4,000/year in depreciation and they, like me, will say, "Then my car was worth less than zero within the first year." It can't really depreciate beyond that.

Yes, many people will spend beyond their means for a car and not ever realize it, but that doesn't mean that that's the "real" cost of car ownership. That's just what many people have chosen to do. If you take a random sample of people and figure out what they spend on their car, that $700/month may actually show up a time or two. But you take a random sample of people on the bus and ask what they're doing with their "extra" $700/month, I think they'll wonder what extra money you're talking about. The average cost of owning a car is just that, an average. I'm obviously an advocate for going car free. I'm just not an advocate for convincing people with unrealistic expectations. If saving money is a goal or a necessity in your life, then there are less drastic steps to take than going car-free, and many people will have already taken other, cost-saving measures before they get to the point of considering ditching the car entirely.

denis123

If you look at the listings for 10 years old minivan, their prices range between $4000 and more than $10000. You will be at risk of having to do expansive repairs too. There is not much saving there. I agree that you will save a bit on assurance but only on the part that covers your own damages. Cars last longer than what they used to but the cost of repairs have also gone up a lot.
I understand that $700 a month is just an average and that it could be cheaper, but in practice, it will not be cheap.
Saving money is a goal for most people. Before I sold my car, I thought that it would be a drastic step and that I may not last long. After I sold it, I found that it was not drastic at all.
Anyway, I think I have said it all and everybody is free to do what they want. From now on, I will enjoy the early retirement that I can afford being car-free.

Rob_E

Maybe you don't understand how averages work? Some people have to be doing it much cheaper than $700/month and some people spend much more. That's how we get an average. Unless everyone pays almost exactly $700. You have cited your anecdotal experience that the number seems about right, but I have experience that the number can be much lower. I agree that an older car runs the risks of higher repairs, but I don't think the repairs necessarily offset the savings of buying used. My $800 "scrap metal" car left me stranded exactly twice in the ten years I owned it. Once when the timing belt broke (right on schedule. I knew I had recently passed the recommended replacement mileage.) and once I let didn't start it for two months in the winter, and the battery died. Probably less than $500 total. Of course there were general maintenance costs like oil changes, but those don't tend to vary based on the age of the car. The last repair it needed was (probably) a clutch. The car got me home, but then the trouble and expense of diagnosing and fixing the car were deemed higher than the cost of doing without the car. But we're not talking thousands of dollars per year. We're talking hundreds. The only time I ever came close to that $700/month figure would have been a month in which I bought a car.

For me, getting rid of the car was not drastic at all. I had been using it sparingly for years and not at all for months. But the money I saved? I didn't have pay registration, taxes, or inspection. I think that was less than $200, possibly less than half that. Insurance was already at the lowest rate, and I maintain it to be a legal driver in my state. I didn't buy gas, but I did have to buy air or train fare for the trips I would have spent gas on. Those were close to break even on the train trips. Costs more to fly than drive, generally. I did not sell my car and find myself with lots of extra money in my pockets. I would certainly notice an extra $700/month, and it's not there. I am glad I got rid of the car. It was more trouble than it was worth, and it was an expense. It just wasn't a huge expense. I estimate my savings come to less than $100/month before I subtract my train and airfare costs. That's how I know that these numbers can be very unrealistic when trying to apply an average estimate to an individual.