The True Cost of the Commuter Lifestyle
People complain about high taxes in the city, and people complain about crime in the city. But they are willing to spend up to 20% of their income on gas and travel expenses thanks to the commute back and forth to the city from their exurb communities, according to the U.S. Census bureau. Cincinnati is one of the worst in the country in terms of how much expense (as a portion of income) people are willing to assume for the commuter lifestyle.
Again, this is not a city versus the 'burbs issue, with one side a clear winner or loser. It simply serves to underscore the trade offs that come when you want housing that is free and clear of the perceived risks of life in a city. Wide open spaces are appealing - but they are wide open for a reason - they are far and away from the central hubs of commerce, communication and -- an item that matters less to some people -- culture.
But these statistics do put the lie to the idea that people are living in the donut communities because their are simple economic advantages. I've never given much credence to the tax argument - many of these exurbs are going to need infrastructure improvements than can only be made with increasing municipal taxes. And the article cited above crunches the number on yearly expenses for a 20-mile round trip commute - (gas, parking, and depreciation) and ballparks a figure of $8,000 per commuting worker making one-passenger trips.
It looks to me like you could live in town, pay increased taxes due to rapid transit - and still keep more, potentially much more, of your net income by saving on the commute. And I'm not some wild-eyed green - but lets be honest, about another dividend: It sure wouldn't hurt the folks in the husky old Midwest to walk more often, thereby saving a few dollars in long-term hearth care to boot. But that's not how they psychology works: We'll shell out the bucks to drive everywhere, paying whatever it takes, on our terms - but any more dollars paid towards our corrupt old government - that's perceived as some grand swindle.
It looks to me like you pay either way.
posted by Superfly @ 8:02 AM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
Gut reactions:
- The point that commute times here are relatively short is underplayed.
- If you're going to compare suburban v. urban commuting you have to look at the marginal cost of being in the burbs vs. the city. I'd say it's not as far from being a push as you might think. Go shopping? The best malls are TriCo, Kenwood, Eastgate, etc. Your job? Parking is free in the burbs and, sadly, in general more jobs are migrating out of the city. Car insurance rates? Higher in the city.
- I'm not buying the idea that drivers don't pay their fair share. That guy from UC obviously hasn't heard of gas taxes.
-Many if not most people won't use mass transit en masse because of the very points made in the article about point-to-point time.
Another non-driving thing to consider besides the ones you know I usually harp on (crime, taxes, schools, and open space) is the faster appreciation of home prices in the burbs and ex-urbs vs. most urban areas.
30-40 years ago, if the city had figured out a way to keep jobs inside its limits instead of taxing everything so heavily that companies started looking elsewhere, we woudn't be having this discussion. Plus we'd have a more hub-spoke situation that could support some of the mass transit ideas. But at this point, we have a hodge podge that mass transit will do little to solve.
Aggressive use of traditional buses might help a bit. But nothing cures congestion like two extra lanes of traffic. In general, I would argue that we should just build the roads.
Faster appreciation on homes in the burbs ... I've heard this, and I understand that's the perception, but the only data I've seen doesn't exactly support that conclusion. I've plugged in a few numbers to the real estate data center here, comparing, say, Roselawn, Norwood and Avondale (three of the more, shall we say, less-upscale neighborhoods in Cincinnati) with "nicer" exurbs like Mason and Lebanon, and it sure looks like prices have fallen farther in year-to-year comparison. You can find outliers here and there (Price Hill seems like a bad bet, West Chester a good one) - but nothing to support any universal conclusions about what makes a better investment in terms of appreciation.
There may, of course, be a better source of information - but I was actually quite stunned when I looked at that data - and I kept tying different neighborhoods.
And to the original point - the study was of greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky. It may be hard to get a good apples-to-apples comparison when people work an live in two different places, but it seems to me that the simple conclusion about the portion of people's income that goes to transit would take into account folks who worked in the exurbs too (thereby saving on gas and parking), and the insurance rates of people who live in the city.
The conclusion is simply that everyone around here pays an average of 1/5 of our income on commuting, which is enormous anyway, but certainly appears to put us among the highest in the country for this expense.
Which is why it seems a little too clever to make pat conclusions about higher business taxes and jobs moving out of the city. If these jobs are being created in the exurbs, and if everyone is moving there, why are we paying so much for our commute? I think it's far more likely that some businesses have moved out of the city (and gone all kinds of places, including overseas) - and taxes are higher, but obviously the lion's share of businesses and commerce are all in "town", where many people still work. I can't think of another plausible reason for such a huge expense - one which people are apparently (and illogically) quite willing to tolerate.
I do tend to agree that many mass transit solutions probably won't help much, due to the way the city evolved. Although it's hard to imagine that light rail running parallel to the I75 and I71 corridors wouldn't see quite a bit of usage both ways - but of course people still think "the criminals" will come to their neighborhood - something that study after study has proven doesn't happen. (I grew up in a "nice" suburb of DC, right near the Red Line. Trust me, there was no influx of thieves and muggers from South East DC. But try telling that to someone from Ohio and they won't believe you - that's a conversation I've had many times.)
I'm not saying that there aren't still a lot of jobs in the city, but the list of those that have moved or significantly downsized is distressingly long.
I don't disagree that crime perception could be overblown, but it's one of those mental zero-tolerance things that takes a lot to overcome. The city's response to crime, esp since 2001 until just recently (I think things are finally improving a bit) gave all too many the impression that it was more out of control than people were willing to tolerate. If people can ever be convinced that it's not random, but limited to thugs killing thugs, there's a chance that could turn around.
As to whether incurring high commuter costs is "logical," it depends on how much value one places on better schools and somewhat lower taxes. I wanted to stay in the city in the mid-1980s; the idea that unless I started earning a lot, lot, more, my kids would have to go to Schwab nuked that idea.
The argument about better public schools is one I can understand easily. And the argument about the perception of crime is one of those very subjective problems that, repeating myself ad nauseum, is a matter of risk assessment - something that gets very distorted. But I understand why people feel might feel threatened, even if they understand rationally they are not directly at risk.
My gut tells me that urban out-migration was at it's high point about 2005, and the tide has very gradually turned since then. Which is to say, for every one negative or anti-growth item from the city there is one positive, investment-side item to offset. And what's more, we might be further down the curve than people realize. Suddenly you are downtown on a Thursday night and it's really quite busy, or you catch yourself wondering, for the umpteenth time - why would anyone spend the money to fix up yet another old city block? (Why indeed?)
I'm still looking for a better source on the real estate prices comparison. It seems almost conspiratorially-under reported.
Hey, it's kinda like good news from Anbar Province! The problem is more that some people are stuck on the old talking points and rhetoric. (Although make no mistake - you, Tom, seem like a far more decent fellow than those traitorous congressional Democrats ... )
There's some great points being made here, although I think that the suburb folks are doing what they think is in their overall economic interests despite the commute costs.
But one aspect of our current society continues to be overlooked: Job mobility and it's impact on suburb growth.
Using my own experience as an example, because I'm sure it's not rare...
When I was a renter and in my twenties we use to change apartments and houses every two years or so and get housing closer to my job situation. The problem was I'd get a new job every two to three years as well! After a few cycles of this, I realized that trying to pick a housing location based on the location of the job site was useless, especially when you buy the mortgage, which ties you down for at least five years (or it should).
My solution was to buy the house and neighborhood I wanted and hang the job situation, it would change in time anyway.
In our area we can see that the highest growth areas are those within commuting access to the largest job market, and that's Warren and Butler counties with access to both Dayton and Cincinnati.
Post a Comment
<< Home