Hmm, nothing wrong with picture #2 that can't be solved with some dynamite and a dozer (peejay, if you want to use sledges & crowbars instead, go right ahead, there's enough sprawl for all of us to have a go at it!).
On the other hand, connected buildings have two fatal flaws.
One, they are a notorious fire hazard and a form of collective autoDarwinization governed by the stupidist person on the block. All you need is one idiot who thinks that candle light looks great next to their new lace curtains, or who thinks it's hightech cool to have lots of things plugged into a power strip, or who falls alseep with a lighted cigarette... and .... POOF!
Two, they are notoriously acoustically transparent. They may as well not even have walls. You get to find out all about your neighbors' eating habits and digestion, and their sex lives in intimate detail, not to mention their tastes in music and TV, and their preferred exercise routines, and the state of their bank accounts (the latter from their arguements with their partners). That's just plain not acceptable, no excuses, period.
There is of course a way to solve both of these issues at the same time, which is lots and lots of concrete: reinforced masonry walls around both the exterior of the buildings, and in the partition walls between units. That will also add thermal mass and produce more permanent structures that need less maintenance.
All the "features" and frills in the world do not make up for fundamental defects in design and execution. Build it right, do it once, make it last.
PeakOil is You
THE Commuting Thread (merged)
Re: Man commutes 370 miles to work and back each day
by gg3 » Thu 27 Apr 2006, 04:32:17
-
gg3 - Expert
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: California, USA
Re: Economics of long commutes
by rwwff » Fri 28 Apr 2006, 18:23:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'I') figured it out and at $3 a gallon people will be having to spend about $125 a week to get to a job an hour away in their SUV. That's $500 a month just to get to work and back. When will they get it?
$125/wk $3gal -> 41 2/3 gallons / wk. -> 180 gal/month
One hour commute = 35 miles. 70 miles/work day.
23 work days / month. -> 1610 miles /month
1610 miles/month at 15mpg -> 107 gal/month. -> $321 / month
1610 miles/month at 9mpg -> 180 gal/month -> $540 / month
1610 miles/month at 7mpg -> 230 gal/month. -> $690 / month
Ford Explorer does a little better than 15mpg, and seems the pretty much typical SUV. There are of course bigger ones, like the Hummer, but there are also smaller ones like the RAV4.
Basically, the folks driving the Hummers couldn't give a hill of beans what the cost of fuel is; though they'll whine about it in order to participate in the coffee room talk. Those driving the Explorers of the world might alter their behavior when gas gets past the $10 a gallon range. Till then, the reduced cost of a 1500 sq ft house in the burbs will vastly outstrip the cost of the fuel used in the commute. I'd suspect though, that the real response might be that as the price rise into this $10 a gallon territory, more suburban folks are likely to purchase vehicles specifically for commuting that get 40+ mpg. They are certainly available, no magic technology involved, just consumer choice. At 40 mpg, gas prices have to get into very wierd territory before commuting long distances becomes unsustainable. At those prices you end up with wierd realities like it being economically viable to buy a custom made, plug in electric car.
Another possibility that I know anecdotal evidence of, people commuting incredibly long distances, kid and homespouse at home 100 miles out, cashspouse drives in on monday, out on friday, stays in a tiny one bedroom, no kitchen dive during the week. Personally, I couldn't imagine doing things that way, but I know real live families that do exactly that. These people might get their income in Dallas, TX, but home, school, church, clubs, taxes, and civic responsibilities are all centered on CountryVille. Surprisingly enough, they seem no worse for the wear.
-
rwwff - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: East Texas
Re: Economics of long commutes
by jdmartin » Mon 01 May 2006, 14:18:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '
')$125/wk $3gal -> 41 2/3 gallons / wk. -> 180 gal/month
One hour commute = 35 miles. 70 miles/work day.
23 work days / month. -> 1610 miles /month
1610 miles/month at 15mpg -> 107 gal/month. -> $321 / month
1610 miles/month at 9mpg -> 180 gal/month -> $540 / month
1610 miles/month at 7mpg -> 230 gal/month. -> $690 / month
Ford Explorer does a little better than 15mpg, and seems the pretty much typical SUV. There are of course bigger ones, like the Hummer, but there are also smaller ones like the RAV4.
Basically, the folks driving the Hummers couldn't give a hill of beans what the cost of fuel is; though they'll whine about it in order to participate in the coffee room talk. Those driving the Explorers of the world might alter their behavior when gas gets past the $10 a gallon range. Till then, the reduced cost of a 1500 sq ft house in the burbs will vastly outstrip the cost of the fuel used in the commute. I'd suspect though, that the real response might be that as the price rise into this $10 a gallon territory, more suburban folks are likely to purchase vehicles specifically for commuting that get 40+ mpg. They are certainly available, no magic technology involved, just consumer choice. At 40 mpg, gas prices have to get into very wierd territory before commuting long distances becomes unsustainable. At those prices you end up with wierd realities like it being economically viable to buy a custom made, plug in electric car.
Another possibility that I know anecdotal evidence of, people commuting incredibly long distances, kid and homespouse at home 100 miles out, cashspouse drives in on monday, out on friday, stays in a tiny one bedroom, no kitchen dive during the week. Personally, I couldn't imagine doing things that way, but I know real live families that do exactly that. These people might get their income in Dallas, TX, but home, school, church, clubs, taxes, and civic responsibilities are all centered on CountryVille. Surprisingly enough, they seem no worse for the wear.
')$125/wk $3gal -> 41 2/3 gallons / wk. -> 180 gal/month
One hour commute = 35 miles. 70 miles/work day.
23 work days / month. -> 1610 miles /month
1610 miles/month at 15mpg -> 107 gal/month. -> $321 / month
1610 miles/month at 9mpg -> 180 gal/month -> $540 / month
1610 miles/month at 7mpg -> 230 gal/month. -> $690 / month
Ford Explorer does a little better than 15mpg, and seems the pretty much typical SUV. There are of course bigger ones, like the Hummer, but there are also smaller ones like the RAV4.
Basically, the folks driving the Hummers couldn't give a hill of beans what the cost of fuel is; though they'll whine about it in order to participate in the coffee room talk. Those driving the Explorers of the world might alter their behavior when gas gets past the $10 a gallon range. Till then, the reduced cost of a 1500 sq ft house in the burbs will vastly outstrip the cost of the fuel used in the commute. I'd suspect though, that the real response might be that as the price rise into this $10 a gallon territory, more suburban folks are likely to purchase vehicles specifically for commuting that get 40+ mpg. They are certainly available, no magic technology involved, just consumer choice. At 40 mpg, gas prices have to get into very wierd territory before commuting long distances becomes unsustainable. At those prices you end up with wierd realities like it being economically viable to buy a custom made, plug in electric car.
Another possibility that I know anecdotal evidence of, people commuting incredibly long distances, kid and homespouse at home 100 miles out, cashspouse drives in on monday, out on friday, stays in a tiny one bedroom, no kitchen dive during the week. Personally, I couldn't imagine doing things that way, but I know real live families that do exactly that. These people might get their income in Dallas, TX, but home, school, church, clubs, taxes, and civic responsibilities are all centered on CountryVille. Surprisingly enough, they seem no worse for the wear.
My brother-in-law does something similar; he commutes into the city (NYC) on Monday morning, stays over at his son's apartment mon-tues-wed nites, and goes home thurs & fri. I wouldn't say he's no worse for the wear, but he manages. The thing is that he doesn't have to do that, because he easily makes enough money to live closer to the city (or in the city, for that matter). His wife (my wife's sister) doesn't want to move out of the town so they stay. Personally, I wouldn't do it, but hey - to each their own.
I figure that people will definitely start trading down cars to get better mpg, which cancels out rising gas prices for a while, until you hit the point in which you can't get any better mileage or the gas rises faster than you can make up the difference. The problem will be for those that can't manage to trade down. For example:
John Doe owes 20k on his Explorer, paying $350 a month payment plus a tank of gas each week at $60 (20 gals, $3 gas). The $240 in gas is eating him up so he decides to trade the Explorer (since no one would buy it for payoff) on a new Civic for $20k. With the Civic he'll only use $30 in gas each week, but they will only give him 14k for the Explorer. So by the time he finances $26k, he's paying $475 a month payment plus $120 in gas. That equals $595, $5 more than the Explorer and the expensive gas ($590). Of course, the difference can be made up somewhat if gas goes to $4, because he'd then be spending $635 with the Civic rather than $670 with the Explorer - saving $35 per month. However, that $35 per month only comes out to $420 per year. Meanwhile, he's got 2 more years of car payments with the Civic than if he would have just held steady with the Explorer.
In short, John Doe is screwed!
After fueling up their cars, Twyman says they bowed their heads and asked God for cheaper gas.There was no immediate answer, but he says other motorists joined in and the service station owner didn't run them off.
-
jdmartin - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1272
- Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Merry Ol' USA
Re: Economics of long commutes
by rwwff » Mon 01 May 2006, 14:31:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jdmartin', 'F')or example:
John Doe owes 20k on his Explorer, paying $350 a month payment plus a tank of gas each week at $60 (20 gals, $3 gas). The $240 in gas is eating him up so he decides to trade the Explorer (since no one would buy it for payoff) on a new Civic for $20k. With the Civic he'll only use $30 in gas each week, but they will only give him 14k for the Explorer. So by the time he finances $26k, he's paying $475 a month payment plus $120 in gas. That equals $595, $5 more than the Explorer and the expensive gas ($590). Of course, the difference can be made up somewhat if gas goes to $4, because he'd then be spending $635 with the Civic rather than $670 with the Explorer - saving $35 per month. However, that $35 per month only comes out to $420 per year. Meanwhile, he's got 2 more years of car payments with the Civic than if he would have just held steady with the Explorer.
In short, John Doe is screwed!
John Doe owes 20k on his Explorer, paying $350 a month payment plus a tank of gas each week at $60 (20 gals, $3 gas). The $240 in gas is eating him up so he decides to trade the Explorer (since no one would buy it for payoff) on a new Civic for $20k. With the Civic he'll only use $30 in gas each week, but they will only give him 14k for the Explorer. So by the time he finances $26k, he's paying $475 a month payment plus $120 in gas. That equals $595, $5 more than the Explorer and the expensive gas ($590). Of course, the difference can be made up somewhat if gas goes to $4, because he'd then be spending $635 with the Civic rather than $670 with the Explorer - saving $35 per month. However, that $35 per month only comes out to $420 per year. Meanwhile, he's got 2 more years of car payments with the Civic than if he would have just held steady with the Explorer.
In short, John Doe is screwed!
I hate to be blunt about things like this, as it annoys people around here, but John Doe wasn't screwed by the gas price. He was screwed by accepting a note for a vehicle that placed him "upside down" when he initially bought the Explorer.
Never take a loan on depreciable assets that puts you in the position that you owe more than the asset is worth.
The second part of this is observing how people think of car expenses. John Doe is paying a premium because he's trading in vehicles. He needs to hold and keep the Explorer, pay the note out, then buy the Civic and *KEEP* the Explorer. Giving the Explorer back while it still has operational value is like handing the car dealer $1000 bucks cash just for the fun of it. The car note is *NOT* an expense, most of it is payment against the principle of a liability that you owe regardless of the condition of the vehicle; some of it is interest you pay the bank for the priveledge of playing with their money. The expense for the vehicle is depreciation, it is a real expense, and it is based mostly upon the number of miles the vehicle has been driven. The expense is only realized upon the sale or disposal of the vehicle, but its not like you kept the vehicle ten years, sold it, and instantly incurred an expense of $25,000.
-
rwwff - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: East Texas
Re: Economics of long commutes
by jdmartin » Mon 01 May 2006, 22:07:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '
')
I hate to be blunt about things like this, as it annoys people around here, but John Doe wasn't screwed by the gas price. He was screwed by accepting a note for a vehicle that placed him "upside down" when he initially bought the Explorer.
Never take a loan on depreciable assets that puts you in the position that you owe more than the asset is worth.
The second part of this is observing how people think of car expenses. John Doe is paying a premium because he's trading in vehicles. He needs to hold and keep the Explorer, pay the note out, then buy the Civic and *KEEP* the Explorer. Giving the Explorer back while it still has operational value is like handing the car dealer $1000 bucks cash just for the fun of it. The car note is *NOT* an expense, most of it is payment against the principle of a liability that you owe regardless of the condition of the vehicle; some of it is interest you pay the bank for the priveledge of playing with their money. The expense for the vehicle is depreciation, it is a real expense, and it is based mostly upon the number of miles the vehicle has been driven. The expense is only realized upon the sale or disposal of the vehicle, but its not like you kept the vehicle ten years, sold it, and instantly incurred an expense of $25,000.
')
I hate to be blunt about things like this, as it annoys people around here, but John Doe wasn't screwed by the gas price. He was screwed by accepting a note for a vehicle that placed him "upside down" when he initially bought the Explorer.
Never take a loan on depreciable assets that puts you in the position that you owe more than the asset is worth.
The second part of this is observing how people think of car expenses. John Doe is paying a premium because he's trading in vehicles. He needs to hold and keep the Explorer, pay the note out, then buy the Civic and *KEEP* the Explorer. Giving the Explorer back while it still has operational value is like handing the car dealer $1000 bucks cash just for the fun of it. The car note is *NOT* an expense, most of it is payment against the principle of a liability that you owe regardless of the condition of the vehicle; some of it is interest you pay the bank for the priveledge of playing with their money. The expense for the vehicle is depreciation, it is a real expense, and it is based mostly upon the number of miles the vehicle has been driven. The expense is only realized upon the sale or disposal of the vehicle, but its not like you kept the vehicle ten years, sold it, and instantly incurred an expense of $25,000.
Being blunt doesn't bother me.
In fact, to some extent John Doe is screwed because of the gas prices. When he bought that explorer he could tool around for, using our same example, $120 per month. Now, that extra $120 per month is killing him, because he was already stretched pretty thin. If gas went back to a buck and a half, he'd probably squeak by OK.
As for never taking a loan on depreciable assets - if everyone were to do this the car industry would collapse, and with it a large part of the American economy. How many people do you personally know that could buy a new car in cash? Of course you can say all day that a car is a poor investment because it depreciates. However, pretty much everything besides real estate, some stocks, and precious metals depreciates as well. Additionally, inflation (as long as your wages keep up) deflates the cost of that car when you "lock in now" by purchasing on credit. Sure, you pay interest, but if your wages keep up with inflation you may just end up paying less for the car than if you paid cash. If you have enough cash to pay out to stay ahead of the curve on the loan, you end up losing your principal anyway.
The last part of your equation is what most people are ending up doing, because they can't afford any more debt. So they're stuck tooling around in the Explorer for the next 2 or 3 years, because they can't eat the difference. One of the reasons people are raising holy hell about gas right now is because they're out of options.
And depreciation is hardly at all based on the miles driven - it is based on how much that car can fetch on the open market. Cars with heavy demand can have ridiculous miles on them and still sell for a big premium (check Ebay sometime for Honda Civics, for example), while cars with low miles are sometimes given away because nobody wants them. Miles only really count in comparison to like vehicles. My father sold cars all of his life, and there were certain cars you couldn't keep on the lot and others that would rot there with 20k miles on them. If you want to test this theory, go buy a new car - any kind you want - and drive 5 miles down the road to the next car dealer and sell them that car - see how much you'll get. After all, you'll only have 5 miles on the car so depreciation should be pretty minimal
After fueling up their cars, Twyman says they bowed their heads and asked God for cheaper gas.There was no immediate answer, but he says other motorists joined in and the service station owner didn't run them off.
-
jdmartin - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1272
- Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Merry Ol' USA
