Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    New Study Shows Zero-Car Families Are On The Rise

    William Maley

    Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

    October 9, 2013

    Don't own a vehicle? You are not alone. In fact, the number of people who don't own a vehicle is increasing.

    The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials released a brief that states the number of American households that don't own a vehicle has seen a uptick. Starting in 1960, the number of households that didn't own a vehicle declined steadily, reaching a low of 8.7 percent in 2007. But since that time, the share has been rising. In 2011, the latest year for which data is available, the share had risen to 9.3 percent.

    While the economic fallout from the recession plays a key role, authors of the brief say there are other factors in play.

    "Changes in alternatives to travel, such as communication substituting for travel and renewed interest in and availability of options such as transit, bike and walk, helped dampen interest in expanding auto ownership," the brief stated.

    This correlates to data released back in February by Federal Highway Administration which showed the number of vehicle miles traveled peaked in the U.S. in 2004. Since then, the number of vehicle miles traveled has declined steadily.

    Another factor in play is persistent narrative that Millennials don't own vehicles since they cannot afford one.

    Source: AASHTO, Aol Autos

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Interesting story, I think the fall in ownership is due to the crazy prices for Gas, Cost of a car, Insurance and people willing to live like a sardine in congested cities. Yet for those that live active life's you will find a car is a necessity.

    I would be wanting to know where this trend really is, east coast, west coast, mid west? I think some areas are for sure seeing a decline in ownership and yet other areas are not. I think that would play a significant roll in the accuracy of this study.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    ah, to be held hostage by transit. yet, the cost of a vehicle is exhorbitant. the system gets engineered that way so you pay hard for your freedom. And if you don't get a car you still pay. Transit fees ain't cheap either. Once they get people hooked on that they can jack the price of that up but then subsidize it for a select group.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Interesting story, I think the fall in ownership is due to the crazy prices for Gas, Cost of a car, Insurance and people willing to live like a sardine in congested cities. Yet for those that live active life's you will find a car is a necessity.

    I would be wanting to know where this trend really is, east coast, west coast, mid west? I think some areas are for sure seeing a decline in ownership and yet other areas are not. I think that would play a significant roll in the accuracy of this study.

    Pretty much....we now have the highest insurance rates in the US here...makes you rethink more cars quick. Though the cost of ownership has gone through the roof...many of us pay twice (maybe even three) times more than we did a few years ago...

    I'd bet this fact alone has much to do with it....

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I would bet in many urban areas it is a big factor when you combine it with the other high expenses involved in living in the city. If you can walk to work, or take a 40 minute ride on transit to work, then why pay $200 a month on insurance for a car you only drive once a week? Especially with services like Zip car and its competitors. My wife's car just gathers dust since we've moved across the street from the subway station. Such a waste of money and depreciation expense.

    Interesting side question: are insurance rates killing car ownership rates?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Interesting side question: are insurance rates killing car ownership rates?

    we insure 2 cars full coverage 250 deductible for 120 bucks a month at state farm. but, we have been incident and ticket free for the most part. same co. for 25 years or so. to me, that is not bad, especially in comparison to fuel, car payments and maintenance.

    when i was selling, we had to make sure insurance was set up before the car is delivered. teens and the under 25 set are getting hit hard. Maybe rightfully so because of bambi texting and driving, and in general a lot of teens not having to much clue how to drive......the insurance company should be able to charge a rate commensurate with the risk. But still, 200/mo to insure some of these folks........too much. Especially since you can't just get a 1000 dollar beater to reliably drive any more. It's 3,4,5 thou for a decent beater or minimum 200-250 car payments if you can get credit for an already ancient car.

    Our two car payments are 600/mo total. gas is amounting to 5-600 a month now with me putting 25k miles a year on. Running one car for a lot of folks, gas plus car payment plus insurance is like 700 a month. For some, they have to pay for parking too. That's too much.

    Your gas bill used to be much less than your car payment. SOme people now even with average driving, gas is 3-4 hundred a month.

    Of course, 30k for an average car is ridiculous. So is having 40k student loans upon leaving college. As is health care premiums, etc.

    Something has to give, cars are giving for a lot of folks. There is almost no cheap way to drive anymore. And don't say bikes. They don't work in blizzards.

    I would bet in many urban areas it is a big factor when you combine it with the other high expenses involved in living in the city. If you can walk to work, or take a 40 minute ride on transit to work, then why pay $200 a month on insurance for a car you only drive once a week? Especially with services like Zip car and its competitors. My wife's car just gathers dust since we've moved across the street from the subway station. Such a waste of money and depreciation expense.

    Interesting side question: are insurance rates killing car ownership rates?

    to me, if you have a big transit bill, then it is tough to also make that car payment.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have found staying with the same insurance company for a long time actually does not help you in getting cheaper rates, I have found changing companies and having them compete against each other has allowed me to keep strong solid insurance with very low rates. Right now I am in year 4 at Costco and their Ameriprise Insurance beats everyone else when I go and get quotes.

    For 4 SUV's, I am paying just about 600 a month, I suggest you shop around as I think you can get cheaper insurance especially once you taking other factors into account like also covering your home insurance or if renting, renters insurance.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    We found the same thing actually. When we went to add the Encore to our policy, the net result was going to be $2400 a year. That is too much for a 31 year old car, a 10 year old paid off crossover, and a new crossover. It was his policy and he had been with them for 9 years... I switched us to Allstate, who our house and rental properties are insured through, and cut that down to $1100 a year. We pay the 6-month bill in full for an additional discount, but less than $100 a month to cover 3 cars was fine with me.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Personally I think GM is too late to the Hybrid party and rather than spend and write off all the billions of dollars on their EVs that are actually selling well, they should have stayed the course and not followed Stupid Ford and Idiot47. GM has a 'handful of hybrids' coming - but are they the ones you want? I do not see GM actually doing well in this space as they are already too far behind.
    • On a more positive note, travel related stuff ... A historic milestone was achieved by Cunard Line within the last week.  When she was built, Queen Mary 2 (QM2) was too big to transit the Panama Canal.  The same was true for other supersized passenger ships.  In the interim, new larger locks were engineered and put into service. https://travelweekly.com.au/queen-mary-2s-first-transit-through-panama-canal-on-way-to-australia/ I saw the QM2 enter San Francisco Bay in 2007 because I was living out West.  It came in on a Sunday and I spent the weekend south of the city and near SFO.  I went there in a rented 2007 Monte Carlo costing less than $25 a day and stayed at one of the cheap chain hotels near SFO costing about $50 a night, which was ridiculously cheap even then. The ship went around South America and sailed northward up the Pacific.  As such, it's not a trip they would be making too often with the QM2. QM2 transited the Panama Canal for the first time just days ago.  She is headed to Los Angeles AND San Francisco.  To clarify the article's headline, Australia is just its next leg - this is the full world cruise.  She was last in Los Angeles in 2006 when she saluted her namesake Queen Mary and last in San Francisco in 2007 and seeing the passage under the Golden Gate Bridge was unforgettable.  These were the only visits to these ports.  With the new Panama Canal locks, her visiting the North Pacific Ocean and its major ports is much more likely to be on future world voyages. In the Panama Canal transit, the nail biter was supposedly going under the Bridge of the Americas - the one with the curved top.  I saw this YouTube with passengers cheering and motorists up above honking. I blame my parents for this!  They took us across the Atlantic a time or two too many when we were kids and this fascination began.
    • WTF kind of article is this? Piss-poor grammar and sentences. "By the time the odometer ticked past that 160,000 kilometre mark, equivalent to 160,000 kilometres, 99,000, the pack still retained over 90 percent of its original net capacity." Then it jumps to 91% remaining capacity somehow...? And when jumping to 91% capacity remaining, I don't think they did any math at all. See below for a paragraph that shouldn't be made as evidence of anything. As an engineer, this kind of "facts" should infuriate you.  "Battery health statistics can sound abstract until you translate them into the range figure you see on your dashboard. In this case, the Volkswagen ID. 3 Pro S started life with a usable pack of 77 kWh, and independent testing recorded an initial real world range of 77 k and 272 miles on a full charge. After the long term trial, the car still had 91% of its battery capacity, a figure that aligns with separate reporting that the Volkswagen ID 3 retained 91% battery capacity in a 160,000 kilometre test. In practice, that meant the car lost only around eight miles of usable range, a change small enough that you would struggle to notice in daily driving." 272 x .09 = 24.5 miles. Theoretically losing 9% would lose the owner about 25 miles of range, not 8 miles. It is now a 248-mile range EV.  This looks like some garbage AI-generated article.  Just for the record, I'm not saying that EVs don't have good battery management and degradation. I'm just saying this article was an embarrassing example to stand by.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search