« Funniest thing I've read in quite some time | Main | Link of the day »

More depreciation nonsense for cars

I've covered this before, but it's popped up again, thanks to The Overhead Wire and others. A short summary:

You will not save much money by leaving your car parked in the driveway and taking the bus. Yes, the IRS allows you to deduct based on a formula that includes depreciation - because it's the only way to give you any credit for having your personal vehicle tied up for business use. It does not under any circumstance mean that depreciation is mostly a function of miles driven - because it is definitely NOT; depreciation has more to do with age than use.

The last time I did this, I ran the numbers and estimated that depreciation due to age is roughly ten times the depreciation due to miles in a high-mileage scenario.

The summary is: in most cities, you will not save much money, if any, by leaving your car at home and taking the bus or train to work - unless you're unlucky enough to have to pay a lot of money to park. And, of course, you have to have unbundled parking costs (pay per day rather than per month).

The converse of this, though, is: You will save a surprisingly large amount of money by going from two cars to one car. Insurance. Registration. Car payments. Most of the depreciation bill. Maintenance (like depreciation, most maintenance is a function of time rather than miles).

Alternatively, if your company opens up an office in one of the few parts of the suburbs to which even I can't tolerate the bus commute, you face spending a LOT more money going back up to two cars. That's where to focus the energy - not on the "leave your car at home today and save N bucks" argument - because N is likely too small to be worth the trouble.

For my trip, for instance, google doesn't have cost figures (must not be hooked up to Capital Metro's farebox) - but I can give an estimate from my own commute calculator which shows that the bus trip cost $1.00 round-trip (allocate 50 cents each way) compared to $1.32 for the car (66 cents each way). That means that I can save 16 cents by spending an hour and forty-five minutes on the bus instead of the 15-30 minute drive, which is only a good deal if the value of my time is at or below 15 cents / hour.

This entry was posted in the following categories: Economics , I Told You So , Subsidies to Suburban Sprawl , Transportation

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/cgi-m1ek/MT/mt-tb.cgi/437

Comments

Not driving your car puts off the day you'll have to buy a new one! (And next scheduled and unscheduled maintenance).

So I think the cost of driving is still a lot more than gas + tires!

No, it's really not much more than gas + tires. Follow the link at the beginning of the post - in an example from KBB, about 90% of depreciation on an 8-9 year old car was a function of time, not mileage.

Take a look at your maintenance schedule sometime. Mine says I ought to take the Prius in every 5000 miles OR FIVE MONTHS.

Of course, there are also intangibles, such as not having to deal with the stresses of driving in rush hour traffic (which has gotten worse in recent years on most, if not all, corridors in Austin). At least, that was a major reason for me to ride the bus, when I rode. The savings were okay (even small amounts add up eventually), but being able to destress after work was very helpful.

My last trip home on the bus (in evening rush) was super-stressful, because the bus was full, crowded, and jerking and swaying and bouncing, when it was moving at all. Driving in the car would have been an improvement, and for me to say that is quite something.

Post a comment