this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2026
140 points (95.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

14910 readers
1755 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This is the question posed on CityNerd video titled "Walkable Cities But They Keep Getting More Affordable"

If you ditched your car, could you afford to leave the suburbs for a great urban neighborhood?

Ray Delahanty answers the question in the 26 biggest US cities.

The analysis assumes the all-in cost of owning and operating a car is $1,000 per month, including purchase, insurance, fuel, and maintenance.

In the city, transportation costs might total about $250 per month for transit passes, biking, ride-hailing, and other small expenses.

This results in an effective $750 per month increase in the housing budget for city center residents who do not own a car.

The results of the video are quite interesting, as you can get more m² in walkable areas in most cities

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 day ago (18 children)

A grand a month for a car? Only if you can afford to blow money. I bought my car used 6 years ago for $4,000. Between repairs and maintenance, tires, oil, repairs, etc I've spent about another $4,500. Plus $1,000 a year fuel (Prius). And $800 a year on insurance. So my all in cost is like $280 a month and dropping the longer I keep it. Plus what I can get from selling it.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I spend under $70/mo on my metro pass, and they’re normally “expensive”* at $104/mo. There are zero added costs, ever, except for if I didn’t also own a car I would need to use a carshare service probably once a month, but it’s hard to gauge since sometimes I use my car just to make sure it actually gets used. Without a car there are no parking fees, no gas, no maintenance, and not even any need to shovel snow or anything else that you likely don’t even realize you do simply to keep owning a vehicle.

$280/mo is a pretty bum deal to not even get other benefits like being driven around or never having to deal with the concept of rush hour.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Plus you can travel as drunk as you want as long as you're not a problem.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago

Also true! I don’t drink much, but it’s still a huge benefit, and it also means that I don’t need to think about the timing or anything when I do have a glass.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

What I dislike about the fuckcars instance. Ignorant people who just think people only live in big cities with public transport and that all of their families and friends and relatives they want to see are all there a mere bus ride or train trip away. Just ignorant to 90% of the land people live on. Most of the country requires a vehicle.

[–] Ibuthyr@lemmy.wtf 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, but this post is about moving into an area with such infrastructure...

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

The post is claiming you can afford such a neighborhood by saving $1,000 a month by not owning a car.

[–] Ibuthyr@lemmy.wtf 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Well, yeah... That's the whole point. If you move into such an area, you don't need a car. I feel your issue, I live relatively rural and we definitely need a car and I sometimes get upset with this mindset here too. But it doesn't fit into this post.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 hours ago

You missed my point. It's trying to state you can offset the higher cost of living in one of those areas because your saving $1000 a month by not owning a car. That $1000 a month figure is bullshit. So is the cost difference between living in a walkable city vs outside of one only being $1000 in many places. Like a small home in the walkable area of Kansas City is around $400,000, while a similar home 10 miles away is $200,000. That's a lot more than a grand a month difference if you're getting a mortgage. Like twice as much.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

First, the post is literally about moving into a city.

Secondly, we all know that rural places exist and you’re not being smart for bringing it up as if we don’t. This sub is based almost entirely on making cities, which are inherently worse off with car-centrism, into better places.

Lastly, there is zero reason why rural communities need to be that spread out. You 1000% can have mid-density, walkable towns and many older villages in North America have town centers that are built closer to that ideal. Those places were then surrounded by sprawl and suffer greatly for it.

The ignorance is your own.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

The post is also about cars costing you a thousand dollars a month that you could be saving. That number is just silly. You can have a car for significantly less.

Also, you're talking like you can just eliminate all of the small towns and housings and redo them to group them up. Any small places like that would still need to own vehicles in order to leave those small towns when needed. Not owning a vehicle is only a possibility in larger cities. Especially if you have to work outside of your town.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Saving the money by how, buddy? What other action comes along with that to make it so that one could be not needing the car?

And no, I am not saying that. I am saying that it does not need to be that way, and that we can build better when we build new things.

I genuinely can’t tell if you’re illiterate or simply stupid, but either way I’m going to go now because you are draining what little remaining hope for humanity I have from my body and I’d like to hang onto that.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I have 2 cars in a rural "city" cars are absolutely required here. We used to have a trolley, but it got killed in the GM/Firestone conspiracy. Things could have been so much better and as much as I love my MX-5, overall I totally get fuck cars. I wish I had the option to opt out of ownership. But since I don't have that option, I chose to maximize the fun, and minimize the damage. It's honestly the best I can do in the Midwest. If the winters continue to get warmer I can get rid of the Wrangler entirely, which ... Fuck that's not good either. It'd be nice to live in a world without cars, and I want that. I'd absolutely give up both for a bus pass or light rail but logistically, I can't. And it's bullshit that that was once an option, but our lives were made worse by capitalism and forces outside of our control.

load more comments (15 replies)