That’s a new term, coined by the Urban Land Institute (as reported in the Daily Journal of Commerce), to describe the amount of driving associated with a house you’re thinking about purchasing.
How much do you have to drive to get to work, to the grocery store, to day care, to the other regular needs in your life? Apparently, home buyers are beginning to think about those miles, and their cost as compared to the cost of a home in a more efficient location.
A 2005 ULI survey of consumers found that homeowners were willing to use mass transit to cut down on fuel consumption. Transportation spending, according to Robert Dunphy, a senior fellow with ULI, was the second-largest component of consumer expenses, taking up an average of 19 percent of monthly income. Mortgage payments made up about 33 percent of a homeowner’s monthly income.
6 responses to “House Miles”
But would they be willing to pay the full cost of mass transit?
Thanks
JK
Probably about as much as they would be willing to pay the full cost of the roads, sewer lines, water lines, schools and fire stations a new home at the edge of the region requires. Many of those costs fall on existing property tax payers.
Probably about as much as they would be willing to pay the full cost of the roads, sewer lines, water lines, schools and fire stations a new home at the edge of the region requires. Many of those costs fall on existing property tax payers.
JK:Those are tpically paid by the developer (except school) unless in a urban renewal district like the Pearl or SoWhat or other government supported high density development like the round.
Thanks
JK
I’d pay for ALL of that just for the basic honesty in what I get. I’d also be happy to make people fork out for what they use. Which would mean I’d get a nice gentrified, rail connected connection to downtown while living in a nice urban area built by actual density necessity vs. Government sactioned and coerced density (ala the way the cities where actually built in the US originally).
But then of course that would be honest, based on property rights, and real integral liberty.
But unfortunately honesty, property rights, and liberty aren’t something one can buy any longer in the US. Ahh the joys of the politics of pull! ya!
:)
Fortunately Portland is the next best thing. For now.
Um, I don’t think that developers can be required to pay for fire stations (or police stations or libraries). It looks like 1000 Friends doesn’t think so either.
Overall, I’m not crazy about the Pearl District or South Waterfront (but they are a very efficient use of land and if they work out after any abatements expire, the city should end up with lots of property taxes), but I believe that if developers and property users had to pay for the full cost of development and services, this region would be denser.
Not only do homeowners have to travel farther (more house miles), garbage collectors, postal employees, police officers, firefighters, delivery drivers, etc have to travel farther to reach the same amount of people. Furthermore, low density also means longer wires, pipes and other infrastructure.
And if this region was denser, transit would require less subsidies. In fact, the actual cost of a bus ride is only $2.58, and this includes all those underused “social service” trips to places where transit service doesn’t make economic sense.
Property and its rights only exist within the embrace of that social adventure we call government. And society acting thru, in our case its elected government, has always set…and as need be adjusted… the limits within which property right exist.