Long Commutes Pushing Down Suburban Home Prices

According to an article by Kathleen Schalch, the nationwide drop in home prices is disproportionately sharp for those houses farthest from employment centers. In Washington D.C., prices dropped an average of 11% in the last year, but have risen in areas close to downtown or public transportation. The more suburban the house, the sharper the drop. Local statistics seem to bear this out - in Austin, the average price per square foot was down 2.21% overall as compared to last year. Most central areas were up (except for Zilker, which was pretty flat), while some outlying areas were up and some were down.

While home buyers have been factoring the high costs of commuting into purchasing decisions, Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt (of Freakonomics fame) have been calculating the costs commuters aren't paying. The largest externality associated with driving is not carbon emissions ($20 billion a year) or congestion ($78 billion a year) - it is auto accidents, which cost $220 billion a year. Congestion pricing or a higher gas tax could internalize the externalities, but both are politically unlikely, especially in car-hugging Texas. Instead, the freakonomists suggest modifying auto insurance rates, so that drivers would be charged based on the number of miles they drive and other risk factors more indicative of their likelihood of crashing. If they are right that driving less means crashing less, this could be a win/win for insurance companies adopting this plan and non-commuting car owners. The insurance companies would attract low-risk policyholders and non-commuting car owners would save on their insurance bill.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@austinist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Shawn Shillington in News on April 22, 2008 3:22 PM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

mdahmus

cram,

I went through the depreciation argument somewhere... let me see:

http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000440.html

AC

Raising insurance rates enough will also be politically impossible. Accident costs are not fully internalized today because states don't require drivers to carry enough insurance for political reasons. Pricing insurance by the mile won't fix the political problem.

cram

Mike,

How do you figure that people don't save a bunch of money by not driving?

I'm not disputing it, because my gut is that you are correct, but I am wondering if you have a sound argument.

leggyblonde

Wow. I ride my bike to work, and to/from my Calc 3 class at ACC, and i work full-time with benefits.

Oh, and i have a car. I drive it out to my parent's house, HEB, road trips, visit friends...

(Don't worry, one of these days i'll fit into a generalization, i'm sure of it!)

mdahmus

It would be a big step in the right direction. Notwithstanding the idiot commuting calculators which treat depreciation as a function purely of mileage (when it's really 90% age and 10% use), driving today is fundamentally a high fixed cost and a very low variable cost - which tends to mean that once you own a car, your most rational decision is to keep driving (people who say they save a bunch of money by leaving their car parked at home and riding the bus are displaying extremely poor math skills and/or an illegally low hourly wage).