Gas prices are exorbitant. Parts are scarce for Japanese-brand vehicles because of the earthquake and the tsunami, not to mention the nuclear plant problems. When they finally get produced, they’ll probably be more expensive. Auto insurance costs are increasing. Housing in downtown Boston is pricey.
What—me worry?
That’s the reaction of most residents of downtown Boston. It turns out that living downtown, despite high housing costs, may prove more of a bargain than you expected because you’re not wasting time and money on transportation.
Many of us do not own cars. While our public transit system needs to be in better condition and extended beyond its current boundaries, it’s better than that of most U. S. metropolitan regions. Our airport lies about 10 minutes and 20 bucks away by cab on a traffic-less Sunday morning, or only a couple of dollars if we go by transit. And we’ve got trains and buses that take us to other cities, at least along the East Coast.
There is a website, http://abogo.cnt.org, that lets you know how much better off you are than those in the rest of the Boston metropolitan area or the rest of America, for that matter.
Put in your address and you’ll see how it compares with others in the cost of transportation and the impact you have on carbon dioxide production due to transportation.
I put in my address. The site calculated that my transportation cost is about $425 a month compared to a regional average of $800. It told me that my “transportation carbon dioxide impact” was only .22 metric tons a month compared to the regional average of .65 metric tons. I’m saving money and the earth, it appears.
The gas prices the site uses are out of date. The factors that go into the averaging won’t reflect all individual circumstances. Nevertheless, the site provides some basic information about the green-ness of city living.
So I put in a few other addresses in downtown Boston. Not all addresses are created equal. Choosing an address at random, 333 Beacon Street in the Back Bay, I found that a household at that address would likely spend $479 a month for transportation costs, while having an impact of .21 metric tons of transportation-related carbon dioxide. I wasn’t sure how a larger amount spent in transportation costs translated into a lower carbon footprint than mine, but never mind.
Next, I tried the waterfront: Battery Wharf in the North End. It was about the same as the Back Bay address—$469 a month in transportation cost and .25 metric tons of carbon impact. Province Street downtown, where there are newish condominiums, was estimated to have a transportation cost of $487 a month, emitting only .1 metric tons of transportation-related carbon dioxide.
At 12 Monument Square in Charlestown, a household would have a higher transportation cost—$543 a month—and the carbon footprint impact from transportation came in at .31 metric tons.
Charlestown has fewer goods and services within walking distances than the other parts of downtown Boston, and it has less convenient public transportation. Lots of nearby shops and subway stops make a big difference in the cost of transportation, it seems.
But no matter where you live in downtown Boston, your transportation costs and the impact you have on climate change is less than out in the hinterlands.
You’ll also compare well with other appealing cities. I looked up our friends’ address in the Marina district in San Francisco. They have to walk several blocks before they reach a commercial district. Their transportation cost would be more expensive—$668 a month—and their carbon dioxide impact would be .24 metric tons a month. But the average regional cost of $792 of the San Francisco metropolitan area is slightly less than Boston’s.
Transportation costs are low in downtown Boston because residents can walk to do their errands or go to work.
Walkability pays off in the value of your home when you sell it. You can further test your home’s walkability by going on www.walkscore.com. When I typed in the addresses I had identified for the first web site, I found that they scored points of 94, 92, 95, 91 and 78, respectively, out of 100.
All other factors being equal, some studies have shown that homes located in walkable areas command higher prices than homes that are located in car-dependent neighborhoods. Home prices since the financial meltdown have fallen more in communities that are less walkable.
So if you’re concerned that you’re paying a premium to live in downtown Boston, consider that if you lived elsewhere you might need a car or more than one, more gasoline, more repairs, and an expensive ticket to a commuter rail line. Boston is the eighth most congested American city in terms of traffic, according to a recent article in the Boston Globe. The premium you’ve paid to live in downtown Boston means you’re not burning fuel and your temper by being stuck on the road.
Do the math and see if you’re better off, not just in time-savings, but in out-of-pocket costs, by living downtown.
Ms. Taylor, since as you write, “Many of us do not own cars,” why do all we homeowners subsidize with our property taxes the Resident Parking Sticker Program we don’t use? Why don’t car owners pay a fee for a resident parking sticker that grants the opportunity for free curbside parking as available? And why doesn’t this fee for sticker pay the costs of the program, thus removing this line item from the city budget?
And while we’re going outside the box, why wouldn’t the fee be related to the length of the car being parked, $X/foot, so that a Mini Cooper would pay a lower fee than a Ford Explorer? The nice people in England have already created the online database identifying the foot lengths of different car models!
http://www.hansonconcretegarages.co.uk/CarSizeDatabase.garages
A smaller cars Smaller car’s resident parking sticker would cost less & theoretically encourage Boston residents to drive smaller cars. And whereas smaller cars tend to pollute less it is in the City’s interest to encourage ownership of smaller cars not to mention that with smaller cars . requiring less curbspace to park the search for a space might be a teeny bit easier. And finally, speaking as a pedestrian, I’m much more comfortable sharing the urban space with smaller cars.