McMansions in the suburbs make less sense with high energy prices

[Pumapayam]

A similar response I PM'd h2obuff to get back on topic for the ##th time.

All of what you covered was sustainable when we had $1 and $2 per gallon gas.

Traveling those distances as we approach $5 per gallon gas is going to affect more and more people, but mostly those that live far from their "live, work, play" lifestyle and away from mass transit.

That's the point of the topic. I digressed into all sorts of extentions of related topics covered in other threads. Valid points exist on both ends.

But the development you love and support is now on "life support" and will become predominantly income based, just like those that claim urban living is too expensive. The higher the income you make, the less this affects you.

Someone making $50K versus $100K a year and drives 20+ miles each way to work will see things differently. Those are the people covered, and these low cost homes used to be the answer for first time home buyers who are middle class.

Sprawl needs to be re-evaluated and re-invented or else you will have people fleeing those homes when we hit $10 per gallon gas and have hords of vacant outlying neighborhoods, worse than suburban decay. Sounds a lot like the reverse migration of what happened in the inner cities before the 1960/70's suburban fleeing.

[MidtownCoog]

Someone making $50K versus $100K a year and drives 20+ miles each way to work will see things differently. Those are the people covered, and these low cost homes used to be the answer for first time home buyers who are middle class.

Used to be the answer? So what is the new answer? Have people pay more to live near work and be just as broke? That's not much of an answer.

And FWIW, I can't belive "Editor" lets you troll like this. This board has become quite the (lame) joke.

[Pumapayam]

Used to be the answer? So what is the new answer? Have people pay more to live near work and be just as broke? That's not much of an answer.

Put your housing choice in a basic math linear equation Y = MX + B

Y is total cost (during lifetime of home) - ($)

M is cost of transportation type used for distance X - ($/distance)

X is distance to (live,work, play) over a set time frame while in the home - (lifetime distance)

B is the cost of the home. - ($)

1. Lower costing home B with increased transportation cost M and/or larger lifetime commute to live, work, play X.
   
2. Higher costing home B with increased transportation cost with optional access to mass transit, walking, etc. M and/or shorter lifetime commute to live, work, play X.
   

One line will have a steeper slope, and eventually the lifetime cost will reveal itself.

The answer is based on the income level and your distance relationship to live, work, and play lifestyle.

The choice is ultimately a personal decision as the last 300 posts covered. Don't ask a question no one has an answer too.

[august948]

Sprawl needs to be re-evaluated and re-invented or else you will have people fleeing those homes when we hit $10 per gallon gas and have hords of vacant outlying neighborhoods, worse than suburban decay. Sounds a lot like the reverse migration of what happened in the inner cities before the 1960/70's suburban fleeing.

The sprawl will be re-evaluated (already is in fact) and re-invented by market forces. MPC developers are already in high gear on marketing due to the overall subprime mess cutting into their profits and gas prices making people in the market reconsider the math. Over time some neighborhoods will decay (that happens everywhere) but others will survive and maybe prosper as people adapt to the new circumstances. With transportation costs going up you are going to see more fuel efficient cars and fewer SUV's on the streets. Also, mass transit in one form or another will reach further out due to demand (see multiple recent articles about demand at local park&rides). The current big-box retail environment which presupposes that customers would be willing to drive long distances to go to stores will neccessarily morph into something else (i'm sure that is already being disucssed in boardrooms across the country). Some people will come back into the city, sure, but that is just going to drive real estate higher so many will stay in the exurbs and adapt.

What I suspect we will see is the development of exurbs as more independent communities with fewer ties to the city.

[HeightsGuy]

You're wrong. And I can prove it.

US 290 is basically 3 lanes each direction outside of 43rd Street. The maximum capacity of a freeway lane is 2,200 passenger cars per hour. Capacity is severaly undercut when traffic is jammed, however, and that number generally reduces to about 800 in stop and go driving. US 290 is generally jammed from 6 am to 9 am and has near capacity flows on the hour on either side of that. That means that about 21,000 cars use US 290 during the morning peak, or about 23,500 people after adjusting for US 290's average vehicle occupancy.

Considering that there are 15 times that many people living within a few miles of US 290, your assertion that the majority of those folks commute into central Houston is baseless, as the infrastructure cannot handle it.

I'm not sticking up for anyone here, but your figures are off a bit. As of 2001, an average of 245,000 vehicles traveled 290 at 610 per day. These figures came from here:

http://www.houstonfreeways.com/ebook.aspx

[CDeb]

I'm not sticking up for anyone here, but your figures are off a bit. As of 2001, an average of 245,000 vehicles traveled 290 at 610 per day.

No, my numbers are not. I can assure you that freeway capacity is just that: there are only so many cars you can shove down a lane.

Those counts you cite are bi-directional, 24-hour counts on a five-lane (each direction) cross-section. I am quite familiar with them since I have a copy of the TxDOT Houston District Traffic Map from which they came.

I was talking about one-way traffic during a five-hour window (traditional commute time in the traditional direction) on a three-lane cross-section further out, where the share of long-distance commuters is higher than it would be at 610 (where there are a lot more drivers from closer-in neighborhoods).

[HeightsGuy]

Yeah, I know. 21,000 x 2 = 42,000. Are you saying the other 203,000 drive 290 outside of rush hours? I showed you my link, wanna show me yours?

Besides, whoever's numbers are correct, you can't deny that eastbound lanes of 290 are backed-up weekday mornings, and westbound lanes in the evening. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but that's a pretty good argument that more people are leaving Cypress for work than entering.

[CDeb]

Yeah, I know. 21,000 x 2 = 42,000. Are you saying the other 203,000 drive 290 outside of rush hours? I showed you my link, wanna show me yours?

I don't have a link. But I have knowledge of traffic flow fundamentals and freeway capacity since it's my profession. Having given it more thought, those numbers are probably closer to 30k, IMO. I MIGHT be able to find you some pretty accurate hourly counts, but it would have to wait until Tuesday.

And yes, that is (sort of) what I'm saying (the rush-hour numbers on 290 near 610 will be higher since there are more lanes, and therefore there will be less than 203k driving during non-rush times). I drive on 290 all the time. During peak hours, the opposite direction is quite heavy, although usually not jammed. And during non-peak times, there are a ton of cars out there as well. The freeway is only light from about 11 pm to 5 am.

Besides, whoever's numbers are correct, you can't deny that eastbound lanes of 290 are backed-up weekday mornings, and westbound lanes in the evening.

Absolutely, which limits the amount of cars that can pass through. This may seem counter-intuitive, but freeway lanes that are flowing can allow almost 3 times as many vehicles to pass as those that are jammed. My numbers are probably off somewhat, but I am still quite comfortable in that they are an order of magnitude less than the number of people that live near 290 and would use it to commute into Houston if that were where they worked.

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but that's a pretty good argument that more people are leaving Cypress for work than entering.

Naw, you're pretty sharp and I'm glad we're having this discussion.

1) I'm not saying that a lot people enter Cypress for work. I'm saying that a lot of folks that live in Cypress never get on 290 because they work in Cypress or other western/northern suburbs. It ain't just a huge blob of housing. There are a ton of businesses out here and the folks that work there have to live somewhere.

2) Your argument is a good argument that a lot of people in Cypress use US 290 (I agree, I'm one of many). But I don't believe it provides a good comparative argument vs. the people that don't use it.

[westguy]

The sprawl will be re-evaluated (already is in fact) and re-invented by market forces. MPC developers are already in high gear on marketing due to the overall subprime mess cutting into their profits and gas prices making people in the market reconsider the math. Over time some neighborhoods will decay (that happens everywhere) but others will survive and maybe prosper as people adapt to the new circumstances. With transportation costs going up you are going to see more fuel efficient cars and fewer SUV's on the streets. Also, mass transit in one form or another will reach further out due to demand (see multiple recent articles about demand at local park&rides). The current big-box retail environment which presupposes that customers would be willing to drive long distances to go to stores will neccessarily morph into something else (i'm sure that is already being disucssed in boardrooms across the country). Some people will come back into the city, sure, but that is just going to drive real estate higher so many will stay in the exurbs and adapt.

What I suspect we will see is the development of exurbs as more independent communities with fewer ties to the city.

Jobs would have to stay in one place, and most households would have to have only one income for that to happen. I don't think that is a likely scenario.

[august948]

Jobs would have to stay in one place, and most households would have to have only one income for that to happen. I don't think that is a likely scenario.

Why would jobs have to stay in one place? Companies will have to adapt to this just as much as employees do. To a certain extent jobs will move closer to the exurbs as well. You can see this already in the energy corridor and The Woodlands, just to name a few examples. Where were most of the corporate jobs 30 years ago? Downtown, I'd bet. Now they are spreading out beyond the loop. I read an article the other day about how employers were having a harder time convincing prospective employees to take jobs that required a long commute. That wasn't as much of an issue when it was just time involved, but now there is much more money involved in a long commute so people are rethinking their options and either finding jobs closer to where they live or moving closer to where they work. We are going to see a lot of reshuffling over the next few years as people and companies reorder themselves with the new economic realities. People will adapt to this, just like they have adapted to other events in history.

[KatieDidIt]

Are you saying that in the 50's and 60's there were no poorly constructed homes, if you believe that, you are truly mistaken. Some of those poorly built homes are still around in other parts of town, and some have been taken down. don't be naive and think just because it is old it was built better.

I bought my brand new home in the burbs this year. i am fully aware of what actions I take and what i can and can not afford, and where I do and do not want to live. You are neglecting the fact that we are all entitled to free will. I am very happy about my choice, and the several thousand who bought homes out here recently are for the most part happy as well. it is amazing to think this, but most homeowners are capable of making fairly reasonable and good decisions for themselves on where to live and all of the implications associated with it.

Now H20, keeping on the financial impact of gas/power of this I have to take issue with your statements.

We lived in a brand new Real custom home in an "exurb," and now live in a 1960's home here in the Energy Corridor area. Which one was built with better product? The Memorial one. I see it everytime we remodel. The wood is like concrete and hasn't warped or rotten or twisted. I would bet that 30 years from now, this house will still be here and standing....if someone doesn't whack it down for the lot. The new custom was very nice and well built, but I can almost promise it will be paper mache' 30 years from now.

Which one is more "energy efficient?" I have no clue, but I do know our energy bills have gone down about 150, for same size houses, this June from last June in the other house. The new house had double pane windows and deluxe everything in those terms. But due to the ultra high ceilings, the units were constantly cooling. Now we did spray insulation and replace half the windows in the 60's home, but when the wind blows really hard you can hear it coming in through the eaves. Do I think that's bad? Not really, it's cooling off the attic. The biggest difference most likely? Our house is completely shaded by enourmous old trees,and so are all the houses around us. The Western sun is totally blocked and I think it probably allows the 3 A/C units to work a lot less.

As for gas, we virtually spend nothing. Both filling up once a month. But since school got out for the summer, I haven't filled up since May 24.

O/T rant-Oh and all the public schools are within a mile, kids walk to them all the time. The neighborhoods around here are loaded with children and it's very safe. We live on grid streets and it's fantastic compared to the isolated cul-de-sacs. It allows the kids better social interaction, creates privacy for adults, and it hasn't affected housing cost adversely here for 40 years. In fact the appreciation rate has been outrageous. I found all this to be true when we lived near the Galleria in Tanglewood/Briargrove as well. Apparently quality of family life can be found in the city.

And I know I know, I live in a Houston-burb area when it's compared to Midtown, but it's very urban compared to exurbia, and it's close to work, so I'm doing my thing to help conservation. And when you live in an old house you're recycling right?

[h2obuff]

Put your housing choice in a basic math linear equation Y = MX + B

Y is total cost (during lifetime of home) - ($)

M is cost of transportation type used for distance X - ($/distance)

X is distance to (live,work, play) over a set time frame while in the home - (lifetime distance)

B is the cost of the home. - ($)

1. Lower costing home B with increased transportation cost M and/or larger lifetime commute to live, work, play X.
   
2. Higher costing home B with increased transportation cost with optional access to mass transit, walking, etc. M and/or shorter lifetime commute to live, work, play X.
   

One line will have a steeper slope, and eventually the lifetime cost will reveal itself.

The answer is based on the income level and your distance relationship to live, work, and play lifestyle.

The choice is ultimately a personal decision as the last 300 posts covered. Don't ask a question no one has an answer too.

There are so many more factors that go into selecting a new home than a three variable equaion. What about:

• value
  
• taxes
  
• schools
  
• churches
  
• shopping
  
• open space
  
• etc.
  

As an engineer, I would like to generalize a home purchase so simplicity, but it is not truly possible, there are so many factors that go into the decision.

[h2obuff]

A similar response I PM'd h2obuff to get back on topic for the ##th time.

All of what you covered was sustainable when we had $1 and $2 per gallon gas.

Traveling those distances as we approach $5 per gallon gas is going to affect more and more people, but mostly those that live far from their "live, work, play" lifestyle and away from mass transit.

That's the point of the topic. I digressed into all sorts of extentions of related topics covered in other threads. Valid points exist on both ends.

But the development you love and support is now on "life support" and will become predominantly income based, just like those that claim urban living is too expensive. The higher the income you make, the less this affects you.

Someone making $50K versus $100K a year and drives 20+ miles each way to work will see things differently. Those are the people covered, and these low cost homes used to be the answer for first time home buyers who are middle class.

Sprawl needs to be re-evaluated and re-invented or else you will have people fleeing those homes when we hit $10 per gallon gas and have hords of vacant outlying neighborhoods, worse than suburban decay. Sounds a lot like the reverse migration of what happened in the inner cities before the 1960/70's suburban fleeing.

What assumptions to you make to support these results (and any evidence to support it?)

In the late 70's/early 80's, it was thought that there would be a "reverse migration" to the city centers, but this was a theory that never happened, and the data supports this. Again, that idea is floating around again, but it is till not true. Yes, there is an increase of sales in the loop, but it matches recent trends, with no significant uptick - expensive new town-homes and large mansions continue to sell. Yes outside the belt sales are down, but this loss is almost entirely due to the current mortgage issues which affects home sales less than $200K - yet sales above $200K are still strong and the average price of these homes is actually increasing. If you look at the sales data without looking at the reasons why, you cant see the real story. Also, in city sales are much, much higher average per foot and/or total sales prices outside the belt.

I can not share all of my data but here are some good informatice articles and data to back me up:

http://www.har.com/mls/dispPressRelease.cfm

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/busine...te/5843392.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...0,4422376.story

As far as sprawl goes, people are much more likely to change some habits before making huge life changing decisions, much of which can already be seen.

People will first stop making unnecessary trips, and/or consolidate the ones that have to. Before dumping the SUV, people will start to carpool, cutting fuel cost in half. Or better yet, they will take more public transportation:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25010939

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/10/us_mass_transit.html

It is also much cheaper to buy a smaller, more fuel efficient car than to move into the city - especially if you are wanting to make a lateral housing change (new location, but same amenities, prices, etc. which is not possible from suburb to city).

Finally, what do you think MPC base marketing and sales on? It is all income based. Somebody making $50K/yr is not usually going to buy a $300k. You market to your audience, any other marketing is a wasted effort of time and resources.

[BryanS]

There are so many more factors that go into selecting a new home than a three variable equaion. What about:

• value
  
• taxes
  
• schools
  
• churches
  
• shopping
  
• open space
  
• etc.
  

As an engineer, I would to generalize a home purchase so simplicity, but it is not truly possible, there are so many factors that go into the decision.

You can lump all these variables into "B," on an estimated cost basis... All of these should be factored into the cost of your house...

I want to say that I saw a new row of townhouses on Gray/Dallas, toward downtown... "Starting from the 410's" ... Starting to need to two incomes, over 100K each, to buy that kind of housing... Sure does seem like CA housing prices are creeping in... and there were no problems there.

[Pumapayam]

There are so many more factors that go into selecting a new home than a three variable equation. What about:

• value
  
• taxes
  
• schools
  
• churches
  
• shopping
  
• open space
  
• etc.
  

As an engineer, I would to generalize a home purchase so simplicity, but it is not truly possible, there are so many factors that go into the decision.

More specifically, value and taxes, being part of the cost of the home could be estimated (as such on going maintenance, association dues, renovations. . . ) could be all apart of B, but that complicates things more.

Church, schools, shopping is all covered under X what I consider "live, work, play" or what you consider essential to your daily, weekly, monthly, yearly routine.

[h2obuff]

More specifically, value and taxes, being part of the cost of the home could be estimated (as such on going maintenance, association dues, renovations. . . ) could be all apart of B, but that complicates things more.

Church, schools, shopping is all covered under X what I consider "live, work, play" or what you consider essential to your daily, weekly, monthly, yearly routine.

As much fun as it would be to have metrics to measure and put a price on enjoyability, fun, attractiveness, accessibility to open space, etc, it is not possible. As a father, husband, etc, there are so many things to take into consideration for you and your family that are not quantifiable but are definately part of teh decision making process.

If I happened to live in your complex, and we worked near each other, based on your equation, we would have the same values/slope. However, you appear to be single, as I am married and have a child, making my experiences and true value of the house much, much different than yours.

It is therefore great that we have the choice to do whatever the heck it is we want to do with where we live, work, play, etc, and are not all forced to live in a 30 year old townhouse complex close to the CBD.

In addition, if you were to try try to truly quantify the total cost of the home, there are a whole slew of economic factors that would need to be taken into consideration:

• Inflation
  
• Appreciation
  
• Gentrification
  
• Stability of local economy
  
• etc.
  

Yeah, you could argue that these are built in to your equation, but to truly account for these market forces you would need to have at least an economic variable.

[TheNiche]

Puma's formula does not account for the greatest component of commuting costs of all: time. It could've been used earning more money or engaging in more leisure activities and is really quite valuable.

If the opportunity cost of an hour of your time is $15, and your one-way commute is one hour along a 30-mile route with a vehicle that averages 20 mpg on a congested freeway so that the gas is going to cost you only $6 (at $4 per gallon), then the variable price of gasoline can only really have a limited impact as it relates to housing location preferences.

The price of gas could double, but high-earning workers that really can afford true 'McMansions' in the suburbs--the type whose opportunity cost of time is far higher than $15/hr.--wouldn't blink an eye.

[RedScare]

Puma's formula does not account for the greatest component of commuting costs of all: time. It could've been used earning more money or engaging in more leisure activities and is really quite valuable.

If the opportunity cost of an hour of your time is $15, and your one-way commute is one hour along a 30-mile route with a vehicle that averages 20 mpg on a congested freeway so that the gas is going to cost you only $6 (at $4 per gallon), then the variable price of gasoline can only really have a limited impact as it relates to housing location preferences.

The price of gas could double, but high-earning workers that really can afford true 'McMansions' in the suburbs--the type whose opportunity cost of time is far higher than $15/hr.--wouldn't blink an eye.

This makes no sense. If an individual's "opportunity cost" is so high, he/she will move to a location far closer than 30 miles away....and will not blink at the cost of housing. Clearly, some other factor(s) is influencing the decision to live that far away, be it schools, golf courses, or aversion to gays and liberal thinkers.

[Pumapayam]

This makes no sense. If an individual's "opportunity cost" is so high, he/she will move to a location far closer than 30 miles away....and will not blink at the cost of housing. Clearly, some other factor(s) is influencing the decision to live that far away, be it schools, golf courses, or aversion to gays and liberal thinkers.

I saw what you did there, and completely unnecessary.

Likewise, the pseudo formula was only there to establish a "fixed home" cost in the loosest terms as a constant with the true variable discussed in the article being cost/distance from a typical "live, work, play" lifestyle, in which the increased price in gasoline is eating away at the cost savings of an affordable home further out in the suburbs.

If you start tacking in other variables to minimize the influence of cost/distance, then yes, the article this thread relates to is meaningless.

K.I.S.S. for this thread please.

[RedScare]

Actually, while I may have thrown that last part in for humor, it is not as far off the mark as you might think. White flight was a variant of this theme. Numerous other examples could be given. And, it is an important factor, as it completely destroys attempts at economic formulas for housing choice, in that people tend to use irrational thought in place of economic reasoning to decide where to live. Other, not so diabolical reasons exist as well. It may be that the "coolness" factor of inner city living makes singles and other slaves to fashion spend far more on housing inside the loop than they otherwise would. An irrational belief that the suburbs are "close to nature" might make one move further into the exurbs than reasonable.

But, the point of the article remains the same. Rising gas prices force reality to invade the fantasy of suburban living. The fact is, few people put pen to paper and REALLY add up the cost of housing, regardless where they choose to live. The current crisis is evidence of this. But, a 50% rise in the cost of gas is forcing people to do so, perhaps for the first time.

[TheNiche]

This makes no sense. If an individual's "opportunity cost" is so high, he/she will move to a location far closer than 30 miles away....and will not blink at the cost of housing. Clearly, some other factor(s) is influencing the decision to live that far away, be it schools, golf courses, or aversion to gays and liberal thinkers.

No doubt that other factors influence housing location preferences, but given that those things aren't really changing in any appreciable way, and given that this thread is discussing whether "McMansions in the suburbs make less sense with high energy prices," and also the degree to which their sensibleness has changed, I think that my comments are perfectly well on-point.

[RedScare]

No doubt that other factors influence housing location preferences, but given that those things aren't really changing in any appreciable way, and given that this thread is discussing whether "McMansions in the suburbs make less sense with high energy prices," and also the degree to which their sensibleness has changed, I think that my comments are perfectly well on-point.

For that extremely small percentage of suburban homebuyers that falls into that subgroup, perhaps.

[TheNiche]

For that extremely small percentage of suburban homebuyers that falls into that subgroup, perhaps.

Yep, then insofar as you and I remain on-topic within this thread, it appears that we agree.

Oil prices have a minimal impact upon demand for McMansions in the suburbs.

[RedScare]

Yep, then insofar as you and I remain on-topic within this thread, it appears that we agree.

Oil prices have a minimal impact upon demand for McMansions in the suburbs.

You are making a HUGE assumption that purchasers of McMansion in the suburbs live within their means. My years in the bankruptcy business suggests that is often not the case. For that group, any significant jolt to the budget can have catastrophic consequences.

[TheNiche]

You are making a HUGE assumption that purchasers of McMansion in the suburbs live within their means. My years in the bankruptcy business suggests that is often not the case. For that group, any significant jolt to the budget can have catastrophic consequences.

Anecdotes make for pretty weak evidence as to the broader trend.

The data that I have seen with respect to homebuilding in the Houston area indicate that higher-priced homes are maintaining their value, have fewer foreclosures, and in fact continue to justify increasing rates of new construction.

[h2obuff]

Anecdotes make for pretty weak evidence as to the broader trend.

The data that I have seen with respect to homebuilding in the Houston area indicate that higher-priced homes are maintaining their value, have fewer foreclosures, and in fact continue to justify increasing rates of new construction.

I agree with Niche, the higher the price range, the strong the sales are right now (as was mentioned several pages back). Guys like Kickerillo are averaging a 15% incrase over last years sales at the half way point with no real slowing showing on the horizon.

In addition, the slump in entry level homes is not really concerned with rising energy costs, but the tighter mortgage market. it would be fun to see what, if any affect, the energy prices have on new, entry level home sales, but there is not enough information at this point to make the distinction, if even one exists.

[RedScare]

I agree with Niche, the higher the price range, the strong the sales are right now (as was mentioned several pages back). Guys like Kickerillo are averaging a 15% incrase over last years sales at the half way point with no real slowing showing on the horizon.

In addition, the slump in entry level homes is not really concerned with rising energy costs, but the tighter mortgage market. it would be fun to see what, if any affect, the energy prices have on new, entry level home sales, but there is not enough information at this point to make the distinction, if even one exists.

Using anecdotes to refute anecdotal evidence is generally considered bad form.

http://rismedia.com/wp/2008-04-17/houston-...rther-in-march/

Additionally, total March sales of single-family homes in Houston came in at 5,113, which was 16.4% lower than March 2007 and the steepest decline since sales began to slide last September.

Improved year-over-year sales activity continued in Houston

[KatieDidIt]

.

[cottonmather0]

And, it is an important factor, as it completely destroys attempts at economic formulas for housing choice, in that people tend to use irrational thought in place of economic reasoning to decide where to live.

A really hard core economist would argue that economics is the study of choices,not just money, and that hardly anything is truly irrational - just hard to quantify. If someone chooses to live in Katy because he doesn't like living in Sheila Jackson Lee's congressional district, even if it costs him more money to do so, that doesn't necessarily mean that he's being irrational, it more likely means that he just values living outside of TX-18 more than he values the extra money each month and he's therefore willing to pay (forgo) that difference to live in Katy. This is John Stuart Mill and Lionel Robbins kind of stuff and all kinds of economists these days spend their time trying to quantify those choices specifically to come up with models like what Puma is trying to do.

Kind of talking in circles now, but I guess the point is that incurring a monetary cost isn't necessarily an irrational decision, it can only seem that way.

[longcat]

This website has an interesting map showing annual houshold gasoline expenditures by area. Select 'Houston' for region and then select the 'Additional: Gas Costs Impacts' link. Backs up with data the common sense position that exburb residents are paying much more for transportation and are thus going to be much more affected by rising gasoline costs.

Link

The 'as a % of income' maps are interesting too...