Poorer folks are probably not looking at average car ownership costs. They're probably going to buy cheap/crappy cars, which means it's probably reasonable to live in Houston. Of course, then there's the reality that a cheap car is much more likely to need significant repair, which could either cripple a poor person in constant need of the car, or bankrupt the person, and fuel is generally more expensive as efficiency is lower.

Houston‘s sprawl pushes up transportation costs so poor people might have a cheaper car but they are paying more in gas and maintenance. And of course average people care about affordability not just the poor.

But does the low housing cost make up for the transportation cost?

I think the parent commenter did everyone a massive disservice by breaking housing and transportation into two separate categories since they're fungible with each other the same way time and money are.

Housing and commuting costs play off each other.

Working 3 jobs requires limiting transportation time to have enough remianing time to work multiple jobs. This makes Houston disruptively unaffordable for the working poor in a way that’s less obvious if you look at them combined.

It also makes maintenance time for their cars that much more difficult to schedule around.

> Poorer folks are probably not looking at average car ownership costs

That’s part of a vicious cycle down. Rent or mortgage checks are visible so people minimize that and then accept a long commute. People who buy cars based on the monthly payment often pay high interest. A farther commute means hundred of hours a year sitting in bumper to bumper traffic. A drive that’s half an hour on the weekend can inflate to an hour during rush hour. Way too many people consider housing+transportation as separate budget categories.

Also, a farther commute means higher consumption of whatever fuel you’re using, which also hits the pocketbook.