Naturally, this is a result of a dysfunctional political system with overlapping jurisdictions between city and county and a focus on consensus building over getting anything done. About ten years ago we were supposed to build a system of monorails, of all things, but instead of actually building them the relevant authorities spent several years arguing and bringing it to a vote, so while the people of Seattle voted for the monorail twice, by the third time they were just frustrated and gave up on the whole thing.

In addition to the bus system and the light rail line--mostly because Paul Allen owns most of the neighborhood and really wanted one--South Lake Union has a trolley with a rather colorful nickname.

I'm shopping for cars right now. After 4 years of owning one, I've conceded that that has not turned out to be the case. At least, not entirely - I've found it isn't apples-to-oranges.

When I last owned a car, I bought it new. It was a fairly nice car, so of course I was paying for comprehensive insurance. I also thought nothing of driving it everywhere, making frequent weekend trips, driving out to the state park to go mountain biking after work, etc. etc. I dumped a lot of money on it, but much of that money was on what I have now come to view as unnecessary luxury.

Having not owned a car for 4 years, I had gotten into the habit of walking or taking the bus/train or riding my bike anywhere. I did have a membership to a car sharing company, so I could rent a car by the hour whenever I needed one, but I had gotten into the habit of only using it once every other month or so. Trips out of the city, Chicago, could generally be made by rail (the commuter rail system is extensive, and it's an Amtrak hub).

Then I moved to a different city, and a lot changed. The city's transit system is quite good, but the inter-city transit isn't so good. Renting cars began to happen much more frequently; we're doing it about once a month now. It also became more expensive - this state does not require rental companies to include the mandatory minimum coverage with rentals, and both non-owners' insurance policies and the daily rate insurance offered by the rental companies are priced exorbitantly.

So the new calculus is, owning a car can be quite a bit less expensive, under certain conditions: The 'new' car is actually quite old, and has some dings and dents, so it didn't cost much in the first place. And since it's not beautiful anyway, there's not much call for paying for comprehensive insurance. And we're walking, biking, and taking the bus in all the situations where we would previously have walked, biked, or taken the bus - this car is not for commuting, it's not for driving out to the mall, it's not for burning gas (and money) just because I don't want to get rained on. It's for visiting folks in other cities, and perhaps also for trips to Costco. Under this new calculus, the break-even point should be only about 2 years out, assuming no major repairs.

Also I admit that at lest when I was younger, it seems the kids who owned a car were a bit more spontaneous. They take trips to the sea at a whim or whatever.

Since I have not yet sorted out the renting thing, I can't say how easy it would be to just jump into a rented car on a whim. I already ran into problems trying to organize holidays, for example going most of the way by train and renting a car at the destination train station. I had imagined there to be a much better infrastructure than there really is. Hoping that will improve, though.

I actually consider it a luxury that I don't need a car.