After more than a hundred years of engineering breakthroughs and industrial refinement, you might expect the cost of getting around by car to have dropped. Factories are vastly more efficient. Supply chains are global. Vehicles are safer, more reliable, and more comfortable than anything on the road in 1925.
Yet for the typical American household, the car has become more expensive. It has swollen as a proportion of income and expenses, while splitting into many different bills.
Add in commuting time and high rates of dangerous crashes and the costs swell further.
Cars have also become harder to say no to—cars have gone from one option among many to something most people cannot realistically opt out of.
In sum, compared to the early days of mass motoring, the typical American household is carrying a larger, riskier, and more compulsory transportation burden.
Then And Now: What Cars Really Cost
- The Cost Of A Car
In the 1920s, a basic mass‑market car was a big purchase, but not an all‑consuming one. A Ford Model T near the end of its run cost a substantial share of the average annual wage, but households usually bought a single, modest vehicle. It was simple, small, and often the only car they owned. Once you counted fuel and maintenance, the yearly cost was real but limited.
Today the picture is very different. Sticker prices are far higher in dollars, but the deeper change is how much of a household’s financial life now runs through its vehicles. A typical new car or truck can easily come close to the size of a full year’s median income. Even used cars have risen sharply in real, inflation‑adjusted terms, especially if you want something safe and reliable.
At the same time, many households now keep two or three vehicles. Even if one bare‑bones car were still somewhat affordable, the total capital tied up in multiple, larger, and more complex vehicles is far greater than it was in the early auto age. When you look at annual costs, adjusted for inflation, the weight is clear. Loan payments, insurance, fuel, maintenance, registration, parking, and fees can easily consume a large share of income. For many families, transportation takes a similar bite out of the budget as it did decades ago, and in some cases a bigger one. A century of technical progress has not made the total yearly cost of owning and using cars melt away. It has simply become more intricate and more deeply built into the household budget.
- Debt, Negative Equity, And Financial Stress
The way we finance cars has also changed. In the early days of mass motoring, time payments were new, and they were relatively short. Buyers typically made a sizable down payment, then finished paying within a year or two. There was still the risk of missed payments and repossession, but the period of debt was short, and the remaining balance usually did not outrun the car’s falling value.
Modern car loans tell another story. Terms of five, six, or seven years are common. Down payments are often small. The vehicle loses value quickly in the first few years, yet the loan balance falls only slowly. Many borrowers find themselves owing more than the car is worth. When they trade in, the leftover debt does not disappear. It is rolled into the next loan. In this way, yesterday’s shortfall becomes part of the cost of today’s car. For some drivers, this pattern repeats across several vehicles.
These long, large loans create payments that crowd the rest of life. Once you add insurance and fuel, it is easy for car expenses to rival or even exceed housing costs for lower‑income families. That leaves very little room for error. A job loss, an illness, or a surprise bill can trigger missed payments. Repossession then threatens not just a piece of property but the ability to reach work or school at all.
In this climate, the car is no longer just a tool that happens to be financed. It is a long‑term obligation wrapped tightly around a family’s stability. Negative equity and stretched loans make it normal to be underwater on an asset that remains essential to earning an income. That degree of ongoing financial strain was far less common in the early years of car ownership.
- Who Gets Stranded, And How
Cars were never universal in the 1920s, yet more people could function without one. Many cities and towns had streetcars, interurban trains, and local rail. Walking distances to jobs, schools, and stores were often shorter. A household might not own a car, but still have many ways to reach daily destinations.
Today, the transport system is built on a different assumption. It expects almost every adult to drive. This leaves several groups exposed.
Young people often cannot easily reach work, school, and social life without a car, even if they are not yet able to afford one or do not have a full license. Older adults who begin to age out of safe driving often do not automatically gain access to robust transit or walkable environments. Instead, they can lose independence and become effectively housebound in car‑oriented suburbs.
People with disabilities who cannot drive safely are often forced to rely on limited paratransit, costly ride‑hailing, or favors from family and friends. Lower‑income households face a similar problem from a different angle. They live in places that require driving, but can least afford to keep a car running. A mechanical failure or a lapsed insurance policy can abruptly cut them off from work, childcare, and food.
In many parts of the country a century ago, it was possible to live and work in the same town, walk more of your daily needs, or use a mix of trains and streetcars. Today, in much of the United States, not having a car means being stranded. Human abilities have not changed. The built system has.
From Choice To Dependence
When cars first spread, they entered a world filled with other ways to move. Urban areas had streetcars and trams. Towns and nearby cities were linked by interurban rail. Many neighborhoods mixed homes, shops, and small workplaces in short walking distance of each other. Cars offered new flexibility and speed and competed with these systems.
Over the following decades, government policy and private investment tipped the scales. Streetcar networks were removed or neglected. Bus systems replaced rail in many places, but often with lower frequency and reliability. Highways cut through urban neighborhoods and made it easier to live farther from the center. Planning rules separated homes from workplaces and stores and favored low density, drive‑in designs. Many new suburbs were laid out from the start around large roads, driveways, and parking lots, with few sidewalks and little or no transit.
The result is not just that more people like to drive. It is that many now have very little power not to drive. Even people who would gladly give up a second car, or even their only car, often cannot make that choice without uprooting their lives. Their workplace is not served by transit. Basic errands are miles away along high‑speed roads. Safe bike routes are missing. Sidewalks end suddenly.
Over time the menu of real options shrank. Where earlier generations could choose between several modes, modern households in most of the country face an almost all‑or‑nothing choice. Either they own and operate one or more cars, or they accept a level of constraint and isolation that is hard to square with normal daily life. A century of engineering progress has coincided with a quiet loss of transportation bargaining power for ordinary people.
Housing And Transportation: A Tightening Knot
Transportation costs do not stand alone. They are woven into where people can live and how far they must travel.
Zoning that separates housing from jobs and shops, mandatory parking rules, and decades of highway construction have worked together to stretch cities outward. New homes have often been built farther from major employment centers. At the same time, parking spaces, garages, and driveways became standard features of residential construction. That land and concrete are not free. They push up the cost of housing, even if the burden is not listed as a separate line item.
Households respond to this geography by driving more. When work, school, and daily errands are scattered across a wide area, it becomes harder to get by with one shared car or with a combination of walking and transit. People buy additional vehicles, and they accept longer commutes. Transportation costs rise, but they are treated as an unavoidable side effect of getting “more space” or “cheaper housing.”
Ironically, the push for cheaper housing often drives people to locations where transportation is both more necessary and more expensive. A home on the outer edge of a metropolitan area may offer a lower monthly mortgage or rent. Yet the savings can be offset by the need for two cars instead of one, longer daily drives, and higher spending on fuel and maintenance. Meanwhile, the home itself is more expensive to build and maintain than it appears, because it quietly includes land and structures dedicated to car storage.
This creates a feedback loop. Housing near jobs and transit grows scarce and costly. People who cannot afford it move farther out. Their transportation costs grow, which in turn makes it harder to save or move closer in later. The whole system ends up pushing housing and transportation costs upward together.
In a more flexible environment, people could choose to live close to work, pay more for housing, and spend less on transportation, or live farther away, accept more commuting time, but save enough overall to make the tradeoff worthwhile. Today that choice is often constrained. Walkable, transit‑served neighborhoods are limited and heavily bid up. Car‑dependent areas are plentiful and more affordable up front, but carry ongoing transportation costs that households cannot easily escape.
As a result, many people are not just traveling farther than they would prefer. They are also less able to live in the kind of places they actually want. The layout of housing and transportation channels them into patterns that maximize driving and car ownership, with little room for genuine preference.
Why Cars Feel More Expensive, Even As They Improve
Measured purely by features, modern vehicles are remarkable. They are more comfortable, more durable, and far more convenient than the cars of 1925. Many luxuries of the past are now standard. There has been real progress.
Yet if we ask whether ordinary households have been freed from the financial weight of everyday travel, the answer is still no. Even as manufacturing has become more efficient, several forces have kept mobility costly.
Direct costs remain high once you account for the number and size of vehicles per household and the total annual bills, even after adjusting for inflation. The spread of long loans and small down payments has made debt and negative equity a normal part of car ownership, leaving many drivers financially stressed and often owing more than their car is worth. The dominance of driving has left people who are too young, too old, disabled, or too poor to drive stranded or heavily dependent on others. The loss of robust alternatives has turned cars from a choice into a requirement for most people. And the way we build housing has tied the cost of shelter and the cost of transportation tightly together, pushing people to live farther from the places they want to be and to travel longer distances just to maintain ordinary routines.
In principle, a century of industrial and engineering gains could have made basic mobility cheap, flexible, and optional. In practice, those gains have helped build larger vehicles, extend profit‑rich financing, and sustain a landscape that quietly expects nearly everyone to keep buying and fueling cars for life. The car has not truly become cheaper in the ways that matter to everyday families. Instead, its price has been redistributed, buried in monthly payments, folded into rents and mortgages that pay for parking, and measured in hours behind the wheel that people must give up simply because there is no realistic alternative.
Moreworks 