[benj111]

Owning a car has costs, some if them are fixed, including them are entirely fair.

We could have a debate about including it in a per mile rate, rather than splitting it out, but ultimately they are costs car owners have to pay, and non car owners don't.

A sunk cost is still a cost. A cost you have to pay is still a cost.

[closeparen]

We can’t say that car ownership is a consequence of location if you are going to own the car regardless of location. Plenty of city-dwelling transit commuters drive on the weekends; it’s not fair to say that transit access == zero vehicles.

I think we could say it switches from a necessity to a leisure expense, and that city dwelling households can get most of what they want from a single car vs. several.

[benj111]

I'm not sure that we can't say car ownership is a consequence of location. Plenty doesn't mean all, and transit access == zero vehicles is an argument no ones making.

Clearly if a household moves from several cars to one car, fixed costs will decrease, which seems like an argument to measure fixed costs.

I'd agree with your point about vehicles potentially being leisure expenses, you could perhaps go further and start dividing up those fixed costs between leisure use, and business use. I'd even accept the argument that if you need a car, your leisure transport should be free from the fixed costs, as they have to be borne anyway, but they do have to be accounted for somewhere.