backtop


Print 152 comment(s) - last by GotThumbs.. on Apr 16 at 3:58 PM


  (Source: Hyundai Motor America)
NADA's study discovered that about 7 million lower-income consumers will not qualify for auto financing with the proposed CAFE rules in place due to the extra costs

The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) has released a study that claims about 7 million car buyers will be cut from the new vehicle market due to the latest Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) proposal, which aims to increase the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to 54.5 mpg by 2025.

The NADA study, called "The Effect of Proposed MY 2017-2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards on the New Vehicle Market Population," is based on a consumer expenditures report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. NADA calculated debt-to-income ratios for households by looking at the purchasing behavior and financial profiles of a portion U.S. citizens.

NADA's study discovered that about 7 million lower-income consumers like families and college students would not qualify for auto financing with the proposed CAFE rules in place due to the extra costs.

"To work, fuel economy improvements must be affordable," said Don Chalmers, chairman of NADA's Government Affairs Committee and president of Don Chalmers Ford in Rio Rancho, New Mexico. "While you can mandate what automakers must build, you can't dictate what customers will buy, nor can you dictate if a bank will make a loan.

"If my customers can't buy what I've got to sell, there are no savings at the gas pump and there is no environmental benefit. If car and truck buyers do not purchase these new products, we all lose."

According to David Wagner, leader of the NADA study and an analyst with the NADA Used Car Guide, the government estimates that the price of new vehicles will increase by about $3,000 with the new CAFE rules in place, and this is what will cause millions of Americans to lose out in the new car market in the coming years.

"Disregarding vehicle affordability will undermine the environmental and national security benefits the administration is seeking," said Doug Greenhaus, NADA's chief regulatory counsel for environment, health and safety. "The proposed MY 2017-2025 fuel economy rules should be delayed until there is a more accurate picture of how prospective buyers likely will react."

It's no secret that NADA is against the proposed CAFE rules. Back in January, Chalmers announced that doubling today's fuel economy standards would force manufacturers to use expensive fuel-saving technologies that would bump up the sticker price of a new vehicle an extra $5,000. NADA previously said it expected to release a study that would show that the costs for the new higher fuel-economy standards will overshoot government estimates by over 60 percent (meaning an extra $5,000 to the sticker price for new 2025 models).

The government estimates that the sticker price of a new 2025 vehicle will be a about $3,000 higher, not $5,000, and the latest NADA study did not prove otherwise at this point.
 
According to TrueCar, the average transaction price of a new vehicle hit a new high of $30,748 in March 2012.

Sources: National Automobile Dealers Association, TrueCar [PDF]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good
By arthur449 on 4/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/12, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By ebakke on 4/13/2012 12:15:46 PM , Rating: 5
When public transportation can go where I want to go, when I want to go there, without noise and aromatic pollution during the ride, and without the threat of having my belongings stolen in transit, then maybe I'll hop on. But only if the price is reasonable.


RE: Good
By SonofaSteve on 4/13/2012 3:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
XD way to assert yourself you gotta fight for what you want


RE: Good
By Jeffk464 on 4/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By SPOOFE on 4/13/2012 4:12:40 PM , Rating: 3
For the cost of spotty service, inconvenient schedules, rampant body odor from the many 'omeless or otherwise unwashed masses, lousy attitudes from drivers, and the risk of assault or worse, public transpo had better provide blowjobs or something to make it all worth it.


RE: Good
By retrospooty on 4/13/2012 4:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
all that and a bj is still a good day ;)


RE: Good
By Jedi2155 on 4/14/2012 3:35:51 AM , Rating: 5
You can probably get it. You just can't be picky on the person...or the gender.


RE: Good
By GotThumbs on 4/16/2012 3:56:13 PM , Rating: 3
This is pure BS. Anyway, I've never purchased a new car. I've always purchased good quality used cars and have put over 100,000 miles on each one of them. Both my current vehicles have over 130,000 miles on each one. I bought both used. I perform regular maintenance and have had zero breakdowns. Americans need to STOP being a throw-away society and become more self-reliant.

This is just a scare tactic to appease the car manufacturers.

It's NOT An American RIGHT to own a new car. Buy one if you want and can afford it, along with your other OBLIGATIONS...but don't whine about it.

It's a car....just a car.


RE: Good
By GotThumbs on 4/16/2012 3:58:28 PM , Rating: 2
Heck, You can get a decent used VW TDI that gets 48 mpg...the newest version gets a little less, but still in low 40's.

Current options exist. Car companies KNOW the government is soft like a lame parent. Remember the recent bailout?


RE: Good
By NullSubroutine on 4/13/2012 12:16:51 PM , Rating: 5
Because the US is not a vast country with millions of people that do not live in crowded urbanite areas where public transportation is either not available or not feasible?

And it is a good idea to take the freedom of mobility away from those of the lower class because freedom of mobility should only be available to those of means?


RE: Good
By leviathan05 on 4/13/2012 12:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
You can still buy a Segway.


RE: Good
By Mint on 4/13/2012 2:17:14 PM , Rating: 5
No need to exaggerate.

Used cars will still be available for less, and they're lasting longer and longer. It's not the end of the world if fewer new cars are bought by the lower class.

Besides, a healthy used car market increases resale value, and thus reduces lease payments on new ones.


RE: Good
By seamonkey79 on 4/15/2012 11:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
Used cars in my area (Tampa) are going for more than new ones are. Why, you might ask? Because a few years ago the Government paid to have lots of pre-used-used cars taken off the roads and destroyed, so there aren't very many. On top of that, many lenders will not loan for a new car but will for a used one, so they have to drop the price on the new ones to get people (like me) to bring their older car in, trade it for a new one, and leave a used one that they can actually make money with.

This country is really screwed up and fixing to get worse.


RE: Good
By NullSubroutine on 4/13/2012 5:47:08 PM , Rating: 1
It was a sarcastic/rhetorical question. Many Americans don't live in large urban areas that have public transportation available and live distances or in climates where a bike or "segway" really inst feasible either.


RE: Good
By dsx724 on 4/13/2012 12:48:49 PM , Rating: 5
We're already the fattest country with at least 5 million people. Eat less and get a bike. Freedom of transporation is not in the constitution.


RE: Good
By tayb on 4/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By bobsmith1492 on 4/13/2012 1:05:19 PM , Rating: 3
We're an independent people. We like going where we want to or need to go, when we want to. We don't like being herded around like sheep. That might be part of the offense.

Beyond that, it's not about offense, it's simply impractical. I used public transportation at school because I lived in one campus and had classes at the other. Busses were full and efficient because they went between 2 locations.

Most of the country isn't like that. People live all over the place and work all over the place. It's not a problem with sentiment, it simply doesn't work. No one wants to walk 15 minutes to a bus stop (in the winter/rain especially), wait 20 minutes for the next bus, get off, hop on another one, etc, etc, etc.

Public transportation is only efficient in densely populated areas. These we have, already, in big cities. That's the only place it's reasonable.


RE: Good
By FaaR on 4/13/12, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By ebakke on 4/13/2012 1:35:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Oil won't last forever, and the rest of the world is fed up with 5% of the human population (read: americans) single-handedly using up 33% of the world's energy consumption, much of that being fossile in origin.
If "the rest of the world" cared as much as you claim they did, they wouldn't sell it to us.


RE: Good
By bupkus on 4/13/2012 4:53:47 PM , Rating: 3
If "the rest of the world" cared much about drug abuse, pushers wouldn't sell it to us.

Maybe this helps.


RE: Good
By ebakke on 4/14/2012 1:02:48 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't. :-?


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/2012 1:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
FaaR I don't think I could have summed up such a failed description of Liberal ideology as what you just posted. I especially like the part about everyone having to move closer to where they work, because "you people" have things too good, and the "rest of the world" is fed up with it.


RE: Good
By rdhood on 4/13/2012 2:10:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you live in one place and work at another you're just going to have to move closer to your workplace. It just won't work forever continuing to live the way you people do. Oil won't last forever, and the rest of the world is fed up with 5% of the human population (read: americans) single-handedly using up 33% of the world's energy consumption, much of that being fossile in origin.


Patently false and stupid on so many levels.

Example: I purchased a house close to my place of work (1996). Three years later, my company was bought out and my new office moved 25 miles. 8 years after that, my company moved its headquarters ANOTHER 25 miles. Through no fault of my own, I had a 1.5 hour commute. Then, I lost my job in 2009. After 9 months of unemployment, I took a job... 50 miles from my home. It was that or bankruptcy. For people in my situation, driving is a necessity, not a choice. The economy put my house underwater... I couldn't move if I wanted to without permanently wrecking my credit.

2nd: the world is NOT tired of the U.S. using energy. Every oil producing country in the world is GLAD that we use it. Without the U.S. consumption, their economies would be non-existent, their populations would be destitute, and their people would be in revolt. Take away 25% of the world economic output, including food for a billion people, and the world would go into depression. A billion people would starve in a year.


RE: Good
By twhittet on 4/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By Arsynic on 4/13/2012 2:55:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you live in one place and work at another you're just going to have to move closer to your workplace. It just won't work forever continuing to live the way you people do. Oil won't last forever, and the rest of the world is fed up with 5% of the human population (read: americans) single-handedly using up 33% of the world's energy consumption, much of that being fossile in origin.


Yes, because it would be really practical for someone to relocate themselves and their family closer to where they work. The reason most people don't live closer to where they work is often times because they can't afford to live closer to where they work!


RE: Good
By JediJeb on 4/13/2012 3:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
Or there is not available homes or housing closer to where you work. I guess next all employers are going to be required to offer bunkhouses or apartments for their employees located in their facilities.


RE: Good
By Nfarce on 4/15/2012 2:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
That's only partially true. I live in one of the most heavily commuted metro cities in the nation: Atlanta. I have lived and worked all over the greater ATL area, and my longest commute was over an hour..one way. Every office park I have worked in had neither homes nor multi-family residencies nearby (apartments, condos, town homes, etc.).

Further, in the four companies I've worked for over the past 18 years being here, none were located in an area I particularly cared to live in nor would I have wanted my kids going to the public schools in those locations. Also, many families prefer to get more bang for their buck and land (not to mention security) living in the outer burbs and commuting in.


RE: Good
By zephyrprime on 4/16/2012 3:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah and there's a reason why office parks have no homes nearby. It is usually because either all the commercial and industrial places are zoned together or because the land out in the boondocks is cheaper to build an office park on. And people have to change jobs so often that they are often stuck with a long commute even if they didn't intend to have one to begin with. What needs to happen is the cost of commuting needs to be shifted partially onto employers. Currently, there are what the economists call external costs that the businesses do not bear so they do not care if where they choose to place their businesses causes prices to rise.


RE: Good
By SPOOFE on 4/13/2012 5:01:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you live in one place and work at another you're just going to have to move closer to your workplace.

Impossible for millions of people. Dense urban areas of LA alone employ hundreds of thousands of people that don't make enough to live there, too.

You can't just hand-wave away economical realities like "property value". When your retort relies on magic, you're an idiot.


RE: Good
By weskurtz0081 on 4/14/2012 9:53:18 AM , Rating: 2
You clearly have a VERY solid understanding of why the US uses so much oil. So, if American's all moved VERY close to where they work, if that were somehow possible and the only problem, that would completely "fix" the oil consumption in the US?

You know what fixes it? Supply/demand and higher prices. As prices go up, suburban growth will decrease, and people will start moving back into the cities!


RE: Good
By tayb on 4/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/2012 2:12:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The independence thing though, I don't get.


You seriously don't see the difference between being crammed into a sweaty stinky bus or train full of strangers as it goes from stop to stop, or driving your own comfortable climate controlled vehicle with personal entertainment devices where you want when you want?

You just aren't being honest with yourself if you think most people would PREFER public transportation over an automobile. You realize NYC and Philly, in terms of population density vs size, are in the extreme minority right? Not the majority.


RE: Good
By tayb on 4/13/2012 2:23:26 PM , Rating: 1
Do I see the difference? Certainly, but you are only looking at the downside of public transportation while focusing on the positives of vehicle ownership.

With cars you sit in traffic, pay to repair the car, gasoline, car payment, inspection, registration, depreciation, etc. I've paid off my car but I used to make $300/month car payments and I currently spend $160/month in gas and $80/month in tolls. $540/month or $6,480/year total. And that doesn't even include repairs and routine maintenance. If it were available in Dallas I would definitely make the choice to NEVER own a car again and just pocket that cash.

You also have to consider population growth. LA is a perfect example of what happens when a city grows but doesn't invest in public transportation. I've sat in LA traffic. For hours. It wasn't fun. I think most people there would PREFER public transportation were it available.


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By tayb on 4/13/2012 2:44:51 PM , Rating: 1
First, I pay taxes so I am a tax payer. Also, 8.25% of everything I buy goes to the state of Texas.

Second, public transportation is not free. You can't hop on a train or bus and expect to ride for free.

Third, public transportation is not cheap. A round trip ticket from Doylestown (last stop for SEPTA) and Market East (downtown Philly) will run you $10.

Fourth, even if the costs ballooned exponentially it would never come anywhere NEAR the exorbitant costs to own a vehicle.

Fifth, you aren't being double taxed. You are simply choosing not to use the services the city is providing you. If you do not like your tax dollars going to PUBLIC services your recourse is to take it with your city council.


RE: Good
By JediJeb on 4/13/2012 3:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Third, public transportation is not cheap. A round trip ticket from Doylestown (last stop for SEPTA) and Market East (downtown Philly) will run you $10.


At current prices here that would be 2.5 gallons of gasoline per day. Even with the terrible mileage of my truck that would get me 45 miles, I live 15 miles from work so I am saving money over that that ride would cost.

quote:
Fourth, even if the costs ballooned exponentially it would never come anywhere NEAR the exorbitant costs to own a vehicle.


My truck has been paid off over 14 years now, it cost me about $550 per year in insurance, $45 per year in taxes/license, and repairs/oil changes cost me maybe another $100 per year. I don't think that is very exorbitant. I would also gladly pay that extra $695 per year to have the ability to go anywhere I want when I want. As for daily travel to work, it costs me less than $200 per month which is what that $10 round trip ride would cost per month so that pretty much equals out.


RE: Good
By Keeir on 4/13/2012 7:47:03 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Third, public transportation is not cheap. A round trip ticket from Doylestown (last stop for SEPTA) and Market East (downtown Philly) will run you $10.


Public Transportation ISN'T CHEAP. That 10 dollars probably was not the fair fare.

http://www.septa.org/reports/pdf/annual-2011.pdf

SEPTA dervives ~30-35% of its funding through fares. The other 65-70% comes from taxes, paid from a communal pool which is probably sourced in part by Car registrations!

That means (to me) the actual fare should have been nearly 30 dollars!

Car drivers pay for thier roads through gasoline taxes, which total (nationwide) nearly 80% of the Federal and State level road construction. Add in what Car owners subsidies Public Transporation and I think you'll discover not only do car owners pay thier own way, they pay for much much more than thier road construction. Public Transit on the other hand nationwide average around 33-35% fare supported. Some areas is even worse, down to less than 25%.

But in my mind the worst from the Septa report is this...

SEPTA provides the same transportation as ~200,000 cars at a yearly cost of 1.5 billion. Thats 7500 per year per car "replacement". ::Shudder:: That's expensive. Thats similiar to a -LUXURY- car. Its almost TWICE as expensive as a Prius.


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/2012 10:57:13 PM , Rating: 2
Keeir you've been making really solid posts that destroy tayb's naive and ignorant assumptions while being completely ignored by him. I just wanted to thank you for trying, in vein probably, to set this misguided leftie straight.

That fact that people still have to be explained how totally inefficient and wasteful Government spending is, especially in this age, is really depressing.


RE: Good
By Paj on 4/16/2012 7:56:51 AM , Rating: 2
You seriously believe that the solution to increasing dependance on crumbling road infrastructure is MORE cars? Thats your argument?

I want to do whatever I want, when I want, and to be free to make any choice I want regardless of the consequences!

They have a name for people who think like that: a child.


RE: Good
By SonofaSteve on 4/13/2012 3:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
who said anything about free
and what the hell is true cost
isn't the goal of public transportation to finance over the long term
and what the hell do you mean about your taxes? the taxes are higher up on the government food chain than your local bus service
it's not like contribution of the rest of hte transportation infrastructure of the country would be far greater impact on your taxes than the access to local public transit oh no you being hit hard for that local bus plus all the rest of the shi7 you pay for
maybe your job just sucks at walmart


RE: Good
By Jeffk464 on 4/13/2012 3:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
Funny you mention people preferring public transportation in LA if they could. I have a cousin that would take the metro into LA for work but it didn't start where he wanted or end where he wanted so he had to leave a car at each end. So it took two cars for one person to use LA public transit. :)


RE: Good
By Mint on 4/13/2012 4:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
Trust me Reclaimer, you don't want to live in a world without public transportation. Your reduce the mobility of the lower class, resulting in higher unemployment (and thus higher gov't spending and poorer economic output). You force more people to use cars (not everyone using it is poor), congesting traffic. It's also a far safer mode of transportation, so without it you get more accidents, affecting insurance.

I'm not going to endorse high speed rail, but basic public transportation is very beneficial for cities, socially and economically, and cities are very important to the US economy.


RE: Good
By SPOOFE on 4/13/2012 5:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Trust me Reclaimer, you don't want to live in a world without public transportation

I already do. It's called "Los Angeles", and public transportation SUCKS BALLS and is HIDEOUSLY EXPENSIVE and ABSOLUTELY SHOULDN'T BE EXPANDED. However, giving it lipservice appeals to the poor and provides local gov't the opportunity to pass on lucrative county deals to their developer buddies.

Good job: Failing to solve a problem AND making it worse at the same time! You genius, Mint.


RE: Good
By Mint on 4/13/2012 9:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
You live in LA and have no qualms about traffic? I hate it.

It's bad enough already. Take the MTA and rail away and traffic becomes even worse.


RE: Good
By Keeir on 4/14/2012 1:59:37 AM , Rating: 3
Man Mint,

http://www.metro.net/about_us/finance/images/cafr_...

It appears to me that the MTA receives close to 2.5 Billion a year in sales tax and government grant money.

Thats enough to build more than 50 miles of 6 lane roadway (typically it costs around between 25-50 million a mile, I used the high number). And this is -every- single year.

I wonder how much having an extra 25 Billion over the past decade would improve the traffic situation in LA?


RE: Good
By jRaskell on 4/16/2012 8:23:14 AM , Rating: 2
So basically, you're taking one of the worst examples of public transportation in the world, and using that as the reason why public transportation is bad? There is a serious flaw in that argument.


RE: Good
By Keeir on 4/16/2012 12:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
jRaskell, while Los Angeles is certainly the worst I've looked at...

Among:
New York
Toronto
San Fransico
Los Angeles
Seattle
Philadelphia
Washington DC

No city has a fare structure that even pays the "Operating" Expenses, let alone new capital aquistions or even paying back old capital assests. I can't even find one where the fares pay the employees of the system!

Of the above major cities, less than 35% on average is charged the passengers. On average 60% of the cost is born by the state. (Compared to car where less than 10% of the cost comes from the general coffers when you remember the 25-50 cents per gallon paid in gasoline taxes AND the 30-150 dollar yearly car registrations)

Per passgener mile the above cities are spending between 0.50 dollars per mile (Toronto) to above 1.25 dollars per mile (Los Angeles).

My personal car on the other hand has cost ~.28 dollars per passenger mile. True I probably should include an extra 2 cents for the increase in gas tax needed to fully fund road construction. Maybe an extra 10 cents for parking spaces which I didn't pay for...

That makes using my personal car not only more convient than public transportation, but also overall less expensive!

Does Public Mass Transit need to be this way? No... but the facts are every major system in the United States or Canada -is- this way. Expensive and not effective.


RE: Good
By macca007 on 4/13/2012 8:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
If the roads where I live became so congested wasting an extra 30 minutes or more I would switch from car to motorbike rather than use public transport!
No traffic jams, Cheap on petrol, Cheap on maintenance, And no crazies to deal with. You could argue that bike is impracticle for family trips or shopping but I will argue back saying so is public transport for those things. Cars will always be needed either way.
After having a friend of mine use train/bus to work every day in city and then sitting on a needle that was deliberately hidden on the train seat(inbetween back rest and part you sit on), I doubt I'll be using public system!
Luckily the HIV results came back negative in his case but still the scare alone made him change back to car.
Rather put up with the stress of someone cutting me off in traffic for a few seconds rather than the stress of dealing with annoying strangers for 30 minutes. Mobile phones, loud
music,coughing and sneezing,arguments/fights, Think I will pay an extra $20 a week in the extra petrol thanks.
You still need a car to enjoy family life to do your shopping etc etc, You have to insure that car and pay for registration anyway and pay to maintain it, You are paying fees from those to maintain roads may as well get your moneys worth.
Not all of us live in urban or city areas where public transport makes sense.


RE: Good
By JediJeb on 4/13/2012 2:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
But you are looking at it from the viewpoint of living in a city like NYC. Where I live it can be a half mile between houses, twenty miles between sizable towns and fifty miles between small cities. Public transportation does not work here. The closest thing to that is school buses, and my father worked with the school buses all his life and can tell you just how much it costs to run them only two runs per day and it is very expensive.

A rough estimate says that about 80 million people in the US live in cities with above 100,000 populations. That is about 27% of the US population. That means that well over half the US population lives in smaller cities, towns and rural areas. Those are areas in which public transportation is not feasible/economical/practical. If as some here say those people need to move into larger cities to make better use of public transportation then those cities would be so crowded that I would honestly hate to even think of living in them. By the time cities grew big enough to accommodate everyone then they would be so spread out that their public transportation would probably be a nightmare, and moving to where you work would also rely on there being available housing in that area.

As for my situation, I was living in a apartment spending about $600 per month with a 5 mile drive to work and now have a 15 mile drive to work but am paying $375 per month on a house payment. Why should I have to pay almost 40% more just to save a little gas, and no, there is no public transportation there to use and will never be because it would not be economical to ever implement it. Also do you want all those factories built in the middle of the cities just so people do not need to travel so far to work? I guess we could use the Soviet era model where we build factories then build industrial cities around them to house the workers. I bet that was a pleasant place to live.

Why don't we do the better alternative and just revert to an agronomy society and spread everyone out with enough land to support themselves and their neighbors and ditch all the technology including entertainment and internet and even electricity, that would surely save more pollution than public transportation would. And no, I am not against public transportation, it is a wonderful thing where it is practical, but to try to force everyone to move to a place it is possible is just crazy.



RE: Good
By Solandri on 4/13/2012 3:31:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A rough estimate says that about 80 million people in the US live in cities with above 100,000 populations. That is about 27% of the US population.

By 2003 estimates, about 85% of the U.S. population lived in cities larger than 100,000. Only about 15% lived in towns smaller than 100,000. Page 8, figure 2.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p25-1134.pdf

The long-term trend has been towards larger population centers. Most of the population growth is in cities of over 1 million. So I suspect that the rural and sparse suburban population is significantly less than 15% now.


RE: Good
By JediJeb on 4/13/2012 4:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
I was looking at this table

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

and did what I thought was a rough estimate of the populations to come up with the 80 million. I may have gotten off but I still don't think those numbers total up to over 200 million. Also the report you listed says metropolitan areas and maybe that is more inclusive than cities because I know that for Louisville Kentucky the metro area takes in most of the county while the city itself does not. Metro areas still take in a lot of sprawl which would be more difficult to include in public transportation.

This reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_U...

shows it is currently 82% living in what is considered cities and suburbs, I wonder if maybe the trend is reversing. Of the people I know, most who live in a city are trying to move out to smaller areas, and honestly you couldn't pay me enough to move into a large city.


RE: Good
By Mint on 4/13/2012 9:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
The wiki figures aren't metro areas. LA population may be technically under 4M, but the metro area is 13M.


RE: Good
By JediJeb on 4/15/2012 8:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
Does the metro area include suburbs? The original post mentioned moving into cities where public transportation was available, but I know around where I live most public transportation doesn't extend out into the suburbs. Also how far out to you have to be to be considered moving out of the city? If you move out from the city proper into the fringe of the metro area, should that be considered as moving out of the city? Also how much of what is considered population trending to moving into a city including the annexation of outlying small communities into cities?


RE: Good
By Jeffk464 on 4/13/2012 3:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
"We don't like being herded around like sheep"

Nobody said the subway cars have to be crappy and overcrowded on the inside. I rode the metro link in LA once and the interiors were actually really nice and comfortable.


RE: Good
By gunzac21 on 4/15/2012 7:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
There is only one city in america that seriously uses public transportation, NYC thats it. by serious i mean the major form of transportation. If you could get other urban areas to that level of public transportation use I would be very satisfied. Btw most people live in urban areas.


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By tayb on 4/13/12, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By tayb on 4/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 4/13/2012 3:00:55 PM , Rating: 5
What you really just said is "I have no argument, so I'll just shut up and act like I was right."


RE: Good
By tayb on 4/13/12, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By Nfarce on 4/15/2012 2:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
tayb = pwned. Typical emotion-driven liberal bites the dust of logic and reason of other who aren't liberals....


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/2012 10:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much Fit.


RE: Good
By twhittet on 4/13/2012 7:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, I'm pretty sure he has nothing else to do but rage on here. He obviously doesn't have a job from the hundreds of rants he does daily.


RE: Good
By SonofaSteve on 4/13/12, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By Keeir on 4/13/2012 1:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
Some people where I live feel like they deserve to ride around on a bus, bike, or train.

Lets leave alone the fact each bus boarding costs more than 4 dollars (more than 1/2 of which comes out of taxes, not fares) or the projected train boardings will each cost 6+. They -deserve- to be able to use these resources at more than 50% off their price. Oh, this doesn't include the cost of building the tracks or roads. Just operating costs.

Bikes are an entirely different matter. I've seen estimates as high as 500 dollars spent for each hour of current bike commuting. That's probably outlandish, but I bet 100 dollars a hour is probably too low. That's a pretty heavy cost, from which they pay nearly nothing.

Public Transit can work. It just doesn't work well in the US. Its nearly impossible to build up a consistant and on time system that offers people good value...even when its -free- to use. On top of that, its actually more expensive and people are better off for the environment car pooling for the most part.


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 4/13/2012 3:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
Where it works in the US, it exists. New York, DC, Boston, etc.


RE: Good
By Jeffk464 on 4/13/2012 3:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
$100 dollars for every hour of bike commuting, what? You by a bike for $400 bucks it lasts 20 years with no insurance, fuel, almost no maintenance, so how does that make any sense at all?


RE: Good
By Keeir on 4/13/2012 4:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
The City and State government spend millions each year improving roadways to add bike lanes and increasing safety for bike commuters. Not to mention increasing ability to bike through bike racks, bike carriers on public transportation, public lockers, etc, etc, etc.

For example it costs anywhere from 50,000 to 200,000 to add 1 way 1 mile bike lane in my area. (It depends it just a study and spray paint, or actual expansion of the road needs to occur). This is very cheap in comparison to the 1,000,000 to 6,000,000 a mile of new road takes. The issue it outside of a few high profile corridors, most of these bike lanes are used less than 100 times a day on average... or less than 4,000 times a year. So that's ~250-500 hours of bike riding. Even if we assume it just a spray paint job (that needs redone every few years) your looking at some fairly high costs per hour commuting. Now, if many more people decided to bike ride, then it might be alot less. But given the weather conditions, this is unlikely to happen in many areas they have rolled the bike lanes out to... it hasn't happened yet to the degree that is required to make the projects make fiscal sense. Building more car roads provides more transportation capacity at less cost. Building more bus stations provides more transporation capacity at less cost. Building train stations cost less! Bikes are some of the most expensive to the Government for actual usage.


RE: Good
By Jeffk464 on 4/13/2012 5:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think its probably a good idea to improve bike safety anyways because there are a lot of people under 16 who use bikes to get around. So having minors mowed down on public roads probably isn't what most people want.


RE: Good
By Keeir on 4/13/2012 5:44:52 PM , Rating: 2
Public Roads were never designed to be shared between cars and bikes. Bikes are simply impractical for the majority tasks done in the United States.

Far more practical are actual bike corridors where there are no motors at all. Not surprizingly these often experience traffic 20-100 times greater than a shared bike lane space. They also tend to be just a little more expensive than shared space. But their cost per ride is very very low.

The best thing for Bike Safety is to not have your children Bike Ride of roads with cars traveling 35, 45, and 55 mph. Doesn't matter how many lane indicators, special lights, etc, etc you install. That's not a safe situation and never will be.


RE: Good
By Arsynic on 4/13/2012 2:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
There are a lot of poor people that don't live in urban areas.


RE: Good
By Targon on 4/15/2012 1:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
For those who live outside of cities, you NEED a car in many places just to get to and from work. If you even try to take public transit, you either end up at work 1 hour early(which most don't get paid for) and have to leave an hour later, or you have a car. Riding a bike to work when you live 20 miles away from your job also isn't going to work if there are no showers to use when you get to work as well, even if you are willing to risk your life riding a bike on roads that are not designed with them in mind.

Europe is a different sort of place, where most towns/cities are so old, people live closer to work than people in the USA do. Get away from the Northeast USA, and things are really spread out a LOT more.


RE: Good
By Nfarce on 4/15/2012 2:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The anti-public transportation sentiment in the US is just ridiculous. We could solve so many problems with amazing public transportation but people are literally offended by the idea.


I live in Atlanta, one of the US's most heavily commuted metro area. We have MARTA which is rail and bus. North of the city you can see empty MARTA buses going up and down major primary and secondary roads at any given time of day. Further, everywhere the train goes, crime has gone up. Public transportation brings with it crime, whether people like you want to admit it or not. I know first hand being the victim of one.

Finally, the pipe dream of you public transportation activists just won't solve every single need of someone wanting to get from point A to point D while going through nodes B and C. The only thing I'm offended at is people like you trying to ram your feel-good beliefs down my throat as if you know what's better for me than I do.

Go pound sand.


RE: Good
By ebakke on 4/13/2012 1:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
Neither is freedom of food choice. Or freedom of favorite colors. Or freedom of picking flowers. Or freedom of having friends.

Freedom's freedom, man.


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 4/13/2012 2:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
Neither is forcing people to buy things.


RE: Good
By Solandri on 4/13/2012 3:20:22 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Freedom of transporation is not in the constitution.

Actually it is. Amendment 10:
quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, if it's not a power given to the Federal government by the Constitution, it's a right which belongs to the people or the States. If there's nothing in the Constitution saying we don't have freedom of transportation, then we have freedom of transportation.

It's a common misconception. The Constitution does not list rights given to the people; it lists the rights of the Federal government. Anything not listed in the Constitution is assumed to be a right of the people (or their State). The founding fathers just felt that certain rights of the people should be mentioned explicitly just to be sure there was absolutely no confusion about it. The act that something isn't listed in the Bill of Rights does not mean that it's not a right.

Yeah, I agree that people need to eat less and exercise more. But it's not my right to force them to do that. It has to be their own choice.


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 4/13/2012 3:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
Just as them choosing to buy health care or not is just that, a choice.


RE: Good
By JediJeb on 4/13/2012 4:37:13 PM , Rating: 3
Also some people confuse Freedom of Transportation with Free Transportation or Freedom to use the Internet with Free Internet Service.

Freedoms usually come with a cost, but are usually more than worth it.


RE: Good
By Nfarce on 4/15/2012 2:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly you know the Constitution better than Obama - and most democrats.


RE: Good
By bupkus on 4/13/2012 4:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
Neither is the right to vote for representatives that support their interest in THEIR tax dollars going for public transportation?


RE: Good
By NicodemusMM on 4/13/2012 8:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
I drive up to 600 miles per day and make a good living doing so. Do you know of a bike that can do that while carrying the few components and tools that I need? Didn't think so... If you're willing to pay my salary in order to make yourself feel better.. fine. Until then stop assuming that everything that everyone needs is within a few miles and/or that we want to ride there anyway. At least (assuming you practice what you preach) you're one less idiot I have to deal with on the road. Can't wait to see you toting groceries on your bike... dumbass.


RE: Good
By Arc177 on 4/14/2012 11:33:47 AM , Rating: 2
You are a moron. You forcing your idiotic beliefs on me and the rest of the citizenry isn't in the Constitution either. What is in the Constitution is my right to believe how i see fit and that includes not having to listen to your dumba$$ . In short YOU go ride a bike and mind your own business.


RE: Good
By invidious on 4/13/2012 1:25:03 PM , Rating: 4
I don't recall seeing transportation convinience in the bill of rights.

I don't know how the idea of America being about economic equality has gotten into people's heads lately. America is and always has been capitalist, it is the OPPOSITE of economic equality. If you want economic equality there are plenty of poor communist countries out there that will welcome you to come share in their squaller.


RE: Good
By NullSubroutine on 4/13/2012 5:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite sure what people was getting from my statement, I posed it as a question because millions of people don't live in large urban cities where public transportation is available.

Most people are not able to ride a bike 20 miles to work in the snow, ice, and/or rain. Some places its really freaking hot, so even if you spend the extra hour riding your bike to work rather than the 10-15 min drive, you now arrive drenched in stink and sweat.

People need to realize that what it is like where they live isn't that way for everyone else in the country or the world. Sure, some places like New York, London, etc have great public transportation systems (and also have some of the highest taxes/cost of living but whatever), and other places it might be feasible to ride your bike or walk to work. But realistically it just isn't possible in a country as vast as the US is.


RE: Good
By Jeffk464 on 4/13/2012 3:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on which US city you are talking about.


RE: Good
By Paj on 4/16/2012 7:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
Public transportation is always feasible. If they can do it in London, Paris, and most European cities that are 1000+ years old, they can do it anywhere.

Since living in London I have driven maybe once or twice a year. I dont miss it at all - the underground is much faster and easier. You can read, play games, listen to music, snooze. Sure, sometimes its crowded and unpleasant, but it beats being stuck in traffic jams, idiot drivers, all the money, fuel insurance and other expense of a car.

Everyone in the world having their own 2 tonnes of metal for their own use simply isnt sustainable. Sure, having your own car is great. But is it a RIGHT?


RE: Good
By 1ceTr0n on 4/13/2012 12:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
Not in my lifetime buddy


RE: Good
By tsgarp83 on 4/13/2012 12:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
In other words, the sooner we all accept a significantly lower standard of living. How is that better?


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/2012 12:37:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In other words, the sooner we all accept a significantly lower standard of living. How is that better?


That's the Liberal way, you know that. Expecting less, and a lower standard of living, "for the common good".

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," - Barack Obama

Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation." - Barack Obama


RE: Good
By tayb on 4/13/2012 12:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
Oh please. You are literally equating public transportation to a lower standard of living. How ridiculous. Millions of cars on the road polluting, sitting in traffic, and consuming endless amounts of oil is NOT a sustainable model. Have you ever lived in a city with great public transportation? Doesn't sound like it. I live in Dallas right now and I wish they had 1/50th of the available public transportation that I enjoyed NYC, Philadelphia, or Chicago. My fiance and I cannot live without two cars here. In those cities we rarely needed one.

Excellent job taking quotes ridiculously out of context as well. Full quote where he talks about us trying to get other countries to conserve oil while we waste it away ourselves.

quote:
Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries. "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.


I don't even know what you're trying to get at with the second quote. Have you ever heard of a team playing together to make something positive happen? If we ALL were more conscious of the way we consumed resources EVERYONE would benefit. Water your grass on the schedule, don't idle your call, don't drive if you don't have to, etc. What, exactly, is wrong with that??


RE: Good
By ebakke on 4/13/2012 1:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have you ever heard of a team playing together to make something positive happen?
But the beauty of freedom is that I can choose to play on your team. Or I can choose not to. Socialism replaces choice with force.

His beef is with governmental policies that remove freedoms and force actions upon us, all in the name of the "greater good".


RE: Good
By tayb on 4/13/2012 1:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
If mandating minimum fuel requirements for vehicles is socialism so are vehicle safety requirements. But no one seems to complain about that. Vehicles not bursting into flames or flipping over seems to benefit us all though.

What freedoms are being removed and what actions are being forced upon us?


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By tayb on 4/13/2012 1:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
Standard of living is measured by per capita income or median household income (among others), not home ownership. Home and vehicle ownership are by-products of income, which is an indicator of a high standard of living. Not the other way around.

For some unknown reason you equate taking a train to work instead of sitting in traffic as accepting a lower standard of living.


RE: Good
By Schrag4 on 4/13/2012 2:14:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Standard of living is measured by per capita income or median household income (among others), not home ownership. Home and vehicle ownership are by-products of income, which is an indicator of a high standard of living. Not the other way around.


LOL! You had the first part right - income is a good way to try to measure standard of living. But to suggest that ownership of a home or a vehicle has no bearing on standard of living is laughable.

quote:
For some unknown reason you equate taking a train to work instead of sitting in traffic as accepting a lower standard of living.


If I could take a train to work, my commute would be longer than if I drove myself. That would be a reduced standard of living. Similarly, if I rode a bike to work and back, my round-trip commute would jump from 30 or 40 minutes to over 2 hours. Again, that would be a significant reduction in my standard of living. I might have more money in my pocket but I'd have less time to do enjoy life. The freedom to go where I want when I want is a significant factor of my standard of living. Get it?


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/12, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By tayb on 4/13/2012 2:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
I know! If my income is $500 billion and I choose to rent a mansion instead of buying it and paying a company to drive me around instead of purchasing a car does that mean my standard of living is low???

Can you believe this guy?


RE: Good
By tayb on 4/13/2012 2:33:18 PM , Rating: 2
I choose to live in a luxurious apartment complex that has a pool on the roof, basketball court, and state of the art gym. I choose to do this because I don't like having to worry about maintenance on a house, the inflated utility costs, the risk of . According to you, I have a lower standard of living. This is illogical. Home ownership is a by-product of having a high household income. It's a decent measure but it is not accurate because some people who have the means to buy a house, like me, but CHOOSE not to throw off the numbers.


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/2012 2:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
A house is a tangible good that has worth and ownership. It's an asset. Your apartment is not. It does to whoever owns it that you pay rent to, but not to you. While your standard of living might be the same, the value clearly is not.

But this is kind of a grey area that you (purposefully) used to muddy up the point. I can do the same thing :)

quote:
This is illogical. Home ownership is a by-product of having a high household income.


Oh? What about people who are low-income and inherit a nice house? I would say the house alone increased their standard of living FAR above their income level, obviously. Wouldn't you?


RE: Good
By tayb on 4/13/2012 3:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
If you equate standard of living to home ownership then their standard of living has gone up. I would say their general happiness has probably gone up but I don't equate general happiness to a high standard of living. Their access to goods and median income has not changed. The things they were unable to purchase before are still unattainable. So no, I would disagree.

I didn't purposefully use anything. I have no desire to own a house. According to you I have a lower standard of living. It does not make sense.


RE: Good
By Schrag4 on 4/13/2012 4:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I said nothing about YOUR standard of living. I only addressed the fact that MY standard of living would degrade if I had to rely on public transportation or bicycles.

I'm glad you love living in an apartment. I enjoyed my apartment 10 years ago. It was very close to work and to the grocery store. But, since then I've gotten married and had 3 kids. We moved to a smaller town near the city (still only 11 mile commute for me). For our growing family, staying in an apartment would have meant a decline in our standard of living. We needed more bedrooms and more storage for things like food, clothes, beds, etc. Also, it's nice to be able to turn the kids loose in the backyard. And the biggest reason for the move was to get the kids into a small-town school district.

Again, my point is still that all these things we try to use to measure standard of living, whether it's income (a great measure), home ownership, or car ownership, are good indicators, but they're not foolproof. Everyone's situation is different. You'd be burdened by a the maintenance involved in home ownership. Our family would be cramped by apartment living. You enjoy not ever needing to drive. I enjoy being able to visit my family that lives an hour away from the city any time I want or need to. I'm not going to tell you to buy a house and a car, and I just wish you'd stop telling me to rent an apartment and take the bus. But I don't expect you to ever get it.


RE: Good
By SonofaSteve on 4/13/2012 3:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
sounds more like it's about a higher quality of living for everyone although from your rx it would appear you prefer conformance
i salute you my communist brother please send more of your laws over
choosing to purchase cars and home?! by your judgement anyone without must choose it


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/2012 2:20:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If mandating minimum fuel requirements for vehicles is socialism so are vehicle safety requirements.


Oh and I just cannot allow this to slip by. There is such a massive disconnect between the two, you honestly cannot believe they are the same.

Also it's possible to be anti-Capitalist without being full on Socialist. Is CAFE in itself "socialist"? I don't believe so. It is however the Government meddling in the markets, indirectly influencing consumer choice, and dictating to auto-manufacturers what they can make.

quote:
What freedoms are being removed and what actions are being forced upon us?


All of the above. The answer to these questions are so basic and self evident, not even you could be dumb enough to not get it.

If someone wants to make a car that gets 5 MPG (HYPOTHETICALLY), and there is a significant number of people willing to buy it, you have mandated that this transaction cannot be made. You have removed the freedom of choice and you have forced MANY actions on the manufactures and citizens.


RE: Good
By tayb on 4/13/2012 3:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
There's not a difference.

If I make a car that costs $1,000 but I cut corners everywhere and there is a high probability that it may explode on impact we seem to be perfectly fine NOT allowing that car to be sold. But when we extend this to minimum fuel requirements people get butt hurt.

Do you not think that safety regulations have increased vehicle costs? Which in turn have put some vehicles out of reach for consumers??

There literally is no difference.


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 4/13/2012 6:53:16 PM , Rating: 2
If I want to drive a potential firebomb, that's my business, not yours.

I'm not against safety features in cars. I'm against being forced to have them. The government didn't go out and mandate that auto manufacturers create safety features. Someone came up with the idea(s), a company developed them, and manufacturers made them options in their vehicles. Then the government came along and said "You have to put this in your product".

People would still have many of the safety features that exist today without the government mandating them. The difference would be that some people, like myself, would have the freedom, if we so desired, to choose not to have some if we didn't view it as worth the cost.

Now the government is welcome to have crash safety tests to show consumers what vehicles are the safest.


RE: Good
By Nfarce on 4/15/2012 2:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
You are a typical bed wetting liberal attempting to correlate that which is not correlated. Safety for our well being has NOTHING to do with fuel economy. NOTHING.

And for your information, most Americans depend on their home ownership and investment (paid off or not) in it as part of their accumulated wealth. Whether you want to admit it or not, personal wealth is directly related to the standard of living.


RE: Good
By Keeir on 4/13/2012 2:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If mandating minimum fuel requirements for vehicles is socialism so are vehicle safety requirements. But no one seems to complain about that


Actually, people do complain about excess safety regulation all the time. Tire Pressure Sensor? Back-up Camera? Cell Phone Regulations? etc.

A completely free market is not perfect. It has a few issues
1. Lack of Information
2. Externatilities

Safety of cars can fall into a lack of information. People place more value on safer cars, but people may not always know which car is safer. Government regulations can help close the gap. But the published safety tests with increasing requirements have made cars significantly safer

Real pollution is an externatility and should be properly regulated or taxed as appropriate.

Fuel economy? No, that is an effect directly felt by the purchaser of the car. People and manufacturers already have incentives to buy and build more and more efficient cars. The Government has already steped in through the standard EPA testing to provide information about fuel economy. I don't see a need for excessive legislation that
A. Cost Taxpayers money
B. Reduces Manufacturer and Consumer Choice
C. Corruption and Special Interest tool

The worst part? CAFE targets where set to take advantage of existing trends in the market. US fleets exceeded CAFE and on a trend line higher than initial propose by G.W. Bush. Obama's version at least goes above the trendline, but I think a valid question is why do we need CAFE when the free market is already addressing the issue, and without the additional expense to the government and manufacturers of meeting paper rules.

Why not raise money instead of spend it? If we really need to increase fuel economy, raise the price of fuel through additional taxes. This will move people to purchase more efficient cars AND drive less.


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 4/13/2012 6:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If mandating minimum fuel requirements for vehicles is socialism so are vehicle safety requirements.


You are absolutely right. Forcing safety features on manufacturers isn't right. No one is saying that safety features are bad. They are saying that the government has no business determining how cars are built.

If people want a safety feature, they will demand it and manufacturers will supply it. Why does my car HAVE to have air bags? What if that's a feature, through my own FREE CHOICE, decide isn't worth the cost? Shouldn't I be able to tell a manufacturer "No thanks. I would rather not pay for that option?" You tell me no. That you know what's best for me. Now do I want airbags in my car? Yes. But you know what I don't want? Tire pressure sensors. Why? Because I am perfectly capable of checking my tire pressure.

But instead any new car since 2007 is forced to be built with the sensors. Creating one more thing that I have to replace when they fail or wear out. All because people are too stupid and lazy to check their tire pressure themselves. They should be free to be stupid and lazy though and suffer the consequences.

quote:
What freedoms are being removed and what actions are being forced upon us?


I really don't have enough time to list everything I can think of.


RE: Good
By JediJeb on 4/13/2012 9:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But instead any new car since 2007 is forced to be built with the sensors.


It has been so long since I bought a vehicle I didn't know they had added this. Last one I bought was a 99 Trans Am back in 02 which my ex fiance crashed :( , I guess I will hang on to my 96 F150 and see if I can get another 4 years at least to make it to 20 years driving the same vehicle :), I wish I still had my 88 Ranger I sold last year that I bought right out of college in 91.


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 4/16/2012 8:04:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yup when you go to buy a new car, expect it to weigh several hundred pounds more than your 96 truck. And to have a whole bunch of crap that you might not necessarily want in it.


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/2012 1:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
I think such concepts are foreign to him, ebakke. He seriously can't recognize collectivist rhetoric when presented, because in his world view, that's the natural way thing should work anyway.


RE: Good
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/2012 1:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
Well tayb you can choose to remain willfully ignorant about the direction this country is heading and the Collectivist rhetoric nonsense that's supporting it, fine. I don't.

quote:
Millions of cars on the road polluting, sitting in traffic, and consuming endless amounts of oil is NOT a sustainable model.


But millions of buses and trains polluting even more, consuming even more resources, somehow is?

quote:
Oh please. You are literally equating public transportation to a lower standard of living. How ridiculous.


As a concept? No I'm not. Absolutely not. You're putting words in my mouth.

As part of a Collectivist agenda, yes, it absolutely goes hand in hand with a lower standard of living, higher taxes, more Government.

quote:
Have you ever lived in a city with great public transportation?


There's no such thing as "great" public transportation. ALL modes of personal travel besides my car are inferior. That is not an opinion, but a statement of fact.

quote:
I don't even know what you're trying to get at with the second quote. Have you ever heard of a team playing together to make something positive happen? If we ALL were more conscious of the way we consumed resources EVERYONE would benefit. Water your grass on the schedule, don't idle your call, don't drive if you don't have to, etc. What, exactly, is wrong with that??


More willful ignorance. Do you seriously need a translation? How naive are you anyway! You sound like a goddamn socialist with this nonsense. When a President who's bankrupting future generations starts preaching about "doing your part" and "getting used to less", you seriously can't put 2 and 2 together? It's wealth redistribution and Collectivism, plain and simple.

God you're retarded. Take the blinders off man.


RE: Good
By ebakke on 4/13/2012 1:27:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's no such thing as "great" public transportation. ALL modes of personal travel besides my car are inferior. That is not an opinion, but a statement of fact.
I disagree with your analysis here. All modes of personal travel besides your car are inferior, to you. But surely others have differing values. One might, for example, place a high value on being able to get work done in a commute which can be accomplished if someone else is driving. Or someone might place a high value on living downtown, where space for parking comes at a premium.

I don't disagree that a car is the right choice for you. But to say that it's the right choice for everyone, I think is incorrect.


RE: Good
By tayb on 4/13/2012 1:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
Once again with the e-rage. You should see a doctor and visit an anger management class. For real. It's no wonder you debate on the internet, you would probably murder someone in real life.


RE: Good
By aliasfox on 4/13/2012 2:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to disagree that there's no such thing as good public transit. I used to live in Arlington, VA and commute to McLean, VA, by car. It was a nightmare - 45 minutes for 7 miles of bumper to bumper rush hour traffic. I happened to live one block from the DC Metro, but there wasn't a stop by the office - there soon will be, right outside the parking garage. You can be pretty freakin' sure that I'd rather take the train on that commute than drive.

I'm in Manhattan now, 20 minute commute by subway. I wouldn't want to try to drive my own car here - heck, after the novelty wore off, I wouldn't even want to drive a Rolls Royce or a Bentley here. The subway stop is across the street from the office, three blocks from my apartment.

Standard of living? On weekends I walk <10 minutes to get food, groceries, most of my shopping. I like it a lot better than having to drive 15 minutes to run an errand.

And don't think this comes from someone who hates driving - I owned a VW GTI, used launch control, and would go out on aimless weekend drives when I lived outside DC. I loved it. I've learned to live without it, and I definitely don't feel like I'm missing anything.

Even as someone who grew up in the suburbs, I never quite understood the love of owning land and being so removed from your neighbors that you don't even recognize their faces, let alone know their names. Unless you're banging the girl on the patio (in which case... go you), life's just easier when stuff's... closer.

On my current salary, I'd much rather live in the city, take public transit, and enjoy everything around me than live in the suburbs and have to spend time commuting.


RE: Good
By Keeir on 4/13/2012 7:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On my current salary, I'd much rather live in the city, take public transit, and enjoy everything around me than live in the suburbs and have to spend time commuting.


And people generally don't want to take that choice away from you. But understand that the New York City Subway system and MTA only 40% of the funds come from fares. 60% come from a variety of direct taxes, tax breaks, etc. (This btw is held up as a "working" public transport system)

http://www.mta.info/mta/budget/nov2011/NovemberFin...

Fares don't even cover operating expenses! And this is for one of the very best and most used public transit systems!

San Fransico is much worse

http://www.bart.gov/docs/BART_Annual_Report_09.pdf

Thier fares barely cover half of operating expenses! Fares don't even cover employee costs!!

Last I checked, San Fran was a fairly dense place plagued by heavy traffic and having a fairly liberal/progressive population that should be very into Public Transportation.

I guess what I am saying is that if fares covered 100%+ of operating expenses, people wouldn't be so against public transportation. But in reality, most proposals for more public transporation depend on taxing those who are unlikely to use the system... usually with an attempt at progressive taxation as well. IE, public transporation is essentially subsized transportation. If "public" transporation could support itself, I think everyone would cheer more of it...


RE: Good
By Mint on 4/13/2012 10:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
FWIW, Toronto's public transit funds 70% of its expenses with ticket sales (plus ads, etc). But yeah, that is among the highest of major cities.

Can't wait until automated driving becomes the norm in a few decades. It'll be brutal on employment, but transportation will be awesome.


RE: Good
By Keeir on 4/14/2012 1:34:12 AM , Rating: 2
Well, its worth quite a bit. That's the highest city mass transit in North America I have ever heard of...

Fares also seem reasonable at ~3 dollar canadian one way.

Keep in mind though it is the third most used system in NA. Highly used system are fundamentally more fair. (Since higher percentages of the tax base use them)

The problem is that its not true (At least in 2010)

http://www3.ttc.ca/PDF/About_the_TTC/TTC_Annual_Re...

Fares accounted for roughly 63% of the "expenses" that year, but a good amount of the "expenses" are offset by Capital Subsidies... following the notes, it appears like the various Government provided Capital Subsidies of 900,000+ in 2010, a figure equal to total amount of fares brought in...

What does this mean? It means that the fares paid for ~63% of OPERATING EXPENSES. IE, absolutely nothing was contributated to the long term aquistion of property, building of the initial system, maintainence, etc, etc, etc

In 2010, the Governments of Canada provided the TTC subsidies totally 1.4 Billion (Capital + Operating). Ridership provided revenues of 900 million.

The way I would look at is... Fares provides approximation 39% of the required funding to have the TTC exist in its present form. A figure not unlike any other mass transit system. If the TTC wanted to be completely supported by fares, the "fair" fare would be more like 7 dollars each way.

I find it a disgusting political trick btw. The way they are doing thier books makes it seem like fares are doing alot. Fares don't even pay the WAGES of the workers of the TTC. This despite TTC's fare raising faster than Canada's CPI bucket.


RE: Good
By JediJeb on 4/13/2012 3:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When a President who's bankrupting future generations starts preaching about "doing your part" and "getting used to less", you seriously can't put 2 and 2 together?


I wish the government would take those statements to heart and do their part to cut back on wasteful spending and unneeded personnel. I know from experience that when I have employees that have to work and think for themselves they are stronger employees, same works for citizens who have to work and think for themselves. I doubt though that the government as it currently is would want more of the populace able to work and think for themselves because it would diminish the government's power.


RE: Good
By tsgarp83 on 4/13/2012 1:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
I was not equating public transportation with a lower standard of living. But, when the cost of personal transportation goes up, people have less to spend on other things, therefor the standard of living has to go down.


RE: Good
By GruntboyX on 4/13/2012 12:45:22 PM , Rating: 3
That's only assuming public transportation is cheaper, and by the way your a dirty troll


RE: Good
By Jeffk464 on 4/13/2012 3:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
"The sooner more people move to public transportation, or start demanding it if it's not available in their area, the better."

Its not really that easy cities basically build up around the transportation system. So cities like LA that were built around the car are so spread out that subways and light rail systems don't work well. Cities like New York and London were built around the subway so it just naturally works better. That being said I guess gradually high density will pop up around the subway stations in cities like LA but its still not really the same.


RE: Good
By Jeffk464 on 4/13/2012 3:29:14 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't Toyota just release a dirt cheap new prius model?


RE: Good
By chrnochime on 4/13/2012 3:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
The day you manage to cram everyone into the major cities in the US and nowhere else thereby making your comment feasible is the day I will vote you for president. Before that...what is that brain for again?


Seriously?
By leviathan05 on 4/13/2012 12:10:23 PM , Rating: 3
You want me to believe a study from the National AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS Association? That study clearly will not have any bias towards auto-manufacturers and is definitely fighting for the benefit of the American consumer.




RE: Seriously?
By GruntboyX on 4/13/2012 12:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
However, they make a point. If the vehicles are too expensive, then it doesnt really matter. My problem with the study is its all fuzzy math. The automakers will find ways to make it affordable. And who cares if 7 million people cant buy "new" cars. They can buy used or defer purchase. Additionally, whats not clear is the base of the study.

Is it 7 million of all people in the USA, or is 7 million out of the 20 million people who will purchase a new vehicle next year. It makes a difference.

Not to mention at the rate inflation has been occurring 5,000 dollars is not going to matter when a new vehicle costs 100k by the year 2025.


RE: Seriously?
By ltfields on 4/13/2012 12:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
That was my question? I suspect it's a bit of a straw man argument as how many of those "lower income" people are buying new cars right now? If 6 million of those 7 million weren't going to qualify for or buy a new vehicle anyway, then it's really not the dire warning they're trying to portray...


RE: Seriously?
By Uncle on 4/13/2012 12:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
And what are you really saving by then. The oil companies want their loan sharking profits, so by 2025, with inflation you will be paying the same for the gas if not more. If you could get 54mpg now you would benefit, and you can if the US would allow more diesels into the country like in Europe.


RE: Seriously?
By Nfarce on 4/15/2012 2:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You want me to believe a study from the National AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS Association?


And big government has been so credible with their cost estimates, right?


How is MPG measured?
By Jeremy87 on 4/13/2012 1:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm confused. In Europe I've seen ads for cars that use 4l/100km (59mpg) for at least 5 years, and today they are down to 3.3l/100km (71mpg).
They aren't SUVs, but they aren't small cars either, and they use regular gasoline.
What have I missed?




RE: How is MPG measured?
By Mint on 4/13/2012 2:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
You're talking about the European test cycle, not EPA, and highway mileage, not combined, and for models that probably won't sell in the US.


RE: How is MPG measured?
By Targon on 4/15/2012 1:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
Europe uses Imperial Gallons, which are larger than the gallons we have over here. They also don't put Ethanol in the gas in Europe, so they get better fuel economy than we get over here.

The 2012 Focus for example will average 33 miles per gallon(between local and highway driving) using the crap gas with 10 percent Ethanol. You get an extra 3-5 miles per gallon without Ethanol in the same vehicle. This means that all this push for better fuel economy would actually do better if Ethanol were left out of the gas, and there isn't any real improvement in terms of pollution generated by using the garbage.


RE: How is MPG measured?
By lyeoh on 4/15/2012 2:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
Europe in general does not use Imperal Gallons. The UK does.
Go google for: 4l/100km in miles per imperial gallon
and google for: 4l/100km in miles per US gallon


So don't buy new!!!!
By Dr of crap on 4/13/2012 12:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
If you're so close to not being able to afford new DON'T BUY NEW!
I have only boughten new once and won't again.
They are so many good used cars, at almost half price, why over pay for a fast deprciating product like a car??




RE: So don't buy new!!!!
By jdonkey123 on 4/13/2012 12:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
News FLASH! Car dealers release study indicating their businesses are too reliant on consumers over-leveraging themselves in debt!


RE: So don't buy new!!!!
By mindless1 on 4/14/2012 3:58:57 PM , Rating: 3
But that won't work except in isolated cases. Where do used cars come from? Former NEW cars. Those better off don't want to buy little econobox cars so the fleet average goes down if those cars don't sell, while they're projecting costs based on it going up.


Removing crap is good
By Beenthere on 4/13/2012 1:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
Removing crap, unsafe vehicles and drivers from the highway is fine but the EPA mandated MPG just discriminates against those in poverty which is currently anyone below about $40,000 per year annual income. ;)




RE: Removing crap is good
By Targon on 4/15/2012 7:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
If they would outlaw Ethanol, that would boost the MPG of just about all cars by 3-5.


RE: Removing crap is good
By Dr of crap on 4/16/2012 12:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
And your point?


"can't dictate what customers will buy"
By siliconvideo on 4/13/2012 11:55:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yes you can according to the current administration. If you're to poor to pay for it the government will buy it for you so we can all get high mileage cars.




By ebakke on 4/13/2012 12:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
Or "nor can you dictate if a bank will make a loan". Sure you can. Though, not without a housing bubble and a massive foreclosure crisis.


By PandaBear on 4/13/2012 1:29:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, SUV will be more expensive and less people will be qualified for it, but there'll be other vehicle they can be qualified for and they still need to buy vehicles.

This study is a hog wash. It only means people cannot go out and buy more expensive vehicles and have to live with lower cost vehicles (i.e. Nissan Versa, Chevy Sonic, and other penalty box). They still make them when the fuel economy standard moved up, and they still can buy used car which last a lot longer than before.

Oh on, I can no longer afford a BMW, go cry me a river.




By Beenthere on 4/13/2012 5:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
Bama and the other criminals in DC are trying to force people to buy impractical, expensive EVs. This is just one way to cram a bad idea down consumers throats.


By Arsynic on 4/13/2012 2:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
Since the pitiful poor are affected because they can't afford hybrids and electrics, free cars will now be a constitutional right.

Obamacare make way for Obamacar!




By FredEx on 4/13/2012 7:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
Sheeeeeeit, people with less money than I have drive better cars than I do. Their priorities are farked up. I take care of my family, keep my house decent and pay all my bills. That does not leave enough now days to drive the latest and greatest or even drive a newer car. I'll get a good car and drive it for 20 years or more. I'd still have my 84 Honda Accord if I didn't have ankle problems flare up and could not drive a stick anymore. It was mint when I sold it when it was 18 years old.


So....?
By masamasa on 4/13/2012 12:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
What's the problem?




My Experience
By Norseman4 on 4/13/2012 10:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
When my '98 Suzuki (auto) finally died (I truly abused it for 10 years) in '08 I couldn't get a Suzuki with the same MPG rating. True I couldn't get ANY vehicle with the same MPG rating. The Focus (manual) that I got had just enough acceleration to get onto the Merritt Parkway without to many problems. (The Subaru was Auto and the merge-ability is the only thing that is better than the Ford)

Heavier vehicles, with a higher MPG requirement, increases price. The higher price, IMO, I could not be able to afford.

(After this Focus, I'll probably looking at used, that is, unless there is some sane legislation coming down the pike. Since I don't like the color blue on myself, I won't be holding my breath)




The government
By JoeOnRoute66 on 4/14/2012 7:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
"While you can mandate what automakers must build, you can't dictate what customers will buy, nor can you dictate if a bank will make a loan." - Don Chambers.

The government certainly dictates loans at banks. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank have repeatedly threatened banks to give mortgages to poorly qualified applicants or be investigated for discrimination. Our government 'leaders' have only one purpose, stay in power by keeping the people appeased (or funded).

The government will create Auto-Mae to facilitate auto loans. It's the obvious next step.




The government
By JoeOnRoute66 on 4/14/2012 7:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
"While you can mandate what automakers must build, you can't dictate what customers will buy, nor can you dictate if a bank will make a loan." - Don Chambers.

The government certainly dictates loans at banks. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank have repeatedly threatened banks to give mortgages to poorly qualified applicants or be investigated for discrimination. Our government 'leaders' have only one purpose, stay in power by keeping the people appeased (or funded).

The government will create Auto-Mae to facilitate auto loans. It's the obvious next step.




By Targon on 4/15/2012 10:41:44 AM , Rating: 2
2025 is a ways off from now, and based on inflation, it stands to reason that the price of any new car will probably be $5000 more than they are today. It isn't so much about CAFE standards or anything like that, it is the standards we accept in just about any car.

Right now, the transition is going on that will make not just LCD screens standard in new cars, but also touch screens. We go from 4 speakers to 6 being the norm as well. Bluetooth connectivity, probably GPS, voice recognition for controlling features, etc will probably be the norm in even the lowest end vehicle.

People are upset that prices will be higher in the next 13 years? Seriously, it is NOT CAFE, and as we have seen, car companies are being forced to be more competitive when it comes to formerly luxury features. Many of you are too young to remember when power windows and door locks were a clear luxury features. Anti-lock breaks, cruise control, air bags, the list goes on. Most won't complain too much when these features are now virtually standard features, because inflation has pretty much covered the extra cost that these features would normally cost us.

So, for those complaining about prices, and how this or that adds to the price, if the 2012 Focus with all the features were released 10 years ago, would the price have been any less, since the features back then were luxury features? Fuel economy is MUCH better than the 2002 version, so, was it the increased fuel economy, or the features what caused the price to go up, or was it just inflation?




"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki