LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Beavis and Butt-Head wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines


Really smart folks commenting, If you slow from 75 to 60 you might save
10& on your gas. If you do that over 750 miles you will take 2.5 hours
longer. For that distance you would probably use about 35. gal of gas
and thus would save 3.5 gal. by their top estimate. Thus you would save
$7 to $10 for 2 1/2 hours. A great rate of return.

Frank F. Matthews wrote:


Really smart folks commenting, If you slow from 75 to 60 you might save
10& on your gas. If you do that over 750 miles you will take 2.5 hours
longer. For that distance you would probably use about 35. gal of gas
and thus would save 3.5 gal. by their top estimate. Thus you would save
$7 to $10 for 2 1/2 hours. A great rate of return.


Not a great rate of return. I'd rather go 90 than 60 or 75. Time is
more important than money. Let's raise the speed limit on Interstates to,
normally, 90.

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald wrote:
Frank F. Matthews wrote:


Really smart folks commenting, If you slow from 75 to 60 you might
save 10& on your gas. If you do that over 750 miles you will take 2.5
hours longer. For that distance you would probably use about 35. gal
of gas and thus would save 3.5 gal. by their top estimate. Thus you
would save $7 to $10 for 2 1/2 hours. A great rate of return.


Not a great rate of return. I'd rather go 90 than 60 or 75. Time is
more important than money. Let's raise the speed limit on Interstates to,
normally, 90.

It's not just the time, it's the fatigue of drivers that are on the road
longer because of the slower speeds.

What the government should do is to set the price of fuel higher for the
vehicles that have higher fuel consumption. In some ways they are doing
this, with the tax credits for hybrids, but they should extend it to all
vehicles with MPG ratings of 40 or higher, and make it a recurring tax
credit, not a one time thing.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
Doug McDonald wrote:
Frank F. Matthews wrote:


Really smart folks commenting, If you slow from 75 to 60 you might save
10& on your gas. If you do that over 750 miles you will take 2.5 hours
longer. For that distance you would probably use about 35. gal of gas
and thus would save 3.5 gal. by their top estimate. Thus you would save
$7 to $10 for 2 1/2 hours. A great rate of return.


Not a great rate of return. I'd rather go 90 than 60 or 75. Time is
more important than money. Let's raise the speed limit on Interstates to,
normally, 90.

It's not just the time, it's the fatigue of drivers that are on the road
longer because of the slower speeds.

What the government should do is to set the price of fuel higher for the
vehicles that have higher fuel consumption. In some ways they are doing
this, with the tax credits for hybrids, but they should extend it to all
vehicles with MPG ratings of 40 or higher, and make it a recurring tax
credit, not a one time thing.

Screw the people who need a bigger vehicle for business, or a larger family
or have to tow something. Buy a 40 mpg vehicle and you save on gas costs
over a 20 mpg vehicle. That should be enough incentive.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:14:54 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Screw the people who need a bigger vehicle for business, or a larger family
or have to tow something. Buy a 40 mpg vehicle and you save on gas costs
over a 20 mpg vehicle. That should be enough incentive.


If you can't afford $3 or $4 a gallon gas, stay home.

Calif Bill wrote:

Screw the people who need a bigger vehicle for business, or a larger family
or have to tow something. Buy a 40 mpg vehicle and you save on gas costs
over a 20 mpg vehicle. That should be enough incentive.

Actually what needs to be done is to find ways to encourage people to
leave the SUV or mini-van at home, and use a smaller vehicle for
commuting, and use the larger vehicle only when necessary.
Unfortunately, besides the initial cost of the vehicle, there are the
recurring costs of the extra insurance, extra licensing, etc., so unless
you have a really long commute it never makes sense to buy the commute car.

If not for being able to use the carpool lane with a hybrid, few people
would be buying them, as financially and environmentally they make no sense.

Calif Bill wrote:

What the government should do is to set the price of fuel higher for the
vehicles that have higher fuel consumption. In some ways they are doing
this, with the tax credits for hybrids, but they should extend it to all
vehicles with MPG ratings of 40 or higher, and make it a recurring tax
credit, not a one time thing.

Screw the people who need a bigger vehicle for business, or a larger family
or have to tow something. Buy a 40 mpg vehicle and you save on gas costs
over a 20 mpg vehicle. That should be enough incentive.

I have heard a number of comments from people that if you can afford the
big gas guzzling luxury SUV you can afford the extra gas. Fine, then tax
the hell out of them. If they can afford the big SUV and all the extra gas
it consumes they can afford to pay a ****load of tax. Meanwhile, make
parking spots smaller and levy fines against those who take up more an one
space. Pay lots can charge double for larger vehicles.

I was bemused by the mention of hybrids in the president's speech....when
you cut off the tax benefit after only 60,000 cars have been sold, you're
not doing too much to help.

Bob Gardner

"SMS" wrote in message
...
Doug McDonald wrote:
Frank F. Matthews wrote:


Really smart folks commenting, If you slow from 75 to 60 you might save
10& on your gas. If you do that over 750 miles you will take 2.5 hours
longer. For that distance you would probably use about 35. gal of gas
and thus would save 3.5 gal. by their top estimate. Thus you would save
$7 to $10 for 2 1/2 hours. A great rate of return.


Not a great rate of return. I'd rather go 90 than 60 or 75. Time is
more important than money. Let's raise the speed limit on Interstates to,
normally, 90.

It's not just the time, it's the fatigue of drivers that are on the road
longer because of the slower speeds.

What the government should do is to set the price of fuel higher for the
vehicles that have higher fuel consumption. In some ways they are doing
this, with the tax credits for hybrids, but they should extend it to all
vehicles with MPG ratings of 40 or higher, and make it a recurring tax
credit, not a one time thing.

Bob Gardner wrote:
I was bemused by the mention of hybrids in the president's speech....when
you cut off the tax benefit after only 60,000 cars have been sold, you're
not doing too much to help.

The tax benefit should be based on the actual mpg, not whether or not
the vehicle has some batteries in the power train.

A Toyota Corolla driven at 65 mpg gets better highway mpg than a Prius
driven at the same speed, without all the environmental issues.