Last post on Jul 03, 2011 at 8:41 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives
What is this discussion about?
#865 of 874 Re: he said, she said [steve_]
Feb 04, 2010 (12:10 pm)
Interesting that those reports don't really consider:
- the state gas taxes which are usually more than the federal (how convenient)
- my annual registration fees (basic service fee + value fee) = several hundred /year / vehicle
- my insurance payment, which the government taxes the insurance companies on the profit
- all the sales taxes that autos generate when sold, repaired, and maintained
- my property taxes that go to pay for city roads and maintenance.
Intangible benefits of highways - they lower the cost of all goods and services by allowing free flow of goods. Imagine how much your bananas would cost if we didn't have highways, and covered wagons on cow-paths, were used to move your goods.
#866 of 874 Re: he said, she said [kernick]
by steve_ HOST
Feb 04, 2010 (12:35 pm)
Imagine how good the trains would be.
There used to be light rail in Boise connecting town to the farming villages around. It was relatively easy to put your milk jugs on the train at 6 am for the processor in town, and then hop on the train yourself later in the day to do some banking downtown.
But cars and trucks ruined that around 1925. Like your midnight airport run, people didn't want to juggle their appointments to meet a train schedule.
Another interesting thing that happened was that developers put up parks out of town that were easily accessible. Then people decided to move out there and commute to town. So the light rail contributed to urban sprawl in its own way.
Trolley Town (Boise State)
#867 of 874 Re: he said, she said [steve_]
Feb 04, 2010 (1:09 pm)
Take a look at the 2010 budget summary that says $42B is being budgeted for the nation's 160,000 miles of federal highway. I don't think this jives too well with your links, of what's being spent. From your SubsidyScope link: "Subsidyscope has calculated that in 2007, 51 percent of the nation's $193 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance was generated through user fees—down from 10 years earlier when user fees made up 61 percent of total spending on roads."
What's different here?
#868 of 874 Re: he said, she said [kernick]
by steve_ HOST
Feb 04, 2010 (1:32 pm)
As near as I can tell, the rest of it comes under separate appropriation acts:
"the President’s Budget contains no policy recommendations for surface transportation programs subject to reauthorization, including highway, transit, and highway safety programs"
Check out last year's Budget In Brief:
"It is the final installment of the $286.4 billion in highway, transit, and safety program funding agreed upon in last surface transportation re-authorization act."
That's a wee bit different from the $40 billion "budgeted". And that was just one act, albeit likely spread out over 5 years.
#869 of 874 Re: he said, she said
Feb 04, 2010 (3:14 pm)
It's a little confusing isn't it? But I see "multi-year" and "installment" mentioned so when was this last reauthorization act started? 10 years ago? Also note that it says - without subsidizing transportation spending with other tax dollars.
"The request fulfills the President’s multi-year commitment to invest in surface transportation without raising taxes or subsidizing transportation spending with other tax dollars. It is the final installment of the $286.4 billion in highway, transit, and safety program funding agreed upon in last surface transportation re-authorization act."
We both could prove this either way using these numbers. Just like in the OJ trial there was so much evidence it was confusing.
#870 of 874 $3 a gallon is cheap
by steve_ HOST
Feb 16, 2010 (7:49 pm)
"Americans' interest in small cars and hybrids has never accounted for a sizable segment of the market and may be falling as gas prices stabilize at less than $3 a gallon in most markets.
Meantime, the low level of interest in small cars highlights the challenge car makers face as they try to gage the return they'll get on their investments in smaller, more fuel-efficient engines as well as conventional hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles - all vehicles they are being pushed to build by government policy demanding ever-higher annual fuel efficiency figures for their retail fleets."
Gas Prices Must Soar If Public Policy, People's Wants Are To Mesh in Auto Market (Green Car Advisor)
#871 of 874 Re: $3 a gallon is cheap [steve_]
Feb 17, 2010 (2:06 pm)
Car purchases aren't just driven by gas prices. One must also consider the initial purchase price, along with maintenance costs.
Most SUVs and mid-sized and larger crossovers are priced north of $30,000. Plus, they have large wheel-tire combinations that will be expensive to replace. My wife and I are hardly poor, but those vehicles are simply not on our shopping lists for those reasons.
Gas prices DO play some role in vehicle purchases. Just because gas prices are $3 a gallon NOW does not mean that they will not increase in the future.
Also remember that many of those $30,000+ SUVs, crossovers and larger sedans were purchased with home equity loans, and that source of funds has largely dried up over the past two years.
The "sweet spot" for mass market brands over the next few years will premium subcompacts (Civic, upcoming Focus) and small SUVs (Escape, CR-V, Tuscon). Maybe they aren't stingy enough on gas for the Green Car Advisor, but they are hardly gas guzzlers.
#873 of 874 Re: happy birthday [steve_]
Jul 03, 2011 (5:34 am)
How did we pay for this thing anyway?
I believe that segment of it was funded under the Ozark Chapter of the Loyal order of the Mafia?
#874 of 874 Re: happy birthday [andre1969]
Jul 03, 2011 (8:41 am)
What? Just because the guy on the left was shot from an unmarked Caddy while eating at Luigi's?