Last post on Apr 01, 2013 at 9:05 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
#737 of 795 Re: We're Lucky [hpmctorque]
by steve_ HOST
Mar 03, 2013 (8:24 pm)
And in Caracas, it's down to a penny a gallon (after adjusting for the exchange rate). (eluniversal.com)
Looks like regular in Mexico City is running around $3.18 USD.
#738 of 795 Re: We're Lucky [hpmctorque]
Mar 04, 2013 (12:19 am)
Of course, in most of those places, they get something for the taxes that make up for those price differences vs the US. Whereas most of us here just get second world quality roads and decaying infrastructure for our tax proceeds.
#739 of 795 Re: We're Lucky [fintail]
Mar 04, 2013 (6:12 am)
Speaking of 2nd world quality roads, just passed under a concrete overpass in NE Philly where all the rebar was exposed from the crumbling concrete. This is a disaster just waiting to happen.
#740 of 795 Re: We're Lucky [fintail]
Mar 04, 2013 (6:42 am)
True, although it's difficult to conclude how it nets out in terms of value per tax dollar. Given a choice of paying, say, 1 1/2-2x our price for gas in exchange for better maintained roads and bridges, what percentage of drivers would choose the former? Or, in Europe, would most motorists prefer a significant reduction in fuel prices in exchange for a degraded infrastructure? I suppose in Europe there might be a wide variation, depending on the country.
#741 of 795 Re: We're Lucky [lemko]
Mar 04, 2013 (6:49 am)
NE Philly where all the rebar was exposed from the crumbling concrete. This is a disaster just waiting to happen.
Your stimulus that did not get used on infrastructure projects as promised. Don't sleep under that bridge or drive over it. One of 30,000+ in the USA considered unsafe.
11.5 percent of US bridges, crossed by an average of 282,672,680 vehicles daily, were graded as "structurally deficient" by the Federal Highway Administration
#742 of 795 Re: We're Lucky [hpmctorque]
Mar 04, 2013 (11:22 am)
I suspect in Europe there would be support, but maybe not enough to repeal the taxes. They understand the idea of a social good more than most here. And of course, most people there live in places where population density and travel distances make transit solutions and quality roads easier to finance than here.
In the US, where due to our sketchy capitalism that socializes losses and privatizes profits, nobody would support it, as too many people are on the edge as it is. I'd be thrilled to simply see licensing standards from more developed places.
#743 of 795 more fuel means a higher price?
by steve_ HOST
Mar 18, 2013 (1:09 pm)
You'd think a surplus would lower prices.
"A glut of ethanol in the gasoline supply is threatening to push up prices at the pump and may have exacerbated the growing cost gap between regular gasoline and premium, some oil experts say."
Ethanol Surplus May Lift Gas Prices (NY Times)
#744 of 795 Re: more fuel means a higher price? [steve_]
Mar 18, 2013 (2:49 pm)
Not easy to grasp. What it tells me is a person is better off with a diesel vehicle, to avoid all the various mixes of ethanol.
The more ethanol the lousier the mileage.
#745 of 795 Re: more fuel means a higher price? [gagrice]
Mar 18, 2013 (6:31 pm)
Ethanol is agricultural welfare, whether ADM or large corn farmers...and Democrat or Republican - it ain't gonna change. My money says Congress and the EPA will ram that 15% down our throat, just like other recent dumb moves - think light bulbs, sugar quotas and on and on! To hell with what you want or need, it's special interest campaign contribution money!
#746 of 795 Re: more fuel means a higher price? [steve_]
Mar 19, 2013 (6:31 am)
>You'd think a surplus would lower prices.
It was only last week I was listening to a news story explaining higher gas prices because of a shortage of ethanol. Was that wrong? This article sounds like it's too much ethanol being manipulated for political purpose to change the Renewable Fuel Standard.
The article is confusing as far as how it's been written. I need to go back through and analyze it like an essay. I suspect part of the article got cut in editing?
The real tenet is that premium fuel will cost more just because more cars will need it in the future to try to reach the silly, over-reaching fuel mileage mandate of this Administration.