The Unsolvable Big Truck/SUV problem........ - GreenHybrid

lars-ss · #1 (**permalink**) 08-30-2005, 07:56 AM

This columnist puts some good common sense ideas on the table. And being from Texas myself, I completely understand the "illogical trait" he is speaking of. Read on:

Quote:

Let's focus on transportation, given that gas prices are Topic A.

Quote:

There are all the obvious fuel-saving tips, like avoiding jack-rabbit starts at intersections and keeping your tires properly inflated. But let's look at the big picture.

Here's what should be Rule No. 1 for those who don't want to spend $50 to $100 a week filling up their tank: Make fuel economy a major part of your decision-making process when you buy a vehicle and decide where to live.

Having lived almost all my life in Texas, here's one illogical trait I've noticed among many vehicle buyers in the Lone Star State:

A person often will buy an oversized pickup or mammoth SUV because the jumbo size will prove beneficial three or four times a year for tasks such as hauling extra-large consumer items home (for example, a stack of lumber or a new mattress and box spring) or squiring around a gaggle of out-of-town visitors. But in many instances, these pickup or SUV buyers could spend $10,000 less on a new vehicle, plus save hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year in fuel costs, by buying a smaller, more fuel-efficient mid-size or compact model.

What about those three or four times a year when a bigger vehicle is vital?

You could pay a pickup-owning neighbor $50 to help bring the lumber or bedding home, or perhaps have a store deliver it to your house for a similar fee. And you could rent an extra-big SUV for perhaps $250 to $300 if you needed to escort a sizeable number of out-of-town guests around on a weekend. Or maybe a friend or relative might lend you their extra-brawny vehicle free, as repayment for some past favor.

Many Texans also should give greater consideration to vehicle fuel and maintenance costs when they choose where to live and work.

I've heard numerous people over the years explain, for example, that they chose to live in a remote rural location to "avoid city taxes."

In many instances, those dodged city taxes might total $1,000 to $1,500 annually, or possibly less. But the additional vehicle costs for a lengthy rural-to-urban work commute easily could total two or three times more than the tax savings.

First, there are the higher fuel and maintenance costs. And the more miles driven each year, the sooner the vehicle owner will have to shell out big bucks for a replacement vehicle.

Obviously, numerous other factors might influence a person's decision on what vehicle to buy and where to live.

If your job requires the use of a large pickup on a daily basis, you obviously should buy one. And if you can't be happy without living in the country, that might override your concern about added vehicle costs for a lengthy job commute to the city.

I agree that people need radical change for the BIG SUVs to head toward the junkyards en masse. One of the problems is that the same people who think they have to have the "mammoth truck or SUV" because they might have to haul something SOMETIME someWhere are mostly the stubborn type, the ones who will say "I'm gonna drive whatever size vehicle I want and be ****ed to anyone who wants to take that right away from me."

And that is an unsolvable problem.

From this story:

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssen...l/12512931.htm

Delta Flyer · #2 (**permalink**) 08-31-2005, 06:47 AM

Let's race these land barges now that gas is $3 a gallon. Considering their horrible driving habits, they are more likely to be the ones to crash. After the race, the next fillup might give some of them the reality check they need. How many dollars a gallon is their silly pride worth? We may finally be getting to the point a few of them are finally going to take fuel economy seriously.

AZCivic · #3 (**permalink**) 08-31-2005, 09:14 AM

Most folks thing the current gas prices are temporary. I hear it from my own co-workers and see it on the news. Just yesterday there was a story from Steve Forbes saying that oil is in for a major crash down to $30-40/barrel within the next 12 months. That would imply gasoline back around $1.50/gallon or so. I think that's what everyone is banking on right now. What was that line from the second Matrix movie? "Denial is the most predictable of all human reactions."

Delta Flyer · #4 (**permalink**) 08-31-2005, 09:33 AM

"Da Nile" is not just a river in Egypt!

lars-ss · #5 (**permalink**) 08-31-2005, 09:37 AM

Regarding the "oil bubble bursting" here is that story:

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds...fx2195813.html

Quote:

Oil prices are set to crash from this week's record highs as a speculative market bubble bursts with an impact that could make the hi-tech bust of 2000 'look like a picnic', business publisher Steve Forbes has predicted.

Forbes said the high oil prices currently dampening the US economy, which peaked at more than 70 usd a barrel yesterday as Hurricane Katrina headed for the US Gulf Coast, would fall to 30-35 usd a barrel within a year.

'I'll make a bold prediction... in 12 months, you're going to see oil down to 35-40 usd a barrel,' he said, according to Agence France-Presse.

'It's a huge bubble, I don't know what's going to pop it but eventually it will pop -- you cannot go against supply and demand, you cannot go against the fundamentals forever.'

I'm no "business guru" but my prediction is that the days of $1.50 gas in the USA are gone forever. If it ever hits $1.75 again I will be very surprised.

EricGo · #6 (**permalink**) 08-31-2005, 09:47 AM

It seems pretty clear, given the populace's refusal to plan ahead, that in the foreseeable future, any disruption to the supply, processing, or delivery of transport fuel is going to cause prices to spike. Just watch what happens when multiple disruptions happen at the same time.

I am very sorry to hear about the human suffering thus far in the gulf states; and know that things are only going to get worse for the poor and weak . New Orleans is now a toxic dump, and it is unclear just how bad. This is a result of environmental neglect exposed by Katrina. Will people start to see the real cost of our modern day fossil-fuel economy ? Hell no. They will blame nature, the middle east, environmentalists -- anything and everything except the root problem. And the crises will continue.

Very sad.

lars-ss · #7 (**permalink**) 08-31-2005, 09:57 AM

Well, the "root problem" for New Orleans is that they are below sea level and they (the city leaders/govt/governor) let their levee system deteriorate and failed to properly plan for a disaster like this.

If N.O. ever gets a direct hit from a Cat 5 hurricane, they will become the modern day Atlantis.

AZCivic · #8 (**permalink**) 08-31-2005, 10:32 AM

Indeed, it's simply a very dangerous place to put a city. I can understand their logic to some extent. Land near the ocean is typically very valuable, so if you can make land by draining out a swamp and running levees and pumps to keep it try, you invented a bunch of prime real estate. It still doesn't make it safe or inherently sustainable in the absense of good weather, unbreeched levees, and pumps with no electricity. It could be some time next year before they really rebuild there, and it will stll be just as dangerous as ever thanks to the fact that they're right by the ocean and below sea level. It's a sad situation where real estate values outweighed the inherent risks of building in such a dangerous area.

ggoede1 · #9 (**permalink**) 08-31-2005, 10:45 AM

Keep in mind that having spare capacity for anything large and expensive rarely happens. If something happens to a refinery and the price of gasoline soars it isn't because of a lack of planning. It is a lack of capacity and if people really wanted double or triple redundant capacity it will be the consumer who pays, not the refinery.

You'd also have to find real estate for your other facility. Good luck. From the time you get a permit you'll be pissing uphill for 15 years before anything is built.

It is in large part the enviros who make it hard to build new refinery capacity. That and the fact that a refinery is a capital intensive investment. I recall at Amoco we secretly liked the enviros. We were able to operate at a fixed capacity while prices went up due to demand. In reality it was the enviros who made big oil profitable.

texashchman · #10 (**permalink**) 08-31-2005, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lars-ss

Well, the "root problem" for New Orleans is that they are below sea level and they (the city leaders/govt/governor) let their levee system deteriorate and failed to properly plan for a disaster like this.

If N.O. ever gets a direct hit from a Cat 5 hurricane, they will become the modern day Atlantis.

Do you have a link on the levee's deteriorations? Kevin