A Downside to Fuel Efficiency?!? - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-09-2007, 08:37 PM   #1
Tuggin at the surly bonds
 
Silveredwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 839
Country: United States
A Downside to Fuel Efficiency?!?

A downside to fuel efficiency?

Quote:
America's growing love affair with energy-efficient cars is starting to take a toll on the nation's crumbling highways and roads.

Requiring fewer fill-ups at the pumps, the vehicles are putting a pinch on the federal Highway Trust Fund -- the major government funding source for highway and mass transit projects.
Umm. Blink. Blink. So the problem is... we aren't doing our part by burning gas fast enough, right!?!

Maybe we need a law that says we all have to buy a minimum amount of gas. But wait, we already do that. It's hidden in the $billions in freebies we give to the oil industry to give us the illusion that gas is only $2.50/gallon.

This logic is kinda like wetting-the-bed to stay warm. We have 80,000 pound tractor-trailors each doing 80 mph all over our highways 8-12 hours a day and do about a thousand times the wear and tear of a car on our crumbling highways and yet don't pay nearly enough in taxes and fees to cover all the damage. This means that our tax money is hard at work giving the trucking industry a virtually free infrastructure. So basically the highway repair funds are being bogarted by the trucking industry. Everytime someone suggests passing the costs back to the truckers, their lobbyists scare voters into believing that they'll only pass the costs on to the consumers. This BS always works, yet trucking is not a perfectly inelastic market. The consumers would surely find a way to get goods shipped by more cost effective means and truckers' marketshare would shrink (truckers don't want voters to figure that out). Instead, we hide the true cost of shipping in our taxes the same way we do with energy costs.

Yet the problem is we aren't collecting enough taxes? Is this just me? It is, isn't it?
__________________

__________________
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein
Silveredwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2007, 08:42 PM   #2
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 358
Country: United States
Good. Maybe they'll stop building roads through what's left of the American wilderness. We have destroyed this country in only about 200 years. 200 years ago, a squirrel could go from the Atlantic ocean to the Mississippi River without touching the ground. Now we've destroyed it all. It's time to stop expanding and start preserving what little is left. Maybe let some of te roads crumble and let the wilderness take the land back.
__________________

repete86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2007, 08:52 PM   #3
Tuggin at the surly bonds
 
Silveredwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 839
Country: United States
Exactly.

Another one...

Quote:
U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters who chairs the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission says "People also aren't driving as much as they once did"
So, where is the problem? Sounds like fiscal mismanagement to me.
__________________
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein
Silveredwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2007, 09:04 PM   #4
Tuggin at the surly bonds
 
Silveredwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 839
Country: United States
Yeah, I smell Cheney's office in there somewhere.
__________________
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein
Silveredwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2007, 09:50 PM   #5
Registered Member
 
Spule 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 175
Country: United States
So, the road tax will go up like Europe. But here is the real wave of the future, and not just in the UK, they are proposing it here:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/mostpopul..._row_ahead.php

http://news.com.com/E-tracking,+comi...3-5980979.html
__________________
"Knowledge is Good"

-Emil Faber
Spule 4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2007, 09:57 PM   #6
Registered Member
 
Snax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 758
Country: United States
Just think of all of the wonderful road maintenance that could have been performed with the money we have spent on Iraq. It's a catch-22. We spend our money assuring cheap oil, requiring us to use SUVs to navigate the crappy roads, consuming more fuel in the process. (And making the oil barrons rich too of course.)
__________________
LiberalImage.com

I think, therefore I doubt.
Snax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2007, 10:15 PM   #7
Driving on E
 
Matt Timion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,110
Country: United States
You mean they actually USE that money for the roads? I remember in California (when I lived there) there was a big stink because the money allotted for the roads was used on something else.

The state government then asked for more money to help pay for the roads.
Matt Timion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2007, 12:14 AM   #8
Supporting Member
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,779
Country: United States
Hello -

This is pretty nuts. Usual short-sightedness. Fewer gallons burned means less CO2 means less environmental problems down the line. What a mess.

This is a good place for a lawyer and a class action law suit!

CarloSW2
__________________
Old School SW2 EPA ... New School Civic EPA :

What's your EPA MPG? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
cfg83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2007, 01:08 AM   #9
Registered Member
 
The Toecutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 612
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to The Toecutter
Our government is way too big. When they mismanage our money, they complain that Americans aren't generating enough of it for them, and then proceed to make sure consumption doesn't slow. Meanwhile, they refuse to address the other problem with our roads: tractor trailers.

Shipping by rail might be cheaper, but there's nowhere near the chain of industries and nowhere near as much profit involved.

Our government and the industries that control it want to maximize consumer spending to maximize economic growth. Without constant growth, they won't maximize their profits.

If we do reduce consumption enough, their ultimate goal is to get that money another way by violating our rights, keeping track of where, when, how much, and how fast we drive.



Some of these fucktards should be shot.
The Toecutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2007, 04:35 AM   #10
Tuggin at the surly bonds
 
Silveredwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 839
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by theclencher View Post
Ewww!

Gee whiz Mr. Turmail, what was your first clue?
These kind of articles are so obviously slanted that you can see who really writes them. It's FUD perpetrated to keep the public confused and wondering what should happen. You and I know we just need to take a few f'ing hand out of the cookie jar. But that's politics for ya.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Toecutter
Shipping by rail might be cheaper, but there's nowhere near the chain of industries and nowhere near as much profit involved.
I think if we gave rail an equal footing, it would have a much higher profitibility. Remember, trucks have a nearly free roadway, and a large portion of their fuel subsidized. So that points to the other major source of the FUD: if we changed from trucks to rails, there would be less oil burned. It always comes back to oil now doesn't it?

How about we either give rail shippers the same perks or take them away from truckers. If only we had a government that answered to the people instead of a lapdog press.

BTW, I think bullets are too good for them: put 'em all in an oil-cracking tank. Then at our burn rate, they'll be gone in about 3.7 nano seconds. I'd gladly pay 40 odd cents a gallon tax to see that happen.
__________________

__________________
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein
Silveredwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Incorrect Milage Calcuatlion PatM Fuelly Web Support and Community News 4 07-17-2009 08:21 PM
Missing Fuelup jmonty Fuelly Web Support and Community News 3 05-27-2009 05:10 AM
Pulse and Glide? Pete7874 General Fuel Topics 24 02-26-2009 12:11 PM
New here, seems I've found my posse MakDiesel Introduce Yourself - New member Welcome 7 06-13-2006 07:09 PM
"active" aero grille slats on 06 civic concept MetroMPG General Fuel Topics 21 01-03-2006 01:02 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.