Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options

Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?

1242527293084

Comments

  • kathyc2kathyc2 Member Posts: 159
    People are going to buy trucks and SUV's, no matter what. At least something like this might give them the incentive to move into something more fuel-efficient, rather than just wearing out one 13 mpg vehicle and replacing it with another used 13 mpg (or worse) vehicle

    I agree that there are people who will continue to buy low mileage SUV's and trucks. That certainly is their privilege. However, my point was why should I and the other taxpayers subsidize their purchase?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    IMO a country without *metropolitan* mass transit doesn't even deserve to be called itself a civilized society. Mass transit is vital to economic growth, no two ways about it.

    Individual transportation is a quaint notion for a rural USA in the early 1900s---when the car was born in America.

    C4C hopefully will not increase the # of cars. We have way too many as it is.

    You can see how time and space are influencing the types of cars we drive. Compare 1960 with 2006.

    I view C4C as just a small sustaining factor for an industry that must change to survive.
  • kathyc2kathyc2 Member Posts: 159
    What does everyone think the effect of this will be on the used market?

    My feeling is since there will be less low priced used cars/trucks on the market, dealers will use this as a reason and scare tactic to raise prices.

    Also, people who are close to qualfying may bypass buying now hoping for a revised government program next year. Again, less used vehicles on the market.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    I agree that there are people who will continue to buy low mileage SUV's and trucks. That certainly is their privilege. However, my point was why should I and the other taxpayers subsidize their purchase?

    Best advice I can give you is to go back and re-read my whole post. The point I was making was that it's almost as beneficial to move someone from a 13 mpg vehicle to a 16 mpg as it is to get someone from an 18 mpg vehicle to a 28 mpg vehicle, in terms of fuel saved.

    Personally, I'm not too keen on seeing my tax dollars go to subsidizing ANYBODY's vehicle purchase, whether it's getting them into a more efficient SUV, or a more efficient car. But who knows? In the long run it might work out, reducing our dependency on foreign oil (which if I'm not mistaken, most of it actually comes from Mexico and Canada :P ), and helping to get dollars back in circulation again, get people spending.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    It is fine for the government to create mass-transit if that is what the people want. I believe though that the people benefitting or using mass transit, should pay for it though. I want the fares set = to the costs to build and run that mode of mass transit. That is fair.

    Individual transportation is a quaint notion for a rural USA in the early 1900s---when the car was born in America.

    I believe horses were individual transportation too. And bicycles in many parts of the world are individual transportation. If you look at many of the largest cities in the world - individual transportation is still the norm on a percentage basis.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Mass transit is vital to economic growth, no two ways about it.

    Individual transportation is a quaint notion for a rural USA in the early 1900s---when the car was born in America.


    Wow!

    You may be surprised to learn that we don't all live in NYC, Chicago, LA, etc., even today. Mass transit is a "quaint notion" in a very large number of other metroplitan areas in the USA. It may be nice that it is there for a few senior citizens, unemployed folks, and a very small number of others that actually ride it, but it is hardly vital to anything.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    I believe though that the people benefitting or using mass transit, should pay for it though. I want the fares set = to the costs to build and run that mode of mass transit. That is fair.

    In some cases though, we ARE benefitting from mass transit, even if we're not directly using it. For example, just imagine if Amtrak's Northeast Corridor didn't exist. Just imagine how much more crowded our highways would be between DC and New Yorker. They're bad enough as it is, but just think of all the traffic those trains take off of it. And I'm sure the DC Metro takes a lot of cars off the road, as well.

    A lot of people in big cities get by without even having a car. Just think if mass transit went away, and everybody suddenly needed to get a car. The streets would get more crowded, but even more than that, there would be no place to park them! More parking lots and garages would have to be built, and that's more infrastructure to be maintained.

    If cities were built upon the premise of every resident having a car, they would stretch out and up even more than they currently do.

    Now I agree, mass transit doesn't work everywhere. For instance, if I wanted to take the bus to work, I'd have to walk about halfway TO work, just to get to the nearest bus stop! At that point, might as well just walk the rest of the way. I'd be tempted to bike it on nice days, if the roads weren't so dangerous.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    Well stated.
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    I want the fares set = to the costs to build and run that mode of mass transit. That is fair.

    So who should pay for the roads?
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    I feel so much anger in your post. ;)

    By compassion, I meant sometimes you have to give up some things to help others. I think you are oversimplifying things when you compare mass transit to welfare. it's a much more complicated argument than this.

    I view this as one of those necessary evils for cities. I travel to DC and NYC frequently. I rather spend $1.50 using the PATH to get into NYC rather than $8 to use the Lincoln Tunnel and another $25-$30 for parking, and hope the person next to me doesn't ding my car. The alternative is you have more people driving, more congestion, the need for more roads, more oil/gas being used, etc.

    Because of your posts, I actually paid attention to the people waiting for the buses in my town on the way to work. In my mind, we need to continue to provide public transportation but make it more efficient. Smaller buses, fewer routes, etc. I'm just thankful, I don't have to rely on it.

    Be Well, my friend.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    As part of the tax-paying population when you pay your taxes you delegate the use of those taxes to Congress. The money is no longer 'yours'. However you could always take the position that 'your' taxes go to support Planned Parenthood, Education, support for our troops, a voyage to Mars ( I've designated that all my taxes must be used in this endeavor, I make sure of it :surprise: ).

    Somebody else's taxes go to supporting the Cash for Clunkers program. For example Toyota, Honda, BMW, Merc, Nissan, Mazda all pay more income taxes than any of us ( I think ) so let's just say that it's their taxes that are going to support this program.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    There are 250 million vehicles on the road today. 250,000 old ones are going to be retired and 250,000 new ones are going to be added. That's 0.01% of the vehicles on the road!!!

    No effect.
  • kathyc2kathyc2 Member Posts: 159
    Andre, I did read you entire post, and you make some good points. However, I am looking at it from the perspective of what I would consider an average car that gets 21MPG, which is 30% less than the 16MPG SUV in your example. The extra demand for gas the SUV creates already raises gas prices for all of us. That is what it is and the price we pay for living in a free society. However, for us tax payers to further subsidize and encourage the purchase of a 16MPG vehicle in my opinion is wrong.
    Preliminary data shows June 09 sales only down around 20% from 08 numbers. In fact Ford is planning to increase production. And this is before the C4C program.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    For example, just imagine if Amtrak's Northeast Corridor didn't exist. Just imagine how much more crowded our highways would be between DC and New Yorker.

    First tell me how many people take these trains each day. Then tell me how many of these people could have stayed in their office, and had a video conference. Third - tell me that as a society we couldn't do a better job of distributing our commuting time. Maybe the problem is too many people need to use the roads for a few hours of the 24 hr/day hmm?

    Just think if mass transit went away, and everybody suddenly needed to get a car.

    As I said some of the biggest and most densely populated cities do not have much mass transit or car-ownership. Take a look at the giant cities of India, China, Mexico City, Singapore, Hong Kong - walk, bike, scooters. Heck we may even change the use of buildings such that you can live, work, recreate and shop in a 6 block radius (for those who want to live in an urban or suburban area)?
  • kathyc2kathyc2 Member Posts: 159
    I don't think the total on the road would play into the equation. I think it would be more the under 4K vehicles that are traded on a normal year. I have no idea what that number would be. I think there will be some ACTUAL supply/demand shift in the lower end market and a lot more PERCEIVED shift.
  • kathyc2kathyc2 Member Posts: 159
    Since I don't get a say in how my tax dollars are spent, a portion of them go to every wasteful program the government puts out. Yep, I even paid a portion of Obama's date to NYC. :(
    And what's nice about being an American is even if I don't have a say how my money is spent, I have the privilege of being able to grumble about it.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    So who should pay for the roads?

    In CA we pay about 60 cents per gallon to maintain the highways and bridges. A large percentage of that goes to mass transit. The roads in CA are poorly maintained for the billions in gas tax we pay. I have no problem with Mass Transit that is self sustaining. It is so bad here that we are now thinking of going about $90 billion further in debt to give a high speed train ride to a few hundred people a day. What a travesty that is for the ignorant masses in CA.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think you are oversimplifying things when you compare mass transit to welfare.

    At the turn of the last century the USA had more miles of mass transit than the rest of the world combined. It was all privately owned and profitable. Most of it was to service the growing suburbs around the major cities. Europe had more cars than we did at the time. Then along came cheap cars and the trolleys and trains were no longer profitable in many cities.

    I rather spend $1.50 using the PATH to get into NYC rather than $8 to use the Lincoln Tunnel and another $25-$30 for parking

    So you accept that welfare because you are the recipient. Looks like you got about $30 in welfare with one trip into NYC. Why don't the rates reflect the savings you enjoyed. The mass transit should cost as much as the car it replaced. Or close to as much. Breaking even would be a big improvement for the cities that are going bankrupt.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    My feeling is since there will be less low priced used cars/trucks on the market, dealers will use this as a reason and scare tactic to raise prices.

    C4C may dry up the supply of used cars a bit more, but used car prices are already up there pretty good.

    "Compared with new vehicles sales — which are at lows unseen in decades — the used car market is doing well," observed Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl. "Desirable used vehicles are becoming harder to find, pushing up their prices, while today's new cars are heavily discounted. This is creating an unusual economic event: It can actually be less expensive to purchase a new car than a used car."

    Some New Cars Now Less Expensive than Used Cars, Edmunds.com Reports (March 20, 2009).
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    We are ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. This includes autoworkers and old people on busses. This includes YOU and me. Conceptual "anarcho-topias" just don't apply to real world problems IMO.

    Take mass transit away in America and the country would collapse into utter chaos. We *all* know this if we step back and visualize it for a moment. Could you defend the view that it wouldn't matter? Don't think so.

    It, public mass transit, is the system that takes up all that a private automobile and current highways cannot do. It's part of a *network* of transportation. Some regions need it more than others.

    It also doesn't matter if it pays for itself or not DIRECTLY---it pays for itself a hundred times over in worker productivity, cleaner air and a better life for people too young or too old to drive. Can you bear a jog in Tokyo or Athens? It's tough going and it's not smog from metro trains either.

    Sink or swim unregulated capitalism is not a form of government. It is at best a presently dysfunctional and somewhat discredited form of economics.

    Bring on C4C. The boat's leaking.
  • kathyc2kathyc2 Member Posts: 159
    I've seen that. I'm looking at trading in my 2006 Torrent and Kelly shows the value as $300 more than they did a couple of weeks ago. And this is for a Pontiac which one would think would decrease.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    Highly unlikely you'll get what Mr. Kelly is telling you.

    These were very slow sellers when new and near impossible to sell as used cars especially now since the recent news about Pontiac.

    Maybe you'll get lucky!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I don't think very many cars these days are meeting Kelley's retail pricing. KBB tends to be rather high even in the best of time.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    Used car pricing has gone through some real ups and downs recently. As the car manufactuires have cut back production, certain popular used cars are selling for a lot more then they were a couple of months ago.

    As an example, we are PAYING as much at the auction for some cars then we were SELLING them for recently. Just the market and the "books" can't begin to keep up with the changes.

    As a rule of thumb, cars that few people buy when new are usually dogs later as used cars. Nobody wants them even at distressed prices.

    It takes a very astute Used Car Manager these days to avoid making a buying mistake. Yesterdays hits don't always win today's ball games.

    Best example of this were the "flash in the pan" PT Cruisers.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Take mass transit away in America and the country would collapse into utter chaos.

    I think we will have bigger problems with the cut backs in police protection. Many cities are doing just that. Chicago is one of them and it is becoming a war zone. Little girls mowed down on their front yards. Something has to give in this growing welfare system you seem to enjoy. People need to pay for the services rendered. If a bus ride across town cost $10 that is what a person should pay. I dare say that is still a lot cheaper than owning a car. Giving senior discounts on the bus makes about as much sense as the C4C bill. That would be ZERO..

    We are not old enough to have EVER experienced unregulated capitalism. I am not sure that any country has ever tried it.
  • kathyc2kathyc2 Member Posts: 159
    I think it depends on the market. I've had dealers tell me Torrents like mine are going at 11 to 12.5 at auction, and KBB has mine in excellent condition at 12,675. I had worked out a deal Saturday where I was paying 300 over invoice, keeping rebates and getting full value on trade. I'm a 4 time repeat customer and use their service department, so I'm sure that factored in. Problem was, the dealer didn't have the Vibe in stock that I wanted and couldn't find a dealer willing to trade. I guess the dealers all thought the 09 Vibe was too hot to part with. Today GM announced 2,500 rebates on 2010 also, and I bet the dealers wish they didn't have their 2009's. Only pricing difference is 10's don't have the extra $500 dealer rebate.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I think you are about $1500 too high on your Torrent expectations...but that's just my two cents. Unless it's an AWD, then you are pretty close to private party retail.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well after decades of unabated and massive corporate welfare I think I'm ready to see the handouts "trickle down" to us for a change. Let's call it "trickle down welfare" just for the irony of it all. I'm ready for a free lunch now that all the Big Boys are totally sated. I'll start with a C4C appetizer and then wait for the entree later.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Sadly the corporate welfare is alive and well. And the welfare at the bottom. It is those of US in the middle that will pay a higher percentage to keep all these welfare programs going. If you are a middle class tax payer as I am. Taking advantage of the C4C makes good sense. As you may get a bit back that you are going to pay for. Not to mention your children and grandchildren.

    By the way subsidies to corporations are not a tenet of capitalism. It is socialism to the max.
  • kathyc2kathyc2 Member Posts: 159
    Gee, you sound like a dealer that is trying to get me to pay more than I want to. :P

    It is AWD and pretty loaded other than leather.

    My point though is that I see the used market prices going up.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Do you think you will be happy going from a nice big Torrent to a tiny Vibe? You will be hard pressed to make an economical case for the trade. Do you ever use the AWD? I might add it has nothing to do with the Cash for Clunkers program. Unless you think it might make trade-ins more valuable. That I am not sure of.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    Three buyers lined up to give up their qualifying clunkers for new 2010 Prius'. In toto there are 10-15 others who may also be able to take advantage of the program here at this one location as of this date. The news articles about C4C just hit the general interest newspapers today here.
  • kathyc2kathyc2 Member Posts: 159
    This post got way off track. I started it just to get some conversation going about some different consequences of the C4C program.
    But to answer your question, my main car is a 325, so I'm used to small cars. Bought the Torrent last fall as my winter vehicle, but never got used the the largeness of it. My son in college has been driving my Grand Prix to commute, but it's getting high in miles and repair costs, so... trading in the Torrent on a Vibe for him and I'll drive the Grand Prix in the winter. I bought the Torrent in November when some excellent deals were out on used, so I'm not even taking too much of a hit on it. Acutally, I'm not sure if I ever used the AWD. It doesn't give you any indication if it switched to AWD. It's not like my old Jimmy where you put into 4W.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    No problem drifting off subject. I have been known to do that a time or two. :shades:

    Sounds like you are an astute shopper. I'm sure you will make out ok on your trade if you bought the Torrent used and don't need the AWD.
  • tazzitazzi Member Posts: 23
    Well, there really isn't such a thing as trickle down welfare or a free lunch, unless you don't pay taxes to begin with. If you pay taxes, you are paying for whatever government program you may or may not take part in. So, it would be more of a tax rebate than welfare :)

    At least that is how I am looking at the C4C program. I'm hoping to take advantage of it in September and since my taxes are going to pay for it one way or another, I figure I'm just getting some of my money back.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    No I hope you don't have to pay more than necessary--LOL! What I meant was that relying on a price guide is fraught with peril, and one uptick in one "book" does not constitute a trend. If you REALLY want to know what's going on vis a vis "trends", you'd have to find a friend at a dealership who can plug into the Manheim auction database, which tracks what dealers are paying, week to week, for various used cars at auctions. If you saw a few months up uptick through Manheim, then you have something "real". I think the used car market pretty much sucks right now.
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    "First tell me how many people take these trains each day. Then tell me how many of these people could have stayed in their office, and had a video conference. Third - tell me that as a society we couldn't do a better job of distributing our commuting time. Maybe the problem is too many people need to use the roads for a few hours of the 24 hr/day hmm?"

    I can attest that most of these trains are packed. This train goes through DC, baltimore, Philadelphia, northern NJ and into NYC. Major cities. Sometimes you need to physically be at a location. My job cannot be done by video conferencing.

    Some professions can adjust their schedules and to some extent this already happens. Many retailers don't start until 10. Hospitals vary their shifts. Its not a bad idea but not sure hwo feasible it is.

    If you feel those international cities are better off than living in any city in the US (minus Detroit) simply because they don't have mass transit, have fun living there. I live 32 miles from work. Driving is the only way I can get to work. I liek th idea of a Star Trek transporter though. :P
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,419
    The largest and densest first world cities do have some kind of transit infrastructure. The globalists want to dumb the first world down and away from this - but it's much easier and more pleasant to get around (and live) in a place with easy and plentiful transportation options...its a quality of life issue. I'd rather live in London/Paris/Berlin/Rome etc than their Chinese or Indian counterparts.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    It's easy to give you a 300.00 over invoice price and an unrealistic trade in value when they don't have a car to sell you!

    Seriously, if they will give you the money you think that Torrent is worth and still sell you a Vibe at 300 over, I wouldn't be picky. I would grab ANY Vibe and run like a thief in the night!

    I'm very serious because something sounds wrong!
  • chetjchetj Member Posts: 324
    i think the program is a very good idea, it should help car sales..i just bought a ohio built G5 and i am very impressed with it has a very smooth ride and the new electronic power steering is great...comes with hands free phone and xm radio too...i hope people consider domestics, the prices are very good and so are the cars...at least look where the car is assembled, we really need to keep jobs in USA..i work at a supplier i should know
  • chetjchetj Member Posts: 324
    the G5 and G6 have big rebates now too
  • chetjchetj Member Posts: 324
    well that will help japans economy selling the prius...i know they dont assemble them here
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    "We are not old enough to have EVER experienced unregulated capitalism. I am not sure that any country has ever tried it."

    This is very true. The real question is how much regulation and subsidies do we favor? What percentage of our output of goods an services should be allocated to (federal, state and local) governments? Reasonable, intelligent people will differ on the answers to these questions, depending on how much faith, or concern, they have about government and free markets. However, let's all be clear on one thing, and that is there are important tradeoffs for various mixes of government and free market activities. Make no mistake about that. European countries have tended to favor more government involvement in their economies than the U.S. (until recently, at least). As a result, they tend to have more even income distributions, with fewer extremes. One significant tradeoff, however, is that we've traditionally enjoyed a lower unemployment rate, and less structural unemployment. Also, our young people (again, at least until recently, but maybe now too) have found it easier to find employment and to pursue their economic dreams than their European counterparts. Compare the innovation in the U.S. and Europe. Many Americans say the European system is better, but I've met many Europeans who envy what we have. There's probably some "the grass is always greener on the other side" effect here.

    As I've mentioned several times, I favored the rescue of our financial system, because of the devastation that a financial meltdown would have caused, but I have serious reservations about whether the aid given to GM and Chrysler will be worthwhile in the long run. I tend to doubt it, but will try to keep an open mind until we find out whether these two companies survive, and the cost of saving them is tallied. I tend to think that Chapter 11 or 7 would have been preferable. Other companies would have purchased the assets of these companies that are worth saving. For example, someone would have purchased the Corvette brand, and maybe Chevy, Cadillac and Jeep, if not the others. The number of vehicles sold in the U.S. would not have been materially affected. I'm also not convinced that pouring tens of billions into GM and Chrysler will result in a net reduction in unemployment in the end.

    Proponents of the bailouts will cite the surge in unemployment that bankruptcies would have caused, and quickly accuse those who favored bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler, and some suppliers, as lacking compassion. It remains to be seem just how compassionate the rescue of GM and Chrysler will turn out to be. It's too early to say whether the jobs saved will, in the end, not be more than offset by the effects associated with the increases in the deficit.

    Proponents and opponents of more versus less government frequently accuse those that disagree with them of not "getting it." How often have you heard some variation of "conservatives just don't get it...," or liberals just don't get it...." I think it's more a case of people with reasonable intelligence and judgment reaching different conclusions because their priorities differ.
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    That's a very well thought out post, hp.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I also agree with your post.

    I would add, my understanding is that home ownership in most European countries, is a small fraction of the USA. One of the real advantages we had to offer in the past. Seems the house of cards is falling and many will lose their homes built on poor economics.

    How many will lose their cars when Uncle Sam makes the down payment with the C4C bill? Hopefully the banks are now using sound lending practices that were thrown to the wind over the last decade. The Sub-Prime lending was IMO a direct result of the Feds pushing the lending institutions in a bad direction.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    My favoritism for various bail-out schemes is not really based on compassion at all, but strictly on economics---that it's cheaper to do THIS than to suffer THAT.

    But yeah, it's very possible the D3 are going into some serious re-structuring in the future and may not be recognizable as the corporations they are today.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    These were very slow sellers when new and near impossible to sell as used cars especially now since the recent news about Pontiac.

    For some twisted reason, I have a soft spot for the Torrent! A few years ago, when a friend of mine wanted to get a new smallish SUV, he narrowed it down to an Xterra and an Equinox. I wanted him to look at the Torrent, because, while it's the same thing, I just thought it had a nicer looking front-end. But the, I'd choose an Astre over a Vega, too! :P

    Well, my friend didn't like its look as much as the Equinox. Ended up being a moot point though, because he got the Xterra.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    I can attest that most of these trains are packed.

    No one said the train(s?) between DC and NYC aren't packed. That does not answer the question - which was "if the trains didn't exist then the roads would be so much more crowded". I want to know how many trains there are X how many passengers on each train, and how this compares to how many people are on the main roads between NYC and DC. So do the trains move 5,000 people per day, and the highways move 100,000/day? what is this ratio? and how much extra capacity is there on the highways? are the highways bumper to bumper 24 hr/day or just around commuting time?
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    I'd rather live in London/Paris/Berlin/Rome etc than their Chinese or Indian counterparts.

    Really? The cities you mention are fairly expensive and the countries they're in are in population/economic stagnation, with cultural issues from immigration (remember the riots a few years ago in Paris?). Italy is actually getting rather elderly and the population is in decline, with the Mafia having a higher GDP than any other Italian company. Unemployment in the Euro zone is always higher than the U.S. You must be watching the Travel Channel a lot.

    C4C is a small welfare program that benefits few. If you've been the good citizen, working hard, paying your bills, saving, and driving a high mpg newer vehicle, then you're getting scrued one-more-time, in not getting the government handouts. As gagrice said the poor, the wealthy, and those that have blatantly screwed-up or used poor judgment are getting bailed-out.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    In googling around, I found that Amtrak accounts for 14% of all commuting between DC and New York City. That's ALL forms of commuting...car, bus, rail, airplane, etc.

    Taking into account just rail/air travel, Amtrak accounts for 47%.
Sign In or Register to comment.