By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Between my car and truck, our total miles per year is down about a third from when gas was less than a dollar, and the miles on the car are up. More than 100% of my reduced driving was on the truck. My vehicles are both more efficient than the ones I had when gas was a dollar, and even with the same size vehicle, fuel economy will improve when I trade again.
I believe that I am doing what a normal person does, making gradual changes as prices rise, rather than doing something dramatic when prices hit a certain level. Because of business requirements, I will not give up having a truck before I retire, and maybe not then. I like sitting high and being able to move things I cannot, or will not, put in a passenger car.
Harry
I figure even with gas at around $1.25 per gallon, that Intrepid was saving me around $125-150 per month just in fuel. That wasn't the reason I bought it, though. I just happened to get the new-car urge, and the 0.9% financing lured me in! And almost as if on cue, as soon as I bought that car, gas prices started going up. Suddenly, $1.50 per gallon was the norm, and I remember by the summer of 2000, it was pushing close to $2.00 per gallon. If I had been driving the Gran Fury, which demanded premium, I would've probably paid over $2.00 per gallon!
In late 2000, I quit that part time job, although I did go back for a bit in 2001. Fuel costs had nothing to do with it; it just got to the point that I didn't really need the money anymore, and started valuing my free time more. Still, quitting that job definintely reduced the amount of miles I was driving. Back in my peak, 1997-1999, I was probably doing about 40,000 miles per year just in delivery. On a busy Friday night I could easily put 200 miles on the car, and then come back again on Saturday and repeat that. I did scale back, once I bought the Intrepid. I think I "only" put about 33,000 miles total on that car in the first year.
In late 2003, I moved closer to work. Probably shaved about 100 miles per week off my commute. I didn't do it specifically for the commute, but that was a nice side benefit.
My two main sources of transportation right now are split up between that Intrepid and a 1985 Silverado that gets around 11-12 mpg in local driving. And I probably do about 6,000 miles per year, maximum, these days. So even with that Silverado, it's not like it's killing me.
Back in the summer of 2004, when gas seemed to hit $2.00 and consistently stay there, I think that's when I started really making changes in my habits. I'd try to drive more gently, cut out unnecessary trips, combine errands, etc. I also even started doing little things, like letting part of my yard return to nature, so that I'd have less grass to cut.
So, at this point, I don't think there's really much more for me to do. I like having a truck, and when the Silverado finally dies, I'll probably get another. But it doesn't make any sense to dump a truck that gets 11-12 mpg for one that might get 16 in my type of driving, just for the sole purpose of saving gas. As little as I drive, it just wouldn't be worth it. Ditto the Intrepid. There are more fuel-efficient cars out there, and eventually it will be replaced by one. But it will be when the time comes and the car actually NEEDS to be replaced.
The point of my comment is that fuel prices are changing the behaviors of people. Besides the cost of running a boat on the water, there is also the cost of towingt it too. My Pontoon could run all week before using all 26 gallons in the tank, but my dam Suburban would only get 9.5 mpg towing it. The four hour trips to the lake cam to a hault last summer and we stayed closer to home to use it.
as fuel prices increase beyond $4, maybe more drivers will decide to own two vehicles instead of one. they'll each want a low-mpg monster-truck and a high-mpg car -> increasing vehicle sales .
Not true, Around here last summer when gas was going trough the roof diesel was pretty stable and for the longest time was cheaper than gas.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But we digress...boy do we digress. Must be the sockeye I had for lunch.
fwiw, my mpg hit carrying a tandem canoe is around 1 mpg.
If you think I am nust.....consider this. Someone joked about a sail boat earlier, but the feds will just find a way to tax the wind. I saw on the discovery channel where they are already doing that for wind power generators.
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me
.
George Harrison
.
It HAS gone down for the hybrid owners.
So no one should have a bone to pick with hybrid owners who got a small tax break when they themselves would avoid taxes in a heartbeat when and if they could.
So true. You go to jail for evasion, but I practice avoidance every year.
If I list my auto related expenses, gas is at the top but depreciation is a close second and that's with my newest vehicle being a 2001.
Insurance is third higest expense and plates is fourth, ahead of repairs and maintenance.
If I buy new 4 cyl then depreciation will take first place, fuel second, and taxes will be third highest. Insurance and plates will go up. This can't be the answer for me.
A year later, taxes will drop off, depreciation will reduce and fuel will go back to top expense. A return to how things are now.
I am getting a new house 33 miles closer to my job. closer to shopping, schools, doctors, entertainment, everything. It will cut fuel use by 100 gallons a month, cut depreciation, cut repairs and maintenance. If it takes longer to wear out my vehicle, it will cut taxes and plates too.
I have been lucky in 2007. 3 of my 6 cars needed nothing and the worst repair was a $128 MAF sensor. I bought a '99 and put $450 into it for things it already had wrong with it (a/c cprsr, fr brakes, alignment, tires). That's how maint and repairs stay in last place. In contrast, I had a gas hot water heater go bad in my house and that cost me $1100 to have someone else fix it. I average over 22 mpg with all driving and managed to spend $700 on gas in May 2007. I saved $100 of gas just being on holiday and not driving to work 8 times in Dec. Not moving would eventually send my fuel costs over $1000 a month in a few years, based on 50,000 miles a year at 22.5 mpg and $5.40 a gallon.
Saving 100 gallons a month will pay ALL the interest on a $55,000 house mortgage.
Which is more sustainable? Think about all the resources that it took to make 5 cars in 10 yeara.
If the cars were being crushed after 2 years, I would agree with you. But it's not bad for the environment as surely someone else is going to use the car. People who buy new cars are simply taking a financial hit, and providing many people with nice used cars.
How many 45 mpg vehicles are there? Maybe the Prius but I'm not sure it even qualifies with the EPA's new ratings. Still I don't think many Prius owners buy a new car every two years. With the exception of hybrids most high mpg vehicles are also the cheapest. So the people buying them tend to be on a tighter budget making it even less likely that they are replacing their car every two years.
If more people kept their vehicles for 10 years there would be fewer late model used cars on the market. Meaning more people that buy these used vehicles would have to purchase a new car. It's not like getting a new car every 2-3 years results in the car you were driving being demolished. The number of vehicles being manufactured is more a function of how long that vehicle stays in the fleet, not how long the original owner kept it.
Gee, I wonder who commissioned that "special commission?" Sounds like those "independent commissions" that state governments form to study education funding. Funny how all those "independent investigators" always recommend HIGHER taxes for HIGHER budgets.
Or those "independent commissions" that study Social Security. After careful consideration, the conclusion is always that we should PAY more into the system, and GET less out of it. Problem solved!
Anyway, here's how our friends in Congress plan to help us on our way to $4 gasoline:
WASHINGTON (AP) - A special commission is urging the government to raise federal gasoline taxes by as much as 40 cents per gallon over five years as part of a sweeping overhaul designed to ease traffic congestion and repair the nation's decaying bridges and roads.
The two-year study being released Tuesday by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, the first to recommend broad changes after the devastating bridge collapse in Minneapolis last August, warns that urgent action is needed to avoid future disasters.
Under the recommendation, the current tax of 18.4 cents per gallon for unleaded gasoline would be increased annually for five years - by anywhere from 5 cents to 8 cents each year - and then indexed to inflation afterward to help fix the infrastructure, expand public transit and highways as well as broaden railway and rural access, according to persons with direct knowledge of the report, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the report is not yet public.
Remember what I said in a previous post about run-on sentences?
So intolerable traffic, inadequate roads, and bridges that fall into rivers are not the fault of our friends in gov't. All those are OUR fault, for not giving them enough money!
The gas taxes that they spent on things BESIDES roads and bridges ..... never mind that! They need MORE!
A "special commission" says so.
.
You poked em in the eye with that statement. The Feds and I know in the state of CA they use gas tax like it was part of the general fund. If the current gas taxes were spent as we were told they would be, our roads and bridges would be in great shape.
If every penny we pay in taxes at the pump were being spent on the infrastructure, and there was still a need, I would say add the tax. Truth is, it is spent on pork. The proposed tax will be thrown into projects that do little to repair roads and bridges.
It mentions even more on public transit and rural access. There is an article this week in our local paper where they are cutting bus routes because NO ONE rides the bus. When 80% to 90% of public transit is paid by general taxes, we need to cut back. If riders do not pay the cost of public transit something is wrong with the system. At $2 to ride the bus 10 miles to the main shopping and $2 return. I can drive my gas guzzling SUV cheaper and go door to door.
One thing to keep in mind is that the 18.4 cent federal gas tax has remained unchanged since 1993. Obviously costs have increased. Simply factoring for inflation this 18.4 cents should have gone up to around 28 cents.
My personal opinion is that highway funding needs to at least keep pace with inflation but it should be collected on the state and local level, not the feds. The localities have a far better idea of where the money needs to be spent and there will also be less "pork" involved in these highway projects. Whether this funding is generated through gas taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes, etc., is not all that relevant. Spending on the transportation infrastructure needs to be adequate, meaning it needs to periodically increase.
One trend that I'm not a big fan of is how new highway projects are funded through tolls. The rational is that let the people using these roads pay for them. Okay, let's be consistent with that logic. I live in a semi-rural area where the level of traffic on some roads might be a dozen cars an hour. Obviously these roads serve a very small percentage of the drivers. Can you imagine how much the toll would have to be if these handful of drivers had to shoulder the burden of building and maintaining these rural roads. Yet these are the same people that would adamently oppose a gas tax increase to expand some bridge or tunnel because they don't personally use it. Anyone who drives the NJ Turnpike is well aware of what a boondoggle toll roads can turn into from a tax/extortion perspective. And it's not like these tolls magically improve road quality. Get off the NJ Turnpike exit to Staten Island and you'll still be paying tolls. You will also encounter potholes that can swallow your car.
part of a sweeping overhaul designed to ease traffic congestion
If you raise gas taxes by .40 cents, you'll ease congestion all right since fewer people will be able to afford to drive. :P
It IS very frustrating all the things the gas tax gets spent on that have nothing to do with the roads. In California, where they can never keep the budget straight for more than 2 minutes at the state level, 50% of the gas tax goes into the general fund, where it is always siphoned off for the latest crisis/lack of foresight and planning. Every year. Then they have to sell bonds to fix the roads after they get into such a disreputable state of repair that the problem can be ignored no longer.
They SELL BONDS, borrowing from future income, because they have already BLOWN the money actually intended to fix and maintain the roads! Aargh.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Are the GPS devices being considered really snooping devices? By that I mean do they transmit your location or are they simply receivers, like the nav systems currently available for vehicles? If you could develop a tamper-proof odometer I wouldn't even see the need for a GPS device. Just have someone from the Motor Vehicle Admin. read your odometer once a year when you register your vehicle. Then assign a registration fee based upon the miles driven during the past year.
There is also the argument that gas taxes are unfair because these high mpg vehicles like the Prius don't pay their share. I don't really buy into that. The vehicle you drive represents a personal choice. You know prior to making this decision how it will affect the gas taxes you pay. Anyway, even if we went to a system where drivers were taxed by the mile I don't see the gas tax going away. It would now be considered a CO2 tax, where it would definitely make sense for the driver of a fuel efficient vehicle to pay less.
Under the recommendation, the current tax of 18.4 cents per gallon for unleaded gasoline would be increased annually for five years -- by anywhere from 5 cents to 8 cents each year -- and then indexed to inflation afterward to help fix the infrastructure, expand public transit and highways as well as broaden railway and rural access, according to persons with direct knowledge of the report, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the report is not yet public.
link title
I think we need a gas tax hike. It will be perfect for the momentum that the "small, efficient car" movement has gained lately by pushing even more people to avoid driving and avoid guzzling.
Certainly, labor and concrete, along with everything, cost more over time. However, the number of people driving (and paying gas tax) also increases every year.
That means that the government is taking in PLENTY of money to cover maintenance and repairs. And, I have to keep bringing this up because it gets so easily lost in the debate; the government STEALS gas tax money to spend on everything BESIDES roads and bridges.
If there's enough money to steal, there's enough money to spend maintaining the infrastructure WITHOUT raising taxes.
"Anyone who drives the NJ Turnpike is well aware of what a boondoggle toll roads can turn into from a tax/extortion perspective."
Here in Texas, our friends in Austin are implementing a new scam with toll roads. But first, a little background.
Perhaps some of you are old enough to understand the concept of a toll road -- the gov't issues bonds instead of raising taxes to build a road, then charges tolls to pay off the bonds.
That quaint concept quickly got perverted by gov'ts who retained, and even radically increased the tolls long after the bonds were paid. That scam is old news.
But the new trend in Texas goes like this -- The state uses gas tax money (what's left over after they steal 25% right off the top) to build a road. Then they say they have to make it a toll road to "pay" for the road -- blatant fraud, but it gets even better.
Once the toll road is up and running, the state then SELLS the road to a private, foreign company (in this case, the company is based in Spain). That company is then free to charge any fee it likes to use the road.
Of course, you the taxpaying motorist have no say in that fee. It's a private corporation in a foreign country. But you're certainly free NOT to use that road. And if you don't like it, you're free to buy a ticket to Madrid and go complain over there.
Meanwhile, the state has stolen your gas tax money by laundering it through the "sale" of the road you paid to build. The money for construction comes from gas taxes, but the money from the sale goes straight into the GENERAL FUND.
Isn't that convenient? Now our friends in Austin can spend that money any way they like, without having to worry about pesky restrictions and mandates.
This isn't a prediction, or a conspiracy theory. It's really happening.
.
Your wife wants to spend a day at the beauty salon, but you say there's only enough money to buy groceries. So your wife withdraws $200 from your joint bank account and buys groceries. She returns home with the bags of food, then demands another $200 to "pay" for the groceries.
After you hand her the money, she sells the groceries to your neighbor for another $100. Then she goes to the beauty salon.
Meanwhile, your neighbor now offers to sell you each food item at a mark-up in order to recoup his expenses.
Of course, you don't HAVE to buy the groceries from him. You're free to buy food anywhere you like. That is, if you have any money left over from paying twice for groceries which you never received.
This is the toll road scam that Texas is trying. And I promise that if it works here, every other state in the union will try it, too.
Watch out.
.
I didn't want to read all 200+ pages but I see that fuel taxes and the Prius have been the topic the last few pages.
Gas prices are definitely a concern for those of us who drive motorhomes. Last spring, I purchased a 2008 Monaco Dynasty, 42ft, 4 slide, 425 hp clean-air Cummins diesel. My fuel economy over 9,000 miles has ranged from 6.5 to 9.0 mpg's. Usually, 7.0-7.5 is the norm.
As has been mentioned before, diesel prices have been about .40-.50 cents higher per gallon. My coach has a 150 gallon fuel tank so it's an eye-opener watching the price pass $400 on a fill-up.
My little Honda CR-V tow vehicle sips the fuel when it's time to go sight seeing at 20 city/28 highway. The Honda is AWD.
If the price of fuel goes to $5.00 a gallon, I'll still keep moving as I have a pretty shiny penny tied up in my rig/toad and fuel cost is just a fraction of using my investment (pun intended). I bought the coach to see the country over the next five years and thats exactly what I'll be doing.
Mark :surprise:
In 2005 Californians paid $47 billion more in federal taxes than they received in federal spending. In addition CA's budget is probably impacted more than any other state by illegal immigration. Let CA keep that $47 billion and adopt their own immigration policies and that might go a long way towards straightening out their budget.
state taxes
Well guess what? The original bonds were paid off. But the combination of spending 4X more/mile for maintenance and administration then other highways, and the reissuance of new bonds for other projects ($15B "Big Dig"), has kept the Turnpike in business.
My biggest personal beef with them occurred when I broke down once on the Turnpike. I couldn't use a AAA tow-truck; the Turnpike doesn't allow it has a special contract with a tow-company! Rackets within rackets within rackets!
as for gas tax,sometimes i don't really think of it as tax but as a FEE for using gasoline or road-diesel .
similarly i thought of speeding tickets... in the distant past.
also, the "gas tax/fee/whatever" is built-in to the cost of most everything else - it's a consumption tax - which i prefer as does aspiring presidential dude Hucklebee and probably Paul Ron too.
the mass pike, speaking of phantom tollbooths... i've put lots of miles on it and actually it was my front driveway along with Rt 9 for a year in scenic framingham MA. recently when I drove it there I had occasion to sit still and wonder, "I'm paying multiple dollars for the privilege driving 0.4 mph on this non-freeway?"
To balance out the loss of tax revenue from individuals driving more efficient vehicles you also have to consider the growth in the driving population as a function of the growth of the country as a whole. There will be more drivers on the road paying more in taxes in toto but each will be paying less per capita.
It's a complex scenario but not unsolvable. I'm sure there is a differential equation that describes the curve.
Look, I don't want an old peice of crap, I am merely just stating that people do not understand what "sustainability" really means and that getting rid of a car every few years is absolutely horrible for the Earth's natural resources. Even if a vehicle is made 100% from recycled materials, the energy and water costs alone are enormous to recycle these materials.
Ever buy bottled water? Takes about 4 gallons of water to make one gallon of bottle water.
The production of a new car takes metal, plastic, cloth, and energy at the factory and raw materials in the mines. Pollution is generated by all of these, especially the energy. Water is consumed too.I don't agree that buying a new car every few years doesn't deplete the Earth. Plenty of used cars never get sold again. plenty of people decide to junk a car rather than fix it when something expensive is wrong with it, including dealers and insurance companies. It gets worse with electronics. We have developed a 'just replace it mentality'.
But, at least if the profits derived from generating the pollution and consuming America's resources were recirculated into America instead of wired to Japan and other colonizing countries using America, there would be financial support to solve some of our problems. Look at the conditions of our roads, especially in our cities. We have to sell our Toll roads to China in order to have a hope that they will maintain them better than we were able to?
So, after drinking a bottle of water, how come I don't pee four gallons?
Not sure about Texas but here in IL not one red cent of tax money goes into the toll way and it is owned and run by the state.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
And what caused that downfall? Obviously, it was $3 gasoline. That caused a nation-wide shift in consumer demand from SUVs to small, efficient cars.
Sure, the big 3 churned out the same gas-guzzling clunkers year after year, even in the face of skyrocketing gas prices. What do psychiatrists say about doing the same thing again and again, but expecting different results?
Sure, they bet their respective companies' fortunes on endless demand for SUVs and nothing else -- basically betting that gas would remain around $1/gal. forever. Guess those million-dollar-a-month executives aren't quite as smart as their MBAs suggest.
Sure, my uncle who retired from Ford says, "U.S. car companies aren't in the business of building cars, they're in the business of selling stock." The product doesn't matter, the bean counters do.
Sure, the UAW has begun to cannibalize itself -- voting to retain wages and benefits for existing members while new hires get the shaft. It's the beginning of the end for that union.
But all that is basically spilled milk. The real issue is that Detroit and the rest of Michigan have passed the point of no return. This is not simply a downturn in the business cycle. Like Springsteen sang, "... these jobs are goin', boys, and they ain't comin' back."
The big 3 bet everything on SUVs. Michigan bet everything on the big 3. They all shot craps. So what does the future hold?
The big 3 will stay in business, selling fewer cars, but plenty of stock.
The current crop of execs will bail out with golden parachutes. The new ones might have to survive on half-a-million a month.
The union will wither and die. The six-figure job with free health insurance will become a story that grandpa tells during family reunions.
And the unemployment rate in Michigan will return to normal ..... but only because all the laid-off workers' jobless benefits run out, which means official statistics no longer count them as "unemployed."
God Bless America.
.
You have a good picture of what is happening....
It is sad, but times they are a changing, as Dylan once said.
The sole advantage of tolls for funding roads and bridges is that only the people who use that road or bridge pay for it. The disadvantages are higher construction costs to add the toll plazas, higher maintenance costs for the same, higher operating costs from having to pay the toll collectors, and the traffic choke points at the toll plazas that waste both time and fuel. Give me a higher gas tax any day over a toll road.
Tollways are going to transponder systems that automatically collect the toll so those with the transponders can just breeze through tollbooths. Here in IL with the transponders you can travel the tollways without going through a traditional tollbooth or slowing down. The only ones stopping at toll booths are those who pay cash which is a minority of toll travelers here.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D