Are Two Cars More Economical Than One?
That what the NY Times seems to think. In today’s editorial (hat tip NewsBusters), we find this sentiment.
Experts say that Detroit’s automakers could achieve 43 m.p.g. by then even without technological breakthroughs. If the companies were willing to make smaller cars, they could achieve 50 m.p.g. Congress could consider demanding that Detroit simply phase out S.U.V.’s and vans by a certain date.
Eight years ago, my family exceeded what I called "critical mass"; we no longer all fit in a sedan, legally or comfortably. So now when we drive about 1,000 miles to visit my folks or even the 10 miles to visit my wife’s, we should drive 2 sedans? That’s more economical and green…how, exactly?
Filed under: Doug • Economics & Taxes • Government
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
According to AAA, it costs (going from memory here) an average of ~$6000/year to have a second car. If one only needs a bigger vehicle (minivan, truck, whatever) a handful of times a year, it is much more economical for that family to rent a larger vehicle those few times that is actually needed.
IF a family unit actually had more than the 5-6 people that can fit in sedans AND that family regularly needed to transport those 7+ people at the same time to the same place, then it begins to make economic and environmental sense to have a larger vehicle
BUT, that’s a big IF – do we really NEED to drive 7+ people lots of places throughout the year? Or, is it the case that we have arranged our lives in such a way as to be dependent upon a vehicle(s) for transportation? If we are truly concerned about environmental conservation, then it behooves us to arrange our lives in such a way as not to be dependent upon personal vehicles on a regular basis.
Of course, that’s not always possible, but generally speaking, it’s about choices. IF we WANT to arrange our lives that we live so far away from everything and there are no alternatives (public transportation, bikes, etc), THEN we will find that we are indeed dependent upon personal vehicles. IF we want to have a “smaller footprint” on the earth, then we would strive to avoid setting ourselves up in that situation as to be so dependent upon cars.
Choice, indeed. And of course the Times is all about forcing the issue. And they pretty consistently endorse Democrats. And they consistently endorse forcing companies to do things.
My point here is the use of government “for our own good”. The Times sees every problem with some government solution, as with this. But as you note, it’s not always possible for some to live without a van. Yes, when I’m at work (one car spoken for) the remaining 5 in my family could fit in a 2nd sedan, but often my wife or I are helping transport more than just our own kids, keeping other cars off the road. But if the Times and the big government crowd gets its way, we won’t have that choice. Everybody will have to take multiple sedans all over the city.
Yes, there are many times when the van is sub-optimal, but to rent it every time it is needed would be cost prohibitive, and would result in more miles driven in the aggregate. But yes, I work from home as often as I can (and would do it more often if not for company policy) and the sedan is available on those days.
But the Times sees an opportunity with the makeup of the next Congress and is getting it’s dibs in, knowing that the Democrats are amenable to it. But the one-size-fits-all solution could very well be worse than the problem.
Many groups like to use the arm of gov’t to force actions they want to see or prohibit actions they don’t like. Gay marriage bans, smoking, drugs, pornography, bars, alcohol, etc. Many on the Left and on the Right.
My take is that if there are reasons of safety to Others involved, then at least in those cases, gov’t has an obligation to get involved. So banning alcohol or marijuana (which mostly only harms the individual)? No. Bans on DRIVING while under the influence of drugs? Yes, because of the potential for harm to others.
Using gov’t to criminalize driving? No. Using gov’t to make motorists pay something approximating the Real Costs of driving? Yes, because of the harm to the environment and others.
Using gov’t to ban gay marriage? No. why? Because there is no significant harm to others. Using gov’t to ban marriage to children? Yes, because there is a harm to others that can be done.
One’s right to swing their fist ends before it gets to another’s nose – that kind of thing, that seems to me to be the legitimate place for gov’t to intervene.
But if the Times and the big government crowd gets its way, we won’t have that choice. Everybody will have to take multiple sedans all over the city.
No, that would be ONE option that people could choose, it would not be forced upon them. Another option would be that more people would walk, or bus, or bike; more people could move closer to where they need to be and live in smaller circles.
As noted, I’m opposed to gov’t criminalizing driving and no one is really advocating that. But, creating responsible policies that discourage dangerous, poisonous behavior? Gov’t has an obligation to at least consider that. Seems to me.
I think that one’s thought of what is considered worthy of government intervention depends on one’s definition of “harm to others”, and perhaps how far down the line you look (immediate vs. long-term). Yes, I’m thinking of the gay marriage issue primarily. If you want to consider long-term issue for restricting vehicle availability, I can appeal to the long-term and larger issues as well. Don’t want to make this a Prop 8 thread, but I do want to note where I think you’re not applying your own standards equally to all the issues.
In addition, the laws of a community/town/state/nation reflect the morality of that community/etc. Personal freedom is still the guiding principle, but the community’s morality has and does set up limits. I think we can agree on this, especially regarding the marrying of/to children.
Your first comment dealt with need vs. want and my point is that the the Times is wanting to have the government tell me how to travel. Why penalize me for living 1000 miles away from my parents?
If you want to consider long-term issue for restricting vehicle availability
1. I’m not talking about restricting vehicle availability. I am talking about policies that encourage less driving rather than policies (as we have now) that encourage more personal auto driving. I’m talking about policies and structure put in place so that REAL costs are paid so that capitalism can more effectively work (ie, if motorists costs are subsidized, as they are currently, then that undermines the natural consequences that could happen if the Market were paying something closer to real costs for driving.)
2. My concerns are both short-term/immediate AND long-term. We are TODAY paying incredible costs to subsidize motorists and auto/oil companies. There are costs TODAY of our auto policies. Our streams and air today are polluted due to our policies. This is costing lives and money today. It is also costing lives and pushing costs off on future generations. So, I’m speaking of both short and long term concerns.
3. Additionally, the costs of our auto policies can be identified and measured objectively. Any “costs” associated with legalizing gay marriage are fuzzy and subjective and not specifically identifiable, seems to me.