On 12/4/04 1:20 AM, "Dyna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ah, the Taxpayer League argument against transit. And who's going to pay for >> the repair costs of the sedans, fuel costs and insurance? Buying a car is >> only one reason the poor don't have cars; operating costs are far bigger >> over time. And my guess is the cost of operation for those poor folks will >> be higher than the use-based fees of hOurCar which cover fuel and insurance. > > Again, poor analogy and HourCar isn't transit. In low mileage > operation like this gas use isn't much of a factor. As far as repairs, > a 3 year old ex-fleet car with less than 50,000 miles on it won't need > major repairs for years. In fact, these cars from government fleets are > probably the best deal you can get in a car because the market is so > glutted with them.
Dyna's actually right that an ex-government fleet car is probably one of the better deals you can get in a car. I would encourage her to do what the hOurCar organizers did and come up with a business plan to make her vision of a bio-based car-sharing program happen instead of spending all her time pooh-poohing the efforts of others. >> There's another reason this argument is fallacious: why can't we do both (or >> all three)? Certainly, there are bigger wastes of money (if you believe >> hOurCar is that) to fund your biodiesel. > > Biodiesel is an alternative fuel while the hybrid is a very expensive > bandaid to cover the inefficencies of the spark ignition engine. > Theoreticly you could build a diesel cycle hybrid car running on > biodiesel fuel- but the diesel engine is so stingy with fuel at idle > that it's not worth the bother except for maybe switching locomotives. > Biodiesel is a much more cost efficent technology because you don't > need to buy a new car to take advantage of it. Thusly biodiesel needs > little or no public subsidy in comparison to buying Prius at $30,000 > apiece. Biodiesel needs little or no public subsidy compared to a Prius? Ha. Tell that the the folks in Congress that just passed a massive one for biodiesel producers. Then tell me how much of a subsidy Toyota gets for building the Prius. None. >> You could start organizing to get such a program � but beware of being >> ridiculed if you start too small! > > Hundreds of Minneapolis city trucks are already running on biodiesel > blends at virtually no additional cost to the taxpayers. Same for Metro > Transit buses and Hennepin County's trucks. In fact, even at only 2% > blends Biodiesel pays for itself by better lubricating the expensive > injection pumps and injectors on modern diesels. My VW TDI has over a > thousand dollars worth of fuel injection hardware under the hood, so a > couple cents a gallon extra is a small price to pay to protect that > expensive hardware. Um, the program is the car-sharing program. You could do it with any number of vehicle types, but if you're going to compare costs, then you have to compare apples to apples. So here's how you do that. You go to the St. Paul NEC, get a copy of the budget for the hOurCar program, and then you tell us how you could run a car-sharing program that serves as many or more people at a lower cost. Then you'd actually be making a worthwhile point. >> A number of fallacious assumptions. First, folks won't rent hOurCars for a >> day (otherwise, they'd be called dAyCars). They will rent them for an hour >> or two or three to make trips not covered by public transit, or routes that >> would be godawful expensive by taxi (wonder what their day rates are?). > > It costs me about $50 a month to license and insure my 7 year old > Ranger pickup. Even if HourCar were available in my 'hood it would cost > me more if I used it only 2 hours a week. Again, HourCar is not a cost > effective way to clean the air or provide mobility. Gee, I hope you'll share with us who you get your auto insurance from because that's a heck of a lot less than anyone I know spends on coverage. How much does it cost to insure your VW TDI? And as David pointed out above, how much is spent on maintenance, storage, etc? Now ask those same questions of someone who isn't a gearhead and so isn't able to do all maintenance work themselves and who lives in a higher-density area where parking is more scarce and thus, costlier. Now consider that another feature of hOurCar is that businesses can sign up for this program rather than have to maintain their own stand-alone fleets and all of the various costs associated with them. >> Also, by putting the hubs in densely populated Uptown and Loring, the >> assumption is people will be able to walk to the hub from their >> homes/apartments, pick up the car, use it, drop it off, walk home. > > And I suspect Hawthorne isn't even on the bottom of the list of > neighborhoods to receive HourCars. Hawthorne is not very densely populated compared to Uptown or Loring, is it, Dyna? If hOUrCar were proposing to place hubs in my neighborhood, which is a lot closer in density to yours, then your insinuations might actually have some merit. >> No, but renewables are not all that much better for the environment >> (see: ethanol; > > You seem to be confusing renewables- the process for making biodiesel > is totally different than that for making ethanol. And if ethanol is so > bad for the environment, why is the Lung Association promoting it. The American Lung Association promotes ethanol because ethanol contains fewer toxic components than gasoline. Likewise, biodiesel contains few toxic components than petroleum diesel. However, David is correct that renewables aren't necessarily all that much better for the environment if they are simply intended as replacements for petroleum-derived fuels. One major concern is with the environmental impacts of agricultural runoff into our surface water bodies (like the Mississippi) associated with growing the corn or soybeans used to make these fuels. >> This is still a good thing. And if 150 people can share six cars (instead of >> collectively buying lots more cars they use occasionally), you save all the >> environmental costs of building/maintaining those extra cars. > > The automobile is an infectious as well as disruptive technology. > Historicly if you made it easier for people to get behind the wheel > people will buy cars and drive more. So in fact HourCar may turn non > car owners into drivers that go on to buy more cars. That's doubtful, Dyna. Putting someone behind the wheel doesn't automatically give them the money to purchase and maintain a car. What's more likely is that folks who own cars but are able to do most of their travel by transit or bicycle will now be able to give up their cars. >> What's interesting is that car-sharing is a collective action - sort >> of like unionizing or political organizing. > > Except real organising comes from the grassroots rather than the > offices of nonprofits and government agencies. I have yet to see masses > of carless people protesting in the streets demanding the keys to new Prius. Sorry, Dyna. But David is right here as well. hOurCar was started by the collective efforts of volunteers. They took that idea to the nonprofits and government agencies to garner the resources to make that idea a reality. If you think you can start a car-sharing program without involving any nonprofits or government agencies, then by all means, please do so. >> It's easy to be cynical about all three, and our society seems pretty >> hardened about the "s" word (sharing). There are lots of reasons car-sharing >> might not work, but this isn't an expensive trial effort. Let the baby idea >> try to walk instead of strangling it (metaphor, people!) in the crib. > > Actually HourCar is a concept with some potential that has been > perverted into a scheme to sell and promote the Toyota Prius- note that > the organisers make no mention of the competing hybrids from Ford and > Honda. With the cost structure of a $30,000 car with $5,000 computer > and battery pack HourCar will never be able to lower it's rates to > where it can attract more than a few very PC customers. Wrong again, Dyna. On two counts. First off, the Toyota Prius sells for $20,000, not $30,000. And since you continually try to scare people about the battery packs on hybrids, I'll try to make it very simple. The battery pack on hybrids are warranted for TEN (10) years. So please quit trying to scare people into thinking they're going to be stuck with a dead car after a couple years. If that was the case, why have we not seen that with the first-generation Prius in the U.S., which has been out for three years now and why have we not seen that in Japan where the Prius has been available for nearly a decade? Secondly, the reason why the Toyota Prius was chosen is because it's hybrid setup is better suited to urban use than the Honda. The Toyota system uses the electric motor as a foundation and the gas engine kicks in when needed at higher speeds. Which is why the Prius actually gets BETTER gas mileage for urban driving than freeway driving. The Honda system uses a gas engine that is assisted by the electric motor when needed. So it's better for longer-distance travel, not the short trips that hOurCar users will mostly be making. As for Ford, they've only chosen to offer a wimpy hybrid version of their Escape SUV, which 1. costs more than a Prius and 2. gets worse gas mileage. Maybe those hOurCar organizers are a little smarter than you give them credit for? Mark Snyder Windom Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
