SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
January 6, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Gas prices rising again

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

Gas prices are rising, approaching scary levels not seen since 2008, according to my own anecdotal, completely unqualified observations.

But the AAA backs me up. We’re on a 12 month peak and prices continue to rise. Just today I saw a gas station near a freeway charing $3.79 per gallon, less than a quarter from $4.

Image not recoveredgas.png
One of my new year resolutions was to not be such an annoying, overbearing and ta-taing liberal, but I just can’t help it. The only way, in my view, that we’ll ever get off that cheap sweet Saudi crude (with all the negative externalities that entails) is if gasoline isn’t so cheap anymore. It worked on me in 2008. Shocked at paying $4.30+ per gallon to fuel my hot Japanese turbo import with 91 octane, I decided to park the WRX and pick up a bicycle. It changed my life and my view of how we live. And, as a blogger, I can’t help but preach.

I know. I’m sorry.

But that is the reality. Alternative fuels & transportation -whether electricity, solar, hydrogen, a train, bus or even your legs or your bike- won’t be considered economically feasible (or convenient) for most until the cost of gasoline makes such options look more attractive. There’s definitely a sweet spot for most consumers, and it looks like this:

A graph of Chicago-area transit ridership compared to gas prices

We saw the same behavior here in Southern California in the summer and early fall of 2008. From a post I wrote back in June of 2008:

Today, Metrolink announced record ridership on its several LA Area lines as some 50,232 commuters used the heavy-rail system on Tuesday to get to work. That’s a 15.6% increase over the same day last year and is an all-time record for the 15 year old rail operation.

Ridership is up in other areas and on other systems throughout Los Angeles as well. Metro rail says over 7 million people rode the Red, Blue and Yellow lines in May, also another record.

Single-passenger commuters, meanwhile, must be enjoying the freeways a bit more- CalTrans says traffic on California freeways dropped 1.5% last month, according to the Times. That accounts for a billion fewer miles traveled by car.

Of course, that all changed by fall of 2008. The rapid and complete collapse in gas prices in the latter half of 2008 has never been explained satisfactorily in my opinion, but it looked like this:

That’s right. From above $4 in July to less than $2 in December. Such rapid price swings can’t be the result of simple supply and demand. But the cheap prices were celebrated even if they only delayed the inevitable. Consumers reacted predictably. Here’s a woman from a Signal report in late 2008:

Tetyana Shavez, 27, was driving her Cadillac Escalade from Modesto to Los Angeles to visit friends.

“I’m very happy that I can afford gas, because I have a big car,” Shavez said. “I love the gas prices. I’m so excited, it’s just so convenient. (It was) like $100 to fill up and now it’s $45. I love it. It definitely gives the freedom of traveling.”

Ronald Reagan once praised the freedom automobiles give to their owners. But it’s clear that there’s a sweet spot for most Americans. We love the freedom the automobile gives us, but once gas prices rise too high, our cars don’t feel so free anymore. Indeed, it starts to feel as if we’re working for our cars, rather than our cars working for us. Maybe, with the release of cars like the Volt and the Leaf, we can have our cake and eat it too. Until then, consider alternatives. You might like it.

Comments (88)

  1. KevitivityJanuary 6, 2011 at 10:50 am
    According to Bjorn Lomborg (and others) Industry uses far more fuel (an creates far more carbon) then the entire car fleet in the US. If we all switched to driving a Prius today it would have little effect on anything. That said, I look forward to electric cars – I just hope we wise up and move forward with nuclear power before that. Reviving America’s nuclear power industry would have been a great way for Obama to gain bi-partisan support too.
  2. MikeJanuary 6, 2011 at 10:58 am
    For one, it would have an incredible impact on air quality, especially in places like SCV.
  3. JoeJanuary 6, 2011 at 12:41 pm
    A lack of understanding on my part, but why is Nuclear so controversial? I have heard some people argue that it’s more expensive than other forms…but that seems weak to me. If private investors want to go for Nuclear, great. If they want to go for Solar instead, great. I don’t care one way or the other.
  4. ReaderMamaJanuary 6, 2011 at 1:58 pm
    The problem with nuclear is that there is no safe way to store the waste for as long as it is dangerous . . . and no one wants the waste stored anywhere near where they live. There are other safety concerns as well: sometimes plants “melt down.” Google Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island for further edification.
  5. KevitivityJanuary 6, 2011 at 4:42 pm
    Melt downs are a thing of the past. Modern plants fail safely.
  6. OlenkaJanuary 6, 2011 at 4:42 pm
    Nuclear, electric, ethanol… all nonsense. The only two forms of viable alternative energy routes (that do not require oil) is solar and wind. Unfortunately, these two can only be acquired and stored in certain geographical locations. California can probably get by with these two since we get plenty of both…
  7. Fred ButlerJanuary 6, 2011 at 6:52 pm
    That’s not entirely true. It is a bit of an environmental urban legend. Gwyneth Cravens published a book a couple of years ago on the entire subject of nuclear energy. She began as a anti-nuclear advocate when she began the research and became pro-nuclear after the book was finished. See the blurb at Amazon
  8. 4eyedsueJanuary 6, 2011 at 10:51 am
    Don’t apologize. Especially when you are right.
  9. SFC PerezJanuary 6, 2011 at 11:15 am
    While I am doing my part by commuting to work via bicycle, go ahead and tell my wife that she needs to take the bus with a 4 month old baby to do grocery shopping for a family of 5 and see how fast you are knocked off your feet. Bicycles also wont help me in my job in that I cover a 30,000 mile radius and need to get somewhere immediately and back just as fast. Mass transit isnt convenient in the state of California and they need to copy the model of places like New York and Chicago(or all of Illinois) when it comes to setting up their systems. All it has done effectively in this state is make it easier on the homeless to get to Pasadena.
  10. Bill ReynoldsJanuary 6, 2011 at 11:56 am
    SCV’s bus program is a drain on our tax dollars; they’re almost always completely void of passengers. As for gas prices rising… what do you expect when “The Messiah” and left wing environmental wackos have shut down drilling where oil exists in America!
  11. NickelDimeJanuary 6, 2011 at 12:06 pm
    The SCTransit Commuter lines are self-sufficient. The lines that have the highest level of subsidy are the Dial-A-Rides, which are exclusively for seniors and the disabled . Are you ready to pull the plug on Dial-a-Ride?
  12. Bill ReynoldsJanuary 6, 2011 at 2:21 pm
    Self sufficient!? Prove it…
  13. NickelDimeJanuary 6, 2011 at 2:22 pm
    Answer the question.
  14. Bill ReynoldsJanuary 6, 2011 at 7:07 pm
    I have a Hummer… remember that! Now prove your point…
  15. NickelDimeJanuary 6, 2011 at 8:10 pm
    SCTransit has three types of service: Commuter, in-town and Dial-a-ride. Commuter lines pay for themselves. I suspect 2011 (esp. if gas continues to go up) will be a banner year. Most buses are 50% full, some much higher. The program is very successful. Now – are you ready to cancel service to seniors and the disabled, Bill? Man up, big guy.
  16. KevitivityJanuary 6, 2011 at 5:00 pm
    Mass transit is always an underused money pit as a rule here in the US. I would be very surprised to see info on a self sufficient service.
  17. MikeJanuary 6, 2011 at 5:20 pm
    If there’s one word that comes to mind when I reminisce about the subways in NYC, it’s “underused”.
  18. Bill ReynoldsJanuary 6, 2011 at 7:09 pm
    Some would say claustrophobic…
  19. MikeJanuary 7, 2011 at 8:31 am
    No one goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.
  20. NickelDimeJanuary 6, 2011 at 7:09 pm
    You paint with a broad brush. The Commuter routes are consistently 50-100% full; it’s a very successful program. Frankly, I don’t give a lick that we subsidize transit. We subsidize a lot of things that are not utilized to their fullest extent or don’t pencil out. Libraries, parks, open space, trails have a ton of unused capacity and aren’t money makers. Should we close the Veteran’s Plaza because it’s not packed every day? What about Placerita Canyon? Central Park? If we followed the logic of some on this site, we need to shut down these government programs because they aren’t profitable.
  21. navigatorJanuary 7, 2011 at 9:58 am
    We subsidize a lot of things that are not utilized to their fullest extent or don’t pencil out. Should we close the Veteran’s Plaza because it’s not packed every day? What about Placerita Canyon? Central Park? ND – You’re joking right???
  22. NickelDimeJanuary 7, 2011 at 9:59 am
    Thought that would grab you, nav
  23. navigatorJanuary 7, 2011 at 10:12 am
    Don’t screw with my parks son!
  24. cashJanuary 6, 2011 at 7:30 pm
    Baloney! Without tax subsidy the buses would not roll. 17 million dollar drain on the tax coffers.
  25. NickelDimeJanuary 6, 2011 at 7:51 pm
    SCTransit Commuter lines do just fine. Recheck your numbers, too – you’re lumping capital improvements with operating costs.
  26. cashJanuary 6, 2011 at 9:19 pm
    Dollars are dollars, let’s don’t play the expense verse capital costs. The Transit buses haul people to areas beyond the SCV and then return empty. They then drive empty to pick up the people to bring them back to scv. You are playing games with the facts.
  27. NickelDimeJanuary 6, 2011 at 9:57 pm
    cash, Commuter buses have run surplus most years, esp since consolidating the Van Nuys routes to the NoHo Express line. Do the math. They break even at about 50% ridership, and most buses are above that number. And yes, we have to separate capital vs. expense. There are millions of stimulus dollars funding transit projects, which serve as offsets. And capital isn’t recurring in nature.
  28. ToddJanuary 6, 2011 at 11:34 pm
    ND, believe me I don’t like proving Bill right by any means, but the commuter service is not by any means self-sufficient (unless I’m reading the budget wrong). From what I can see, the revenues of the Commuter Service were $695k in 2008/09, and are estimated at about $631k this FY… while the line for Commuter Services on expenditures are $2.3 Million. Now, Bill, before you get your hummer in a tizzy here, you too would do well to review the budget and see that the bulk of the city’s transit funds come from Prop A and Measure R, both of which were approved by voters, not politicians. So, while technically, yes, it is your tax money, its also the money of everyone else driving on the roads in the state… so if we break it down, I’d be happy to give you your $0.32 or so that came outta your pocket to pay for the SCV Transit budget. In fact, lemme just give you $15, and we’ll call it even for the rest of your life.
  29. NickelDimeJanuary 7, 2011 at 6:40 am
    If that’s right then I stand corrected. Is there a separation between capital improvements and the operating budget?
  30. ToddJanuary 7, 2011 at 8:41 pm
    That is in the Operations and Maintenance section, the capital improvements section is a whole other beast, later on in the budget.
  31. SFC PerezJanuary 6, 2011 at 2:14 pm
    I don’t understand why the government needs to subsidize public transportation so much since rider usage has increased dramatically since the gas price has risen. Also, most the buses I see are fueled by CG which is typically much cheaper then gasoline so that should be a saver. I remember buses and trains being so packed back home you would have to stand on every trip. But then again, ppl believed in it and it was cost efficient as opposed to being stuck in traffic for hours on end. I would buy a hybrid in a minute, and in fact am looking for that option on my next vehicle. The military has been pushing that as well and is green in more ways then just our uniforms hehehe. Relying so much on oil makes no sense since its not unlimited and can become a major burden on the environment, i.e. gulf spill. I like electric cars but they are too limited at this point, which is why I like the hybrid.
  32. Bill ReynoldsJanuary 6, 2011 at 2:23 pm
    My wife and I took our grandkids on the Amtrak last summer to Santa Barbara… I’d say it was 50% utilized and the return trip back to Northridge was delayed 90 minutes due to mechanical problems. So much for public transportation…
  33. SFC PerezJanuary 6, 2011 at 3:31 pm
    I didnt think Amtrak was public transportation and in the scope of most used railroads, urban ones are the ones I am most concerned with. Ask your wife about the ones in Chicagoland and I am sure she can tell how efficient they run. The only time they want govt hand outs are when they are trying to update their fleets or are getting greedy but they tend to do the loans instead.
  34. Your Web GuruJanuary 6, 2011 at 4:21 pm
    Amtrak is a government owned corporation set up to keep the inter-city passenger rail system in place after private companies went bust by the late 60s. Technically they are considered public transportation. While a nice, relaxing train ride can be fun, I’ve found Amtrak to be overpriced and their trains rarely leave on time. It’s incredibly cheaper and quicker to fly (even at today’s rates) or drive than to take a train for any other reason than nostalgia or to say that you took a train somewhere. To reply to another of the comments regarding empty Santa Clarita Transit buses, I took one yesterday at 12 noon to the Metrolink station and the bus, while not packed, enjoyed a sizeable ridership. I have ridden our local buses in times where we only had one car and my only complaint is that the lines don’t run often enough.
  35. SFC PerezJanuary 6, 2011 at 11:11 pm
    I just looked up Amtrak’s prices and HOLY COW! I always wanted to take one through the snowy mountains or up the California coast but not now lol
  36. Gang FangJanuary 6, 2011 at 5:13 pm
    Yeah, no delays on Los Angeles freeways. Loosen that goofy hat of yours, Billy. It’s restricting.
  37. Gang FangJanuary 6, 2011 at 5:07 pm
    Whenever I’ve been on, or glanced into a bus at a stoplight, I’ve seem them fairly packed. Really? Buses too? Damn, Bill……you hate everything. Most of all, it seems, fellow Americans and the nation itself. Spooky.
  38. Bill ReynoldsJanuary 6, 2011 at 7:12 pm
    Gang Fungus… try to compose yourself. I’ll tell you what I despise: liberalism and one thing I definitely do not possess is hate. Life is too short…
  39. Gang FangJanuary 6, 2011 at 8:33 pm
    Mmmmmmkkkkaaayyyyy…….keep on believing that.
  40. cashJanuary 6, 2011 at 7:31 pm
    Baloney!
  41. MikeJanuary 6, 2011 at 12:00 pm
    I’ve never been on a Metrolink/Gold Line/Red Line train that isn’t packed. Just because it doesn’t work for you (or me), doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t (or doesn’t) work for many others. FWIW, the furthest piece of land on the earth, from SCV, is just 11,000 miles away. Astronauts have always used public transportation.
  42. HermanJanuary 6, 2011 at 12:52 pm
    “Astronauts have always used public transportation.” Is that so? Where’s the shuttle stop? I’d love to take a ride on that. Really lame.
  43. NickelDimeJanuary 6, 2011 at 12:55 pm
    The nearest shuttle stop is at Edwards Air Force base. No word on the next arrival.
  44. Jim FarleyJanuary 6, 2011 at 1:10 pm
    I’m not sure when the next one is but isn’t it going to be the last?
  45. HermanJanuary 6, 2011 at 1:32 pm
    Damn, if the “public transportation” option is no longer going to be available, we will have to use our own spacecraft if we want to go to space. Parking will be such a bitch.
  46. NickelDimeJanuary 6, 2011 at 1:38 pm
    Virgin Galactic is calling your name!
  47. HermanJanuary 6, 2011 at 2:00 pm
    If we can get the gov to subsidize it maybe we can get that $200K ticket prices down to $3, you know, pretend it’s light rail.
  48. navigatorJanuary 6, 2011 at 12:35 pm
    They had to figure out how to continue getting more tax money to pay for that idiotic high speed rail system from Bakerspatch to Fresburg.
  49. JoeJanuary 6, 2011 at 12:45 pm
    I want to point out that being pro cycling isn’t just a “liberal thing”. Many cycling advocates I know, including myself, are conservative and like the self sufficiency and cost savings that come from going on two wheels instead of four. I don’t bike for the environment. I bike for me.
  50. Fred ButlerJanuary 6, 2011 at 12:51 pm
    Amen. I love riding my bike. But I do it for me, primarily for the exercise and health. A bit to save on gas, but mostly to allow my wife to have our one and only car during the day. Fred
  51. Jim FarleyJanuary 6, 2011 at 1:15 pm
    I too enjoy cycling – mostly for recreation and the health benefits. As to energy costs. The free market and fair competition needs to prevail here. When gasoline becomes prohibitively expensive the silent hand of the market will bring forth more economical alternatives. Whatever happens the government should not artificially manipulate the price in order to change behavior. The government should only be involved in less regulation to encourage abundant and cheap energy in all forms.
  52. SFC PerezJanuary 6, 2011 at 2:22 pm
    I also like to bike for all the reasons you mentioned but I also feel I am more a part of my surroundings as opposed to being isolated in my lil boxy Beamer. I don’t however appreciate the dumb phucks driving who dont pay attention in parking lots or intersections.
  53. Gang FangJanuary 6, 2011 at 5:12 pm
    Funny that even when folks do something good for the environment that they can’t admit doing so consciously lest they be corralled in with “the wrong side” of the political divide. Most un-ballsy.
  54. Kevin D. KorenthalJanuary 6, 2011 at 1:25 pm
    The cost per mile to drive the Chevy Volt (not sure about the Leaf) is more expensive than the cost per mile of a moderately fuel efficient small SUV. Furthermore, in order to sustain a significant increase in the use of electric cars, America is going to need to find a cheap source of electrical power to run them. Since most homes run on, and therefore electric are cars charged by, coal plants, the electric car is NOT yet using a renewable form of energy. In fact, many environmentalists are coming to the conclusion that electric cars, rather than getting us off fossil fuels, actually increase our dependence on it. This is because there are other forms of fuel that can be used to run vehicles while there is no ideal form of renewable energy that can replace coal. Except of course Nuclear, but environmentalists (excluding of course a founding member of Greenpeace) are adamantly against Nuclear power. Solar and Wind are not and most likely never will be able to replace the need for fossil fuels, but nuclear could.
  55. MikeJanuary 6, 2011 at 2:16 pm
    More expensive per mile? How do you figure? Show your work, please. Also, I’m generally pro-nuclear, but it isn’t renewable. There actually isn’t all that much nuclear fuel in the world, and we’d run out fairly quickly if the whole world ran on it. Fuel cells, which do more with less, and solar, which is only going to get better and cheaper, both hold amazing long-term promise.
  56. NickelDimeJanuary 6, 2011 at 2:20 pm
    I’d much rather focus on our energy problems at the grid (which can combine multiple sources of energy transparently) than with millions of combustion engines 100% dependent on the thick black stuff from the Middle East.
  57. SFC PerezJanuary 6, 2011 at 2:26 pm
    I remember watching a news report and how a gentleman used solar panels in his home. He was able to power the entire home and create a credit with the electric company. Since its typically sunny in California 3/4th of the year, could this be implemented to resolve higher electricity costs and electric vehicles?
  58. MikeJanuary 7, 2011 at 8:32 am
    [crickets chirping]
  59. john adamsJanuary 6, 2011 at 1:54 pm
    Since every single item you have ever purchased in your life got there by truck. Think about the higher amount you are paying just because of inflated gas prices. I was shocked last week at the price of gas in Calif. You guys are paying on average 30 cents a gallon more in taxes than a Nevada resident. (40 cents more than a Utah resident)
  60. MikeJanuary 6, 2011 at 2:17 pm
    I think the push to get large trucks running on natural gas is a really smart one.
  61. SFC PerezJanuary 6, 2011 at 2:24 pm
    Until too many vehicles are running on CNG and that cost goes up as well.
  62. john adamsJanuary 6, 2011 at 2:40 pm
    Pretty interesting study on electric cars. (I can’t remember if you follow this religion?) http://blogs.forbes.com/williampentland/2011/01/05/electric-cars-may-accelerate-global-warming/
  63. MikeJanuary 6, 2011 at 2:59 pm
    Couple thoughts here: if the question is global warming by way of CO2 emissions, the real question is if electric cars would be a net plus globally, isn’t it? If the concern is tailpipe emissions and air quality, then I would imagine that it would be a very big plus just about everywhere. Secondly, it appears that we are reaching tipping points with things like solar and fuel cells, where they are adopted quickly and widely in a short period of time. China might be 40 years behind us, but it doesn’t mean that it will take 40 years to catch up. When the right things happen, and there is just about every indication that they will, adoption will be quick and developing countries will leapfrog the tech of the last few decades.
  64. Jim FarleyJanuary 6, 2011 at 3:17 pm
    CNG is a great alternative fuel for all vehicles. It is plentiful and could be a great transition fuel before the other alternatives are viable. (BTW 36% of electricity generated in California is already fueled by natural gas). We just need more infrastructure as CNG filling stations are not yet plentiful. There is only one available to the public in the SCV. This issue could easily be solved by private industry building fueling stations just as gasoline stations now work. My company issue CNG Honda works great and lets me in the carpool lane as well. Working in the NG industry I admit a bias here. (I am not an official spokesperson – these are my personal opinions only)
  65. SFC PerezJanuary 6, 2011 at 3:42 pm
    In countries like India and Pakistan, NG is more wide spead due to cost since it can sell for 1/10th of what gasoline does. For them its more cost effective to use NG or gasoline due to resources needed to adopt electric vehicles. In America and Europe the flip opposite may be true, who truly knows until you hit the switch. How much do you pay for NG per gallon and is it better on mileage?
  66. SFC PerezJanuary 6, 2011 at 4:12 pm
    spead=spread
  67. cashJanuary 6, 2011 at 7:47 pm
    Jim, the state of California does not allow power produced from coal or oil the be used in the state. I think the percentage of power produced from natural gas is more than 36%. Wind, solar and hydro make up the difference.
  68. cashJanuary 6, 2011 at 9:14 pm
    And nukes
  69. cashJanuary 6, 2011 at 7:55 pm
    Problem with a car dedicated to CNG only, is that the NG bottle capacity limits the distance the car can travel without a refill, not unlike and all electric vehicle. Not only this, but having 2500 psi of NG in your trunk is not very comforting. The safety issues related to CNG and LNG have not yet totally surfaced, because there are very few such vehicles on the road, and even fewer accidents..
  70. NickelDimeJanuary 6, 2011 at 8:02 pm
    CNG cars for mainstream use died when Honda pulled the plug on Phill. Now it’s mainly an option for commercial entities. Shame.
  71. Joe KJanuary 6, 2011 at 8:21 pm
    Scuba tanks are 3000 PSI…
  72. spineflower2January 6, 2011 at 2:50 pm
    Higher gas prices in the range of $5 are predicted, which will throw us into a recession deeper than today’s. (Of course, following the ‘Pub’s lead in instant fingerpointing, we can blame the right and the teabaggers for this, since they are now in power in Congress, right?) Long erm, soar electricity is the only source, freeeing fossil fuels for lubricaiotn and the few transportatoin systems wher eit will make sense. The sooner we start on that path the sooner we will get there. The “invisible hand of the market” will trounce the US into poverty before it provides a newly-balanced solution. I’d rather rely on our heads today than bet on the civil war that would result from ever-higher energy prices from foreign lands. If Bush hadn’t spent trillis on a baseless war, and instead invested in solar and other alternative energy sources, we might not have to give a $hit what happens in the middle east, save a few thousand of our soldier’s lives, and give us “peace in our time” once again. But no. Face the inevitable, people: invest in solar now!
  73. SFC PerezJanuary 6, 2011 at 3:49 pm
    Maybe KBR can get the contract for solar panels ;o)
  74. DavidJanuary 6, 2011 at 5:08 pm
    You know what? Try depending on bicycles for transportation while trying to raise a family. The trouble with Libs is that they are so self absorbed and obsessed with living in a world of taxpayers that support their cancerous Big Government. Families are sacrificed and our ppopulation numbers are only increased by allowing illegals to enter from third world nations. Welcome to Brave New World. What a Life!
  75. Daddy Joe GJanuary 6, 2011 at 5:32 pm
    Gee, I wonder how they raised families before the automobile was invented? Surprised the human race survived.
  76. spineflower2January 6, 2011 at 7:02 pm
    Milkmen, Helms Bakery trucks, ice cream trucks, Fuller Brush men… and many others… who DROVE!
  77. SFC PerezJanuary 6, 2011 at 10:17 pm
    They still have home delivery but you will pay mucho
  78. SFC PerezJanuary 6, 2011 at 10:18 pm
    Didn’t they take the brontosaurus to the same market the Flintstones used?
  79. cashJanuary 6, 2011 at 7:42 pm
    Exactly! Well put!
  80. Lori RivasJanuary 6, 2011 at 5:58 pm
    Up until my 8th month of pregnancy with my 4th child, I walked and took the bus everywhere: we were a one car family. I had a double jogging stroller after baby #3, and walked to the library (1mile each way), to the market, to the park, to the post office, to the hospital – everywhere. Ad did all my major chores this way, kids in tow. And you know what? It was great! The kids and I talked a lot, we discovered a lot along Lyons Ave., and were always outside. I have another friend in Canyon Country who did the same. Now, it is too easy to pile into the minivan to run errands, which has also made our schedules more packed. I miss the days of walking everywhere. I think I’ll try it again.
  81. Daddy Joe GJanuary 6, 2011 at 6:58 pm
    I raised 6 kids in the SFV without a car. I never saw the point of dragging 2,000 lbs of metal around with me. Of course it takes planning to pull this off. It’s tougher if you elect a gang or morons to do your planning for you.
  82. cashJanuary 6, 2011 at 7:35 pm
    When gas hit the $4.25+ mark the housing boom began to crumble. Those that were over extended and living pay check to pay check could not buy gas and make their other payments. Save you money, you are going to need it.
  83. Petz2January 7, 2011 at 5:54 am
    Petz is sold on diesels converted to run on Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO). Not only is the fuel free from restaurants-you avoid all the taxes charged at the pump . Looked at a Jetta that got 50 MPG-1300 miles between diesel fills.
  84. Petz2January 7, 2011 at 5:57 am
    http://www.goodgrease.com/buy-sell-classifieds/1998-jetta-tdi-vegetable-oil-greasecar-for-sale
  85. CastaicClayJanuary 7, 2011 at 11:20 am
    Here come the “record profits”
  86. Bill ReynoldsJanuary 7, 2011 at 7:13 pm
    I would prefer Chevy Malibu SS with a 327 cu in/375 hp engine, 4 barrel carburetor and Munci 4 speed anytime than some stinkin’ little smart car any day. Ya gotta love those muscle cars!
  87. SFC PerezJanuary 7, 2011 at 10:34 pm
    You do realize the electric cars can beat most standard gasoline powered muscle cars on a 1/4 track right? Reason is there is no transmission required and no time lag on shifting http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/specs Bottom line up front, this car is FAST! 0-60 in 3.7sec…
  88. Bill ReynoldsJanuary 8, 2011 at 11:43 pm
    1/4 track? Irrelevant!?

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support