<p>
The mistake you made was in just looking at the carbon footprint of a single vehicle. When there is greater demand for used vehicles, there is less production of new vehicles and fewer older vehicles getting turned into scrap, even if the price is slightly higher for the newer-model used vehicles (or “certified pre-owned”, if you want to mask “used car” with fancy-speak).</p>
<p>That alone reduces the overall carbon footprint.</p>
<p>
A lot of companies are moving from the office park sprawl to be closer to transit so that they can attract and retain those younger employees who aren’t interested in driving.</p>
<p>Heck, even Tysons Corner outside DC is being rebuilt from an office park / mall disaster where there’s massive lunchtime traffic jams just from people having to drive to buy a sandwich into a walkable transit hub because the market has shifted so drastically and they’re trying to stay competitive.</p>
<p>
The price gets pushed a lot higher, though. After Cash For Clunkers, used car prices came very close to new car prices for many cars - close enough that people would rather pay a small amount extra for new and get three extra years from it.</p>
<p>And there’s a limit to how old a car most people will get, because I think most people value reliability more than carbon footprint. And repair costs become an issue.</p>
<p>On top of that, old cars are horribly more polluting than newer cars.</p>
<p>How all that nets out, who knows.</p>
<p>
I’m not sure that being “competitive” is what’s driving the ambitious Tysons Corner vision… and I have my doubts about how successful it will be. You can only push a certain number of people down the rail line they are building, for example. And the cost of that line is going to be Big Dig-esque by the time they are done. And when all is said and done… you’d still be living in Tysons Corner. ;)</p>
<p>
Cash for Clunkers was a purposefully temporary manipulation of the market to prematurely stimulate demand for automobile purchases that would otherwise have waited until the markets recovered. The markets had become unable to provide income to manufacturers of high-end purchases that employ many people, like cars and housing construction. There were so many factors to that brief period, it’s not a viable basis from which extrapolate any broader conclusions about costs.</p>
<p>Sure, people have a limit to the age of used cars they’ll buy but that doesn’t negate the fact that buying used cars reduces the carbon footprint just like buying existing homes in established communities is more environmentally conscious than buying new homes that not only had significant carbon usage to build but also destroyed farms or forests to be built. </p>
<p>Not all cars are more fuel efficient today; it completely depends on the make / model. We’re not talking about an '83 pickup; we’re talking about a 2007 used model perhaps.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As for Tysons, of course its goal is to stay competitive. Why else would they be spending billions of dollars to rebuild an entire commercial center? Funsies?</p>
<p>The piece you’re missing is that the market demand has shifted. People aren’t being “pushed” down the rail line. People are demanding more transit-oriented options be pushed out to where they live and the more of that type of development can be created, the less pressure there will be on the current limited transit-oriented supply, which has of course caused much of the outrageous housing prices in the DC area walkable within a half mile or more of Metro stations. </p>
<p>It is still Tysons, which isn’t for everyone, but Arlington has proven very successful for a certain demographic that’s different than those who choose to live in the more eclectic Washington, DC proper. There’s no reason to think there isn’t a demographic that would prefer the big malls / offices of Tysons Corner while also being able to take a train or walk to buy a sandwich.</p>
<p>Well someone is buying new again in the USA. August 2013 alone was 1.5 million new units sold. 2008 was 16.1 million new units and 2009 was the drop to 10.4 million. </p>
<p>The reality of Cash for Clunkers was if the seller in a traditional sale/trade-in (so the unit was not destroyed) got more than the program amount ($4500 max as I recall), they did not do the program.</p>
<p>
Pretty much… it’s a grand experiment in urban planning.</p>
<p>To me, more competitive means more profitable. But governments can’t accurately plan or predict things economically 3 years out, let alone 30-50 years out, which is the time-frame the planners are talking about.</p>
<p>The numbers I’ve seen talk about 100,000 residents (5x who live there now), and 200,000 jobs. That’s 100,000+ commuters, probably closer to 150,000 because not everyone who lives there will work, most of whom have to get there and leave in a two hour window. What’s the capacity of the rail line going to be?</p>
<p>I understand that Cash for Clunkers was a boondoggle, but it had very real effects on the used car market. If a measurable number of people suddenly decided to buy used instead of new, I think it would have a similar effect. I bought a car in the fall of 2009, and the used prices were ridiculous.</p>
<p>As for polluting, I’m not just talking about gas mileage, but other pollutants as well. Older cars burn oil, the catalytics don’t work as well, they leak fluids, etc.</p>
<p>I represent a used vehicle non-dealership lot. There are different levels of used vehicles. Many if not most of the vehicles that qualified for the Clunker program (value at or below $4500, average miles per gallon below X) would have gone into wholesale auctions and ended up on non-dealership lots if they had not been destroyed/crushed.</p>
<p>Unless someone was looking for such a car, the 700,000 vehicles Clunkers took out of existence had no direct impact. But the drop in new vehicle sales between 2008 (16.1 million) and 2009 (10.4 million) was massive. Only a relatively small percentage of new vehicle sales are first time buyers, so this drop off in trade-ins took approximately 5 million used vehicles out of the used car pipeline. That was a major factor in driving up the price of used vehicles at dealership lots (with an indirect impact at all price levels of used cars)</p>
<p>[Why</a> used-car prices are rising so much - SFGate](<a href=“Why used-car prices are rising so much”>Why used-car prices are rising so much)</p>
<p>
That doesn’t actually make sense. By your logic, every government highway project or commercial zoning for office parks or subdivisions around Tysons in the 20th century was a grand experiment in suburban non-planning rather than just a response to market demand. </p>
<p>I don’t know if you’re just driven by an ideological belief, but the entire interstate system from which Tysons emerged is the biggest government project in American history. Businesses today are moving to be closer to transit and walkability to retain younger employees. The area will adjust redevelopment along with the market shifts and much of the Silver Line’s getting close to opening, anyway.</p>
<p>Also, another big mistake is your assumption that businesses, which often can’t predict profitability past the next quarter, are somehow more rational players. Also, government investments are not supposed to be driven by profit. Governments, by definition, are responsible for far more than just making money. They need to be responsible for best use of the land, air and water pollution, and filling in the gap where the markets fail.</p>
<p>
Who said it was a boondoggle? While far from perfect, the program accomplished what it set out to do. When the private market failed, it manipulated the market to generate income for the auto industry, took big polluting cars off the road, and kept people in jobs.</p>
<p>
You can’t really compare the oil from older cars, which is no doubt an issue, with all the pollution generated from mining, manufacturing, and shipping new vehicles is on par with oil drips.</p>
<p>There’s no doubt a place for new cars, but it’s just logical to get the most out of what we already have.</p>
<p>“Too” is a value judgment. I don’t see why we should prefer driving to social media.</p>
<p>^^^applejack</p>
<p>The point is that decades ago, people DID hire underage kids at much higher rates than they did now - for a multitude of reasons. It used to be that teenagers who wanted to get a job could even in poorest sections of cities - as I noted above. “Need to hire themselves”? So starting a business is going to be a realistic option for every one of the millions of underage worker? That is some serious, hardcore delusion and lack of touch with reality right there. The issue is that the economy and current market and the regulations are making it impossible for millions of kids who really do want to work to find work and the lack of cars kids have is likely a reflection of that.</p>
<p>Trust me… It’s because we’re broke.
I drive a high-maintenance, gas-guzzling Jeep… The fact that I don’t drive much has nothing to do with social media.</p>
<p>
The lack of cars issue can be blamed on the parents, as they were the ones who chose to place those teenagers in a landscape that would require them to either be chauffeured around or to own thousands of pounds of their own machinery just to go pour some coffees for money. That’s just lack of foresight by the parents, and perhaps lack of planning by the local leaders elected by those parents and others.</p>
<p>You are mistaken that kids could always get work in the poorest neighborhoods. I doubt you’ve ever spent much time in any if you actually think that. There are jobs for some teenagers, so, no, I do not think all of them should start their own businesses. In my small city, attractive 16-18 year old girls are regularly hired to tend all sorts of registers and increase sales by flirting with customers. It’s pretty sick, but they’re not hiring fat old men for those jobs for a reason. </p>
<p>My point was that if someone is eager enough, they can figure out what sort of product or service they can sell and go try to sell it. For some it might just be their looks, for others the ability to mow lawns or trim hedges. Others might be able to repair computers. If no one else will hire them, they can build a customer base on their own. A business can be one person; it’s not really that hard.</p>
<p>Lastly, you can assault my thoughts with your charges of “hardcore delusion” and such all you wish, but please remember that this is the parents’ forum, not the students’ forum. A higher level of maturity is expected here. Please conduct yourself accordingly or excuse yourself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know how old you are or what you did, but there are more regulations now than there were in the past. When you were 8, did police go around and shut down lemonade stands? The government is more hostile to people going out and creating jobs now than in the past.</p>
<p>Oh, please, Vladenschlutte. That is a ridiculous generalization. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bingo. And ironically, many parents move to the 'burbs “for the schools”…and then wonder why their kids never want to leave the basement.</p>
<p>I think that the fewer jobs, fewer cars thing COULD be correlated but you could just as easily say it the other way around- less teens have jobs because they don’t have cars/licenses. Businesses don’t want to hire those without cars/licenses in many places without public transportation.</p>
<p>I personally feel that being comfortable driving in various situations is a very important life skill that kids really should master. Both of my kids have had wonderful opportunities available to them that they would not have been able to take advantage of without feeling comfortable driving long distances on highways, and driving in very congested cities. We live in an area of the country with very sketchy public transportation. Fortunately we have been able to afford to have an extra couple of cars - nothing new or flashy but reliable transportation - so they could take advantage of these opportunites. </p>
<p>I know kids in our area in their 20’s who have never gotten a driver’s license. Their parents are beginning to feel resentful of all of the driving around they need to do. Also I know people who won’t drive on the freeway. What a handicap that is. I could’nt imagine being frightened of the freeway. It would severly limit opportunites in our area.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That sort of assumes you’re going to sentence yourself to a life where you drive regularly, doesn’t it? What if you think that sounds awful and you don’t want to do it?</p>
<p>I personally think too many people drive, and I am not going to add to them. I hate to drive. I drive maybe once every two or three months, and I would be perfectly happy if I never drove again. </p>
<p>All my life people have been telling me I “have to” drive. Well I don’t. I have my bikes, I ride trains, I sometimes take planes, I walk places. Driving sucks and I don’t want to do it.</p>
<p>Goodness, Cardinal Fang. No one here is telling you have to drive. We get it. You don’t have to drive. It’s ok. </p>
<p>I agree with momtotwins to an extent. It’d be great to have your kid licensed and familiar with a car so if they’re in the situation that they need to drive, they can.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. It really doesn’t. It gives you a life skill in case it’s needed. Even you, someone who hates to drive, has to do it occasionally. </p>
<p>There are a LOT of life lessons that we learn even if we don’t have to use them regularly. Both my fiance and I are CPR and lifeguard certified. Thank the stars that we’ve never had to use either skill but does that mean they’re useless? No.</p>
<p>You guys talk as if there is no opportunity cost to wasting hours behind the wheel becoming skilled, when you could be doing something worthwhile instead. I’ve lived a long time, and not once have I thought to myself, “I sure wish I had spent a lot of time as a young adult, driving around.”</p>