Last week was a busy week for the dealership because of the deals the stores have going on – 0 percent interest for 72 months vs. the typical 6.9 percent interest. These deals are just to get rid of SUVs.

BUT hybrids are in high demand and that is good for the new direction we need to take in respect to fuel efficiency

Do you believe that if Ford did not make a hybrid SUV, the people who bought a hybrid Escape would have gone to the next lot and bought a Prius or a Civic Hybrid instead?

The only argument worth having is about the social consequences of what I guess you'd call auto-philia. If you want to trade SUV shopping tips you can do it with someone else.

"Well thats looking at the glass half full! Even for the customer who simply wants an SUV, isn't it better that there are some more fuel efficient options? Of course it is."

In a world where Ford has the resources to also make hybrid passenger cars (those things everybody drove until 1992), that would be cool. Or maybe it's not resources, maybe it's that they don't want to have hybrid cars with better mileage on the lot next to hybrid SUVs. In any case they're going to find that people paying over $3 a gallon for gas are less interested in the most fuel efficient SUV than they are in the most fuel efficient vehicle, one that suits their everyday needs. After ten years of not driving around a Montana wilderness (please DON'T, by the way), not towing heavy farming equipment, and not carting around eight people, they are finally getting over their collective brawny man fantasy. That's my half full glass.

"BTW, the Chevy Suburban Hybrid seats nine and has a 6000 lbs tow rating."

Oh really? It must be so great it doesn't need a web site.

There are tons of examples of cities, towns and streets that have taken space away from cars and thrived. Freiburg, Germany is a favorite of mine. You can find more than you'd ever want right here:

http://www.pps.org/

Likewise, you might check out the two photos in this post:

http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/10/25/mta-response-to-pokey-traffic-congestion-vibrancy/

Copenhagen's Broadway versus NYC's Broadway. Which one looks like it has the healthier, happier local merchants? On which street would you rather hang out, have lunch, do your holiday shopping?

Then there's Soho. Prince St. could be a great street to do some Xmas shopping this year. Unfortunately, on weekends this holiday season, the public right-of-way will be jam packed with angry, immobilized, honking motorists and a bunch of parked cars that we pretty well know for certain add nothing to the local economy and quality of life:

http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/12/14/rethinking-soho/

Fordham Rd in the Bronx and Main St. in Flushing; same thing.

As for delivery trucks, they should certainly be prioritized over private autos. But we also used to have this thing called freight rail here in NYC and America. We replaced it with trucks.

Maybe "socially" SUVs are "a total loser," but not when colliding with a smaller, lighter vehicle.

Comment by Doc Barnett: "...you've listed off dubious personal benefits of big SUV ownership that don't even apply to the [Hybrid] Escape. Recreational motorboat use is about the last thing in the world I'd promote, but you should know that its towing capacity is all of 1,000 lbs. It seats a whopping five people. This vehicle is a truck-man costume, its SUV trappings contributing little more than an inefficient body structure. It's an insulting joke played on America."

Well thats looking at the glass half full! Even for the customer who simply wants an SUV, isn't it better that there are some more fuel efficient options? Of course it is.
BTW, the Chevy Suburban Hybrid seats nine and has a 6000 lbs tow rating.

Fewer cars = less congestion = faster buses = fewer people late to work = more productive workforce.

How could an alternative plan have produced a stronger local economy?
This is of particular interest to me since the auto-phobic crowd seems to ignore a city as a place to do business.
Also, wouldn't a reduction in trucks equate to a reduction in local economic activity?

""""
"The problem with this plan is that agility and stability [are necessarily] compromised."

Not necessarily. Advancements like electronic stability control have helped tremendously...
""""

Listen. If you compensate for something, there is still a compromise in effect. The same fancy stability control applied to a car will result in a vehicle that is much more stable than the SUV. You know this.

""""
when involved in an accident with another vehicle, your chance of avoiding injury are MUCH better when you are in the bigger, heavier vehicle.
""""

And all the children are above average. Or at least the ones whose parents can afford the biggest truck are, ha ha. Socially, there is no redeeming angle of the pack-on-the-pounds arms race. It's a total loser.

""""
Increased seating, cargo capacity, not to mention the ability to tow,we have a legitimate reason to praise Detroit for bringing fuel efficient SUVs to market
""""

Who is this "we"? I see no gain in the SUV plague going on hybrid life support. Plus you've listed off dubious personal benefits of big SUV ownership that don't even apply to the Quasimodo-edition Escape. Recreational motorboat use is about the last thing in the world I'd promote, but you should know that its towing capacity is all of 1,000 lbs. It seats a whopping five people. This vehicle is a truck-man costume, its SUV trappings contributing little more than an inefficient body structure. It's an insulting joke played on America.

Not necessarily. Advancements like electronic stability control have helped tremendously...

Listen. If you compensate for something, there is still a compromise in effect. The same fancy stability control applied to a car will result in a vehicle that is much more stable than the SUV. You know this.

when involved in an accident with another vehicle, your chance of avoiding injury are MUCH better when you are in the bigger, heavier vehicle.

And all the children are above average. Or at least the ones whose parents can afford the biggest truck are, ha ha. Socially, there is no redeeming angle of the pack-on-the-pounds arms race. It's a total loser.

Increased seating, cargo capacity, not to mention the ability to tow,we have a legitimate reason to praise Detroit for bringing fuel efficient SUVs to market

Who is this "we"? I see no gain in the SUV plague going on hybrid life support. Plus you've listed off dubious personal benefits of big SUV ownership that don't even apply to the Quasimodo-edition Escape. Recreational motorboat use is about the last thing in the world I'd promote, but you should know that its towing capacity is all of 1,000 lbs. It seats a whopping five people. This vehicle is a truck-man costume, its SUV trappings contributing little more than an inefficient body structure. It's an insulting joke played on America.

Motor vehicles can be a useful part of the urban transportation mix but we believe that, over the last 60 years or so, NYC transportation and land use policy (or lack of policy) has allowed motor vehicles to dominate New York City's public right-of-way in a manner that has become increasingly destructive to the city's economy and environment and to citizens' personal mobility, health and quality of life.

We would like to see a re-balancing of the city's street space with greater priority given to higher-efficiency and more environmentally-responsible modes of transport: pedestrians, bus riders and cyclists in particular (NYCSR is mostly focused on street-level transportation modes. The subway is obviously important too). We see lots of examples around the world where cities are doing this sort of re-balancing with great results.

NYCSR simply believes that the city and its citizens would benefit by taking some of that space back for other uses.

Personally, I never try to tell New Yorkers that they have to go and get rid of their cars. Rather, my goal is to put forward policies that make it easier and more appealing for New Yorkers to get around without a car."

Thanks Aaron. I'm all for the above stated goals.

Comment by Angus Grieve-Smith: "...families can find large vehicles indispensable under some circumstances."

I'd agree with the above.

I think anybody would, but it's not a justification for SUV use. For that, you need to demonstrate that:

1. The families are justified in their findings.
2. The circumstances are enough to justify buying a large vehicle, as opposed to renting or borrowing one.
3. SUVs are the appropriate type of large vehicle.
4. Families that own multiple vehicles are justified in driving them under circumstances where a smaller vehicle is available.

I don't think any of these are adequately demonstrated, certainly not in all the cases where a family bought an SUV.

Streetsblog and the NYC Streets Renaissance Campaign is not opposed to motorized personal vehicles.

Motor vehicles can be a useful part of the urban transportation mix but we believe that, over the last 60 years or so, NYC transportation and land use policy (or lack of policy) has allowed motor vehicles to dominate New York City's public right-of-way in a manner that has become increasingly destructive to the city's economy and environment and to citizens' personal mobility, health and quality of life.

We would like to see a re-balancing of the city's street space with greater priority given to higher-efficiency and more environmentally-responsible modes of transport: pedestrians, bus riders and cyclists in particular (NYCSR is mostly focused on street-level transportation modes. The subway is obviously important too). We see lots of examples around the world where cities are doing this sort of re-balancing with great results.

When people tell me that I'm just a big old car-hater I like to ask them about other personal technologies that cause us all problems at times. Are you a cell phone hater, Glenn? I'm not. But I sure do hate it when people use their cell phones in the movie theater while the movie is playing. Does that make me a cell phone hater? I don't think so. I think cell phones have their time and place.

Personal motor vehicles have their time and place in the city too. But we've spent the last 60 or 70 years in NYC building highways, nibbling away at sidewalks, paving front yards for driveways in Queens, you name it. NYCSR simply believes that the city and its citizens would benefit by taking some of that space back for other uses.

Personally, I never try to tell New Yorkers that they have to go and get rid of their cars. Rather, my goal is to put forward policies that make it easier and more appealing for New Yorkers to get around without a car.

Not necessarily. Advancements like electronic stability control have helped tremendously...

Comment by Doc Barnett: "And that it's an arms race leading to larger vehicles... There are many problems with this "plan."

I agree, the 'plan' is not perfect... But the fact is, when involved in an accident with another vehicle, your chance of avoiding injury are MUCH better when you are in the bigger, heavier vehicle. Increased seating, cargo capacity, not to mention the ability to tow, and we have a legitimate reason to praise Detroit for bringing fuel efficient SUVs to market.

I'd agree with the above.

Comment by Angus Grieve-Smith: "I will point out that Streetsblog is not blindly against all personal vehicles."

Would it be fair to say motorized personal vehicles?

is often => are necessarily

And that it's an arms race leading to larger vehicles that use more fuel. That pedestrians, cyclists, and infants in strollers are less visible to hoards of large vehicles and get plowed through like so much disposable humanity. There are many problems with this "plan."

When GlennQ wrote, "Large vehicles are pretty much required by large families...," he qualified it with "pretty much" and the relative "large." Without knowing what he meant by "large," it's pretty hard to say one way or the other, but I've seen some pretty large families on the subway. There are other factors, such as how convenient their neighborhood is, how available childcare is, and even the spacing of the children. Without anything like that, GlennQ's statement essentially reduces to, "some families can find large vehicles indispensable under some circumstances." Like living twenty miles from the nearest supermarket.

Having fuel efficient options is a good thing; having them subsidized with money that could be spent on rebuilding our transit and pedestrian infrastructure is a bad thing.

With respect to GlennQ's comment about "irrational hatred for personal vehicles," I'm not going to go there. There's not much more futile than arguing with someone about how irrational you are. I will point out that Streetsblog is not blindly against all personal vehicles.