Ray LaHood stepping down as U.S. transportation secretary

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post: Ray LaHood stepping down as U.S. transportation secretary

Ray LaHood, the Illinois Republican who turned distracted driving into a national crusade while serving a Democratic president, will step down after four years as President Obama's transportation secretary.

LaHood is the only Republican in the Cabinet, a mantle that will be carried by former senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska if he wins Senate confirmation as secretary of defense.

[corco]

Good. He was the kind of regulatory bureaucrat that gives government regulations a bad name.

[J N Winkler]

Good. He was the kind of regulatory bureaucrat that gives government regulations a bad name.

How so?

[kphoger]

Does this mean the Cross-border Program actually stands a chance?

Oh, wait, that would be a no.

[bugo]

Good. He was the kind of regulatory bureaucrat that gives government regulations a bad name.

+1

[cpzilliacus]

Does this mean the Cross-border Program actually stands a chance?

Oh, wait, that would be a no.

"Cross-border"?  Sounds like something that would come under DHS jurisdiction, not USDOT.

[Brandon]

I don't have much nice to say about Mr. LaHood other than he shouldn't let the door hit his butt on the way back to Peoria and that he should stay out of Illinois politics from here on out.

[3467]

I think they are upset about his distracted driving obsession?

I have met him he is OK He son on the other hand is in Illinois politics and him..........

[kphoger]

Does this mean the Cross-border Program actually stands a chance?

Oh, wait, that would be a no.

"Cross-border"?  Sounds like something that would come under DHS jurisdiction, not USDOT.

Sorry, I was getting two names mixed up in my mind.  Yes, Ray LaHood has been involved in the implementation(s) of the cross-border truckiing program; but no, he has not been an impediment to it.  It's Jim Johnston that I was thinking of.  Sorry, Mr LaHood.

[corco]

How so?

LaHood thinks cars should have mandatory backup cameras. He wants to put millions into high speed rail, which might work in a few select corridors in the US but is hardly a nationwide solution. He's trying to hold states hostage to regulate distracted driving, while offering solutions that merely makes bad behavior illegal without doing anything to actually stop or accommodate the problem.

And then I'm anti-CAFE. Let the market correct that problem- if people want to buy gas guzzlers, let them. They'll regret it once gas costs $6 a gallon due to unsustainable demand. CAFE just delays the inevitable.

He is against mandating mixed-case signage, so that's a decent sized point in his favor, but all in all blech.

[hbelkins]

I once tried to explain my objections to Ray LaHood, but failed miserably, so I will not attempt to do so again. I will say, however, that I have the same problem with Chuck Hagel and with many people in Kentucky state government, including several in my own agency.

[J N Winkler]

LaHood thinks cars should have mandatory backup cameras. He wants to put millions into high speed rail, which might work in a few select corridors in the US but is hardly a nationwide solution. He's trying to hold states hostage to regulate distracted driving, while offering solutions that merely makes bad behavior illegal without doing anything to actually stop or accommodate the problem.

And then I'm anti-CAFE. Let the market correct that problem- if people want to buy gas guzzlers, let them. They'll regret it once gas costs $6 a gallon due to unsustainable demand. CAFE just delays the inevitable.

He is against mandating mixed-case signage, so that's a decent sized point in his favor, but all in all blech.

Corco, thanks for explaining your views--I thought you might be talking about the 2009 MUTCD, and while that has arguably been a rulemaking disaster, the die was cast before Obama's first inauguration (all the proposed rules were laid out in a rulemaking notice published in 2008) and LaHood's interventions have been oriented more at cleaning up the mess.

I don't know enough about the proposals for mandatory backup cameras and distracted-driving prevention to comment, but I actually support CAFE in principle.  As currently designed, it does not prevent people from buying gas-guzzlers; it only requires that when they buy them new, they cross-subsidize people who prefer to drive smaller vehicles which not only are more fuel-efficient but are less likely to damage other vehicles in collisions.  Since American fuel taxes are probably the lowest in the world aside from countries which actually subsidize fuel in order to prevent social unrest, CAFE also provides an incentive for US automakers to focus on vehicles which are internationally competitive and will sell reasonably well regardless of the price of oil, instead of chasing easy profits from SUVs which become unsalable when an oil price shock comes along.  (Consistent with the rightward turn in US politics since the early 1980's, commentators blame  pensions and unions, but in actuality their financial distress was a complex brew in which cratered demand, restricted access to credit, large inventories of unsold vehicles, and snap redesign and retooling costs all played a role.)

The problem with CAFE is not that it distorts the market, but rather that for much of its history, it has exerted very little influence on the market.  We had SUV booms in the late eighties and in the early noughties when CAFE was in effect.  The National Academies of Science did a study which compared historical fuel consumption to modelled fuel consumption without CAFE and determined that CAFE had a marked influence on fleet fuel efficiency and overall fuel consumption only in the early 1980's; from that time onward, the market ruled.

[PHLBOS]

 

LaHood thinks cars should have mandatory backup cameras. He wants to put millions into high speed rail, which might work in a few select corridors in the US but is hardly a nationwide solution. He's trying to hold states hostage to regulate distracted driving, while offering solutions that merely makes bad behavior illegal without doing anything to actually stop or accommodate the problem.

And then I'm anti-CAFE. Let the market correct that problem- if people want to buy gas guzzlers, let them. They'll regret it once gas costs $6 a gallon due to unsustainable demand. CAFE just delays the inevitable.

He is against mandating mixed-case signage, so that's a decent sized point in his favor, but all in all blech.

Corco, thanks for explaining your views--I thought you might be talking about the 2009 MUTCD, and while that has arguably been a rulemaking disaster, the die was cast before Obama's first inauguration (all the proposed rules were laid out in a rulemaking notice published in 2008) and LaHood's interventions have been oriented more at cleaning up the mess.

I don't know enough about the proposals for mandatory backup cameras and distracted-driving prevention to comment, but I actually support CAFE in principle.  As currently designed, it does not prevent people from buying gas-guzzlers; it only requires that when they buy them new, they cross-subsidize people who prefer to drive smaller vehicles which not only are more fuel-efficient but are less likely to damage other vehicles in collisions.  Since American fuel taxes are probably the lowest in the world aside from countries which actually subsidize fuel in order to prevent social unrest, CAFE also provides an incentive for US automakers to focus on vehicles which are internationally competitive and will sell reasonably well regardless of the price of oil, instead of chasing easy profits from SUVs which become unsalable when an oil price shock comes along.  (Consistent with the rightward turn in US politics since the early 1980's, commentators blame  pensions and unions, but in actuality their financial distress was a complex brew in which cratered demand, restricted access to credit, large inventories of unsold vehicles, and snap redesign and retooling costs all played a role.)

The problem with CAFE is not that it distorts the market, but rather that for much of its history, it has exerted very little influence on the market.  We had SUV booms in the late eighties and in the early noughties when CAFE was in effect.  The National Academies of Science did a study which compared historical fuel consumption to modelled fuel consumption without CAFE and determined that CAFE had a marked influence on fleet fuel efficiency and overall fuel consumption only in the early 1980's; from that time onward, the market ruled.

Forgive my going off-topic for a moment, but the above needs a response.  CAFE could be and has been blamed for the SUV boom (that largely took place duirng the 1990s BTW).  Had it not been for those standards (particularly the ones for cars); there would've been a resurgenge in large car & station wagon sales rather than the thirstier, more in your face SUVs.

Case in point: many state police agencies practically begged Ford to offer the 5.4L engine in its Crown Vic Police Interceptors, but Ford said "No" citing that such a model would get hit with a gas guzzler tax.  However a truck-based Ford Expedition equipped with the same engine does not carry a gas guzzler tax... even to this day.

Out of curiousity, J N Winkler, since you support higher CAFE standards; may I ask what kind of vehicle you drive (along w/engine & transmission)?  I should warn you, most advocates (hybrid owners excluded) of higher CAFE standards tend to own vehicles that actually fall short of the CAFE standard from the model year their vehicle was built.

Back to the topic at hand: One positive I can say about Ray LaHood is that he was the one who singlehandedly stopped then-PA Gov. Ed Rendell 3 times from placing tolls along I-80 because he knew (& Rendell flat out admitted so) the toll revenue raised would not have gone towards I-80.  I.e., it was clearly a Robbing Peter To Pay Paul scheme. 

Another concern I have regarding LaHood's departure is that his successor may be an anti-highway advocate that may give more serious credence towards several highway teardowns proposals throughout the country.

That said, while LaHood's a RINO/Democrat Lite; his successor will likley be more of the genuine urban liberal Democrat article.

[agentsteel53]

I wonder if my car is concordant with CAFE standard.  '97 Taurus, 3.0L V6, automatic transmission.  In my only moderately scientific analysis, I get 20/28 MPG.

[PHLBOS]

I wonder if my car is concordant with CAFE standard.  '97 Taurus, 3.0L V6, automatic transmission.  In my only moderately scientific analysis, I get 20/28 MPG.

For 1997, the CAFE fleet standard for cars was 27.5 mpg.  Your 20/28 EPA rating (which was posted on the original 1997 sticker), back then would've had a CAFE number of 23.6 mpg which falls a bit short wouldn't you think?

Official Fuel Economy Guide for 1997 models (see Page 4 for your '97 Taurus):
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/epadata/97feg.pdf

Before the modified EPA ratings took effect for 2008 and later models, the CAFE number for each vehicle was based on the combined, weighted average of the EPA city/highway ratings (55%/45% city/highway mix IIRC).

BTW, under the new EPA ratings system, your '97 Taurus would have posted a 18/26 city/highway rating w/a combined rating of 21 mpg; see below-link.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&path=1&year1=1997&year2=1997&make=Ford&model=Taurus&srchtyp=ymm&pageno=1

As a result of the new lower, across-the-board EPA postings, I'm not sure if the CAFE number for each vehicle is currently either the combined EPA number (now posted on stickers of all 2013 models) or now just a simple/raw (50-50) average of the city/highway postings.  An 18/26 posting would yield a raw average of 22 mpg.

[vdeane]

LaHood thinks cars should have mandatory backup cameras. He wants to put millions into high speed rail, which might work in a few select corridors in the US but is hardly a nationwide solution. He's trying to hold states hostage to regulate distracted driving, while offering solutions that merely makes bad behavior illegal without doing anything to actually stop or accommodate the problem.

And then I'm anti-CAFE. Let the market correct that problem- if people want to buy gas guzzlers, let them. They'll regret it once gas costs $6 a gallon due to unsustainable demand. CAFE just delays the inevitable.

He is against mandating mixed-case signage, so that's a decent sized point in his favor, but all in all blech.

Corco, thanks for explaining your views--I thought you might be talking about the 2009 MUTCD, and while that has arguably been a rulemaking disaster, the die was cast before Obama's first inauguration (all the proposed rules were laid out in a rulemaking notice published in 2008) and LaHood's interventions have been oriented more at cleaning up the mess.

I don't know enough about the proposals for mandatory backup cameras and distracted-driving prevention to comment, but I actually support CAFE in principle.  As currently designed, it does not prevent people from buying gas-guzzlers; it only requires that when they buy them new, they cross-subsidize people who prefer to drive smaller vehicles which not only are more fuel-efficient but are less likely to damage other vehicles in collisions.  Since American fuel taxes are probably the lowest in the world aside from countries which actually subsidize fuel in order to prevent social unrest, CAFE also provides an incentive for US automakers to focus on vehicles which are internationally competitive and will sell reasonably well regardless of the price of oil, instead of chasing easy profits from SUVs which become unsalable when an oil price shock comes along.  (Consistent with the rightward turn in US politics since the early 1980's, commentators blame  pensions and unions, but in actuality their financial distress was a complex brew in which cratered demand, restricted access to credit, large inventories of unsold vehicles, and snap redesign and retooling costs all played a role.)

The problem with CAFE is not that it distorts the market, but rather that for much of its history, it has exerted very little influence on the market.  We had SUV booms in the late eighties and in the early noughties when CAFE was in effect.  The National Academies of Science did a study which compared historical fuel consumption to modelled fuel consumption without CAFE and determined that CAFE had a marked influence on fleet fuel efficiency and overall fuel consumption only in the early 1980's; from that time onward, the market ruled.

The issue is that SUVs are exempt from CAFE.  The solution, however, is not to eliminate CAFE (as many want), but to make it so that no vehicle is exempt.

[J N Winkler]

Forgive my going off-topic for a moment, but the above needs a response.  CAFE could be and has been blamed for the SUV boom (that largely took place duirng the 1990s BTW).  Had it not been for those standards (particularly the ones for cars); there would've been a resurgence in large car & station wagon sales rather than the thirstier, more in your face SUVs.

Case in point: many state police agencies practically begged Ford to offer the 5.4L engine in its Crown Vic Police Interceptors, but Ford said "No" citing that such a model would get hit with a gas guzzler tax.  However a truck-based Ford Expedition equipped with the same engine does not carry a gas guzzler tax... even to this day.

I take your point.  Personally, I think it is indefensible (at least in principle) to have separate CAFE standards for cars and light trucks, less because it opens up the possibility of buying a car-like light truck to do an end run around the auto CAFE standards and more because it is the same fuel being consumed in both types of vehicle.  Other countries which have CAFE-like efficiency standards do not distinguish between cars and light trucks, and while SUVs still sell in those countries, they are nowhere near as popular as in the US.

Out of curiosity, J N Winkler, since you support higher CAFE standards; may I ask what kind of vehicle you drive (along w/engine & transmission)?  I should warn you, most advocates (hybrid owners excluded) of higher CAFE standards tend to own vehicles that actually fall short of the CAFE standard from the model year their vehicle was built.

I drive a 1994 Saturn SL2 with the 1.9-L DOHC inline-four engine and a four-speed automatic transmission.  Per the Wikipedia article on CAFE, the 1994 standard was 27.5 MPG.  The EPA has nominal fuel economy figures for the 1994 Saturn models, but they are not disaggregated by engine type--just by body style and transmission (in this model year, Saturn produced DOHC and SOHC versions of the same basic 1.9-L engine, with the SOHC version leading to best-in-class fuel economy when matched with a five-speed manual transmission).  A 1994 Saturn SL-series vehicle with a 1.9-L engine and four-speed automatic transmission has city and highway mileages of 21 and 29 MPG respectively, for a combined mileage figure of 24 MPG.

I do not know how EPA city and highway mileage figures relate to the single efficiency figure for a given model that is used to calculate the harmonic mean that determines CAFE compliance.  I also don't know if CAFE fines were paid in 1994 which represent cross-subsidization of my particular model to some degree.  For what it is worth, EPA provides a mechanism for drivers of a particular car model to self-report their efficiency values and so far the averaged self-report value for my particular model hits the 1994 CAFE standard right on the nose.

Edit:  The EPA mileage figures cited above are recalculated values.  The original ones were 23 MPG city, 27 MPG combined, and 32 MPG highway, so if the 1994 combined MPG were used for purposes of CAFE, my particular model would have been marginally disfavorable to the overall corporate average.

[PHLBOS]

The issue is that SUVs are exempt from CAFE.  The solution, however, is not to eliminate CAFE (as many want), but to make it so that no vehicle is exempt.

No, SUVs are subject to the CAFE ratings/standards for trucks, which by their nature have a lower figure than the figure for cars.  At the time the CAFE standards first took effect in 1978; trucks/vans/SUVs made up a much smaller percentage of the vehicle market than it does today.  The majority of vehicles on the road back then were mostly full & mid-size cars powered by 400+ cubic inch V8s.

Pickup trucks were mostly used as farm vehicles back then.

When cars started downsizing after 1977, not only did they get smaller; but they lost their ability to tow larger trailers (since 400+ cubic inch engines availability dropped).  As an example: a '78 Ford LTD equipped w/the 460 and Class III Towing Package could pull a 7000 lb. trailer.  Today, only full-size trucks, vans & SUVs (Expedition/Navigator/Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon(XL)/Escalade among domestics) are capable of doing such. 

Additionally, while some downsized cars had improved legroom than their larger predecessors; shoulder & hip room were indeed compromised.  Case and point: no full-size sedan on the market today has 60" of shoulder room.  The last sedans capable of such were the Panther-platformed 2011 Ford Crown Victoria, 2010 Mercury Grand Marquis and the 2011 Lincoln Town Car.

As a result, many moved towards SUVs; especially when gas prices became stable and the threats to increase CAFE standards dwindled until 2007 because they wanted more room and towing ability.

That said, having the same exact standards for cars & trucks is ludicrous because trucks, by their very nature & design, need to be larger and brawnier for their capabilities.  It is worth noting that while an overall single CAFE is now listed, there's still a separate car & truck breakdown.   

The original ones were 23 MPG city, 27 MPG combined, and 32 MPG highway, so if the 1994 combined MPG were used for purposes of CAFE, my particular model would have been marginally disfavorable to the overall corporate average.

Thank you for sharing.  That said, why would one be advocating for higher standards? 

[agentsteel53]

The original ones were 23 MPG city, 27 MPG combined, and 32 MPG highway, so if the 1994 combined MPG were used for purposes of CAFE, my particular model would have been marginally disfavorable to the overall corporate average.

Thank you for sharing.  That said, why would one be advocating for higher standards? 

I don't know about JNW, but I bought my car used! 

[J N Winkler]

That said, having the same exact standards for cars & trucks is ludicrous because trucks, by their very nature & design, need to be larger and brawnier for their capabilities.  It is worth noting that while an overall single CAFE is now listed, there's still a separate car & truck breakdown.

I don't think it is ludicrous at all to extend passenger car CAFE standards to light trucks.  I think the argument in favor of having separate efficiency standards for trucks (and other vehicles used ordinarily for haulage) really makes sense only for the types of trucks that come within reach of commercial vehicle legislation and thus have to stop at weigh stations, etc.

Think about it:  farming still goes on in countries where efficiency standards make no distinction between passenger cars and light trucks.  You can get pickup trucks in Europe--they just aren't as popular as here.  Plus CAFE isn't the only factor in diminishing shoulder room--safety equipment like side-impact airbags have played a role as well.

The original ones were 23 MPG city, 27 MPG combined, and 32 MPG highway, so if the 1994 combined MPG were used for purposes of CAFE, my particular model would have been marginally disfavorable to the overall corporate average.

Thank you for sharing.  That said, why would one be advocating for higher standards? 

If I were looking out for my selfish personal interest (which I am not in this case since I favor CAFE on general public policy grounds), I would still support stringent CAFE standards--in fact, the more stringent the better.  It is my personal preference to drive a small, fuel-efficient vehicle.  If technological decadence means the automakers have to subsidize small cars in order to continue selling the larger vehicles, then I personally benefit from that subsidy when I buy new.

From the standpoint of fuel economy, I would actually prefer, say, a Honda Fit to the Saturn SL2 I have now.  I took a borrowed Fit to Colorado last September and was able to rack up an indicated rolling average of 46.7 MPG, which is significantly better than the tank averages I have gotten on the Saturn (usually high twenties--I have never broken the 30 MPG barrier).  However, a brand-new Honda Fit would cost upwards of $15,000.  The Saturn, on the other hand, has been in my family from new, so it has a known service history and is substantially up to date on maintenance.  I do not run enough miles annually at present to justify the higher cost of moving up to a more fuel-efficient vehicle.

[agentsteel53]

I do not run enough miles annually at present to justify the higher cost of moving up to a more fuel-efficient vehicle.

now you've got me thinking if I run too many miles, or not.  I usually buy a beater car for about $2000, once a year, put 55000 miles on it, spend another 2000 on repairs, and sell it for 500 when it becomes too much of a beater.  so that's 3500/year, plus gas at ~25mpg. 

the next thought exercise (hello MS Excel!) is to see how many miles I'd need out of a 45mpg car to justify a $15000 pricetag. 

[agentsteel53]

now you've got me thinking if I run too many miles, or not.  I usually buy a beater car for about $2000, once a year, put 55000 miles on it, spend another 2000 on repairs, and sell it for 500 when it becomes too much of a beater.  so that's 3500/year, plus gas at ~25mpg. 

the next thought exercise (hello MS Excel!) is to see how many miles I'd need out of a 45mpg car to justify a $15000 pricetag.

answer: about 175000 miles, assuming it keeps 45mpg 'til the day it dies.  I got 44mpg out of an '89 Escort (hello stick shift!) so it's quite plausible.

[PHLBOS]

I don't think it is ludicrous at all to extend passenger car CAFE standards to light trucks.  I think the argument in favor of having separate efficiency standards for trucks (and other vehicles used ordinarily for haulage) really makes sense only for the types of trucks that come within reach of commercial vehicle legislation and thus have to stop at weigh stations, etc.

Looking at your location info. of Wichita, Kansas & Oxford, Great Britian; may I ask where are you currently residing now and how long have you been there?  How much time have you/were you in Kansas?  I ask this because, if it was for an extended period of time; you would've clearly seen more larger pick-up trucks (Ford F-150s) and SUVs around and would've likely interacted w/owners regarding their utility & benefits.

A truck or SUV that can pull a sizable trailer, hold 7 people (SUV) and average 30 mpg does NOT exist in the market at the moment.

The smaller, more fuel efficient pick-ups that you mentioned, while good vehicles, can not do heavy duty tasks.  It's also worth noting, that some manufacuters have since discontinued production of their small pick-ups due to poor sales.  A stupid move IMHO, but they're seeing more $ w/the small SUVs/CUVs. 

Plus CAFE isn't the only factor in diminishing shoulder room--safety equipment like side-impact airbags have played a role as well.

Side-impact airbags have only been a recent entity; my earlier overall observations & conclusions are based over the last 20 to 30 years.

If I were looking out for my selfish personal interest (which I am not in this case since I favor CAFE on general public policy grounds), I would still support stringent CAFE standards--in fact, the more stringent the better.  It is my personal preference to drive a small, fuel-efficient vehicle.  If technological decadence means the automakers have to subsidize small cars in order to continue selling the larger vehicles, then I personally benefit from that subsidy when I buy new.

The point I was trying to make is somebody advocating a position but they themselves are not adhering to it is being hypocritical. 

Also an automaker having small and/or alternative fueled cars in their fleet and on the market alone doesn't help them meet CAFE standards; the cars have to sell as well in order for them to receive CAFE 'credits'.  35 to 40 years of US automotive history has shown that when gas prices skyrocket; more people will think about fuel economy.  When prices stabilize and even drop, many may opt for larger vehicles and/or more performance-oriented cars. 

Why do you think the Ford Mustang's been around and still offers V8 engines for nearly 50 years?

From the standpoint of fuel economy, I would actually prefer, say, a Honda Fit to the Saturn SL2 I have now.  I took a borrowed Fit to Colorado last September and was able to rack up an indicated rolling average of 46.7 MPG, which is significantly better than the tank averages I have gotten on the Saturn (usually high twenties--I have never broken the 30 MPG barrier).  However, a brand-new Honda Fit would cost upwards of $15,000.  The Saturn, on the other hand, has been in my family from new, so it has a known service history and is substantially up to date on maintenance.  I do not run enough miles annually at present to justify the higher cost of moving up to a more fuel-efficient vehicle.

And that is certainly your choice and it is far be it from me to dictate what you should or should not buy. 

My overall opposition to CAFE standards is that during economically prosperous times the government is penalizing many automakers for giving the public what it wants.  It's basically stating what one can or can not buy vehicle-wise without actually stating such.  Larger, affordable vehicles (like the full-size station wagon) are essentially legislated out of existence.

And the SUV boom that took place in the 1990s was an example of The Law of Unintended Consequences at work.  Consumers wanted more room and towing capability (heavy-duty towing is not recommended for FWD cars).

BTW, according the EPA's figures for the 2013 Honda Fit (gasoline models only) post city ratings of 27-28 mpg (depending on transmission) and highway ratings of 33-35 mpg with combined ratings of  29-31 mpg. 

With the CAFE figure for 2013 at 32.8 for cars (26.8 for light trucks BTW); today's Honda Fit CAFE number (raw average of 30 to 31 mpg depending on transmission), Honda's smallest model in the US market BTW, even falls short of the CAFE fleet number.  That's how ridiculous these standards really are.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&path=1&year1=2013&year2=2013&make=Honda&model=Fit&srchtyp=ymm

answer: about 175000 miles, assuming it keeps 45mpg 'til the day it dies.  I got 44mpg out of an '89 Escort (hello stick shift!) so it's quite plausible.

That's pretty impressive.  My brother's '86 w/the 5-speed he bought new, got as high as 42 mpg.

[kphoger]

MS Excel solves all of life's mysteries.

[J N Winkler]

Looking at your location info. of Wichita, Kansas & Oxford, Great Britain; may I ask where are you currently residing now and how long have you been there?  How much time have you/were you in Kansas?  I ask this because, if it was for an extended period of time; you would've clearly seen more larger pick-up trucks (Ford F-150s) and SUVs around and would've likely interacted w/owners regarding their utility & benefits.

I am in Wichita at present.  It is where I was born and raised.  I have known people who have owned pickup trucks, I have relatives who own SUVs, about half of my ancestors farmed or ranched, and I am old enough to remember the tatty econoboxes with fiddly fuel injection which the US automakers sold in the early 1980's in order to give themselves enough leeway under CAFE to produce and sell the mid-sized cars that dominated middle-class buying preferences.  I am not new to the United States, by any stretch of the imagination.

A truck or SUV that can pull a sizable trailer, hold 7 people (SUV) and average 30 mpg does NOT exist in the market at the moment.

I don't disagree--but CAFE as it currently exists does not make it impossible to buy SUVs with those characteristics, nor would it if it were redesigned to have the same efficiency standards for cars and light trucks.  It only requires that buyers of these vehicles cross-subsidize buyers of light, fuel-efficient cars if buying preferences are tilted toward the light-truck end of the spectrum, or alternately that the manufacturer just pay the CAFE penalty.

If I were looking out for my selfish personal interest (which I am not in this case since I favor CAFE on general public policy grounds), I would still support stringent CAFE standards--in fact, the more stringent the better.  It is my personal preference to drive a small, fuel-efficient vehicle.  If technological decadence means the automakers have to subsidize small cars in order to continue selling the larger vehicles, then I personally benefit from that subsidy when I buy new.

The point I was trying to make is somebody advocating a position but they themselves are not adhering to it is being hypocritical.

Yes, I figured you were trying to do that, but actually that argument doesn't really make sense.  Let's suppose I was advocating turning the screws tight on CAFE while driving a gas-guzzling SUV.  This means that I would be advocating a regulatory regime which would require me, personally, to pay a huge subsidy to owners of light cars if I tried to replace my SUV in kind.  So how is this hypocritical?  I think you might have better luck finding hypocrisy if you looked for people who advocated CAFE tightening while having no intention to participate in the new car market.  But even in this case you could expect a fair amount of the price difference to filter down into used car prices.

Also an automaker having small and/or alternative fueled cars in their fleet and on the market alone doesn't help them meet CAFE standards; the cars have to sell as well in order for them to receive CAFE credits.  35 to 40 years of US automotive history has shown that when gas prices skyrocket; more people will think about fuel economy.  When prices stabilize and even drop, many may opt for larger vehicles and/or more performance-oriented cars.

Again, I don't disagree, but the issue is wider than the individual consumer's myopic choice (which also takes the form of choosing to replace a newish and therefore expensive vehicle on the basis of a short-term change in fuel prices).  CAFE, for example, has a role in regulating demand for imported fuel supplies, and is thought to be a factor in the OPEC cartel cracking in 1986.

Why do you think the Ford Mustang's been around and still offers V8 engines for nearly 50 years?

Status cars will sell even under a stringent CAFE regime.  The Mustang has been sold internationally, including in countries with tight efficiency standards and high marginal taxes on motor fuel.  For that matter, the Mustang has on occasion even been manufactured in RHD for sale in countries which drive on the left, including the UK, Australia, and Japan.  The real victims of CAFE, and indeed any other tax or regulatory policy which tries to taper down fuel consumption, are the nothing-special cars that get disadvantageous treatment under the adopted regime:  for example, station wagons in the US, the Ford Model T in Britain in 1920 when the horsepower tax was adopted, or the Nissan Maxima in Britain after a few years of the 1994-2000 fuel escalator (see below).

My overall opposition to CAFE standards is that during economically prosperous times the government is penalizing many automakers for giving the public what it wants.  It's basically stating what one can or can not buy vehicle-wise without actually stating such.  Larger, affordable vehicles (like the full-size station wagon) are essentially legislated out of existence.

And the SUV boom that took place in the 1990s was an example of The Law of Unintended Consequences at work.  Consumers wanted more room and towing capability (heavy-duty towing is not recommended for FWD cars).

BTW, according the EPA's figures for the 2013 Honda Fit (gasoline models only) post city ratings of 27-28 mpg (depending on transmission) and highway ratings of 33-35 mpg with combined ratings of  29-31 mpg. 

With the CAFE figure for 2013 at 32.8 for cars (26.8 for light trucks BTW); today's Honda Fit CAFE number (raw average of 30 to 31 mpg depending on transmission), Honda's smallest model in the US market BTW, even falls short of the CAFE fleet number.  That's how ridiculous these standards really are.

The automakers are on the hook for CAFE but in actuality the market provides for recoupment from the customer.  The real purpose of the program is to provide an incentive to improve fuel efficiency through technological change so that an automaker does not have to pay a net CAFE penalty on its fleet.  Now, I will grant that when these technological updates are not forthcoming, or the automakers believe they cannot meet consumer demand for certain vehicle attributes (such as the ability to tow or carry more than five passengers) and come in under the CAFE number, CAFE turns into a backdoor purchase tax.  But CAFE puts a brake on overall fuel consumption even at times when oil prices are relatively low (which protects our geopolitical position), and this reduction is not frittered away through additional VMT (Jevons' paradox does not apply).  These benefits outweigh the superficial and, one hopes, short-term absurdity of having a CAFE standard one or more large automakers, with a full range of model sizes in the market, cannot meet with their smallest models.

I far prefer CAFE as a mechanism for regulating fuel consumption to others that have been tried abroad, such as the fuel tax escalator Britain had from 1994 to 2000 which resulted in the price of a liter of fuel being more than 80% tax.  Fuel taxes that high, and high fuel prices in general, are very limiting on discretionary travel.  If it comes down to a choice between being able to road-trip and being able to buy cheaply a vehicle which can carry seven passengers while towing a trailer, the farsighted solution is to use a system which defends the former while adding no more than a modest cost penalty to the latter.

The current CAFE penalty is $55 per MPG below the CAFE standard.  This is a capital sum which the manufacturer has to recoup only once, at the time of first sale.  If you ignore cross-subsidization, CAFE credits, and other factors, then the most a purchaser of a new Honda Fit would be expected to pay for its failure to come up to the CAFE standard is $110, which is far less than sales tax of about $750 if the marginal sales tax rate is 5%.  For a gap of say 10 MPG between combined MPG and CAFE for a large car or SUV model, this onetime penalty is $550, which is still pretty small compared to the purchase price.

In contradistinction, if you raise fuel taxes for the specific purpose of discouraging driving, which the New York Times editorial page was urging Obama to do when he was inaugurated in 2009, the tax take is much larger.  A British-style fuel escalator applied to a base cost of fuel of $1/gallon would pull in tax of $4/gallon.  For annual fuel consumption of around 300 gallons at the current CAFE standard, that is a yearly bite of $1200.  Under current arrangements for spending fuel tax revenues, this would have the perverse effect of overfunding the Highway Trust Fund, and the natural result would be to raid the fund and break the link between road usage and financing of highway improvements, not to expand construction output.

So--bottom line--in spite of its flaws, CAFE is better than a fuel taxation structure that lacks the element of "stickiness" that helps discourage legislators from underfunding upkeep of the highway network, and makes the whole towing-and-hauling lifestyle unaffordable.