Tag: honda

The New Car

June 7, 2024

My good friend, who happens to be the sales manager at a Honda dealership, recommended that we trade in our leased car for a new one before we drove 100,000 kilometers (60,000 miles) on it. We were approaching this mileage threshold when interest rates were high, so switching to a newer model was expensive. We decided to wait and see if interest rates would come down and if there would be any sales specials from the manufacturer that would make it attractive to trade up.

Used cars sold for almost as much money as new cars last December because of the shortage of new vehicles – one consequence of Covid when car workers were laid off and production slowed. However, the economy began to pick up last year, and new car production followed. So, a trade-in became urgent; used car prices trended down as new vehicles arrived on car lots.

To increase car sales, Honda introduced different lease rates for two-year, three-year, and four-year leases, with the shortest leases having the lowest interest rate. Also, Honda added four months to the leases as a bonus, so the total cost of a two-year lease was divided by 28 instead of 24 months (2 years) to get a lower monthly payment. For instance, my friend calculated that my monthly payment for a new car would increase by only $25 for a two-year lease, a small price for a brand-new vehicle.

We discovered that the new EV hybrid model we test-drove was not just a practical choice but also an exciting one. It offered the same comfort and reliability as our previous car but with the added potential fuel savings. That, coupled with the anticipation of rising gas prices, made the decision to trade up a positive adventure.

But beyond the financial and practical reasons for moving on to a newer car, there was another inspiring logic – the environmental logic. Who wouldn’t want to be part of the future, driving an EV car? We’ve all heard the dire predictions of what could happen if we don’t reduce our carbon footprint. I may not be a climate expert, but it’s empowering to think we’re joining the progressive crowd and doing our part for the environment with our new EV. The decision came with the bragging rights of being an environmentalist.

So, we confidently signed the papers for a new lease. Kathy picked the color, and my friend ordered a blue Honda CRV that rolled out of the Alliston, ON, Honda plant in mid-January 2024.

But picking up our new hybrid Honda came with a few wrinkles. First, our CRV model is the most stolen car in Ottawa, if not in Canada. Many insurance companies require the installation of a tracking device. Even with that gadget, the insurance costs are higher than those for comparable cars. My insurance broker quoted a price for the new year fifty percent higher than what I paid in the current year. So I went insurance shopping and found that the Canadian Automobile Association (CAA), of which I am a member, offers a twenty percent discount for its insurance provided I use a “club,” the locking device that fits across the steering wheel. I already have a club, so we switched our insurance to the CAA.

Second, I assumed that the bicycle hitch on my 2020 CRV would fit the new 2024 CRV. That was not the case; in their wisdom, Honda engineers changed the dimensions under the chassis, and I bought a new hitch. It was an unexpected cost, but it was essential if we wanted to go on biking tours.

So, we thought we were ready to rock and roll with the new car until I attached the Thule bicycle rack to the hitch and backed up from the garage. Some warning system alerted us that we were backing into some barrier. It turned out that the bicycle rack triggered the warning sound. The Honda engineers had not figured out that the warning system should not come on when an object is attached to the back of the car! No problem: I called my friend at the dealership, and the service people there advised me to turn off the “parking assist” system to avoid the racket that the warning system made when backing up the car with the bicycle rack on the vehicle.

I used to leave the bicycle rack on the car all summer, but now, I cannot do it unless I suffer the loud racket when backing up. The alternative is to attach and remove the bicycle rack during a bike tour. We decided to go with the alternative solution since Kathy uses the car ninety percent of the time, and the “parking assist” system” is helpful.

Dealing with the bicycle rack issue was an experience highlighting the new car’s adaptability and versatility. It introduced me to the various computerized systems in the new car, offering more conveniences than I had expected. For instance, I discovered the wireless iPhone charger on the middle console, a feature I now appreciate in the 2024 CRV (in the previous model, I had to plug in a cable to charge the phones). It also made me read the instruction book with fine print on hundreds of pages. I have never liked to read instruction manuals, but they are helpful.

Understanding this new hybrid model’s features is still a learning curve. The car’s advanced computerized systems, such as the various warning systems, require some time to get used to. However, once you’ve mastered them, they can significantly enhance your driving experience and make your life on the road more convenient.

Policy Born Out of Panic

April 26, 2024

It is astonishing how the federal and Ontario governments announced a fifteen billion dollar incentive to Honda to set up a car battery plant in Ontario yesterday while they encouraged the municipalities last week to eliminate the requirement for parking for multiple unit developments. So, the message is to make more cars but provide no parking! Let me describe what happened.

Camada’s three levels of government hastily introduced a cobbled together housing policy this month, a move that could have significant repercussions. Upon learning that our City Council, under pressure from senior government levels, is considering approving quadruplexes or four units on a residential lot and eliminating parking requirements for highrise or multiple-unit buildings, I couldn’t help but worry. These are just a couple of the many proposals aimed at addressing the severe housing shortage that has led to the emergence of tent cities in all metropolitan areas.

With all the recent announcements, the federal government promises to double housing starts for the next seven years from the current pace of 250,000 units per year, by pouring billions of dollars into municipal budgets, providing local city councils agree to change zoning codes, including the above two proposals.

While this could alleviate the housing shortage and provide more affordable housing options, it raises concerns about the quality of these new units and the impact on existing neighborhoods.

Yes, the recent surge in international migration created the housing shortage; statistics show that the Canadian fertility rate is way below the replacement rate, and the increase in population and the consequent surge in housing demand can be attributed directly and totally to immigration.

But wouldn’t it be more prudent for the federal government to address the demand for housing as well instead of focusing solely on the supply side? Would it not be faster and easier to restrict immigration in the short term than build housing that takes years to complete? A more balanced approach would be advisable in considering both supply and demand for housing.

A panic reaction is not a good incubator for developing thoughtful housing policy. For example, consider the proposal for building four housing units on a residential lot. A quarter-acre lot measures seventy by one hundred feet (excluding space for roads). Yes, one can build four units on such a lot; it could be two side by side units on the main level and the same upstairs, or one unit per floor in a four-storey building. It would be a dense development, especially considering the parking space for each unit.   But, oops! Are parking spots still required?

However, more recent developments have much smaller lot sizes; some are thirty-five by one hundred feet. To put four units in such a small lot would be a design challenge. And where would the parking be? On the neithborhood streets? As much as good public transit, which we do not have, may negate the need for cars, most individuals and families like to have a car to get around on weekends and at nights when public transit is sporadic at best.

In the suburbs, there are one-acre and larger lots where four units per residential lot are reasonably achievable, but would people desire it? They moved to the suburbs because they wanted bigger lots so why would they now build three additional units on their land? Not likely.

Although four units per residential lot is an attractive slogan, it behooves the government to specify what a “residential lot” means. For example, it would be helpful to identify a minimum lot size to utilize this concept fully.

While the first proposal for densification relates to the efficient use of an urban lot (four units on a lot), the second proposal to eliminate parking refers to cost; by not building garages, the government claims the cost savings would benefit renters/buyers. However, consider the potential impact of this idea on different demographic groups. For instance, families with children, the disabled or elderly individuals may still require parking spaces, and the lack of these amenities could disproportionately affect them.

Before believing government claims that eliminating parking spaces will reduce the cost to the buyer/renter, consider vacancy rates. With vacancy rates so low today that people immediately take up any vacant rental unit, why would developers not charge market rates even though their costs would be lower by not providing parking? And when people buy condominiums, they buy garage spaces in addition to the unit’s price. As a consequence, I do not see why multiple unit residential buildings with no parking would save money for renters/buyers.

To implement the no parking proposal, the City Council proposes to do away with the current policy of requiring parking as a ratio of the number of units in the building and let developers decide on the number of stalls provided based on market forces. While in some areas of the city, developers may choose to skimp on parking spaces, assuming that people could park on neighboring streets, it may not be the case downtown, where office towers dominate, and street parking is not available. I am concerned that not providing parking would exacerbate congestion on the streets and create a huge problem during the winter months when parking is prohibited on the streets for snow clearing.

What further concerns me and find astonishing is when I see that the two higher levels of government are actively pursuing car manufacturers to set up shop in Ontario.  They announced yesterday a multi-billion-dollar incentives package for Honda, after providing incentives for Volkswagen and Stellantis, last year. Is this not a huge contradiction: do not provide parking but encourage the manufacture of cars?

Quadruplexes on quarter-acre lots and highrise buildings without parking do not reflect what people want today; to me, it appears that governments are attempting to modify behavior to solve a housing shortage, without dealing with any of the basic issues that contributed to the problem – that is, an unprecedented increase in immigration levels, and the capacity of the country in both labor and supplies to accelerate any construction. Despite all good intentions and even beyond the questionable objectives of these ideas, the pace of housing construction cannot and will not double for the next few years due to the lack of skilled labor.