US Gasoline Prices Spur Telework

coondoggie writes "The price of gasoline may finally be changing the way many people commute and communicate. Anecdotal evidence says teleworkers are growing rapidly as a direct result of the cost of driving. The article links a survey indicating that in Q1 2007 the 19 largest US cable and telephone providers (representing about 94% of the market) acquired over 2.9 million net additional high-speed Internet subscribers, to a total of about 56.2 million. That can be attributed in part to more employees taking advantage of telework programs, experts say. Just this week the House Judiciary Committee's antitrust task force opened the first of a series of hearings on the oil industry. Its chairman noted that gasoline prices have soared well above $3 a gallon and asked, 'How did we get into this mess?'"

Comments

How?

[dj245]

Urban sprawl, SUV's, and lack of MPG targets for manufacturers. Average MPG hasn't changed much since the 70's. I also haven't noticed any change in peoples driving habits. People still tailgate, race to the next light (even though it is red) etc. I guess they have money to burn.

There is no good fix for the sprawl. The other two are at least somewhat addressable by some means of legislation or industry curtailing.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the assumption that oil would remain cheap and plentiful forever -- a flawed assumption for any finite resource.

Re:How?

[gilesjuk]

Indeed, it's basic supply and demand. With SUVs you get more demand and the price goes up.

Re:How?

[thule]

Don't forget there has not been any refineries built in 30 years, even though there has been more types of gas that the states have required. Don't forget that not only has our demand for oil continued to grow, but the world demand has also continued to grow.

Re:How?

[MyLongNickName]

lack of MPG targets for manufacturers
The other two are at least somewhat addressable by some means of legislation or industry curtailing.

A more sane way of solving the problem is to have the consumer pay the true cost of energy. Does the gasoline you buy require us to import from unstable governments, resulting in a higher defense bill when we are in more conflicts over it? Put a tax on gas to foot the bill. Does gasoline hurt the environment? Put a tax on it to cover the cost.

Worried about tax payer backlash? Give out a refund check to cover the average cost. Those who buy the fuel efficient car or choose not to live an hour from work will make a killing. Those who don't will get killed. I bet you'd see habits change REAL quick.

In

Re:How?

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Wait, you invoked supply and demand to infer price. If supply goes up along with demand then the price should remain the same. I don't have total output numbers available.

Still, though, I'm not buying any idealized edition of the economy. Price has gone up for two reasons: 1) because it can do so rapaciously and today's cities are designed with the assumption that transportation is fast and easy, and 2) because those top level Wall Street managers who lost millions in the .com bust are shoring up their profits through investments in newly extra-profitable businesses associated with delivering gasoline to the public.

Why does everyone look for the most meaningless answer (eg. some idealized form of gradeschool economics) while turning a blind eye to the reality of the way the world works?

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Urban sprawl, SUV's, and lack of MPG targets for manufacturers. Average MPG hasn't changed much since the 70's. I also haven't noticed any change in peoples driving habits. People still tailgate, race to the next light (even though it is red) etc. I guess they have money to burn.

There is no good fix for the sprawl. The other two are at least somewhat addressable by some means of legislation or industry curtailing.

Not just money to burn, but American lives! How many troops per mile does the average "American" get in their SUV?

Re:How?

[notamisfit]

At anything less than 5 USD a gallon, gas is still a bargain compared to what we get out of it. Habits won't change until gas gets really expensive (it's still cheaper now than it was in 1981, adjusted for inflation). And if Detroit could come up with an economical vehicle with the SUV's capacity and safety factor, they probably wouldn't be losing money per unit sold.

Re:How?

[Colin Smith]

The other two are at least somewhat addressable by some means of legislation or industry curtailing. Will only extend the existing situation. Let them gouge prices, eventually either people will switch to an alternative or someone will find a way to provide cheaper gas.

Re:How?

[the_humeister]

Actually, I think the mileage is doing pretty well considering all the other safety and emissions equipment manufacturers have to put in. So we have somewhat heavier cars, more powerful engines, and gas mileage that is at least comparable if not better than in the past.

Re:How?

[mh1997]

Sprawl must be good!

If cities and towns don't want sprawl, why do they enact open space laws? Why do many towns and cities in California restrict the height of apartment buildings forcing people to live further and further away from work? The only answer that makes sense to me is that it is a conspiracy to make the roads so congested that people want to move to the city.

Re:How?

[Trifthen]

It's not just that. This is freaking 2007! Why the hell do we have to drive to work, when very few jobs actually require being at a specific building every day? Most "work" could be done from a home office, via phone, webcam, or VPN, with maybe an occasional visit to the office for important meetings or mass coordination.

I take the Chicago L for twenty minutes a day so I can... sit at a desk for eight hours and code or manage databases through our VPN.

It's this pointless adherence to 1980's methodology that's filling our highways to capacity daily, giving us hours of gridlock, two or three hour commutes, consumption of millions of unnecessary barrels of oil, etc. I truly want gas prices to shoot ridiculously high so businesses will be forced to either compensate workers for commutes, or relax requirements for being onsite. It's not the urban sprawl screwing us, it's the fact we have to drive from twenty or thirty miles away along with millions of others, for basically no reason.

The sooner that ends, the better. Go gas prices, go!

Re:How?

[BakaHoushi]

Wait, wait, wait...

So... you're telling me, there are other countries in the world? And that these other countries have economies? And these economies change, which, in turn, requires a shift in the required natural resources, including the amount of oil they require?

I'm sorry, but I find that a little hard to believe.

Re:How?

[HomelessInLaJolla]

A more sane way of solving the problem is to have the consumer pay the true cost of energy Don't we already?

Does the gasoline you buy...Put a tax on gas to foot the bill. What's happening to the tax money we're already paying?

Does gasoline hurt the environment? Put a tax on it to cover the cost What's happening to the tax money we're already paying?

I understand what you're saying but I think there's a hole in the government's pocket which, if sewn up, could allow many of these problems to work themselves out.

Re:How?

[caseih]

This is off-topic as far as telecommuting goes, but hey. This is slashdot.

The fix for urban sprawl is to clean up our cities. Put in clean, esthetically pleasing higher-density housing in the downtowns, increase public transportation to make it more appealing to live in such locations. Better planning in putting in green spaces (central park) very well could make higher-density housing areas much less the concrete jungle and more homey. But that's never going to happen until all our available land-mass is covered with subdivisions and the oceans are dried up.

As far as MPG goes, our engines today are now more powerful and much more efficient than they were in the 70s, all while consuming about the same amount of gas. However our vehicles are now larger and much heavier than they were in the 70s. We have, in fact, returned to the gas-guzzling boats of the 60s in terms of size and weight. The reason our cars are heavier and bigger is because we want the illusion of safety. If our neighbor is going to drive his his SUV with a high bumper, we want to make sure we never end up underneath it, so we buy a tall SUV too. We want the power to race out of danger. And so on. If we all drove smaller cars, and had sane safety regulations concerning bumper height and so forth, we would all be driving sub-compacts that got 50+ MPG. And we'd be a lot safer on the road too.

Sometimes I think we take freedom and rights way too far. We like the freedom to lift our SUVs way up and put on big tires. We like the freedom to drive 80 mph down the freeway. Never mind the fact that our actions put others at mortal risk. So it's a trade-off. Do we enact laws to curb such behavior? How do we change behavior in a positive way? It's interesting that we as humans will, in a heart-beat, trade our long-term well-being for something that will bring us only a brief moment of satisfaction. In other words, we'll place more importance on the cost of something today, than the long-term cost over our lifetime. Thus I'm not sure we can actually change public opinion with regards to our driving habits unless we allow gas prices to continually rise. Sadly high gas prices affect primary good producers first, often driving them out of business. Tis a sticky situation.

Re:How?

[timeOday]

Don't forget there has not been any refineries built in 30 years,

So why don't we import refined gasoline instead of crude? I'm sure we could have it made to whatever specification is required.

Re:How?

[fbjon]

There's still some room for improvement though: "While the average light duty vehicle on US highways gets 21.6 miles per gallon (m.p.g.), according to a study by the Paris based International Energy Agency (IEA), in Paris, its European counterpart manages 32.1 m.p.g."

Re:How?

[Metasquares]

I think it's to maintain the perception of control. Despite the fact that 99% of the work I do can be done remotely and I am more productive when I don't need to travel 3 hours per day to and from my school, my advisor still insists that I show up at the lab routinely "so he can communicate with me if he needs to"... not that he does unless I specifically schedule a time to meet with him.

Re:How?

[lessthanjakejohn]

We do... but have you ever heard the phrase cutting out the middle man? yeah..

Re:How?

[HUADPE]

Grade school as it may seem, this IS "supply and demand." Demand-pull inflation to be precise. Demand for petroleum products has increased (see SUVs and China...mostly China). Price has gone up so rapidly because the short term elasticity is so low. People need to get to work, and in the car they have now. In the short term, people won't respond to a $.05 change in gas prices. Prices have spiked because we hit the wall of refining capacity and the supply curve got steep. Prices needed to go up to push demand down.

Re:How?

[HomelessInLaJolla]

the short term elasticity is so low That's one component of the "I'm not buying it". People have been pumping fuel out of the ground for, what, a little over one hundred years? It's been an extraordinarily profitable commodity product since at least the first decade of the 1900s. There is probably enough petroleum product stored up, around the globe, to last us all for at least a year or two. That's more than plenty time to adjust production and refining rates. This is about government protected profiteering.

People need to get to work, and in the car they have now That's a very astute observation and the Wall Street market fund managers who invest in various segments of the petroleum industry know it every bit as well as you do--and they're leveraging that need, guaranteed because people are (conveniently) in debt (due to systems which the same market fund managers and bankers also happen to conveniently control), against the population using government protected trusts and monopolies (which are in reality but due to some accounting technicality legally aren't).

we hit the wall of refining capacity Only because the financial game is rigged. In decades past many groups have expressed interest in shoring up our refining capacity and making it redundant. Those moves have been blocked on both the business and the political sides by already existant vested money interests.

Prices needed to go up to push demand down Yet demand never has gone down. This further illustrates (and debunks) the complete idiocy with which people attempt to apply supply/demand/price explanations to a major global real world market. It may work for apples and oranges in the classroom, it may work for five cent lemonade stands in the streets, but it damn sure doesn't work that simply within a socially stratified society.

Re:How?

[b0s0z0ku]

Average MPG hasn't changed much since the 70's.

Actually, it's become worse by one or two points since the late 80s. More SUVs and ridiculously strict crash safety standards.

There is no good fix for the sprawl.

Rethink current zoning laws that put a premium on distance between business and residential, fix the broken real-estate tax systems in some states, and you're around half way there.

-b.

Re:How?

[j79zlr]

Obviously it is less expensive to refine it here. Market dictates. Thats the whole point. The environmental restrictions in place make it impossible to build a new refinery, but that doesn't help the environment. The fact that 30+ year old refineries are allowed to continue production under inefficient and environmentally unfriendly practices which cost us instead of building newer, more efficient refineries, that produce less harmful contaminants and more gasoline because they aren't grandfathered in, is ridiculous.

Re:How?

[cbelle13013]

No kidding. For some reason, whenever we hear about this in the news, they consistently fail to bring up that we haven't had a new refinery built in three decades. And not to sound like the bad guy, but Alaska is a great spot for drilling. It's half the size of the continental US. Nobody would be upset if there was a two square mile used in the middle of Oklahoma for a project, but somehow Alaska has been painted as a pristine place that shouldn't be touched. I bet people would be willing to alter that image if gas was $.90 a gallon again.

Also, I do not have any proof or evidence that gas would be $.90.

Re:How?

[Afrosheen]

*golf clap*

It's nice to see when someone really gets it. Gasoline, around the globe, isn't a supply and demand-priced commodity. Demand will always be there and as the worldwide population increases, it will only continue to rise. I give it about 20 years before we see a paradigm shift to alternative fuels like hydrogen really take hold. Even then, US corporations will prevent adoption until the last drop of oil is extracted from a previously protected wildlife reserve. NOW is the time that major infrastructure changes should be made, but instead of spending record profits on upgrading infrastructure, it's just going straight into the bank.

  Don't be fooled by what CNN, Fox News, Wall Street Journal or anyone else tells you about the cause of oil prices. There are a hundred excuses at any given time and they are all lies. During Katrina, when we saw a huge spike, it was because Gulf refineries were damaged. Another week and it's trouble in Venezuela or Nigeria. Another week and it's failures in Iraq. None of it has any direct implications for Exxon and friends, because if it did, then they wouldn't be making huge profits...profits would be flat. The opposite is actually true and the current US administration is complacent on letting big oil do their thing.

  However there has to be a limit. The more people spend on fuel, the less disposable income they have for other goods and services or even mortgages. Gas prices simply cannot continue to skyrocket while the economy limps along with GDP increases of 1.5% or less annually. Eventually it will become so expensive that people will trade in their Hummers for a Prius or start taking advantage of public transport (where available).

  I really hate to even think of the US economy and fuel prices because the system is so corrupt there's not much you can do to influence change at this point. Just pray that we get a better administration in 2008.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whilst there have been no entirely new refinieries in 30 years the refinery capacity has been increased by adding extra facilities on the same sites or upgrades, and more of that capacity is used than in the 1970s.

One of the problems this year is that scheduled upgrade work has taken longer than expected (this work is often scheduled years in advance) and has come at a time when a number of refineries are down due to problems, accidents, etc.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that the price of oil is highly subsidized in the US. If we just removed the subsidy, gas prices would skyrocket.

Re:How?

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Just pray that we get a better administration in 2008 If the government is (as I believe and as your post indicates) corrupt from top to bottom then there isn't any administration that could change it.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The environmental restrictions in place make it impossible to build a new refinery, but that doesn't help the environment."

Also in the 1990s gasoline was relatively cheap and the profit margins very slim and so it was not worth building new refineries: you couldn't get the finance for it. After 2000 the capacity at existing refineries has been expanded on the existing sites which is cheaper than entirely new sites. So even if there had been no environmental restrictions on new refineries the financial realities in the 1990s would probably have meant there would still be no new refineries.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't going to see a reason to increase refinery capacity now. They're investing like they expect the bottom to fall out of supply, which is widely predicted to start happening within 3-5 years from now. Supply has plateaued for the last 1-1.5 years, and nobody seems to be able to go beyond current amounts.

The oil companies see this, and invest their windfall profits in preparation for a crash instead of in refinery capacity that will cost them money AND become useless as oil supplies crash.

I care less than two shits about the current gas prices. I ride a 650cc motorcycle almost everywhere, getting 45+ mpg. I'm waiting to see what happens as supply really falls off and I can't realistically afford to keep *that* running.

Re:How?

[bberens]

Yet demand never has gone down. This further illustrates (and debunks) the complete idiocy with which people attempt to apply supply/demand/price explanations to a major global real world market. It may work for apples and oranges in the classroom, it may work for five cent lemonade stands in the streets, but it damn sure doesn't work that simply within a socially stratified society. Actually, when oil prices spiked to $70/barrel in the 1970s global consumption of oil DID decrease as represented in this chart. The price cannot go infinitely high or there will be no demand. The price/demand curve just isn't where we're comfortable with it being. That doesn't discount your theory about sinister minds working the market. It just means that it is unlikely to go on forever.

Re:How?

[TheRaven64]

What's happening to the tax money we're already paying? It's not connected to the amount of petrol you consume. There is no incentive to cut usage if you are paying a flat rate. Worse, a lot of the cost of using petrol isn't even being paid at the moment, it's being deferred. Which would be more likely to make you consume less petrol:

1. Having it cost twice as much at the pump, or
2. Having the cost of the increase added to your other taxes?

If petrol cost the same in the USA as it does in much of the rest of the world (well over $5/gallon), then you would almost certainly see a drop in demand.

Re:How?

[maxume]

There are two things about the ANWR though; there isn't really all that much oil there, and it will still be there in 20 years(or whatever) when drilling technology has advanced.

Wikipedia says that it could supply 5% of U.S. oil for a period somewhere between 15 and 30 years. That's a fantastically huge amount of oil, but not all that much compared to current global consumption:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drillin g_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Top_petrole um-consuming_countries

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the gasoline you buy...Put a tax on gas to foot the bill.

What's happening to the tax money we're already paying?

But the people who are buy the gas don't pay the true price for it. The true price is paid for eventually by all taxpayers, or society in general, sometime later.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

I almost agree with everything you said, except for "Demand-pull inflation to be precise." The idea that inflation can be divided into "Demand-pull inflation" and "cost-push inflation" is Keynesian nonsense. You never have to factor in cost when explaining prices. Basically, you can explain all changes in price by demand increasing or supply decreasing. Cost is irrelevant.

So, you're right that an increase in demand for gas has driven gas prices up. More dollars are being used to bid up gas prices, because of a) SUVs and China, like you said, and b) the supply of dollars is constantly increasing, making each dollar worth less in terms of gas. That's the explanation. No need to resort to Keynesian economics.

Re:How?

[MindStalker]

Good point, infact even if an extremely honest guy wins and becomes President in 2008 (unlikely) the simple fact is the President has very little real power. Most of his actual power is thought the party. If for instance some of the guys running on income tax reform and smaller government won, there is a high liklyhood that all of congress would just ignore him for 8 years and nothing would happen whatsoever. Though a government passing no laws is a good things.

My idea to fix everything, 4/5 vote to pass any new law, 1/3 vote to throw out any old law (has to be the entire voted law, not individual lines). :)
Because realistically the federal government should only be involved in those things that nearly everyone agrees it should be involved in, otherwise leave it up to local

Re:How?

[CaseOfThaMondays]

"race to the next light (even though it is red)" im guilty of this when im in a hurry... and people ask why i do it.

When im in a hurry, YES i do put time over money. AND, the sooner i get to the red light-> the sooner i hit the sensor-> the sooner that light changes to green-> the sooner i get where i am going. so YES, there is reason to speed to the next red light.

im not going to hurry to get to the mall, but i will hurry if im running late to work... late to work = fired from job = no money. or i might hurry to the ER: which seems to be more common now that i have a baby on tha way with a hypochondriac mother. just cause you arent in a hurry doesnt mean im not. i HATE that mentality, especialy when people decide that its THEIR job to regulate the speed of traffic and decide to slow me down. I have actualy been kept from the ER room by some bastard who decided that the mother of my childs throwing up non stop just wasnt something he should take a few seconds and just GET OUT OF MY WAY. people like that are nothing but selfish and rude. and they wear those like bumper stickers with a sense pride.

sorry to rant, but living in Orlando i have to deal with some of the worst driving in the country. yes, there are reasons to speed, even up to a red light. and its not YOUR job to decide if my life events live up to your moral standards to justify my actions. i dont get mad when i see people eat at mcdonalds, or smoke, or many things many people do that raise health care costs. dont get mad if i raise gas costs, especialy when i pay a rediculously high rent to live in a neighborhood that lowers my need to drive. i can walk to my dentist, my grocery store, my Dr, my drug store, and i work from home 2 days a week. so dont act like my driving is raising your prices cause i doubt you do as much as i do to lower gas prices overall. once again, sorry to rant, but dont blame people when you dont know the full story. its NOT your job to judge me.

Re:How?

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Because realistically the federal government should only be involved in those things that nearly everyone agrees it should be involved in, otherwise leave it up to local That was the thought behind the 9th and 10th Amendments which sought to limit the rights and powers of the federal government to a small, and explicit, set of duties and, in doing so, prevent the runaway abuse of government by the established gentry such as they had in England.

We're so far away from that now that nothing short of a revolution of monumental proportions could ever set the record straight.

Re:How?

[Moridin42]

That's one component of the "I'm not buying it". People have been pumping fuel out of the ground for, what, a little over one hundred years? It's been an extraordinarily profitable commodity product since at least the first decade of the 1900s. There is probably enough petroleum product stored up, around the globe, to last us all for at least a year or two. That's more than plenty time to adjust production and refining rates. This is about government protected profiteering.

Except that if we really do have that much petroleum stored up around the globe, its because the people who store it believe it to be more advantageous to store it than release it. They've already allocated their resources in what they believe to be the best way possible. There isn't any motivation for them to drain their stores while we retool the globe's production and refining capacities. Unless you'd be willing to pay them more for gas while we do so. I'm thinking thats probably not what you had in mind.

That's a very astute observation and the Wall Street market fund managers who invest in various segments of the petroleum industry know it every bit as well as you do--and they're leveraging that need, guaranteed because people are (conveniently) in debt (due to systems which the same market fund managers and bankers also happen to conveniently control), against the population using government protected trusts and monopolies (which are in reality but due to some accounting technicality legally aren't).

I can't even begin to comprehend what you're talking about. From what I can tell, somehow Wall Street is forcing people to incur debt and to buy copious quantities of gas. How they manage to do that, I don't know. Here I was under the impression that every cent of debt I'm carrying was incurred voluntarily. Not to mention that every gallon of gas that goes in my car was quite my own decision.. I guess I'm just that strange exception and everybody else has some Wall Street thug strongarming them in their decisions.

Only because the financial game is rigged. In decades past many groups have expressed interest in shoring up our refining capacity and making it redundant. Those moves have been blocked on both the business and the political sides by already existant vested money interests.

That may or may not be the case. I don't look too hard into this segment of legislation. It wouldn't surprise me terribly if the oil companies were pretty supportive of environmental legislation that blocked new capacity by making it excessively expensive. Thats kind of been the history of "protective" legislation in the US. Whatever was trying to be protected is barely better off, if at all, and the businesses that get grandfathered in see their margins increase.

Yet demand never has gone down. This further illustrates (and debunks) the complete idiocy with which people attempt to apply supply/demand/price explanations to a major global real world market. It may work for apples and oranges in the classroom, it may work for five cent lemonade stands in the streets, but it damn sure doesn't work that simply within a socially stratified society.

I see you're thinking demand as going down only when raw quantity demanded shrinks. That isn't the whole of what economics would consider as "down". When prices go up, demand really does go "down". The quantity of gallons consumed may be up this year from last year and 5 years ago. However, if prices now were the same as last year's or 5 years ago the gallons consumed would be even higher now than they currently are. If you wish to use a gradeschooler's understanding, then lots of things don't work they way they should. Kinda how physics says that a 10 lb bowling ball and 10 lbs of feathers will hit the ground at the same time when dropped from the same height. If you actually try, though, the ball hits first. Because physics assumes you make th

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is building new refineries because the oil companies know that production cannot realistically be expanded much; we're at or very close close to global peak production.

Re:How?

[maxume]

I have a ten year old car that I bought used. I pay ~$0.11 per mile for gas *right now*, and in excess of $0.30 to run the car. I can pay a lot more for gas and not have much reason to cry over it. Crazy people that buy $50,000 cars and drive them 15,000 miles a year will bitch and moan and cry at the pump, but they aren't going to cut down on using gas until it costs like $0.50 a mile, which even in a really bad SUV is going to be $7-$8 a gallon.

Re:How?

[SkyDude]

Actually, when oil prices spiked to $70/barrel in the 1970s global consumption of oil DID decrease as represented in this chart.

Ummmm.......oil went nowhere near $70 a barrel in the 1970s. At the beginning of the decade, gasoline was selling for .30 to .40US per gallon. A barrel was around $10. When the first shortages occurred around '73, prices jumped to the amazing level of nearly .50US a gallon. In 1979, when there was another shortage, prices moved towards $1.00US per gallon.

Re:How?

[rapidweather]

Traffic Light controllers.
It seems that there are a lot of times when everyone is stopped at the stop light, from all directions, with no one wanting to use that turn lane that we are all waiting on. One car did, but the traffic light controller is set to expect lots more, but there was only one car, and it turned, and is way down the road, while the rest of us wait. Lots of gasoline being wasted.
I realize that they use a logic board in the traffic light controllers that regulate the Stop and Go lights at intersections. I saw one being serviced, so they do have some reasonably up to date technology here. I'm sure they try to set them up to process the traffic as best as they can.
Perhaps what might be needed, to process the traffic through the intersection better is something more advanced, using additional sensors to tell the controller what traffic is there, and on the way to the intersection. This would save gas, cars get "gas mileage" when moving. Also increase public confidence in the traffic light system. Sure, there are intersections where "everyone turns" as might happen if an interstate on-ramp is near. Perhaps they realize this, and set the controller accordingly.
The volume of traffic is so high in some areas that traffic lights are used to cut the flow into groups, so cross traffic has a chance on the intersections where there is no traffic light. Used to be that traffic lights were used to speed the traffic along a boulevard, where all you had to do was travel along at 40 MPH, for instance, and the various traffic lights along the way would change to "green" as you got to the intersection. If everyone paid attention, and paced themselves, the volume of traffic would be moved along nicely, more or less. Now, all they want to do is slow the traffic, and break it up into groups. So, the system as gone into a defensive mode, protecting the roadways from the great numbers of vehicles, all wanting to use the road at the same time, seemingly 24/7. Current high price of gasoline is not having any effect.

Improved traffic control would cost more tax dollars, something a lot of communities and States are unable to provide. Most of them can barely handle education, health care and crime prevention.

Automated systems where all vehicles are controlled by a central system as to their speed, lane location and destination would be a solution, totally unlike the present day setup where everyone owns their own vehicle, and is completely in control of where it goes, how fast it goes and what lane it travels in.

As far as "gas mileage" is concerned, we have missed a lot of opportunities to design and build electric cars, powered by electricity produced by atomic power plants, which could easily meet the demand for such vast amounts of electricity.

To our credit, however, work is being done on all sorts of alternative energy sources for automobiles, progress being made every day, and needed yesterday.

Re:How?

[Moridin42]

Tell your advisor he can pay for the convenience of having you available to communicate if he needs to. Otherwise you can just get your work done and take your paycheck.

Not that that'll work or go over well. But it would be nice..

Re:How?

[leathered]

lack of MPG targets for manufacturers

Manufacturers are making more efficient engines. However this is being offset by more stringent emission controls and heavier vehicles to comply with safety standards. The new Mini is a perfect example, it takes a 1.6 litre engine to propel the new model no faster than the old 1 litre and with no improvement in economy.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

slightly off-topic...
re: racing to next red light.
  But I don't observe this, I see a few people racing to the next red light, but what is more frustrating is the self-endowed traffic pacers; the ones that say 'hey why don't we pace the distance to the next light, so it's green', but this is really short sighted.

This drives(heh) traffic engineers nuts, the idea is you are 'supposed' to always progress
_at the speed limit_, this allows for designed gaps in the traffic flow, and a definable flow through unlighted intersections, to allow un-lighted traffic to merge and cross into traffic.

*sigh*, if everybody would just drive like I do...

Re:How?

[noidentity]

The difference is that a gasoline tax gives individuals a much bigger incentive to reduce use, and the funding level for gasoline-related government activities is based entirely on gasoline usage, rather than what politicians decide.

Re:How?

[Kohath]

It's not connected to the amount of petrol you consume.

A tax of 38-60 cents per gallon is clearly tied to the amount consumed. (A gallon is 3.78 litres.)

Worse, a lot of the cost of using petrol isn't even being paid at the moment, it's being deferred.

This assertion is unsupported and seems false. I assert the contrary.

If petrol cost the same in the USA as it does in much of the rest of the world...

...that would be bad for the USA. We have our own problems. We don't need to add more problems and make everyone poorer just to have something in common with other places.

Re:How?

[HomelessInLaJolla]

They've already allocated their resources in what they believe to be the best way possible Including using their collective monopoly position to kill funding on alternative energy methods, stifle the formation of competitive providers, and finance politicians who will not threaten their guaranteed profit margins.

As if they have a right to milk the American population for their own personal greed. The Constitution was written by men who were asserting their right to compete rather than be milked.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

The oil companies have been given tremendous support, through tax breaks, utilization of 'public' infrastructure to transport their goods, and passive support through lack of oversight.

Oil has become the foundation of our entire society (unfortunatley), due to aggressive behaviour on the oil companies part by slowing, even halting alternative innovation.

It has become a national security commodity, and the supply to other countries so they can achieve their same levels of profit is BS. We should demand our(USA) needs be satisfied first at a reasonable price, and surplus can be shipped globally for extended profits.

Why do we continue to give these large corporations our full public support and resources and let them fuck us over (sorry for the explicative) at every opportunity they can get? you can hardly blame them, they are playing in a game where they follow the rules; it's like having an unruly kid, you have to lay down clear boundaries right up front...

Re:How?

[iminplaya]

This assertion is unsupported and seems false. I assert the contrary. emphasis mine

So many assertions, so little proof on either side. Well, I assert the contrary to your assertion because the original assertion seems logical. Nyah :-)

Re:How?

[Kohath]

Now if either of you would back up your assertions with facts or something, then we could have a genuine discussion.

Re:How?

[Moridin42]

Again.. You're essentially asserting that people who buy gasoline are being coerced into buying it. Which is quite frankly not the case. Or at least, I find it very hard to believe, given that no one I have ever met or have ever heard of in my entire life has made such a report. Since it is not the case that people are being coerced into buying gasoline, they must be doing so voluntarily. That is to say that buyers value the gasoline they buy at at least the value of the money they fork over to pay for it. How this is milking the American population any more than any other corporation turning a profit, I can't fathom. I guess Honda, Toys R US, Google, Panasonic, and IKEA are milking Americans for their own personal greed too. Oil companies provide something that Americans want. An energy source for their vehicles that allows Americans to get where they want to go in a timely fashion. Anything the oil companies do to stifle alternative fuels, competitive providers (although I'm far more inclined to believe that the massive startup costs are stifling more competitive providers than anything incumbent companies could do), and buying politicians are options only so long as the American masses implicitly allow it. Which the American masses are currently doing. Sure, the general public grumbles about it and media outlets can publish stories. But the prices currently aren't getting the public up in arms. They really aren't demanding that we devote a lot of resources to alternative fuels. Little public outrage makes politicians buyable. Or at the very least, a lot cheaper to be bought.

As an aside, the Constitution was written by men asserting their right to be free from English monarchy. The document says a great deal about how the Federal government should keep its big nose out of its citizen's business and very little about competitive markets.

If you want competitive markets, keep politics out of them. Oil companies may collude, but if they didn't have the weight of federal legislation to keep out new companies or impose large extra costs for opening new facilities or whatever, I can pretty well guarantee you that the lure of increased profits would induce one or more to break a collusion agreement.

Given that no one can keep politics out of markets, politics itself becomes a marketplace. And as I said before, its a market the american public isn't trading in much. There just isn't enough reason yet. Not that that surprises me. After all the price of gas is in the $3-4/gallon range. And yet we're still blowing through $4-5/pint on beer in quite ridiculous quantities. Heck, not only would not going to the bar save us from paying for heavily marked up alcohol, but we'd save the money on gas by not driving. Yet we still do a lot of both. Because its still relatively pretty cheap.

Re:How?

[Charcharodon]

The only reason it costs more than $5 dollars a gallon in other parts of the world is because of the $5 in tax they charge. In the states the tax is typically used for road construction, over here in the UK they certainly aren't spending the money on roads.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're essentially asserting that people who buy gasoline are being coerced into buying it I'm recognizing that the gasoline industry is tied into a complex system involving the greater petroleum industry, the automobile industry, the airline industry, the military industry, the banking industry, the stock market industry, and the influence that all of those industries and their money have on the government.

If you want competitive markets, keep politics out of them But that's not what we have in the US, and the politics are precisely what has allowed this sort of collusion to occur.

Clearly it is you who is taking the oversimplified and naive approach.

Re:How?

[iminplaya]

First, I need something to refute :-) As to my real opinion on the matter I have none. I do not drive a car, and I simply use prices as a base for speculation when making wagers at the bar for free drinks. Your post merely struck me as funny, that's all. If you're interested, I suppose I could make up a theory as to why gas prices are cheaper in the US as opposed to elsewhere as I type a response. But I think it might have to do with the heavy subsidization of the oil industry by the government. This could be accomplished though attractively priced land leases, tax breaks, or outright subsidies for "research", and of course using military force to just go and take what's needed at taxpayer expense(the euphemism, I believe, is called "protecting our interests"), or using the host government for that purpose to assure plausible deniability(Nigeria might be an example of this). It's a very complicated mess that I won't pretend to understand beyond the point of trying to win the bet. And fortunately for me I frequently stagger home with most of my money still in my pocket. I really am not trying to seriously offend you in any way. Please don't take it such.

Feel free to take this, or this with all the necessary sodium you wish. I have no idea what it means, but it may, or may not help make my point. I like Dos Equis Ambar. It doesn't give me such a nasty hangover like Negra Modelo. Which it too bad, because the latter tastes much better.

Re:How?

[HUADPE]

Three words: Adjusted for inflation.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're getting rich in the market, stupid.

Re:How?

[coastwalker]

I believe that the petrol tax in the EU performs two functions. It makes usage more efficient and it subsidizes all other forms of power.

You can speculate why its being done, cutting greenhouse gases or cutting demand to reduce the impact of the up and coming oil wars. Subsidizing other forms of power so that there is the chance that some other infrastructure will be around when oil runs out or the price triples overnight because someone let off a dirty bomb in Saudi. Around the middle of the century either the US or China will have to invade Saudi in any case to kick out the fanatics that will be in power by then. China will be using as much as the rest of the world put together and the supplies from everywhere except Saudi will be running out, so its going to get very messy.

Problems with the oil supply is 99% more likely to make your children's life hell than any other cause, its certain that our generation will be hated for not doing something about it. Never mind global warming or any of the other legacies we will be leaving. High taxes on petrol could be set against lower income tax or purchase tax if you insist on keeping the overall tax burden the same. However you introduce them they are a very good idea.

Re:How?

[certain death]

WOW!! I got TOTAL wood over how many times you said "Petrol" in that post! Can you post again and say it some more? :o)

Re:How?

[njh]

There is no good fix for the sprawl.

I expect rising costs of fuel would help?

Re:How?

[_Sharp'r_]

Gosh! Next you'll be telling me that when the price of something like gas goes up, people respond by purchasing less of it by doing things like telework in order to avoid having to buy it!

People change their habits when prices rise? Next you'll be telling me that the "peak oil" people are full of it and that people won't keep using the same amount of oil products for all the same things until the oil suddenly runs out one day.

Gee, I wish there was some alternative to just running out of gas...

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is happening to the tax you are already paying you ask...

Its being used to build more roads to encourage consumption...so you are not paying the true cost cause those taxes end up in general revenue or to pay for an ad campaign to get you to drive more and pay for more gas...

Re:How?

[arodland]

MPG would be 25% higher if it wasn't for the emissions controls that have been introduced between the 70s and today. We make our engines less efficient at converting energy in order to control what comes out of the tailpipe, and then we try to make them more efficient again -- be glad we've managed to go nowhere. :)

Re:How?

[operagost]

Pure garbage. Average fuel economy was 15 MPG on 1975. Now it's 28. Not as high as it should be, but significantly better.

Re:How?

[drsquare]

Don't we already?

No, you pay a token amount of tax. The amount you pay doesn't come close to the true costs of that oil. Take the costs of the defence budget for the middle east, plus the cost of the environmental damage from the gas being used in America, and divide that by the amount of gas sold in America in gallons, and you have the amount you need to tax gas per gallon. Then oil would pay for itself.

Re:How?

[dragonturtle69]

Finally someone who understands that this is not simply a "supply and demand" equation like the 60 second "news" stories tell us. Oil and gasoline are publicly traded commodities, and their prices are subject to those who buy and sell them long before retail. I was not able to find an online transcript, but during this discussion on C-SPAN, http://fora.tv/fora/showthread.php?t=965, Forbes and Pickens agreed that the speculative trading in oil and gasoline was responsible for the current increase in increase in the price of crude oil and gasoline, not supply and demand. In short, if it were not for traders running up the price, like stock at an IPO of a new "hot" tech company, oil would be around $40-$50 per barrel.

Whether the discussion is about the price of gas and telecommuters or global warming, there are always posts about how we should use mass transit, walk, or bicycle, instead of a using a personal motor vehicle. Now, I absolutely believe that we humans do affect the climate with our machines. The fact that the temperature variation was 2 degrees Fahrenheit greater in the days after Sept. 11 2001, when all civilian and commercial air traffic was grounded, http://www.physorg.com/news8899.html, I think absolutely proves that we do affect the climate.

The price of gasoline, and the voiced changes planned to prevent global warming both impact the same function in our lives, transportation. Whether we move food stuffs, goods, or people, we pay at the pump and with the climate. Would you like to take a bus on vacation, with your schedule dictated by consensus of the other groups on the bus? Have you gone grocery shopping on a bus or train, and if so, with children? Public mass transit places serious limitations on your ability to move from place to place.

I have no idea of the math/efficiency, but how cleanly would we generate electricity, enough to power all of our transportation needs? Would all electric vehicles, even just in the urban areas, be enough of an improvement to offset their inconvenience? Remember, we're thinking globally, not just in the immediate area. Whether coal, oil shale, natural gas, or hydroelectric is used to generate the electricity, it all impacts the environment. The transmission of electricity to the charging stations for each vehicle also has an impact (installation, maintenance, inspection, transmission).

The solution is a source of energy for our machines that is more efficient than electricity. Once again, it will be an egotistical nerd who will come up with the answer.

Re:How?

[Bloke down the pub]

It's not connected to the amount of petrol you consume.

A tax of 38-60 cents per gallon is clearly tied to the amount consumed.

It's clear that he's talking about other taxes, such as income taxes, you stupid prick.

Re:How?

[UncleFluffy]

What's happening to the tax money we're already paying?

From memory - I'd have to go hunting to find the actual papers and I can't be bothered at this time on a Saturday night - gasoline in the US retails for about 17% below its actual cost, where actual cost includes road maintenance, increased healthcare costs, pollution cleanup, oil company subsidies, etc. The tax money we're already paying to drive is less than the externalized cost of driving.

In Europe, it's about 40% above actual cost. The other thing that folks in the US forget is that due to the massive increase in national debt, the dollar has dropped in value. In other words gas hasn't got that much more expensive in "absolute" terms - dollars have become worth less due to US govt policies.

Re:How?

[DjRenigade]

It is all the same...

DEMS and REPS are all in BIG OIL pockets. Otherwise, how would they all run for President,Senator,Congress???

K-Street Helps a whole lot!!!

Re:How?

[DjRenigade]

Oil Shale in Canada and Texas has now become worthy of processing because of the price of crude. They have known about it since the 1930s, but it just wasn't worth the price to process it. NOW IT IS and there are vast supplies of it. Also there was the biggest diamond vein found in Alberta and the DeBeers people are pissed because they don't own it!! My cousin is helping build the new plant in Alberta Canada...

Re:How?

[Angstroem]

Average MPG hasn't changed much since the 70's.

That may be true for the US where the fuel prices were somewhat frozen on that level, hence people still drove their rusty old carburator-based, 6.3l engine, 4400lbs Yank Tanks.

In Germany, for instance, we faced a constant -- tax-driven -- raise of the fuel prices since the late 1980s. When I got my driver's license, I still paid EUR0.45 (DM0.89) per liter. It quickly rose to EUR0.54/0.61/0.77 (DM1.05/1.20/1.50) and was around EUR0.92 (DM1.80) at 1998 when they kicked in the "eco tax", i.e. an auto-increasing tax adding another EUR0.4 (DM0.07) per liter in each of the next 5 years bringing us to EUR1.03 (DM2.01) per liter.

So in 20 years the fuel price was more than doubled just by tax, but we also faced prices around DM1.80/l in the mid-80s when the Dollar exchange rate was around DM3.50... At 2001, the oil price started rising dramatically resulting in a peak price of EUR1.48 per liter. A level, which it right now already has reached again.

Does it matter to me? Not really. In 1989 I had a car which made about 400km out of the 50l. Now I'm driving a car that makes about 1000km out of the same amount. And no, this is not latest state-of-the-art technology but a car which is already 9 years old.

The US could have done the same. Instead, you are still obsessed with trucks and minivans, 5.7l hemi-powered engines, etc. And no, with modern car mechanics it doesn't really matter whether you have a 1.4l engine or a 3l engine, in case you want to kick in the high mileage of the average US driver.

Re:How?

[jez9999]

I really hate to even think of the US economy and fuel prices because the system is so corrupt there's not much you can do to influence change at this point. Just pray that we get a better administration in 2008.

Given how much Bush speaks to God, it looks like he may have corrupted Him as well... might not do you much good.

Re:How?

[shalmaneser1]

i'm sure it's no problem to bring down a refinery or two for "repairs" occasionally, as a way to reduce available supply

doing so simultaneously lowers costs and raise prices.

electric companies did just that to california during its energy crisis.

in a similar vein i'm sure it's also easy for companies to complain about how hard it is to build new refineries, thus saving themselves of the expense, and again, limiting supply.

it requires a little collusion between the handful of companies -- but since it's in their collective self interest it's really not that hard to believe.

Re:How?

[db32]

And the unfortunate reality sets in. So many years of the left and right wings convincing people they need government protection from this that or the other. The documents say "if it ain't in here, the government can't do it". That didn't stop them from legislating on education, on health care, on income tax, on corporate benefits, and any number of other things that the government should have stayed the hell out of. Now we have this monumental monolithic waste of money that does little more than sell new laws to the highest bidder. With an ever increasingly complex legal system that feeds this notion that our "Intellectual Property" and lawyers are more important than our actual ability to actually produce things and our workers.

In the meantime I think I will call up TIPS and see if they are still paying for terrorist tips, revolution of monumental proportions sounds pretty bad... I bet you are a radical jihadist who hates America because we are free with lines like that! *cough*

Oh and God told Adam he couldn't smoke marijuana. Right after that moron got us kicked out of paradise for believing his idiot girlfriend talked to a snake about the fruit she brought back. "Woman! None of the other damned snakes here talk, what the hell is wrong with you listening to a talking snake!" would have been the right answer not "Wow, the talking snake really said it was ok?" And God spoketh "You have had enough, get the hell out"

Re:How?

[sjames]

Don't we already? [pay the true cost of energy]

Not even close. All that craziness in the Middle East over the past decades is part of the true cost of oil. Where do you think the various crazies with their modern weapons got the cash?

All those tax dollars that go to cleaning up after oil spills is also part of the real cost of gas.

Some portion of medical expenses is part of the cost. Many people don't realize it because they're in it 24/7, but city/metro areas smell FUNKY all the time. The stuff that smells funky is not good for you.

I would really like to quit spending my tax money to subsidize the nuts who think they have to drive their Hummer to the mailbox. Let THEM pay the rather large costs of constant military intervention over there. The way to do that is to tax fuel and roll back income taxes proportionally. Do that and consumer demand will cause auto makers to improve mileage without any government mandates at all.

I have seen estimates of the REAL cost per gallon as high as $12 once health effects, pollution damage, military interventions, regulatory overhead, etc are all accounted for.

Put in economic terms, much of the costs of oil have been externalized. By internalizing them, we can cause better economic decisions to be made.

What's happening to the tax money we're already paying?

The Shrub is transferring it to his buddies at Haliburton as fast as he can. Unfortunatly he can only move it so fast, so he's had to resort to flushing some of it down the toilet.

The big dirty secret is that by the time we total up income tax, sales tax, property tax, and a zillion other nickle and dime taxes, we in the U.S. don't actually pay much lass than the average European or Canadian. It's just that in return, we get stuff blown up in the Middle East and the others get healthcare.

Re:How?

[will_die]

The Wiki numbers were written by people agaist the drilling and are a very low guess based on 35 year old technology. Just checking the wiki entry again they have the Department of Interior numbers, which are usally deleted, but scientists who stuff that stuff most consider that a low number. Then you have the guess from the people who will be investing thier money and thoses are alot higher, and when they do show up in wiki are quickly deleted.
If you want the exact number they are unknown.
That is part of the problem, the laws that were being discussed for drill are initially to allow test drilling. This would give us a exact number and from there it could be considered if drilling would be worthwhile. Any drilling that would take place is still many years in the future because there is no delivery method available. Until there is a pipeline to get oil from the wells to a port there is no value in doing the drilling and until they are allowed to do some test drilling to measure how much oil is actually there is not going to be any money available to do distribution system.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

in the UK it is almost $7 USD / gallon

unfortunately we are not talking natural market rate supply and demand - but tax revenue optimisation

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong cock master. It is basic supply and demand. Demand has been increasing, supply hasn't kept up. It's economics 101, but you're a liberal, so I wouldn't expect you to have a basic command of economics.

Re:How?

[ShadowsHawk]

Hmmm. Rent a shit hole apartment downtown for $1500 per month or own a nice 3-4 bedroom house that I'll own for $1500 a month. Some people don't enjoy living the yuppie life style.

Re:How?

[MyLongNickName]

Fine. Make the choices you want to make. It is a free country.

However, you should have to pay the cost of your decisions and I should pay the cost of mine. With gasoline being subsidized and the indirect costs divided arbitrarily, we don't pay true costs. Some pay more, some pay less. The result is an sub-optimal system and the mess we are in today.

Re:How?

[djcondor]

Demand will always be there and as the worldwide population increases, it will only continue to rise. it will become so expensive that people will trade in their Hummers for a Prius or start taking advantage of public transport (where available). As you so adeptly point out, yes, demand will always be there, but quantity demanded is not by any means constant. If the quantity demanded remains constant as the quantity supplied decreases, the price increases, as consumers compete with each other to purchase a commodity. If supply is constant, but demand increases, the equilibrium price increases, for the same reason. but instead of spending record profits on upgrading infrastructure, it's just going straight into the bank. Of course. It's not in the company's best interest to invest in technologies that will make their current business model obsolete. There are a hundred excuses at any given time and they are all lies. During Katrina, when we saw a huge spike, it was because Gulf refineries were damaged. Another week and it's trouble in Venezuela or Nigeria. Another week and it's failures in Iraq. It's simple really. They increase the price because it makes them more money to do so. If they increase the price of gasoline by 10% (say from $100 to $110 units, just to make it easy) and the quantity purchased only decreases by 1% (from 100 units to 99 units), then the company makes more money than they would have if they had not changed the price. (110 * 99 = 10890 as opposed to 100 * 100 = 10000) So ultimately, why does the price go up, because on balance, we, the consumers, are still willing to pay it. I really hate to even think of the US economy and fuel prices because the system is so corrupt there's not much you can do to influence change at this point. Just pray that we get a better administration in 2008. An otherwise well formed post capped off by utter nonsense. This is market economics here. You blame the current administration for what?? Not regulating the free market?? More economic problems than I can count have been the direct result of government interference in free markets. If you want to blame Bush for high gas prices, do so at your own peril, because I'm keen to point out that we just this week equalled the inflation-adjusted gasoline price from the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency -- who for the uninformed, was of the opposite political party of the current administration. The reality is that as long as we're willing to pay $3.50/gallon, we can't blame oil companies for being willing to charge it.

Re:How?

[Moridin42]

What you are failing to recognize is that there are no industries without consumers. The fact that the government is not forcing you nor me to buy gasoline, cars, or airline tickets means that such purchases are voluntary. Whatever the price that gets paid for them is voluntary. No one is getting "milked" because buyers wanted whatever they bought and valued it at least as much as the money they paid for it.

But that's not what we have in the US, and the politics are precisely what has allowed this sort of collusion to occur.

Clearly it is you who is taking the oversimplified and naive approach.

And clearly you didn't bother to read past the first sentence of that paragraph. Because, as I went on to say, when politics can't be removed from the marketplace, politics becomes a marketplace. And its one where consumers aren't bothering to go. Because gasoline is comparably cheap and they just can't be bothered.

Re:How?

[iminplaya]

See? I throw out some possible reasons that costs are deferred, and you up and disappeared on me. Was a discussion not really what you were interested in? Drive by posting is just no fun. C'mon now. I gave you something to refute.

Rapidly growing teleworkers.

[Harmonious Botch]

TFA says"teleworkers are growing rapidly as a direct result of the cost of driving."
Yep, now I never have to leave my Mom's basement except for trips to 7-11 to restock the fridge.

Ohhh! You meant the number of teleworkers?? Oops. Never mind.

In other news ,

[zygwin]

Software piracy has increased by 2.9 % ;)

It's very simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its chairman noted that gasoline prices have soared well above $3 a gallon and asked, 'How did we get into this mess?'"

You got into this mess because the mileage of the average vehicle in the USA is its lowest point in 20 years.

It is low because many congresses & presidents (both republican & democrat) refused to increase the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy standards) for more than twenty years.

Further, the popularity of SUVs exploded, and since SUVs are "trucks" they have far lower standards (fuel economy & safety) than "cars".

Then, on the supply side, how many new gas refineries opened in the last 20 years?

How many cities have viable public transit?

It's not rocket science.

Re:It's very simple...

[HangingChad]

It's not rocket science.

I was at the store this week and there was a huge ass pickup truck, towing a boat with a 4 wheeler in the bed of the pickup. Almost everyone around here drives a pickup or some giant SUV because they "need" a vehicle that big to tow their boat, camper, 4 wheeler, motorcycles or whatever. They'll drive a vehicle that gets 9 miles to a gallon all the time so they can get 5 mpg towing their boat to the lake and burning gas all day water skiing once or twice a month during the summer. It usually will have an American flag or support the troops magnet stuck on it somewhere.

The first thing we have to do is spend time and money educating people. I know that sounds horribly basic, but we want to start highlighting the connection between big vehicles and dependence on foreign oil. We need to do that before we start jacking the cost of owning and driving a gas pig. Then raise that cost in a way independent of gas prices. Because gas will drop and people will start consuming more all over again, just like the 80's. And we need better mass transportation options that don't exist right now.

I live on a farm...okay, a hobby farm...and understand what it is to need a big utility vehicle. I don't have one...yet...but there are really times when I could use one. Not to haul my camper or boat, but to haul fence supplies, gravel, dirt, trees, bags of concrete and...stuff you need out in the country. Moving things, hauling things. What would be perfect for me is if there was some place I could go and rent a pickup truck easily. Not like U-Haul (our only option here) endless paperwork, leave your first born...some place you could swipe a card and drive away. Do your business and take it back, all without reservations, fingerprinting, or a cavity search. ZipTrucks instead of a ZipCar.

Education and options. It's not sexy, it's not fast but it's a start.

Re:It's very simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

What would be perfect for me is if there was some place I could go and rent a pickup truck easily

Would it be possible to find a car with sufficient ground clearance and team that up with a trailer and get sufficient torque? In many ways a trailer might be superior to a pickup as you can get trailers with beds that are lower than a pickup which might make loading/unloading easier, you can hose them down if they are dirty, and some come with sides that can be dropped on all four sides to ease loading/unloading further.

Farmers have more right to an SUV or pickup than most, but I do think that for many who think they need an SUV or pickup now might find that a trailer is actually better, due to the ease of loading/unloading, than an SUV or pickup, let alone the gasoline saving.

Make it meaningful

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Is there any way to correlate teleworkers with productive companies? I'd be okay with telecommuting but not if I know that the company, along with twenty others, is just a front for a fund manager to pad the performance of his assets.

I guess if you're a telecommuter who's being paid fat and happy you're not much worried that the money funding your salary is, at the other end, sucking the retirement funds of a thousand blue collar line workers dry.

Re:Make it meaningful

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldnt care about the retirement funds of a thousand blue collar workers if i was wiping my ass with them and burning them to warm my house. if they are to stupid to put their funds in a moneymaking place they are to stupid for my pity.

I've been riding my bike

[geek]

I always preferred walking or riding but the gas prices are what finally drove me over the edge. I live in CA and it's pushing 4$ a gallon right now, in some places it's gone over 4. So I just ride my bike, everything I need is in riding distance. If I do have to go further I have my car, which is a rather fuel efficient Saturn. I think I've put all of 60$ in the tank this year total. To me that's how it should be.

I blame a lot of the fuel efficiency problems on city planers. The layouts of our cities are really bad for fuel economy, especially place like San Francisco and Los Angeles. California also suffers badly from a lack of a good public transit system. We have buses but it's not good enough.

Part of the problem is also social. People want their big tanks (Hummer, Suburban etc) because they feel safe in them. For whatever reason people equate size with safety even though it's not the actual case.

Re:I've been riding my bike

[catbutt]

Can you back up the statement that size does not correllate with safety? True, big vehicles are dangerous to *others*, but we're talking your own safety.

In my opinion, it's a bit of an arms race. People are less safe in small cars because of all the large cars.

(and btw, don't think I'm defending SUV drivers. I drive an old Vespa as well as a bicycle here in San Francisco, so I'm no fan of SUVs )

Re:I've been riding my bike

[Silver Sloth]

The drivers of small cars, like us cylists, are far, far more road aware. The divers of large tank like cars feel safe in their boxes and don't feel they have to worry so much. Hence the drivers of small cars drive better and are safer.

Re:I've been riding my bike

[catbutt]

That's bizarre logic. You are suggesting that the only reason people in smaller vehicles are safer is because they are actually in more danger , and therefore they compensate (through their behavior) more than the actual danger?

Why would they compensate more than the amount of increased danger?

Re:I've been riding my bike

[CheeseTroll]

It isn't so much the size that makes SUVs less safe, but their high center of gravity, which makes them more prone to rollovers. In the winter, we see SUVs flipped over in the ditch all the time. They'll hit a slippery patch, their tires will catch on a ridge on the side of the road, and away they go.

I think they should create a NASCAR-like race using SUVs. Then people would really see the difference in handling between them and a low-slung car.

Re:I've been riding my bike

[Dr_Barnowl]

They're only really in more danger because of the SUVs...

The SUV carries a great deal more mass, which makes collisions with it more energetic. Now, the SUV can expend some of that mass as extra "armor", which makes them safer for their occupants.

If everyone drove the modern day equivalent of the bubble car, with modern materials they'd be very safe - and the pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, etc, would be much safer too. Oh, and they'd save craploads of gas. Of course, this is impractical for everyone - but I'm sure that most SUV drivers could stand to lose the majority of their cargo space and most of their passenger seats. Even if you had an SUV for utility purposes, you could probably buy a small commuter vehicle for the money you'd save on gas not driving it every day....

Re:I've been riding my bike

[jedrek]

Can you back up the statement that size does not correllate with safety?

There's this article about how unsafe SUVs are for their occupants and there was a whole thing about how much better it is to be in an accident in a (tiny, by American standards) BMW Mini vs a huge Ford F-150.

Pure size does not equal safety the same way that raw megahertz don't equal performance.

Re:I've been riding my bike

[jcnnghm]

The problem is, this isn't practical for most of the country. I'll use myself as an example. Right now, I live 12 miles from work. I live in Maryland, so the weather is only acceptable for biking about three months a year, and even then, only when it is sunny. Once the temperature drops below about 60 degrees, it burns my lungs and I can't bike as far.

I'm in pretty good shape, I can knock out the 12 miles during rush hour in about 45 minutes. It actually takes longer to drive in. The way in is mostly uphill, and the way back is mostly downhill. I seriously doubt the average American could bike 12 miles mostly uphill. Given that, I try to bike in during the summer months, primarily for the exercise (and because ethanol prices are killing my SUV, shut up, you can't pull a boat with a prius).

The primary reason this isn't practical is because of the exertion required. Go to a gym, and bike for 45 minutes at 17 miles an hour or so, then see how you look and smell. You want to sit in your cubicle all day in that condition? Fortunately, I belong to the gym right next door to the office, so I stop in there in the morning to shower. The other big problem is the weather. Unexpected thunderstorms are not entirely uncommon, and biking, or waiting out a downpour, isn't my idea of a good time. Additionally, I have suffered equipment failure multiple times. For example, last summer I popped a tire about 6 miles in, my cell battery died when I tried to make a call, so I got stuck carrying my bike six miles in to work, in 85-90 degree heat, not fun.

In short, assuming that large portions of the country could forgo vehicles for either public transportation, or human powered transportation is very short sighted. Every circumstance is different.

I'll throw this in as well. I ran into some Europeans in a bar in New York a few years ago. They were on vacation, had rented a car, and planned to drive to Chicago. They expected the drive to take about 4 hours. I think that, on occasion, Europeans neglect that the United States and Europe are very different.

Re:I've been riding my bike

[hankwang]

True, big vehicles are dangerous to *others*, but we're talking your own safety.

Look at How the S.U.V. ran over automotive safety. About halfway the page there is a table with fatal-accident statistics for various car models, specified for both driver deaths and other deaths. SUVs and pick-ups score pretty bad on both counts, by about a factor two compared to smaller cars. The cause is in how bad they perform in emergency manoeuvers that sometimes are necessary to avoid a crash.

Re:I've been riding my bike

[Waffle Iron]

I think they should create a NASCAR-like race using SUVs.

They already have NASCAR races for pickup trucks. However, these "trucks" have no more relation to real-world vehicles than their "stock" sedans do (i.e., none at all). I'm sure that if NASCAR had SUVs, they would handle just great on an oval track. They would basically just be a different looking fiberglass shell on top of the same race car chassis that they use currently.

Re:I've been riding my bike

[Gordonjcp]

They're only really in more danger because of the SUVs...

Actually, the SUV is the least safe vehicle to be in. If a typical American SUV hits a typical European small car, the SUV is totalled, and the occupants almost certainly killed. One of the reasons you don't see American SUVs on the road much in Europe is because they cannot be modified to pass EU safety regulations. For instance, the suspension components just aren't strong enough - in the EU they must be cast, or seam welded if they're formed from pressed steel. In the US, manufacturers can get away with a couple of spot welds which just take the weight of the vehicle with little margin for safety. Crumple zones? Forget it! As soon as something hits the front of an SUV, the engine is pushed back crushing the legs of the people in the front. As an added bonus, the propshaft from the antiquated rear-wheel drive system can burst up through the floor and flail around wildly, turning the rapidly-disintegrating SUV into a giant wheeled meat grinder.

In the UK, imported American cars cost at least 10 times as much to insure, and often have heavy restrictions placed on usage. It's all down to safety...

Re:I've been riding my bike

[maxume]

I'm in decent shape. I could probably do the 12 miles in 45 minutes. In winter of 2005, I regularly ran 3 or 4 miles in 10 degree Fahrenheit weather, dressed in a sweatshirt/sweatpants. I didn't last year because it makes my hands get really, really dry.

I'm not trying to make any ridiculous claims about what you should be able to do based on that, but 60 seems pretty high for discomfort from the cold(or I guess, maybe the dry).

Re:I've been riding my bike

[haraldm]

California also suffers badly from a lack of a good public transit system. We have buses but it's not good enough.

You could ask this Austrian governor actor of yours to dump the recent death chamber project and throw the money at more reasonable projects. Just a guess.

For whatever reason people equate size with safety even though it's not the actual case.

Sure is — if the neighbor has a Hummer as well.

Re:I've been riding my bike

[mvdwege]

Try riding a motorbike to see just how unbizarre that logic is.

About the first thing you get drilled in your head during driving lessons here (.nl) is: assume no-one will see you and ride as if you are about to be overrun. Strangely enough, aside from the testosterone-overdosing idiots on fast sportbikes they can't handle that make up the majority of single-party accident fatalities, this actually appears to work.

On the other hand, between two thirds and three quarters of the multi-party accidents are due to cars overlooking the motorcycle, so even a heightened awareness of the risk you're running doesn't always save you.

On the gripping hand, the motorbike riders that survive are the ones that, like me, can see an accident prone situation coming up from a distance and adjust accordingly. Things like not staying beside cars in a merge lane, but speeding up or slowing down so that they merge behind or in front, instead of sideswiping you. I still need my horn more than I would like, but at least I usually see the fuckwittery coming in advance, and if I don't, I keep enough safety margin to get myself out of a hairy situation.

But my personal experience with other participants in traffic is that the gross majority is just plain incapable of judging risks to themselves or others correctly. When filtering through a jam (legal here), I seldom get cut off on purpose, but I am constantly amazed at the people that apparently don't notice me until I am almost beside them, usually followed by them hastily moving aside, in a quick panicky fashion, creating more room than I actually need (on my little Guzzi V50 Monza I take up about 1.25m, the gap between lanes is well over 1.5m, usually closer to 3m) Conclusion: they are not watching their mirrors, their situational awareness sucks. And there is some evidence (Smeed's Law) that the more a car is apparently safe to the driver, the more their situational awareness suffers. Anecdotal evidence: the most egregious fuckwits in .nl drive BMW X-series SUVs.

Mart

Re:I've been riding my bike

[jawtheshark]

Then why do I see Hummers H2 over here? I don't even understand who would like to drive them. And yes, I live in Europe. The EU to be a bit more precise.

Re:I've been riding my bike

[MtViewGuy]

However, combining bike riding with other forms of public transportation can be quite unpleasant.

The reason is simple: non-folding bikes tend to take up a lot of space inside a bus/trolley/train, and some public transport systems actually ban conventional bike riders during commute hours (e.g., BART in the San Francisco Bay Area). This is why folding bicycles sell quite well, since a folded bicycle takes up vastly less space than a conventional bicycle, which means you're not at the mercy of limited bike racks on the bus/trolley/train.

Re:I've been riding my bike

[Gordonjcp]

Then why do I see Hummers H2 over here?

You see them over here because they do (just) meet the safety requirements. You don't want to know what happens if they get hit by a modern European car though.

Re:I've been riding my bike

[toddestan]

I thought the Hummer H2 didn't even meet the safety requirements in the US for a passenger vehicle (for example, the H2's roof with an intact windsheild cannot support the vehicle's weight and will crumple). The reason why they can still sell H2's in the US is that the vehicle is so large and heavy it's not actually classed as a passenger vehicle.

Re:I've been riding my bike

[toddestan]

Well, the Nascar trucks seem to be little more than the same stock cars with a different fiber glass shell. What would really need to happen is the Nascar SUVs would have to have a certain weight, tire size, and ground clearance. That way we can assure that they will flip more often.

Re:I've been riding my bike

[wesborgmandvm]

For whatever reason people equate size with safety even though it's not the actual case.

Wrong, Source: http://www.iihs.org/brochures/pdf/sfsc.pdf

"CRASH WORTHINESS The first crashworthiness attributes to consider are vehicle size and weight. Small, light vehicles generally offer less protection than larger, heavier ones. There's less structure to absorb crash energy, so deaths and injuries are more likely to occur in both single- and multiple-vehicle crashes. So if safety is one of your major considerations PASS UP VERY SMALL, LIGHT VEHICLES.

This doesn't mean you have to buy the heaviest vehicle you can find. It wouldn't necessarily be safer because those weighing morethan about 4,500 pounds afford only small injury risk reductions. Meanwhile they increase the injury risks for people in the other vehicles with which they collide. While the risk of death generally is higher in lighter cars, SUVs, and pickups than in heavier ones, size and weight don't tell the whole story. Some light car models, for example, are safer than others. Some midweight SUVs are safer than others. And so on. This is because some models have more crashworthy designs.

You can't tell this by looking at the vehicles. You need crash test results to make comparisons.

BIGGER GENERALLY IS SAFER"

Re:I've been riding my bike

[Gordonjcp]

Possibly. I really don't know what the deal is. I *have*, however, seen a Hummer H2 smashed to pieces in a crash with a Renault Megane, which hit it side on and basically tore the H2 apart. The front seat occupants of the Megane had minor leg injuries - the three people in the H2 were literally bloody mush.

Re:I've been riding my bike

[Anonymous Coward]

...So I just ride my bike...

...People want their big tanks (Hummer, Suburban etc) because they feel safe in them. For whatever reason people equate size with safety even though it's not the actual case. I'll be happy to drive your ass down :)

Congress!

[MBCook]

How did we get into this mess?

Congress!

Let's see what congress HASN'T done...

• Made it easier to construct refineries to avoid the problems right after Katrina
• Allow drilling in ANOIR
• Allow drilling off the continental shelf in the gulf
• Set federal gasoline standards so gas could be used anywhere, instead of each state requiring different blends and ruining some of the economy of scale we could have
• Raise CAFE standards more than once ever 20 years, and then only by like 3 gallons. Every car should be getting 30+ at this point, every truck/SUV 20. We can do it.
• Use Iraqi oil for reconstruction and running our equipment. In a rush to avoid looking like the war (which I support) was for oil (which everyone thought anyway) we've wasted tons of money and oil that could be shipped to the US, the savings put towards gas tax reductions or rebates, etc.
• Working to make diesel more common here now that we have relatively clean and efficient diesels. Europe has them. We should too.

What, exactly HAS congress done to lower gas prices? Ethanol subsidies? Hydrogen research? Those haven't done much, have they? I remember 7 years ago when I saw a station out of town with gas for 99 cents a gallon. I'd be very surprised to find a station right now in my area at triple that. Ok, I know, they passed tax rebates when you buy a hybrid. But they passed them when hybrids were very hard to get and the expire this year as hybrids are getting easier to get. Oops.

Re:Congress!

[UbuntuDupe]

You forgot what they could have done regarding expanded use of nuclear power, similar to how John Kerry forgot to mention Poland as part of the initial coalition when speaking about the Iraq War in the 2004 presidential debates.

Re:Congress!

[Anonymous Coward]

By ANOIR I assume you mean ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Re:Congress!

[Dachannien]

That's ANWR, not "ANOIR".

The big problem this summer is refining capacity. We've already seen the spike in oil prices into the $60/bbl range caused by increased Chinese demand for oil, and that hasn't really budged a whole lot since last year. Oil inventories have been good since then. The reason prices are so high right now is because of gasoline supply concerns, i.e., post-refining, and while I'm in favor of expanding drilling operations into both the eastern Gulf of Mexico and ANWR to offset worldwide demand increases (and thereby obtain price relief from increases over the last couple of years), this year's gasoline increases have nothing to do with that.

There were already a number of scheduled refinery maintenance shutdowns, and then BP had a major refinery go down for "unscheduled maintenance". Personally, I'm a bit suspicious of any unscheduled refinery maintenance. One of Enron's tactics to manipulate the electricity market was to create artificial shortages by calling up power plants and asking them to shut down temporarily. Hopefully, that's what Congressional hearings will be looking into. If there are no shenanigans going on at that level, then really there's nothing punitive they can do about it. What you're seeing is simple supply and demand combined with smart moves by speculators who bought gasoline low and are now selling it high. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some gasoline retailers are buying a small portion of their supply at higher-than-retail just to keep their gas stations in stock.

Refiners are stuck with expanding current operations, which is generally limited to technology updates and expanding into whatever surrounding land they have available. Unfortunately, it's late enough in the game now that refiners are going to resist the urge to build new large-scale refining capacity even if they could get a license to, because ethanol is starting to gear up, and by the time the refiners could actually get a new plant built (including the years upon years of environmental impact studies), the demand for gasoline will already be dropping in favor of alternative fuels (probably increased ethanol-gasoline blends, but that's still less gasoline being needed).

Re:Congress!

[mbkennel]

Regarding above points:

Industry also had little incentive or desire to build refineries. And it's
better to use less gasoline as well. And refineries have had capacity
expansion equivalent to 10 new refineries.

There are some annoying problems with clean air standards raising prices,
but one of the principal ones comes from Federal political interference.

In California, the refiners are FORCED, against their desire, to use
ethanol imported expensively (and not compatible with cheap pipelines)
from politically powerful but sparsely populated farming states.

This despite the fact that they could meet even the strictest Los Angeles
emissions standards for fuel without ethanol---and give better fuel efficiency
to drivers.

Naturally this raises prices artificially---more than letting CA figure out
its own means to meet the air standards. CA isn't so insignificant (30 million+ people?)
that a robust market isn't possible on its own.

More oil exploration in Alaska and Gulf (which is actually already heavily explored) will
make oil companies locally a lot of money but overall be insignificant. Really, look at
the numbers of the hypothetical (optimistic guesstimate) oil available and compare to
global consumption.

At best, Alaska is our ultimate Strategic Petroleum Reserve and we should reserve it
for when the crap really hits the fan---which it will in 20 years when the terminal
downslopes of all major oil reserves really get cranking past the peak.

And again, since oil is a world tradable commodity for lowering prices all
that is necessary for Iraq is to just get its oil out on the world market.

If the US decided to confiscate the oil for its own profits you can bet
that the attacks on the oil pipelines would be far worse than even now.
No Iraqi local would have a stake in keeping the oil going.

I agree that efficiency standards ought to be raised. I prefer a fee-bate
instead of CAFE standards: tax low efficiency vehicles (without normalizing
by mass!) and rebate that to efficient vehicles. Make it substantial (e.g. $3000
on a normal Civic, $5000+ on a Prius-level efficiency) and relative
to the fleet sold every year, not an absolute threshold.

Then automatically you get a push to increase fleet efficiency every year
without additional legislation, and the vehicle choice is subject to market
forces not direction.

This is better than a high gasoline tax, because people have power of choice
when they buy cars, so it's not just punishing them for choices made
years ago.

Re:Congress!

[fermion]

At some point, one has to take responsibility for one's own actions, and responsibility for one's own life. Not only that, but in times of long conflict, when our soldiers are dying on foriegn soil, it is often traditional to support those troops by making sacrifices, rather than complaining that one can't have honey and ice cream every day.

So here we are with a very predictable rise in gasoline. Do people take responsiblity for thier choices? No they complain that the government is not giving handouts. Our troops required a billion dollars a week for supplies, do we say what can we do to cut back and help, or do we just slap a sticker on out SUV and live life as normal?

By the late 80's it was well known that oil dependence was a security risk. It was also known that even though new wells might be found, they would neither be as cheap to exploit nor as secure. Forward thinking people knew that oil was a limited resource and if we did not want to pay excalating prices for that resource, prices that would be predicted by the standard capitalistic supply and demand curve, we would have to move to another supply of energy. The myth that we have not known for 20 years that oil was a non renewable and limited resource is up there with the myth that everyone is Chis Columbus' day thought the world was flat. To be clear we did not know when the oil would peak, 2000, 2010, 2020, but we knew it was coming, and research lead and design to manufacture time required that action was needed.

But the issue we have now is only partially caused by the 'high' price, and to get back on topic, the issues seems to be that despite the 'high' prices few people are cutting back on fuel use through, for example, telecommuting. Surprisingly, though the price peaked a year or so ago, The price/demand curve has only recently peaked, and there is no evidence that price is going to reduce demand as predicted by the standard capitalist models. Therefore, nothing that the government does to increase supply or decrease demand is unlikely to have a long term negative force on the price rise. It is clear by the price/demand curve that the consumer just does not seem to care about the price. Only about driving as much as they wish.

In fact, if we want a quick fix, the best way is to use a modified Nixon era type of price control. Let consumers purchase 10 gallons of gas each week at $2, and anything over at market rate. This will allow us to have cheap gas, and allow consumers to buy as much fuel as they wish.

Re:Congress!

[hyfe]

What, exactly HAS congress done to lower gas prices?

Wow, your rant has so many implied assumptions that sound utterly inane to me it's crazy. On the top of my head:

High gas prices is a problem why? What happended to supply and demand? What happended to letting society shape itself around its problem?

Even given the silly premise that high gas prices are evil, why on earth should congress to anything about it? I'm reasonably sure low gas prices was left out of the consitution for a reason.

And, what on earth led you to believe that single-car commuting was a good idea in the first place? Now, a lot of you are pretty screwed anyways, due to utterly insane zoning laws but that still can be changed. If mohammed can't come to the mountain...

Re:Congress!

[garcia]

There were already a number of scheduled refinery maintenance shutdowns, and then BP had a major refinery go down for "unscheduled maintenance". Personally, I'm a bit suspicious of any unscheduled refinery maintenance. One of Enron's tactics to manipulate the electricity market was to create artificial shortages by calling up power plants and asking them to shut down temporarily.

Or it could be because of the Texas City Refinery Explosion that killed 15 people (and cost them millions) and the fact that they don't want that shit to happen again.

Re:Congress!

[notamisfit]

Adjusted for inflation, gas prices actually aren't all that bad. They were artificially low for most of the '90s, and they look absolutely shitty by comparison now. Realistically, any attempt to 'fix' gas prices is just going to cause shortage in the long run. The price we pay for gas now is a premium that ensures the gas will be available.

Re:Congress!

[maxume]

My understanding is that there isn't a great deal of capital investment going into developing reserves that will cost more than ~$30 a barrel to extract; so most of our current oil supply comes from reserves that cost much less than that to extract from. It will be a long time until there isn't any oil, and when you consider that lots of 'alternatives' are viable when oil is ~$80 a barrel, the problem becomes much less worrisome.

Re:Congress!

[Anonymous Coward]

the texas city BP refinery explosion happened in 2005.

The unscheduled maintenances are a result of the refiners taking steps to increase production by cutting corners at the expense of safety. They're just following the supply/demand curve -- trying to take advantage of the high pricing for gasoline, but unfortnately affecting the supply curve when accidents happen.

Re:Congress!

[SonicSpike]

The US Constitution (Article I, Section 8) does not authorize Congress to:
-Regulate the oil market
-Set refinery standards
-Regulate fuel economy
-Dictate how automobiles are to be constructed

Re:Congress!

[Anonymous Coward]

If there are no shenanigans going on at that level, then really there's nothing punitive they can do about it.

Not punitive, but Congress could help the situation by getting rid of the fucking "boutique" fuels.

There's no reason why every county in the US needs it's own unique blend of gasoline.

Re:Congress!

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

The problem is actually our inflation driven economy. Companies like exxon are better off investing profits in the stock market than making capital investment (new refineries). They have stockholder obligation to do so.

Re:Congress!

[lightversusdark]

Similar how?
What does Poland in Iraq have to do with nuclear power in the U.S.?
Not trolling, I genuinely do not get the link. (I'm not an American, if that explains my ignorance).

Re:Congress!

[UbuntuDupe]

I was comparing a) how the original poster forgot to mention nuclear, to b) how John Kerry forgot to mention Poland.

There's (surprisingly) a Wikipedia article about it now.

I know, it's a tenuous comparison.

We were warned.

[oddaddresstrap]

How did we get into this mess?
We were given a whack in the head about thirty years ago. We got up, dusted ourselves off and carried on as if nothing had happened.

Re:We were warned.

[Harmonious Botch]

For those who don't study history or are too young to remember ( a union which is probably 90+% of slashdot ), parent is presumably referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

Re:We were warned.

[Anonymous Coward]

We were given a whack in the head about thirty years ago. We got up, dusted ourselves off and carried on as if nothing had happened.

Nothing? I think you've been smoking too much pot the last thirty years. Do you remember the 1970s?

I remember gas lines. I remember dramatic action to improve energy efficiency. I remember consumers choosing fuel-efficient Japanese cars instead of hulking gas-guzzlers from Detroit. I remember Detroit complaining that they couldn't compete against the Japanese. I remember when the average fuel efficiency of automobiles went UP every year instead of DOWN. I remember when energy efficiency and energy independence were viewed as vital to the national security of the United States.

However, this all seemed to stop in the 1980s for some reason.

Re:We were warned.

[Comp_Lex86]

A single whack is not good enough. Repetition is very important. There has to be multiple severe whacks before everyone understands what's trully going on in this world. The implications of the Hubbert Peak on oil production is going to give us the opportunity for an enormous reality check. (i.e. we might want to care a little bit more about the fundamental things on which our society is build upon and change our way of life such that we live more in harmony with nature.)

Re:We were warned.

[Kohath]

I don't understand what you're getting at.

How much poorer should we have made ourselves over the course of the last 30 years so we wouldn't have to pay so much for gas in this current 3-month period?

Re:We were warned.

[mvdwege]

You stupid idiot. You are merely reiterating the parent's point.

Mart

Re:We were warned.

[Anonymous Coward]

Things dropped off in the 80s because Saudi Arabia started to increase production causing a subsequent oil glut. Under Reagan, Energy conservation was put aside in order to help the American auto industry, and demand started to gravitate back to the larger American cars.

Re:We were warned.

[coastwalker]

If the trend towards higher fuel efficiency had continued instead of reversing I don't see exactly how that would have made anyone poorer. We expect to get more floating point operations out of the same sized piece of Silicon each year and this seems to have created amazing new industries, jobs and profits. What exactly is your point?

Re:We were warned.

[Kohath]

If the trend towards higher fuel efficiency had continued instead of reversing I don't see exactly how that would have made anyone poorer.

People would have had to buy fuel efficient cars instead of the cars they actually wanted. Or they'd have to pay a lot more for a more advanced version of the same car.

When you pay more for the same thing, or when you pay the same and get less for your money, you're poorer.

Re:We were warned.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether it makes you poorer or not depends on the correct discount rate for future costs as opposed to the current cost.

Good premise, but

[zappepcs]

The article is making the case for government support of teleworkers while questioning the reasons for >3$/gal fuel. While that is a good premise I don't think that it covers everything. I work from home when I can. I want to stop smoking to save money but I suddenly realized that if I work from home I save the same as not smoking 1.5 packs that day. Yes, gasoline is becoming a very expensive habit. I hope that this story and related issues do bring about an atmosphere where my employer is willing to let me work from home several days per week. That would equate to a nice raise in pay.

I don't think that the link between teleworkers and fuel costs is concrete or causal. I think it's just a happy coincidence. Moreover I hope that the gasoline companies get held over the 'barrel' for quite a while and in a way that puts money back in my pocket. 90 million dollars net profit per day is obscenely huge. Someone should be questioning why fuel costs are so high!

Re:Good premise, but

[aiken_d]

Kudos to you for doing your part to keep both the roads and the planet less crowded!

Re:Good premise, but

[MtViewGuy]

I think teleworking has finally become a viable option because always-on landline broadband Internet access has become available in most metropolitan areas in the USA. That not only helps transfer data way faster but also makes it possible to do voice and even video teleconferencing at very low cost.

In fact, it's widespread broadband access and sites like eBay that makes it possible for a lot of people to actually become online resellers working from home, too.

Congress got us into this mess...

[Manuka]

How did we (congress) get into this mess? By regulating the daylights out of the industry.

Re:Congress got us into this mess...

[randomErr]

It isn't just Congress. Its all the states and cities that add fee's for every little road project.

Re:Congress got us into this mess...

[timeOday]

By regulating the daylights out of the industry.

If only the big bad government wouldn't make it so darn hard to turn a decent profit in the oil industry!

Re:Congress got us into this mess...

[Manuka]

All you people that are screaming bloody murder about how much money the oil business is making were strangely quiet back in the oil bust years.

Industry margins are still under 10%, which isn't spectacular by any stretch. But you couldn't see past all the zeroes to realize that.

Re:Congress got us into this mess...

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Industry margins are still under 10% And 501(c)(3) organizations are still not for profit.

The only thing you're showing is that the money is disappearing into the pockets of the executives before it reaches the general shareholder pool. Who do you think funds the million dollar prizes for golf tours and tennis tournaments?

Re:Congress got us into this mess...

[coastwalker]

Talking of regulation, I could probably set myself up to telecommute a few days a month. But it isnt worth the bother - theres a list of rules that have to be fulfilled which are complete overkill. Everything from having metal locked filing cabinets to annual electrical safety checks and working in a dedicated room.

Of course its all horse shit to stop me suing the company if I accidentally fall of my chair and bruise my elbow - but you also get the feeling that they would fire you if they found out that you were actually telecommuting from a laptop in a treehouse with work stuff stored in a clapped out refrigerator.

In general, regulation should set the goal, not the means to a goal.

How did we get into this mess?

[randomErr]

Simple:
-Environmental regulation have gone out of control. The regs are to the point that no one has the $$$ to build any new plants
- NIMBY - Not In My BackYard - Not one wants to live by a stinky, noisy refinery. I know, I've lived next to one my whole life; it isn't pleasant.
-Each state has at least 50 cents of tax that gets directly added to the gas at the pump in addition the other taxes the companies have to pay (import tax, environmental and safety fees)
- There been 3 major refinery fires within a finite number of functional refineries
- Demand is higher in the summer then the winter but supply remains the same (see above)
- The cost associated with switching from winter grade to summer grade

I'll take my $100 million now for my study.

Re:How did we get into this mess?

[Alex Zepeda]

In California, the taxes levied on fuel are listed at the pump. It's about $0.18/gal in state taxes, and about the same for federal taxes (+ $0.08/gal in federal taxes on diesel).

Re:How did we get into this mess?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure all the drivers in Europe are crying in sympathy as we continue to drive to work. Especially in the UK where the ~£1 a litre (~$10 a gallon if my metric/imperial conversion is correct) is fast becoming a common sight.

Quite simply the US is playing catchup to the price petrol really is given the amount of global unrest in the oil producing regions.

Re:How did we get into this mess?

[Anonymous Coward]

If over-regulations are whats stopping them from building new refineries, then then why has the oil industry been steadily closing existing refineries for the last 30 years?

The easy answer is that its oil industry bullshit. It's quite simple. the fewer refineries the greater the strangle hold they have over the market, which is why profits are skyrocketing while the costs have remained relatively steady.

Re:How did we get into this mess?

[whiskeyOnIce]

Supply and demand... it COULDN'T possibly be that simple. What did we think would happen when we lose all our production to China due to federal and state governments making the cost of employing someone in this country prohibitively expensive.

It doesn't matter what we think or do anymore. The insane boom of gas usage in China that is about to occur will happen anyway regardless of anything we think we can do about it here. And, of course, the liberals will blame the evil corporations ("who are acting all corporationy") and the conservatives will blame the government, when in truth, they tend to act together to screw things up. (Look up the history of corporations back in the days of cowboys driving cattle across private owners' open land. Corporations can't get away with truly hideous behavior without government support.)

True, we aren't building more refineries, tankers or drilling for more oil in our own reserves. To use California as an example, the refineries there are reportedly maxed out on their capacity, as well as the tankers bringing in supply. This means, even if we DID start drilling and pulling up more of our own oil, we couldn't ship it to the refineries, and even if we could, the refineries don't have the capacity to process it. At their current max capacity, the California refineries produce every day the approximate quantity the California drivers consume in one day. They don't produce a surplus. Which is why some privateers are looking into creating new refineries in adjacent states. If we can get a surplus somehow, new refineries could help produce more and help lower prices.

But with everything maxed, it would have to be hit on all fronts. More refineries, more tankers AND start drilling our reserves. We've finally reached a point where it's going to be better financially to begin converting over to something else because the finances of continuing where we're going just doesn't make sense.

Too bad our government can't learn from the Brazilian government and start a program guaranteeing we will be running entirely on biodiesel in a matter of 10-20 years. But why do that when we can just keep subsidizing farmers for NOT farming crops while shrugging and "investigating" the continuing increase in gas prices?

So, most likely, there's going to be a (serious) race to get to the next uberfuel for the nation by privateers and small corporations. The big guys seem to already be smelling the change in the air and are doing a bit of research there, but who knows how much they're really working towards it right now. They may just end up following the pack.

Either way, I look forward to seeing what they come up with. Right now, I'm down with the biodiesel angle. I'll be glad to go down and get a vehicle that already has any small conversion on it that allows me to just pour in that stuff. And any accompanying kit to make my own, if I choose to go that route.

Re:How did we get into this mess?

[frogstar_robot]

So, most likely, there's going to be a (serious) race to get to the next uberfuel for the nation by privateers and small corporations. The big guys seem to already be smelling the change in the air and are doing a bit of research there, but who knows how much they're really working towards it right now. They may just end up following the pack.

They'll let others do all the research and take all the risk and then buy whatever technologies look like feasible winners, kinda like Microsoft.

Re:How did we get into this mess?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, most likely, there's going to be a (serious) race to get to the next uberfuel for the nation by privateers and small corporations

If only there were such a thing. Got a working fusion reactor? 'cause nothing else is going to cut it.

Re:How did we get into this mess?

[mvdwege]

Dude, go take Economics 101 before you spout off nonsense in public, it might save you the embarassment.

The Tragedy of the Commons is a problem with a free market system, because the Commons is an externality: the users of the Commons don't pay the cost of the maintenance equally to the profit they gain from exploiting it, therefore they have an incentive to exhaust the Commons.

Collective action, either by taxation (so that the externality is reflected in the costs) or by outright rationing access to the Commons is the only thing that can stop the Tragedy occuring. And collective action to regulate access to a Commons is one of the defining characteristics of Socialism. Depending on how this is implemented it may be either old-fashioned authoritarian Socialism, Libertarian Socalism, or a mixed model like European-style Social Democracy, but the free market is definitely no solution here.

Mart

It's not because of crude oil prices

[AbsoluteXyro]

According to a news report last night, these crazy gas prices aren't due to our gas guzzlers our the rising cost of crude oil. Actually, crude oil is cheaper now than it was a year ago, and oil companies make about 30 dollars for every barrel they turn into gasoline. This is more about oil companies loving money than anything else. Sorry I don't have any links/references, but I do trust CBS well enough to have their facts in line.

Re:It's not because of crude oil prices

[ElephanTS]

but I do trust CBS well enough to have their facts in line

Lol, you betcha. Bless your naivety.

Re:It's not because of crude oil prices

[figleaf]

All this time I thought the fact that Dollar is falling against other currencies is contributing to the price hike.

Anyways the $3 is half of what several Europeans and Asian countries are paying for gasoline so its not that bad.

Re:It's not because of crude oil prices

[Bill Walker]

Sorry I don't have any links/references

here you go. It doesn't actually support your point of view; gasoline prices are set by supply & demand, and as the article says, we actually ship gasoline from Europe because of our shortage in refinery capacity.

Re:It's not because of crude oil prices

[POTSandPANS]

Well, they are a private business so they can charge whatever they want for it. Where I live, gasoline is about $1.20/litre. I'm fine with the prices of fuel, I really wouldn't mind if it cost a lot more either as long as the profit went towards something worthwhile. Maybe expensive fuel would encourage people to be a little more conservative with it. Just imagine for a moment what the air would be like if gasoline were as inexpensive and plentiful as water.. Maybe it's a good thing that fuel isn't so cheap.

Years ago, I had an old pickup truck with a big engine, even though it ran fine, I junked it. With the money I saved on fuel I was able to buy a brand new small car. If fuel were extremely cheap, I'd likely still be driving a 5.9L V8 with no emission control.

Re:It's not because of crude oil prices

[furball]

If you don't like what big oil is doing ... stop buying their products. I flat out stopped driving 3 years ago. I have not bought a single gallon of gasoline for 3 years. Every time I hear about gas prices going up, I smile inside.

Re:It's not because of crude oil prices

[rdoger6424]

If you don't like what big oil is doing, stop buying their products. Sure, you could just not use gasoline. But is that really enough? why don't you just not buy anything with plastic in it? How about anything involving grease. Also don't forget to not buy clothes with plastic fibers in them. It's not that hard, just do it.

Re:It's not because of crude oil prices

[furball]

Also don't forget to not buy clothes with plastic fibers in them.

Wait. There are people who wear clothes with plastic fibers? The 80's are calling. They want their synthetics back.

Re:It's not because of crude oil prices

[808140]

Many modern fiber blends have polymers in them, not just polyester. You'd be surprised.

The GP's point is a good one: fossil fuels are used to produce a great deal more than just gasoline. I still applaud your decision not to drive, though. Realistically, of course, this is not something that everyone can do. There are parts of the US where not having a car makes life impossible. It's mostly the fault of urban (and especially suburban) planning: the whole notion of having residential and commercial zones means that grocery stores and other necessary shops and establishments are often so far removed from peoples' homes that they can't purchase items they need to survive without driving sometimes tens of miles away. Sure, sell the house, move to somewhere less influenced by 60s-era civil engineering, etc -- this works if your job is urban, but otherwise, realistically, your place of employment is probably in a commercial or industrial zone, which by definition has no residences -- and so you're back to square one, commuting. Not to mention the problems inherent with uprooting your family, moving your kids to new schools, etc. Clearly, it's not something anyone can do.

Slashdotters who say "if you don't like company X's products, don't buy them" are usually of a free market persuasion, so in this case you may have your feelings about government involvement vindicated because the zoning fiasco is pretty much entirely the fault of governments -- usually local ones -- who felt (at the time) that they were enforcing some sort of quality of life. The result has been sprawl. Here in Silicon Valley, there are a few developments that are experimenting with a different kind of urban planning, one where industry is still separated from residential and commercial, but where residential and commercial are mixed together. It's still not quite zone-free, because governments tend to tax commercial property-owners differently from residential property-owners, but it's possible to leave your apartment in the morning, walk across the street, buy a coffee, etc. (I'm thinking of a newish development in San Mateo off of 101, next to the Bay Meadows racetrack, if you're familiar with the area).

Personally, I'm all for mass-gentrification. The suburbs need to die.

Re:It's not because of crude oil prices

[furball]

Call me old school, but I limit my clothes to cotton and wool. Simple. I also pay out the ass for them.

I suppose I'm lucky. My office is a scant 2 blocks away from some residential buildings (condos). Those condos are within 4 blocks of mass transit and a quaint main street style shopping area. I live about an hour away (via mass transit) from the office.

The suburbs don't need to die. My parents live in a fairly well designed suburb in Northern Virginia. It's 10 minutes from my father's office. Mom takes a train into Washington DC for work. It's all in the infrastructure planning.

Incidentally, I moved away from Silicon Valley because the entire infrastructure around that area was just stupid. How is it that you can get some of the most brilliant engineering minds together and no one spends time on the infrastructure?

Re:It's not because of crude oil prices

[808140]

I think it's not so much that smart people didn't spend time thinking about infrastructure, just that they failed (as people are wont to do) to look far enough down the road. In the early 70s, Silicon Valley was exceedingly agrarian, and most of the peninsula was fruit orchards. I don't think anyone really anticipated the digital revolution and what it would do to the valley. Like most rural areas, the early valley was spread out and cars were needed to get from place to place. No one "planned" the valley -- it boomed, and suddenly there were more people than anyone knew how to handle.

I'm not making excuses, mind you. I can't stand the lack of public infrastructure. But you should consider that most of the west coast's development happened after the introduction of the automobile. At the time, people did not see the inherent problems in the "one man one car" model; cars were seen as granters of freedom, they were seen as the future. Whenever promising new technology surfaces and promises to change people's lives for the better it is not until it becomes commonplace that problems start to surface. For example, few people understood the privacy implications of the internet and the world wide web in particular in 1991 -- it's only now that the average person is beginning to realize that they have to be careful about what they post on the web. In the early days, I had my real name as my handle in most forums (including Slashdot). Now, whenever you meet someone, or interview for a job, or do anything, you get "Googled". This wasn't something anyone thought about in those days. Now, a search for my name will reveal silly (and potentially embarrassing) things I said when I was a teenager that there's no way for me to be rid of.

Here we are, 70 years after Ford started the automobile revolution, and people are only now just beginning to realize that 1) cars don't scale well with growing population density 2) pollution is bad -- remember, the "Beautify America" campaign that sought to change the way Americans thought about litter and their environment was only in the late 50s early 60s 3) having so much of our key infrastructure dependent on a commodity that we ourselves cannot adequately provide is politically and strategically inadvisable. But in the meantime, a lot of civil planning mistakes have been made and it will take time to rectify them and teach the American people (who are, by this time, culturally married to their cars) that driving everywhere is not really such a great idea.

As an aside, San Francisco, which is situated on the tip of a small peninsula, has nowhere to grow and consequently has no sprawl to speak of. It is dense and public transportation infrastructure is, while nothing like what's available in Europe or Asia, reasonably adequate. BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) connects much of the northern peninsula to the east and north bay (but not the south bay, for frustrating political reasons). Muni and light rail are all over the place, come frequently, and are pretty affordable. It's not really so bad (if you're in the city).

Re:It's not because of crude oil prices

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont think its the oil price, its the tax.

Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[reporter]

Gas prices in the USA are not particularly high -- even at $3.50 per gallon. Gas in Europe costs $10 per gallon.

Such high prices in Europe does not hurt the European standard of living because many Europeans use public transportation; bus and trains are relatively cheap to ride. In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery. In my neck of the woods, about 80% of the passengers on the bus is either impoverished Americans (from ghetto neighborhoods) or illegal aliens from Mexico. The occupancy of the buses is about 50% during most of the day. Meanwhile, the freeways are packed with late-model cars driven by the wealthier class.

Frankly, even if gas prices increased to $10 per gallon in the USA, Americans would not necessarily experience a decline in their standard of living -- if they use public transportation. It is cheap although it may be slighly inconvenient because you must time your life according to the bus or train schedule.

Note that American politicians never compare European gas prices to American gas prices. The politicians just tell Americans what they want to hear: "Gas at $3.50 is too expensive. We Americans are a sad, pathetic victim of the greedy oil companies. We should force them to lower gas prices back to $1.50 per gallon so we can enjoy your monster SUV."

These are the same Americans who overwhelmingly supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[CowboyBob500]

Exactly. Everytime someone from the US says how high their gas prices are, I just laugh. $3 per gallon is cheap. Very cheap.

Bob

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[notamisfit]

You know, I don't think we've seen so much as a drop of oil out of Iraq. From what I've heard, China and Vietnam are the ones getting the contracts. Not that I really care; most of the Middle Eastern oilfields were illegally nationalized from US or British companies anyways. (If it wasn't for the West, they'd still be driving camels on top of the world's richest oil deposits.) That's the _really_ scary thing about Iraq; Bush honestly seems to believe that letting Iraq vote itself into another Islamic Republic is going to be the thing that brings peace and stability to the region.

As for public transportation, it's feasible -- in the metropolitan areas. Out here in farm country, it's a lost cause (and the lower property taxes and intangibles like better schools probably make up for the extra money spent on fuel).

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Opportunist]

Did you ever see the public transport system in the US. I have. I can understand why people refuse to use it.

Also, for a lot of people there is no viable alternative. The US style of sprawling out towns into miles and miles of suburbs means that you HAVE to have a car, often there isn't even a public trans system.

Public transport here is subsidized. Heavily subsidized. I get the whole town for 500 bucks a year, almost round the clock with 3-15 minutes wait time, tops. In clean, safe and reliable trains and busses. I actually don't even own a car anymore. What for?

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[figleaf]

I live on the outskirts of the city. I would like to take the bus if it was more frequent.
The bus service is only available in the morning and evening hours on weekdays and no bus service on weekends.
On top of that the bus drivers don't stick to schedule sometimes its 15 minutes early or an 1/2 hour late.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[koreth]

In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery.

In much the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation because they want to get to work in a half-hour rather than spending four hours hopping from bus to bus to train to bus. That is certainly the situation in the San Francisco Bay Area. I am not exaggerating those times, either; a few years ago, I had a contract in Pleasanton, about 35 minutes by car from my home in Sunnyvale. My car needed to be in the shop for a few days so I decided to take public transit. How bad could it be, right? Pretty damned bad, is the answer. (The bus stop at the start of that route is about a 10-minute walk from my house; there are none closer. And note the price, too, though a monthly transit pass would cut that way down for a regular user.)

Who I was sitting next to was not the issue; the issue was that it took so damned long to get to the office that, if I had to do that every day, I'd be doing literally nothing but riding the bus/train, working, and sleeping. That's why you mostly see poor people on the bus: people with enough money to buy and operate a car would rather spend several extra hours a day with their families.

One root cause, in this area at least, is idiotic zoning policy that makes it illegal for most people to live close to where they work. The cities around here are divided into residential areas with the occasional convenience store or restaurant, and industrial/commercial areas with no housing other than the occasional programmer sleeping under his desk after an all-nighter. As a result, there is very little of interest within walking distance from most people's homes. And since those same zoning laws generally prohibit buildings more than a couple floors high even in the commercial areas, everything is spread out so far and wide that it's utterly impossible to design good public transit systems like those of higher-density cities. (Well, you *could* design one, but it would cost so much to operate that people would find it cheaper to drive their own cars.)

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[tempestdata]

I live in Los Angeles, the second biggest American city and I can tell you first hand that the public transport system here SUCKS! I HAD to buy a car.. Absolutely HAD to, even when I was a flat broke student living in a room the size of the car I bought. Yes it was a used old banger, but I was actually able to get around! To build a functioning public transport system you need money. I wouldn't mind taking twice the time to get to/from work everyday using public transport just so I dont have to drive, but the way the public transport system is. It would end up taking 3 times as much (An 1 hour and 30 minutes!) and that is just absurd.
If only our government would spend more of the money they take from us, and spend it back on us. Instead, what I see is them taking my money so they can go bomb some people. The worst part is? I have to live with the knowledge, that I, for my part, am working hard every day to help pay for those weapons.

Gas is too expensive at $3? HA! Lower the damn income tax rate, and tax the gas consumption. A responsible government would do this. Unfortunately, if there are heavier taxes brought on gas, our income tax wont fall to compensate, we'll just be paying for more missiles, and guns.

Just imagine. For a minute.. impossible as it may seem. If $6/gallon were levied as a gas tax in all counties with a population density over a certain threshold, to pay for a public transport system for that county. To make it faster, cleaner, safer and more convenient. I'd gladly pay $9 a gallon to gas my car up then.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[tompatman]

In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery. Also, many Americans have no access to public transportation. Only in the center of major cities is public transit any good, and even then it is nothing compared to what Europe has.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[LaughingCoder]

Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery

Nonsense. For a large percentage of Americans, mass transit is simply not an option. For example, there is no mass transit between my home and my job ... period. Secondarily, it is obviously much more convenient and comfortable to drive your own vehicle rather than adapting your schedule and personal comforts to public/mass transit. It has nothing to do with snobbery and everything to do with convenience and comfort.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[miskatonic alumnus]

Did you ever see the public transport system in the US. I have. I can understand why people refuse to use it.

Its non-existence in most places is a pretty good deterrent. I would much rather use public transportation than own my own vehicle. I hate driving, dealing with other drivers, paying for insurance & vehicle maintenance & gasoline, making the yearly donation to the DMV to keep it registered, and still having it break down from time to time. A lot of people consider the automobile as symbol of their freedom, I view it as a symbol of servitude --- when it breaks down, it immediately displaces whatever your current highest priority is. Goddamned things are balls and chains, polluters, and instruments of fatality --- claiming more lives in the age group 15-40 than any other cause of death in the U.S. The sooner we're rid of them, the better.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[epee1221]

In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery.

Did you ever see the public transport system in the US. I have. I can understand why people refuse to use it.

Exactly. I don't avoid public transportation here because of snobbery. I avoid it because it is of low quality. With my car, I can roll out of bed at 8 and be at work before 8:30 minutes. If I had to take the bus, I would have to get up around 6:30, walk a mile and a half, get on one bus, ride to the middle of town, change buses (and hope everything's on schedule), ride out to work, and get there around 9. I would also likely have to get off work early in order to be able to take the bus back to where I got on (a mile and a half from home).
On top of all that, once I already have a car, it's cheaper to use it drive myself to work than to pay for the bus fare. (It's about $3 for a day's driving, $4 for a day's busing -- $6 for the bus if I pay for each ride individually)

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[bogjobber]

In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery. In my neck of the woods, about 80% of the passengers on the bus is either impoverished Americans (from ghetto neighborhoods) or illegal aliens from Mexico.

While that may be a factor (I've certainly heard that sentiment) it's certainly not the largest one. Where I live (Salt Lake City, UT) there's a fairly reasonable mass transit system, and in the morning and late afternoon/evening nearly everyone on the light rail and most of the people on bus routes are white collar workers. A fair amount of people I knew used public transportation to commute to work (although it's still a small number compared to most European countries). The city planning was carried out fairly well and the suburbs aren't too sprawled compared to other US cities and everything's pretty decent. My experience was also similar in Portland, OR although I wasn't there for long enough to make a solid judgment of it.

Compare that to some Midwestern cities that I've been to. I've lived in Kansas City and they have the worst city planning/mass transit that I have ever seen. It took me 15-20 minutes to drive to work and it would've been about a two hour bus ride with three transfers if I wanted to take public transit (which I very much did). Nearly every professional lives in the suburbs, most of which are sprawling and far away from the city center, and a large number live and commute from 30+ miles away. Businesses are scattered around the metro area, with no real central work location (although they're trying to fix that). Riding mass transit there wasn't even an option unless you literally did not have any money.

So it's not really a simple answer. Yes, we need better public transportation. But in some places we're probably at least twenty years away from re-aligning the way cities are built so that public transportation is even an option for most people. That also assumes that there's the political/social will to start that process. If there is, I haven't seen it (in KC at least).

Conditions are different here than in Europe. When these cities were being built there was a lot of land and cheap gas. Post-WWII most people were wealthy and land was cheap. We didn't have the opportunity or necessity to build/rebuild mass transit systems like Western Europe. It has nothing to do with Americans being stupid or greedy.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[hankwang]

Gas in Europe costs $10 per gallon.

I'd like to know in which country. Rates for standard grade (Euro 95) vary from 1.05 EUR/L to 1.41 EUR/L (including sales tax), which is about 5 to 7 USD/gallon. See European fuel prices.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[fbjon]

Indeed. An interesting quote:

"European per capita consumption of gas and diesel stood at 286 liters a year in 2001, compared to 1,624 in the US, according to IEA figures."

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Opportunist]

Funny enough, people here who prefer the car do it out of snobbery and wanting to show off they can afford it. Which pretty much is the truth: You have to be able to afford a car here. Insurance, tax, inspections, repairs... A few thousand bucks is nothing.

Personally, I can't see the advantage. I live and work in the heart of the town, now I walk to work for 15 minutes but before that, when I worked once across town, the ride with public transport took about 30 minutes, by car it was closer to 45. Provided I found a spot to park in.

Even with a car, using the public system is usually cheaper, provided you got a permanent ticket. They actually fund it with the casual drivers, too, since many of them are tourists who have no alternative to using the public system (or taking a cab, which is REALLY expensive). The prices you quote are about right for here, too. 2 bucks a fare, 5 bucks a day, 25 bucks a week. But then it gets cheap. For 50 bucks you get a whole month, for 500 you get a year. And we're talking the whole town, from one end to the other.

I've seen London. I couldn't afford using the publics there.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Ichijo]

Public transport here is subsidized. Heavily subsidized.

Especially in cities where it isn't taken seriously. For example, in Phoenix, the goal is to have a farebox recovery ratio of 25%. (In other words, riders pay only 25% of actual costs.) But in San Francisco, Chicago, and New York City, the ratios are 50% and higher.

Also, gasoline and road and freeway construction and maintenance are also heavily subsidized. Public transport would have a better chance if this weren't the case.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[timeOday]

Gas prices in the USA are not particularly high -- even at $3.50 per gallon. Gas in Europe costs $10 per gallon.

But most of the difference is taxes, which goes back to the taxpayers (instead of into $400m retirement packages).

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[rs79]

The difference is 1) most north american oil comes from canada 2) the distancs involved are different. the average commute in north america is a journey so long you'd be passing through five european countries. you euros can ride bikes, we routinely have 100 mile commutes one way.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[archen]

Cars have circumvented public transportation because of their popularity, the American mentality, and marketing.

I live around Scranton PA - it's known as the electric city because it had the first successful electric trolley system in the U.S.. You could go pretty much anywhere using public transportation. Stops were frequent and the grid reached just about everywhere. Today the trolley system is no more. It was replaced by buses for a time, which worked pretty well, but is now reduced to about 8 bus routes that are not even a skeleton of what they once were. More often than not it takes you an hour to walk to the point where the bus will pick you up, and they show up once an hour.

I'm not saying that urban sprawl hasn't made it much of a catastrophe, but this area tends to show that even if you had the infrastructure in place in the first place, it's not a given that people will use it when given the option to drive cars.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[EugeneK]

One root cause, in this area at least, is idiotic zoning policy that makes it illegal for most people to live close to where they work.

A good point; don't forget that the zoning policies are constantly being maintained by NIMBY homeowners who dread the consequences of higher density close to their neighborhoods, for example in Menlo Park recently, a plan to build high density housing near the Caltrain was shot down by the wealthy NIMBY homeowners who would like to preserve the suburban character of their neighborhoods.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[hazem]

In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery.

While there may be some class snobbery the bigger factor is that most American public transit simply sucks.

I live one block from our light-rail system (MAX) and I use it when it's practical, like going downtown for a night out (I just saw the president of Liberia last night and took the light-trail there). My favorite pub is just 3 stops away, etc.

But for most of my commuting it's not practical. While my work is only 12 miles from my house (and also very close to the light-rail), it takes between 90 and 120 minutes to get to work. Unless I drive during a peak time, I can get to and from work in about 20 minutes - and that's what I do; I go in later in the morning and leave later in the evening. Driving at a peak time pushes it to about 40 minutes.

If it were strictly economics, I'd rid the MAX because my employer subsidizes annual passes for only $20 (which I have). But I'm pretty busy with work and college and at the current price of gas (and for quite a bit higher), it's worth more to me to have the extra time in my life than the extra money.

I'm also lucky that I can telecommute at least one day a week.

But mass transit? It's just not very practical in most American cities - and Portland is one of the more "enlightened" cities.

I'm sure you're wondering why I just don't move closer to work. Part of that is that I really like where I live. There are lots of great things around here that I like - restaurants, pubs, close to downtown, etc. My work, as great as the location is (we have a beautiful "campus") is in the middle of suburbia and there's very little other than business parks, cookie-cutter neighborhoods, and strip malls.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[CowboyBob500]

Where I am in the UK, gas is £0.95 per litre, which (given 1 US gallon = 3.79 litres) = £3.60 per gallon = $7.11 per gallon.

So no, not $10 per gallon, but well over twice the price of the US.

Bob

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

we routinely have 100 mile commutes one way.

But that's a choice you've made. You could easily move closer to your place of work. Admittedly, "at will" employment doesn't really make it too attractive to invest large amounts of time and money to move closer to your place of employment if that can be 100 miles in the other way next week.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but you failed to point out that in Europe, there is a town every 5 miles; have you ever been to say Montana?!?! Wyoming? Public transportation doesn't make sense in a lot of cases. I live in a good sized town (Lafayette, IN to be exact), Our public transportation is just fine, when there is a stop you can get to at least. I live 9 miles away from work because the housing is cheaper outside the city limits.

I've travelled in Europe... it's easy to use public transportation; When I go to Chicago, I park at Midway and take the L in... or what I did last time was take Amtrak into Chicago and then walked a freakin mile to the L stop, then got to where I was going. Also taking Amtrak to Chicago for just me, was about equal to driving up there myself; if you carpool up there, it's a heck of a lot cheaper than taking Amtrak!

The problem isn't urban sprawl -- that should actually help public transportation; the problem is that economically it's still cheaper to drive into work than take public transportation.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[scotch]

If it only takes you 8.5 minutes to drive to work, you should be riding your bike. Seriously, stop destroying the planet. :)

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

Reporter, you can't compare gasoline in Europe with gas in America. 1) They are socialized and as such have an extremely higher rate of tax on their gas. 2) Everything is close in Europe much Like New York so public transportation works. Here in California everything is pretty far and between. You are not just talking inconvience, yo are talking hours added to your trip using mass transit.

Also, check the "profits" of the oil companies. We are not paying a fair price for our gas, not with the profits being shown by the oil companies. As for supply and demand, the oil companies said they had to raie prices because of maintanence of a couple of refineries lowering suppl, then they had a couple of refineries break down, then they have their normal "raise the price during the summer" increases.

Again, the /. liberals have a problem making their reality match up with real world issues. Oh, America doesn't pay the true price for gas. It is so much more expeensive elsewhere. It's because we all drive SUVs and don't care about the environment. The supply of oil is running out. No new refineries. Oh look, evil oil companies making record profit, they are gouging. War in Iraq for cheap oil for America. Oh look, record gas prices at the pump. Bush is making millions off of oil and the war, oh look, Bush made less than 800k last year, just like he did before when he first entered office. Not to mention that here in California there is a 1200 dollar gas guzzler tax on SUVs.

Plus you SUV haters, probably most of you are hypocrits. Ok, my SUV gets 14 miles a gallon. I should get a car like yours that gets 30 mpg. But wait, lets go one step further, yo are ruining MY world. I don't drive an SUV. I ride a motorcycle that gets 47 mpg on a bad day. Get out of your car and buy a motorcycle. Oh wait, I don't even ride a motorcycle, I ride a bicycle. Stop ruining my world with your vehicles that use gas. No matter where you fit in with your mode on transportation, someone is buring more fuel, someone is using less. Get over yourself.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[eMbry00s]

I mostly agree with you, but I hear the American busses are really shoddy. I'm from Sweden, me and my family all use public transportaition quite a bit. It's nice.

My older sister was in the US about 6 months ago, as she and her boyfriend were going to go on a Greyhound bus, it turned out to be so dirty, old, beaten and shoddy that they instead chose to rent a car. Note that they have no problem using public transportation here in Sweden, they don't own a car.

I don't know how, but if the US want to keep their quality of life as high as they have it, they'll also need to spend some serious money on public transportation.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[garcia]

In much the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation because they want to get to work in a half-hour rather than spending four hours hopping from bus to bus to train to bus. That is certainly the situation in the San Francisco Bay Area. I am not exaggerating those times, either

You're not exaggerating for the Minneapolis metro area either. We own one car and my wife takes public transportation daily (we both rode the train downtown from another suburb 15 mins away last night -- the nearest stop to our house). I work in a suburb on the other end of the metro. I want to buy a house there but I cannot afford the $65 to 80k jump in prices from where I currently reside. We went to look at a house priced at $224,900 which is still nearly $60k more than our current home cost in 2004 (and with the market the way it is, how much it still is worth) and not only was it destroyed inside (we assume from foreclosure or renters) it needed so much work that another $30 to $50k would be required to get it going again -- something of which I have no time for nor any funds.

Anyway back on topic, the *estimated* time to take a bus from where I live to downtown Minneapolis and from there to the North end of town's transit stop and then from there to 10 blocks from where I work would take 193 minutes bus time and another 15-20 by walking (please note that the temperatures here in January and February routinely drop to -20F or lower in the mornings (with highs in the 0 - 5F range) and that there are no sidewalks between the stop and the school where I work). That same trip takes me less than 30 minutes (33.1 miles) by car.

I'm super tired of Europeans thinking that they can automatically assume why Americans don't use public transportation. The layout of cities here is far different and the layout of mass transit is as well. I would *love* to take mass transit daily (more reading, more relaxing, and less money) but I cannot at the current time.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[epee1221]

Sorry, that was an error. That should have read, "be at work before 8:30." The drive in question is about 13 miles each way.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[MillionthMonkey]

2) the distancs involved are different. the average commute in north america is a journey so long you'd be passing through five european countries. you euros can ride bikes, we routinely have 100 mile commutes one way.

Commute times are long in this country because as a nation we have invested heavily in a massive automotive and highway infrastructure, relative to most countries in Europe, as if we intended for cars to be the primary means for getting around. Our cities loosened their belts and allowed themselves to sprawl out into the countryside as vast suburban wastelands. We even let our alternative transportation infrastructures fall victim to disrepair, disuse, or dismantlement. So once again, France will avoid the sort of trouble that we like to set ourselves up for.

It's not like the total area of the country being 10 times bigger means that your personal commute distance has to expand to sqrt(10) times what it would be in Europe, as if we're all inkspots on a giant rubber sheet. Try to move closer to work, find an employer closer to where you live, telecommute, or suck on it and wait for the Mad Max era to arrive.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[DeadChobi]

Actually, most of us don't use public transportation because there isn't any available outside of major cities. Have you ever actually been here?

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I cannot imagine that our public transportation system could ever be improved, in any way. It's already completely optimal as it is. Therefore, when you say that it takes 4 hours to get anywhere on public transportation, then that's the way it will always be. The Europeans must be lying or something if they say they can get somewhere in a half hour on public tranportation.

Ok, that was a little sarchastic. I'm not criticising you really, since you identified some of the problems, including a big one - inefficient zoning. But I've heard some other not-so-thoughtful people seriously talking like they can't imagine a better public transportation system and city design which would make cars unnecessary. It just boggles the mind.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[sadler121]

The city planning was carried out fairly well and the suburbs aren't too sprawled compared to other US cities and everything's pretty decent.

You can thank Brigham Young for that one. Not only to he plan the city on a grid, but also made it so you could do a U turn with a team of oxen with out having to back up.

From the transit plan I have seen for the wasatch mountain area, they plan on eventually having commuter rail going from Provo to Ogden, starting in Ogden first. They are also planning on expanding light rail out to west valley and other 'suburbs'.

I served an LDS mission in SLC (from 1999-2001) and would always use the light rail to get downtown to the temple every monday (our 'day off'). In general, I found the public transit system in the salt lake valley very good. I never understood why the mission office gave almost every LDS missionary a car when our areas where at most 4 blocks and could be transversed by foot in under an hour.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[VariableGHz]

due to class snobbery.

Why I never!

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

"...most of the Middle Eastern oilfields were illegally nationalized from US or British companies anyways..."

The same Middle East "legally" colonized by the West?

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[ancientt]

Amen. I considered the bus schedules (there are trains but none useful to my needs) and I came up with the result that with two bicycles, one at each end, I could actually manage to be at home for a total eight hours a day if I had to rely on public transportation. If there were a bus that ran between my city and the one I work in, and buses that came within half a mile of either from the central locations, I still would spend four hours a day in transit. I would not be willing to give up that time with my family and so we would either have to move to a FAR worse school district or I would have to find a job that would likely pay half as much, which would probably necessitate a much smaller house in a less safe and friendly neighborhood. I hate having to use a car, but it beats the heck out of my other options. If everybody had to give up driving then everything would change, and I could either work at a branch office or from home (dare to dream) but the billions it would cost for my geographical area won't be spent without impoverishing so many people it would probably wreck the state's economy.

There are ways to improve but the sad fact is that cars make our economy possible and that means that fuel cost is a real issue that needs to be addressed. If it costs five dollars for a candy bar and we could have better candy by raising the price to $20 then I really don't want the change regardless of how much better it might be, the huge change in cost is enough that I'd rather not have it at all. It is the same with public transport costs for me, I wish it was better but the cost makes it so prohibitive that I would have to give up income, safety, and many hours daily with my family to make a fair contribution to it. I'd rather skip it and focus on changing the gas prices instead. At current prices I pay around around $2,000 annually in fuel costs, and I could probably cut that by a third if I gave up things like family sports and visiting relatives. If prices go up much more, I'll have to give those things up anyway and that sucks.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[IorDMUX]

In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery. Though I agree that public transportation is vastly underused in the USA, I do not agree with your assignment of cause.

I've been to cities with wonderful public transportation systems (New York, Washington D.C.). There, let me tell you, your 80%-impoverished figure is not at all accurate. Men in Italian suits sporting an all leather attaché case ride alongside tourists and children and errand-runners and anyone else going anywhere else in the city, because public transportation is well done. You can get to the vicinity of your destination in only a few stops, and the schedules are such that you don't need to wait a half hour or more for a pickup.

I, however, live in a city with a radially designed transportation network. It will take you downtown from uptown and vice versa, but if I want to get to the grocery store three miles away, I'd need to take three different busses. If I want to get to my place of employment--perhaps two miles away--I'd have to take a bus downtown to a "hub", then pick up another one and head right back to about where I started. (By the way, I just walk, rather than drive, due to parking costs.) The schedules aren't remotely reliable, either, and we've learned not to expect the 5:30 train to be here anywhere around that time.

As a result, the majority of the passengers around here match your description: "either impoverished Americans (from ghetto neighborhoods) or illegal aliens from Mexico"... because these "hubs" are generally in low-income neighborhoods, because the routes won't take you from one uptown (or downtown) destination to another, and because the only people who sacrifice such large chunks of day to these poorly designed systems are those who truly have no other choice.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Moridin42]

I'm... not quite sure how you figure "instead of" at the same time you say "most of the difference". That says to me that there is a high tax which may (or may not) be going back to the taxpayers on top of big retirement packages. Not $400 million, because of the decreased consumption. Definitely not chump change, though.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[aslate]

London's prices vary considerably depending on what you do. A stanard zone 1-2 tube journey is £1.50 or £2.00 dependant on peak travel times, with £1 charge for all busses. There is a cap of about £5 per day if you use PAYG on Oyster card which is a pre-pay system (They want to phase out paper tickets, so a single journey paid for by cash costs £4).

Annual travel costs £1000 to £1700 (£600-£1100 without central London) depending on what zones you're travelling in, with significant discounts for students (33% off). This may seem expensive but this covers a tube network with trains running every 5-10 minutes in the City, busses that have improved hugely and are of similar frequency, trains, DLR, tram and riverboat services. Night busses mean bus services are 24 hour and make travel about the city quite easy.

Although Londoners love to bitch about the Tube and public transport in general, we've got it lucky compared to most places and it's the only feasable way to commute daily. It could be better but as a student i regularly use the tube and bus services. Although expensive don't forget that Londoners get a "London Allowance" ensuring they are actually paid more than other workers, along with the fact that London wages are generally higher.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[mochan_s]

Another thing is the bus schedule - they are never on time.

In the college town I lived, where most students take bus, the bus schedule was every 10-15 minutes bus arrives. About half the time you'd wait 30 minutes and no bus would show up. I wanted to record a set of samples and show how unlikely their claim of 10-15 minutes is but I decided to get a car.

You just stand there in front of the bus stop sign where there is no chair, is in the open and a zillion cars drive by you.

Also, on the other hand, all buses have GPS. Why won't they release this information on the web-site so that I can check if the bus is coming and time my trip to the stop? I have sit in front of the bus stop, staring half a mile down the road waiting for a bus!

In cities where there is urban sprawl, the bus system is hopeless. But, even for compact cities where a lot of people use the bus, it is NOT in time at all.

As everyone pointed out, a trip by car to the post office would take me less than 5 mins. A trip by bus, with 1 transfer point, would take around 40 mins on average and sometimes balloon over 1 hour.

I have been to thrid world countries and their public transportation is way better than US cities (the buses are nicer but everything else sucks).

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[legirons]

"many Europeans use public transportation"

trains maybe, if you're going a very long way and want to drink, sleep, or use a laptop on the journey. but really, no! train tickets here cost about 4x the cost of driving, even if you amortize the cost of your car over the journeys.

And busses... don't take them if you want to arrive at your destination. Just too unreliable. They might turn up, they might not...

"The occupancy of the buses is about 50% during most of the day."

In Britain, it's about 0-5% during the day (i.e. the driver and maybe 1-2 passengers max)

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[CodeBuster]

In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery.

That might be a small part of it but really the issue is quality and suitability of public transportation for the kinds of living situations that are common here in America. The United States is a BIG country with large distances between things and spread out detached suburban style communities. This is not at all like Europe which is more heavily urbanized with high quality (the key here being HIGH QUALITY public transportation that runs on time and is clean etc...compared to what we have here in the United States anyway). They have ICE and TGV trains to get you where you need to go in air-conditioned reasonable level of comfort at 250+ mph. The transportation in Europe is usable whereas the transportation here in the United States is, for the most part with a few exceptions (the BART in San Francisco for example isn't too bad), not. You can argue about the reasons for this, but much of it really comes down to huge open spaces, economic viability, and cultural traditions. Americans will never get out of their cars now...its too late.

It is cheap although it may be slighly inconvenient because you must time your life according to the bus or train schedule.

It certainly is cheap, relative to ownership of a private vehicle anyway, but here in the US the quality of that bus or train is on the whole *abismally* poor. The trains run HOURS late and it can take several hours to get somewhere with two (2) or more bus transfers to get anywhere in a large American city in what would otherwise be a 30 minute trip by car. It doesn't matter that cars get stuck in rush hour freeway traffic because the buses get stuck in it too (I see them every day on my way to work). So it is more than slightly inconvenient and if you have a family, you need a kid hauler to get everyone to school, soccer practice, dance lessons, the grocery store, etc within the confines of the 24 hour day...which means an SUV style vehicle or a van. In short it is just about impossible to do the suburban family thing without a private vehicle and nobody in their right mind wants to raise their kids in the inner city ghetto and ride the bus if they can afford not to...that is just reality...at least here in America.

These are the same Americans who overwhelmingly supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Perhaps, but not because they wanted or expected that gasoline would return to $1.50 per gallon as a result of American foreign policy. It is a popular theory because it appeals to the sensibilities of certain groups out there on the left, but it really just isn't true. If anything, Iraq pumps less oil for export now then they did before the invasion and the oil companies pay the world price for that oil so there is no suggestion of "blood for oil" except by those who don't *want* to see any truth other than what they want to hear.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

I use it. I live three cities from where I work. It takes me one hour each way. I could drive it in 45 minutes. I'd rather ride (and read). Cheaper too.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Emperor Cezar]

Much of America is not as lucky as Europe to be so closely packed. Many areas in America are so spread out that public transportation is impossible. In the cities, it makes sense, in the rural areas, it would be a horrid situation.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

While my work is only 12 miles from my house (and also very close to the light-rail), it takes between 90 and 120 minutes to get to work.

How can that be? You can walk there in that time. Take a bike. (not a motorcycle, of course)

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Opportunist]

Probably all true. I still prefer our tube, trains and busses.

I can't complain about cleanliness, quality or reliability of the London public system. My problems are price and frequency. I'm used to having a train every 3 minutes, waiting for 10 is agony. :)

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada is the single largest source, but imports from Canada are only about 1/6 of the total imports. So most oil imported from America does not come from Canada.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[mauthbaux]

It is cheap although it may be slighly inconvenient because you must time your life according to the bus or train schedule.

I think our hypocrisy becomes very pronounced when we refuse to become inconvenienced by a bus schedule; and at the same time, let many of our evenings' activities be dictated by the TV broadcast schedule.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Kohath]

You know, I don't think we've seen so much as a drop of oil out of Iraq. From what I've heard, China and Vietnam are the ones getting the contracts.

Oil is a world market and all oil everywhere is essentially identical. There's no reason to add extra transportation cost to oil.

That's why oil from Alaska gets sold to Japan and the far east instead of being shipped to New York. It's cheaper to sell it in Japan and use the money to buy more in Mexico than it is to ship it to NY via the Panama Canal.

All the arguments about who gets what oil from where are silly. If we stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia, then we have to buy more from Russia or somewhere else. And the guys in India (or where ever) who were buying from Russia will buy it from Saudi Arabia. Prices will be higher by the amount of the extra transportation costs, but Saudi Arabia still gets essentially the same amount of money.

If anyone gets Iraq's oil, folks around the world benefit because the world price of oil goes down. More importantly, the people of Iraq now have the chance to benefit too.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[hazem]

The MAX in Portland is very slow. There are many stops (which is generally good) but all routes must go through the same choke points (a single bridge) and through downtown (lots of traffic and lights). Plus it generally goes slow and there are no express/bypasses.

When I get in better shape I'll try riding my bike to work. Unfortunately, there's a huge ridge in the way (large elevation change in the "West Hills") and none of the roads going over have a good bike path - in fact most are narrow and dangerous for bikes (you should see the rants on Craigslist about bikers vs cars here - there are a lot of hostile drivers).

I may start by taking the max to the top of the ridge and ride downhill to work from there...

Plus the 12 miles a is a pretty direct ride on interstates. Surface roads are quite bit longer distance. (though, the max, for the most part, follows the interstate).

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[frdmfghtr]

In much the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation because they want to get to work in a half-hour rather than spending four hours hopping from bus to bus to train to bus.

I tried taking the Washington DC Metro system to work once, comparing it to my daily drive. By bus/train/train/bus (Alexandria, VA to Bolling AFB), it took me two hours. By car, it took about 10-15 minutes (if the old Woodrow Wilson bridge wasn't back up...HA! otherwise it was about 20-25 minutes).

I think I still got value for my money though; in taking about five times as long to get to work via public transit instead of driving, the metro fare cost me five times as much as the gas it took to get to work.

(I never figured out the per-mile cost figuring the cost of the vehicle, insurance, maintenance, etc...I should do that someday and see how the comparison works out.)

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[JesseMcDonald]

Gas prices in the USA are not particularly high -- even at $3.50 per gallon. Gas in Europe costs $10 per gallon.

But most of the difference is taxes, which goes back to the taxpayers (instead of into $400m retirement packages).

No, the distinction is that in the USA 100% of the difference goes directly back to the purchaser, whereas in Europe some unknown percentage of the difference is spent on overpriced government programs that the individual purchasers may neither want nor need, but which are ostensibly done "for their benefit".

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

I can imagine all kinds of good city layouts and public transportation systems. What I have difficulty imagining is taking a city that lacks them and transforming it so it no longer does.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Khaed]

In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery.

Or we live where it isn't feasible.

The USA is a giant country. It's not all big cities and tall buildings. And the public transportation in even many of those places sucks.

It sounds to me like you've not seen much outside of your own backyard.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[tftp]

If $6/gallon were levied as a gas tax in all counties with a population density over a certain threshold, to pay for a public transport system for that county. To make it faster, cleaner, safer and more convenient. I'd gladly pay $9 a gallon to gas my car up then.

What planet are you from, dreaming about anything that is efficiently operated by a government, that is faster, cleaner and convenient??? If you get your wish you'd be paying $9/gal and your money will be wasted, misdirected, and otherwise lost to you, and all you'll get for the trouble would be that broken old bus that comes every two hours between 9 and 5, government holidays excluded. As a bonus, $0.50/gal will be earmarked for riot squads, to beat you senseless if one day you decide to object to this arrangement.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[TheSkyIsPurple]

Unless you're my roommate who physically can't bike more than half a mile or so due to issues with his fake hip...

Me? I avoid the roads entirely these days and am able to tele-work (or whatever they're calling it.)
With my old commuting schedule, I would be spending about $400/mo on gas, now I spend about $50/mo.

I really tried the bus thing out here, but to get where I needed to go required a 1 mile walk to the bus stop, a 20 minute drive to the train station, a 40 minute train ride, another 20 minute bus ride, and that only go me to about 5 miles of my office. (Instead, my car got me point to point in 30-45 minutes and I was free to leave whenever I wanted, didn't have to worry about over crowding, messed up schedules, strikes, etc).

It ain't the snobbery...

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[scotch]

Sometime I wished I lived 13 miles from my work so I could get a longer ride in. Alas, I only live 5 from work, so I have to be content with doing a sprint workout - 25mph + -rather than a more sustained aerobic cycle work out at a less sweaty pace. Coworkers can just suck it.

Yes, go ahead and ask the obvious, I'll humor you.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[tftp]

I should do that someday and see how the comparison works out.

It doesn't work out at all. There are few riders on public transit, and those are practically captive audience, so the fare costs as much as necessary to meet the numbers that city planners came up with. Riding a bus is a slow, horrible experience, unless one enjoys stopping on every corner and taking the longest, winding path through the area (which makes sense to people who need bus there, but not to you who just needs to get somewhere.)

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[scotch]

I've seen guys cycle with 1 leg, so your hip, fake-hip, exception-to-the-rule, rules-the-roost roommate can just go suck it.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[urban_warrior]

obviously you either have money or do not have to drive often, i am a college student with lots and lots of bills, i have to drive an hour each way to get to campus, 75% of my disposable income (after tuition, books, and insurance goes towards buying gas, public transportation is not a feasible option in my area, there are many others like me, what the hell are we to to if gas goes up to 6 or 9 dollars a gallon, we still have to get to school everyday, the bus service is still nearly non-existant.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[forgotten_my_nick]

I would say it is less to do with class snobbery and more to do how the cities in the US where designed. If you go to the older cities like say Boston public transport is great and easy to get around.

If on the other hand you head out to the middle of nowhere you can literally die if you don't have a car to get around.

Also your correct the price isn't that high, it is just a lot of US cars waste an awful lot of gas.

I do disagree with your premise though that at $10 the standard of living would not change much. It would change a lot. For starters all those delivery trucks still have to pay for Gas, that gets pushed onto the consumer along with other costs (house heating, electricity). It has a huge ripple effect.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[halycon404]

Snobbery? I live in Memphis, yes we have public transportation, yes its cheap. But I've looked at the bus lines from where I live to my job. They make no sense in how they are setup. None at all. I drive 1 block to East Parkway(Major road in Memphis), take East Parkway to Poplar(pretty much THE road in Memphis), turn left onto it, and continue till I get to work. Thats it, trip time, 10 minutes. Now, if I take the bus. I have to walk about a mile and a half to the bus stop on East Parkway, so far so good, everything is similar. From there though I go in the exact OPPOSITE direction I want to go, and get on the 240 loop near Chealsa(bus change to do that), from there I have to take the interstate around almost all of memphis to walnut grove, walnut grove to white station(another change), white station to poplar. get off the bus and walk about another mile and a half to work. round trip? about an hour and 15 minutes. Getting home is a bit easier. Walk back to the bus stop, Poplar to East Parkway(bus change), East Parkway to the bus stop near my house, round trip time? 25 minutes. Thats doable. But why in the name of all thats unholy must I go 20-25 miles OUT of my way to get TO work. When coming back from work is the exact same route I'd take in my car? By car, I can get to anywhere I would want to go in 10 minutes, if that. Everything I truely need is within walking distance(walking distance is a 5-10 minute walk to me). Resteraunts, theater, book store, grocery store, blah blah blah, hell, the zoo and a freak'n golf course is within walking distance if I wanted to expand that walk to a 15-20 minute affair. But I have to drive to work. I'd love to be able to get to work without driving, just so I wouldn't have to deal with gas costs, insurance costs, maintenance, etc, on my car. Unfortunately public transportation isn't the answer here. One day maybe it will be, but currently its a LONG way off from being so.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[coastwalker]

I'm in full agreement that Governments are terribly inefficient and generally totally incompetent at supplying public transportation systems. On the other hand I'm also not at all impressed with the efficiency of large corporations and don't believe they would do a better job. I have seen one truly fantastic public transportation system - it was in Stockholm. The Swedes may pay a hell of a lot of tax but they do have a brilliant transportation system.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[halycon404]

Oh, I forgot to mention. if I want to walk 30 minutes. I can get on a bus stop that'll take me to work pretty much directly. Still ends up being around an hour of transit time. Simply easier to walk a mile and a half, and do an hour and 15 of transit time.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[coastwalker]

How nice to be young and thoughtless, lets hope you never end up in a wheelchair, you'd hate it.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

Think Racism instead of class snobbery, Someone may correct me on this, but when Rosa Parks won the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the white people who used to ride the bus (the ones who could afford to) bought houses out in the suburbs and cars.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[scotch]

I don't know, I see lots of guys in wheel chairs doing things like racing and marathons and hiking and cycling with hand bikes. Lot's of can do attitude. How does that relate to the roommate who can't cycle because of a fake hip thing? I don't know. How does the roommate with the fake hip relate to my recommendation that the guy cycle to work? I don't know.

How do you know I'm young? I'm clearly thoughtless, I'll give you that.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[doktor-hladnjak]

The saddest part is that Greyhound isn't even public transportation (it's a private company) and the buses are on average nicer than actual public buses in most cities.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[aslate]

A few of those features are implemented in London. Most London bus stops have a display showing the upcoming 10 busses with route number, destination and estimated timing based upon where on the route they are. We also get covered bus shelters and seating.

And on the same point, we've got a very good bus network and London is a massive example of Urban sprawl. There are hundreds of bus routes about the city connecting up regional areas and transport hubs. The service is frequent enough that getting the bus is completely feasable (I do it frequently as a student), due to bus lanes (be they a good thing for public transport or the bane of the car) busses can be quicker than car journeys and bypass traffic.

And due to recent investment there's new, cleaner and better busses on our routers. £1 per journey with a cap of £3 for unlimited bus travel.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[aslate]

Never been to London? I hardly ever get on an empty bus, usually they run with a minimum of 10% capacity in our local area, easily going to 50% regularly and can at peak get overcrowded (although at this point they run a lot more frequently). Commuter services aren't that bad, especially if you pay for season tickets.

Now non-urban services may be relatively poor, i'll accept that. Long distance rail also sucks when it comes to pricing, but the commuter stuff isn't too bad.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[feepness]

Just imagine. For a minute.. impossible as it may seem. If $6/gallon were levied as a gas tax in all counties with a population density over a certain threshold, to pay for a public transport system for that county. To make it faster, cleaner, safer and more convenient. I'd gladly pay $9 a gallon to gas my car up then.

People driving an additional hour a week to fill up in the lower density counties to avoid the taxes? Awesome. Truly a solution we could only look to government to provide.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you live an hour from campus? Even at $5 a gallon, you're looking at spending about $30 per day just in gas (6 gallons). If you're living at home to save money, you actually wouldn't be since you would wind up spending less to stay in apartment that is walking distance to campus. A shared apartment, after utilities, would run you approximately $500 / month. A month of driving (commuting 20 days a month) at $30 per day would cost you $600. That's not even including the fact that you will need to pay for car maintenance more often, and with the increased mileage, the value of your car will drop. In fact, if you did live on campus and didn't need a car, you would save at least another $3000 for not having to own a car.

If gas shot up to $10 per gallon, that's $60 a day just in gas, $1200/month. 2.5 x the price of living on campus. Yes, if gas prices shot up, your lifestyle would definitely change.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[tempestdata]

the neighboring counties they would move to would rise in population density, hence making them just as expensive in gas.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[ArmorFiend]

You're making the problem too hard and then throwing up your hands. If you really wanted to use tranist, you'd move to a place with decent public transit routes. Just as you probably thought about the proximity of roads when you chose your current place, you'd think of the proximity of public transit routes and how they'd affect your connectivity.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Saxophonist]

I live in Minneapolis as well, and I used to work for a transit agency, though not in the metro area.

The problem with getting more transit service is a Catch-22. Funding for transit service is dependent upon ridership and how it factors into government formulas. So, if there are fewer riders, there is less service due to the budget. However, if there is less service, the service is less convenient, and there are fewer riders.

I'm not sure where you live or work, but there is supposed to be a major service expansion to the northern metro in June, which may or may not help. It sounds like the bus stops are not where you need them, though, and the bus lines are not running in general where you need them to. The structure of the outlying transit systems (Southwest Metro, etc.) puzzles me a little bit. I looked at using the bus system to get to a job for which I applied, and it looked like about 90 minutes each way. If I get the job, I'll have to add to the congestion on 35W, then, unfortunately.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[lightversusdark]

in Europe some unknown percentage of the difference is spent on overpriced government programs that the individual purchasers may neither want nor need, but which are ostensibly done "for their benefit"

i.e., Public transport.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[drsquare]

I think what he means is, people will drive over the border, fill up, then go back. It happens on the Irish border.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[drsquare]

Funny enough, people here who prefer the car do it out of snobbery and wanting to show off they can afford it. Which pretty much is the truth:

Um, no. How can owning a car be snobbery when pretty much everyone has one? I own a car because my route to work isn't served by public transport. At all. When there was a bus that went anywhere near where I worked, it was quicker to walk than to get the bus. That's when busses are actually running.

I can't go shopping on the bus. I can't work shifts on the bus. I can't go to the gym on the bus. I can't go to the football on the bus. Public transport turns simple ten minute journey's into hour-long ordeals.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[drsquare]

If it only takes you 8.5 minutes to drive to work, you should be riding your bike.

Why? So instead of getting to work in 8.5 minutes, he can get there in 45? Or so instead of getting to work dry, he can get there either drenched in rain or sweat, and covered in mud? Or so he can take things like briefcases, shopping, gym gear etc? Or so he can go to other places after work, rather have having to go straight back home? Or so he can fix punctures in the rain, rather than just getting there trouble free? Or so when he gets to work, instead of just walking in and having a cup of coffee, he can chain his bike up, wrestle his way out of all his drenched clothes, find somewhere to dry them, have a shower, dry off and put on his work clothes, which are now crumbled off through being squashed into his bag? Or so he can do that whole thing again in reverse on the way home, provided his clothes have dried and haven't been stolen? Or so he can be splashed by puddles, have cigarettes thrown at him, or almost run over going through roadworks which reduce the road to one side, but are long enough so he can't go through quick enough before the lights change, so he's going against traffic? So he can spend his spare time, washing, oiling, changing innertubes on his bike, instead of relaxing? So he has to carry a bag full of a spare set of clothes, waterproofs, shoes, tools, batteries etc, instead of nothing? So instead of having powerful headlights, he can have a little LED light, that can't cut through the fog or rain? So he can be blown about in the wind, possibly into traffic? So he can slide about in snow and ice?

I say all this as a recovering cyclist.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you should live within 10 miles of work.

I've had the opposite experience in Los Angeles. There are 5 rail lines that service Los Angeles, and an amount of bus lines that I am not going to bother and count as there are plenty of them. Whenever public transportation was not an option, I would consider a taxi, if a taxi was not an option, I would rent a car($30 for 24 hours).

Public transportation in Los Angeles can be improved by having the rail system operate 24 hours every day of the week, adding more rail lines and buses, and I'm sure there can be plenty of improvements that do not come to mind at the moment.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell no it's not cheaper to drive a car you already own than ride the public transportation; $50 for a monthly pass. What does liability insurance cost a year? What does gas cost a year? What does vehicle maintenance cost a year? And what does losing 240 hours a year driving cost you?

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[MtViewGuy]

Such high prices in Europe does not hurt the European standard of living because many Europeans use public transportation; bus and trains are relatively cheap to ride.

That's because those high gasoline taxes are subsidizing the cost of public transportation in Europe.

I think in the end, the US may have to end up imposing excise taxes based on engine displacement and vehicle size similar to what is done in Europe and Japan now. Why do you think for example that excise taxes on an automobile in Japan goes up quite a bit if the width of the car is larger than 170 cm (66.93 inches)? Or why when the engine displacement exceeds 2.0 liters the excise taxes goes up quite a bit in Europe? These excise taxes are why most Europeans drive cars in the Ford Fiesta/Renault Clio/VW Polo category, the so-called B-segment automobile.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you'd care to say that to his face.

Enough bragging about what you've seen people do. Please limit your bragging to things you yourself have done.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

In most cities in the US, public transportation is so horrible as to be unusable for most people. I was able to walk from home to school and work for the past few years, up until the beginning of 2006, so I did not own a car. However, I had to move farther away from these destinations, and in turn had to start taking bus transportation across town. The buses in my fair city do not run nearly often enough, the destinations are poor, the interchanges take too long, and the arrival times at any given stop are too highly variable (ranges of 25-30 minutes!) to reliably catch without freezing to death in the winter. I can get to my office in 5 minutes by car. Coming home on the bus took 45. I can get to the office in 15 on a straight shot, but every time i'm on the wrong side of the street watching the bus zip by adds 60 minutes to that amount. No working person can deal properly with that.

Seriously, fuck public transportation. I bought a nice mid-90s Civic on the cheap and it's made such a difference. Soon I'm going to start a job where the bus can't take me, which really is what most Americans do anyway. Do you think the average person is going to take public trans when the average job isn't on the lines? I don't.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[JacquesDemien]

First, I am American. Second, I agree with most of your post. However, I have one comment. Most of the people who support the invasion of Iraq tend to be (more or less) laissez-faire free-market types. Those folks, except perhaps the really stupid^H^H^H^H^H^H ignorant ones, understand that Americans are not "victims" of oil companies, and that, in fact, oil usage in every form (food supply, cars, etc.) is highly subsidized in our society. Of course, so is public transit, but as you point out no one uses it since it is populated mainly with people from ghettos, whom most people not from ghettos wish to avoid--often for good reason. Some of us Americans may be the "victims" of actually buying into pre-fabricated fake version of the fabled "American Dream," often in the guise of "let's live in a suburb (with the advantages of neither the city nor the countryside and many of the disadvantages of both--in other words, mediocre), but I fail to see how we are the "victims" of high gas prices when gas prices are not high. By any measure, they are not high. Gas prices have not kept pace with inflation; they have not kept pace with the price of gas in other countries; they do not reflect the true costs in any sense; etc. Of course, this is all just my completely uninformed opinion. After all, this is Slashdot. :-)

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[jez9999]

I'm super tired of Europeans thinking that they can automatically assume why Americans don't use public transportation. The layout of cities here is far different and the layout of mass transit is as well.

Anf by 'far different', you mean 'having far lower density'. We do realise this, and think of it as something you should consider a luxury, that it may be desirable to do away with to some extent in return for other efficiency benefits. We also realise that your public transport sucks, and it's because you refuse to invest in it properly.

I'm not attacking you, but don't think we don't realise the issues.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Colin Smith]

I'm super tired of Europeans thinking that they can automatically assume why Americans don't use public transportation. The layout of cities here is far different and the layout of mass transit is as well. I would *love* to take mass transit daily (more reading, more relaxing, and less money) but I cannot at the current time. Actually, the situation isn't so different in Europe, despite the higher density. Only 10% of passenger miles are made by public transport in the EU. For exactly the reasons you've enumerated. Basically, conventional public transport has some fundamental physical limitations which cannot be overcome.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[scotch]

Yeah, all that stuff is great! What's the downside again? You nailed all the upsides.

What, exactly, is a recovering cyclist? Is your car like methadone or more like Rehab? Do you ever drive by a cycling and start Jonesing, seeing the cyclists sheer, endorphine-fueled joy? Come one, get back on your bike, you know you want to. First ride is free.

You big list of shit is way overblown - I commute by bike almost every day of the year - and almost none of that crap is an issue. Hilarious. Good luck with your commuting lifestyle choice, though.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[legirons]

"Never been to London?"

Yes, I find their £1 fare for 1/4-mile bus trip fascinating.

However, having just one city with buses available doesn't negate the point that buses are useless generally. Try doing the same trick in any rural location, town, or small city, and see how fast you get to work on the bus.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[jez9999]

Just because your government sucks balls doesn't mean all do, or that it couldn't be improved. Public transport is pretty much only implementable by a public body. Private businesses would cherrypick and ignore the less profitable routes, making it pretty useless or non-existant.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Opportunist]

As I said, here it's the other way 'round. You're usually WAY faster with the public system than in your own car. You won't find a parking space, and let's not even talk about congestation of roads.

And you can work shifts here with the busses. They only go every 30 minutes or so during the night, but they still do. And they're well timed towards each other, so you usually don't miss your connection. Provided you arrive in time (which is available online), a trip through the night takes as long as during the day. And, as I said, it's faster than with your own car (you will not stand 'round as long since you can actually drive here during the night, but don't even think about finding a place to park your car after midnight).

And yes, having a car in town here is quite a show of wealth. Yes, many do it, but still... hey, do you want me to figure out the psyche of people? I tend to hold my mental health in great esteem, so that's a definite NO! :)

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? So instead of getting to work in 8.5 minutes, he can get there in 45?

If your route to work includes a significant amount of highway you can probably average 30mph when you take into account getting to the highway, lights, congestion, and the like. So 8.5 minutes would be around 4 miles. You should be able to cycle that (assuming there is a way to do it fairly directly, which sadly is not always the case) in 20 miles. If you are in a more crowded city cycle speeds and car speeds can be fairly similar. So 45 minutes seems an exaggeration.

Given that people don't tend to get enough exercise 40 minutes exercise each day could be good for you.

Or so instead of getting to work dry

Waterproof clothing is available and can protect your body in all but the worst rainshowers. In very humid conditions they can be a bit hot, but then some rain might be refreshing! (YMMV, of course)

sweat

Rather than showering before getting in the car, shower after getting off the bike, at work. Not all workplaces provide shower facilities, but it is getting more common. A brief shower again at home and you are set. You only end up paying for one of those showers so it doesn't increase your household bills. At an average 12 mph, though, on a mild day you shouldn't be breaking into a sweat over a 4 mile trip.

Or so he can take things like briefcases

You can use panniers to carry things in, and there even exist briefcases that fit on pannier carriers, some coming with additional water/mud covers.

shopping

If you shop one day in 5 then take the car in one day in 5. Or for small items if the store is on the route panniers might work. For big grocery shops, though, the bike isn't really an option, but then an afternoon of teleworking a week and a delivery from the supermarket might do the trick.

gym gear

With 40 minutes good aerobic exercise a day why would you need to go to the gym?

Obviously this isn't an option for everyone, but cycling can be a more plausible option than people sometimes imagine. Some are taking up cycling to work for health - they know that only the necessity of getting to work is going to encourage them to take exercise, whereas that gym membership will go unused. How do I know? Been there, done that, 4 mile each way cycle commute.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

I think semi-on demand public transport might become something we see in the future. In some cities this already exists - you phone up and book a seat on a relatively small bus. What could be improved is scheduling algorithms, plus giving these vehicles some level of priority (HOV lanes, traffic light priority) to improve the experience. Given the information that could be obtained from this it might then be possible to work out what new bus routes are needed and then provide those via scheduled services, freeing up the on-demand system to run ever more obscure routes.

Better links between routes (by having high frequency vehicles) might also work. It's what you get in a good subway/metro system with multiple lines. By reducing waiting time it makes the whole system better. 30 minute waits for buses are a killer.

Coordinating routes is also useful and needs some work - trains that arrive a minute after a bus leaves to where you want to go is annoying to say the least!

Car pooling can also help.

Will this mean no car journeys? Of course not, but it might mean that some people can get in to work via public transport so the number of car journeys is reduced. The plus side with less cars on the road is that everyone using the road gets there faster. The downside is that people may then think that since the roads are clear and pleasant to drive on they'd rather drive than take the bus. Somewhere there is a level of financial (via gasoline costs) and time (via waiting, or congestion) and personal space pain and inconvenience people are prepared to put up with. People will drive provided that the pain of driving is no more than that of public transport. Different people have different pain thresholds.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[SRA8]

"If it wasn't for the West, they'd still be driving camels on top of the world's richest oil deposits.)" This is an incredibly racist and ignorant comment given the likely intention. You should know these countries had vibrant cultures, most of which was destroyed during colonialism, which forced artifical boundaries and turned the societies into large factories. Perhaps they would be driving camels...but that is because GDP isnt everything to them, and there are other things besides money and power that matter?

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[An Onerous Coward]

I would argue that "the snobbery" is what keeps most transit systems chronically underfunded in the first place. It's really a chicken/egg conundrum. People see mass transit as an inferior good because it's far less convenient than cars for most trips. Since those who can afford to drive opt out, transit systems can't rake in the money needed to expand service. Then fiscally conservative types ask why we should put more money into a system that nobody is using.

It's a reasonable question. I think mass transit should be the backbone of our transportation infrastructure, because it will be easier on our wallets and our environment. But you have to put more money into transit to overcome the entrenched advantages cars have, and it's more than a lot of people want to shell out.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[An Onerous Coward]

I've been looking into getting an electric bicycle. It seems like a great way to increase my range, reduce the sweat factor, speed up transit time, etc. My biggest fear is that it'll get stolen.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[drsquare]

OK, you're obviously a fucking nutjob. I hate it when zealots try to force their hobby onto people.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[scotch]

You spend more time dissing cycling than I do promoting it. I'm just doing some suggesting and defending, not any forcing, pansy.

I am a fucking nutjob though.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[drsquare]

Waterproof clothing is available and can protect your body in all but the worst rainshowers.

It doesn't work, keeps out light drizzle but nothing else. No use in a storm. And it's more time at each end putting it on/taking if off. Work takes enough time out of your day, why let it take out even more?

Rather than showering before getting in the car, shower after getting off the bike, at work.

So what do I do during the day before work? Just stink?

With 40 minutes good aerobic exercise a day why would you need to go to the gym?

Because light aerobic exercise is worthless. I used to cycle to work, 40 minutes each way. Even after I year I was still a fat slob. Maybe you have to weird bike which exercises your whole body rather than about two muscles, and gets you there in ten cycles (the optimum amount).

At an average 12 mph, though, on a mild day you shouldn't be breaking into a sweat over a 4 mile trip.

Mild day? What is a mild day? I've never seen one. 12mph, no chance. Obviously you live in an area with no hills or roadworks. My car gets me to work at 50mph, and no wrestling into/out of clothes each day. Now I don't cycle to work anymore, I save myself at least an hour each day. Maybe you don't value your time as much as I do, but I'd rather spend five hours a week doing something I want to rather than something I don't.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[scotch]

Rich from am AC. Of course, not being constrained to a wheel chair, I'm not going to be able to brag about my experiences there. Of course the OP who brought up fake hips and wheel chairs wasn't thus affected, either. So woo hoo. Why should I not bring up the great accomplishments of these people when some other schmutz brings up the wheel chair as a general excuse against riding a bike?

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[scotch]

Question, Dr. Square: are you still a fat slob?

Just because 40 minutes a day of cycling didn't cure you of your caloric surplus problem or gland problem or whatever doesn't mean that it is "worthless". Light aerobic activity is good for your heart, lungs, and arteries. A definite improvement over a sedentary lifestyle. Sure, heavy aerobic activity is even better for some people. And if you want to shed the pounds, you're probably going to need more than tooling back and forth to and from work on your bike. For example, a small daily caloric deficit is essential to the process.

If you want heavy aerobic workout on the bike, come ride with me sometime. I have trouble losing too much weight.

I think it's hilarious you call be a nut job for promoting cycling when I've read your anti-cycling stuff all over this thread and on other occasions in this very forum.

Doesn't work for you? Fine. I think it's a pretty great thing to advocate on many counts though. It's not like I'm advocating heroin or violence or something. Your nutjob bar is pretty fucking low.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

Europeans are tools.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[GiMP]

Scranton is a good example of public transportation gone wrong. Just getting from East Scranton to McDade park is a 2-3 hour nightmare.. which, by car, is maybe a 20 minute drive? Not to mention getting back home.

In Poznan, Poland, where trams are common, a similarly lengthy excursion might take me 30-40 minutes, even with no less than 12 stops and a transfer.

Now, one could argue sprawl and economics of it. However, Scranton isn't neither high in sprawl nor in income. It is a fairly small, moderately dense city that could easily support a functional public transportation system -- as it once had.

Of course, there isn't anything to prove by claiming that European public transportation is better.. Its just a shame how bad it is in the States.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[GiMP]

At least in Poland, there aren't any used cars. This makes the barrier of entry to have a car much higher, so people are forced to use public transportation. I'm not sure what the procedure is in other countries, but I haven't yet seen used car lots in my travels.

Now, in the United States, in the past few years, financing had become so inexpensive that it was often a bad decision to buy used, unless you were paying in cash. That is, would you finance a used car, or a new car.. when the difference in rates was significant enough that your payments would be *higher* on the used car?

How will things look in 5 - 10 years? What will happen with all of those gas-guzzlers? Will the middle class, with their good credit scores, be buying new cars.. while the foor find themselves unable to afford a new car, and having to buy used cars with cash, because the rates on a used car are too high? Will the poorest be stuck purchasing used SUVs, pouring whatever little money they have into gas? Driving a further wedge between classes?

Right now, people think, "my SUV isn't hurting my pocket too much". However, what isn't yet realized is the potential danger it poses to the country when those vehicles are the only ones afforded by the poor. Also, remember that having growing poverty in your country *does* affect you. It affects you because poverty degrades education, and the uneducated are still allowed to vote. Democracy only has a chance if people make educated decisions.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should I not bring up the great accomplishments of these people when some other schmutz brings up the wheel chair as a general excuse against riding a bike?

Because you have nothing to brag about here, and yet you're still gloating about it.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>I would argue that "the snobbery" is what keeps most transit systems chronically underfunded in the first place. It's really a chicken/egg conundrum. People see mass transit as an inferior good because it's far less convenient than cars for most trips.

Look up the word snob... it implies irrationality. "I won't use Public transit because that's for lower class folks"
The reasoning you provide is clearly rational. "Public transit just doesn't work well for me, so I will choose something within my means which does"

The snobbishness comes in as a secondary response, that is, since it is not a good option for alot of folks, only people that have no other option will use it. If it could get funded to a level that would bring its services to a level competitive with what general folks deal with every day, then you've got something really interesting.

Definitely Chicken/Egg

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[TheSkyIsPurple]

There is a vast difference between having only one leg, and having a fake hip. (Though new implants are much better these days)

Use of your remaining leg won't cause excruciating pain. The one legged rider is compensating for a physical deficiency; using his existing leg+hip doesn't cause him severe pain, and riding doesn't cause his informity to degenerate.

If my roomie tried to cycle like that, the stress and damage to his remaining bones would be excruciating, and would cause more severely debilitating issues.

He's choosing to remain a productive member of society who takes no handouts from any government agency nor public assistance and continuing to not only provide for his family, but ensure that he can do so well into the future.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[will_die]

I live over in Germany.
That number is per gallon, a liter is currently around $2 and there are around 4 liters to a gallon.
As for public transportation and class snobbery, it is the same over here in Germany. This is outside of major cities, here like in the US you get all class of people riding the metros. There are no people in suits waiting in lines for the local bus it is all the poorer people and thoses without cars. The biggest different would be the longer range trains there you all sorts of people using them, however price wise they are not that big of a savings. Even with a 50% discount on ticket prices, once you hit 3-4 people you are better off taking a car then the train.
Where they do get alot of usage is with school children, there are very limit amounts of dedicated school buses, instead the kids use the local buses and trains to get to schools. Excluding those times of the day when a local train comes by it is rare to see more then 5-10 people in it, and they only come by once an hour.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[elrous0]

I am a fucking nutjob though.

Well, then you will definitely fit in here on /. This is like a home for our kind.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[archen]

Strange coincidence, my wife is from Poznan...

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[GiMP]

My wife is from Poznan, I'm from the Philadelphia area. She and I lived in Scranton for a year while I had a job up there for a web hosting company.

Re:Gas Price in Europe is $10 Per Gallon

[Copid]

And what does losing 240 hours a year driving cost you?

In my area, I'd translate 240 hours a year of driving into 500-600 hours a year in public transit time. Definitely not a cost winner. If I was lucky enough to live wherever you live where public transit (apparently) gets you from point a to point b in zero time, I'd definitely jump on it.

And the rest of the world asks...

[26199]

Why is tax on gasoline in the USA so ridiculously low?

Either that or our (UK here, but I'm sure it applies elsewhere in Europe) tax is ridiculously high. Hmmmmm.

Re:And the rest of the world asks...

[Anonymous Coward]

and why is it so much in the news in the US ?
Are they so poor that a few dollars matters ?
Other countries don't put gas prices on the national TV news.

Re:And the rest of the world asks...

[louisadkins]

The cost of living in a lot of areas (US), and the (in my opinion) encouraged abuse of credit in daily life, mean that the difference of a dollar a gallon for gas is very much noticed. All jokes aside about cutting into the beer budget, I would gladly pay 8-10 dollars a gallon for gas IF we had the public transport infrastructure to support the public. Unfortunately, though, owning a car in the US is only considered a luxury by the government; I have lost count of the number of job applications/interviews where "do you have a car?" was a make/break question.

Re:And the rest of the world asks...

[Poppler]

Why is tax on gasoline in the USA so ridiculously low [compared with Europe]? The problem is that unlike Europe, most of the United States doesn't have a viable public transportation system. Unless you live in a major city, you're pretty much stuck driving - the closest bus stop to my house is about 10 miles away, and I live in one of the more densely populated suburban areas in the country.

In Europe, driving is a luxury, but in most of the US, it's a necessity. I could understand places like NYC imposing a high gasoline tax, but in much of the country, it would be an unfair burden on the working poor.

Re:And the rest of the world asks...

[26199]

Hmm. I don't think driving is a luxury in the UK; it's a necessity for most. The public transport simply isn't that good, and it's expensive.

Living in London I can get by without a car (wouldn't have anywhere to keep it if I wanted one); but that would hardly be true in most of the country. At least, so far as I can tell; I've never really tried.

I suppose one thing we do have is that it's often straightforward to walk or cycle instead of driving.

Re:And the rest of the world asks...

[mrchaotica]

Why is tax on gasoline in the USA so ridiculously low?

Because, unlike in Europe, our cities are new enough to have been (stupidly) designed for cars instead of people. Now we're screwed, and have to have artificially low prices on gas to compensate.

Re:And the rest of the world asks...

[91degrees]

European tax is ridiculously high. Something like two thirds tax. Even if the petrol station got the stuff for free, they'd have to charge at least 58p per litre to break even.

Re:And the rest of the world asks...

[drsquare]

The problem is that unlike Europe, most of the United States doesn't have a viable public transportation system.

I technically live in Europe, and I don't have a viable public transportation. The only busses that are available to me only take me in the opposite direction to my route to work, and only at times that are no use to me. Long live cars.

Refinery capacity has increased significantly

[mbkennel]

Although no NEW refineries have been built for a long time,
existing refineries have had their capacity increased very
significantly over a couple of decades, equivalent of
10 new refineries.

And, yes, old refineries were really big sources of nasty
air pollution. Stop knocking the environmentalists---they've
made life much nicer in many ways. There are kooks, of course, but
air pollution restrictions on refineries are not kooky.

Gasoline is expensive, overall, because we're using fossil fuel
which is reaching increasing geological depletion.

See www.theoildrum.com for insight, instead of slashdot drivel.

I wish I could.

[iknownuttin]

So I just ride my bike,...

I used to, also. But after the second time I was clipped by a car, I just gave up.

The other thing that really pisses me off is that I like to park in one spot and walk to the other stores. Unfortunately, you get somebody yelling at you and threatening to have you towed of you park your car there. The attitude is, "buy your stuff and get out". Malls? Yuk! Malls are for folks who have no lives and no where else to go to hang out. The prices in malls are not competitive because the landlord charges up the ass for rent.

Here in America, driving is a necessity. Public transportation?!? HAhahahahahah...oh, yeah.

I have to laugh when I hear that the Chinese, Indians, and other folks in developing countries all want to have cars too. First, I have ask, "Why?" Driving sucks...I hate it! Second, just think of where oil prices will go when all of those Chinese start to drive. Now add in: Indians, Indonesians, Africans, etc....

Uh, only because of reduced price

[awfar]

I did not read the article yet, but I just thought it orthogonal to my experience;

My only reason (because we know how great cable tv is) was one year internet at $19.95, total $29.95 w/analog cable, not the regular price like $59/mo, which was a non-starter for me for many, many years (though I previosly while living in a big city).

When this is pricing is over I will look for other options; wireless is becoming widespread even in rural areas.

How did we get into this mess?

[Colin Smith]

Human nature. Consume while it's cheap. You see it in every aspect of human behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_common s

This is why socialism doesn't work and why market economics does.

There is no good fix for the sprawl.

[Colin Smith]

I disagree:

http://www.personalrapidtransit.com/

Re:There is no good fix for the sprawl.

[Mr. McD]

A "rail" based system like this isn't practical. I'll put this into terms some fellow Slashdotters can understand. Supposing you've been hired to network 50 computers into a new office. This office if for creative folks and is extra trendy with multple lofts and arty furniture. Now, you're given teh choice to either: a.) run cable to network all of these system or b.) set all of these mahcines up with WiFi and be done with it. Most of us would choose option B. While yes, 1GB ethernet would be more practical seeing how a creative agency is generall moving huge files around. However, since creatives change thier minds on a whim, the fixed nature of cables would never fly.

Now lets look an an existing Urban landscape. There's a lot of fixed assent and also a number of things that folks will change. A rail system is invasive and requires input from multiple people. Such a system would never fly in a place like Boston. Hell, the new Silver Line eneded up being a set of new busses rather than a new subway line. All I'm saying it, a new public transit system needs to be as non-invasive as possible.

Positive change

[Simon80]

I'll support these outrageous gas prices if they're finally high enough to make people rethink their horribly inefficient daily commutes. I find it wrong that there is such a huge flow of cars going back and forth every single day.

Re:Positive change

[vertinox]

I'll support these outrageous gas prices if they're finally high enough to make people rethink their horribly inefficient daily commutes.

Unfortunately, this means even if people stopped commuting your groceries and commodities would face higher costs due to inflation.

The US does not have an efficient train network and goods and services primarily use automobiles to transport goods. This is why it is critical for lower gas prices regardless of driving habits.

Re:Positive change

[Simon80]

It's not inflation if it's caused by higher gas prices. In any case, this means that higher gas prices encourage people to minimize the distance that they transport goods. As much as I feel sorry for truck drivers right now, I'm glad people have an incentive to change.

I hope soestion

[Dr_Barnowl]

I really hope it takes off.

I don't even drive.. I have a 50 mile train journey each day, which takes 2 hours either way (if I'm lucky). I could obviously drive that distance much faster if it wasn't for the ludicrous congestion at either end of the trip. I did the math and even with my teensy little 796cc engine it still costs me less on the train (even if they did raise the fare by a full 13% this year), what with parking. And on the train I can read, or even work sometimes.

But even so, I'd prefer to be able to get up an hour later in the morning, I'd even work an extra hour! A nice comfy purpose-built office space at home would be infinitely superior to the ridiculous battery-hen office where everyone gabbles and cackles and holds meetings around my desk. I can't be expected to perform duties that are based on the conjunction of creativity and focus in that environment. Even cubes would be preferable to a totally open-plan office... thank heavens for my Etymotic earplug-phones or I'd never get anything done at all.

So anyway, my point is, that the public transport in this country sucks. The typical response of the rail company to an increase in passenger numbers is to raise prices. If the price of fuel drives people off the roads (and our fuel taxes here make our gasoline roughly double the price it is in 'merca), then the trains simultaneously get more crowded, late, and expensive. The last remaining palatable option is teleworking - may everyone embrace it.

Not only that, it's the most environmentally friendly option.

Re:I hope soestion

[tsstahl]

Suggestions:

1. Drive half way.

2. Move

3. Advocate teleworking at your office. Of course, if you can do it 2 hours away, Waheed can do it half a world away.

4. Continue to sit home and bitch on /. about your hellish commute.

BTW, it would help to mention what country you are talking about. :)

PS, my 50 mile train journey in Chicago takes 43 minutes on the rush hour trains; 65 minutes including driving and walking.

Re:I hope soestion

[tronbradia]

Your condition is kind of a case in point about the american suburban lifestyle (sorry that other guy was a jerk to you btw, I'ma try and be nicer). But there is NOWHERE on earth where 50 miles is not a miserable/ridiculous commute. There was an article in the New Yorker about how miserable long commutes make people, but people have a tough time makign the cost/benefit analysis that it's probably worth taking a major quality of life hit if you can significantly shorten your commute, but nobody wants to take it. I don't personally even understand why it's a tradeoff, cus I live in a huge 3-bedroom apt w/ all amenities (except a dishwasher, which we've got plenty of room for) 3 miles/5 minute subway ride from downtown montreal where my school is, for which I split $1290/mo with 3 roomates. The gas here is well over $4/gallon (1.30ish per liter is how they actually sell it), and all i can do is feel bad for the suckers that have to buy it. Then when I moved back with my parents last summer and worked in Seattle (25 miles away), I had a 100 minute bike/bus commute and was utterly miserable for 3 months (the train would have been even longer, btw, your train sounds a lot better than transit in Seattle). I know being away from college and whatnot had a lot to do with my misery, but I have pretty much never hated anything as much as that commute. Anway I don't know why you live where you live, but if I was you I'd be seeeeriously considering moving, if it's not some kind of pleasure palace where servants fan you with palm fronds as you sit at the poolside and devise elaborate but easily escapable death sequences for James Bond. I mean, the way it sounds, it's not like you see much of the place anyway.

Of course

[Ogemaniac]

You could live in Michigan, where the weather is not suitable for bike riding about 250 days per year. Then what do you do? It's either raining or at least seriously threatening rain or storms, or were buried in snow, or it's 85+ degrees / 80% humidity for the summer. Getting to work all hot and sweaty or drenched is not an option.

California has one of the most benign and hospitable climates on Earth, and can't be used as an example.

I love public transporation and am all for it, but it sickens me that California, with its perfect weather and holier-than-thou attitude, still has almost none. The entire LA freeway system should be ripped up immediately.

Re:Of course

[BKX]

I hear ya. Public transport in Michigan sucks as well. Grand Rapids has one of the best bus systems in the country (if you believe the hype) but I don't no of anyone who can use it, since no one lives near a bus stop. The few people I do know who live close enough to get on, live so close to work that it's cheaper to use their car.

Re:Of course

[mhifoe]

I really cannot see the problem in riding in rain.

I cycle to work year round in the UK, where it rains loads.
Add fenders to your bike and carry a change of clothes in a plastic bag in your panniers.

Re:Of course

[dvice_null]

> the weather is not suitable for bike riding about 250 days per year. Then what do you do?

As a around-the-year-bike-rider I have to disagree with that. Yeah, it snows here, it is freezing cold in the winters and hot as hell in the summers and the city where I live is the second most rainiest in my country, but that hasn't stopped me. It is just a matter of an attitude. If you say that "is not an option" you clearly don't have the attitude and by all means, don't do it. But don't claim that it would be impossible, just because you don't want to do it.

And now back to your question "Then what do you do?": Well that's simple, just drive the bike 115 days a year and the rest of the year use other transportation. Or move closer to your work as I recently did. 115 days is much better than not doing it at all.

Re:Of course

[Ogemaniac]

Let's see...I can spend either forty minutes riding my bike through freezing cold or sweltering heat, head to the far side of my company's complex to use the shower in the gym, then spend 10 minutes getting over to my office...or I can just take the 9 minute drive and two minute walk inside. I am sorry, but spending an extra two hours a day on my commute is not an option.

And yes, I HAVE used bicycles and public transport for my regular commutes, when I lived in places where it was practical. In 95% of America, it is not.

telefap

[Anonymous Coward]

The article links a survey indicating that in Q1 2007 the 19 largest US cable and telephone providers (representing about 94% of the market) acquired over 2.9 million net additional high-speed Internet subscribers, to a total of about 56.2 million. That can be attributed in part to more employees taking advantage of telework

Or, more likely, to people who no longer have to get in their car to get porn.

I love high gas prices!

[fyrwurxx]

"The higher prices reflect an imbalance between supply and demand"

Yeah, and I'm sure your profit margin has absolutely nothing to do with it.

As an environment-conscious individual, I relish higher gas prices. $3 a gallon? Why not $5 or $10? I truly believe hitting people in the wallet is the *only* way to incite change in habits as deeply-rooted as our gasoline addiction. People need to realize that carpooling, investing in very fuel-efficient vehicles (for example, I drive a manual transmission Saturn--I average 30mpg city) or looking toward hybrid/bio-diesel options is not just a fanciful dream but a necessary reality. Alternative fuel vehicles are a reality, but the only way we will leverage them into the mainstream is through the power of our collective consumer's almighty dollar (and pound, and yen... ;)

Re:I love high gas prices!

[ysachlandil]

What I cannot understand is how you Americans can call a 30mpg vehicle 'fuel-efficient'. We Europeans call that average fuel use. Our fuel-efficient cars do 60mpg. Why don't yours?

--Blerik

(Oh, in case you're wondering what vehicle I'm referring to, it's the Volkswagen Polo Blue Motion. And yeah, it's a diesel. And no, that isn't a cussword, diesels are more environmentally friendly than gasoline cars)

Re:I love high gas prices!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi fyrwurxx (907932),
I write about energy for The Christian Science Monitor. I'm writing an article about the silver lining in high gas prices, basically the idea some economists and others (you for instance - your May 19 slashdot comment: "I love high gas prices!") have that they are needed to shift society toward greater energy security and lower tailpipe emissions. Most of the stories, as you know, are about "pain at the pump." So I was intrigued by your comments. I'd like to update and include any other thoughts you have on this subject. If you have time, send me an e-mail today or tomorrow - I'm happy to call you back if you send me a contact number.
Hope to hear from you,
Mark Clayton
Staff writer
The Christian Science Monitor
claytonm@csmonitor.com

Lifestyle changes

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a motor scooter 2 years ago and I love it. In the midwest in the USA the climate is right about 8 months out of the year to just drive it around for fun or even errands. I have found that a regular school backpack contains the same volume as the handheld shopping cart at the grocery stores. The motor scooter beats all the cars off the line, gets about 70mpg (more if I didn't drive it so hard) and gets many comments from people.

Well, Good

[Anonymous Coward]

We've always had to reduce spending so much energy on transportation. Lugging thousands of pounds of metal and plastic is ridiculously inefficient. The energy consumed could well go to other purposes, not to mention the money. Low fuel prices give no incentive to avoid waste.

Granted when one has one life to live, one ought to live it to the fullest and save time with a car when possible. However, there's sensibility in living closer to work, and what the economy really needs is the incentives to build housing closer to work as well as cleaning up industry to make living near work palatable.

People are busy. They "live and let die". It's good there's so much to do to build one's personal wealth, but the downside is the lack of time to actively make a difference in the way everything works. This attitude leads to its consequencs. When personal finances are ultimately jeopardized by high cost of maintaining a lazy self-serving lifestyle, people feebly protest by working at home at their lazy desk jobs rather than considering all the people who have to commute. These telecommuters with their higher education and power should spend extra effort in acquiring land and building affordable housing closer to work as well as eliminating harmful emissions.

The petroleum industry needs to be sent a message by the masses: people have the will to change their circumstances by making their workplaces fine to live near as well as living in denser housing. This requires cooperation. People live apart because distance lets bothersome people live their own stupid lives somewhere else. However, what's going to happen when fuel prices continue to spike during hurricane season and then hold due to high demand worldwide?

The comparison don't hold

[aepervius]

Because here around 70% (europe) of the gas price is due to taxes (it used to be that way but now it is probably around 60% due to the oil price raise). I do not think you gas in the US is taxed as much.

Here are some link about this tax rate on fuel in europe :
About.com on fuel gas price (first paragraph)
US reluctant to match Europe Gas price taxation

Quote :
For decades, European countries have imposed high taxes on fuel to encourage conservation and fuel-efficient technologies while funding public transportation. In England, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, the taxes on gas are more than twice as much as the underlying cost of the fuel.

Re:The comparison don't hold

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Uk some 70% of the cost of petrol/diesel at the pump is revenue to the Government (ie Taxes.)
I've been 'working from home' off an on for 6 years. Now its more ON than off. Most weeks I work from home for 4 days a week. The downside is that the Office is 80 miles away so commuting is not really an option.

If everyone who could worked just one day a week from home the reduction in CO2 would acheive most if not all of the targets that have been set by various governments (noticeably not the USA...)
Make it two days a week and you start to get serious reductions in commuter traffic thus actually improving the fuel efficiency of the drivers using the now emptier roads.
As so it goes on.

Personally, the $40.00 per month I pay for 2Mb unlimited ADSL sames me far more in fuel costs plus wear and tear on my car any my stess levels from the fact that I don't have to suffer the daily commute in both directions.

Bushian fantasies

[Harmonious Botch]

I agree, except I think you're giving Bush way too much credit. He probably believed that Iraq would turn itself into a liberal democracy as soon as the tyrant at the top was removed. ( It's not surprising that he should have that view; it will probably work in his own country...)

Re:Bushian fantasies

[jez9999]

It's not surprising that he should have that view; it will probably work in his own country...

Why would you think that?

Teleworkers are growing

[noidentity]

"[...] teleworkers are growing rapidly as a direct result of the cost of driving"

I guess that walk to the car and back each day was keeping them slim.

Chicken and the egg

[benhocking]

Did you ever see the public transport system in the US. I have. I can understand why people refuse to use it.

Without resorting to significant subsidies (which most Americans loathe, even though they aren't aware of just how many subsidies already exist), what you've just stated is a vicious cycle. Without a significant number of people riding public transportation, there is inadequate funds to improve public transportation. Until public transportation is improved, you won't have a significant number of people riding it.

Re:Chicken and the egg

[Opportunist]

And that's why a pure market economy does not work. My country developed something akin to "social market economy". We're moving away from it (read: it gets worse), but for a long time we had basic economy in governmental hands (power, water, natural gas (not fuel), sewage, even phone and postal service), and also the public transport. I.e. they provided the foundation for you to build a business on top of it. It worked, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but it was reliably good or bad.

Yes, we paid more back then for gas, power and water. But the quality was better. We had spring water in our tap, gas to every remotely sensible place and triple redundant power supply (so blackouts were kinda unknown for a long time here, at least since the 50s).

Personally, I prefer a reliable service to what it is currently turned into. 'cause you don't think we pay less tax now that they're privatizing everything they can, do you?

Re:Chicken and the egg

[mrchaotica]

Without resorting to significant subsidies...

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The road system in America is significantly subsidized, yet the rail system and public transportation systems are expected to make a profit! What. The. Fuck?!

The reason

[Askmum]

'How did we get into this mess?'

Simple: insane love of useless SUV's, voting for a complete moron as president, trying to policeforce the world.

I've got some news for you Americans: gasoline prices here are 1,40 per liter. That's $ 3,92 per gallon. You've got some way to go yet.

Re:The reason

[glomph]

Simple: insane love of useless SUV's, voting for a complete moron as president, trying to policeforce the world.

Correction: Complete moron and Drinking Buddy/stooge of the Texas-Based Oil Cartel.
                            Gasoline goes from $1.20 to $3.50 in just 4 years? MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Re:The reason

[Anonymous Coward]

$3,92 per gallon.

Your conversion is a bit off. I presume your currency unit is Euros:

1.40 euros/Liter = about 5.3 euros a gallon = about 7.16 USD a gallon.

But yes, your point stands. We have cheap gas. The local gas station where I live is only 3.40 USD a gallon.

Re:The reason

[Mr. Hankey]

It's been more expensive in San Francisco FWIW, $4.20 a gallon for the least expensive stuff at one gas station. We're already past $3.92/gallon, not that I think SUVs are ideal commuting vehicles. People who drive them for no good reason (there are good reasons, mind you, but most people don't need them) deserve the higher prices. Hopefully we'll see a shift in the types of vehicles people are driving as prices continue to rise.

The weather in N. Europe sucks, but people cycle.

[SpzToid]

I just heard on NPR the city of Paris is setting up 20,000 bikes with RFID and special racks and a pay as your go system. The 1st 45 minutes are free. One of the arguments is more cyclists means increased overall safety for cyclists on the road. because paris is making cycling a priority, and wants to discourage automobiles.

In the Netherlands space for bikes, safe crossings, etc. is a matter of civic planning, and the councils will re-arrange crossings or squares every few years as they figure out even better designs.

Denmark, Sweden, have lousy weather too. yet the per capita ridership blows N. America away. I think much of it has to do with poor civic planning and vision in North America. People will do it, if they understand and someone shows them the way. The problem is, folks aren't looking too hard, or far.

- - -
You can't be ahead of the curve if you're stuck in a loop.

How much do you all really spend on gas?

[jfruhlinger]

I happened to be updating my money info in Quicken when this story popped up, so I thought I'd see how much gas prices really hit my pocketbook.

In the past 12 months, gas has constituted 0.81% of our family spending. For the 12 months before that, it was 0.66%. A good-sized bump in relative terms, I suppose, but one that can be absorbed without pain in relative terms because the number was so small to begin with.

My wife's office is only about five miles away from our house, but on the other hand, she does have to do a fair amount of driving for work-related reasons during the day, so I imagine her work-related driving isn't terribly outside the norm. I do work at home, though for non-gas-related reasons, but even if you double our gas spending to get to the more typical two-commute family, we'd still be at less than 2 percent of our family budget -- certainly not something that would put us in the poorhouse. And while we're not hurting for cash, we're certainly not wealthy -- between the two of us we make less than $100K a year, less than a lot of IT folks make with one salary.

My question is, are we some kind of freaks when it comes to gas use compared to most Americans? We live in a city neighborhood where we can walk to places for some basic errands and our grocery store is two-minute drive away; on the other hand, the city we live has a pretty lousy public transit system, so if we're doing things outside our neighborhood, we invariably drive. We don't drive a big SUV, but we don't drive a hybrid either: and our sedan is 13 years old, so I imagine it's not particularly fuel efficient when compared to new cars of the same size. Yet I feel like gas prices would have to triple before we'd be really forced to reorder our priorities to feed our car. Are we really so far outside the American norm when it comes to gas use? Or are gas prices just one of those things that you see two or three times a month and so you really notice when they go up, but it doesn't realy have as much of an impact on your life as you think?

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[mrchaotica]

My question is, are we some kind of freaks when it comes to gas use compared to most Americans? We live in a city neighborhood where we can walk to places for some basic errands...

Yes, you are freaks. Most people drive 5+ miles to Wal-Mart (in their SUV) for basic errands.

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[mattkime]

>>are we some kind of freaks when it comes to gas use compared to most Americans? [ ...] We live in a city neighborhood where we can walk to places for some basic errands and our grocery store is two-minute drive away.

Either you're freaks or you're very lucky or both. Since the 1950's, the US has been segmenting its cities so that even small errands require a car. If your wife works five miles away and the grocery store is a two minute drive, you could eliminate car usage for daily tasks.

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont know about where you live, but around here trying to make anything over $20/hour is quite literally impossible. You normally top out around $15/hour (31,200 annual) and start making around $10/hour (20,800 annual). .88% of those figures are $275 and $183 respectively. Figure in a 20mpg(city) vehicle with $3.50/gal you are driving 1,571 and 1,045 miles per year, also respectively. That would be an oil change (if going by synthetic oil and ignoring the 6/12/whatever month "change by" date.) every 2-4 years, if gas prices dont go up. If you can find me anyone that drives that little I've got a job for you finding Amelia Earhart.

The average Midwest American spends $2135/year at a rate of 20mpg @ $3.50/gal in 12,200 miles per year (miles per year as of 2002). 6.8% and 10.2%

Thanks for being rich and sticking it in our faces.

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[frogstar_robot]

It isn't just what we personally spend on gasoline. I've noticed prices on fresh produce and other things in the grocery store are up too. High fuel prices affect the price of everything. Almost everything in the store came by ship, truck, or train. That takes fuel and higher fuel costs are passed on to consumers. High fuel prices are costing you more than a 0.15% household budget increase. Some families have to do more driving than you do so the direct costs for others is higher as well. That means many people stay home more and spend less when they are out. That will ripple through the economy as well.

This is a much larger issue than your monthly gasoline bill.

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[Dzimas]

You're a bit of an anomaly, with only a single 13 year-old car. Most families own two (or even three) vehicles, and fuel costs are only part of the expense. When dealing with a newish car, don't forget to add $1500 for annual insurance, $5000 for car payments and another $300 for repairs, oil changes and so on. If there are two cars in a typical driveway, that equates to about $13,600 a year PLUS fuel. We waste vast amounts of money on our shiny metal boxes. :)

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[jfruhlinger]

I don't know where you live, but I kind of doubt that there is anywhere in the U.S. where 'make anything over $20/hour is quite literally impossible" for anyone of any education level. Doctors? Lawyers? Computer programmers? Really? If the wages there are so low, I'm guessing that (say) your mortgage or rent is significatnly lower than mine.

For the record, my wife makes $23.39/hr, working at a nonprofit. I'm freelance, so my income is all over the map. In the last 12 months, I made $59,096.85; not that I really work a 40 hour week (sometimes it's much more, sometimes it's a bit less), but pretending that I do, that works out to $30.78/hr. If that qualifies us as "rich" then it's news to me.

The actual gas figure for the last 12 months was $842.85. You can believe it or not, but I'm pretty meticulous about record keeping for that sort of thing. Guess we probably get better than 20 mpg average, on a 13 year old car?

Josh

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[jfruhlinger]

Well, it's true, I suppose, though my figures were strictly for gas (since it's gas price rises that are under discussion here). I didn't factor in the money we spent on car maintenance and insurance (though the car's long been paid off, so there's no payment to make).

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[hiryuu]

My question is, are we some kind of freaks when it comes to gas use compared to most Americans?

I'm going to say you're likely really, really lucky here. I took a look at what was probably the best time for me, in terms of gas expenditures - spring and summer 2005, when I moved to a townhouse that was literally right next door to the office, lived alone, and the only driving I did was typically for travel to see family or work-related (to and from the airport, usually), and occasionally going out (shopping, etc.). In that time, I was filling my car (2001 Ford Focus, ~30MPG) between twice and three times a month. For that stretch, my gas spend was still 2.29% of my total spend. This is in the Chicago-Milwaukee area, so our gas prices are relatively high.

Interestingly, I got a look at the data for what an average "fill-up" costs me. Making the assumption that every spend was to completely fill a completely empty tank (generally true for me - I drive until the fuel light has been on a while), my average fill cost me just under $20 back in January 2005, and currently sits at nearly $31 for April 2005. (This is the average within the month.) May isn't done yet, but it's looking like that's going to have an average of nearly $38.

Just my anecdotal referential $0.02, or so. :)

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[fatmal]

The whole system of food production and distribution is fundamentally flawed - we use far more calories in production and distribution than are available to us in the food produced. That is always a losing game! From http://www.cias.wisc.edu/foodshed/pubsntools/meal1 .htm

Today a big proportion of the energy going into food production and distribution is fossil fuel energy. Fossil fuel energy is a finite resource, and its use in food isn't always easy to see. As with other resources, we in the U.S. consume more than our share. Here's some facts:

• The U.S. expends three times as much energy per person for food than developing nations expend per person for ALL energy activities. And fossil fuel energy inputs into food production and distribution increased dramatically in the second half of the twentieth century.
• The modern production and distribution system expends 10-15 calories of energy for every calories of food energy produced.
• Chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides are based on petrochemicals. Between 1960 and 1980, chemical fertilizer use in the U.S. expanded three times, and herbicide use, over 4.5 times.
• Chemical fertilizers alone accounted for 30% of energy use in agriculture in 1974.
• Different food sectors use different amounts of the total fossil fuel energy used in food production and distribution: on-farm production represents just 17.5 percent of the whole, while processing accounts for 28.1 percent, distribution for 9, transportation for 11, restaurants for 15.9 percent, and home preparation for 25 percent.

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[digitalhermit]

I admire you. This is off-topic somewhat, but I've noticed that lots of IT folks have no clue how to budget and save. I admire that you drive a 13 year old car. Lots of the IT workers in my department who make less than me spend more on cars than I spend on a mortgage. Hey, if cars are their passion, go for it, but it's a little alarming to see how little they save. I also admire that you understand the concept of a family budget. I don't know if it's because the typical IT worker is younger, but it's also alarming to see how many of them are waiting on their next check because bills are due. At the same time they're picking up laptops, cameras, high-end electronics on credit cards. Again, it's their finances, but I'm a little frightened for some of them (the younger ones mostly) who have never seen an employment downturn.

Your driving habits are atypical. Many people want to live in the suburbs and work in the city. It's how our cities are constructed in most of the US. This leads to traffic, congestion, wasted fuel. But to change that requires deep re-thinking of the American dream (home in the suburbs, two cars, etc.).

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[Boogaroo]

Just a comparison. I am making more money than the average person for my age at $31,000 a year. My car gets ~40mpg and I drive approximately 29,000 miles a year(~25,000 for just commuting.)

Gas here is $3.40/gal. I'll exclude my personal mileage because I could probably shave off half of that if I tried. So,625 gallons a year for commute, $2125. This is 6.9% of my income. Could I move? Sure, but I'd likely lose the ability to keep my dog and my awesome landlord and room. It sucks living 50 miles from work, but I would lose any gas savings as well if I move since my rent would likely more than double(that's just $3100 a year.)

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that your 13 year old beater gets better gas mileage than many of the newer vehicles (other than econoboxes) people drive today, especially SUVs. Heck, in some cases you could get better gas mileage in a Stryker armored combat vehicle (4-6mpg) or even a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (2mpg) than some of the SUVs and trucks on the road today.

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[khallow]

Food isn't a significant part of the energy budget of the world. And because humans require energy in the form of food, it's a high value food source. So it's not significant that food energy takes so much of a less valuable sort of energy to produce. Further, the energy content of fertilizer doesn't describe the value of fertilizer.

Also your statement ignores solar energy. US farming looks far more efficient when you take that into account.

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[khallow]

This doesn't really address the original poster's question. I don't see a telecommuting choice selected merely because everything is slightly more expensive. The real value to me seems to be the time saved in commuting. If the driver would spend an hour traveling to work before, then they save two hours a day by working from home.

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a series of additional things affecting food prices:

* Various reductions in yields across the world due to a lack of rainfall in the past few years.
* Increased demand from industrialing nations specially for items that they have not traditionally consumed (e.g. the cost of milk powder as massively increased, and increased demand for meat and feed for the animals).
* The effect of some corn production (which is a feedstock for a whole variety of things) being diverted to ethanol production.
* The loss of Zimbabwe as a source of food in Africa.
* The timelag to cope with these additional food production demands (it takes a long time to put new land into production and margins for farmers are pretty thin so doing so when world interest rates are increasing is financially difficult).

Increased oil and gasoline costs probably don't help but probably aren't the most significant factors at the moment.

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[Sinical]

I drive a 2001 Nissan Maxima: 18.5 gallon tank. I fill the tank once a week: usually in the area of 16-17 gallons. @ $3/gal: ~$50. Thats $200/month or $2400/year. That's about 3% of my gross income (~$80k).

In case you're wondering, I'm averaging ~24.3mpg and drive 340-420 miles per week, or 18k+ miles/year.

Re:How much do you all really spend on gas?

[El_Oscuro]

There are 2 shopping centers within a 5 minute bike ride of my house. However, I have to drive, as they don't believe in sidewalks in the DC suburbs, and I don't really feel like tangling with 50+ MPH traffic on a bike. So, I have make these short trips in a car, which I get terrible gas mileage. If they designed the roads so they were a little more bike/pedestrian friendly, maybe some people would get out of their cars every now and then. In many DC suburbs it is impossible to go anywhere without a car.

Los Angeles is actually quite pedestrian friendly, even in the suburbs (the older ones anyway). My mother never had a drivers license, and I had a range of about 15 miles with bike/skateboard and bus. There, most streets have sidewalks, or they are wide enough so you can ride a bike without tangling with car traffic.

Bull

[Colin Smith]

Such high prices in Europe does not hurt the European standard of living because many Europeans use public transportation; Bull.

Yes more use public transport than the US. i.e. 90% of travel is by car rather than 95%. But it does indeed hurt the European standard of living. Not only do they have to spend a fortune on a car, another fortune on fuel each year, but they are also taxed to the gills in order to pay the truly massive subsidies that are required to make public transport remotely affordable for the 10% who are able to make use of the extremely limited service.

Conventional public transport is unable to provide an equivalent service to the car, it is simply physically unable service the other 90% of journeys that most need to make.

Public transport is most definitely not the answer to the car. Not with any of the existing group transport systems anyway. Anyone who says it is, is simply repeating dogma without having really investigated the costs and inherent limitations of such systems.

Re:Bull

[gweihir]

Yes more use public transport than the US. i.e. 90% of travel is by car rather than 95%. But it does indeed hurt the European standard of living. Not only do they have to spend a fortune on a car, another fortune on fuel each year, but they are also taxed to the gills in order to pay the truly massive subsidies that are required to make public transport remotely affordable for the 10% who are able to make use of the extremely limited service.

Conventional public transport is unable to provide an equivalent service to the car, it is simply physically unable service the other 90% of journeys that most need to make.

Public transport is most definitely not the answer to the car. Not with any of the existing group transport systems anyway. Anyone who says it is, is simply repeating dogma without having really investigated the costs and inherent limitations of such systems.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Public transportation is typically not tax-funded. There is no European city with modern public transportation which is used by only 10% of the people living there. >50% is a more realistic number and some cities get as high as 90%. Of course for that the system has to work. I have a tram every 7 Minutes to work. It takes 22 Minutes to get there. Car would take longer, be much more expensive and more stressful. And this system is not tax-funded.

Re:Bull

[Anonymous Coward]

"Conventional public transport is unable to provide an equivalent service to the car,"

It very much depends on the city. In London or New York if everyone tried to drive into the centre to work it would take MUCH longer than taking public transport. In both cities public transport is high and the roads are still clogged to capacity!

In a fairly distributed city with a lower population density, then things can be different.

In terms of energy efficiency a measure might be GDP generated for each unit of energy used. Standard of living and quality of life are not covered by this efficiency measure, though.

Re:Bull

[Colin Smith]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Public transportation is typically not tax-funded. There is no European city with modern public transportation which is used by only 10% of the people living there. >50% is a more realistic number and some cities get as high as 90%. Of course for that the system has to work. I have a tram every 7 Minutes to work. It takes 22 Minutes to get there. Car would take longer, be much more expensive and more stressful. And this system is not tax-funded. Simply wrong. In Germany, France and the UK, the big 3 European economies. Public transport makes up no more than 10% of passenger miles travelled. In all 3 countries, public transport is heavily subsidised, to the tune of about 50% of the running costs.

I'm afraid you're one of those who simply regurgitate the conventional public transport dogma without actually looking at the reality.

Re:Bull

[Colin Smith]

It very much depends on the city. In London or New York if everyone tried to drive into the centre to work it would take MUCH longer than taking public transport. In both cities public transport is high and the roads are still clogged to capacity! You've made the assumption that everyone wants to make a journey in to the centre of the city. Only a tiny proportion of journeys made within a city are hub edge like this. The rest, that is, the vast majority of journeys, are not simple commutes and are extremely badly served by public transport. i.e. if the train line runs north to south and you wish to travel east to west, the train isn't much use. Even if it is possible to use public transport to make journeys like this, it typically requires several changes of mode of transport with associated travel to stations, waiting on scheduled vehicles. The journey takes several hours instead of minutes.

Re:Bull

[gweihir]

You do realize that these figures include long-range travel and even subsidization of air travel and are therefore entirely unsuitable to reflect the cost of public transportation from and to work? One huge cost point are state owned airlines that turn a deficit. For the same reason "passenger miles" are not a valid unit for comparison either.

But you are obviously very much in love with your misconceptions, so who am I to debunk them.

Ain't seen nuthin yet!

[Anonymous Coward]

We are probably past the peak of world oil production. The price will likely go 5x higher than it is now. We are a long ways from developing any alternatives. Pretty much everyone looks over their shoulder and figures it is going to be the next guy who goes on an oil diet.

Ideas like ethanol will probably not pan out well. You need to be able to brew beer for $2.50 a keg in order for ethanol to compete with gasoline at $1.25 per liter. There are possibilities mind you. Ethanol from cellulose is one and oil from alga is another... but these are technologies which need to be developed.

The short of it is that we are facing a crisis the porportions of which the world has not seen in decades. It is not going to be pretty and it is not going to be fun.

It's a question of advantages vs price paid

[Arthropod]

Yes, in America our cities tend to be less dense. This translates into more distance traveled to get to work, but it also translates into what we (and probably most people) consider better living conditions. You can argue that it's not worth the extra fuel burned to live in greater luxury, but clearly there are plenty who don't agree.

Driving a car instead of using mass transport results in greater fuel consumption per capita, but you get to travel according to your schedule, in a self-contained environment entirely controlled by you, with the company you select, and you can actually transport items when you want to, including a week's worth of groceries or more so you don't have to go to the store every time you want to make a meal (which, incidentally, cuts down on transportation for car users).

Driving a larger vehicle instead of a tiny car means more fuel burned per mile traveled the vehicle, but it buys you carrying capacity. I don't think it was unreasonable for my parents to have a Minivan to take the seven members of our family around in. Even if it had been the most gas-guzzling SUV ever invented, the mileage per person riding would on average have been way better than one person riding the 30 mpg Saturns people are bragging about in this discussion. Heck, if you're going to be short-sighted about it, a bus gets terrible mpg. Sure, there are people that are driving SUVs mostly by themselves, and that's kind of dumb, but...

...that leads me to my next point: SUVs and trucks may be handy scapegoats, but they don't really make that big of a difference, at least as far as "when the oil will run out" is concerned. Even if solo drivers choose to go with a 20 mpg SUV instead of a 30 mpg Saturn, that just means the fossil fuels are exhausted in 60 years instead of 90. As far as dumping fumes into the environment, there's some argument there, but 20% of Americans driving a bigger or more powerful car than "necessary" is/will be swallowed in the rapid adoption of any car (or even more prevalent mass transportation) by the rest of the world's masses, as they grow more affluent. The only long-term solution is to draw our power from other sources. Nuclear power seems like the clearest practical direction to go, with whatever method is preferred/proves to be best for storing the energy for use in vehicles.

I lived in Europe for two years without a car, and did the whole mass transportation thing. It sucked. I'm willing to pay quite a bit for the enormous convenience and luxury of having my own vehicle to transport items, to take friends out to places where it wouldn't make sense to have regular trains or buses but that are accessible via some sort of road, to shave significant time off my daily commute, to be able to live in a house instead of a tiny apartment crunched together with everyone else because it's impossible for us to travel very far for work... The list goes on. I also like having a slightly more powerful car than is "absolutely necessary". Like anything, it can be taken to one extreme or the other, but forcing everyone to crunch together and/or drive fewer, smaller, wimpier cars isn't a silver bullet that will fix everything like people seem to think, so why torture ourselves needlessly? There are plenty of other luxuries (air conditioning?) that currently require the consumption of fossil fuels in order for us to enjoy them, but they're not under the gun as much as the belaguered vehicle owners of America.

Each individual's lifestyle has its price. For some reason people talk as if nothing is gained as a result of certain less "environmentally-friendly" practices, but that's not true. It may not be something you care about, but that's not necessarily an excuse to limit everyone else's choices. I hear that argument all the time here about other things. If you decide a certain lifestyle's not worth it, don't live it. If enough people decide that allowing other people certain lifestyl

And we might actually use mass transit...

[Glowing Fish]

So, with all these crazy ideas of ways to change our gas usage, has anyone noticed if it has made Americans anymore willing to try mass transit? Because using more mass transit is about the quickest way (ie, doesn't need much infrastructure changed) to decrease fuel usage.

But for some reason, people won't go for it, perhaps because a stigma attached to mass transit. Yes, riding the bus can be uncomfortable, but so is being stuck in a traffic jam. Yes, it can take extra time, but so can searching for parking. Yes, you meet crazy people on the bus sometimes, but I've never noticed more of them there than in, say, the grocery store. So why hasn't the most easy idea caught on?

Re:And we might actually use mass transit...

[Kohath]

So why hasn't the most easy idea caught on?

Because people can still afford to drive, and driving is still a lot better than riding a bus for most people. Folks aren't going to take the bus when driving is still a lot better.

Re:And we might actually use mass transit...

[quag7]

I don't use mass transit *because there is no mass transit* where I live, nor was there anywhere I ever lived with two exceptions - in one case I just walked around town (New Brunswick, New Jersey) because I was in college, and two, I lived off of Ina Road in Tucson, Arizona, but in that case, I could also walk to most things I needed.

The problem is the USA, with a few exceptions, is just not set up for efficient transportation. Suburbs and exurbs are a major part of the problem and as others have pointed out, so is the unwillingness to mix residential and commercial areas. I always liked being able to walk to a corner store or bar, but apparently, overall, people want to live isolated from the businesses they work and shop in. I've lived in those isolated suburbs most of my life, and I see very little positive about them. Some day, I'd like to live in a place where I can walk or hop onto a subway to go where I need to go. People are terrified about planning their towns in any meaningful way - it's too bad, because while the market has certainly met demand, it has given people what is not, perhaps, always good for them. Plus, structures are fairly permanent. You can't really undo bad planning easily (though it can be done). In the few places I've lived that were "walkable," the only disadvantage was a little more noise. Other than that, it was all plusses - you can, for example, create more parks which tend me more satisfying than residential lawns.

Probably things will just get worse and worse until the market drives the way towns and cities are built. It's too bad - a little planning for growth could solve a lot of problems. Also, I'd like to see towns get serious about walking and biking paths across cities. In a perfect scenario, I should be able to walk or bike across the city I live in without ever having to wait to cross a street or interact with cars. Ideally bus, tram, or train stops would be near these paths. Adding a little walking to anyone's schedule couldn't hurt. I admire the subterranean passageways I saw in Montreal and Winnipeg, where you can cross really busy downtown streets by simply walking underground (where there are restaurants and stores and so on). These kinds of things could be employed for bikers and walkers in cities, and possibly create new places for businesses.

Sane work hours would also help, because maybe it would take the edge off of public transit commutes. And as someone who has telecommuted for 8 years now, I have to say, this is a concept that needs major, broad expansion. While not everyone can work from home, a lot of people certainly can, even if it's just part of the time. It requires a psychological adjustment and a new way of looking at work, but it is certainly doable. The information age was supposed to make this possible - and it is - the time to look closer at this is now. I'm in favor of any kind of tax breaks for companies that expand telecommuting programs.

For workers, it will require some changes, but hardly anything insurmountable. If companies can get beyond their initial fear of telecommuting and workers who claim they can't discipline themselves can learn to (and they can), everyone stands to save a lot of money, cut down on a lot of pollution, and provide some relief to the ridiculous gridlock on the roads.

Now as for vehicles and SUVs everyone complains about - I drive a nearly decade-old Ford F-150 pickup truck. I drive this truck because I wanted a truck with good ground clearance and a large bed because I like to take it into the desert on rough roads, and then sleep in the back. I don't care at all about raw hauling capacity, acceleration, or herculean torque. I think there are a lot of assumptions made about what drivers want and I'm not sure that the vehicles acceptable to us are always a good fit.

I would love to see a very fuel efficient, even hybrid vehicle with high ground clearance, good suspension, and a full sized bed. I would sacrifice engine power for the purpose of fuel efficie

Re:And we might actually use mass transit...

[linguae]

But for some reason, people won't go for it, perhaps because a stigma attached to mass transit. Yes, riding the bus can be uncomfortable, but so is being stuck in a traffic jam. Yes, it can take extra time, but so can searching for parking. Yes, you meet crazy people on the bus sometimes, but I've never noticed more of them there than in, say, the grocery store. So why hasn't the most easy idea caught on?

Because, most people would rather pay for gas, no matter what the price is, than to take double the time to get from point A to point B, dealing with crazy people (not a problem in small towns, but is an issue in large cities), and to base their entire life on somebody else's schedule rather than theirs. Sometimes, mass transit doesn't even get you exactly where you need to go (some suburbs have very little, if any, mass transit).

People use automobiles because of the independence that it gives you. You can go from door to door easily, quickly, and conveniently. You only have to deal with yourself and your passengers, and not deal with crazy people. You get places on your own time, not on somebody else's schedule. People drive not because they have a fanatical obsession with cars, but because of the independence that you get that you'll never get with mass transit.

Personally, I'm a cyclist; I'm just a poor college student who can't afford a car. I use a combination of cycling and mass transit (whenever I'm tired of cycling for the day), depending on the time and task at hand. I love cycling because of the independence, the decent speed (I can bike about 20-25mph on flat land, and 30mph downhill). as well as the fact that it costs $0 to fill it up (since it needs no gas). However, sometimes you just need a car. Try carrying a week or two of groceries on a bike or on the bus, for example (I don't have the time to cycle every other day to the store). Try going to a formal event (suit and tie) at night on a bike, after the buses stopped running (my college town's bus service stops running after 8:00). Try hauling heavy things around. Every now and then, something comes up that defeats cycling or mass transit.

I promote alternate forms of transportation, but I recognize that cars are very important for many tasks, and high gas prices will not suddenly get rid of these tasks. Many people have probably tried or at least explored mass transit, but it just doesn't fit the needs with many people.

wtf are you talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

i love armchair economists who have NO idea what they are talking about

what you call "tragedy of commons" is more properly known as externalized cost, and it has absolutely nothing to do with socialism, in fact, the "tragedy of commons" is a brilliant example of one of the fundamental problems with lasseiz fair capitalism, in that corporations freed from regulations will avoid paying the externalized costs of their activities

Re:wtf are you talking about?

[jamesbulman]

Damn, where are my mod points where I need them. Parent post is spot on.

Rule #1 about taxes

[benhocking]

Personally, I prefer a reliable service to what it is currently turned into. 'cause you don't think we pay less tax now that they're privatizing everything they can, do you?

Rule #1 about taxes: they never truly go down.

Because it doesn't hurt enough to be stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ, now we will have to spend years playing the blame game... All of these stupid bastards should be fired.

Buses don't go to where I work

[quanticle]

In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery.

I don't think so. Here (Minneapolis, MN) many people do use the bus to commute, and I'd think a lot more would if only the buses would go to their workplaces at the times they work. You see, the transit system here assumes that everyone works from 9 a.m to 5 p.m. in downtown. Work in another suburb? You're outta luck. Don't hold to the traditional 9-5 schedule? Again, no buses for you.

I'm a student living at home. I work in the mornings and have classes in the evenings. My schedule is the exact opposite of the bus schedule - e.g. I need to go downtown when the buses are moving people out to the suburbs. Therefore, I drive. I wish I didn't have to (parking is expensive and difficult to find), but I don't have any other option.

I think class snobbery is overrated when looking at the reasons that people don't ride the bus. Increasingly businesses no longer congregate in a centralized downtown. Increasingly, people want to work on schedules that fit their needs. I think mass transit should change to address that.

US populace is bipolar

[melted]

Honestly, you can make them do ANYTHING by hammering a certain topic into their heads with TV every half an hour on all channels. Additional 20-30 bucks a month are NOT going to make or break a family budget. They're NOT a good financial reason to buy a hybrid car. I won't be making any sudden moves until gas is $8-10 a gallon, in fact.

Re:US populace is bipolar

[bockelboy]

Hm. That's funny; the figure I've been hearing is gas costs the average family an extra $1000 a year. That's about $80 a month.

$80 a month will break a lot of middle class families, or at least make life a lot more uncomfortable. Remember how we've been hearing about record levels of consumer spending, record levels of consumer debt, and a savings rate of about 0% among working families?

At some point, the American consumer breaks. When that happens, the whole world's economy will feel it.

(That said, I take the bus every day to work. My wife and I save at least $100 a month doing that. That's a couple of iPods a year!)

Re:US populace is bipolar

[stewbacca]

So if $80 will break a middle class family, they should perhaps drop their $85/month cable television and internet contract? Or maybe they can not eat out twice a month. Maybe they could not go to the movies a couple of times. Maybe they could skip that impulse buy for the new pair of Nikes or two pairs of Levis?

Your argument holds no water. Judging by their purchasing habits, $80/month is nothing to a middle-class family. Perhaps you meant a poor family?

I'm not sure if you are trying to preach at us for telling us you ride the bus, but I live on a country road with no bus line. Even if it did have a bus, I put a price on convenience. I would save enough money in convenience to buy more than a "couple of iPods a year".

GREED!

[empress101]

The oil industry has been allowed to flees America, because it has its hand in the pockets of our representatives(especially if you're a republican). They spend millions on lobbyist to make certain they maintain a control of what laws and regulations are passed. It seems it is more of the old idea that what was good for GM was good for America. Obviously that all depends on who you are and your point of view.

Of course it is good for GM, the oil industry, and stock holders if you gain to earn billions, but bad very bad in the long run for the environment, eventually you as a consumer, and your children.

Why are gas prices out of control? Greed. It all comes down to greed. Many of the reasons have been posted here. We ask why has congress taken so long to move on requiring auto makers to make better fuel efficient cars? The technology has been around for decades. We are now hearing the drum up of ethanol fuels. Ethanol is not the only fuel that can be used to power a vehicle. The higher prices of gasoline actually will come back to bight the industry particularly in there profits. Fewer people will spend money for gasoline. This also has an effect on the other industries. Fewer people make that trip to the mall or grocery store. It becomes more expensive for companies to ship merchandise because of the gas prices, thus people will simple pass on buying that item. This cuts into the other industries profits. There was a balance between these entities in which the oil industry had to keep it reasonable or risk causing loss in other industries. Ironically by people purchasing less gas means the oil industry will have a surplus of the stuff and won't be able to off load it fast enough there profit margin will begin to shrink as well.

Another, probably most important result of this is America's security. America has become increasingly dependant on foreign oil. This compromises our nations security. We are at the mercy of foreign interest. That is not good for America. All this is done for the almighty buck.

Re:GREED!

[stewbacca]

I'm frankly sick of the short-sighted attitude that gas is expensive in America and it is the fault of the oil companies. I'm an American living in the U.K. and gas is about $7 per gallon here. Every time a family member forwards me another stupid email about $3/gallon gas, I tell them to shut up already.

Gas companies in America could double gas prices if they were truly greedy, and people would still buy gas and still drive to work. Why can I say this? Because people in Harrogate, UK aren't put off by petrol that costs 95p/liter and they continue to go on with their normal driving routines, REGARDLESS of gas prices. Don't belive me? Try driving through any of the major roads at any time of any work day. Congestion is bad and it is all people in cars (and the occassional city bus).

Re:GREED!

[empress101]

Hum...

Sounds like the idea of slowly boiling a frog in a pot of water.

Mod parent up

[thre5her]

GP is a troll, or is grossly misinformed.

Re:Mod parent up

[db32]

You must be new here. Facts are only considered fact around here when they revolve around the Bush/US is to blame for everything mentality. Anything that would run counter to that is ignored completely. Rational solutions to this lunacy are prohibited, we must respond with knee jerk methods to everything! Republicans are all evil, Democrats are all good, Service members are all murderers, all Copyright/Patents should be invalid so we can all have our free movies and music legally!

Someday I hope we can eventually get away from that nonsense, but not sure that its gunna happen anytime soon.

It will never be sexy enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

..or rugged-individualist enough...

Modern people, at least here in the U.S., delude themselves that they are individuals.

Individuals that depend on noone, except themselves. Until the electricity goes out, they retire, or they get that medical bill in the mail that cannot be paid for in 10 lifetimes.

Re:It will never be sexy enough...

[Glowing Fish]

I think that might have a lot to do with it.

You know, lots of suburban white men who feel tough behind the wheel of their SUV, but would get nervous having to sit close to a BLACK PERSON!

Its a stereotype, but it is true.

Drilling in ANWR? You're kidding, right?

[Kozz]

According to the CIA World Factbook of 2007, the US is currently consuming 20.7 million barrels of oil per day. Let's suppose that "the amount of technically recoverable oil in the ANWR 1002 area 'is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels ... with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels.'"

Quick, do the math. 7.7 billion divided by 20.7 million per day gives us ... 371 days -- just over a year's worth. And it will take about 10 years for the drilling to come online.

Personally, I don't think it's worth it -- but I'm not an oil investor. ;)

Re:Drilling in ANWR? You're kidding, right?

[HomelessInLaJolla]

"the amount of technically recoverable oil in the ANWR 1002 area 'is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels ... with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels.'" The grain of salt being that the smart investors always tell you exactly how much they have in the bank, right? I don't need to know anything about oil-ology to know that number is deliberately underestimated.

Duh.

And low oil prices

[mdsolar]

I'd like to see oil down to about $10/barrel. At that price, it would not be worth pumping it. We'd just leave it in the ground. Getting that far out in front of the supply curve by reducing demand would be pretty hard to do. If we cut our demand in half (not so hard), OPEC would likely crumble, but the lower price would encourage other countries to start using more. Seems to me, if we could muster that much dicipline, we'd also have to find ways to discourage other countries from increasing demand. Any ideas?

Re:And low oil prices

[Izeickl]

Perhaps you didnt realise oil got down to $10 in 1998....I was working for a large oil company at the time....we just kept on pumping it even if it was making a loss at some of our locations prompting oil company mergers at the time....I dont think you realise just how cheap it is for the major OPEC countries to pump oil either, were talking $2 a barrel as its so easy for them to get to it.

Re:And low oil prices

[mdsolar]

Actually, I was taking this into account. The main number I'm thinking of is how long, given a suitable replacement, it takes to convert our transportation fleet to using renewable energy. This could go very quickly if we found a way to synthesize gasoline at below $30/barrel equivalent without also impacting, say food prices, because we could just use the same fleet. Owing to limits on the efficiency of plants in converting solar energy to hydrocarbons, this does not look all that feasible http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html.

So, I'm assuming we need a different kind of engine and the fleet has to be converted. This, period of time exhausts most of the really cheap to extract oil so far as I can tell and the remaining oil needs more desperate measures.

I think you can operate as a loss in a portion of your production, but you can't do it in all of your production.

The thing is, supply is already manipulated to affect price in the oil sector, it is much much smarter to change the demand side to our benefit especially since we know we need to stop using the stuff before it actually runs out. The way to get people to cap productive wells is to make oil too cheap to meet payroll.

Why do you live 100 miles from where you work?

[fantomas]

Why do you live 100 miles from where you work, why not live 5 miles, or ten miles? genuinely curious. I can understand folk in the really big cities saying up to 3 or 4 miles from where I work is too expensive to live, that's prime downtown property. But 10 miles? 20 miles? I guess your cities are very spread out, is it a planning issue of pressing councils and your government to allow higher density residential property?

Re:Why do you live 100 miles from where you work?

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

I live 14 miles from work in a house that has been in my wife's family for 30 years. The current house market in the area is unpleasant for buyers. The office is also in an unpleasant part of town. A studio apartment costs more for rent than the 3 bedroom house I live in, etc.

Re:Why do you live 100 miles from where you work?

[rdoger6424]

The 100 mile example that the GP is talking about means (I think) that he's commuting to Silicon Valley/ the Bay Area (the area around San Francisco, California). Not only is the city a very expensive place to live in, but there are also cities around San Francisco. The immediate suburbs are saturated with high-price housing. The housing further away, however, is nice and affordable. Unfortunately, this housing may be a nice distance away.

Re:Why do you live 100 miles from where you work?

[master0ne]

Well where i live and work (while im within 5 miles from work to home... i got lucky) most people around here cant afford to move closer to their job because there already streached pretty tight financially, and theres not many jobs around here that are well paying and that are hireing.... i looked for months to find where im at now, and am still looking although nothing has come along.... i had to take a job that paid atleast what my monthly bills were, and those arnt always EASY to find, especially when your talking about more Rural Areas, like Charleston WV... Big city... kind of.... most people here commute 30+ miles to find a good neighborhood, and a decent place to live..... moving closer to work isnt a option as its more expensive, and in a worse neighborhood.... finding a closer job isnt a option either as there are no closer jobs..... Also... Public transportation here sucks.... the buses dont stop in every small town from here to the next big city, and the distance to some bus stops is a 30+ miniute drive... i couldnt imagin that bike ride.... esp in the winter....

Re:Why do you live 100 miles from where you work?

[Moridin42]

I don't know about this 100 mile figure thing. It happens, I'm sure. but probably not as widespread as the GP implies. It'll happen in places like parts of California, where assessed values of tiny lots with maybe 1400-1500 sq feet are over $1 million. Gas may be a little pricier in those areas (probably at/over $4 now) but.. making that long commute, you pay a little extra in gas and you do so a couple of times a week. Rather than paying a very hefty sum once a month paying the interest on the tiny, expensive house.

Re:Why do you live 100 miles from where you work?

[tftp]

Indeed. A typical one way commute from San Jose to Gilroy (a popular, affordable[*] living location) is 40 miles. A one way commute from San Jose to San Francisco is 46 miles. Moving as you change jobs is rarely an option because your losses on the sale of the house can easily exceed your salary for the few years you stay at one job.

[*] by local standards only.

Re:Why do you live 100 miles from where you work?

[zmollusc]

.... because job security doesn't exist? Can you risk spending several thousand pounds moving house when you may get made redundant at any minute?
Similarly, the house you move to may need costly repairs that only come to light when you have been there a little while?

That is a lot to weigh against the £50 a week to commute 100 miles.

Re:Why do you live 100 miles from where you work?

[drsquare]

Why do you live 100 miles from where you work, why not live 5 miles, or ten miles? genuinely curious.

OK, so what happens when you move 100 miles towards your workplace, then you're fired? Or what if your wife works 100 miles in the other direction, now she has to commute 200 miles to work. You haven't really thought this through. Maybe you're single and are willing to live like a gypsy moving around following work, other people would rather have more stability in their lives.

Re:Why do you live 100 miles from where you work?

[jez9999]

Moving as you change jobs is rarely an option because your losses on the sale of the house can easily exceed your salary for the few years you stay at one job.

I just don't get this. Honest question: why is it that we in Europe somehow manage with this, and it's a problem in the US? If we lose our jobs (something that hopefully doesn't happen much, by the way), we try and find another one nearby, and it's only a problem to move property if we're middle aged and really settled down; twenty-somethings shouldn't really have the same problem. If you are really settled down, one would hope you would have a good degree of job security. Why is this such a major problem in the US, and not over here?

Re:Why do you live 100 miles from where you work?

[An Onerous Coward]

I highly doubt that there are no other jobs within a hundred miles of your current job. Moving closer to your current job usually means moving closer to dozens of other jobs as well.

If you and your wife have chosen to structure your lives so that you each have a hundred mile commute in opposite directions, then it's very likely you've done something amazingly stupid. Or you just enjoy spending time as far away from each other as possible, in which case a divorce is an environmentally friendly option.

Re:Why do you live 100 miles from where you work?

[tftp]

Well, as you say older people have the following problems:

• House prices go up all the time. This means that your new house will cost more than your current house.
• House prices depend on the area. If you consider moving into some area, chances are other people want to do the same, this drives prices up even further. Similarly, if you are leaving then chances are other people are leaving too, and the value of your old house is further reduced.
• When you sell your house you lose some part of its value, even if we ignore the inflation. Some appliances need replacement, the roof leaks, the driveway has cracks... you either patch it up (costs money) or sell as is (costs money.) But if you don't move then you can keep living in this house making no repairs, as long as you have workarounds for whatever minor defects there are.
• A lot of people will want to be paid by you:
  1. The city, the county, the state - for the ownership paperwork
  2. The lawyer - for checking the contract, so that you don't end up living under a bridge
  3. The realtor - for selling your old house and for finding you another one
  4. The bank - for converting your old mortgage into a new one; the market - for closing an older, cheaper mortgage and buying into a newer, more expensive one.
  5. The movers - for relocating tons of your junk from one house into another.
• Moving, especially coupled with selling the house, is a very difficult experience. You need to do so many things just right... it's a serious distraction from your regular job for several months. Such a distraction has a cost attached to it, whether you use your vacation time (2 weeks max) or ask for a leave without pay.
• What if the job is not to your satisfaction after some time? What if job changed, or your manager changed? It is difficult to look for a new job if that may incur $10K-50K losses on moving.

Younger people can move easier because they have very few things, and they usually rent. However when a couple marries and settles down (which can be as early as 25 y/o) they fall into the category of homeowners, and into the worst corner of it - people who barely can afford the house. In such a situation they have no spare cash to throw around, and there are no bankers eager to burden them with more mortgage. Bankers these days are very concerned about defaults, because there are too many already.

Re:Why do you live 100 miles from where you work?

[drsquare]

I highly doubt that there are no other jobs within a hundred miles of your current job. Moving closer to your current job usually means moving closer to dozens of other jobs as well.

I work in a factory. I don't want to live next to an industrial estate. And no there are no jobs available nearer to where I live that offers the same money.

If you and your wife have chosen to structure your lives so that you each have a hundred mile commute in opposite directions, then it's very likely you've done something amazingly stupid.

Yes, when you meet someone, one of you should quit your job and work somewhere else. What a brilliant way to live.

Re:Why do you live 100 miles from where you work?

[KenSeymour]

You always have the choise of not taking the job in San Francisco or Silicon Valley.

I also live 100 miles from the San Francisco Bay Area, but I work 2.2 miles from where I live. It takes me 8 minutes to get to work.

There are lots more IT jobs in the Bay Area, but in my mind, the cost of real estate, the crowded roads, the expensive parking almost everywhere are just not worth it.

When my job requires me to travel to the Bay Area, I try to take the train.

Slightly Offtopic Rant

After taking the train between Sacramento and Oakland, California many times, I was on
vacation in Europe. I was surprised to find that our trains compare favorably to
those in Western Europe. Of course, YMMV.

The European trains charge foreigners more than locals for the fares. This not immediately
apparent until you realize that locals can get a discount card.
If you are going to Europe everybody says "get a Eurail pass." Then you find out
that some routes only have so many seats available for rail passes. Our US $500
rail passes (for two people) were no good between Paris and Brussels. We were told we would have to buy additional full fare tickets to ride the train. That was four days in advance!

It turned out to be 1/3 the cost to buy bus tickets instead. And the bus was pleasant.
Another time, we were trying to make reservations at the train station in Amsterdam.
Their computer was down and they didn't know when it would be back up. So that's
three trips to the train station for one train trip.

My point is that at least in California, trains are getting better and better. Here,
I can buy a ticket for a 100 mile train ride for under $20 at the last minute and just get on board.
After hearing for years how much better European trains are than ours, I was quite
surprised to have the opposite experience.

Paris to Brussels is 200 miles though. The full fare ticket would have been about 80 euro or US $100 per person.

End of Slightly Offtopic Rant

Although there are people who spend 3 or 4 hours a day, 5 days a week. They are making a
choice. They choose a bigger house and a bigger yard, with less time to spend in it.
Or you can get a job closer to an affordable place to live.

Re:Why do you live 100 miles from where you work?

[jez9999]

You've still missed the main point, which is the question of why this isn't a problem in Europe. USians seem to be saying that they need to live far away from work because they might otherwise need to uproot to live closer to their new job. Europeans don't have a problem living nearby.

Re:Why do you live 100 miles from where you work?

[tftp]

I haven't missed the main point, I just don't know the answer :-( I could only enumerate specific reasons why things are as they are, and then hope that anyone from Europe shows that these reasons are not valid there.

Re:Why do you live 100 miles from where you work?

[StikyPad]

Meet, no. Marry, maybe. If maintaining a career is more important than sacrificing for the sake of the marriage, then the marriage probably isn't worthwhile.

Greed?

[Arthropod]

If the only thing that makes gas prices go up is corporate "greed", then does that mean when they go down it's due to corporate benevolence?

Clearly there are other forces at work, here. If there is indeed an illegal cartel, I agree that it should be dealt with. But the cartel with the greatest effect on our gas prices is probably OPEC, not domestic producers.

You're right that technology has been consistently introduced over decades to increase fuel efficiency, but said technology has also been implemented for the most part. Trouble is, in the meantime we've also gained all sorts of safety and environmentally-friendly changes to our cars that have tended to cancel out many of the improvements in efficiency. I don't know why you think the industry would avoid doing anything to increase the mpg of their vehicles, when they know it would give them a competitive advantage. I'm sure if you spent orders of magnitude more money, you could increase the fuel efficiency some more, but that's not a reasonable suggestion. Like anything else, as our technology and manufacturing capabilities progress, the same features that start out astronomically-priced eventually become affordable additions.

Having the government decree that vehicles must have a certain efficiency won't make it so. I am greatly disturbed by your notion that the government should or can "make auto makers make better fuel efficient cars". Again, that's already something they really want and are trying to do.

I agree 100% that it is important to get away from our oil dependency. Nuclear power and some sort of portable energy storage (Hydrogen fuel cells? Better batteries? Crazy flywheels?) seem like a good route to take.

Size does matter!

[3seas]

For those comparing the EU gas prices to that of the US....

I found the public transportation system of Europe to be wonderful.
But the US is just bigger and that means its more difficult to create and maintain a public transportation system.

I live in Atlanta GA close to I-285 which is 60 miles full circle.
As slow as traffic can be, I'd prefer public transportation, if it only existed close enough to where I work, but it doesn't.

Perhaps the real problem is that of figuring out a better public transportation system. One that can handle the size problem yet help to keep traffic congestion to a minimum whele itself having low fuel cost.

Oh I know.....Teleportation........ hmmmm.... of work, not people (until that gets figured out....)

Re:Size does matter!

[6Yankee]

the US is just bigger and that means its more difficult to create and maintain a public transportation system. I live in Atlanta GA close to I-285 which is 60 miles full circle.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, whether you're saying that Atlanta's so vast that it's hard to have a decent public transport system, but the M25, around London is some 117 miles around. And London does all right for public transport.

Re:Size does matter!

[miukumauku]

There were common US public trasport systems everywhere. Trams and local trains. And they were bought by big Auto and converted to roads for nice profit by rising carsales. Shame that you led that happen, bringing the infrastructure back is hard now.

Re:Size does matter!

[JonathanR]

I find it interesting that road and highway infrastructure is put in place more or less pre-emtively to accommodate urban sprawl, but government investment in public transport is only considered when there is likely to be enough paying passengers to break even.

I bet if all new urban-fringe highways were installed as tollways, then they "idyllic lifestyle" advertised by land subdivision developers would be a little more difficult to sell.

Re:Size does matter!

[feepness]

Shame that you led that happen, bringing the infrastructure back is hard now.

Sorry, I was busy not being born yet.

Re:Size does matter!

[TheOriginalRevdoc]

But the US is just bigger and that means its more difficult to create and maintain a public transportation system.

Area of Europe: 10,180,000 square km.
Area of the USA: 9,631,420 square km.

Population of Europe: 710,000,000.
Population of the USA: 301,711,000.

So you're wrong either way.

The main reasons the USA has crap public transport and Europe has good public transport are: culural acceptance; and the fact that Europe kept a lot of the system that it built back in the 1800s, whereas the USA removed its 19th-century system during the 20th century.

Re:Size does matter!

[3seas]

I'm sure that there is more information to consider. But even the information you provided indicates a size issue in the US. Less than half the population and near the same size? Finances from taxes? How do taxes compare? Not to mention that Europe is made up of many countries with different politics/tax use.

A greater population density and higher taxes to pay for the base of public transportation. Which would this describe?

Transportation systems need to be updated and maintained. Only within the last ten years have roundabouts begun to be used in new intersection. There are cities in the US that have good public transportation, such that you can pretty much get where you want to go inside the city.

I'm sure there are areas in both that don't have it, but probably more so in the US due population.

The US is bigger in area vs. population, or so you even say.

The article was about working from home and the rise of it in the US, with claims of gas prices being to high.
It normally takes me around 20 minutes to get to work, but on a weekend when I catch the lights green and don't get stuck behind someone driving slow I can make it to work in less the 7 minutes. That means I spend 13 minutes burning gas one way that I wouldn't burn if the population of Atlanta wasn't growing far faster than road construction and planning happen. The 20+ years I've lived here, the best traffic was, was during the 1996 Olympics as fearing traffic congestion a lot of people went on vacation out of Atlanta and many others used public transportation (mostly the public transportation increase was from the population that came in for the events). So the result was a reduction in the private vehicle roads usage by those who left.

One might also point out that as third world countries start upgrading that don't have the development of the same communication infrastructure (i.e. telephone lines all over the place) but instead are developing wireless networks.
With this in mind, realize the difference between Europe's longer history than the US (post indian nation).

long distant trains in the US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMTRAK seem to suggest its not a century to century change.

Re:Size does matter!

[Anonymous Coward]

I found the public transportation system of Europe to be wonderful. But the US is just bigger and that means its more difficult to create and maintain a public transportation system.

More difficult? As another poster pointed out the figures don't support your assertion. Further, I reckon one of the wealthiest and most technologically advanced countries in the world can probably figure out how to make a working bus and train system. I think the lack of such a system has a little more to do with the very rich business interests that would be decimated by functional public transport, and a little less to do with it being "hard".

Re:I love high grocery store prices!

[vertinox]

As an environment-conscious individual, I relish higher gas prices. $3 a gallon? Why not $5 or $10? I truly believe hitting people in the wallet is the *only* way to incite change in habits as deeply-rooted as our gasoline addiction.

Great! Now even if I ride a bike or walk to grocery store, I'll still get slapped in the face with inflation due to rising costs in shipping!

But seriously, I would agree with you but the majority of shipping and handling in the states relies on automobiles and not trains or boats.

If gas prices rise too high... So does transporting goods which means everything is more expensive for everyone in the states regardless if you drive an SUV or walk everywhere you go. People can't stop eating without dying. Just not going to happen.

This is why alternative fuels must happen as soon as possible... The only way that the Fed can combat inflation due to rise in energy costs is to raise interest rates which of course stagnates the economy.

One might be able to imaging fuel prices at $5 gallon with subsequent hikes of the interest rate may cause a major recession... Leading to massive unemployment due to business expense costs increases (employers not able to hire as many people with the money that they have due to their own expenses and the fact they have to pay everyone more because of inflation).

Of course, my scenario is a bit over the top, I believe that since we heavily rely on trucks for our goods (rather than boat or train) that higher gas prices will hurt us all regardless of our behavior.

How? Peak Oil. Just google it.

[echtertyp]

We're screwed

Bush/Iraq

[stabiesoft]

Discuss

Make all public roads toll roads

[sadler121]

Without resorting to significant subsidies...

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The road system in America is significantly subsidized, yet the rail system and public transportation systems are expected to make a profit! What. The. Fuck?!

Which is why I personally believe all public roads should be toll roads. Repeal the tax on gasoline entirly, and all other taxes that go into keeping up the roads. Use the tolls that are generated to fix the roads. Hell, Roads could even be entirely private, and *gasp* could be made to be profitable! (I know, asserting that profit making is good is blasphemy in slashdot's eyes).

If Americans had to pay for the use of the roads, explicitly, they may turn to public transportation. At least pay per use would bring the costs out in the open and allow the two to compete on the open market. (Oh wait, another slashdot faux pas, the market is evil because it allows corporations to make profit! on noes!)

Re:Make all public roads toll roads

[DeadChobi]

No, if Americans had to pay for the roads they would be forced to quit their jobs or not eat. There is no public transportation for most of us. What we do have is slow, dirty, and doesn't go outside of urban areas. You've really only mastered one aspect of our economic dependence on the road system. A lot of us would turn to public transportation if only it existed. I would be happy to pay tax on it as a student. The problem is our government doesn't see what a wise investment it will be in a few years.

Re:Make all public roads toll roads

[sadler121]

No, if Americans had to pay for the roads they would be forced to quit their jobs or not eat.

Americans already pay for the roads, they just don't know it. Turning the roads into toll roads, and getting rid of the tax on gasoline would probably make driving more affordable because gas would probably be around $1 a gallon if it wasn't for all of the tax that was put on it and the cost of the upkeep of the road would be directly proportional to the use of the road. The more the road is used, the more money it gets for upkeep.

Keeping the roads private would allow them to be managed better by getting rid of the bureaucratic red tape that government tends to bring in with it's subsidized offerings.

Re:Make all public roads toll roads

[FailedTheTuringTest]

A tax on gasoline seems to me to be an effective way of taxing road use and funding road construction and maintenance. Gasoline consumption is directly and clearly linked to how much people drive, and it is very cheap to collect gas taxes compared with any form of toll collection or road usage metering schemes. Gas taxes also avoid privacy issues associated with tolls and road usage metering.

Re:Make all public roads toll roads

[Anonymous Coward]

The more the road is used, the more money it gets for upkeep.

Leading to well-paved freeways and shitty surface streets.

Attempting to apply capitalism to the road system is fairly pointless. We'd all have to slog 10 miles through mud after a rain to get to the parking lot because it just wasn't cost-effective to pave a street out to our neighborhoods. Not only that, but we'd start having arguments over "road neutrality" with the toll companies demanding that wal-mart pay up their "fair share" since the toll roads make it possible for wal-mart to make money.

Re:Make all public roads toll roads

[Chas]

"If Americans had to pay for the use of the roads"

Considering that those roads are paid for with our taxes already, we DO pay for the use of the roads.

Re:Make all public roads toll roads

[Qzukk]

Keeping the roads private would allow them to be managed better

Unless there is some way to create competition, I don't see how that can be claimed. Without competition, why bother managing them at all? All you have to do is make sure it's drivable enough that the people who want to get from point A to point B can, even if it means everyone will need new tires and suspensions every few thousand miles thanks to the giant potholes.

Re:Make all public roads toll roads

[feepness]

I would be happy to not pay tax on it as a student.

There we go.

Re:Make all public roads toll roads

[DeadChobi]

Yes, because we all know that students never mean what they say.

Re:Make all public roads toll roads

[level_headed_midwest]

Gasoline taxes are roughly 30 to 60 cents per gallon in the Midwestern U.S. I pay 38.7 cents of tax for every gallon of gas I buy here in Missouri in addition to about 8.3% sales tax- the 4.225% state sales tax plus the local sales tax of a little over 4% (yes, it's that high and I tend to buy goods out of town where the local sales taxes are ~2%.)

So if gas was untaxed, it would be the spot price that's seen on Bloomberg TV or any commodities ticker. It's currently at $2.40 for the NY Harbor market index.

Re:Make all public roads toll roads

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, if Americans had to pay for the roads they would be forced to quit their jobs or not eat. "

Who pays for them now, the Canadians?

So raise a middle finger to the stigma.

[6Yankee]

Buy a big stonking bendy-bus. Fit it with low-density club seating and big tables for laptops - make it look like a hotel lobby, not a bus. Put a proper toilet at one end, and a proper coffee-maker (complete with a barista/host who's good with names) at the other. Free wi-fi. Hell, put a fax machine in there.

Call it RoadOffice or something. Make it look absolutely shit-hot from the outside, completely different from the beat-up pieces of shit "the immigrants" ride. Run the damned thing on bio-diesel and make sure everyone knows it. "Do something useful in traffic. Save the planet." or some such crap. Let people book in advance (and choose their seat), single-trip, by the week, whatever.

Run it from somewhere with loads of free parking, into the heart of the financial district. Be there half an hour before the journey starts, so people can go straight from BMW to RoadOffice. Charge way over the odds for a bus ride, but less than the cost of running a car. Charge for those coffees and snacky things.

Why won't something like this work? Serious question.

Sunni/Sheia civil wars work well for the west.

[HornWumpus]

Does anybody else think the whole, 'Don't have a civil war...' sounds a lot like 'Don't throw me into the brier patch...'.

Iran and Iraq fighting each other is a good outcome as far as I'm concerned. They will be distracted and need the oil revenue to fund their war.

Re:Sunni/Sheia civil wars work well for the west.

[notamisfit]

Hmmm, I beg to differ. Iran and Iraq aren't going to fight each other; hell, Iraq is majority Shia. While the tribal conflicts keep them from killing US troops, with the troops gone, the Sunni backers won't be able to keep up with Iran's expenditures, and they will eventually back out and leave the place to Iran. Iran is the real danger in the Middle East; they've got a heavy hand in Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, and a handful of the peninsula states bordering Saudi Arabia; they're also committed to converting us at the point of the sword and have by their own admission been in a state of war with the US since 1979. Saudi Arabia is small shit by comparison.

Re:It can only be a good thing for IT

[heinousjay]

The lack of a release schedule and no particular customers to coddle probably has a lot more to do with it.

Save the planet, kill yourself.

[HornWumpus]

Seriously do it now!

You are too stupid to continue living.

Mod parent up

[Harmonious Botch]

In the midst of vacuous chatter, parent supplies a fact. A real, honest-to-god fact. Please, someone, mod him 'informative'.

Get a clue

[mdsolar]

Learn some manners and get a clue. We're not going to finish burning this stuff until it's not worth extracting. That can be when we're scraping the bottom or much sooner. If it is sooner, the price has to go very low.

Re:The weather in N. Europe sucks, but people cycl

[maxume]

Also, we have a lot of space in the U.S., so people will drive a little further to work in exchange for that space.

Opinions in Europe is $10 Per a syllable

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gas prices in the USA are not particularly high -- even at $3.50 per gallon. Gas in Europe costs $10 per gallon."

Nevertheless the Smart Car is coming to the US. We're also working on both fuel alternatives and alternative engines

We will have to 'help' with the balance.

[HornWumpus]

The trick will be to prevent ether side from winning.

We'll be supplying weapons to the Sunni Iraqis. Just like we wisely did in the 80s. Just not enough for them to win outright (again like the 80s).

Plus you can count on the US maintaining bases in Afghanistan, thus threatening Iran's eastern boarder.

Before that mess is over we'll have all their kids watching MTV-middle east. Then we win. (Damn punk kids, get off my sand, too lazy to blow themselves up.)

Re:We will have to 'help' with the balance.

[notamisfit]

No, the "trick" is military action against Iran that is direct and total in its scope. While the jihadists are more than willing to die to spread Islam, no one wants to die for a lost cause. We need to convince them that we will never go away, and that the posture taken by hostile nations such as Iran is little more than a death march. Saudi Arabia is dependent upon us economically. The rest of the Sunni nations can be cowed. Iraq is as poor a choice for military action now as it was five years ago. It has to be Iran, and if we don't bring it to them, they'll bring it to us.

I wish I could-Air bags.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I used to, also. But after the second time I was clipped by a car, I just gave up."

You're fortunate. I've been hit while on a bicycle (no injury, damaged bike). And hit on a scooter, twice (totaled). Both times resulting in hospital bills, and serious injury.* Sometimes you just need a steel cage around you to survive, let alone getting around in.

*And I haven't even gotten into the stolen bike part.

socialism, good and bad

[mkcmkc]

[Tragedy_of_the_commons]
This is why socialism doesn't work and why market economics does.

So, you're saying that we should

1. cut back on corporate welfare,
2. stop subsidizing oil companies, and
3. let gasoline prices rise to their true market value?

Sounds good to me!

Yes, it hurts European's standard of living

[Kohath]

Such high prices in Europe does not hurt the European standard of living because many Europeans use public transportation...

Public transportation is inferior to driving your own car. Public transportation doesn't run on your schedule and doesn't go exactly where you want to go.

Having to use an inferior method of transport is clearly an indication of a lower standard of living. Folks in the USA who can't afford to buy or operate a car are left with public transportation as their only option.

Ask folks who can't afford a car if they'd rather have free use of a car with free gas for 5 years, or whether they'd rather have free public transportation for 5 years. Which one will they choose?

Folks who can easily afford to drive will tend to prefer to drive. There are some people who don't, but their attachment to public transportation is a quasi-religious one. They have decided to make themselves worse off -- to lower their standard of living -- knowingly.

Re:Yes, it hurts European's standard of living

[aslate]

Sorry, public transport isn't inferior to a car, but it should be used in tandem with a car. Public transport is great for commuting on. I love the ability to get on a train, sit down, stretch my feet out and read / work on laptop / play a games console and listen to some music.

For going to the shops it might make more sense to use a car, carry the shopping in the boot and not try and carry stuff on and off busses or trains.

And the biggest thing of all, congestion. If i wanted to drive to Uni from home it's a good 45 minutes, however i've only done this journey late on a Sunday or well after peak. If i were to do this in rush hour i'd forget about it. The train and tube take me about 45 mins start to finish (includes walking at both ends). Now the fact that a large proportion of people use public transport and the car still sucks makes a strong point.

Approximately 3 million tube journeys, 5 million bus journeys and several million more train journeys per day (operated by about 10 different franchises so no stats for that) show that transport doesn't suck that badly.

The weather in Europe will get sunnier soon ...

[haraldm]

... just wait for the carbon dioxide from China and the US.

I Forgot, Who's Making Record Profits These Days?

[lmnfrs]

"Its chairman noted that gasoline prices have soared well above $3 a gallon and asked, 'How did we get into this mess?"

I do no know for sure, as I don't pay much attention to oil and gas, but might it have something to do with greed? Remember when those execs weren't under oath, and efforts to put them under oath were scorned by the judge? Do you really have to ask how we got into this mess, or feel surprised?

Worth what?

[Kohath]

Personally, I don't think it's worth it

When you say "worth it", presumably you mean "worth the cost". What cost?

When was your last vacation in ANWR? How about your friends? Their friends? Anyone you've heard about in the news vacationing there? Anyone planning to vacation there?

ANWR is a wasteland. It's only fit for mosquitoes and reindeer and the reindeer aren't particularly bothered by oil drilling.

Re:Worth what?

[Kozz]

When you say "worth it", presumably you mean "worth the cost". What cost?

How about, not worth the measly drop by $0.50USD/barrel according to USDOE? As well as the impact on wildlife, but more on that in a moment.

When was your last vacation in ANWR? How about your friends? Their friends? Anyone you've heard about in the news vacationing there? Anyone planning to vacation there?

Ah, I see. Land has no intrinsic value unless it makes for a good holiday. Interesting argument.

ANWR is a wasteland. It's only fit for mosquitoes and reindeer and the reindeer aren't particularly bothered by oil drilling.

How about the impact on polar bears, arctic foxes and the millions of migratory birds that you didn't mention? The drilling pipelines plus the roads would weave a network across the area. The caribou calving grounds are there as well, as you mentioned. Consider not only the impact of drilling, but other unforseen consequences. *cough*VALDEZ*cough*

Re:Worth what?

[Kohath]

How about, not worth the measly drop by $0.50USD/barrel according to USDOE?

That's more than 5% of the cost of a barrel of oil. I bought $40 worth of gas today. 5% of that is $2. That's significant.

Ah, I see. Land has no intrinsic value unless it makes for a good holiday. Interesting argument.

If ANWR is left exactly as it is, it helps no one. No help means no value.

How about the impact on polar bears, arctic foxes and the millions of migratory birds that you didn't mention? The drilling pipelines plus the roads would weave a network across the area. The caribou calving grounds are there as well, as you mentioned.

How about them? There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the kind of drilling that is being planned in ANWR is bad for animals.

The anti-ANWR-drilling people simply want humans to be poorer and lead worse lives so that animals can be happy. And they're not even right about that because the animals won't be affected.

I prefer things be better for humans. Even if it means the caribou have to walk an extra 300 meters to the next patch of wasteland for their calving.

Re:Worth what?

[Kohath]

Also, I should add

Consider not only the impact of drilling, but other unforseen consequences. *cough*VALDEZ*cough*

Guess what? The area is completely recovered from that incident. The worst thing you can possibly think of happened, and the long-term affects are basically zero.

There are lots of new safeguards too.

But none of this matters. I'm guessing your position isn't based on reason at all.

Let's not overlook ethanol

[jaycagey]

It seems that since Congress mandated ethanol in our fuel a couple years ago, these price spikes have been far more dramatic.

There are several problems with ethanol. The sudden increase in demand (due to the new mandate) has led to a major price jump in ethanol as well as corn. The livestock industry is very unhappy as are food processors like Coca-Cola who rely on corn byproducts such as corn syrup. Mexico has faced widespread protests since the price of corn tortillas (one of their basic food staples) went up over 30%. And now it is an increasingly more expensive component of gasoline.

Ethanol doesn't transport easily. We can't ship it through pipelines, so we have to transport it by truck. Yep - we burn off large amounts of gas just trying to add this stuff to our fuel supplies. Add in the energy used to grow and harvest the corn, transport it to the ethanol plant, convert it into ethanol and then transport the ethanol to the gasoline processing plants and you can see what a boondoggle this has become. It takes over a gallon of gasoline to create a gallon of ethanol (best estimates put it at 1.29 gallons of gas per gallon of ethanol).

Ethanol can't store as much energy per gallon as gasoline does. So our MPG drops when we use ethanol blended fuels. Now we have to buy MORE gas to go the same distance which puts further pressure on the fuel supply, driving the price up even more.

So this mess doesn't seem to be the result of greedy oil companies as much as it is a byproduct of our Clueless Legislative Overlords.

Re:Let's not overlook ethanol

[Anonymous Coward]

That'd be a real shame if corn syrup prices skyrocketed.

Re:Let's not overlook ethanol

[Anonymous Coward]

So 1.29 gallons of gas per gallon of ethanol which makes up around this neck of the woods 10% of said gasoline which means we only have 90 gallons to replace out of every 100 gallons burned transporting the same amount of product whether it be ethanol, lettuce, or whatever. Ethanol has its problems Yes. But burning the same amount or even arguably more Ethanol/gasoline means we only have to for the sake of argument burn 3-4% less gasoline is a good thing.

I can plant 100 acres of corn that may or may not be turned into ethanol each and every year. The oil that created your superior fuel has laid in the ground for how many millions of years? And don't forget the carbon you are discharging is somewhat absorbed by my corn plants. There are more variables your calculations fail to account for.

Is ethanol the answer? Hell no but it is the best we have currently.

One of these days oil will run out but alcohol/ethanol is renewable will only take 1 year to regenerate into a slightly more expensive replacement for oil/gasoline.

Some one has considered to use our coal reserves for making more fuel available.... that I question we have a renewable source of energy to be converted to electric power we might as well use ethanol... electricity is only about turning a magnet in a field of wires who cares if it comes from water/coal/oil/gas all we have to do is turn a magnet.

Re:How? Peak Oil. Just google it.

[Kohath]

Oil is about the same price as it was when gas was $2.50. It's a refining issue and an ethanol issue and a tax issue, not really an oil price issue.

Leave Oil Reserves Untapped for Strategic Reasons

[weston]

# Allow drilling in ANOIR
# Allow drilling off the continental shelf in the gulf


Not a good idea.

Oil pulled out of there now would probably simply go on the global market. Since it's not a particularly huge amount in comparison to what's out there, it probably wouldn't depress prices significantly. Especially since competition for industrial resources is getting steeper as China, India, and some third-world countries enter the game.

At some point, it seems likely the peak oil shinola really will splatter upon the fan. Or resource competition will get really intense. Maybe so intense that we'll see military challenges for control of resources on the other side of the globe. All while most modern militaries run, essentially, on oil.

Against that possibility, which option places us in a stronger strategic position -- if we tap all our domestically available resources, or if we leave some significant ones untapped while using those from around the world while we (more or less) have a dominant position?

Positive for you? Negative for them

[Kohath]

I'll support these outrageous gas prices if they're finally high enough to make people rethink their horribly inefficient daily commutes. I find it wrong that there is such a huge flow of cars going back and forth every single day.

People commute because it's the most efficient option for them. If they'd be better off with some other option, they'd do that instead. People care about what makes their lives better or worse -- a lot more than you care about them anyway.

What you're saying is that you want people to become worse and worse off until they are forced to accept an inferior option that doesn't involve commuting in their cars. They'll lead worse lives with less happiness and more poverty, but a least you'll get what you want.

Re:The weather in N. Europe sucks, but people cycl

[mvdwege]

,In the Netherlands space for bikes, safe crossings, etc. is a matter of civic planning, and the councils will re-arrange crossings or squares every few years as they figure out even better designs.

As a Dutchman, allow me to laugh out loud.

City planners here all assume 2 cars per household in the suburbs, or so it seems. Inner cities, often with 17th-century layouts, are all expected to be reachable by car. Bike lanes exist, but are given completely illogical rules when it comes to right of way; I've seen roundabouts were pedestrians and cars have right of way, but the bike lane between the pavement and the roundabout doesn't. Traffic lights often give a green two or three times to a crossing car lane before finally letting the bikes cross.

The only reason bikes don't get massacred en masse is cultural: Dutchmen tend to take the bike for almost all trips under 3km on average (that means that there are folks, like me and my gf, who routinely bike all distances under 10km); there is a default assumption that there will be bikes on the road.

The bad planning combined with the prevalence of bikes on the road has given rise to the mass perception, which is not wholly off, that bikes routinely ignore traffic lights and right of way. We have to, because the bloody planners treat us like 2nd class citizens. I don't run red lights on principle, but I do run 'em if the bloody idiots do not see fit to give me a green within 5 minutes while giving the cars three greens in the same period, which happens more than I like.

Mart

Been there, done that

[Ogemaniac]

I lived in Japan for a while. Lots of people cycle to work there, but it depends. If the weather is bad, the numbers drop tremendously. I barely cycled at all during July and August, because it was 85 degrees by 8 am and terribly humid. I didn't cycle most of the time in the middle of winter for the opposite reason. Rain cancelled quite a few days as well, either directly, or because I had chosen to use the buses the night before due to rain and left my bike at work. In the end, I rode my bike about 60% of the time. Note that having a good public transportation system is almost a necessity for using a bike on a commute. Without public transportation, how do you get home if you cycle to work but the weather turns sour in the late afternoon? Bum a ride? That may be OK on occasion, but not once every week or two as would actually happen.

Europe has a much more moderate climate than most of the United States. In general, the winters are not as cold and the summers not as hot, though it obviously depends on location.

I agree, however, that we need public transporation. Lots of it. Unfortunately, it is a chicken-and-egg problem. Our sprawl-inducing love affair with cars and highways has lowered the population density to the point where public transporation is not viable. However, if you have good public transporation, the system itself creates the density to sustain it. However, I don't think our current system is the result of "poor planning". Rather, it is the spontaneous result of our large open areas, low population density and young cities that were largely built after the advent of the automobile. Canada and Australia face the same issues.

Get a clue yourself.

[HornWumpus]

The price will continue to rise. Eventually it will be to valuable to burn as fuel. We will continue to extract it beyond that point as raw material for plastic etc.

The rising price is what will make oil's replacements economical.

What you suggest IS just plain stupid. Take an intro economics course.

Re:Get a clue yourself.

[mdsolar]

Already did. Now, get clued in: how much could you get for Virginia tobacco these days if it weren't sold overseas? Not enough to grow it.

Continuing to burn fossil fuels is stupid, this is why you need to seach everywhere, high and low, left and right, over and under for just one clue. Read the parent, for example.

Parent's link is a flash app

[Anonymous Coward]

That maximizes your browser window, no less. How very annoying.

Islam is a lost cause.

[HornWumpus]

But that's not stopping them from dieing for it.

What we need to do is capture their holy rock and carve it into crappers for highway rest stop toilets.

Alternatively we can just continue to pump them dry while oil is still relatively cheap. They've already pumped over half their reserves and spent it on solid gold back scratchers (actually solid gold back scratchers are relatively good investments compared to what they have spent the money on). A bunch of Arabs without any money won't bother anybody but their immediate neighbors.

When it becomes truly scarce then we tap ANWAR and our coastal reserves and let them sink back in camel herding lifestyles. In the meantime keeping them fighting among themselves is a good way to keep the funds from being used to build any real industries.

Re:Islam is a lost cause.

[coastwalker]

Actually most of the oil in the world in in Saudi Arabia, the rest of it will run out decades before theirs does. The US is going to have to team up with China to invade them anyway - either that or face having the supply of all manufactured goods used in the US cut off.

I love how...

[Ogemaniac]

people assume corporations always have evil motives. I work for a major chemical company. We do "unscheduled maintenance" all the time. Things break. New problems are discovered. New corporate initiatives are passed.

Personally, I completely disrespect those with the "corporations are evil" attitude. Not only are they wrong, but they are practicing a form of bigotry. The vast majority of people working in major corporations, from top to bottom, are just like people anywhere else - predominantly good, but with a few rotten eggs. If anything, you will find fewer rotten eggs in a major company than you would find in the general population.

Re:I love how...

[Cro Magnon]

The vast majority of people working in major corporations, from top to bottom, are just like people anywhere else - predominantly good, but with a few rotten eggs. If anything, you will find fewer rotten eggs in a major company than you would find in the general population.

Yes, but those rotten eggs are the ones in charge of the corporation. The average worker is just like anyone else, but the people calling the shots are the most ambitious, greedy, and evil in the bunch. And if a corporation DOES have a non-evil person in charge, he can, and will, be replaced by someone meaner.

No telework at my company

[Anonymous Coward]

My software company of around 1000 workers has no telework or telecommuting.

Management is angrily against it because they tried it some years back and got burned by a couple of teleworkers who did nothing but loaf on the couch watching TV or something.

Funny enough, we tried to outsource some work to India and ran into similar issues since nobody was there to supervise the work, and the work we got back was pure junk. Management is doubly convinced now that out of sight workers do nothing. I like to say our cubical workers do the same loafing and get very little done and write truly awful code, so what's the difference anyway?

Upshot is that working from home is banned thanks to those early bad apples. The moral is, if you're a pioneer at something, damn well make it work or if you're gonna fail at least make it clear the failure is your own fault rather than a problem with the whole concept.
Don't just ruin it for everyone.

Oh also, in some neighborhoods the nosy neighborhood busy-bodies like to bust teleworkers for things like operating a business out of a home. You can be a stay-at-home Mom -most people agree that's a job- but you can't do anything else. If Mom fires up her notebook to do some work at home, she's breaking covenants. OMGWTFBBQ!

bah

population density

[enos]

Here's the thing about Europe: it has about 100 more people per square km than does the US. It's something like 30 for the US and 130 for Europe.
That means that a bus route can service more people and actually be solvent. Hence more routes and denser schedules. The higher gas prices also drive demand.
Proximity to work also means that walking or biking are feasible. A 10 minute walk scares the hell out of most Americans because they're so used to driving. In Amsterdam or Copenhagen biking to work is a real alternative with dedicated paths on every street and dedicated traffic signals.

But remember that many Europeans still would rather drive, and do if they can afford it. They drive small cars, but still would rather drive. In Poland, where you can throw a dart at the map and get there on public transport, there are more and more cars because people simply like the convenience now that they can afford it.

Exxon and Mobile

[skeftomai]

Don't buy from them--buy from the littler guys--and maybe the prices will go down at least a bit.

Cause and effect

[heroine]

Hard to believe, of all the things that cause broadband subscriptions, it was telecommuting and nothing else. I think it's more a matter of low interest rates finally putting enough money in circulation to catch up with rising broadband prices.

Simple answer: To get nice huge houses

[Dingbat1066]

Americans have greater expectations on personal space than Europeans. The average size of an American residence has nearly doubled in the last 30 years (warning PDF link). When I visit people I know in Europe, at first I was shocked at how small peoples' residences were, and I think about how I would have felt deprived if I had to share a bedroom with my sibling when I was young. Not to mention that you have not achieved the American dream if you don't have a big lawn and a ride on lawnmower.

Americans could live 10 miles from their workplaces... if they wanted to settle for "tiny" residences and forgo the huge lawns. But they look at the kind of house that they could buy if they live 50 miles away for much cheaper and they decide that spending two hours a day in traffic is worth it. Personally, I'm not in that category, but thats just me.

Re:Simple answer: To get nice huge houses

[garcia]

Americans could live 10 miles from their workplaces... if they wanted to settle for "tiny" residences and forgo the huge lawns. But they look at the kind of house that they could buy if they live 50 miles away for much cheaper and they decide that spending two hours a day in traffic is worth it. Personally, I'm not in that category, but thats just me.

For me it's the simple fact that where ever I live the lawns and square footage are the same. The only difference is the price. I just cannot afford $60k+ more in housing costs so I live 33.1 miles from work.

My mortgage is $780/mo for my $169k house 1200 sq ft house. I have tried to move closer to work but a $1500+/mo mortgage just isn't in the cards.

Legislation...

[SonicSpike]

Government is the problem, NOT the solution!

Refineries

[SonicSpike]

Don't forget however that the refineries that do exist have been able to largely increase their capacity since they were built.

However, due to the idiot environmentalists, there are no refineries on the US west coast, so it is cheaper to sell our Alaskan crude to Japan than it is to ship it down to the US refineries by way of the Panama Canal.

Re:Refineries

[Jeffrey Baker]

I see you have never visited the Pacific Coast. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area we have numerous refineries, notably in Richmond, Benicia, and Martinez. There are several refineries in Bakersfield, Long Beach, and Oxnard serving the southern part of the state. I can't speak for Oregon or Washington but California has enough refinery capacity to consume 2 million barrels of crude per day, which is more than the entire export capacity of Mexico. For your information, the maximum capacity of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is only 2.1 million barrels per day. Prudhoe Bay produces only 400,000 barrels per day, not nearly enough to keep the pipeline full and certainly not enough to max out our west coast refinery capacity.

In other words, your post is completely incorrect.

Re:Refineries

[elrous0]

However, due to the idiot environmentalists, there are no refineries on the US west coast,

You know, I've heard that said many times--but I don't buy it. If these companies were serious about wanting to build more refineries, the "idiot environmentalists" wouldn't have been able to stop them from building just across the border in Mexico.

I suspect that the real reason is that the oil companies don't actually WANT to build more refineries (maybe to artificially drive up prices, and profits, or maybe because they don't believe that gasoline has a long-term future).

Urban sprawl

[SonicSpike]

Urban sprawl is a big factor which isn't as much of a problem in Europe as it is in the US. Also the US has suburbs and is geographically HUGE compared to Europe. Perhaps that has something to do with why public transit isn't as feasible?

The downside of telecommuting

[frankShook]

When you're a telecommuter, you can't stay home from work when you're sick!

Re:Drilling in ANWR? You're kidding, right?

[FailedTheTuringTest]

Apparently I don't know anything about oil-ology, can you explain further? I can't see any reason for oil companies to underestimate the reserves. In fact, I think the incentives for the companies are to overestimate: if you are seeking investors to back an expensive project, or asking your shareholders to approve of it, or asking government to grant you permission to proceed, you have every incentive to hype the resulting benefits (i.e. return on investment) which in this case means to inflate your estimates of the oil that might be extracted. The estimated value of oil reserves is also a contributor to a company's stock price, which companies tend to want to see going up as much as possible. There's really no value to a company to downplay its reserves.

People seeking to prevent drilling, on the other hand, would probably tend to estimate low, in support of an argument that the costs outweigh the benefits.

long overdue

[Wansu]

For the past 10 years, I've wondered whether all the people I saw on the road HAD to be physically present at the office every day. Too many managers felt that if they couldn't go around the corner and look in on their workers, they'd goof off. God forbid if they should be home working on home improvements. Now those attitudes are proving so costly, they've become impractical. People still need face time but they do not need to be physically present in the office every day.

Besides saving gasoline, this will also reduce traffic congestion.
 

Re:long overdue

[Toon Moene]

> People still need face time but they do not need to be physically present in the office every day. Indeed. It'll also help if people (i.e., PHB's) realize that just having everyone work at home for one day in the week already solves 20 % of the problem.

Alaskan oil goes to Japan

[SonicSpike]

Yup, that's right. All the oil in Alaska at the moment is sold crude to Japan.

Why?

Because there are no refineries on the US East Coast and it is more expensive to ship it around through the Panama Canal to refine it than it is to simply sell it to Japan.

Another fine example of government and the environmentalists screwing it up for the rest of us!

Re:Alaskan oil goes to Japan

[Copid]

Yup, that's right. All the oil in Alaska at the moment is sold crude to Japan.

Given that oil is a worldwide market and any discrepancy in price will quickly be flattened out by arbitrage, how exactly is this a problem?

Because there are no refineries on the US East Coast and it is more expensive to ship it around through the Panama Canal to refine it than it is to simply sell it to Japan.

Why would they ship the oil from Alaska through the Panama Canal if there are no refineries on the east coast? Do you mean the west coast? I assure you that you're quite wrong on that point.

I keep hearing that there are no refineries on the west coast because of environmental craziness. Where do people get this crap? Do they even bother to check to see if it's true? Did Rush Limbaugh just make that up one day?

raise Fed. gasoline tax 25 cents/gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

while not increasing the tax on diesel fuel.

The politicians know better than to jack up the US gasoline tax, since that's a way to lose the next election. But from a policy standpoint it seems that that would be an ideal solution - or rather, a movement in the right direction - for a bunch of important problems, including dependency on foreign oil, too much carbon-based fuel consumption, too much money flowing out of the country to Arabs and Venezuelans, and a hidebound auto industry that doesn't seem to care about fuel economy. And you don't need to create a whole new set of laws or regulations that can be gamed and loopholed - a gasoline tax is easy to understand. Use more, pay more, use less, pay less.

Re:Drilling in ANWR? You're kidding, right?

[coastwalker]

Even if the unlikely assertion that there is more oil in Alaska than the geologists predict is true - its only going to be double or quadruple the quantity given to date. So its going to supply the US for less than 5 years at current consumption rates. This is bugger all and best kept in the ground for fueling the military when you really do have to invade people to get their oil.

How?-Petty "borrowing"

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think it's to maintain the perception of control. "

Kind of hard to "borrow" the office supplies while working from home.

Very Much Like Enron

[OceanWave]

I agree with with theory on tactics similar to Enron:

I recall back in 1998, we were still around $1.05 a gallon, here. Summer came and went, and there were no spikes, no talk of "refinery issues" causing "supply problems", nor any talk of supply problems due to hurricanes, pipeline breaks, etc. Has usage increases? Yes, a news source--two or three years back--indicated an increase of only about 1-2%.

Some of it is China, India and the world economy. Some of it is supply of the crude required to make the gas, and problems with world politics, and dependence on foreign oil. But, this one is a problem right here at home.

Imagine the scenario:

1. Cut down severely the annual maintenance funding to keep the refineries operational. Why not even decommission a few? The cost of doing business has now been reduced, resulting in greater profit margins for the oil industry.
2. Now, when something happens--such as a hurricane, or equipment breakdown due to lack of maintenance--the lack of supply can result in even greater profits. These are maintained after the event to "rebuild the damaged infrastructure", even though there is plenty of money there already for that.

Enron did the same thing with their infrastructure.

They are living fat and happy at our expense, and we have no economic recourse to fight back. We basically have to live with it, because we need to get to work and back, operate machinery, etc. It's a win-win for them, and we lose, unless we can regain control through regulatory or legal means.

I don't drive an SUV...but since 1999, this has cost me thousands of dollars more than what I was paying prior to the increases. It sickens me to see all the excuses--every year--on why they need to drive prices still further. We don't just pay for this when we stop at the pump. Energy costs drive up the cost of everything: food, shipping, production, electric, trash disposal, etc. We pay again and again and again, when energy costs go up.

While Enron caused problems in a limited scope, the oil companies have made it a national issue. Their irresponsibility--in my opinion--is a danger to national security, and an act of treason, if we do have a real crisis. I would like to see the profits seized and put to work rebuilding the infrastructure, and some percentage put back into our pockets. Stronger regulations for the energy industry should also be instituted, preventing a recurrence.

Even so, we need to learn a lesson from this. One of these days, oil will go away. In the mean time, while alternative energy sources are investigated, we need to select more energy efficient means of transportation. We should also learn to how to save energy: more efficient driving styles, turning off equipment that doesn't need to be running, etc. This will give us more time to adjust to energy alternatives and reduce the impact when oil finally does dry up.

Re:Very Much Like Enron

[Anonymous Coward]

"I recall back in 1998, we were still around $1.05 a gallon, here. Summer came and went, and there were no spikes, no talk of "refinery issues" causing "supply problems", nor any talk of supply problems due to hurricanes, pipeline breaks, etc. Has usage increases? Yes, a news source--two or three years back--indicated an increase of only about 1-2%."

Assume it is 1.5% on average per year since 1998. This would mean that demand is 14% higher than in 1998. That's quite significant.

Distance to drive USA vs Europe

[WillfulActs]

I always hear how over in Europe gas is SO much higher. What I never see is how far the average person that does drive their vehicle over there has to drive. According to a 2001 census of southeast england, the average commute is 12.9km, or around 8 miles. In france the average looks to be around 13.3km, about the same.

The average commute in the USA is around 20 miles. That's 2.5x what most europeans see that do drive and not use public transportation. So, europe I'm showing at around US$6.72 a gallon. The average in the US is US$3.28.

So, comparing apples to apples of say the same vehicle in both countries for the average commute, it is more expensive to commute here in the united states. $3.28 x 2.5 = $8.20.

Now, the average vehicle over here isn't known for gas mileage so actual out-of-pocket costs vary, but it does show that the common myth that europe is more expensive isn't always true.

Some food for thought there.

Re:Distance to drive USA vs Europe

[drsquare]

If Americans drive further, why do they choose less efficient cars? You'd think that if you're driving 100 miles to buy a newspaper you'd get the most efficient car possible.

Re:Distance to drive USA vs Europe

[UncleFluffy]

What I never see is how far the average person that does drive their vehicle over there has to drive.

chooses to drive, surely? Nothing stops "the average person" living equally close to wherever it is they wish to drive to.

Re:Distance to drive USA vs Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

It's that they drive to get the newspaper in the first place.

Re:Distance to drive USA vs Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think your average person which drives 100 miles knows about car efficiency and probably believes all cars are the same. They most likely believe in "last year models are exactly the same as this years unless they look different."

Re:Distance to drive USA vs Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think that if you're driving 100 miles to buy a newspaper you'd get the most efficient car possible.

no, just a faster one, and make it big so I can buy more papers.

Re:Distance to drive USA vs Europe

[StikyPad]

I'd get the fastest.

I always enjoy "If you don't like it, then move!"

[epee1221]

move to a place with decent public transit routes

Now, there's a trivial expense!
(Also consider the cost of living in those places with decent public transportation)

Just as you probably thought about the proximity of roads when you chose your current place, you'd think of the proximity of public transit routes and how they'd affect your connectivity.

Actually, I moved here for a specific job.

Still cheap

[Pope Raymond Lama]

In my country we are paying the equivalent of US$4.70 per gallon (R$ 2.50 / liter) right now - and had being paying around US$ 4.27 over the last 30 months or so.

Average American family spends four times as much

[melted]

Average American family spends four times as much per month on eating out and Starbucks, and about $50-60 on cable TV with 200+ channels. Average American consumer is very far from the point of "breaking" at this point. The danger of high gas prices is indirect - it can trigger higher prices for consumer goods. I was just saying that using gas prices as justification for telecommuting or buying a hybrid car is stupid.

Mini

[Anonymous Coward]

In response to the Suez crisis and petrol rationing, Britain developed the Mini.

In response to the 1973 Oil Crisis, America developed... the SUV!

THAT's how we got into this mess.

There's some other factors that got us here....

[Mr. McD]

...and this are:

• We're fighting a war, technically 2 wars if you throw in Afganistan. Military equipment consumes a ton of resources
  
• Too many of our fellow Americans drive an SUV to work because it's thier RIGHT as an American. A single person driving 30 miles in Boston traffic in an Expedition does not help matters any.
  
• Presenntly, every slashdotter has at least 1 PC & display plugged in right now. We all have far too many electronic devices plugged in and doing absolutely nothing, and we'll all continue to do so until PC manufactures fix the problem for us.
  
  

I could go on, but you get the idea.

IT's about real estate prices not gas

[gelfling]

My employer is dumping their real estate holdings and rental space as fast as it can. I'm sure the suits could care less even if they happened to know what the price of gas is. A bit of let them eat cake, you know.

What the House investigation will find -

[krygny]

The same thing they have found in every investigation of the oil industry since the 1973 embargo: nothing.

News Flash: These are all publicly owned companies whose finances are already available and under continuing scrutiny (by shareholders, the SEC, DoJ, DoC, financial analysts, news organization, etc.). Investigators with agendas as diverse as that of the New York Times and Bill O'Really have plumed the depths of oil company operations and finances and have reported only the most incidental improprieties. The next time a congressional fact-finding committee actually finds a fact, will be the first.

The whole purpose is simply to vilify the energy industry. If the news media and elected officials weren't delinquent in *their* duties, they would be educating the public, not misleading them for their own purposes. Few people understand how and why the energy industry functions the way it does.

Completely recovered?

[Kozz]

Okay, so it's not the paragon of truth that some of us wish it could be, but it seems that Wikipedia disagrees with you. Of course, the beauty of it is that if you've got facts to back up that the area is completely recovered and long-term affects are zero, do edit the page so we can all be more enlightened.

Actually its nearer seven dollars

[rkww]

I suppose it might be approaching $10 / imperial gallon, but the fuel I bought today was a little over seven dollars per US gallon.

Here's a table of UK prices.

It works out at about 10 UK pence (20c) per mile for my 1200cc car (which happily exceeds 80mph).

Tobacco is still the most profitable crop avail.

[HornWumpus]

Your restrictions on overseas sale is pointless.

That's like saying how much could you get for gasoline, if you couldn't burn it in an engine. Mental masturbation.

Continuing to burn fossil fuels is stupid

Just not as stupid as stopping without a working replacement. That replacement will be economical when fossil fuels costs go up not down.

Cite? You are wrong, Saudi has 1/4.

[HornWumpus]

OPEC members all inflate their reserves as their pumping quotas are based on their share of OPEC reserves (for example Saudi 'found' an additional 90billion barrels in 1990 without any new fields, raising their claimed reserves from about about 170BB to 260BB). Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

Based on that theory all OPEC members should run out at the same time (ignoring the fact that they all cheat).

Do you think China can tell us what to do? We import from the entire pacific rim, not just China. We don't need to invade. They simply can't stop pumping as fast as they can. The Saudi economy would collapse and the House of Saud would be strung up from lampposts. If we did need to take over Saudi would be easier to hold then Iraq though, our military loves deserts, hates citys.

In any case I'm in favor of leaving our resources in the ground until we've burned through the still relatively cheap oil we're importing.

Stop whining.

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't we supposed to reduce our CO2 releases, fosile fuel consumption and focus on the worlds health instead? I don't see how reducing the prices will help the environmental issues we have at our hands. Here in Norway we pay about $2 for 1 litre of gasoline, it's a high price but lowering wouldnt fix the world at all. You American's are using -TO MUCH- energy, and that is a major problem for USA. Read up on peak oil and environmental issues, gasoline-prices are no issue at all!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil/

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Re:Positive for you? Negative for them

[Simon80]

I argue that there are many people that could telecommute, but they haven't started to, either because they need an excuse before their employers will let them, or because they themselves haven't given serious consideration to the idea. What I'm saying is that if higher gas prices cause telecommuting to become significantly more popular, that's a positive thing, and I welcome it. Potential benefits include reductions in demand for:

• land in the area such people are employed in.
• road usage in the same areas
• gasoline, car maintenance
• wasted commute time for the people telecommuting

These things benefit everyone in the surrounding area, even those who don't telecommute, by reducing traffic and land usage in densely populated areas. My enthusiasm about these benefits in efficiency doesn't translate into a desire for high gas prices to harm others. I just think that if progress results from high gas prices, that is more important than the short term expense everyone is incurring from their current dependency on gas. This also means that I wouldn't think that further increases would be a good thing, they wouldn't have the same positive effect of getting people to think about gas consumption.

Re:Tobacco is still the most profitable crop avail

[mdsolar]

There was no restriction to overseas, it is just that the US market is shrinking. Maryland already took itself out of tobacco leaving room for Virginia. If anti-smoking campaigns were as successful in Asia, you could not get much for Virgina tobacco.

Now it is clear that you have missed the point entirely. From the beginning, the idea was to use high gas prices (or rationing+substitution) to force low oil prices. Keep searching for that clue.

Have we forgotten who's president of the U.S.?

[DJ_Maiko]

Or shall I say: have we forgotten WHERE he's from? Bush is from Texas, land of oil & refineries. Do you seriously think he's going to do anything to hurt profits of the people that BOUGHT his election (or have we also forgotten about the "coincidence" involving his brother being the Governor of Florida during the famous "hanging chad" debacle?). Gas prices are at an all-time high here in the States &, in my estimation, it has EVERYTHING to do with Bush- I've never seen it this high & i was born in '73 (ok, i don't remember the gas shortage of '76 but it happened). It's true what another commenter mentioned re: not believing what mass media is ramming down our throats, it's all a pack of lies aimed at keeping big business' fat pockets lined with greenbacks. All this while lots of major corporations are moving their entire headquarters, taking thousands of jobs with them overseas (ie. Halliburton moving to Saudi Arabia, which btw, Vice President Cheney is still a major stockholder in, all while receiving over $2 Billion in contracts during this fake "war" in Iraq).

Mass media is to blame for a few things, though. Look at rap videos, everyone's in love with them (even suburban, caucasian youths) & what do they push? They tell us that in order to be successful, we need to drive SUVs with 30" rims & wear ice/bling that's as heavy as we are (which is retarded if you ask me 'cuz how many Africans died to make 50 Cent's "rope chain w/diamonds" & last time i checked, he was black too...but I digress).

It's good to see that companies are at least providing the opportunity for their employees to telecommute. I mean, it's the least they could do, since some of these companies are the same ones that are offshoring tech jobs like tech support, etc. Which means that tech workers now have to DRIVE further for their jobs (since the ones closeby got offshored), if they can even find jobs at all. Regardless, I chastise the crap out of my friends/acquaintances who drive bigass SUV's when they have no business even owning one (are single, don't have kids & don't coach little league) & I suggest you all do the same. We all know at least 1 person like this & if we could just be the conduit of change, it would at least be a start. I, for one, will continue driving my p.o.s. 4-cylinder as my little way of leaving a smaller footprint on our environment but also in an effort to guzzle less gas.

Poll

[tanot]

The thing that makes me laugh about this poll is that even the worst case answer of $6 per gallon is still miles cheaper than we pay daily in the UK! And yet teleworking is no more popular in the UK than the US...

Re:Poll

[jlanthripp]

Two major differences between Brits and Merkins:

1. Merkins think a hundred years is a long time.
2. Brits think a hundred miles is a long drive.

Back before I became a freight relocation specialist (sometimes referred to as over-the-road truck driver) I commuted about 35 miles to work. And another 35 miles back. We don't have passenger rail service of any type within 100 miles of my home - it's impractical given the population density and geography.

Now I commute about 450 miles per day on average, in a vehicle that burns a gallon of number two diesel fuel about every 6 or 7 miles, depending on the weight of the load and whether I'm in mountains or on the plains. Just doing my bit to help global warming along ;-)

Why I won't actually use mass transit...

[Cro Magnon]

Because my 30 minute drive would be at least 90 on the bus. That's if the busses are on time, and I actually make all the connections. There's also the "fun" of waiting for a bus during the rain/snow/sleet/hail, the 100%+ summers, and the subzero winters. There's the fact that I'd have to give up my 9 hour workdays because the busses don't run late enough, and without the 9 hour days, I'd have to give up my Friday off.

The amount of oil is an externality

[Riskable]

We got into this mess because Joe Suburban doesn't see how much oil is "left" when he fills up his tank. He doesn't know how many refineries there are. He doesn't understand that oil is a finite resource. All he knows is that when he needs to fill up his tank there are always dozens of gas stations nearby to meet his needs. Prices have only risen to the point of "really annoying" so it is unlikely that he will change his ways.

Joe Suburban might have heard about oil shortages--or maybe he read about them once--but he himself never experienced it and those that did weren't living in the 21st century where a trip to the grocery store can mean a gallon or two and commutes can burn several. It was a crisis, sure, but when we have another one it will be much, much worse and Joe Suburban hasn't the faintest idea that it is coming. Even if he does think about, "the time when we run out of oil" he thinks in terms of "long time from now". Why worry about it? Didn't the news just report that "they" just found 15 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico? What Joe doesn't know is that 15 billion barrels is only two years supply and because he doesn't know there's no "market force" to correct for it. All you have to do to verify this fact is to look at the latest sales figures for gas guzzlers.

Gas prices can go up and down considerable amounts but the demand is always there--and very inflexible. I'm sure we could cut consumption by, say, 25% in a very short time if we really worked at it but the truth is that may be too late. Why? When the news reports even a hint that there could be an oil shortage people will start buying up as much as they can... "To make it through the shortage." It doesn't matter that there's 1200 billion barrels of proven oil reserves left. It only matters that Joe Suburban won't be able to get gas when he needs it and the problem will escalate very, very quickly.

The problem is that the rate at which it can be pumped out of the ground and refined will reach a peak and, while the demand will still exist (increasing every year!), the rate will not. Thus; the last voice heard before the entire collapse of the U.S. economy (government? civilization?) will be from an "expert" exclaiming, "But there's still billions and billions of barrels left!"

Re:Positive for you? Negative for them

[Kohath]

So you're not saying you want bad things to happen to people.

You're saying that you know more about what's good for people's lives then they do themselves. Because you're one of the elite folks with all the knowledge -- almost like you're a parent and everyone else is a child, so you should get to make decisions for the rest of us.

We're too stupid to know what's best for us and we're lucky to have you.

Re:Positive for you? Negative for them

[Simon80]

Nobody is being forced to do anything, people are making their own decisions based on the new situation that results from higher gas prices. The ability to purchase gas at the prices it was being sold for ten years ago is not a right. If current prices cause people to reduce the amount of gasoline they waste on things like driving back and forth every day, I consider that to be progress.

Re:I always enjoy "If you don't like it, then move

[ArmorFiend]

Argh! Stop proving my point for me! You moved here for a specific job, but you failed to pick a place that was near your job in the transit-space, instead choosing a place that WAS close in car-space. It wasn't a priority for you, and now you're complaining that the transit is not good? Failing to prepare is preparing to fail.

If you're moving for a certain job, you don't have to be smack in the middle of the grid, you just have to be within a mile-wide swath of a direct, transfer-free line. That's usually a huge area, composed of both urban and suburban.

Re:I always enjoy "If you don't like it, then move

[epee1221]

You moved here for a specific job, but you failed to pick a place that was near your job in the transit-space, instead choosing a place that WAS close in car-space. It wasn't a priority for you, and now you're complaining that the transit is not good?

Nothing I could afford near work or the direct bus route that goes there.

In case you hadn't figured it out, public transport would only be a means to an end. Since there was a much cheaper option (living here and driving myself), I went with that.

Correlation/Causation? Objective Readers?

[Switche]

Holy crap, guys, my age has increased with the price of gasoline too! This study suggests the price of gasoline can affect time itself! Trust me, I'm an expert on my own age! ALERT THE INTERNET!1one!1!

Interesting

[Shelbspeaks]

What an interesting response, makes sense! People don't want to pay for gas by driving to work so they find a way to do it at home. I wish I was able to work at home, and do school at home- but then I'd have no social life at all. Who knows, maybe in the future, everyone will be a turbo nerd, never leaving the house and relying on internet relationships to coax their lonliness! Curious? Check out Christopher Ruddy

Re:I always enjoy "If you don't like it, then move

[ArmorFiend]

Bummer. Better luck next time.

On my end I've pocketed the $8000/year x 7 years saved from not operating a car, and payed of my mortgage early.

Legislation Preferred

[bill_mcgonigle]

Why is tax on gasoline in the USA so ridiculously low?

We prefer to conduct our social engineering to a greater degree through legislation than taxation.

Or do you mean that we don't pass along the cost of oil wars into the gas tax?

Artificially high

[bill_mcgonigle]

artificially low prices on gas to compensate

Artificially low? Do you mean the fifty cent per gallon tax most Americans pay? Or the 9.2% profit floor Wisconsin enforces?

The US gas prices are already what the market float will bear, plus taxes.

If you're referring to tax breaks, subsidies, and pork for the oil industry or not passing along the cost of pollution or oil wars at the pump, I'll concede the point, but if it's just the lack of social engineering through taxation, that's hard to call 'artificially low'.