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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

"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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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!

[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.

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.

[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.

[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?

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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...

[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...

[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.

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/

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.

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

[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.

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... ;)

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...)

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?!

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?

[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.

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.

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. ;)

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?

[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?

[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.

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!

[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.

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: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!)

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!

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?

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.

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?

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

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: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.

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.

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: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.