Slashdot Mirror
2012 Set Record For Most Expensive Gas In US
An anonymous reader writes "According to data from the American Automobile Association, the average price for a gallon of gas in the U.S. was higher in 2012 than in any year before it. Nationwide, gas averaged $3.60/gallon, up from $3.51/gallon in 2011. 'The states with the most expensive annual averages for 2012 included Hawaii ($4.31), Alaska ($4.09), California ($4.03), New York ($3.90) and Connecticut ($3.90). The states with the least-expensive annual averages included South Carolina ($3.35), Missouri ($3.38), Mississippi ($3.39), Tennessee ($3.40) and Oklahoma ($3.41). The highest daily statewide average of the year was $4.67 in Calif. on Oct. 9, while the lowest daily statewide average was $2.91 a gallon in South Carolina on July 3.' Bloomberg reports that fuel consumption is down 3.6% compared to last year, while U.S. oil production reached almost 7 million barrels a day recently, a level that hasn't been reached since 1993. AAA predicts gas prices will be cheaper in 2013."
Still cheaper than my country (Colombia) We extract oil in our land, and yet we have quite high prices. On average ~4.65 US for low octane fuel (81 ~ 84!!!) and the high octane fuel (which is really a joke by international standards) is ~5.50 US for 87~90 in octane scale
you have cheap fuel. Really. http://imgur.com/r/MapPorn/YIpi5
In real dollars, i.e. corrected for inflation, it's about the same as in 1979-1980.
It's interesting, without shortages and lines at the pump, how much less threatening it seems. I remember visiting my aunt that Christmas and being quite concerned because our tank wasn't big enough to hold gas for the whole round trip, and in addition to lines, many, many gas stations had short hours--there was no certainty of being able to find a gas station open on Christmas day.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Psst buddy: here's a new year's resolution for you:
Starting in 2013, I will no longer use the made-up word "sheeple" which instantly brands me as an underemployed political talk radio addict.
The increase in the price of gas is 2.5%, The average inflation rate for 2012 was 2.1%. So the increase was 15% over inflation but that is understandable. I bet most of the things we but would have a highest price ever this year.
Gas prices before taxes are fairly consistent throughout most of the developed world. My understanding is that the difference between Europe and the United States has arisen primarily because Europe taxes as a percentage of the price, while the United States taxes on the amount of gasoline. Hence, if the base price doubles, the taxes also double in Europe, but stay the same in the United States. Over time, the difference in price has risen, and should be expected to grow even larger.
Stop it.
There is no sympathy from the rest of the world. Here in Canada "cheap" gas is 4.50USD/Gallon, in Europe its way worse then that, no one wants to hear about it any more. Pick some other non-issue to cry about like how expensive starbucks coffee is or how horrible it is that the millionaire hockey players aren't playing.
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
And they will be used, because it's been the stated goal of the Obama Administration and others to keep fossil fuel costs high in order to "persuade" people to switch to alternatives, like mass transit (powered by windmills, no doubt).
Someone need to remind you WHY WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT.
You seem to think that our society runs "on automatic" and that government interference is "bad"
The NEWS for you is that the entire reason we have a petroleum infrastructure and gas stations and roads and cars is because the GOVERNMENT "persuaded" people to adopt them.
Oh but YOU seem to think that the government gets in the way of civilization when in fact government is the DIFFERENCE between prosperity and despair.
Why don't you TRY to speculate on what the price of gasoline would be if the government were not interfering. Trust me you won't like the answer.
2012 Set Record For Most Expensive Gas In the World
would have been more interesting since gas is still relatively cheap in the US.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
The gas tax has been declining due to inflation to the point where it doesn't even pay for highway construction/maintenance anymore. The Highway Trust Fund has been running a deficit since 2008, and has to grab general tax revenues to pay for it. I think it's fair to raise the gas tax to a level where it covers the cost of maintaining highways, instead of subsidizing them out of general taxes.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I'm disappointed that someone who feels that the free market will provide is using roads that are provided by the tax payers. We should cut this budget cost and move it to the road users.
It would cost about another $4 or so per gallon to cover the cost of the road system in the US (or you could come up with some other solution. Technology would allow most roads to be toll roads). Of course, if this huge tax payer subsidy is removed then other forms of transportation would immediately become viable. In other words, trains and buses would become cost effective and the US would get an environmentally friendly transport network.
So, I support you totally in your efforts to tell your socialist representatives to stop subsidizing roads with tax dollars. Please feel free to post copies of the letters you send to them here (or elsewhere).
"the average price for a gallon of gas in the U.S. was higher in 2012 than in any year before it"
Huh? The average price for just about anything in the U.S. was higher in 2012 than in any year before it...
Try moving to Sweden! You pay $3.51 a gallon we pay on average $7.65 a gallon! All because of your wars!
And it has nothing to do with your government soaking you for $4 a gallon in taxes.
In the short term the price of gas goes up and down. However in the long term the price of gas goes up and up. It is almost like oil is a non-renewable resource or something. Nah that is crazy commy talk.
No, it's called "inflation," and it happens with all sorts of commodities. We measure it with the Consumer Price Index.
The real cost of commodities generally declines over time. In fact, Julian Simon and Paul Erlich made a famous bet about this. Paul Erlich, you'll recall, was the doomsayer who predicted the population bomb and recommended eugenics, sterilization and a global government control over all resources. (Notably, the coauthor for his book laying all this out was John Holdren, now Obama's chief science adviser.)
They bet on the prices of various commodities, and every single one of them went down. Simon won his bet, and Erlich had to pay up.
But it doesn't matter how many times you loons are wrong, you'll just keep predicting doom, over and over again.
Given that the price of gas keeps going up, isn't every year a record year for gas prices?
We pay a yearly road tax based on engine size in Belgum. I'm sure it's done the same in other European countries, too, but I've only lived here.
I just want to take this chance to reach across the political aisle and agree: AT&T sucks.
You do know that US gas prices always go down in winter, right? There are two main reasons. First, summer fuel blends cost more, second, gas is sold to the stations by the tanker gallon. When it is delivered in the summer, the temperature difference between the tanker and the underground storage tanks causes literal shrinkage. Still, they did start going down a bit early this year.
And if you're going to correlate gas prices with elections, the national average price was $1.86/gal when Obama was sworn in, and he has an energy secretary who thinks the price should be higher. Right now the price is about as low as it's been since then.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
I'm disappointed that someone who feels that the free market will provide is using roads that are provided by the tax payers. We should cut this budget cost and move it to the road users.
Great! Because in the US, cars are a net revenue producer for the highway system. I guess we need to seriously bump up the costs of planes, buses, and trains however to make them also pay for the costs of using the systems provided by the tax payers...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It's not cars that cause the deficit, it's subsidies for buses and trains that are depleting the Highway Trust Fund. Congress authorized spending from that pot of money for mass transit - and it's a massive drain on the system. Conversely, cars actually generate net revenue for the system.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Please tell me you're being sarcastic.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
The UK does both: there is a fixed tax (a "duty"), and a percentage (VAT). The VAT applies to the duty as well as the base price.
The current rate is 58p per litre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocarbon_oil_duty
The petrol station opposite my house is selling fuel for £1.39/L, so the cost is (58p fuel + 58p duty) * 1.20 VAT = £1.39.
I think it's the same mechanism in the rest of the EU.
Thanks, that was very informative and interesting.
However you leave out at least two things:
1- Julian Simon made another bet on the price of timber with David South, professor of the Auburn University School of Forestry, betting that it would go down over a period of 10 years. However it went up to hard that Simon paid up early to cut his losses.
2- On the subject of the Simon-Erlich bet, if it had been taken on the period 1980-2010 instead of 1980-1990, then Erlich would have won since the price of the metal commodities they considered when actually up (in real dollars of course) over that period.
See the "Other Wagers" section in your own wikipedia link.
Also, Simon went on record in his book "The Ultimate Resourse 2" saying that Agent Orange, lead, asbestos and DDT were not toxic. This is pretty bold.
The same principle is applied in the UK too. AIUI the USA doesn't quite follow the same principle where you just register your car but not pay tax annually or any other period of time, in the UK there is a choice of paying it once every six months or once a year.
First off it is to be expected that gas/petrol prices will raise year on year it has done for the past decade and will continue to do so. Was it really such a big surprise to find out that 2012 was the most expensive year for petrol in the USA?
Secondly, this highly USA-centric story doesn't compare to the UK, Europe and other regions of the planet. All stories like this do is make some people want to slap Americans for whining about the cost of petrol when in Europe we are more often than not paying double for petrol as referenced in this map.
How this made it to the front page I don't know, it's common sense and does not require a notice to the people who actually drive cars as well as being incredibly whiny to the rest of the world.
In the US all public non-toll roads are maintained by the government. The fun part is figuring out at what level of government.
Most/all of the maintenance is done by the local governments and individual states. Not only do individual states tax gasoline sales, they also receive money from the federal government. This is how the US government forces the individual states to do things which would otherwise be unconstitutional.
For example, the US constitution gives individual states the right to set a minimum drinking age. However, if the states wish to receive federal highway funds they must set the minimum above 21. Basically, the federal government implements taxes that should be on the state level, then extorts/bribes the states to pass laws that the federal government constitutionally can not pass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States
So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
Good luck driving a car without roads.
(Hey, my look! My knee can jerk too!)
Kid-proof tablet..
It is the speculation that is largely at fault. And that's the reason Oil Prices have started to come down, as new rules have gone into place with Dodd/Frank that limit big banks speculation in the oil market.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
I agree with Chu. And with that view, I don't think I'll be running for office.
It's not strictly "too much land, not enough people". Australia has the same huge amount of land and vastly fewer people to fill it, yet has on the whole better mass transit than the US. The difference is that the population is more centralised in Australia (more highly concentrated in the cities, rather than the eleventy billion small towns you get across the US).
So the 'problem' (I wouldn't call it a problem, just a difference in settlement patterns) with America is "lots of land, people more evenly scattered across it", rather than simply not enough people. In fact with well over 300M people and with birth rates higher than almost any other developed country, you may have an overpopulation problem in the not-too-distant future.
Hydrocarbons we've got. Hydrocarbons != net energy. The stuff with thousand to one energy return is long gone. Oil sands have a net energy of about 4:1. just enough to support extraction AND support some additional activity. It's the "AND" that's shrinking as we slide down the net energy cliff. Adding more oil, natural gas or brown coal with lousy net energy doesn't help that, no matter how much we find. Oil is a special case, unfortunately. The world's "just-in-time" supply chain is totally dependent on plentiful, cheap petroleum fuels. Supply chains break in a nonlinear fashion as feedback kicks in. So the recent innumerate popular press happy-talk is all very well and good. If the numbers are real and not political, it may put off the day of reckoning by 40 years, but almost certainly no longer than that.
And please, please, before you reply, please at least try using google and a calculator.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Yes we here in Australia are cursing the weak US dollar, as it makes our own dollar very strong (has been worth slightly more than the US dollar for a few years now), even though traditionally it's only been worth 70-80 US cents. This really hurts our manufacturing and export sectors, and also, importantly, tourism, which is a huge industry in Australia. Americans now reject the idea of vacationing here because using their weak dollar, the prices seem outrageous here (and I don't blame them). 10 years ago the USD:AUD was more than DOUBLE what it is now. Combined with inflation this means that an American would be paying (in USD terms) almost triple what they would have in 2001 for the same Australian trip (except for airfares, which are presumably bought from an American airline and thus paid in USD).
OTOH the weak USD/strong AUD has made it very attractive for Australians to visit (and shop in) the US. Apparently Australians are now the one of the most common incoming passenger nationalities into California (impressive considering our small population). For shopping sprees worth over a few thousand, it's cheaper to fly to the US, buy everything, and fly back, than it is to shop locally, because the weak USD makes US prices look ridiculously cheap to us now (a decade ago they were roughly on-par).
Having said all that - the USD is unique, being the global reserve currency. While I would normally agree with you that "weak currencies ... don't inspire confidence in other countries to keep them", I think the USD is the exception to that rule. Being the reserve currency, there really is no choice but to keep USD. It's still (somehow, amazingly) seen as stable and risk free. Unlike say, when the AUD gets weak (it's strong now and a very popular currency to hold given that cash interest rates here are still 3+%, compared with close to zero elsewhere, but it will be abandoned in a split second as soon as there's a hint of weakness - it's still seen as risky despite our AAA credit rating etc...we just aren't a big or diverse enough economy)
Sounds very sensible to me. Raising gas taxes gradually will:
- Minimise disruption to life and allow people to gradually convert to more efficient vehicles;
- Encourage R&D into alternative technologies, which WILL be needed sooner or later, as well as potentially resulting in a new industry America can dominate in;
- Lead to higher tax revenues, hopefully doing at least a tiny bit to help with the obscene debt the nation is in.
Seriously what's the problem here? The US currently has some of the lowest gas prices (i.e. lowest gasoline taxation rates) of any OECD nation and has ample scope to benefit from raising them gradually, without things becoming too disruptive for the population.
I grew up in the midwest, where we really didn't have much of a "mass transit system". Sure, we had a bus system, but it was primarily used by people too poor to own their own car, or people unable to get/keep a driver's license (for anything from medical reasons to alcohol problems). Basically, the bus was NOT a pleasant experience to ride.
I was always being told how great the mass transit was in other cities, and how much I'd like it if I didn't actually have to use a car to get around.
Well, I relocated to the D.C. area for a new job, not that long ago, and so far I'm not at all convinced. The fact is, it's really frickin' expensive to get around up here, and most of that really seems to be artificially manufactured by the government. For example, if I go to areas such as Bethesda, MD or the part of Rockville, MD near Bethesda where the red line metro runs and has multiple stations, the taxes placed on gas make it a good 50 cents per gallon or more higher than in the northern part of Rockville, or out in Germantown or Quince Orchard. Worse yet? Everyplace you go in areas near the metro, you're hit up for expensive parking for your vehicle too! If you work in downtown Bethesda, for example, you're stuck parking in one of the municipal parking garages, or possibly in one owned by one of the office buildings you work in. You can count on that costing you a good $140 per month or more. Need to drop a package off at a FedEx location around there, perhaps? Good luck finding street parking without feeding a meter first. Heck -- say you just want to drive your car to the nearest metro station with parking and take the metro in to work from there? Even that will set you back $5 per day, before paying for the metro fare itself -- and many stations have no or very limited parking, so you might drive to a station only to not get a space!
All of this helps create the argument that you should use and love the govt. provided mass transit, because it costs SO much to use your own car instead.
Well -- I tried to do things their way, and IMO, it's severely limiting. Essentially, you give up a considerable amount of your freedom in the interest of avoiding some of the govt. mandated penalties for using your car. On a shopping trip, for example? Good luck carrying anything back that won't fit in a couple of bags. You'll have to lug it on the metro train with you. And say a friend texts you during the work day and asks if you want to meet up at a restaurant after work? Without your car, you may just have to pass on that if it's not one of the places strategically close enough to you or a metro stop so you can get there!
To their credit, the metro trains DO run on a pretty regular and efficient schedule ... but they sure do have a nasty problem with the escalators to/from the below ground stations breaking down. Again, not fun if you're carrying heavy stuff around with you.
The whole thing, to me, stinks of a forced attempt to get people to conform to an environmentally "green" agenda more than anything else. I live far enough west of the metro D.C. area so even their buses to the closest metro stop only come here a few times in the early AM and again, a few times around the dinner hour after work gets out. If I have to work late, no bus for me! And oh yeah, they don't even come out here at all on weekends.
I can't tell whether you're trying to be sarcastic or simply didn't express yourself well. But to be clear: I disapprove of many of the things the federal government spends my tax dollars on. But given that I am forced to pay for them, of course, I'm going to use them. It is in no way inconsistent to argue against them. In fact, as a supposed beneficiary of a tax-payer provided service, one is in the best position to argue against it, because if even the supposed beneficiaries of a service consider it better left to the market, there is probably something wrong.
Personally, I think the federal government should shift much more of the responsibility for roads and other transportation issues more to state and local governments.
Some words are made-upperer than others.
Although that's been an effect, and is probably a major motivation these days, the original purpose of the federal government giving states highway grants wasn't to control their drinking laws, but to build the Interstate Highway system. Eisenhower set up that funding mechanism a half-century ago, where the federal government designed and paid for the interstate highway system at an overall level, but individual segments were constructed and maintained by the states they ran through, using funds that transferred to states from the federal government.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Wouldn't mass transit reduce wear and tear on the roads and ultimately reduce costs?
Actually, no. Damage to roads goes as the fourth power of weight (you can find lots of other sources with the same conclusions). A typical city bus weighs around 12000 kg; a typical car weighs around 1600 kg. Thus a bus does around 3100 times more road damage that a car. Assume that the car carries one person, and the bus carries a full load (seated and standing) of 96; you end up with ~33 times more damage per passenger mile in a bus as a single person in that car.
Weight is what destroys roads, and heavy vehicles really tear it up. A move to more mass transit would not only greatly increase the subsidies required, but seriously accelerate the damage done to the roads.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I hope you don't really think parking fees are some sort of "forced attempt to get people to conform" - space in a metropolitan area is fucking expensive. The space you put your car has to compete, economically, with the value of putting in an office building that actually generates revenue and pays rent.
Expecting whoever owns that land to just let you put your shit there for free is a bit entitled, and bitching about the cost of municipal parking is just completely ignoring the realities of the situation: if it wasn't for the city stepping in and saying "no, there will not be another high-rent office building here, there will be a parking structure", you wouldn't have anywhere to park because private companies would be busy using that space to make money to the detriment of everyone else. (and don't even start on "we should privatize the municipal parking structures" - you don't want to know what they would have to charge in order to be competitive with office rents).
The "green agenda" is just a side-effect of the fact that cars are super inefficient in densely packed areas where nobody can afford to just let people park their cars for free.
(and you know how you can meet your friends at the restaurant? You can walk. That's probably how they got there, unless they're hiding some sort of secret "green" teleportation device.)
It has very little to do with a "green agenda". It has to do with the fact that there are six million people in the DC metro area and a HUGE amount of those people live in the suburbs and commute into the city. This certainly won't come as a shock to you if you've ever driven your car inside the beltway during commute time, but you are not the only one who would like to use their own car to commute into the city.
What's the alternative? Seriously, what is a more efficient alternative to moving that many people over that distance on a regular basis? It sure isn't automobiles. Try driving around LA or Houston during rush hour if you think that a city that size designed around automobile travel is more efficient.
The fact is that if you live in a major metro area like DC and want to maintain the suburban Midwestern lifestyle you're used to while regularly visiting the city center for work and play, you're going to have to pay for it in time and money. There's just no way around it. I mean, how far are you commuting? West of Fairfax into DC? That's a pretty damn long commute. You can't really complain that the service is poor when you live that far away.
Thing is, metro systems actually work very well. Come to any major European city (Paris, London or Barcelona immediately spring to mind) and there are so many stations that there's basically no such thing as NOT strategically close to a stop.
Of course, if this huge tax payer subsidy is removed then other forms of transportation would immediately become viable. In other words, trains and buses would become cost effective and the US would get an environmentally friendly transport network.
ROFL. Stop it, you are killing me. LOL.
US would get an environmentally friendly transport network.
LOL.
The US would get shit. And we would have no choice but to like it. You could put as much economic pressure as you want to get more mass transit and people would end up being forced to fucking walk.
What makes you think economic pressure will cause mass transit to suddenly plop into existence? It will just cause suffering. Government certainly has no interest in actually serving its citizens. I am honestly surprised that parks even exist. There is no way a private entity will do it. Where will this mass transit come from? Economic pressure. ROFL. Economic suffering for absolutely no gain whatsoever. You sir are hilarious.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Congrats, you just named the two areas where the US fares very poorly compared to much of the rest of the developed world. Is that something to be proud of?
Only in the US do you complain about the price of cheap gas and also complain that there is no alternative (public transportation). Most other developed countries figured out long ago that you tax private car use to help pay for public transport. As long as you continue to ignore public transportation, it's not going to improve. Every time I travel to the US, the lack of good public transport is shocking except for a few exceptions where it is merely acceptable. As an ex-pat, this is particularly embarrassing.
In northern Europe, we pay $8-9/gal for gas but we also have excellent public transportation. Private car use is relatively heavily taxed, from the purchase price of the car to the taxes based on engine size and even CO2 emissions. As a result, cars with engines over 2 liters are relatively uncommon. Gas mileage and emissions are prime considerations when buying a new car and if you choose to buy a car with poor mileage or high emissions, you pay more to offset your "contributions" to the environment. It's not perfect, but it does reward those who purchase cars that are easier on the environment.
London
Clearly you've never been to London. Or saaaaarfariver.
In the south it's nothing but mud tracks, rude huts and roving bands of visigoths, all because of the lack of tube. At least so people from the north tell me. I think they're allergic to regular trains.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
As an American, I have to agree with you. People here flip out over gas prices but have NO idea how expensive it is in Europe. I'd known for a while, but when I started traveling there I still did a double-take.
Granted, we drive more (which is NOT a good thing) so it probably hurts us more than some other people. At least most of the places I've visited had decent mass transit, but that could just have been luck on my part.
But still, $4/gallon is nothing compared to elsewhere.
Besides the "other mass transit besides buses" reply...
From my understanding from the concept, there are other factors besides weight. There's the axle lengths (between front/back, left/right) and tire width, and number of tires (some buses double-up the tires) to take into consideration. Did you factor those in? Or did you just plug in basic weights.
Yeah, and I didn't even get into the fact that it's not just one bus replacing one car on the road, it's one bus replacing 96 cars (presuming a fully loaded bus) on the road. So, using his math that a bus does 33 times more damage to the road than a car, it does not do more damage than 96 cars.
The math is pretty simple:
Weight ratio of a bus to car: 12000 kg / 1600 kg = 7.5 /1 ) to get the damage per passenger mile: 32.96
Damage goes as the 4th power of weight, meaning the damage of a bus is (7.5 ^ 4) 3164 times higher than the car
Assume the car has 1 person, the bus has a full load of 96. Divide the damage of the bus by (96
A fully loaded bus, maximizing it's passenger capability, versus a car with the absolute minimum passenger capability (driver only), does ~33 times more road damage per passenger mile as compared to the car.
Put another way, you would need to put ~3100 people on a bus to have it equal the damage, per passenger mile, of the car.
And put yet another way, taking 96 cars off the road and putting all those people in a single bus results in only 33 times more road damage, as compared to the individual cars.
It's that 4th power function of weight that really kills your road - weight is the killer of roads, not number of vehicles. If you ride a scooter or motorcycle (like me), then take comfort in the fact the typical car is doing a lot more damage to the road than you - in my case (380 kg fully loaded scooter with rider), 314 times more damage to the road.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Good cherry-picking. Now perform the same analysis for NYC.
I'm sorry, when has New York City built a new light rail line? The latest light rail system in the US was in relatively flat and easy Phoenix, and it was $70 million per mile. I would assume building in New York would be considerably higher, given the amount of water and population density relative to Phoenix.
So for Phoenix, instead of being 17 times as expensive as highways, it was only 7 times as much. And we still ignore the fact that rail is heavily subsidized (including light rail - see the Phoenix link. I don't know of any light rail/subway system in the US that actually runs at break-even, let alone a profit - which roads do.
I'm not opposed to mass transit, but to try to put forth it's a lower cost solution in the US than highways simply isn't supported by the facts.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!