General Cycling Discussion - Fuel Prices in your neighborhood

Since we have a "global community" here, I thought it might be interesting to compare fuel prices in various corners of the world. I will convert southern Ontario's current 68 cents per litre (will probably increase by 5 cents per litre next week due to long weekend) to American gallons ( 1 litre = 3.8 Am Gallons) and American Dollars ($1 Cdn = $0.64 Am)

0.68 x.64 = $0.43 Am per litre which = $1.63 Am per Am gallon

Why would anybody want to drive at these prices??

I paid $1.59 per US gallon a couple of days ago in the Cleveland, Ohio metro area. That is a middle grade (89 octane) gasoline. My car gets pretty good mileage and I commute a lot on the bike so I don't fill up that often.

We hit over $2.00/gal. during the last gas crisis earlier this year.

I just fueled up today at $1.43 per gallon.

Just asked my family what the price of gas is where they live (Staffordshire, England). I got the answer 75p a liter.

This works out to:

.75*2.39*3.8= $6.81CAN per gallon ($1.80 a liter)
.75*1.85*3.8= $4.50US a gallon.

Imagine what would happen in the US and Canada if prices went this high.

Only goes to show that the economy COULD survive if prices went this high!

Well Done Spire

It saved me working it out:D

The price I can live with because even though I own a car, it's always my last option.

Lets see - to fill up today
1 muffin $.55
1 Banana $.18
2 cups of coffee (free at work)

For lunch ......

I haven't bought gas in 2 weeks but I noticed my Chevron was at 1.44 gal/ and a AM/PM (ARCO) was at 1.29 gal haven't seen it that low in a looong time. We are spoiled in this country compared to our freinds to the north and the brits (freinds to the east)

Originally posted by Spire
Just asked my family what the price of gas is where they live (Staffordshire, England). I got the answer 75p a liter.

This works out to:

.75*2.39*3.8= $6.81CAN per gallon ($1.80 a liter)
.75*1.85*3.8= $4.50US a gallon.

Imagine what would happen in the US and Canada if prices went this high.

Only goes to show that the economy COULD survive if prices went this high!

Is not a substantial amount of this price taxes rather than price related?

Carl

Regular unleaded here is $1.37 right now.

Originally posted by webist


Is not a substantial amount of this price taxes rather than price related?

Carl

Yep:(

Not to get to deep, but if your interested try HERE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2000/world_fuel_crisis/933648.stm)

\ Down here in orlando its running around $1.35-1.40 a gallon for 87octane

Originally posted by Ouch !


Yep:(

Not to get to deep, but if your interested try HERE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2000/world_fuel_crisis/933648.stm)

Now that's complicated! Thanx for the info though. Seems our method of X cents per gallon is a bit more straighforward.

Carl

It varies. I think I paid $1.25 recently for 87 octane "regular gas."

My wife's car just lost it's transmission. I could be looking at $1,500. Already this year we sunk over $800 into this car.

Gas is looking really cheap...

Most places here charge about $1.49/gallon for unleaded 87 octane (R+M/2 method). I filled up for $1.52 with the 88 octane unleaded (harder to find-most places only stock 87,89, and 92).
BTW, although I do drive a truck, it only has a 2.5l litre 4 cylinder, and it gets an average of 29 mpg. It also has a bike rack......

Let's see.

Petrol is 89c AUD per litre.

89¢AUD x 54¢ US (exchange rate) = 48¢US per litre

48¢ x 3.8 litres = $1.82US per gallon

I hope that's right.

CHEERS.

Mark

Originally posted by Dutchy
Let's see.

Petrol is 89c AUD per litre.

89¢AUD x 54¢ US (exchange rate) = 48¢US per litre

48¢ x 3.8 litres = $1.82US per gallon

I hope that's right.

CHEERS.

Mark

Thanks for that Mark. Your calculations of the Australian equivilents saves me a lot of work.

The price here in Perth is very similar, maybe a couple of cents a litre less.

Here in Switzerland, regular (cheap) unleaded costs about 1.25/liter, so that's about $ 3.14/gallon.

I like riding my bike.
Tom

i drive rarely here in Germany and don't own a car...

last weekend i borrowed the girlfriend's car to get to Austria to climb Grossglockner (3798m or 12,500ft - beautiful with 2000m vertical!) and filled up in Austria with super (95 octane i think - she demands that for HER car, so OK) and i paid i think €.98/liter where 3.8 l/gal, $.978/€

so that's €3.74/gal = $3.78/gal not sure, but "regular unleaded" is like maybe $3.40/gal or so.

on the good side, i was driving a Fiat Punto (4-door similar to a Ford Focus) which gets 47MPG (5.1 lit/100km) -- but still easily cruises at 140-150km/h on the autobahn (88-94mph) well, in Germany at least. in Austria speed limit is 130km/h or 81.5mph --- nice little car!

Well, if I owned a car, I'd be paying roughly what Nathan paid. About 70% of which would be taxes.

But, as an earlier post asked, the interesting question is what would happen if the U.S. and Canada had to pay European prices for gasoline. I used to think this alone would solve many problems in the U.S. (I am less qualified to speak to the Canadian question). Just tack on a massive gas tax, and watch the U.S. over-consumption of the world's fossil fuels come back down to reasonable levels. The decline in consumption would also have desirable political effects, such as making us less dependent on propping up abusive middle eastern monarchies.

But, alas, without massive investment in mass transit infrastructure, this would hit the poor and a significant chunk of the middle class very hard, since they would be forced off the roads. With a cherished few exceptions, American cities would need complete make-overs in order to support the kind of bus/rail systems that are taken fully for granted in Europe. (In Bonn, the subway and busses run so often, I don't even bother to look at a schedule, except on Sundays.) I fear the needed investment could not be accomplished by the revenue from the gas taxes alone.

So, yes, I would still love to see a massive gas tax implemented in the U.S., but only on the condition that huge extra monies are pumped into mass-transit.

The simple fact is that U.S. cities matured in the age of the automobile. European cities matured in the age of rail. Here, the infrastructure and the mentality supports it. In the U.S. it is still, most regretably, a utopian project. The best we can hope for is incremental raises in gas taxes and investment in mass transit, limitations of urban sprawl, and an auto registration tax which is pegged to the fuel consumption (in Germany--big cars pay bigger registration taxes). Alas, pigs don't fly.

End of rant.

Cheers,
Jamie

gasoline here in illinois is among the highest in the country @ $1.50 for 87 octane...americans complain about fuel costs, but we pay nothing compared to other countries.

one would counter that a bottle of Evian water costs more per gallon.

Originally posted by RiPHRaPH
one would counter that a bottle of Evian water costs more per gallon.

By a water filter and it is then less than a gallon of gas :)

one would counter that a bottle of Evian water costs more per gallon.

yes, if you think of all the products you can buy (water, soda, alcohol, vinegar, milk, toothpaste, etc.)... how can gasoline -- which must processed in a complicated process from petroleum extracted from deep in the ground that must first be located be so much cheaper than all these other products and then transported long distances in special ways because it is highly flamable and toxic -- be so much cheaper?

and then consider how cheap it is w/o the taxes... and it becomes relatively clear how much gasoline and petroleum exploration, production and distribution is subsidized.

Jamie, although i think there is little hope of any changes being done b/c of the political entrenchment of petroleum and auto in the US and Americans expectation of cheap gas (remember the complaining a few years back when gas rose to over $1.25 or so a gallon? -- what an outrage! gas was so expensive)

i personally think the following would be a good idea:
1) fully disclose to the public all the direct and indirect public tax dollars that go into providing "cheap gas", maybe even including our military operations to stabilize and keep prices low (in interest of the economy of course)
2) in an incremental plan over say 20 years, begin removing most of the subsidies for gasoline so that a true "free market" exists --- it currently DOES not
3) and replace these gasoline subsidies with expenditure on public transit or some type of low-cost transportation that "average" Americans could afford ---- and before someone goes off on the evils of "subsidization", please consider the huge expenditure for automobile facilities. although in politcal jargon this is termed "invested in a community and infrastructure and the economy" it is exactly the same thing: using public tax dollars to subsidize a transportation system

currently in the US, the automobile enjoys 3 major GOVERNMENT TAX subsidies: 1) those for cheap gasoline, 2) those for cheap (mostly free) roads, and 3) those for cheap or mostly free parking --- if you believe your gas tax and auto registration fees cover your direct public "costs" of using your own private car ---> sorry, you are wrong. then add to that your indirect and difficult to measure costs such as pollution, public safety, noise, etc.

what irks me so much about the US is that most people believe that capitalism and the free market should be allowed to "let the people decide" and are against government intervention and subsidies -- and in general within some guideline i pretty much support his philosophy -- but this is just not the case in relation to the automobile ---- to go on further, all the tax laws and government rules that PROMOTE sprawl (zoning, business minimum parking requirements, new housing infrastructure subsidization, etc.) so that people are "encouraged" by subsidies to live further from work or school

$1.62 last fill-up for 92 octane in Vancouver, WA (near Portland, OR) Vancouver is the autocentric 50's throwback, sort of East Berlin to Portland's enlightened West. I'd say, the bad news is that a Subaru station wagon costs $21.00 to fill up--and the GOOD news is that a Subaru station wagon costs $21.00 to fill up!
The owners of Chevy Subdivisions and Ford Excretions must be paying double that at least. We burn as Saddam laughs, Osama chuckles. Today the car will do something my bike can't--take about 50 rotted fence boards and posts to the wood recycler; that's my treason for the day.

Feldman,

pretty good desciption of Vancouver WA (not to be confused with progressive Vancouver BC)...

i can't believe they backed out of the North/South light rail a few years ago when it was Washingtonians who would have most benefit (about 2/3 of those in Vancouver cross the river into Portland every day for work)... and their utter lack of spending on schools is almost as bad as New Hampshire (or some southern states like Arkansas but i'm less qualified to say exactly - it may be Lousianna or Mississippi?)

too bad Portland is right on the state line so Vancouver doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of Metro...

Last time I filled up was 3 weeks ago and the price was around $1.59 for premium at most stations in the Southeast US along I-20.

8.25 dkr a litre, that is over an dollar a liter!!!!!! And to think we have big offshore oilfields in the North Sea. - Someone is making a bloody fortune. Fortunately I do not own a car.......

Originally posted by nathank

most people believe that capitalism and the free market should be allowed to "let the people decide" and are against government intervention and subsidies

I am firmly in favor of the free market and individuals' control of the decisions. The only times I find myself deviating from this heartfelt conviction are when the subsidies, tax breaks and government intervention are in my favor

:D

Carl

For the Americans, how many car miles do you do in a year ?

To put UK (and most of the rest of the world) fuel costs into perspective

I have a deisel Landrover. To fill up the 70 Liter tank (which =15 Imperial Gallons = 18.4 US gallons) costs me GB£ 50.00, which = US$76.49, €78.14, CAN$119.05, or AUS$ 140.65.

That will take me 400 miles or 640km

Therefore per mile the cost is 12.5 pence, or 20 US cents

Or a buck per 5 miles or US$2,000 per 10,000 miles

Makes you think ....

Over the last five years I averaged 20,000 miles/year on my commuter vehicle that I also used for several long road trips. It makes several 1500 mile roundtrip journeys every year. That average will go way down now that I've started bicycle commuting.

For the Americans, how many car miles do you do in a year ?

well, i guess i can show my "evolution"...

* in Texas from '95-'96: about 30,000-40,000 miles/yr
in Texas from '97: about 20,000 miles/yr -- started seriously bke commuting
* in Oregon '97: about 25,000 mi/yr (originally commuted 50 miles each way "Texas style" - i originally thought it was nice - imagine that!)
* in Oregon '98-'00 - about 5,000mi/yr -- i did not drive in the city and only for road trips or to get to the mountains
* in Massachusetts '00 - about 4,000mi/yr
* in Munich since '01 - less than 1000mi/yr (i don't own a car)

for the last 5 years i have also logged between 12,000 and 20,000km/yr on my 4 bicycles (7500-12,500mi/yr)... currently over 7,000km for 2002

i think my max was in Houston TX in 1996 when i had a 65 mile one-way commute to work and i logged over 40,000 miles!! and i had a HUGE pickup with a 7.4 liter engine that got less than 10MPG!!

so even someone raised in Texas and "trained" on cheap gas to waste and pollute like there's no tomorrow can change...

JDP: kudos for bike commuting in Dallas! i bike commuted a little 3 summers in Dallas ('91-'93) and then in Houston too and it takes some committment considering the attitudes -- i was asked at least once a week if i needed a ride home or when my car would be out of the shop -- i even had co-workers offer to loan me money b/c they thought i HAD to cycle (why else would i not drive?)

I just want to add that I agree 100% with Nathan's comments about removing the subsidies from gas prices (and a lot of other things, to boot).

Such subsidies are often hidden in a wide variety of public expenditure. Look, for example at coal for power plants. In Wisconsin coal power costs about $0.05 per kilowatt, wind power about $0.09. But, if you factor in the clean-up costs associated with coal, coal comes in above wind. But, the power industry has so far successfully managed to keep those clean-up costs disassociated from the production of power. By law, Wisconsin utilities must offer their customers the cheapest power available. So, unless they elect to pay more on their bill, Wisconsites will still get their power from coal, since the clean-up costs are not factored in.

If we really were to remove such subsidies, many gasoline and power would be substantially more expensive. Beef would be much more expensive.

The fact is that America does not live in the Free Market that it thinks that it does. It lives in a market which is manifestly controlled by large corporations who have arranged to have lots of costs passed on to tax-payers in a zillion ways.

Interestingly enough, the poster boy of free market economics, Adam Smith, ranted and raved against this kind of political manipulation by large corporations. When he spoke about creating a free market, he was not primarily directing his attention to removing government regulation. He was chiefly concerned with government-sponsored monopolies that prevented the market from functioning freely. Subsidies are just another way of promoting things which the market, when left to its own devices, would not otherwise support.

But, given that the world's known oil supply will only last another 37 years, the prices of oil will soon betray the "subsidy" lie. But, we're likely to do a lot of damage before then. And American will be in a very poor position to react when it has to move away from an oil-dependent economy.

The foregoing should not be taken as any statement of "free-market fundamentalism" on my part. Like Smith, I am much in favor of government expenditure for many things which are too expensive to count on the market to handle them. And, I am much in favor of social justice (which can also be pulled from Smith, if you read him the right way).

Cheers,
Jamie

Originally posted by nathank



JDP: kudos for bike commuting in Dallas! i bike commuted a little 3 summers in Dallas ('91-'93) and then in Houston too and it takes some committment considering the attitudes -- i was asked at least once a week if i needed a ride home or when my car would be out of the shop -- i even had co-workers offer to loan me money b/c they thought i HAD to cycle (why else would i not drive?)

________________________________________

how do you mount the gun rack on your bike>! (haha)

Originally posted by nathank


JDP: kudos for bike commuting in Dallas! i bike commuted a little 3 summers in Dallas ('91-'93) and then in Houston too and it takes some committment considering the attitudes -- i was asked at least once a week if i needed a ride home or when my car would be out of the shop -- i even had co-workers offer to loan me money b/c they thought i HAD to cycle (why else would i not drive?)

Thanks, but I only break into the northern edge of Dallas for about 1 mile. Most of my commute is through Richardson which has very bike friendly streets. Lots of residential streets that run parallel to the main 6 laners. There are only a few places where a car can't pass me easily and I try to stay off the roads during peak hours. I've only been commuting since June but the drivers here seem very accomodating.

That's funny about your co- workers. I work with a bunch of engineers so they understand me wanting to pinch pennies, get some exercise, etc. They are probably happy that one less car is congesting their commuting route and polluting the air, too.

Don't need a gun rack if I carry my .44 Magnum on my hip. j/k.

The foregoing should not be taken as any statement of "free-market fundamentalism" on my part. Like Smith, I am much in favor of government expenditure for many things which are too expensive to count on the market to handle them. And, I am much in favor of social justice (which can also be pulled from Smith, if you read him the right way).

Jamie,

i must admit it's been quite a while since i read any Adam Smith, but i think that pretty close to my personal views.

i believe there are certain areas (just to name a few: pollution, safety, working conditions, child labor or pedofilia) where government expenditure/rules/subsidy/regulation is necessary.

and it REALLY ticks me off when then people argue against subsidies or whatever in areas that are already heavily subsidized (like oil or auto) by saying we should let the market decide through the "free market" --- remove all the subsidies and you've got a good point. but arguing not to add a subsidy b/c you don't want to mess up the free market when it's already not a free market is bogus!

make driving reflect the real cost (preferably with pollution included) -- then if people still choose to drive and pay for their usage OK -- but why use my tax dollars to subsidize someone else's driving and then have to listen to them preach about not messing with the free market...

and yes, power generation is another BIG subsidy area -- although i'm not so informed on all the corruption -- and why shouldn't customer's pay directly for pollution costs from their energy usage? why should general tax dollars subsidize their pollution cleanup?

although i'm not necessarily advocating that all of society be run by cost-benefit/cost-estimation analyses, economists have gotten to be pretty good at estimated these "external costs"... so why not include them in the price that consumers pay? (i.e. like battery recycling costs that are sometimes implemented)

i'm not sure what it's called or what the source is, but i really like the plan where the manufacturer is responsible for all normal pollution and waste costs of a product - when a customer junks a product, they call the manufacturer who picks up the refrigerator or toxic battery (or pays the shipping costs) and is then responsible for recycling and/or disposal. the advantages to this are 1) the manufacturer is encouraged to create more easily recycled or disposed products b/c it affects their bottom line and 2) more of the external costs of a product are included in the purchase price so the product if more "accurate" represented on the market. of course there are some legal clarifications to be ironed out, but i think it would be a great improvement. then when you buy the newest cell phone or computer instead of throwing yours away (or giving it to a charity to try and do something useful with it) you simply return it to the manufacturer who can either do nothing and eat the costs or find a profitable reuse for the product. those companies that can better reuse and/or dispose of their products become more successful through market pressure...