View Full Version : $4-a-gallon gas is coming to a pump near you
texasphil
04-22-07, 09:01 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=news&sid=afOlUzd30YOo
What's it gonna take, When will people learn? In Texas there's all kinds of new toll roads. Combine that with high gas prices and this economy is going to stall. Every year more people will have to adjust their lives. A fast food meal cost the same as a gallon of gas.
You're not seriously suggesting some people might pay a bit more attention to their driving habits if it gets too expensive?
fat_bike_nut
04-22-07, 10:10 PM
Shouldn't this topic be posted on some other forum? Like Living Car-Free?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=news&sid=afOlUzd30YOo
Gasoline at $4 Coming to a Pump Near You, Unfazed by Rising Tab
By Joe Carroll
April 23 (Bloomberg) -- Whether it's $50 to fill up your Prius or $130 for the Ford Expedition, $4-a-gallon gasoline is coming to a pump near you.
Fuel prices are rising at a pace not seen since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita knocked out a third of the U.S. oil refining industry in 2005. Gasoline consumption is climbing twice as fast as last year and will accelerate when summer travel begins late next month.
``What we're surprised by is the increased demand,'' said James Mulva, chief executive officer at ConocoPhillips, whose refineries from California to New Jersey produce 56 million gallons of gas a day, enough to meet 14 percent of the country's needs. ``Even though the price of gasoline is up, the demand is up,'' he said in an April 12 interview in Houston.
Population gains and U.S. economic growth are causing an increase in fuel purchases, according to Orlando, Florida-based AAA, the nation's largest organization for motorists. The U.S. economy will expand at a 2.4 percent annual pace in the second quarter, up from 1.8 percent in the first three months, according to the median estimate of 74 economists surveyed by Bloomberg. Gasoline use is rising almost 5 percent above the five-year average.
Americans are resigned to higher prices, says David Pursell, a principal with Pickering Energy Partners, a consulting firm in Houston.
``Last year, we had pump prices well over $3 for the summer and gasoline demand was up,'' Pursell said in an interview. ``Would $4 gasoline cause demand contraction? I think it will, but I also thought $3 gasoline would.''
Pump Prices
Gasoline inventories, measured by the days of demand they will cover, are at the lowest level in two decades for this time of year because of refinery fires, power failures and maintenance work oil companies failed to complete in 2006. No new U.S. refinery has been built in three decades, increasing the strain on existing plants.
Pump prices in the U.S. may increase to $4 a gallon from a nationwide average of $2.87 today, especially if hurricanes threaten Gulf of Mexico refineries, says Peter Beutel, an analyst at Cameron Hanover Inc. in Stamford, Connecticut, who helps industrial consumers manage energy costs.
``Hurricanes are always the huge wild card,'' said Beutel. ``We're all praying for a year like 2006 rather than 2005.''
The June-to-November Atlantic Ocean hurricane season may produce 17 tropical storms, with nine reaching hurricane force and four becoming major hurricanes whose winds exceed 111 miles per hour (179 kilometers per hour), London-based forecasters at Tropical Storm Risk said. Some of the storms will strike the Gulf Coast this year after a benign 2006, AccuWeather.com predicted.
Inflation Risk
Higher pump prices will make winners of refinery owners such as ConocoPhillips, San Antonio-based Valero Energy Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc of The Hague. Shares of Valero and Sunoco Inc., whose only business is refining, are rebounding after a decline at the end of last summer.
The increase in fuel costs threatens to quicken inflation and restrain consumer spending in the U.S. An appreciation to $4 a gallon would add more than $10 for a driver who fills the 12- gallon tank of a Toyota Motor Corp. Prius. The owner of an Expedition, a Ford Motor Co. sport-utility vehicle with a 34- gallon capacity, faces an increase of almost $40.
Many Americans have no choice but to drive more, says Christopher Knittel, an economist who studies fuel consumption at the University of California in Davis.
More Commuters
``We live farther from our jobs than we did in the 1970s, and with the rise of dual-income households, we now have two people who drive those distances every day,'' Knittel said.
Consumers also do more driving for things such as taking children to soccer practice, which they are unlikely to quit, he said. The U.S. population has increased 1 percent a year in the past decade to 301 million in 2007, adding to demand for gasoline, economists said.
Rising fuel prices make it less likely that Federal Reserve policy makers, who have cited inflation risks for the past year, will cut interest rates to spur economic growth. Before the hurricane-induced peak in 2005, U.S. gasoline topped out at $1.42 a gallon in March 1981, or $3.21 when adjusted for inflation, according to the Energy Department.
Economies in Europe and Asia are less likely to be hurt by gasoline prices because fuel already is subject to high taxes designed to encourage conservation. A gallon of unleaded costs about 3.25 pounds a gallon ($6.49) in the U.K., and in Japan it's 130.3 yen per liter ($4.16 a gallon).
$4 Barrier
U.S. consumers will get little relief on gasoline prices from Europe this year, unlike 2005, when oil companies shipped more across the Atlantic after the hurricanes. Europe's gasoline inventories in February were 114.2 million barrels, down 11 percent from two years earlier, according to the International Energy Agency in Paris. The drop in Europe was almost twice the 5.7 percent decline in U.S. supplies in that time.
``Just as we used to think $3 a gallon was an impenetrable barrier, now it's $4,'' said Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business in College Park and former chief economist for the U.S. International Trade Commission. Gasoline at $3.50 is likely, Morici said, and a conflict with Iran or any event that disrupts crude supplies may push it to $4.
Pump prices rose 33 percent in the past 11 weeks, the fastest rate of gain since a six-week, 34 percent rally to the record $3.069 in September 2005, Energy Department data show.
Bodman's `Worry'
U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in an interview last week said the national average pump price could break the record this summer. While his agency's official forecast is for gasoline to peak next month at about where it is today, hurricanes, refinery closures or crude oil supply cuts may send prices higher, he said.
Higher prices are ``a legitimate worry,'' Bodman said. ``We have trouble spots all over the world'' that could boost crude oil prices. ``We're in a very tight situation.''
Spending on fuel in the U.S. consumes half as much household income as in the early 1980s, which means gasoline would need to reach almost $6 a gallon to have the same effect on the economy as in 1981, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
Storage tanks at U.S. refineries, terminals and ports hold enough gasoline to cover almost 22 days of domestic demand, 8.2 percent less than the five-year average and the lowest for this time of year since the 1980s, Energy Department figures show.
Shortages
Valero-owned filling stations in Denver and Colorado Springs, Colorado, ran dry after a Feb. 16 explosion and fire shut the company's McKee refinery in Sunray, Texas. A day earlier, a blaze at an Exxon Mobil Corp. plant in Nanticoke, Ontario, slashed output, resulting in shortages and higher prices across eastern Canada.
The McKee shutdown strained supplies so much that ConocoPhillips postponed maintenance at its Borger, Texas, refinery north of Amarillo to prevent shortages in the region.
``Refineries are becoming more complex,'' Mulva said in the Houston interview. ``What we're finding is it's more difficult keeping reliability up with more sophisticated pieces of equipment that are highly integrated.''
Tesoro Corp. of San Antonio, the second-largest refiner in the western U.S., said first-quarter refinery use dropped because oil companies delayed until this year maintenance that could have been done in 2006. The portion of U.S. refining capacity that was in operation in the first quarter declined to 87.3 percent from 88.9 percent a year earlier, according to Energy Department data.
`Refineries Blow Up'
``Prices will depend entirely on whether we have a couple of refineries blow up,'' said Philip K. Verleger, an economist who runs a consulting firm in Newport Beach, California. ``It's almost impossible we'll get to $4 a gallon if all the refineries run well this summer. But if something happens and there are problems, then anything's possible.''
The average share gain for Valero, Tesoro and six other oil-refining companies is 26 percent this year, outperforming the 4.1 percent gain for Exxon Mobil and a 4.7 percent increase for the Standard & Poor's 500 index.
The shares will continue to rally, said Paul Carlson, who helps manage $3 billion at HGK Asset Management in Jersey City, New Jersey.
``Refiners are doing very well these days,'' said Carlson, whose holdings include ConocoPhillips, the second-biggest U.S. refiner. ``There will be lots of demand for any new refining stocks.''
`Back in Favor'
As recently as August, investors were selling oil refiners on concern an economic slowdown would slash fuel demand in the U.S., the world's largest energy market. During seven weeks last August and September, Valero shares fell 29 percent, wiping out $12 billion in market value.
``Refining is very much back in favor,'' said Douglas Ober, who helps oversee $2.3 billion at Baltimore-based Adams Express Co. ``Even with higher prices, we haven't seen any substantial cutback in demand. They're cranking out as much of this stuff as they can, and we're throwing it in our tanks as fast as we can.''
The margin earned from processing crude oil into fuels rose to $24.68 a barrel on April 11, the highest since right after the hurricanes in September 2005. The margin has since retreated to $22.12 a barrel, still about double the five-year average.
``It'll be a fairly tight gasoline market all through the summer,'' said Robert Hinckley, an analyst at Rochdale Securities in New York.
To contact the reporter on this story: Joe Carroll in Chicago at jcarroll8@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: April 22, 2007 19:04 EDT
dynodonn
04-23-07, 08:13 PM
4 dollar gas is just another 50 cents away here in my area, and we won't need a conflict to get it, just another oil refinery fire will do.
I don't think this article says a whole lot that you can't figure out by the process of simple arithmetic. If you look at a Chinese economy growing at a rate of about 10% annually. Look at video of every major Asian city clogged with traffic. Look at the sheer size of some of the vehicles produced by GM, Ford and Daimler Chrysler.
If I were forced right now to endure a long commute by car, I'd be thinking "Where's all this going? Where will I be sitting in 10 years?"
That train of thought would lead me to this logical conclusion: I need to sell my suv, buy a Trek and move closer to work.
Wogsterca
04-23-07, 09:01 PM
That's still far too cheap, this is from a Canadian perspective, but Jim Kenzie a writer for the Toronto Star, says it best.
Despite all the whining, gasoline is as cheap now as it has ever been, on an inflation-adjusted basis. It is the cheapest fluid you can buy at a gasoline station. Water is three bucks a litre, fer cryin' out loud.
As long as gasoline is free, we're going to keep on driving all by ourselves to work in a 2,000 kg truck, or picking up little Brittney at Havergal in a 500-horse SUV, engine idling while you wait, air-con set at full cryogenic.
If you want to read the whole article, which also talks about fuel efficiency, you can read it here (http://www.thestar.com/Wheels/article/205145)
That's still far too cheap, this is from a Canadian perspective, but Jim Kenzie a writer for the Toronto Star, says it best.
If you want to read the whole article, which also talks about fuel efficiency, you can read it here (http://www.thestar.com/Wheels/article/205145)
Thanks for the link. I like the authors semi-sarcastic style of writing.
Many Americans have no choice but to drive more, says Christopher Knittel, an economist who studies fuel consumption at the University of California in Davis.
"We live farther from our jobs than we did in the 1970s, and with the rise of dual-income households, we now have two people who drive those distances every day,'' Knittel said.
Consumers also do more driving for things such as taking children to soccer practice, which they are unlikely to quit, he said. The U.S. population has increased 1 percent a year in the past decade to 301 million in 2007, adding to demand for gasoline, economists said.
People who believe they have no choice but to drive more are idiots and they deserve $4 gas. Or $40 for that matter.
The increase in fuel costs threatens to quicken inflation and restrain consumer spending in the U.S.
I think this is an important point. If people spend more on gas, they're spending less on other things. This means that unemployment in other economic sectors might rise. And other businesses will lose money while the oil refiners make obscene profits.
Having this story in mind, it really depresses me with the job I am doing tonight. I can't get into too much detail about it, but let's just say I am working on a prototype for GM. Parts to a "new release" of their most famous gas guzzler mentioned here on BF. This one will be out in the next couple of years. Hopefully they'll be using a different engine than on their last few implementations of *this* vehicle.
/me hangs his head in shame
Having this story in mind, it really depresses me with the job I am doing tonight. I can't get into too much detail about it, but let's just say I am working on a prototype for GM. Parts to a "new release" of their most famous gas guzzler mentioned here on BF. This one will be out in the next couple of years. Hopefully they'll be using a different engine than on their last few implementations of *this* vehicle.
/me hangs his head in shame
Good heavens, we're making faster progress than I thought. Agents of the carfree movement have now infiltrated into the very heart of the beast. Good work, agent pj7!
Good heavens, we're making faster progress than I thought. Agents of the carfree movement have now infiltrated into the very heart of the beast. Good work, agent pj7!
Yeah, conflict of interests huh?
My personaly life choices in transpotation go against the career that puts bread and butter on my families kitchen table.
And to top it all, I have gotten two other people I work with to ride their bikes to work. Maybe they only do it once in a blue moon when the weather is warm, but still! All that Detroit steel outside and three little bicycles in the building every once in a while is a nice feeling. I'm still the oddball though.
lyeinyoureye
04-24-07, 12:27 AM
If I were forced right now to endure a long commute by car, I'd be thinking "Where's all this going? Where will I be sitting in 10 years?"
That train of thought would lead me to this logical conclusion: I need to sell my suv, buy a Trek and move closer to work.
A logical conclusion would be no conclusion. The future is indefinite, and incredibly complex. It's really hard, maybe even impossible, to predict. :p
To bad 4 dollar gas results in more expensive things for the car free people.
People who believe they have no choice but to drive more are idiots and they deserve $4 gas. Or $40 for that matter.
That's a really dumb statement. Driving a car is the only realistic choice for a lot of people and moving, or changing jobs, or whatever else can get someone out of their car isn't always a realistic choice. We live in a nation designed around the automobile, it's not surprising a car is essential to most people.
I was talking with an ex avid bike commuter last weekend. He told me he keeps accurate track of how much he spends on gasoline for his Hybrid by making all gasoline purchases on a dedicated credit card. His strategy is to fill up when he goes past the lowest priced station along his regular routes. He spent $2,700.00 last year. He bought the hybrid car so he could use the HOV lanes on the way to work. His commute is about 10 miles one way. I don't know about his other driving habits. He told me he got on his bike for the first time in a year or so and ended up in pain. So, not only is he losing money he's lost some of his health since he gave up biking to work. I don't think the price of gas going from 3 to 4 dollars per gallon will get him back on the bike. It would only be what? an extra $1000.00 or so? It seems to me that the car free advantage isn't the price of gas. For me gas could be free and it wouldn't induce me to go buy a car.
That's a really dumb statement. Driving a car is the only realistic choice for a lot of people and moving, or changing jobs, or whatever else can get someone out of their car isn't always a realistic choice. We live in a nation designed around the automobile, it's not surprising a car is essential to most people.
(Your first sentence was uncalled for, but I'll respond with more courtesy than you offered me.)
Many car trips are under 3 miles and don't involve carrying anything heavier than a Big Gulp. These trips could easily be made on bike or on foot. Also, what makes a choice "realistic" often depends on the imagination and intelligence of the individual. Some people have little of either, so they automatically hop in their cars without even thinking about it. Finally, the nation has been designed pretty poorly if people actually do find it hard to travel in more than one mode.
(Your first sentence was uncalled for, but I'll respond with more courtesy than you offered me.)
Many car trips are under 3 miles and don't involve carrying anything heavier than a Big Gulp. These trips could easily be made on bike or on foot. Also, what makes a choice "realistic" often depends on the imagination and intelligence of the individual. Some people have little of either, so they automatically hop in their cars without even thinking about it. Finally, the nation has been designed pretty poorly if people actually do find it hard to travel in more than one mode.
Oh wait, that's what you were saying? Because I thought you said this:
People who believe they have no choice but to drive more are idiots and they deserve $4 gas. Or $40 for that matter.
Which was a response to this:
Americans have no choice but to drive more, says Christopher Knittel, an economist who studies fuel consumption at the University of California in Davis.
"We live farther from our jobs than we did in the 1970s, and with the rise of dual-income households, we now have two people who drive those distances every day,'' Knittel said.
Consumers also do more driving for things such as taking children to soccer practice, which they are unlikely to quit, he said. The U.S. population has increased 1 percent a year in the past decade to 301 million in 2007, adding to demand for gasoline, economists said.
See, I said People who believe they have no choice but to drive more are idiots and they deserve $4 gas. Or $40 for that matter. was a dumb statement because it is a dumb statement, most bizarre, absolute generalizations are. What you aparently were really saying isn't a dumb statement because it's specific. Sure it has nothing to do with the quote from the article, which is talking about how households tend to work now, but it's not dumb.
And there's nothing discourteous happening, People who believe they have no choice but to drive more are idiots and they deserve $4 gas. Or $40 for that matter. is a dumb statement. This country was built around car travel and it's simply impossible for most people to live close enough to their job, or their school, or whatever, to make owning a car less than a necessity. It's dumb to pretend otherwise.
PolishGuy
04-24-07, 02:40 PM
$4.00/gal is not too far fetched. Will most likely be a reality. $5.00/gal for premium may also happen although it may settle around $4.50. I remember the early 70's when gas hit $1.00 plus per gallon. "My God", people thought. "That's a four fold increase". Same ratio now, just adjusted for inflation or whatever. Ya pays your money and ya takes your choice. PG.
dynodonn
04-24-07, 02:56 PM
$4.00/gal is not too far fetched. Will most likely be a reality. $5.00/gal for premium may also happen although it may settle around $4.50. I remember the early 70's when gas hit $1.00 plus per gallon. "My God", people thought. "That's a four fold increase". Same ratio now, just adjusted for inflation or whatever. Ya pays your money and ya takes your choice. PG.
I don't remember gas hitting the dollar mark in my area until 1980, but during the first embargo, I do remember one entrepreneurial individual who claimed he would install a personal 100 gallon gas tank at one's house and supply it with unlimited amount of gasoline for 88 cents a gallon, at the time, he had no takes on the offer.
lyeinyoureye
04-24-07, 03:12 PM
This country was built around car travel and it's simply impossible for most people to live close enough to their job, or their school, or whatever, to make owning a car less than a necessity. It's dumb to pretend otherwise.
It depends where you live and what your daily/weekly/*insert periodic name here* activities are. The country was expanded based on the interstate system in order to minimize the odds of a nuclear exchange crippling the nation. Eventually the magnitude of destructive power the world's arsenal had rendered this approach pointless.
The proliferation of the automobile and the construction of pathways leading out of the cities - the Interstate Highway system (funded under the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956) - were principally responsible for the creation of suburbia, a zone of population fostered by civil defense and the concept of dispersion under the guise of Manifest Destiny. Dispersion of population and industry was the only real defense against the destruction wrought by a nuclear attack, whose primary targets were population centers where the maximal amount of damage could be inflicted by the weapon.
Per the List of United States Metropolitan areas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_statistical_areas_by_population), more than a few people live in cities with public transport, where travel by bike is not only cheaper, but usually faster than travel by most almost anything else.
$4.00/gal is not too far fetched. Will most likely be a reality. $5.00/gal for premium may also happen although it may settle around $4.50. I remember the early 70's when gas hit $1.00 plus per gallon. "My God", people thought. "That's a four fold increase". Same ratio now, just adjusted for inflation or whatever. Ya pays your money and ya takes your choice. PG.
It'll take $6-12/gal before it really starts to hurt me. Hopefully, most of America isn't as resourceful and uses less. ;)
If anyone has been following the oil issue from the supply side as of late I think you will find that 2007 will see anywhere from 0 to about +1 million bpd in net change of production worldwide. Come June when the US summer driving season kicks into gear if the Saudi's and OPEC are unable to ramp up production we can expect sizable price jumps, so far they say they can yet their production continues to fall anyway. If they cant ramp up production things are going to start getting ugly.........their lies will have been revealed at that point. Demand destruction from the 3rd world being unable to cope with the higher prices will blunt some of it, but China and India continue to keep on keeping on just like the US, and I dont expect that to change anytime soon. I think in the near future we will be looking at a shortfall on supply that wont be going away, once that occurs I'd expect gas to increase in price by multiples not just a few cents here and there.
Wogsterca
04-24-07, 03:35 PM
This country was built around car travel and it's simply impossible for most people to live close enough to their job, or their school, or whatever, to make owning a car less than a necessity. It's dumb to pretend otherwise.
IIRC your country was formalized as a nation in 1776, over 130 years before Henry Ford started popularizing the car with the Model T in 1908. In fact America has been a nation over twice as long as there have been cars. As a technology it's taken over amazingly quickly, in less then 100 years it has become ubiquitous. However, anything that can take over, can also be taken over, we just are not sure with what -- could be something existing like streetcars, subways, LRT's, trains, electric scooters, and bicycles; could also be something that hasn't been developed yet. For Americans to continue to live in sprawl, it would need to be something that hasn't been developed yet.
Personally, I think what will happen, is that people will return to cities, as it becomes too expensive to drive, because gas prices, will continue to rise, if peak oil has occured, or occures, that price rise trend, could increase very quickly.
^^^ there's an article in one of the local rags here, street cars are already looking to make a comeback locally, in some places you can still see where the old tracks used to be, they havent been gone that long
personally I dont think sprawl has a future or is an option really, I dont think the typical motoring lifestyle has much of a future either
there is a complete and 100% disconnect when people buy houses and make plans, they dont even bother to consider the future with respect to energy among other things, that may end up being a rather tragic problem for some people, I just wish it wasnt gonna drag everyone down with it too
And there's nothing discourteous happening, is a dumb statement. This country was built around car travel and it's simply impossible for most people to live close enough to their job, or their school, or whatever, to make owning a car less than a necessity. It's dumb to pretend otherwise.
Then welcome to this forum, shere there are a lot of dumb people who manage to do what you say is impossible--live without cars.
It depends where you live and what your daily/weekly/*insert periodic name here* activities are. The country was expanded based on the interstate system in order to minimize the odds of a nuclear exchange crippling the nation. Eventually the magnitude of destructive power the world's arsenal had rendered this approach pointless.
Per the List of United States Metropolitan areas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_statistical_areas_by_population), more than a few people live in cities with public transport, where travel by bike is not only cheaper, but usually faster than travel by most almost anything else.
And? My only point really was it's dumb to frame transportation problems in terms of people being idiots or not. It's dumb to look at things that way because it erases context and not paying attention to context is how people usually f things up.
Back to the quote though, demographics are largely meaningless because whether someone lives in a city or not, more than likely everything around them was built primarily to accomodate or facilitate car travel. Also, living close to work is sometimes physically impossible and can often be impratical, just given the way zoning works or how property values work out. Plus, there can be more to car travel than your job- there's your spouse's job, your kid's school, housing affordability, bad neighborhoods, etc., etc. A person has to make all kinds of compromises to navigate life, and they often don't end up anywhere near being able to get by without a car because this country as a whole has never really expended any resources to accomodate a less car-centric infrastructure.
So I find statements like "People who believe they have no choice but to drive more are idiots" or arguments that trend toward the idea that the "car problem" is mainly a matter of imagination and willpower as really inauthentic, pointless and egoist and that's what I responding to. I don't really have any response to your more general statement except the above, demographics aren't really evidence for anything in my opinion.
Then welcome to this forum, shere there are a lot of dumb people who manage to do what you say is impossible--live without cars.
I guess I'm kinda dumb too. I don't meet many other carfree people here in Texas but sometimes I do. Yesterday I went to my state rep's office to advocate for a bike safety bill. Turned out, the staffer I talked to was also carfree.
Then welcome to this forum, shere there are a lot of dumb people who manage to do what you say is impossible--live without cars.
So that's just how you operate? You take every statement and turn it into some sort of bizarre absolute? I said it was impossible to live without a car? Where? And I called some people dumb? I didn't call anyone dumb, I said your dumb statement was dumb. Heck, I didn't even call you dumb. But here you're implying I called people who live car free as dumb? Is that it? I can't even figure it out, honestly.
You don't care what the substance of what I'm saying is at all, do you? All you're interested in is if I'm taking a position or not and if that position agrees with you. I'm sorry, I don't work that way and don't even understand how other people do. You made a mean-spirited, bizarre and unfair overgeneralization and I called you on it. Sorry about that.
IIRC your country was formalized as a nation in 1776, over 130 years before Henry Ford started popularizing the car with the Model T in 1908. In fact America has been a nation over twice as long as there have been cars. As a technology it's taken over amazingly quickly, in less then 100 years it has become ubiquitous. However, anything that can take over, can also be taken over, we just are not sure with what -- could be something existing like streetcars, subways, LRT's, trains, electric scooters, and bicycles; could also be something that hasn't been developed yet. For Americans to continue to live in sprawl, it would need to be something that hasn't been developed yet.
Personally, I think what will happen, is that people will return to cities, as it becomes too expensive to drive, because gas prices, will continue to rise, if peak oil has occured, or occures, that price rise trend, could increase very quickly.
Same thing...
Dude, I'm not taking any position. I was trying to point roody back to reality- how things are right now it's dumb to pretend the problem is simply people being idiots or not, it's much more institutional than that.
lyeinyoureye
04-24-07, 04:07 PM
And? My only point really was it's dumb to frame transportation problems in terms of people being idiots or not. It's dumb to look at things that way because it erases context and not paying attention to context is how people usually f things up.
You're preaching to the choir about specifics. I'd rather live in the country because for a DIY'er, it's thousands, maybe even millions of dollars cheaper over a lifetime. My point was that it's a bit shortsighted to call Roody's generalization dumb, and go off making one yourself.
People who believe they have no choice but to drive more are idiots and they deserve $4 gas. Or $40 for that matter.
And there's nothing discourteous happening, is a dumb statement. This country was built around car travel and it's simply impossible for most people to live close enough to their job, or their school, or whatever, to make owning a car less than a necessity. It's dumb to pretend otherwise.
No one deserves anything, and everyone has options. :p
What's the generalization? That the US is built around car travel? You're not being specific.
We all know the situation. A lot of car dependency is baked into the U.S. way of life and it takes considerable effort along with lifestyle changes to break out.
And? My only point really was it's dumb to frame transportation problems in terms of people being idiots or not. It's dumb to look at things that way because it erases context and not paying attention to context is how people usually f things up.
Back to the quote though, demographics are largely meaningless because whether someone lives in a city or not, more than likely everything around them was built primarily to accomodate or facilitate car travel. Also, living close to work is sometimes physically impossible and can often be impratical, just given the way zoning works or how property values work out. Plus, there can be more to car travel than your job- there's your spouse's job, your kid's school, housing affordability, bad neighborhoods, etc., etc. A person has to make all kinds of compromises to navigate life, and they often don't end up anywhere near being able to get by without a car because this country as a whole has never really expended any resources to accomodate a less car-centric infrastructure.
So I find statements like "People who believe they have no choice but to drive more are idiots" or arguments that trend toward the idea that the "car problem" is mainly a matter of imagination and illpower as really inauthentic, pointless and egoist and that's what I responding to. I don't really have any response to your more general statement except the above, demographics aren't really evidence for anything in my opinion.
I totally agree that it is impossible for some people to be totally carfree, given that our cities are poorly planned, as you mentioned. I think everybody on this forum realizes this, and actually I believe there are more carlite posters here than carfree ones. These carlite members are people who try to reduce car trips as much as possible, and I admire them for that, and I certainly don't hold it against them that they're not carfree.
However, most people in America could find alternatives for most of the car trips that they take. Many car trips are discretionary and many are frivolous. And if people don't even try to find alternatives to making these unneeded jaunts in the car, and instead spend an increasing portion of their income on gasoline, then yes, they are idiots.
lyeinyoureye
04-24-07, 04:37 PM
What's the generalization? That the US is built around car travel? You're not being specific.
it's simply impossible for most people to live close enough to their job, or their school, or whatever, to make owning a car less than a necessity.
Most people choose to own a car because they're relatively wealthy and enjoy the options that go with a car, but it's not a necessity for most. The average commute in the states is ~30 miles round trip, with an average speed of ~30mph iirc. The average person could probably commute to work on a bicycle with some training/common sense, but they choose to use a car. A car is not a necessity for most, it's a necessity for some and a luxury for most. :p
I totally agree that it is impossible for some people to be totally carfree, given that our cities are poorly planned, as you mentioned. I think everybody on this forum realizes this, and actually I believe there are more carlite posters here than carfree ones. These carlite members are people who try to reduce car trips as much as possible, and I admire them for that, and I certainly don't hold it against them that they're not carfree.
However, most people in America could find alternatives for most of the car trips that they take. Many car trips are discretionary and many are frivolous. And if people don't even try to find alternatives to making these unneeded jaunts in the car, and instead spend an increasing portion of their income on gasoline, then yes, they are idiots.
Well that's not what you said and that's not what I responded to.
krazygluon
04-24-07, 04:41 PM
However, most people in America could find alternatives for most of the car trips that they take. Many car trips are discretionary and many are frivolous. And if people don't even try to find alternatives to making these unneeded jaunts in the car, and instead spend an increasing portion of their income on gasoline, then yes, they are idiots.
Exactly. I overheard this conversation about some people who were getting married and flying back to their respective hometowns then on to some wild vacation destination (one to las vegas, one to atlantic city or something) with said friends for bachelor/bachelorette parties. This didn't even include the amount of transportation involved with the actual wedding. The experience led me to this phrase:
Money is a license to waste energy.
Not being car-free isn't dumb, its just social conditioning. not living energy-lite (whether that energy gets spent on transit, heat, electric, etc) is about half-dumb half conditioning.
Either way both boil down to being one of the perils of freedom. Freedom guarantees people equal legitimacy in doing something wise and in doing something wasteful useless or otherwise in bad taste.
Also, living close to work is sometimes physically impossible and can often be impratical, just given the way zoning works or how property values work out. Plus, there can be more to car travel than your job- there's your spouse's job, your kid's school, housing affordability, bad neighborhoods, etc., etc. A person has to make all kinds of compromises to navigate life, and they often don't end up anywhere near being able to get by without a car because this country as a whole has never really expended any resources to accomodate a less car-centric infrastructure.
I'm not disagreeing with you... at least, not completely. However, to my mind, the definition of "idiotic" would be a person who knows that a disaster is approaching... and does nothing about it. If you calculate the likelihood that gasoline will be in abundant supply in 20 years, I'd say the odds are against it. You need to plan for that eventuality. However impractical the solution seems right now, you still need to plan and make some steps in that direction.
The problem with the US is that it is currently about the least prepared for such an eventuality. That means it will probably be the hardest hit. I'd say it's time to get your bikes out.
Most people choose to own a car because they're relatively wealthy and enjoy the options that go with a car, but it's not a necessity for most. The average commute in the states is ~30 miles round trip, with an average speed of ~30mph iirc. The average person could probably commute to work on a bicycle with some training/common sense, but they choose to use a car. A car is not a necessity for most, it's a necessity for some. :p
I don't believe that because that's not what I observe here in LA. But yes, what I said was a generalization, hardly on the order of roody's, though.
I don't know anyone who isn't already riding a bike or taking the bus who could get rid of their car realistically. It's not just how the city is arranged, though that is a huge part of it, it also has to do with the labor market and income disparity in general. Jobs aren't really where affordable housing is. Depends on your definition of "affordable", but basically the large clusters of middle income emplpyers don't tend to be around a whole lot of afforable housing. Which means more affordable housing usually isn't around a lot of employment opportunities. Public transport isn't very good and isn't very realistic for most purely bus routes after say 8 miles distance. New schools are being built but for a long while now there's been some seriously messed-up schools. I can't begrudge someone who lives where they live because the school is good but works 20 miles away because that's where there's work for their profession, for instance- and drives because 20 miles through LA can be inordinately dangerous.
I don't think there's any probably's about it, I think that's a pointless argument to make. My wife has to drive 20 miles now to her job she used to be able to get to by bus. Could she ride a bike there? Theoretically, yes. Realistically, no. I wouldn't do it if I was her, it would take a long time (longer than it takes to just ride 20 miles) and be extremely dangerous because the only realistic routes are really f'd up. Could she quit and get a job closer to home? Well, no, not really, not unless something in her profession opens up near our home. Could she completely change careers or just take some crappy job in order to work closer to home? Sure, if she wanted to be completely miserable. Could we move closer to her work? Sure, if I started driving (I'm nearly car free) and we were both competely miserable.
I think any "it's just a matter of willpower" argument is pointless and innacurate. Life for most people revolves around their kids, job or home. Arguing they could not drive if they only drastically changed their life isn't an argument at all, that's just bad rhetoric.
Arguing people could drive less if they walked to places that were just a mile away, etc., etc., is a completely different argument. This started because roody said people who felt they had to drive were idiots, and the context was a guy talking about families having to drive further away to work and having to be 2 income families. That is the reality for the middle class- 2 incomes, because median wages have been flat for the middle class for 40 years- jobs further away, because zoning boards have been more concerned with tax revenue than anything else- and schools being treated unfairly, because the quality of the school is dependant mainly upon how much debt the property taxes of the district can support, meaning you need to live where the schools are good, you can't rely on the school being good where you'd like to live. That's the reality for most of the middle class in this country and it's not idiotic, it's just how things have ended up.
Since I haven't stated any position I'll state one now- I don't expect people to change society drastically through their consumption habits. In fact I think the very idea is ludicrous and just a lie entrenched wealth would like you to believe because it removes all responsibility for the status quo off the backs of the people who own 80% of all wealth in the nation (about 2% of the population). Pushing the idea that circumstance will change the form, function and reality of our culture ignores history and is just another facet of the utopian "free market" ideology, in other words just worthless packaging for an abohorrent agenda. We drive everywhere for a very simple reason- this country was built up around the car, physicaly and psycologically. I don't think anything will significantly change people's habits until things start getting built around the pedestrian, which is starting to slowly happen here and there. In the meantime, there's a big difference to me to some idiot driving a hummer around beverly hills and some shlub who's job is in a lousy neighborhood so he lives 30 miles away and biking 60 miles a day just isn't realistic. I feel sorry for one of them.
Wogsterca
04-24-07, 05:57 PM
^^^ there's an article in one of the local rags here, street cars are already looking to make a comeback locally, in some places you can still see where the old tracks used to be, they havent been gone that long
personally I dont think sprawl has a future or is an option really, I dont think the typical motoring lifestyle has much of a future either
there is a complete and 100% disconnect when people buy houses and make plans, they dont even bother to consider the future with respect to energy among other things, that may end up being a rather tragic problem for some people, I just wish it wasnt gonna drag everyone down with it too
I think your right the motoring lifestyle's days are numbered, it's simply not sustainable, what will be interesting is how people will deal with it. See, even if they solve the fuel supply problem, and the pollution problem, cities are running out of land they can dedicate to road networks and traffic. See, the problem is that roads are an expense for a city, roads need to be maintained, and road maintenance is not cheap, so there are limits to the amount of land that can be paved over, before the city itself gets unsustainable.
However, most people in America could find alternatives for most of the car trips that they take. Many car trips are discretionary and many are frivolous. And if people don't even try to find alternatives to making these unneeded jaunts in the car, and instead spend an increasing portion of their income on gasoline, then yes, they are idiots.
agreed
wfin2004
04-24-07, 06:38 PM
Gasoline already is over $4.00 a gallon in Orlando. At the only fuel place between the rental drop off and the airport. Just fill it up before you take the rental back.
I don't believe that because that's not what I observe here in LA. But yes, what I said was a generalization, hardly on the order of roody's, though.
I think any "it's just a matter of willpower" argument is pointless and innacurate. Life for most people revolves around their kids, job or home. Arguing they could not drive if they only drastically changed their life isn't an argument at all, that's just bad rhetoric.
1) you chose to live in LA and can't live without a car. BIG SURPRISE
2) Why is it, that you, like EVERY other person who proclaims they have to drive starts by talking about how far it is from their home to their job? They then follow up with a comment about the lack of public transit in their town.
My response is always the same
- move your home or your job
- change towns.
You do what you want. One day, you will make a change. The question is whether it's a voluntary one, or something forced on you by an economic crisis.
All you people who HAVE to drive 20-30 miles each day need to think about what you're going to do when you can't afford to make that drive, when you can't afford the natural gas for your heat because it's all being used to produce ethanol and the price of animal meat has quadrupled because noone's growing corn for animal feed anymore. It's too late to move, because noone's even considering a house in the suburbs anymore. What now?
I-Like-To-Bike
04-24-07, 06:58 PM
Gasoline already is over $4.00 a gallon in Orlando. At the only fuel place between the rental drop off and the airport. Just fill it up before you take the rental back.
I'm in Orlando today. $2.89/gallon everywhere in town.
In the meantime, there's a big difference to me to some idiot driving a hummer around beverly hills and some shlub who's job is in a lousy neighborhood so he lives 30 miles away and biking 60 miles a day just isn't realistic.
Dude, I think that's the same idiot I was talking about! He was here in Lansing one day and I saw him in the H2 and that's who I was talking about!
My "idiot" comment was a throwaway line -- I do know the difference between idiots and shlubs. I also know that our dependence on cars is a deep thing ("baked into the U.S. way of life " as Platy said) and a few people changing their habits is not enough to tip the balance. But it's what we can do, along with talking like we are here, and thinking freshly, and not just blindly following our so-called leaders.
I did agree, TimJ, with nearly everything you said in your long post (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4305831&postcount=35). I'm not going to argue with it or try to add to it, because I think you said it well. :)
I hope we can move on from here. I wonder if you have any ideas of what to do about both the city zoning patterns and the social injustices that you say feed into our car dependence?
I'm in Orlando today. $2.89/gallon everywhere in town.
I suppose the $4 gas was at a station near the car rental where they have you over a barrel (so to speak).
Say hi to Mickey for me!
1) you chose to live in LA and can't live without a car. BIG SURPRISE
2) Why is it, that you, like EVERY other person who proclaims they have to drive starts by talking about how far it is from their home to their job? They then follow up with a comment about the lack of public transit in their town.
My response is always the same
- move your home or your job
- change towns.
You do what you want. One day, you will make a change. The question is whether it's a voluntary one, or something forced on you by an economic crisis.
All you people who HAVE to drive 20-30 miles each day need to think about what you're going to do when you can't afford to make that drive, when you can't afford the natural gas for your heat because it's all being used to produce ethanol and the price of animal meat has quadrupled because noone's growing corn for animal feed anymore. It's too late to move, because noone's even considering a house in the suburbs anymore. What now?
wait till its too late.........sometimes I think its the national motto
A few advantaged people can make good carfree choices. However, there just aren't enough mixed-use, close-in suburbs near transit lines, and there certainly aren't enough high paying stable jobs you can count on to stay in one place year after year.
The real problem is if large numbers of people are forced by immediate economic conditions to curtail their driving. For all the success we've had here in LCF as individuals exploiting our special circumstances to be car light or car free, I don't think we would have much right now to offer in the way of general solutions for the average family. Despite all that, I think we're getting a good understanding of the practical dimensions of the problem, also developing some insights into what the core issues are.
I think it's progress when a person writes about how hard it is to get by without a personal auto. You can't solve a problem without knowing what it is and how deep it goes.
AverageCommuter
04-24-07, 08:34 PM
wait till its too late.........sometimes I think its the national motto
I think we should change the national symbol from an eagle to a ostrich.
1) you chose to live in LA and can't live without a car. BIG SURPRISE
2) Why is it, that you, like EVERY other person who proclaims they have to drive starts by talking about how far it is from their home to their job? They then follow up with a comment about the lack of public transit in their town.
My response is always the same
- move your home or your job
- change towns.
You do what you want. One day, you will make a change. The question is whether it's a voluntary one, or something forced on you by an economic crisis.
All you people who HAVE to drive 20-30 miles each day need to think about what you're going to do when you can't afford to make that drive, when you can't afford the natural gas for your heat because it's all being used to produce ethanol and the price of animal meat has quadrupled because noone's growing corn for animal feed anymore. It's too late to move, because noone's even considering a house in the suburbs anymore. What now?
Hey pal. How about reading past the first freaking paragraph of anything I wrote? Every single point you made doesn't apply to me, yet here you are berating and belittling me.
What is wrong with you?
Why is it, that you, like EVERY other person who proclaims they have to drive starts by talking about how far it is from their home to their job? They then follow up with a comment about the lack of public transit in their town.
I didn't say anything remotely like that, you jackass.
Dahon.Steve
04-24-07, 09:15 PM
However, anything that can take over, can also be taken over, we just are not sure with what -- could be something existing like streetcars, subways, LRT's, trains, electric scooters, and bicycles; could also be something that hasn't been developed yet. For Americans to continue to live in sprawl, it would need to be something that hasn't been developed yet.
Agreed.
I didn't allow myself to get a job or career force me into a car dependant life. I did not allow myself to live in a city or state that lacked pubic transportation forcing me to purchase a motorcar. If I had a family, there is no way I would not have allowed them to become dependant on motorized transport for education, work or shopping. I was able to resolve all these issues by moving to a transit friend city and choosing a career that did not require a car. In short, I simply refused to allow the motorcar to become a central part of my life.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.