WTF? It's illegal to make a business decision in order to increase profits?
Huh. I better return that new stove I just replaced in the condo we're renting and get that old one back from the junkyard. After all, I spent $500 so I could increase the rent by $50 and thus increase my profit. According to you that's illegal. :rolleyes:

Now think about the question for a second how can I increase my profits by shutting down a refinery, you can't unless you are colluding with other companies to rotate the shut-downs to keep the prices high which would be illegal or it was an unplanned consequence of independent action as in 2000. :rolleyes:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2001/03/mwgasrpt.htm

"In the spring of 2000, retail gasoline prices in parts of the Midwest spiked sharply higher. Beginning in May and peaking in mid-June, the national average retail price of reformulated gasoline ("RFG"), required by Environmental Protection Agency regulations in certain urban areas, reached a high of $1.67 per gallon. The price increase in the Midwest, however, was significantly higher. The price of RFG reached $2.13 a gallon in Chicago, and $2.02 a gallon in Milwaukee. The price of conventional gasoline showed similar sharp movements in these and other areas in the Midwest. The price run up was intense, but brief; by mid-July prices had receded to pre-spike levels or even lower.

The large price run-up in the Midwest prompted a bipartisan group from Congress to request that the Federal Trade Commission open an investigation to determine whether an antitrust violation had caused or contributed to the price spike. In collaboration with representatives of several Midwestern states, Commission staff undertook this charge.(1) This report answers that question and also reflects information collected in the course of the investigation on the possible causes of the price spike.

The completed investigation uncovered no evidence of collusion or any other antitrust violation. In fact, the varying responses of industry participants to the price spike suggests that the firms were engaged in individual, not coordinated, conduct. Prices rose both because of factors beyond the industry's immediate control and because of conscious (but independent) choices by industry participants."

No alternatives? What planet do you live on? He can switch to propane/natural gas, alcohol or electricly powered vehicle. He could roller-skate, bicycle or use a scooter. He could ride a horse. He could locate closer to work. He can drive down the block and save a nickle a gallon.

Where the hell is he going to fill regularly on natural gas? What fully-electric vehicle can he afford to buy goes far enough at freeway speeds? Nobody in their right mind will commute regularly by motorcycle -- or "scooter" -- and expect to escape serious injury or death (if we could, I'd have one myself). YOU aren't even going to commute on a TT bike -- never mind a steel "commuter rig", roller skates, or even a longboard -- with an 80-mile round trip. What school system is he going to have to put his kids through by moving closer to work? He could save a nickel a gallon -- but that's, what, 2% savings, so it's still expensive, isn't it?

Let me ask you -- what planet do YOU live on?

Must be one where you can find 240V outlets on every street corner, where road surfaces are free of hazards (which is what killed one of my coworkers a few years ago on a motorcycle), commutes are 10 miles or less -- or everyone can telecommute every day, downtown school systems don't completely suck....

THAT is a fantasy world, in case you haven't figured it out.

The free market economy depends on everyone charging as high a price as the market will bear for everything that is bought and sold.

That may argualby be true of the free market. A monopoly is not a free market. A price-fixing cartel is not a free market.

Lets hope that the new administration collects better and more timely data on bicycle commuting and ways to increase bike use. Right now the best data comes from bike sales, which where way up last year. Lets hope that we get more infrastructure built long before they start cranking out "green" Hummers. Most commuters have less than 6 mile commute. Not very difficult, with a bit of practice and minor commitment.

Raise the gasoline tax by $5.00/gallon for individual and you'll be seeing a shift in how people commute. :)
Or at least raise the tax by 10% per year and use that for mass or bike infrastructure.

We could also help build our renewable energy using the 12billion/year subsidy that used to go to oil companies.

Know what I love about this crap --

I can now just sit back and let the real idiots expose themselves.

Same thing is still happening in a VC thread.

So you're saying you want me to flash you? :eek:

So you're saying you want me to flash you? :eek:

Unnecessary. I can get better pics of flashing elsewhere.

This is the internet, after all. :p

http://youtube.com/watch?v=T-TA57L0kuc

:p Gasoline is equivalent to a life sustaining medical procedure? You can do better than that, surely!

You don't think people will die if gas gets a lot more expensive?

LOL. Belief that the market is 'free' is so quaint.

All this talk about "free market" and how companies will charge as much as they possibly can --

Use that idea to explain how Wal-Mart works.

Raise the gasoline tax by $5.00/gallon for individual and you'll be seeing a shift in how people commute. :)
Or at least raise the tax by 10% per year and use that for mass or bike infrastructure.

We could also help build our renewable energy using the 12billion/year subsidy that used to go to oil companies.

Yep, you'll see more people using mass transit, car-pooling, telecommuting and motor scooters, but most will not even consider a bike...it takes work (as in physical labor) and exposes them to that nasty old Mother Nature. You'll also see a lot of pols take a beating at the polls for raising taxes.

A discussion with HH:

"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."

:rolleyes:

Is this the five minute argument, or the full half hour?

Actually it's more:

1 HH:<absurd statement>
2 Anyone Else:"that's an absurd statement"
3 HH:"That's not what I said, what I said was <absurd statement>"
4 GOTO 2

While I don't think I'm seeing an uptick in bike commuters, this winter, I have had the odd feeling that drivers are being nicer to me. I have to cross a busy street on my commute, and I'm finding that cars are slowing more and sooner when they see me to make it a bit easier to get across. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I have wondered if the drivers were seeing me as someone actually doing something to reduce demand for gas, and so worthy of a break.

It would be nice if it was real and common.

Speedo

Speedo- I've noticed a bit of a shift as well- are we imagining it? But a little more respect seems to be out there for us. I think we can expect an upsurge in bike commuters this spring. But it may increase driver frustration rather than the respect factor- let's hope for the best.

Speedo- I've noticed a bit of a shift as well- are we imagining it? But a little more respect seems to be out there for us. I think we can expect an upsurge in bike commuters this spring. But it may increase driver frustration rather than the respect factor- let's hope for the best.

Or maybe -- hopefully, anyway -- more drivers will see bike commuters not as elitist Type-A's or poor hippies but as people just like themselves, and wishing, "Boy, I'd like to try that sometime..."

I should head over to one of the regular commute routes and see how busy it is near rush hour. I'm expecting a healthy amount of traffic.

Is this the five minute argument, or the full half hour?

Actually it's more:

1 HH:<absurd statement>
2 Anyone Else:"that's an absurd statement"
3 HH:"That's not what I said, what I said was <absurd statement>"
4 GOTO 2

But is the Serge working?

Let's see...

We've got commentary on a probable surge in bike commuting...

arguing about whether oil companies control the market...

and jokes about the misspelling of "surge".

What else can we add? :D

Let's see...

We've got commentary on a probable surge in bike commuting...

arguing about whether oil companies control the market...

and jokes about the misspelling of "surge".

What else can we add? :D

Don't tempt me

But is the Serge working?

I've got a serge-buster on my computer, but it doesn't seem to be working.

I think Bike Commuter Serge needs to be the mascot of this forum.

In order to attempt to yank this thread back on track, yes, I've seen more bike commuters on my way to work. I suspect, I'm seeing people who were already considering it, so, the early adopters so to speak. And by more, I mean 5-10 more people consistently, and I live in the suburbs. I see far more bikes than ever before in Boston proper.

Where the hell is he going to fill regularly on natural gas? .

There are over 120,000 propane powered vehicles operating in the USA today. It is likely that this fictional person lives in area with a propane infrastructure. I know I do.

What fully-electric vehicle can he afford to buy goes far enough at freeway speeds?.

I don't know what he can afford. Perhaps he would have to sell his bass boat to buy one. It is an alternative, though perhaps for this guy not as attractive an alternative as buying gasoline at the current price. Why wouldn't it be a viable alternative if it were unable to achieve freeway speeds?

Nobody in their right mind will commute regularly by motorcycle -- or "scooter" -- and expect to escape serious injury or death (if we could, I'd have one myself). YOU aren't even going to commute on a TT bike -- never mind a steel "commuter rig", roller skates, or even a longboard -- with an 80-mile round trip..

I commuted for two years on a scooter in Idaho, and I lived! Fifty mile round trip, year round. You seem to be rather glib with your slander. I commuted in Los Angeles on a bicycle with a 60 mi round trip, and sometimes on a fixed gear. You seem to have a rather limited perspective as to what is possible.

What school system is he going to have to put his kids through by moving closer to work?.

He has alternatives there as well, even though you can't see it. He could send them to a private school, or he could home school them. Maybe he could get a different job in another state! That too is an alternative!

He could save a nickel a gallon -- but that's, what, 2% savings, so it's still expensive, isn't it?.

No! What a silly statement! It is an alternative to the high price he is whining about! :p


Let me ask you -- what planet do YOU live on?

Must be one where you can find 240V outlets on every street corner, where road surfaces are free of hazards (which is what killed one of my coworkers a few years ago on a motorcycle), commutes are 10 miles or less -- or everyone can telecommute every day, downtown school systems don't completely suck....

THAT is a fantasy world, in case you haven't figured it out.

In my world, one is not paralyzed by excuses. In my world, we don't complain about the cost of the alternative we have chosen and reckoned to be our best option. In my world we don't claim to be a victim when we choose to pay for gasoline. In my world we understand that there are consequences for our choices and take responsibility for them.

You've proven my points, believe it or not.

There are over 120,000 propane powered vehicles operating in the USA today. It is likely that this fictional person lives in area with a propane infrastructure. I know I do.

I know, and a lot of them (oooh, a hundred-twenty THOUSAND... let's see, that's 0.0485003059% of the 247,421,120 vehicles in the U.S. according to a 2005 figure) include buses and fleet vehicles. Good luck finding propane or natural gas at the corner station, though (and even if you do, better hope that the gas barbecue owners haven't bought up the stash first.

I don't know what he can afford. Perhaps he would have to sell his bass boat to buy one. It is an alternative, though perhaps for this guy not as attractive an alternative as buying gasoline at the current price. Why wouldn't it be a viable alternative if it were unable to achieve freeway speeds?

If it can't achieve freeway speeds, he's gonna get killed out there. If he has to take side roads, he'll double his commute time, and shorten the range correspondingly.

I commuted for two years on a scooter in Idaho, and I lived! Fifty mile round trip, year round. You seem to be rather glib with your slander. I commuted in Los Angeles on a bicycle with a 60 mi round trip, and sometimes on a fixed gear. You seem to have a rather limited perspective as to what is possible.

"Possible" and "practical" are two different things. Doctors (like my uncle) don't call them "mudercycles" without good reason. I'm not stupid enough to depend on one for transportation. Every coworker of mine that has a motorcycle also has a new near-death story every week. Every damned week. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

He has alternatives there as well, even though you can't see it. He could send them to a private school, or he could home school them. Maybe he could get a different job in another state! That too is an alternative!

He has alternatives that are gang-ridden, neglected, or prohibitively expensive. Maybe he can't move to another state because this is the only job he can get.

No! What a silly statement! It is an alternative to the high price he is whining about! :p

That's a stupid statement. 5 cents cheaper is still only $0.05 cheaper. He can go there and still pay out the ass. Hardly an "alternative"... :rolleyes:

In my world, one is not paralyzed by excuses. In my world, we don't complain about the cost of the alternative we have chosen and reckoned to be our best option. In my world we don't claim to be a victim when we choose to pay for gasoline. In my world we understand that there are consequences for our choices and take responsibility for them.

So, obviously, you can work wherever you want, ride your Vespa with some magical invincibility device, have the best schools in every town, can buy gas for your scooter from competitively priced gas stations that try to out-cheap each other (riiiiight), and can pick up propane at every corner store, even on a cross-country trip.

You call them "excuses" -- you've forgotten that they're reality for a whole lot of people. You'd better wake up.

That may argualby be true of the free market. A monopoly is not a free market. A price-fixing cartel is not a free market.
A natural monopoly or cartel is part of a free market.
As long as no one is preventing competition from moving in, it's still a free market.
I may own the only ice cream shop in town, and so have a monopoly in our town economy, but it's still a free market unless I'm on the city council and cajole my buddies to pass an ordinance that prohibits anyone else from opening an ice cream shop in town.

But, even then, even a protected monopoly has competition. It must compete against nothing, which is something. Please allow me to explain.

Every potential ice cream customer has the option to not buy an ice cream that day, or not as much ice cream that week/month/year. Similarly, even if there was one massive conglomerate oil company protected from any competition by governments worldwide, it would still have to compete against us, for example, choosing to ride our bikes to work instead of buying as much gas, forgoing our vacations instead of buying gas, using car pools instead of buying gas, etc. This competition with nothing puts pressure even on a protected monopoly (much less a cartel) to keep prices down. The price ceiling might be higher without competition with other companies, but there is still a ceiling, and it's probably not all that much higher. In the end, the price we pay is the cost of delivering the product (including refining), plus profit. And despite the huge profits Exxon and others are earning, the bulk of the price per gallon we pay is still cost of delivery and taxes.

I wake up to see that trash? ^^^

How much more pointless can this get?

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

A natural monopoly or cartel is part of a free market.
As long as no one is preventing competition from moving in, it's still a free market.
I may own the only ice cream shop in town, and so have a monopoly in our town economy, but it's still a free market unless I'm on the city council and cajole my buddies to pass an ordinance that prohibits anyone else from opening an ice cream shop in town.

But, even then, even a protected monopoly has competition. It must compete against nothing, which is something. Please allow me to explain.

Every potential ice cream customer has the option to not buy an ice cream that day, or not as much ice cream that week/month/year. Similarly, even if there was one massive conglomerate oil company protected from any competition by governments worldwide, it would still have to compete against us, for example, choosing to ride our bikes to work instead of buying as much gas, forgoing our vacations instead of buying gas, using car pools instead of buying gas, etc. This competition with nothing puts pressure even on a protected monopoly (much less a cartel) to keep prices down. The price ceiling might be higher without competition with other companies, but there is still a ceiling, and it's probably not all that much higher. In the end, the price we pay is the cost of delivering the product (including refining), plus profit. And despite the huge profits Exxon and others are earning, the bulk of the price per gallon we pay is still cost of delivery and taxes.

Know what I love about this crap --

I can now just sit back and let the real idiots expose themselves.

Same thing is still happening in a VC thread.
Really! Why waste time on rebutting idiocy?

Note the correlation between the ideological "characters" admiring the hand holding pals of the free market - Bush/Cheney, the Saudis and the oil company CEO's - on this thread and the same "characters" touting wacky "VC ideology" on the A&S threads.

The price people see at the pump is based on several factors, most of them based on some form of supply and demand.

On the world market, places like China and India are consuming more oil every year. Last year China's oil imports increased by 10%. So on the world market there is increased demand for oil, prices will rise.

The second item driving price is the amount of refining capacity the country has. If people want more gas than can be refined, prices will go up. Currently gasoline refinement is not a heavily regulated like electricity pricing or rubber in WWII. Companies can do what they will with their capacity. New diesel regs also require that diesel is refined like gasoline, so the capacity that was being used exclusively for gas is now being used for gas and diesel.

Once prices go up, then tend to stay up. This is a law of economics. Once the prices rise and the consumers get used to paying that price they'll keep paying that price. Prices don't go back down except for the "prices has gone back down" nickel price reduction.


Does any of this affect the profit margins that oil companies set? Nope. but if they all set the same profit margin, their prices will come out about the same.

Let's look at it real quick:
Crude is trading at $100/barrel. That is roughly $1.90/gallon before refinement. Add in refinement and transportation to the sales site you have your $3-$4 a gallon at the pump.

Speedo- I've noticed a bit of a shift as well- are we imagining it? But a little more respect seems to be out there for us. I think we can expect an upsurge in bike commuters this spring. But it may increase driver frustration rather than the respect factor- let's hope for the best.

There's something else going on out there on the driving side. At lunchtime discussions, my colleagues who drive the highways to work all agree that traffic has been down this winter. No one seems to know why. We've speculated that we are seeing the effect of reduced employment due to the recession. Since the highways (at rush hour) are near capacity it wouldn't take a huge decrease in traffic to make them work better. I've been wondering if:

Less traffic on the highways-->Fewer stressed out drivers-->Better attitude toward cyclists

Either way, it's been nice.

Speedo

You call them "excuses" -- you've forgotten that they're reality for a whole lot of people.

You seem incapable of grappling with the issue. I will restate it as clearly as I can. Please listen closely.

Buying fuel is NOT forced on anyone. To presume it is a sale under duress requires ignoring the many alternatives available to the purchaser.

Of the many options available, purchasing fuel at the present cost is likely the least painful. Your myriad of excuses why the other alternatives are less desirable than buying fuel at this level simply underscores my point.

The higher the price of fuel rises, the more attractive the alternatives become. Just because it is not yet a better alternative to buying gasoline at $4 a gallon, does not mean it is not an alternative.

Given that the above statements are objectively true, it is silly to contend that one is victimized or "gouged" at the pump. If you voluntarily take money out of your own pocket to buy the stuff, your claim of being robbed is false.

Really! Why waste time on rebutting idiocy?

Note the correlation between the ideological "characters" admiring the hand holding pals of the free market - Bush/Cheney, the Saudis and the oil company CEO's - on this thread and the same "characters" touting wacky "VC ideology" on the A&S threads.
Not only is this a personal attack, it's inaccurate.

Bush/Cheney don't understand or appreciate free markets either.
Bush is likely to go down as the worst president in history, probably mostly due to Cheney's influence and following his advice (from hiring Rumsfeld to ignoring Powell).

Not only is this a personal attack...

Whaa, Whaa, Whaa! Everything is a "Personal Attack!"; or I am being misunderstood or I don't understand or blah, blah and endless blah.

Whatta Character! Whatta a lotta hot air!

Really! Why waste time on rebutting idiocy?

Note the correlation between the ideological "characters" admiring the hand holding pals of the free market - Bush/Cheney, the Saudis and the oil company CEO's - on this thread and the same "characters" touting wacky "VC ideology" on the A&S threads.

Correlation does not necessarily indicate... oh fuggedit

Whaa, Whaa, Whaa! Everything is a "Personal Attack!"; or I am being misunderstood or I don't understand or blah, blah and endless blah.

Whatta Character! Whatta a lotta hot air!
In what way is this not a blatant violation of the respectfulness guideline?


We expect our member to show respect for others. Respecting their person, their views, their time and their opinions, and their belief systems ... even if you disagree with them.

...
Given that the above statements are objectively true, it is silly to contend that one is victimized or "gouged" at the pump. If you voluntarily take money out of your own pocket to buy the stuff, your claim of being robbed is false.

Americans born and raised on incredibly cheap fuel prices may be unable to see the big picture and tend to feel they have some kind of birthright to low-cost motoring. So there will be a lot of whining to come as reality hits home that the times have changed.

http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/31608_Power.html

Just another typical story about folks interviewed at the pump *****ing about gas prices and the impact it is having on their quality of life. Seriously, no need to read it, as nothing is covered that has not been written about already in many other newspapers.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/0328tr-gasprices0328.html

Al

Just another typical story about folks interviewed at the pump *****ing about gas prices and the impact it is having on their quality of life.
Al

When I travel for work I take the bus to the airport. Since 2005 when gas prices first spiked, I've played a game where I count the number of cars with more than one occupant. My latest foray was two weeks ago. At 7:30 AM I saw exactly two cars with more than one occupant between Woburn, MA and Logan Airport.

My conclusion is that despite all the *****ing, gas is still relatively cheap.

Speedo

It's real easy. People make the choices to support whatever they want their lifestyle to be. A lot of people decide that they want to pay whatever is charged for fuel in order to drive everywhere.

I got passed by a full size, 4x4 pick/up yesterday. He gave me loads of room to the rear, side, and in front, so no issue there. No issue with it being a truck either. After he moved into the other lane to pass he floored it. Loud truck, obviously after-market exhaust, probably headers, maybe some other work.

<"Is that what $3.27 a gallon sounds like?":lol:>
<"Wonder if he can watch the needle falling.":lol:>

Who's Serge?

From the title and five pages of posts (so far) I thought maybe this thread was about HelmetHead.

In what way is this not a blatant violation of the respectfulness guideline?

Oh Brother!

The oil companies are not gouging. Historically the have made about a 10% profit on a gallon of fuel. $1.00/g = .10 profit--$3.00 gas = .30 record profit.

Oh, and if we tax for record profits I suppose we'll make up for any future losses.

The oil companies are not gouging. Historically the have made about a 10% profit on a gallon of fuel. $1.00/g = .10 profit--$3.00 gas = .30 record profit.

Oh, and if we tax for record profits I suppose we'll make up for any future losses.

Actually we did when oil was at $10 in the 90's after the 1st Iraq war, thats where the 12billion/year sudsidy got passed by congress and oil companies have been fighting to keep it even with the current record profits. I think we should recoop 120billion or so tax dollars we gave them for the last 10+ years just incase we need to subsidize them in the future.

The profit margin for refining jumped 50% in 2006-07 when oil price actually fell while gasoline price stayed flat (50% profit margin increase) so there is anecdotal evidence of "gouging" that our regulators seem to ignore.


http://biz.yahoo.com/e/080229/tso10-k.html

The global fundamentals of the refining industry remained strong during 2007. Continued demand growth in developing areas such as India and China and global political concerns supported high prices for crude oil and refined products. In the U.S., refining margins remained above historical levels during the first half of 2007 in part due to the following:

• continued gasoline and diesel demand growth coupled with limited production capacity;

• lower refinery utilization due to heavy industry turnaround activity and unplanned outages;;)

• low product inventories;

• a continuing reliance on gasoline imports; and

• new lower sulfur standards for non-road diesel, which went into effect on June 1, 2007.

Saying "what the market will bear" had not a flippin' thing to do with that 20¢/gal overnight increase. That was a load of crap. You walk into any other store and see a price jump like that, and you'll ask the clerk WTF happened.
Yeah, the last time I saw an overnight increase in prices of goods across the board of $0.20 or more on items less than two dollars was at 2:00 AM in a grocery store the night that an increased minimum wage went into effect. They'd called in extra help, there was an army of people marking things up.
No more rational of a price increase, but it happened. So?

There's something else going on out there on the driving side. At lunchtime discussions, my colleagues who drive the highways to work all agree that traffic has been down this winter. No one seems to know why. We've speculated that we are seeing the effect of reduced employment due to the recession. Since the highways (at rush hour) are near capacity it wouldn't take a huge decrease in traffic to make them work better.
Did you factor in the fact that well under half of the vehicles on the road, even at rush hour, are driving to work? A lot of those other trips are discretionary. Most car trips are discretionary, really.

There's something else going on out there on the driving side. At lunchtime discussions, my colleagues who drive the highways to work all agree that traffic has been down this winter. No one seems to know why. We've speculated that we are seeing the effect of reduced employment due to the recession. Since the highways (at rush hour) are near capacity it wouldn't take a huge decrease in traffic to make them work better. I've been wondering if:

Less traffic on the highways-->Fewer stressed out drivers-->Better attitude toward cyclists

Either way, it's been nice.

Speedo

yeah, is public transportation use up in the Boston area?- I wonder? Of course the recent commuter rail crash in Canton might make people think twice about it.

What I've noticed is a little less "revving" the engine as they pass. Fewer jackrabbit starts and stops- usually ways of conserving gas- especially in the pick ups, SUV's and muscle cars- not only is money scarce but the higher gas prices are calming things down a bit. And maybe a touch less resentment of cyclists on the road- maybe a little understanding goes a long way.

Well, yeah. If you decide to use your scooter, or move, or convert your vehicle to alternatives, there are consequences to those decisions. If you chose to use a gasoline powered car, there are consequences to that too; you see them when you fill up at the pump and dig out your wallet, or pay for insurance/reg/parking/etc. Is the consequences for the gas car worse or better than the consequences for the alternatives? Well, that's a personal decision. but it seems absurd to demand that the decision NOT have consequences, or that the choice one person has made must be protected and coddled and treated as a necessary and inviolable fact.
So, obviously, you can work wherever you want, ride your Vespa with some magical invincibility device, have the best schools in every town, can buy gas for your scooter from competitively priced gas stations that try to out-cheap each other (riiiiight), and can pick up propane at every corner store, even on a cross-country trip.

You call them "excuses" -- you've forgotten that they're reality for a whole lot of people. You'd better wake up.

Did you factor in the fact that well under half of the vehicles on the road, even at rush hour, are driving to work? A lot of those other trips are discretionary. Most car trips are discretionary, really.

It's not exactly a science project. Just an observation that drive time traffic on Rt 128, Rt 3 and I93 NW of Boston is down a tick. Could be that it's less discretionary traffic then. I'd be a little surprised at that, but it might be so.

Speedo

yeah, is public transportation use up in the Boston area?- I wonder? Of course the recent commuter rail crash in Canton might make people think twice about it.

What I've noticed is a little less "revving" the engine as they pass. Fewer jackrabbit starts and stops- usually ways of conserving gas- especially in the pick ups, SUV's and muscle cars- not only is money scarce but the higher gas prices are calming things down a bit. And maybe a touch less resentment of cyclists on the road- maybe a little understanding goes a long way.

You know, I shouldn't be such a pessimist, but I'm wondering how long it will last!

Speedo

You don't think people will die if gas gets a lot more expensive?

I know I do. Without getting political about it, currently, deaths in other lands, and speculative commodities markets have driven up the price of oil far above what it was a pre Katrina at around the same production levels. (The Louisiana Refineries have been back online since 2005) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4217950.stm) There's no supply side reason for oil to be as expensive as it is beyond people making record profits off of it.
RANT WARNING

One of my current pet peeves is corn based ethanol. Let's see: 25% of the most highly subsidized food product in America (the Govt hands out Billions each year) is diverted into a even more subsidized fuel production ($1.30 a gallon according to some) system that sends those dollars not back to the farmers, but to corporations like Archer Daniels Midland. What's even funnier is that the energy density of corn ethanol is 30% less than straight gas meaning that you're going to get crappier fuel mileage so you have to burn more of it. :eek:

But it's a Green fuel?
Uh Huh, sure if it were organic, which it ain't. US corn demands enormous amounts of herbicides, pesticides and (wait for it)......... petroleum based fertilizer. Also think about the energy required to make fuel from the product. Ethanol plants require mini power plants to produce the steam used in production, most of the current generation burn natural gas, but quite a few of the proposed 200-300 new plants proposed by the 2007 Energy Bill's high production goals for the next 20 years will burn coal. The best part? That all this will amount to less than 5% of the nation's fuel needs by 2027.

The whole thing is enough to drive you loopy.

Here's a bit of background: I grew up with cars. My favorite magazines as a child were Hot Rod, CarToons and anything having to do with cars. I enjoy working on anything mechanical and cars are wonderfully complex and interesting all wrapped up in attractive lines. Yeah they have their issues, but they can be made better. For example the latest Corvette puts out 500 horsepower yet gets 30mpg. I digress, sorry.

The point of the matter is this: I don't own a car and our home is "car-lite". We do quite a bit more than the average person (and apparently some of the car-free folk) in terms of reducing our carbon footprint. It's only through education and better technology that we can have any hope of lessening the impact of the populous on the planet. We can't undo over a century of car culture, but we can educate people on the alternatives and push for better tech for the diehards as well. If there's anything the 20th century has shown us its that most people will jump on new tech if it does something better, faster, or more powerfully than what they currently have.

For example: If you were to build a 40 mpg SUV with the size and features of say an Yukon with no downturn in performance (this IS doable) people would jump all over it. This isn't to say that all the people who own a large SUV need one, but that if you give someone a better option that they don't see as "taking away" from what they had they'll go for it and we'll be that much further along in regards to changing things.

If we radicalize ourselves we won't gain any ground against the mainstream and will ultimately do more harm than good for our cause in the eyes of the public. (see Earth Liberation Front) A wise man once said:
"You aren't going to get very far in bicycle advocacy [when your] real objective is to restrict auto use. You will have most of the traveling public against you." John Finley Scott 1934-2006

I like cars, I always have and always will. I know they can be improved and I'm all for developing the tech to do so. I don't own a car by choice, but admittedly there are times when I'm grateful that we do have a car available to us. This doesn't make me the enemy, this makes me a person doing what works for me. I strive to make improvements, but there's only so much one can do without changes to infrastructure and changes in society that we all need to work towards.

It's the independent refiners that got bought out and merged in the 90's that is the problem, thats where the famous memo of oil companies trying to limit refining capacity by colluding with each other.

If you noticed each time regulators fail to act on lack of evidence we seem to be getting gouged even harder. This was in 2004 ... $1.78 ;)

""To date, we have identified no instances of collusion between petroleum companies," said William Kovacic, general counsel of the Federal Trade Commission, in written testimony to the Senate Judiciary antitrust subcommittee.

"That does not mean that collusion cannot occur, which is why the agency continues to be vigilant in pursuing its enforcement mission," Kovacic added.

The Senate panel held a hearing on rising gasoline prices, which the Energy Department said hit a record high this week of $1.78 a gallon.

Kovacic said the FTC is monitoring wholesale and retail gasoline costs in cities throughout the United States looking for "pricing anomalies."

In a related matter, the FTC said it is evaluating Royal Dutch/Shell Group's decision to shut down an oil refinery in California, but has not implemented an official investigation.

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon had asked the agency in February to look into the matter after raising concerns that closing the Bakersfield, Calif., refinery would hurt competition and boost the price of gasoline on the West Coast."



Crude oil is $100 a barrel. At 42 gallon barrels that's $2.38 a gallon. Gas is about $3.20 a gallon here*. $.25 is local tax. Federal is $.18 (actually .184). So, the cost to ship, refine, and all pre-retail profit margins after sale of crude oil is: $3.20 - (.25 + .18 + 2.38) = $.39. I left out cost of additives and amount of crude oil which becomes gasoline because I know nothing about those things; but they can only serve to drop that $.19.

Are you saying refining is what's killing the prices? I'm pretty sure the prices are set by crude oil sellers. But maybe I'm missing something about how gasoline is produced.

I think the FTC and Senate are pulling a distraction campaign.

* State: Nebraska

Just another typical story about folks interviewed at the pump *****ing about gas prices and the impact it is having on their quality of life. Seriously, no need to read it, as nothing is covered that has not been written about already in many other newspapers.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/0328tr-gasprices0328.html

Al

Why does everyone in that story have an oversized vehicle?