1
   

3.10

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 09:03 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

The point is we have no choice but to drive substantial distances unless we live in a very large metropolitan area that has frequent bus runs, subways, a taxi network etc.

For most Americans, things are too spread out for more than a very few to use their feet or bicycles to get to and from work.


Well, it's not as though a gun is put to our heads forcing us to live 50 miles from work or shopping. The fact is that Americans have chosen to live farther and farther away from the cities. Some cities are recovering population, but there are more and more exurbs where people can live in huge houses and drive vast distances.

There's some choice involved--not always, but quite often--re how much we drive.


Albuquerque has a downtown, an uptown some 5 miles or so from downtown, and many many office parks, industrial parks, and numerous other commercial centers scattered to the far corners of the city and surrounding communities. I work out of my home so you can't get much closer in than that, but our work involves calling on people just about anywhere in the area and sometimes across the state, so where we start from doesn't make all that much difference. Then there are trips to the office supply, the post office, and this week several trips to the computer repair place, and it seems no two of those are close to any other.

Even those who drive from home to a place of work can't always know where that place of work is going to be. Businesses seem to move their locations a lot around here. And it isn't really practical to sell your house and buy another closer when your job moves further away or you take a new job.

Lots of folks are riding the bus when that works, but it doesn't work for everybody. Park and ride and carpools work for others who can arrange those, but somebody like me doesn't benefit from those at all.

Americans are indeed dependent on their various wheels to get around and until an efficient alternate fuel source is developed for areas like this, we're probably going to be stuck with very expensive gasoline in the budget.
0 Replies
 
rodeman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 09:29 am
Just paid $3.09 per gallon for a fill up in So Calif.......................Yikes.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 10:06 am
I live in the heartland of N.American oil and gas production. By all estimates, even conservative guesstamates, we have more petroleum products than the whole middle east. In fact just the other day the government released that another huge deposit of the gooey stuff was found and will be harvested making yet another Alberta town, Hinton, the fastest growing city after Fort McMurray, who had the previous record. In Saudi Arabia they pay .25 per litre, we pay, now, at least today, $1.08 per litre. We are told that we are not being gouged, that the American government/market sets the standard for N.American pricing. Well, I'm choked. We are being gouged, we produce most of the oil for the market and we still pay higher prices than most Americans. It's our enviornment that is being screwed and we have to pay for that too, for many years to come. This sucks big time.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 10:08 am
regular is still under $3.00 here
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 10:17 am
It's a bitch, isn't it, Ceili? All the bad part of being in the oil patch, and none of the benefits. Same here, by the way.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 11:46 am
Heard a report on NPR this morning, part of their coverage of China Premier Hu's visit here, that petrol in China costs about $1.75/ gal. That's due to central government subsidies and price controls. The Chinese government is keen on keeping fuel prices low even if it means the state-owed monopoly has to operate at a loss.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 11:52 am
I've been wondering how our Republican brethern are enjoying the gas prices we pay now thanks to Bush/Cheney!! Add to that Bush/Cheney and their oil cabinet have given the oil barrons a nice 215 Billion gift of taxpayer money just to be sure their profit margins are ok, and that should be a real crowd pleaser for them!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 12:01 pm
What about all those who oppose drilling in ANWR? Or those who oppose building new refineries? Are they all Republicans?
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 12:09 pm
cjhsa wrote:
What about all those who oppose drilling in ANWR? Or those who oppose building new refineries? Are they all Republicans?


Do you honesty believe our salvation exists in ANWR??

Anon
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 12:11 pm
I believe we need to continue to find and develop new energy sources, ANWR being one.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 12:54 pm
Anon-Voter wrote:
I've been wondering how our Republican brethern are enjoying the gas prices we pay now thanks to Bush/Cheney!! Add to that Bush/Cheney and their oil cabinet have given the oil barrons a nice 215 Billion gift of taxpayer money just to be sure their profit margins are ok, and that should be a real crowd pleaser for them!!

Anon


Yeah because gas prices didn't ever rise until Bush was in office Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 01:04 pm
jpinMilwaukee wrote:
Anon-Voter wrote:
I've been wondering how our Republican brethern are enjoying the gas prices we pay now thanks to Bush/Cheney!! Add to that Bush/Cheney and their oil cabinet have given the oil barrons a nice 215 Billion gift of taxpayer money just to be sure their profit margins are ok, and that should be a real crowd pleaser for them!!

Anon


Yeah because gas prices didn't ever rise until Bush was in office Rolling Eyes


Feel free to compare against other administrations ...

Anon
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 01:57 pm
Oil Touches Record Above $75 a Barrel

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2006/04/21/financial/f105410D04.DTL


THIS IS REGULATION??? Exactly what is being regulated??

Anon
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 07:03 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Americans are indeed dependent on their various wheels to get around and until an efficient alternate fuel source is developed for areas like this, we're probably going to be stuck with very expensive gasoline in the budget.

Or perhaps you should get into the whole urban planning thing after all. It does have its uses.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 07:47 am
nimh wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Americans are indeed dependent on their various wheels to get around and until an efficient alternate fuel source is developed for areas like this, we're probably going to be stuck with very expensive gasoline in the budget.

Or perhaps you should get into the whole urban planning thing after all. It does have its uses.


Newer American cities are doing some of that but urban planning can only go so far in dealing with logistical problems of getting almost 300 million people to day care, jobs, school, shopping etc. or getting them around a country with the land area of the size of the United States. Albuquerque for instance sprawls out over 100 square miles or so just in the city proper and the entire metropolitan area is roughly 300 square miles to accommodate the half million folks who live and/or work here and that 300 square miles is not contiguous. As metropolitan areas go, that is pretty low population density. In most of the American west there are few faces in comparison to vast spaces. Couple that with the number one industry in New Mexico being tourism that swells our population and traffic in the summertime. All those tourists have to get here and get around the rather vast area somehow.

Currently our New Mexican governor and legislature is pushing an ambitious project for a commuter train to run from Belen, 50 miles south of Albuquerque to Santa Fe, 50 miles northeast of Albuquerque. That train is projected to cost just under 400 million This is the most heavily travelled commuter corridor in the state but only a relatively small fraction of the population travels it on a regular basis. Criticis of the project note that only a tiny fraction of commuters who do drive this corridor will benefit from this project which will ensure that it will never be cost effective and will do very little to reduce the traffic on the highways. (By some estimates, the train will cost more than $100000 per commuter and that doesn't count operating costs.)

We can hope the critics are wrong.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 12:14 pm
How about tiered gas pricing. The lower the gas mileage of the vehicle, the more you pay for gas.

Anon
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Apr, 2006 06:46 am
Anon-Voter wrote:
How about tiered gas pricing. The lower the gas mileage of the vehicle, the more you pay for gas.

Anon


How about the fatter you are, the more you pay for food? Or the dumber you are, the more you pay for education?
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Apr, 2006 06:48 am
cjhsa wrote:
Anon-Voter wrote:
How about tiered gas pricing. The lower the gas mileage of the vehicle, the more you pay for gas.

Anon


How about the fatter you are, the more you pay for food? Or the dumber you are, the more you pay for education?


I kinda like that idea....incentive to get thin, get smart or weed out all the unhealthy, stupid people. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Apr, 2006 07:21 am
Quote:
Bella
Quote:
cjsha
Quote:
Anon How about tiered gas pricing. The lower the gas mileage of the vehicle, the more you pay for gas.

Anon


How about the fatter you are, the more you pay for food? Or the dumber you are, the more you pay for education?


I kinda like that idea....incentive to get thin, get smart or weed out all the unhealthy, stupid people. :wink:


You're being sarcastic ... I'm not! I've thought about this for a long time! It might amuse you that I have a small fleet of six service vans that get lousy mileage, so I'm suggesting something that would be a substantial fuel cost increase for me. I believe in practicing what I preach.

What I will tell you though is that all these vans were leased at the same time, and they are expiring at the end of the year (November). I have no intention of buying out the leases, although I have very juicy buyout arrangements.

I can guarantee you that whatever I decide on next will be VERY gas conscious and environmentally VERY GREEN!!! I am also expanding this small fleet to nine vehicles.

I would think someone like you who adores the outdoors and nature would be of the same mind!! I think they should bump up the gas taxes for these vehicles as well, with the taxes being spent on research for alternate fuels and greater gas mileage solutions.

Anon
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Apr, 2006 07:23 am
Kinda like the Lottery money going to schools? Higher taxes are for those unwilling to fend for themselves. If choosing green vehicles is how you do that, more power to you.

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » 3.10
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 10:24:32