gildone

On Tuesday, 87 octane was $3.10 at the Valero station in Berea at Front and 237

Look at the pictures here: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2840.msg223871#msg223871 The new buses have doors on the right. The stations are on the outside (the right side) of the bus-only lanes which are in the middle of the street. The lanes closest to the curbs are for cars. So, the regular buses should be able to use the stations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices Oil rises to record above $98 a barrel http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer 30 minutes ago Record oil prices edged closer to $100 a barrel Wednesday amid expectations of declining U.S. supplies. The weak dollar and OPEC's apparent reluctance to pump more crude into the market also boosted prices. Light, sweet crude for December delivery surged $1.24 to $97.94 a barrel by midday in Europe after earlier reaching a record $98.62 in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange...

It sounds to me that they are just going to use the current #6 and use the stations that are in place. It won't stop at E. 55th st and go back, it will just keep going east like it always does.

Greyhound runs several buses per day between Cleveland and Columbus. The last time I rode, the buses were clean and comfortable. The only problem is that Greyhound's schedules between the two cities stink. You can't get to Columbus around 9 AM in the morning. You either have to leave Cleveland at 4:30 AM or at 8:35 AM. Then in the afternoon, there is a bus at 3pm and 6 pm but not 4 or 5 pm. The only reason my last trip worked is because it involved an overnight stay. Otherwise, I would have had to drive. Who the heck wants to get on a bus in Cleveland at 4:30 AM? And they wonder why more people don't take the bus? Greyhound and Amtrak think too much alike-- trying to cut their way to prosperity.

I think Jolene Molitoris will be an active ORDC Chair. It seems she really wants to try to get things going with passenger rail.

Wendell Cox and Ronald Utz try to say that it would be more energy efficient and cheaper to use the diesel fuel that is powering expanded Amtrak and commuter trains for diesel powered SUV's. :laugh:

Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) is the lone voice in the US Congress trying to sound the alarm about peak oil. On November 1 he gave something like his 6th or 8th presentation to the US house about peak oil. The transcript is way to long to post here, but here's the link followed by some key excerpts that I broke up into categories: http://www.energybulletin.net/36647.html There are two bills before the Congress, and I want to mention those before we start. These would be pretty good bills if we were offering them 25 years ago, but this is not 25 years ago. And I would submit that these bills are woefully inadequate to address the challenges that we have today.... Our children, our grandchildren looking back on today will wonder how could we ever have thought that these bills would address the enormous challenge that we face today in energy...

Inevitably, anyone who follows peak oil news for a while gets depressed at some point. Then you start looking for solutions and to realize that people are also talking about and proposing real solutions (not the fake ones like corn ethanol). Most also realize that there are changes they can make in their own lifestyles to at least lessen the blow on ourselves a little bit. Then begin to see that there is a way out and that there are good things that can come out of it. It's not going to be an easy ride by any stretch of the imagination. There will be pain and difficulty, but we can preserve the project of civilization if we make the right choices. It takes a while, but the depression does give way to so at least some hope.

Matt Simmons thinks $200/barrel by 2011 or 2012. I'd believe him before I'd believe a CNBC panel. The way the dollar keeps falling and the way demand isn't slowing down and the way that production is no longer growing, then short of a major recession, I don't think $200 can be avoided by then. But I'm no expert, so we'll just have to wait and see.

Now, we need a House bill. Call your Reps and ask them to co-sponsor a house version of the bill.

We still need to call to ask our senators to support SB 294. Here's the latest from NARP. If you have not yet done so, please call either by 5 pm today or tomorrow morning: To narprail.org users, October 29, 2007-- NARP Executive Director Ross Capon will be a guest on the Diane Rehm Show on National Public Radio tomorrow, October 30 to discuss Amtrak and passenger rail issues. Topics will include Senate Bill S. 294, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. For most NPR stations, the program will air at 10 AM Eastern time. Check your local NPR listings at http://www.npr.org/stations/ . After the show airs, you may listen to Capon's segment at http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr . The Senate should move to a final vote on S.294 by tomorrow, Wednesday morning at the latest. As was the case last week, the message to your Senators continues to be: Please support S. 294 and please vote against any other anti-passenger rail amendment that is offered, especially amendments to cut funding or add micromanaging language to the bill. Press reports today indicate that Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) may offer an amendment to reinstate the disastrous "Self-Sufficiency" language from the 1997 Amtrak reauthorization. (S.294 specifically eliminates this requirement.) Given the timeliness of this issue, E-mails and letters are not relevant. Phone calls are needed. You can reach any Senate office by calling use our toll-free Congressional Action Hotline. The number is 1-800-679-1581. When prompted, enter our access code: 1189. Please make this call during normal Senate business hours which are generally 9am to 5:30pm eastern time. Please do not make any calls today after 5:30pm eastern (4:30pm central, 3:30pm mountain, 2:30pm pacific), but start calling in the morning (9:00am eastern, 8:00am central, 7:00am mountain, 6:00am pacific) If you are on-line, your senators’ direct-dial number and web site are at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Our large forebrain combined with opposable thumbs is supposed to make up for our other physical weaknesses. You know the old cliche: "The strong beat the weak, but the smart beat the strong". Your phrase "when we choose to use them" (i.e. our brains) sums it up well. There are some critical areas where we keep failing to use them. Many civilizations and empires have fallen as a result, and we're now in danger of it again, except this time at a global scale. As Amory Lovins said few years ago: "we have about 20 years to find out whether this grand evolutionary experiment of combining a large forebrain with opposable thumbs was really a good idea" The clock is ticking. I hope we make the right choices.

Published on Sunday, October 21, 2007 by Pittsburgh Post-Gazette The admiral's warning By Dadid M. Shribman Fifty years ago, he saw today's energy crisis coming, but we didn't listen. Are we listening now? This year marks the 50th anniversary of a number of important cultural markers -- the launch of Sputnik; the publication of "The Cat in the Hat," Dr. Seuss' landmark children's book; the introduction of the Edsel, a symbol of failure, soon after the Bel Air, which became an American icon; the school crisis in Little Rock, one of the biggest battles involving racial integration; and the release of the movie "Bridge on the River Kwai," which went on to win seven Academy Awards. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07294/826880-372.stm

^The article wasn't referring to the oil companies. It was referring to the general public. For the most part, virtually everyone, including the oil companies, want to try to keep all of the private automobiles on the road running-- in other words try to keep things they way they are now. It's not going to happen. It's not simply a matter of switching to biofuels and fuel cells, etc. from oil. The only way alternatives will work is to both drastically increase vehicle efficiency AND reduce driving needs by 60-70% through better designed communities and alternatives to driving. Besides, Chevron is somewhat of an exception. All of the other oil companies are publicly denying peak oil, regardless of what they may be doing behind the scenes. All that does is delay action and make the "transition" that much more painful. Futhermore, the "transition" is going to begin sooner than 25-30 years. As the article says, global production of conventional crude peaked 30 months ago. Global oil production is actually down slightly from two years ago and major non-OPEC sources like Mexico and the North Sea have been in decline for a few years now. Add in the problem of peak exports-- the issue of soaring demand within oil producing nations of the middle east reducing the amount available for export-- we're very likely looking at problems starting in 3-5 years, barring a recession.

I think it's $10 max per day, isn't it? You can get discount booklets for 10 days of parking (with in and out priveleges) for $40. $35 for seniors

I've been on it later in the evening-- like around 7 pm (Cleveland Clinic to Tower City) and it was packed too.

Just to add a few points: --The average trip length on the current LD trains is about 700 miles. So it's not end-to-end distances that most passengers are traveling. -- If you have only one round-trip in the middle of the night, you're not as likely to use it. --However, with several trips per day, you will be because you'll be able to not only board a train at reasonable hours, but arrive in many more places at reasonable hours. Besides, the way things are unfolding with peak oil, we're going to need all the trains we can get-- and sooner than we think.

The National Association of Realtors and Smart Growth America today released the 2007 Growth and Transportation Survey. Below is a release highlighting the findings of the national poll taken earlier this month. http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/narsgareport2007.html News Release For further information contact: National Association of Realtors® Sara Weis, 202/ 383-1013 [email protected] Smart Growth America David Goldberg, 202/ 412-7930 [email protected] AMERICANS PREFER TO SPEND MORE ON MASS TRANSIT AND HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE, LESS ON NEW ROADS WASHINGTON (October 24, 2007) – Three-fourths of Americans believe that being smarter about development and improving public transportation are better long-term solutions for reducing traffic congestion than building new roads, according to a survey sponsored by the National Association of Realtors® and Smart Growth America. The 2007 Growth and Transportation Survey details what Americans think about how development affects their immediate community, and traffic congestion was a top concern. Nearly half of those surveyed think improving public transit would be the best way to reduce congestion, and 26 percent believe developing communities that reduce the need to drive would be the better alternative. Only one in five said building new roads was the answer. “Realtors® build communities and care about improving our cities and towns through smarter development,” said NAR President Pat V. Combs, of Grand Rapids, Mich., and vice president of Coldwell Banker-AJS-Schmidt. “With increased traffic congestion and longer commutes, Americans are receptive to new ideas for handling growth, such as better transit or mixed-use walkable communities that allow people to cut down on their driving, as this survey shows.” Americans give their communities high marks when it comes to providing good public schools, parks and open space. Respondents were less optimistic about their local community’s ability to provide practical and convenient transportation and manage growth and development. While one-third approve of growth in their local area, the percentage of those who disapprove of local growth has doubled since 1999, from 10 to 20 percent. This year’s survey also showed that Americans are more concerned about how their community is handling that growth and development than they have been in eight years of polling. Only 39 percent say their community is doing an excellent or good job of handling growth, while the majority – 58 percent – believes the community is doing a fair or poor job. When asked about their top concerns regarding growth and development, respondents consistently cited the loss of farmland to development (72 percent), increased traffic congestion and commute times (70 percent), and loss of open land such as fields and forests (70 percent). Other concerns include the loss of individual character of communities, increased reliance on cars because of sprawl, and the loss of historic landmarks and neighborhoods. The greatest increase was among those concerned about the rise in highway commercial development such as strip malls, up 25 percent in the past six years. This year the survey also asked about climate change, and more than 70 percent of respondents are concerned about how growth and development affects global warming. Americans expressed strong support for bold measures to combat climate change. Nearly nine in 10 believe that new communities should be built so people can walk more and drive less; cars, homes and buildings should be required to be more energy efficient; and public transportation should be improved and made more available. Americans strongly disapprove of increasing gasoline taxes as a way to discourage driving and reduce energy use, with 84 percent rejecting the idea. “With concern about climate change rising along with gas prices, Americans are looking for options that allow them to reduce the time they spend in the car,” said Don Chen, executive director of Smart Growth America. “Americans see smarter development patterns as a viable way to achieve that goal, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Eight in 10 respondents prefer redeveloping older urban and suburban areas rather than build new housing and commercial development on the edge of existing suburbs. More than half of those surveyed believe that businesses and homes should be built closer together to shorten commutes, limit traffic congestion and allow residents to walk to stores and shops instead of using their cars. Six in 10 also agree that new-home construction should be limited in outlying areas and encouraged in inner urban areas to shorten commutes and prevent more traffic congestion. With road building costs often exceeding revenues, many states are turning to tolls as a key funding source. Americans are divided on tolls, although 55 percent approve of charging tolls on more roads if it improves roads and decreases congestion. On the other hand, six in 10 are opposed to charging tolls on freeways during rush hour to reduce congestion, and respondents are evenly split on charging tolls during rush hour, even if the money is used to provide transportation alternatives to the freeway. When it comes to spending taxpayer dollars, respondents believe Congress should spend more money to maintain and repair roads, highways, freeways, and bridges and to expand and improve public transit than build new roads. Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to the private ownership of roads; that is, selling key roads and highways to private companies who would charge a toll and give a portion of the toll money to the state. Eighty- four percent of respondents oppose private ownership of roads; only 14 percent support the concept. Similarly, 66 percent are opposed to allowing private companies to build, own and collect tolls for new roads – even if those companies gave a portion of the toll money to the state. The 2007 Growth and Transportation Survey was conducted by telephone among 1,000 adults living in the United States in October 2007. The study has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. Smart Growth America is a diverse coalition of nearly 100 nonprofit organizations with a stake in how metropolitan expansion affects our environment, quality of life and economic sustainability. Coalition partners include national, state and local groups working on behalf of the environment, historic preservation, housing affordability, social equity, land conservation, neighborhood redevelopment, farmland protection, business, labor, public health and town planning and design. The National Association of Realtors®, “The Voice for Real Estate,” is America’s largest trade association, representing more than 1.3 million members involved in all aspects of the residential and commercial real estate industries. ### David Goldberg Communications Director Smart Growth America "I have an affection for a great city. I feel safe in the neighborhood of man, and enjoy the sweet security of the streets." -- Longfellow

I was listening to WCPN this morning at around 6:10 AM. There was a local report that real estate development activity is increasing along the Euclid Corridor. Developers are showing interest in more commercial, retail and residential projects along the route. Build it (right) and they will come...

For those who may follow EnergyBulletin.net, for the past couple of weeks, the articles posted there have been taking on a more blunt and urgent tone: The peak oil crisis: A message from Houston By Tom Whipple We gathered at a hotel near the Convention Center, some 525 of us from 18 countries and 36 states attending the Association for the Study of Peak Oil-USA’s 3rd annual conference. The PowerPoints flashed by at mind-blowing speed as speaker after distinguished speaker shared the latest thoughts and insights into the peaking of world oil production. http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1984&Itemid=35 Tom Whipple is a retired government analyst and has been following the peak oil issue for several years.

^It's too bad we don't have a more modern rail system with more frequencies and faster speeds. A heck of a lot more people would be choosing the train...

I know it's a catch 22 with a lot of routes, but sometimes cutting service makes revenues fall faster than costs by discouraging ridership. It has to be a pretty fine line, sometimes. Does RTA consider this when making route decisions? Still, I wonder if the performance of some routes would improve by adding frequencies. I use the 86 bus when I can to go to the Red Line and get downtown, but I would use it more if it ran more frequently or later on Saturdays. I actually got stranded at Brook Park RTS a couple of months ago because RTA cut the 8:52 and 9:52 southbound departures (on Saturdays) from Brook Park to Berea and I didn't know it. My wife was out of town and there was no one else who could come and get me so I had to go to the airport and get a cab. Aside: the cabbie wasn't happy with the short fare. When I said I was going to Berea, he muttered under his breath "wonderful" and wouldn't talk to me the whole time. With that kind of baloney not being dealt with by the cab companies, I don't feel for them at all with respect to the latest proposal from the city.

You've just proved my point well. For many energy efficiency gains, the incentive is already there or has been for years. The incentives are often just not recognized-- through either ignorance or short term thinking like looking at the up front cost rather than the life cycle cost. For example, if you have an old refrigerator, then even at today's energy prices or even energy prices from 5+ years ago (or even more if your refrigerator is really old), you're money ahead buying a new energy efficient model (of roughly equivalent size and features to what you have now). Within 3-5 years the new fridge will pay for itself-- faster if energy prices rise. As for Eighth and State's comment about Wal-Mart-- the reasons they didn't pursue efficiency sooner are irrelevant. The fact is, they failed to recognize a profitable decision for years. Besides, they aren't the only trucking company in America. No one recognized a profitable decision that was right under their noses.

"So how do we realize efficiency gains? " The biggest part of the problem, believe it or not, is simply bad decision making-- and I mean in economic/profit-loss terms. There are a lot of profitable efficiency gains that could have been made long ago and still be made today without regulation, taxes, etc. But, they haven't been made simply because people make bad economic decisions. For example, the city of Berea is going to build a new municipal courthouse. I e-mailed my councilman and asked that it be a green building. He responded that "we will incorporate some green features, but we have to be cognizant of cost". The problem is he (and I guess by extension, everyone else with the city who is involved in planning the building), is only thinking of the up-front construction costs. Green buildings have cost 2% to 7% more than traditional construction. However, the operational paybacks of that nominal additional cost in a green building are short (just a few years) and over the long run save far more than the additional cost-- not just in energy savings but in increased productivity and reduced absenteeism of employees. In short: It's more profitable to build green than it is to build conventional, but most people/decision makers only look at the up front cost, because the either just fail to think more holistically or they are simply incapable of it. Another example is all the fuel that is wasted by trucks idling in truck stops to heat and air condition cabs. It's more profitable for any trucking company or owner operator to buy trucks with auxiliary power units to heat/cool cabs than to buy a traditional one. When a big truck gets mileage low-to mid single digits in mileage, it's cheaper/more profitable even at 90 cents per gallon or less to make that simple change and the technology is not anything fancy and could have been done decades ago, but no one did. Fortunately, it's going to happen now because Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute consulted for Wal-Mart and showed them how it's really a least-cost decision (along with other efficiency improvements that Wal-Mart is going to make, which will double the efficiency of their fleet and drive change throughout the trucking industry). Here's a link to an article: http://www.rmi.org/store/p15details10.php?x=1&pagePath=00000000 Again, this could have been done 20 years ago or more, but simple ignorance kept it from happening. It's quite a bit cheaper over the long run to use compact fluorescent light bulbs rather than incandescents, but still too many people won't buy them because that cost more up front. It doesn't matter to them that within a couple of years that cost difference is payed back in lower electric bills and by the time it burns out they are money ahead. People are stuck in the mentality that if it costs anything extra up front, they are losing money-- whether it's individuals making a decision about bulbs or an MBA making a decision on a building or truck design. This is what I was getting at when I said rational/prudent decisions are not always made in the marketplace. Sometimes decisions that are profitable don't get made which runs counter to the market wisdom preached in economic textbooks.