You know, if you drove an electric car, or a bicycle, or a horse-drawn wagon, you wouldn't pay any gasoline taxes and therefore could drive on the highways for "free." Of course, very few people choose those options. That's why the gasoline tax works so well. Presumably, heavy trucks use more gasoline and therefore pay more tax.

 

  If there was an alternative to gasoline, it would be great for drivers but bad for the DOT, because they may not be able to collect taxes on it. The DOT doesn't really care about fuel efficiency; instead, they would rather have a lower efficiency because there would be fewer cars on the road. Fewer cars means less pavement to build.

 

  Everone pulls for his own basket.

 

  The Peak Oil scenario, which projects that oil consumption will decline sometime in the near future, implies that the number of gallons of gasoline sold will decline; therefore, unless rates rise, the amount of revenue from gasoline taxes will also decline. This would happen regardless of fuel efficiency. In the long term, say the next 50 years, DOT's are in trouble.

 

    And yes, recording people's movements is invasive.

 

    It may be technically easier to put the taxes on yearly renewals, but not politically. Say the average person drives 12,000 miles a year at 20 mpg and pays $0.20 per gallon tax. That's $120. Politically, it's easier to spread that $120 across all those fill ups instead of one big payment yearly. Plus, what happens when someone doesn't have the money at the end of the year? It's easier to capture the money at the pump.

 

 

Fewer cars on the road would also mean less highways that they have to build and less maintenance on them. I wouldn't care if they had to get their money through other methods, but melting our polar ice caps and drowing Florida--plus the general cost of transportation and how it's effecting our economy; I think that's more important than how the DOT makes money. If we had an alternative fuel I'm sure it would be taxed like gasoline is.

^---- True, fewer cars on the road means less pavement to maintain. That's why DOT's don't mind low efficiency cars. Say your state sells 100 gallons of gasoline. At 10 mpg, thats 1000 miles driven. At 20 mpg, thats 2000 miles driven. 10 mpg yields fewer cars on the road. Either way, the DOT collects taxes on that 100 gallons. Fewer miles to maintain means more money left for DOT salaries.  :-D

 

     

OK folks, here's a wild one ... a solar-powered steam locomotive!

 

http://solarsteamtrain.com/cms/

>True, fewer cars on the road means less pavement to maintain.

 

The number of cars is basically irrelevent.  A fully loaded semi puts as much wear on a bridge as 10,000 cars.  Thanks to Jimmy Hoffa, etc., whatever business could be more cheaply moved by rail or river doesn't happen for back-door reasons.  Looks at the stats for river traffic and overall tonnage has hardly increased since the mid-80's.  There's no non-political reason why a shift in government subsidies couldn't move tons of container and bulk shipping onto the modes which use less energy.   

The DOT's are in trouble now, since the highway trust fund is already drying up. The US Chamber of Commerce recently put out a paper that says the fund will be broke in less than five years. The gas tax is becoming an out moded way to raise revenue, since it is not indexed to inflation and is being negatively affected by ethanol, which is not subject to the tax. Look for ways to address the funding shortfall thru higher gas taxes and franchising toll roads to pay for other highway costs.

 

In my view all they will be doing is rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. The increase in the price of gas has already put pressure on those who can least afford the cost: Independent truckers, who will be a dodo in a peak oil scenario, and the working poor, who have to commute from the city to their service economy jobs in suburbia. These people are in a real bind.

 

If we do see continued higher gas prices and driving is curtailed, the loss of gas tax revenue will force a reassessment. Taxes will be increased to compensate and/or roads will be converted to toll roads to make up the cost, leading to less driving. That's good for us, but bad for a lot of folks, since there aren't any alternatives right now. We may end up unable to maintain what highways we have or unable to afford the price of driving on them.

 

All I can think about is how Bush squandered $400 billion in Iraq when that money could have gone toward developing alternatives to our autocentric lifestyle and the oil dependency it brings. This is a matter of national security and we have been asleep for too long as a nation. Bush & Co. know better. This is happening on their watch and they should be held accountable.

Why are they choosing to disincentive people for driving more fuel efficient cars?

 

Are they going to account for vehicle weight, which causes more road wear, and leads to more public health costs through greater pollution?

 

That's what I thought when I read it.  I think Portland is just trying to get cute with thier laws to keep thier rep as being progressive about these issues.  This law is backwards though.  Don't expect many hybrids to be sold in Portland if it happens.

OK folks, here's a wild one ... a solar-powered steam locomotive!

http://solarsteamtrain.com/cms/

 

When I read "solar-powered steam locomotive," I thought, "Hah! You're rolling down the track and a cloud passes in front of the sun, and the train slows to a crawl or stops. There's no explanation from the crew as to what's going on." Then, I realized that it wouldn't be too much different from some of my experiences riding Amtrak! :-D

 

Seriously, though, fireless locomotives sound like a viable option for the proposed purpose. At least into the 1960's, Indianapolis Power & Light used a fireless locomotive to pick up coal hoppers from the rail yard and bring them onto the property. I think the round trip might have been as much as seven miles, and they recharged the locomotive from the power plant's boilers.

 

All I can think about is how Bush squandered $400 billion in Iraq when that money could have gone toward developing alternatives to our autocentric lifestyle and the oil dependency it brings.

 

. . . and one result of that $400 billion may well turn out to be increased political instability and ideological shifts in the middle east, further jeopardizing the availability of the region's oil.

 

 

 

  "The number of cars is basically irrelevent."

 

  I disagree. Why do we have 8 lane highways? Because there are so many cars, and they take up so much space, that we need all that pavement to hold them all. Even without trucks, we would need to resurface the pavement every 20 to 30 years due to weathering.

 

  "There's no non-political reason..."

 

    So true. As has been said many times, railroads pay property taxes on the ground they occupy, while DOT's pay no taxes and receive tax money from other sources, mainly the gasoline tax. The railroads get to a point where they would like to build more track to increase capacity, but the increased taxes prevent them from doing so. Politically, it is not easy to change this.

 

    Still, keep in mind that a lot of truck traffic is short-haul, and thus not well adapted to railroads.

 

 

 

 

"The number of cars is basically irrelevent."

 

>I disagree. Why do we have 8 lane highways? Because there are so many cars, and they take up so much space, that we need all that pavement to hold them all. Even without trucks, we would need to resurface the pavement every 20 to 30 years due to weathering.

 

I meant the wear cars put on the interstates and state highways is irrelevent compared to what trucks put on them.  Compare the pavement in parks, on rural scenic parkways where trucks aren't allowed, and on bike trails and you will see that that pavement lasts much longer.       

 

 

 

   "There's no non-political reason..."

 

>Still, keep in mind that a lot of truck traffic is short-haul, and thus not well adapted to railroads.

 

Absolutely, I'm not arguing that total truck traffic can even be noticibly reduced.  Realistically the goal should be to reduce its growth.  But look at new suburban industrial parks and few of them have rail access.  Rail in the past carried passengers and freight ranging from letters up to bulk materials.  Now it just carries bulk and mid-sized materials.  It goes on both ends -- manufacturers won't ship smaller items by rail and so distributers and smaller operations don't bother with rail connections to recieve those smaller items. 

 

My uncle's business just north of Cincinnati off the Union Center Blvd. exit is a perfect example of this, they are located between the tracks that parallel Cincinnati-Dayton Rd. and the mainline just west of I-75.  They get about 20 truck deliveries a day, but only a few of those are full trucks.  Is it really worth building a rail connection for 1-2 box cars a day and dealing with somewhat slower delivery times in order to save a small amount on shipping and fuel costs?  But if their business were to double in size, then shipments of certain large items might make a lot more sense by rail but then again that's only really an option if the manufacturer has a rail connection, which it very well might not.  And tranfering containers between rail and truck slows matters down too significantly in many cases.       

   

>Still, keep in mind that a lot of truck traffic is short-haul, and thus not well adapted to railroads.

>Is it really worth building a rail connection for 1-2 box cars a day and dealing with somewhat slower delivery

>times in order to save a small amount on shipping and fuel costs? 

 

There are a few things to consider here: Yes, a lot of truck traffic IS short-haul and not well adapted to railroads...today. In a peak oil environment that changes as fuel gets more expensive. Fuel-efficient rail becomes more competitive over shorter distances because it becomes more competitive. Secondly, very few sidings are being put in for new railroad business, other than for coal mines and the like. Most new rail business is containerized and that means rail might reach any number of customers over the road who might not be within miles of a rail line.

 

Rail would be vastly different in a peak oil situation than it is now. We'd probably see large-scale electrification of main lines which would have much more capacity added for all the new traffic. We could see a national network of dedicated high speed freight/passenger corridors carrying 100+ mph containerized freight or roadrailers and 125 mph high speed passenger trains, with slower conventional freight remaining on existing rail lines.

 

High speed container trains could pass thru a terminal at a large city, slowing, but not stopping, where containers would be plucked off by computerized cranes and put on hybrid-electric trucks for delivery (Germany has had these since the early 1990's). This would equal or beat existing truck delivery times. Trains would run frequently to offer maximum convenience for both the shipper and passenger.

 

Trucks will be around for a long time to come, but their role will change. The long distance, over the road trucker might become a thing of the past or at the least be greatly reduced. The trucking industry already has problems filling the need for drivers. A peak oil situation would drastically tilt the marketplace out of their favor.

 

Conversely, railroads would find their situation reversed and would be profitable enough to justify huge investments in infrastructure. Passenger trains would be much more economically feasible as far as operating costs go, but would still require huge public investment.

 

Correction: Germany has had computerized container terminals since the early '90's, not hybrid-electric trucks...

 

  I understand that presently the railroads frown on single car load deliveries. They prefer whole trains between two points. Of course, this may change.

 

    Also, in a peak oil scenario, the types of freight would also change. Auto parts, finished cars, and road building materials are a big source of traffic for railroads. If cars drop out of the picture, so does the need for all that railroading.

 

    Railroads peaked in 1916 in terms of miles of track - about the same time that automobiles and asphalt highways started to appear.

Rail would be vastly different in a peak oil situation than it is now. We'd probably see large-scale electrification of main lines which would have much more capacity added for all the new traffic. We could see a national network of dedicated high speed freight/passenger corridors carrying 100+ mph containerized freight or roadrailers and 125 mph high speed passenger trains, with slower conventional freight remaining on existing rail lines.

 

Electrification, itself, can increase the capacity of an existing rail line. Electric locomotives drawing power from catenary can deliver much higher peak horsepower, especially for short periods, than diesel-electrics that have to carry their own power source. More than seventy years ago Pennsylvania Railroad electrified its high-density commuter lines in the northeast to gain faster acceleration out of stations and shorten the headways between rush-hour trains. The magnificent 1934-1943 Raymond Loewy-styled GG1 locomotives were rated 4,620 continuous horsepower at 100mph, 8,000 peak at 100mph, and 9,500 peak at 49mph, figures still unmatched by diesel-electrics, and I read that in 1937 a GG1 prototype attained 135mph on specially-prepared track and was still accelerating, when they ran out of test track and had to shut it down. GG1s continued in service until the early 1980s, still capable of making hundred-mile-per-hour speeds.

 

              :clap:   :clap:

 

We've had the technical capability for years; we just need to make it a priority.

   I understand that presently the railroads frown on single car load deliveries. They prefer whole trains between two points. Of course, this may change.

 

That's often true of the large, so-called Class 1 railroads. But regional railroads and short-line railroads are still very interested in car-load and even less-than-carload deliveries.

 

Railroads peaked in 1916 in terms of miles of track - about the same time that automobiles and asphalt highways started to appear.

 

That's also the same year that Congress passed and Woodrow Wilson signed the nation's first federal-aid highway act...  And, while what you say is true about the total route miles of railroad, the total number of track-miles for railroads continued to increase until 1928 as the railroad companies added more tracks to existing lines.

>Electrification, itself, can increase the capacity of an existing rail line. Electric locomotives drawing power from catenary can deliver much higher peak horsepower, especially for short periods, than diesel-electrics that have to carry their own power source.

 

I believe both electric and steam locomotives have higher top speeds as well.  However, electifying a line requires building a new shop, retraining mechanics, and of course buying a fleet of new locomotives, so it's not at all like fingers can be snapped and it just happens. 

>it's not at all like fingers can be snapped and it just happens.

 

Of course not. This will have to take place over a period of years as rising oil prices force long term changes in response. In the meantime, other actions could take place, some large, others small, such as adding service or extending existing trains. This will be a evolutionary process.

 

I believe we are still big enough to do this. If things get dire enough, we could end up with a "Marshall Plan" for reinvesting in America to deal with Peak Oil.

 

Incidentally, by reinvesting in rail, transit and our cities, we will put many people to work in good-paying non-exportable jobs, something to think about. Here in Ohio, the Ohio Hub plan proposal projects $18 billion in new economic activity from a $3.2 billion investment, creating 6,000 new jobs. Imagine what we could do on a national basis!

 

PERSPECTIVE

Zoning Out

Looking to spend less on gas? Why overhauling the outdated rules of development would help.

By Anthony Flint  |  June 4, 2006

 

(Editor's note: Anthony Flint, who wrote the Perspectives column in yesterday's Sunday Magazine advocating the abolition of zoning rules in Massachusetts, directs education programs on sustainable growth for the state Office for Commonwealth Development. His employment by a government agency involved with those issues should have been disclosed in the author's note with the column.)

 

I'm sure I'd be arrested or ignored or maybe punched in the face, but lately I've had the urge to sidle up to people filling their tanks with $3.29-per-gallon gasoline and whisper: "You know, a lot of this problem could be solved if we just changed zoning."

 

More at:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2006/06/04/zoning_out/

^ Finally! An article that recognizes that smarter land use is at least as important as better transit, if not moreso, in reducing our oil appetite.

It's all about organization. Places like Tokyo are really busy but because it's so organized it's not that hard to travel around the city or through the airport.

This appeared in the Light Rail Now! website. It's the first of three articles dealing with large-scale electrification of railroads and transit. Enjoy!

 

Electrification 101

Electrification of Transportation as a Response to Peaking of World Oil Production

 

Commentary by Alan S. Drake

November 2005 (rev. December 2005)

 

With this commentary, Light Rail Now initiates a series we're calling Electrification 101 – a discussion aimed at informing transportation professionals, decisionmakers, and the public at large of the value and advantages of electrifying transportation operations, and the electrification of public transport systems in particular. This commentary, the first article in our series, has been slightly adapted from a professional paper prepared by the author.

 

Alan S. Drake is an engineer, former accountant, and professional researcher based in New Orleans.

 

Light Rail Now! website

URL: http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2005-02.htm

Updated 2005/12/20[/i]

Part II, same series....

 

Light Rail Now! website

URL: http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-03a.htm

Updated 2006/03/07[/i]

Third installment:

 

 

Light Rail Now! website

URL: http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm

Updated 2006/05/3

When Energy Demand Exceeds Supply: Impacts on Transportation and Cities

 

28 June, 2006 - 7:00am

Author: Jessica Roder

for Planetizen.com

 

Does your city have a Plan B? Without a plan for an oil-free existence, cities around the world may face drastic changes, according to a recent symposium in Winnipeg, Manitoba about the approaching energy shortage. Jessica Roder offers her perspective on the symposium's guidance for addressing the inevitable challenges of reduced supplies, and a new hope for peak oil planning.

 

When Energy Demand Exceeds Supply: Impacts on Transportation and Cities

 

The recent relocation of the Centre for Sustainable Transportation to Winnipeg, Manitoba and the Centre’s collaboration with the Institute of Urban Studies to bring a symposium on peak oil to this city has given me new hope. When I moved to Winnipeg two years ago the plans for a bus rapid transit system had just been killed and a massive new suburban development approved. The city seemed oblivious to the energy crisis looming on the horizon and how the urban form they were creating would amplify it. I was therefore thrilled by the number of city staff that attended the one-day symposium "When Energy Demand Exceeds Supply: Impacts on Transportation and Cities", held in Winnipeg on April 19, 2006. Hopefully the learning they took away from the day will be disseminated into city practices and policies in the near future.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.planetizen.com/node/20351

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Big-ticket road projects to bypass central Ohio

Saturday, July 01, 2006

James Nash

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

 

The state will borrow $200 million a year to fuel an ambitious schedule of highway work in the face of mounting project costs and uncertain federal funding, officials said yesterday in approving a six-year master plan.

 

The plan envisions relatively modest spending in metropolitan Columbus in its first year, with a $7 million contribution toward an interchange from I-670 to Port Columbus International Airport as the state’s only new construction project in the region in 2007.

 

In all, the Ohio Department of Transportation district encompassing Franklin, Delaware, Fayette, Madison, Marion, Morrow, Pickaway and Union counties is slated for $33.5 million in transportation spending in 2007, which is 6.3 percent of the statewide total. The counties account for 13.2 percent of Ohio’s population.

 

...

 

More at:

http://dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/07/01/20060701-A1-03.html

^Have you guys heard about HHO gas?

Is that a gas emitted by prostitutes? Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all the week.

that is f***ing amazing.  especially seeing the flame turning back into water

Hydrogen flames are invisible.  I'm not sure what he's spiking that gas with, but something is fishy there.

 

This guy is thumbing his nose at Isaac Newton!  He invented the worlds first perpetual motion machine.  He figured out a way to break the bonds that hold water together, reform those same bonds, and make a net gain in electricity.  Methinks something is fishy there.

Tailing the X-Commuter

As extreme commutes go global, business follows. But who needs three cupholders?

By Keith Naughton

Newsweek International

 

July 3-10, 2006 issue - The drive to get out of big cities is turning the United States into a land of nomads. "Extreme commuters" who travel more than 90 minutes to work, one way, are the fastest-growing group of commuters, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. They are also an increasingly important economic force shaping everything from real-estate markets to fast-food menus.

 

More Americans than ever are willing to trade time in their car for the dream of a big house and a big yard. Nearly 10 million people now drive more than an hour to work, up 50 percent from 1990. Many are doing what California real-estate agents call "driving 'til you qualify" for a mortgage. In places like southern California, each exit along the interstate saves you tens of thousands of dollars.

 

Companies are rushing to soak up some of that savings. Americans today eat an average of 32 meals a year in their cars, according to researcher Harry Balzer at the NPD Group. And they order one in four restaurant meals from the car. So McDonald's is rolling out products that fit in cup holders, like its new Fruit 'n Yogurt Parfait.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13529577/site/newsweek/

Global thirst, fears keep gas prices high

By Manav Tanneeru

CNN

 

(CNN) -- An interconnected set of domestic and international factors have pushed gas prices steadily higher over the past few years, and an almost unquenchable global demand for energy may keep them there for at least the short term, industry observers say.

 

The average price for self-service regular was hovering near $3 a gallon as the summer of 2006 got under way, according to a national survey of gas prices.

 

That's double the price in 2000 and more than 50 percent higher than two years ago, even when adjusted for inflation, government statistics show.

 

...

 

Find the full article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/07/03/oil.price.explainer/index.html

 

Meanwhile, American production of crude oil also has gotten more expensive because the easiest places to drill have mostly gone dry, said Rob Schlichting, a spokesman for the California Energy Commission.

 

"It looks like we may be coming to the end of cheap oil. The really easy-to-pump product has been pretty much pulled out of the ground unless we have some new finds," he said. "More often, we're going to offshore areas like the Gulf of Mexico, which are more expensive to drill in."

 

Now THAT's an interesting quote!

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060706/NEWS11/607060366/-1/NEWS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article published July 6, 2006

 

At $3 per gallon, Toledo area pump prices pinch pocketbooks

 

By DAVID PATCH

BLADE STAFF WRITER

 

 

Three-dollar regular gasoline has returned to Toledo, and this time it's at more than just one gas station.

 

Seemingly on the horizon since Easter, stations breached the $3 mark across the metro area yesterday for the second time in local history.

 

But unlike the first time, when Hurricane Katrina sent shock waves through domestic oil production and refining late last summer, the price hike yesterday followed no sudden event and came after an extended period of price fluctuation in the $2.60 to $2.90-a-gallon range.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060706/NEWS11/607060366/-1/NEWS

Meanwhile, American production of crude oil also has gotten more expensive because the easiest places to drill have mostly gone dry, said Rob Schlichting, a spokesman for the California Energy Commission.

 

"It looks like we may be coming to the end of cheap oil. The really easy-to-pump product has been pretty much pulled out of the ground unless we have some new finds," he said. "More often, we're going to offshore areas like the Gulf of Mexico, which are more expensive to drill in."

 

Now THAT's an interesting quote!

 

Keep in mind...he's talking about "American production of crude".  That peaked in the 70's, so the quote is just stating the obvious. 

Check the Peak Oil thread... A number of the oil drilling platforms have been towed out of the Gulf of Mexico to more fertile areas. Among them are the waters around the Arabian peninsula. And, there's been some terrific charts posted on www.theoildrum.com and elsewhere showing the oil well count in Saudi Arabia has been skyrocketing yet the oil produced from SA has flat-lined. To me, that says Saudi Arabia is peaking in production. If that's the case, then the world is peaking, too, and the cheap oil party is over. It may not be that much longer before $3 gas will seem like the good ol' days.

Ah screw it, here's the chart (click and scroll right to see SA's skyrocketing oil rig count):

 

 

Average Saudi Arabian daily oil + condensate production, by month, from EIA and JODI, together with Baker-Hughes oil rig count. January 2000-April 2006. Inset graph shows annual oil consumption and exports according to BP (including NGL). Click to enlarge. Source: EIA International Petroleum Monthly Table 1.1a, Baker-Hughes, and BP. Last green point is from press reports.

Can someone explain the graph to me? I thought the problem was that more oil is being consumed than what they can produce causing prices to rise. That map makes it look like production is rising up to the demand. Im confused.

KJP - I think its a little difficult to say that this signals the peak.  On one hand, that looks like frantic drilling.  Three times the number of rigs in one year is a sudden increase.   When you couple this with the statement from thier oil minister earlier this year that they have choked back many wells because there is adequate supply, things just don't feel right.

 

On the other hand, you've got to hand it to the Saudis.  They've always delivered on thier promises and have held the worlds spare capacity for decades.  They've definitely helped the world avoid a few supply crunches.  They also just stated that they can increase thier output to 12 MBpd by 2012 (IIRC).  This may be what is necessary to deliver on that promise.  Keep in mind that there is probably a decent lag between rig purchase to rig production.

 

I think you need to be on the other side of the peak to know when it hit(s). 

 

Regardless of Saudi crude production, the refining capacity scares me the most in the near term.  There have been very few new refineries built in the world over the past couple of decades, and most of the capacity is built to handle light-sweet crude (which is getting a bit sparse).  It could take until 2012 to get new refineries built (or convert the existing fleet) to handle heavy-sour.  That leaves a huge gap in capacity for the next six years.  With demand surging thanks to us and the Chinese, the near term picture ain't pretty.

Can someone explain the graph to me? I thought the problem was that more oil is being consumed than what they can produce causing prices to rise. That map makes it look like production is rising up to the demand. Im confused.

Keep in mind, this is just the map for Saudi Arabia.  They've always been the 800 lb. gorilla of the crude world, so KJP is pointing out, that once they peak...that's the end of cheap oil.  Their massive wells will eventually go into irreversible decline and there isn't enough spare capacity in the rest of the world to make up that difference. 

 

The interesting thing about this graph is the rig count tripling over the past year.  This indicates either: 1) they need to drill more to fulfill thier promises to OPEC and the rest of the world, or 2) thier existing wells are going into rapid decline and they are trying to tread water by frantically drilling more.  If it's #2, then $3/gallon gasoline will seem like a bargain in a year or two.

Can someone explain the graph to me? I thought the problem was that more oil is being consumed than what they can produce causing prices to rise. That map makes it look like production is rising up to the demand. Im confused.

 

The green and the purple lines are two different estimates of how much oil is being produced by Saudi Arabia, and measured by the numbers going up the left side of the graph. The blue line is the number oil rigs in Saudi Arabia, and measured by the numbers going up the right side of the graph.

$3? We keep pumping

Demand continues to go up despite rising gas prices

BY JON NEWBERRY AND RYAN CLARK | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITERS

 

With gasoline surging back above $3 a gallon at most area filling stations this week, and no hurricanes to blame it on, have consumers finally had enough?

 

Apparently not yet.

 

The Energy Department reported yet another increase in average U.S. gasoline prices this week, up 25 percent over the past year to $2.93 nationally and $2.91 in the Midwest.

 

...

 

More at:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060707/BIZ01/607070340/-1/rss

 

"It's already reached the point where it's changed my life," she says. "I don't ever fill up the tank all the way. I fill it up about half."

 

That meant spending $40 for a half-tank in her Chevy Suburban.

 

Dawn Handorf of Loveland said she's been trying to eliminate unnecessary trips, "but I have four kids, so I still have to go. Luckily, most of my driving is nearby."

 

Handorf stopped filling her big Suburban when the tab hit $75.

 

High comedy right there.  Talk about burying your head in the sand.  "Well, if I fill up twice as much, but it costs half as much, then it won't hurt as much."  Ignorance really is bliss.

^People are morons!

LOL! People try to come up with reasons to justify why they need a giant SUV. "I need a lot of space for groceries" or "I need a truck in case I need to haul things". Seriously, how often does this person need to haul things? Probably somewhere in the vacinity of never.

No one needs a Suburban for their personal use.  No one.   

 

I drove home Sunday from Washington, PA, taking I-70 between Washington and Columbus. I hate that road because of the intensity of the traffic. There's way too much of it for the road's capacity, and many drivers are operating beyond their skill levels. I had to run 70 mph to keep from getting run over quite so much, and my non-statistical observations of speeders were about the same as on other Interstate trips. More than half the people driving 10+ mph over the speed limit are driving big, heavy, non-aerodynamic vehicles that impose a heavy penalty in fuel consumption as speed increases.

 

Again, a non-statistical observation; I think the vehicle I most often notice for extreme speeding and for aggressive driving both on and off the interstates is the Cadillac Escalade. Maybe it's a bully mindset on the part of owners, who bought those ostentatious behemoths before the gas prices went through the roof. They can't acknowledge and deal with with the vain folly that got them into their mess, so they try to maintain their denial with counterproductive, antisocial behavior. Or maybe they're just hurrying to get to their destinations before they run out of gas.  :roll:

That trucking article is really concerning to me.  As I was reading it, I wondered how long it would take for the gov't to start subsidizing these truckers.  I really wouldn't put it past their nearsighted-ness.

I think the vehicle I most often notice for extreme speeding and for aggressive driving both on and off the interstates is the Cadillac Escalade.

 

or Yukon, Suburban, Hummer, Expedition, etc.

^---- Maybe the larger vehicles don't feel as fast. That is, the smaller the tires and the closer to the ground your eyes are, the faster it feels for a given speed. A little motor scooter might feel unsafe at 35; An Escalade is just so smooth and heavy it still feels safe at 90.

Not surprising. Every time theres a gas station with gas 8 cents cheaper than the place down the street, the entire gas station is grid locked traffic with huge lines. Its just not even worth the time.