Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Baseball open thread: Freaky Cub birds edition
Posted in:
* I’ve been a State Farm auto insurance customer for 20 years, but I’m not so sure that I’m cool with them tracking my mileage via OnStar, even if I might get a discount…
The Bloomington-based company says its new Drive Safe and Save program will only be available to its customers who have OnStar devices on their vehicles and use its vehicle diagnostics tracking tool.
Company spokeswoman Angie Rinock told The Pantagraph newspaper in Bloomington that people who drive about 12,000 miles a year or less could save 10 percent or more on their premiums.
Rinock said State Farm will only gather mileage information and will not track other data such as driver speeds.
Yeah. They won’t track speeds now, but how long before they do?
* Illinois increased rural interstate speed limits for semi-trucks a couple of years ago, but now lawmakers want to increase speed limits on some rural sections of four-lane highways…
The speed limit for trucks could rise to 65 miles per hour on a number of non-interstate highways in Illinois.
In a proposal winding its way through the General Assembly, a number of stretches of rural four-lane highways would be added to the list of roadways where big rigs can move at the higher limit.
The move comes two years after lawmakers approved a change in law allowing trucks to travel at the same speed as cars on interstate highways outside of the Chicago area. But, that measure didn’t address roads built to interstate standards, but not officially interstates.
The measure earlier won Senate approval. If OK’d by the House and signed into law by Gov. Pat Quinn, the legislation would bump the speed limit from 55 mph to 65 mph on roads including:
* And, of course, no post like this would be complete without talking about gas prices. Yikes, man…
According to the latest Lundberg Survey, Chicago is number two in the nation for highest gas prices with an average of $4.11. However, some gas stations in the city have even higher prices. One gas station in the city’s South Loop area priced regular gas at $4.39 per gallon Monday morning.
So far, the usual call to lower the state’s gasoline tax has not yet been heard. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time.
* People are starting to cut back on their gasoline usage…
Gas sales have fallen for five straight weeks nationally, according to MasterCard SpendingPulse, which tracks credit card, cash and check spending at 140,000 service stations nationwide. Drivers bought about 3.6 percent less gasoline the week of April 1 compared to a year ago, it said.
Before the decline, demand for gasoline had been increasing for two months — a trend some analysts had expected to continue because the economic recovery is picking up.
“More people are going to work,” said John Gamel, director of gasoline research for MasterCard. “That means more people are driving, and they should be buying more gas.”
Instead, about 70 percent of the nation’s major gas-station chains report sales have fallen, according to a March survey by the Oil Price Information Service. More than half reported a drop of 3 percent or more — the sharpest since the summer of 2008, when gas prices set record highs.
But prices are going up faster than people are cutting back. Americans are paying roughly $340 million more per day to fill up than they did a year ago.
$340 million a day? Whoa, brother.
* Average prices…
– Chicago: $4.11
– Seattle: $3.85
– Boston: $3.71
– Houston: $3.67
– Atlanta: $3.61
– Memphis, Tennessee: $3.56
– Denver: $3.49
* The gas price hike is hurting just about everybody…
Like most businesses these days, Alliance Poultry is dealing with higher costs. Co-owner Fayyad Abdallah says the price of cracked corn that he feeds to the birds has doubled in about a year and a half.
But it’s the price of gas that’s really making his costs go up. Abdallah says he’s now paying about 20 cents more a pound for the organic chickens he buys from Amish farms in Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana.
So in turn, Abdallah has to raise his own prices. But he’s only increased his chicken price by 5 cents a pound.
“We don’t want to go up that much because right away, customers would notice that there’s a big increase and then they’ll be questioning, and then they might not come back again,” Abdallah says. “So I’d rather lose a few cents a pound than lose a few customers.”
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 11:25 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Baseball open thread: Freaky Cub birds edition
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It’s getting more crowded on the el with each increase in gas prices. By the time we get to $5 per gallon, they’re going to need more trains and buses to handle all of the new commuters.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 11:33 am
So happy the weather is warming up so I can ride my scooter. I bought it a couple years ago when gas prices jumped up. I get about 80-90 miles per gallon.
Comment by Because I say so Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 11:37 am
“Fayyad cracked corn, but Amish don’t care?”
Comment by D.P. Gumby Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 11:41 am
Rich said,
“I can’t drive 55…”
Do I detect a rock-and-roll theme to today’s CapFax, Rich?
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 11:42 am
Rich also said.
“So far, the usual call to lower the state’s gasoline tax has not yet been heard. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time.”
Sit down folks, I’m going to say it, the gas tax should not be touched.
If you want to make a positive influence in gas prices, reduce price spiking and provide some assurances against future problems in the Illinois supply chain, we should eliminate all state requirements that result in boutique blending of gasoline in the state. Furthermore, the Federal government should be lobbied to allow the same approach nationwide.
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 11:50 am
Why are prices for chickens or gas going up? I thought in the private sector the way a buisness made ends meet was just to keep cutting costs until everything was fine. Whats this crazy talk about increasing revenue with higher prices by the private sector? afterlal, the private sector never reaises taxe…er I mean prices, they just cut cut cut.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 11:51 am
Too many semis are already driving 65 on the two lane highways let alone the four lanes. Nothing burns my hide more than getting tail gated by a semi driver. And when was the last time you have seen the state police pull over a truck driver for speeding on the rural highways? Raising the speed limit on the four lanes is just inviting greater speeds on all the rural highways. And fatalities.
Comment by vole Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 11:53 am
Asking to remove the gas tax would be a bad idea, unless there in no need for that revenue to maintain the infrastructure.
As one of those who don’t have the opportunity to use government subsidized transportation I have to ask why the gas cost has topped 4.00 per gallon with a crude price of 105 per barrel. The last time the gas prices were as high crude got to 145 per barrel. I see no new taxes, who why the price disparity?
Don’t feel bad, Aviation gas is nearing 6.00 per gallon, and they do not use any roads……
Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 11:59 am
I’m just waiting for our lawmakers to realize that our neighbors’ speed limit is 70. In Texas, it’s 70 day/65 night on some two lane highways.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 12:10 pm
Ghost said,
“Why are prices for chickens or gas going up?”
I would like to direct your attention away from your visceral misunderstanding and hate of the private sector toward the current lack of support for oil exploration and a dithering policy in Libya by the current Administration, but I will.
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 12:13 pm
Plutocrat03,
Commodity prices also reflect speculation on the future environment. Right now, with our tight supply of oil, uncertainty in the Middle East, lack of a comprehensive US energy policy that supports oil instead of inhibits it, we are seeing a lot of upward pressure on prices. We also need to consider the effects of the Fed on monetary policy (inflation) and the uncertainty of the consumer.
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 12:18 pm
Wow, Cincy, are you cleaning out your Fox Talking Points drawer or something?
Demand for gasoline is down, yet the price continues to rise? The magic of the marketplace.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 12:29 pm
I have heard President’s going back to Jimmy Carter saying we need to quit buying foreign oil.
It never ends, natural gas is one of the ways to end foreign dependence. We also get rid of Ethanol
it just makes for lower gas milage,and if corn is a major part of your diet,it hurts.
Comment by mokenavince Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 12:29 pm
Of course, if people would drive 55, they would use less gas.
http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 12:30 pm
Demand for gasoline may be down in the States, but I’d bet globally, the demand for crude is up. It all comes out of the same ground.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 12:31 pm
Wordslinger,
Fox, me and the Department of Energy officials discussions on the current supply outlook all agree…
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 12:36 pm
The speculation and the value of the dollar is what sets the crude value, that is, where the speculators and market conditions come into play.
The ratio of price at the pump to crude, has not had a large component of speculation in it. That is the question that should be answered.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 12:47 pm
gang, here is why the price of oil barrels is so high.
Oil is traded on the Mercantile Exchange, and the speculators are driving up the price of oil far from any connection from reality of supply and demand. (The same thing is happening right now with coffee)
Arab oil spokesmen said last December that there is no reason for the price of oil to be more than $72 - 75/barrel.
My desire is for the federal government to “saber rattle” — call in the heads of the Merc, and tell them that their industry had better begin regulating itself, or the government will have to step in and try to keep speculators from causing the economy from collapsing. It might be Dick Durbin and Harry Reid, plus members of the Obama Administration (leave Chris Dodd out of it).
Put together a list of essential commodities for the economy and the military effort that speculators cannot play with, perhaps more than 5% a year. Such a list might consist of:
Oil and oil products
Coffee and tea
Aluminum, iron, and steel products
Timber (home building)
Rubber
Platinum and other components of communications equipment
(others that federal officials consider essential)
Get the NY based speculators out of oil, and watch the price go back to market conditions reality. We get most of our oil from American sources with Canada by far being the biggest nation of import — all the craziness in the Middle East is more Europe’s and Asia’s problem.
Comment by Capitol View Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 12:50 pm
Wonder why no one asks why price jumped even when there are thousands of cars in Japan that have been washed into the sea….ergo less demand.
Hmmm another Big Oli hustle
BTW has Capt Fax queried SF on whether they will they will supply tracking data to the jilted spouse when Mr. BoJangles goes stepping out with the honey.
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 12:53 pm
The price of oil is high and the trend, over time, should be for it to continue to rise. 1) Global demand is increasing while the supply is limited. 2) As our trade imbalance with oil producers increases, the value of US Dollars decreases in those countries. 3) There is very little surplus production capability, which limits the ability to accommodate production disruptions.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:15 pm
Since we cannot stop the price of gas from rising, we should do what we can to use less.
#!: Slow down - http://mpgforspeed.com/
#2: Hypermiling - Drive for efficiency. (It works best with a stick.)
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:18 pm
~As one of those who don’t have the opportunity to use government subsidized transportation~
What, you don’t own a car? All transportation is government subsidized.
Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:19 pm
Pot,
I disagree with 2. Since the dollar is a fiat currency, there is really no thing that determines its value other than the market. I would argue that the value of the dollar is primarily driven by the total amount of dollars that exist. More dollars are less valuable per dollar.
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:24 pm
(Sorry for all of the short posts.)
I find it ironic that the speed limits continue to go up at the same time everyone is concerned about the price and availability of petroleum and refined products. The 55 speed limit was put in place to save gasoline, and it worked. Prices went down. Then, we got rid of 55 and people sold their K-cars, and, now, as the supply tightens, we complain! LOL
There is no conspiracy. There is a consistent theme of people not wanting to take responsibility for their actions and our government responding by giving us quick fixes to ease our immediate pain. Of course quick fixes often result in long-term pain.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:25 pm
~As one of those who don’t have the opportunity to use government subsidized transportation~
What, you don’t own a car? All transportation is government subsidized.–
He just rides a mule through the woods to church on Sunday.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:26 pm
Cincy: Money is a placeholder in an exchange for goods. If we cannot trade enough goods back to the oil producers (directly or through a chain of trade), our dollars will lose their value and the price of oil will rise.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:29 pm
While they’re at it, could they require trucks to only pass another vehicle if they’re going to do it my more than 5 mph? I am getting sick of coming upon a truck going 64 mph trying to pass another truck going 63.5 mph. It takes forever, but they seem driven to do it!
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:31 pm
Cincinnatus, I suppose we could open up more land for drilling, but I doubt it would have much impact on gas prices, especially in the short term. According to a U.S. Dept. of Interior report, more than two-thirds of offshore oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico and more than half of onshore leases on federal lands remain idle, neither producing nor under active exploration and development by companies who hold those leases. See: www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/DOI-Releases-Report-on-Unused-Oil-and-Gas-Leases.cfm
I recognize that just because there are leases for a particular area doesn’t mean the ground underneath is flush with “black gold.” However, drilling and production are primarily dictated by world energy markets and when the industry thinks it can make a sizeable profit. I think we would all agree that oil is not the long-term answer. I would like to see our country get more serious about renewables, as well as land use practices that make mass transit and other commuting alternatives more efficient.
Comment by Going nuclear Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:36 pm
Wow, Going nuclear.
Yes we certainly could open up more land for drilling. While the amount of downward pressure on price due to increased supply may be small, there would be a significant effect on the market because of psychological effects.
Drilling policy effects the use of leases. America is not the most friendly country when it comes to exploration. The oil companies will go where they can realize the best return on their investment. Obviously, they must consider America a bad place to drill.
Oil is not a long term answer, on that we agree. But at the same time, it IS the only short term answer, and our current energy and environmental policies prohibit our exploitation and use of our own energy sources. Instead we have government policies intended to pick winners and losers by providing subsidies to unproductive technologies and favored industries.
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:50 pm
Two good sources for info:
http://www.eia.gov/
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm
http://energy.usgs.gov/
If you really want to know what goes into the price of gasoline and oil and how much is available…
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:54 pm
–While the amount of downward pressure on price due to increased supply may be small, there would be a significant effect on the market because of psychological effects.–
Freudian School of Economics? Perhaps gas prices would go down if people took more Prozac or smoked some ganja.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:56 pm
C I love the private sector, where I work, what I hate is the mythology of the private sector. The private sector always operating differently from govt, and always correctly.
As it turns out, the private sector and govt act in much the same way… As costs and operaing expenses go up, you raise prices/revenue/costs… you dont cut your way back to profitability.
Oddly though the oil companies are reporting record profits, whih seems at ods with the idea that they raised prices to of set costs.
Imagine the oucry if the state raised fees and taxes and at the same time reported record breaking surplus. yep lets run govt like the private sector….
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:57 pm
I know the gas station near my house has the lowest in town at $4.09 because when I filled up last week, there were 3 taxicabs there and every time I pass lately, the majority filling up are cabs. That is the lowest I’ve seen in the last week anywhere in Chicago.
Comment by 32nd Ward Roscoe Village Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:01 pm
Once again I will point out that the kinetic energy equation is a very unforgiving one, and semis going ten miles an hour faster adds over a football field to their minimum stopping distance under the best of conditions. meanwhile, nobody is closely regulating the mandatory rest periods drivers are supposed to take at regular intervals. So you’ll have trucks driven by tired drivers, who now will have even less reaction time to a sudden problem. When, not if, but WHEN more truck accidents occur at these higher speeds, the deaths and damage will be significantly higher. It is not worth it.
Comment by Gregor Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:06 pm
==The oil companies will go where they can realize the best return on their investment…our current energy and environmental policies prohibit our exploitation and use of our own energy sources.==
The “prohibition” is mostly a higher operating cost in the name of keeping the environment clean. We just have to ask ourselves which is more important, cheap oil or a clean environment? While cheap oil is nice in the short term, we have learned that, in the long run, it is very expensive to clean up environmental messes.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:08 pm
What is the State doing with the windfall pump taxes from the spiking increases in prices? If I recall, the State tax is a percentage of the charge of each gallon pumped, which means more State tax at $4 a gallon over $3 or even $2.50 a gallon.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:12 pm
“What is the State doing with the windfall pump taxes from the spiking increases in prices?”
I believe you’re referring to the sales tax. Generally if a person is spending more on gas, they have less to spend on other things so I would think it’s pretty much a wash.
The other state gas tax is the excise tax which is on a per gallon basis. If people are buying less gas then those revenues go down.
Comment by MikeMacD Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:31 pm
“Oil is not a long term answer, on that we agree. But at the same time, it IS the only short term answer . . .” The only short-term answer is to keep exporting our wealth to unfriendly foreign countries and, at the same time, expose vast areas of the Untied States to risks associated with oil exploration??
Not so quick . . . Rather than “Drill, baby drill”, we need to “Think, baby, think.”
What about investing in something other than highway expansion projects? Over 70% of U.S. daily oil consumption is attributable to transportation. The lion’s share of that is wasted in heaviluy congested urban corridors during periods of peak use - stuck in congestion. Our state arbitrarily divies up federal transportation funding using a 55/45 split that fails to effectively support transportation needs in the state’s largest generators of economic activity. Let’s focus on urban transportation needs and actually improving the flow of traffic and goods through these areas. New and expanded transit options are essential, and they don’t need to be “long-term” solutions, either. We should immediately reassess our priorities - including the riduculous 55/45 arbitrary spllit - and focus with high intensity on getting people ofut of their cars during peak commuting periods. As for funding, elimination of the 55/45 would be a great step in the right direction. We could also combine pricing strategies with provision of high quality, affordabel, and reliable transit alternatives.
Continuing to exporr our wealth to unfriendly countries is a bad idea. Continuing to dilute our wealth through arbitrary formulas is a bad idea. Drilling to produce more domestic oil is a bad idea. It’s time to get our thinking caps screwed on . . .
Comment by Not So Quick . . . Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:34 pm
- What is the State doing with the windfall pump taxes from the spiking increases in prices? -
Gas tax is a cents/gallon rate, if I remember correctly. Therefore, the state gets no additional revenue from increased prices. More likely, people use less gallons, so the state gets less cents.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:41 pm
http://www.chicagogasprices.com/
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:43 pm
Lower speeds do not always mean gas savings. Every vehicle has an optimum speed for gas mileage based on size, weight, power and gearing … it all depends on how the builder designed it.
Going back to the original national 55 speed limit, I was driving a 4 seater German sports car at the time. It was built for the autobahns in Germany … at 55 MPH it got 16.3 mpg, at 100 MPH it got 21.7 mpg … these are real numbers measured on I-55 between Spfld and St. Louis on a regular basis. I’m not advocating speeding but making a point, each vehicle has an optimum speed on the highway for gas mileage. As a second example, today I drive an old car that has been updated to modern technology under the skin and gets about 50 - 60% better gas mileage than what it did originally … my wife’s small VW only gets a bit better gas mileage.
As a general rule, the car makers design the cars for the speeds in use at the time of design / production. Of course, your mileage will vary depending on driving style, etc. … but 55 MPH is not necessarily a solution in all cases. Smooth consistent driving and using routes to avoid congestion / stop lights will save more gas than going a bit slower or dangerously “drafting” (tailgating) semis and other large vehicles.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 3:14 pm
Not So Quick said,
“Over 70% of U.S. daily oil consumption is attributable to transportation. The lion’s share of that is wasted in heaviluy congested urban corridors during periods of peak use - stuck in congestion.”
You are absolutely correct. So now ask yourself these questions:
Is it more cost effective to alleviate congestion by road improvements, adding lanes and timing stoplights, etc., or spending money on high speed rail and buses and el trains?
Is it more cost effective to review and possibly change regulations and subsidies requiring ethanol, or should we continue to use food as fuel?
Is it cost effective to subsidize electric cars which require more electricity created mainly by coal and nuclear power, or use the best portable fuel we have in our cars and save electricity for other uses?
Should we allow more exploitation of natural gas and oil or continue to all drilling bans and put our energy policies in the hands of others who do not have our best interests in mind?
Right now, energy policy is seen through a prism of some sort of idealized goal of man’s presence on Earth. We battled to the top of the food chain by using this planet. Certainly the pollution we were seeing 40 and more years ago could not have continued. But we learned and minimized the impact of the worse actors. We need to balance environmentalism against our materials need coupled with wise and good stewardship of the planet. We cannot remain caught in this diverging feedback loop where any accident, mishap or act of God, or some pie-in-the-sky view of the environment walls off some area of our natural resources.
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 3:20 pm
Over the years I have watched oil and gas prices rise and fall. More often than not when things got to a certain point the option of Coal Gasification came up. Folks would start to look at putting up the big bucks to do the projects. About that time prices would fall below the profit point and it would all go away. How strange. I have to say I wanted it to go for the construction jobs. Now I know Government Spending is a no no right now so this is all just a dream but how about we go ahead and build a few of these plants. The next time this happens we do not need years to ramp up production and I suspect the price will stay below the profit point. We spent Billions to build missles and bombs that our hope was to keep forever in holes in the ground doing nothing but keeping other missles away from us. Deterrent effect.
Comment by Bemused Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 4:15 pm
@Capitol View - commodities futures markets help to smooth out prices for producers which depend on these items by allowing them to hedge and lock in deliveries at agreed to prices. Your “solution” is not going to solve anything, its merely going to transfer price volatility elsewhere into economy. The day that these markets are price-controlled is the day that the price of every other product jumps 10-15% as a hedge against volatility in future prices. Meanwhile trading will shift to other existing markets for these products in Europe and Asia, and many people in the futures industry will be put out of work. Futures markets are not the culprits here - bad energy planning at the national level is.
Comment by Bluejay Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 4:31 pm
Bemused,
Coal gasification technology in the 70’s just wasn’t economic and feasible. However, the technology has advanced considerable. There is a plant in Poland that may prove to be both economically and technically feasible. There are many environmental advantages to this process. Of course, on the flip side, one must take the hit from the actual mining of the coal, which is under increasing environmental pressure.
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 4:47 pm
“Over 70% of U.S. daily oil consumption is attributable to transportation. The lion’s share of that is wasted in heaviluy congested urban corridors during periods of peak use - stuck in congestion.”
Your 70% figure appears to be correct, but I checked on some other stuff.
First off, something like 43% of the nation’s oil input is used by automobiles. Another 27% or so is used by trucks, planes, trains, and buses, leaving 30% used by manufacturing and energy and other miscellaneous uses.
I found various estimates ranging from 2.8 to 5.7 billion gallons of gas wasted in congestion each year. The US uses something like 138 trillion gallons of refined gasoline each year (last year I checked was 2009) most of which contains an ethanol component. By any measure, there is a lot of wasted oil and ethanol resulting from congestion, but hardly the “lion’s share” or anything close being consumed compared to overall use.
And at $5 a gallon, I think the “wasted” component may go on a downward trend. The “stolen by siphoning” component might not:-)
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 6:10 pm
I also remember the last time gas went up to nearly $4.50 a gallon and hearing “we’ll never see $2 gas again”. Less than a year later, the economy was tanking, the oil speculation bubble had burst, and regular was going for $1.409 at the local dealer. Lots of things can happen, either way. I would not be surprised to see $7 gas in 2012, or $2 either.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 6:16 pm
This is why I finally got a motorcycle last year…50 mpg people. As a bonus it’s a blast. I’m doing my part to cut America’s foreign oil dependency!
Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 6:39 pm
Cincinnatus said, “Is it more cost effective to alleviate congestion by road improvements, adding lanes and timing stoplights, etc., or spending money on high speed rail and buses and el trains?”
I don’t need to ask myself, as there is abundant literature available on the topic. The answer is quite clear, particularly as relates to major capital expenditures: Highway expansions are no longer the right thing to do and have not been for a very long time. “Cost-effectiveness” isn’t merely a simpleton measure of the cost of a pound of asphalt verse a pound of steel. To illustrate, let’s just look at just *one* variable that despite being transportation’s *#1* priority, it never figures into “cost effectiveness”: Safety. A recent study of a 9.65 mile segment of Chicago interstate found 6,066 accidents, 725 injuries, and 9 fatalaties between from 2006 - 2008, inclusive. The same study analyzed CTA heavy rail operating in the exact same stretch. The result was ZERO accidents, ZERO injuries, and ZERO deaths. Now ask yourself this question:
Which is more cost-effective, investing in a highway expansion or a rail extension?
Now consider this: The skecth plannign estimates reveal that both options have anticipated costs that are roughly the same. Now ask yourself this question:
Which is more cost-effective, a highway expansion or a rail extension?
To reiterate, that is but a single variable that “cost effectiveness” does not cpature. Not by oversight, but by design. There are a plethora of other external costs associated with supporting increased road use, none of which factor into cost-effectiveness, as traditionally applied to the discussion of major capital investments. Traditional methods are intended to support patently flawed decision-making. Unless and until we get our thinking caps screwed on right, the question of cost effectiveness” is largely a fucntion of what costs are excluded rather than a true cost/benefit analysis.
Comment by Not So Quick . . . Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 4:11 pm