ernest_t_bass;709939 wrote:Here is something that I do not understand, and can someone please answer for me...

Why is it that towns that are 15 miles apart can have 20¢ differentiation in gas prices? Why is it $3.59 in my town, then I travel to another town, in the same county, and it is $3.39? Better yet, in some bigger towns, you'll see cheaper prices at the truck stops along the highway, but IN town, you'll see much higher prices. What up with that?

Most gas stations don't make much on gas sales, so when they anticipate the price going up or know that the price of their next delivery is going to be higher, they will raise the price to make some money or to cover the next shipment. Truck stops are usually cheaper because they have so much in store sales that they typically lose money on gas sales. Gas sales is typically a loss leader for gas stations to try to get you into the store to buy things that have a huge markup.

ernest_t_bass;709939 wrote:Here is something that I do not understand, and can someone please answer for me...

Why is it that towns that are 15 miles apart can have 20¢ differentiation in gas prices? Why is it $3.59 in my town, then I travel to another town, in the same county, and it is $3.39? Better yet, in some bigger towns, you'll see cheaper prices at the truck stops along the highway, but IN town, you'll see much higher prices. What up with that?

There are a number of factors at work. First, there is a complex maze of regulatory regimes that mandate different fuel blends for different areas, which means that one type of gas can be in short supply while another type can be plentiful, resulting in big price disparities between similarly situated areas. Also, traffic patterns and demand are likely to vary quite a bit from station to station--one station may get much greater volume than another, enabling them to reduce margins and still pull in the revenue they need to function.

Edit: I see LJ beat me to it.

LJ;709941 wrote:Most gas stations don't make much on gas sales, so when they anticipate the price going up or know that the price of their next delivery is going to be higher, they will raise the price to make some money or to cover the next shipment. Truck stops are usually cheaper because they have so much in store sales that they typically lose money on gas sales. Gas sales is typically a loss leader for gas stations to try to get you into the store to buy things that have a huge markup.

But why, in my small town of four gas stations, are the prices the same at each station? Why do they all go up to the same price, all fall to the same price, etc?

ernest_t_bass;709947 wrote:But why, in my small town of four gas stations, are the prices the same at each station? Why do they all go up to the same price, all fall to the same price, etc?

Competition.

ernest_t_bass;709947 wrote:But why, in my small town of four gas stations, are the prices the same at each station? Why do they all go up to the same price, all fall to the same price, etc?

They will match others and try to make a profit when they can. Typically you see them all go up a the same time then all fall in their own time.

Yes, but competitive nature would tell me that you would ALWAYS see stations fighting for their customers, so they would keep prices low. When someone comes out with $3.59 per gallon, I'm going to sacrifice some change and set mine at $3.55, so I steal all their business.

ernest_t_bass;710238 wrote:Yes, but competitive nature would tell me that you would ALWAYS see stations fighting for their customers, so they would keep prices low. When someone comes out with $3.59 per gallon, I'm going to sacrifice some change and set mine at $3.55, so I steal all their business.

Dunno what their overall thinking is. I don't really deal with any end products

ernest_t_bass;710238 wrote:Yes, but competitive nature would tell me that you would ALWAYS see stations fighting for their customers, so they would keep prices low. When someone comes out with $3.59 per gallon, I'm going to sacrifice some change and set mine at $3.55, so I steal all their business.

and the other stations would just drop theirs to $3.55. Which, in the end, they would all be losing money.

The question to ask is "Will gas prices ever be affordable again?" It's an honest question. I don't see it happening. Are we not passed peak oil production? Will China and India not add enough cars to their roads to offset any sort of hybrid success here? Wake up folks, the days of wanting to live in suburbia and drive into the city are coming to a close. America has planned itself into a serious problem. The 1950's ideal suburbia is simply not economically, socially, (and environmentally, as a tertiary concern) sustainable, and not just because of the end of cheap oil.

The solution is simple: live in cities again. Gentrify. Build, at the very minimum, bike lanes, and maybe instead of investing in expanding interstates (at the cost of $250mil per interchange) build a commuter rail on a pedestrian-friendly transit-oriented model. You should be able to live within a half-mile walk or a two-mile bike commute to work, it happens everywhere else.

Gas has been going up for a few reasons. Mainly, the reason why gas is so high right now is due to world economic growth and that the release of oil supply especially in OPEC countires has purposely been sluggish. I mean why release a ton of oil cheaply when you can release less and make a shit ton more money. Saudi Arabia understands this basic concept very well.
The whole Lybia fiasco has a small footprint compared to the main reason why gas is up, they account for less then 1% of US oil consumption.

Tobias Fünke;711159 wrote:The question to ask is "Will gas prices ever be affordable again?" It's an honest question. I don't see it happening. Are we not passed peak oil production? Will China and India not add enough cars to their roads to offset any sort of hybrid success here? Wake up folks, the days of wanting to live in suburbia and drive into the city are coming to a close. America has planned itself into a serious problem. The 1950's ideal suburbia is simply not economically, socially, (and environmentally, as a tertiary concern) sustainable, and not just because of the end of cheap oil.

The solution is simple: live in cities again. Gentrify. Build, at the very minimum, bike lanes, and maybe instead of investing in expanding interstates (at the cost of $250mil per interchange) build a commuter rail on a pedestrian-friendly transit-oriented model. You should be able to live within a half-mile walk or a two-mile bike commute to work, it happens everywhere else.

There is no possible way everyone in this country is going to live within a mile or two of their work, not happening. The population densities of those other countries are way higher than ours. We are too large and too spread out to ever live like they do, not that the majority of Americans would want to anyway.

tk421;711366 wrote:There is no possible way everyone in this country is going to live within a mile or two of their work, not happening. The population densities of those other countries are way higher than ours. We are too large and too spread out to ever live like they do, not that the majority of Americans would want to anyway.

What do you mean by "large?"

Anywho, that's why I said transit-oriented development. Living within a half-mile of work allows you the freedom from necessarily needed any vehicles, living within ~2 miles gives you the freedom to only require a bike. The real key is not to have a downtown and less density all around it, but a string of developed hubs so to speak along a light-train/streetcar line. That was once High Street here in Columbus.

The population density is exactly the problem. People need to live more urban lives. That doesn't mean there is NYC-esque density everywhere. But it certainly requires a massive change to walkable neighborhoods and communities. A place like Dublin, OH doesn't have a sizable downtown because it's only sprawl and golf courses. That's precisely why their 50-year plan builds a walkable downtown south of I-270. Statistics show that the young people are getting fed up with suburban life, and want to live closer to their amenities. Think of how difficult living in America is for someone <16.

It will happen; it is already happening. The real challenge is taking back the roads and getting the wherewithal together for a light-rail corridor. I say "back" because every city in America had a public transportation system prior to GM's lobbying and swindling.

The rising cost of oil will, to an extent, be the saving grace of this country. It will no longer become a social or environmental issue driven mostly by Democrats, but it will be a sustainability and economic issue (supported factions in both parties) within the end of the decade. We cannot continue to fund these massive roads, and the low density and sprawl destroy cities, counties, and eventually states.

Even if oil was cheap forever (let alone again), we still don't have enough room on our roads for the projected 100,000,000 new cars that would be added by 2050. Look at the space cars take up juxtaposed with busing and cycling. Same amount of people, but a drastic difference in size.



I would bet my life you will see a correlation between the rise in oil prices and the value of urban property. Places like the Short North in Columbus, Old West End in Toledo, Tremont in Cleveland, will flourish again. Why? Because that's how things used to be, before this age of interstates and automobiles. Historians will look to the 1950-2020 era as an anomaly.

For the record, I do not promote the extinction of cars. My father had a 17-car collection of cars, wonderful things. I am simply saying we will reach an equilibrium by 2050 as what we do now is simply unsustainable.

Here's what I'd suggest to free ourselves from oil.

1) End the drug war and legalize marijuana. The US spends $40,000,000,000 annually doing nothing. Reduce that budget by 75% to $10 billion, used primarily along the Mexican border (read: BUILD THE FUCKING WALL). The taxes from marijuana are projected at $7 billion (I personally would just grow it myself, but projections are what they are).

2) Take that $37,000,000,000 (billion, yeah), and create a fund similar to the high way fund. It funds a)intra-urban streetcar corridors, light-rail corridors, and high-speed (200mph+) rail projects, that must be matched by 50% state and municipal support. (If you took all of the money from the drug war budget and taxes, $47 billion, do you know how many times you could build a high-speed rail system through Ohio? 117 times every single freaking years, and still have 200 million left over to light on fire.)

Basically, connect an intra-urban system of this:

[video=youtube;dO2-IKM9Jpo][/video]

with a transportation hub, located within one mile of downtowns (unlike most airports), that connects bus routes, bike parking, and most importantly one of these:

[video=youtube;_Ir_n3J5ABA][/video]

Tobias Fünke;711387 wrote:Here's what I'd suggest to free ourselves from oil.

1) End the drug war and legalize marijuana. The US spends $40,000,000,000 annually doing nothing. Reduce that budget by 75% to $10 billion, used primarily along the Mexican border (read: BUILD THE FUCKING WALL). The taxes from marijuana are projected at $7 billion (I personally would just grow it myself, but projections are what they are).

2) Take that $37,000,000,000 (billion, yeah), and create a fund similar to the high way fund. It funds a)intra-urban streetcar corridors, light-rail corridors, and high-speed (200mph+) rail projects, that must be matched by 50% state and municipal support. (If you took all of the money from the drug war budget and taxes, $47 billion, do you know how many times you could build a high-speed rail system through Ohio? 117 times every single freaking years, and still have 200 million left over to light on fire.)

I don't know what you're smoking, but you need to go back to math class. If you think $47 billion is enough to build 117 HSR systems though Ohio, you're obviously on something strong.

Also, Obama's "vision for the future" HSR system isn't high speed, it only goes 110 - 120 MPH. Total waste of money, give up the koolaid.

Who said anything about Obama?

Pardon my ignorance, but the stimulus plan was going to give $400 million to the state of Ohio for high-speed rail. I haven't seen anything saying that was partial. Either way though, it's pretty freaking moot and you're argument is weak. Is $47,000,000,000 / $400,000,000 not 117.5? the point, if you have the cognitive ability to grasp it, is that we spend a shit ton of money on other useless endeavors (i.e. War on Drugs, meddling in the Middle East) and could very quite easily find the funds without adding costs.

As for the "koolaid" comment, allow me to ask as rudely as possible...what the fuck are you talking about? You don't know shit about me. I am a registered Republican, and voted against Obama. I won't vote for him in 2012 either. And I even argue against my liberal counterparts daily that Kasich made the right call on nixing the train. To correct your statement, it was projected to go ~70mph. Horrible. No one would ride it. But you're missing the fucking point:

Americans tend to have their heads so far up their own asses they're oblivious to fact that from Europe to Japan to South Africa to China, they are investing in trains as fast as they can. They aren't all socialists, and many governments are far more frugal than ours. If that makes me some Europe-worshiping liberal un-American psuedo-socialist, so fucking be it. When you sit around wondering why once-great suburban commercial centers collapse after twenty years, wondering why you continue to choose to let gasoline prices eat away at your discretionary spending and choose to commute long distances to work, wondering why Muslim dictators continue to have us by the balls, wondering why we continue to sprawl on some of the best farmland in the world...the rest of the world will pass us by, probably at ~280mph on a train.

High speed rail is a pipe dream. I'd rather take the 37 billion in alleged savings and lower taxes or help pay back the debt.

It seems you are caught up in the world of academia and not reality. I'm embarrassed that you will get a degree from OSU without a shred of common sense.

sleeper;711394 wrote:High speed rail is a pipe dream. I'd rather take the 37 billion in alleged savings and lower taxes or help pay back the debt.

It seems you are caught up in the world of academia and not reality. I'm embarrassed that you will get a degree from OSU without a shred of common sense.

1) High-speed rail is merely a portion of the equation. It's one of the less important parts too.

2) The rest of the world lacks common sense too? That defies the law of simplicity. What's more plausible, that the governments of China (who are clearly outsmarting our own government these days), Europe, Japan, etc. completely lack common sense......or that America is making the wrong choice in the long run by continuing to enslave itself to OPEC and budget deficits?

Talk about common sense you want, then come back here when you figure out how to fit 100 million new cars onto the roads; or how to maintain the interstates as the highway fund diminishes; or maybe figure out how to reverse the trend of population decline in cities.

I would be in complete support of ending the drug war and using that money to pay down the deficit too. But the long term savings from road maintenance wouldn't be had.

I completely support the HSR system. I have talked with friends and family about this a lot in the past several months -- mainly because my wife and I have done a lot of traveling for holidays, breaks and job interviews.

My wife's cousin and her boyfriend took an Amtrak to Colorado (I cannot think of where they left from, I think Chicago). They traveled for $85 on Amtrak. That is awesome. They did have a little longer time on the train than the drive would have been, but not much longer. They were able to travel overnight and not be exhausted by the long drive they would've endured. They could get up, walk around, eat, use the bathroom, and if they wanted to, showered, all without stopping. That is an incredible deal. They would've never been able to do that with driving out, maybe a 15+ hour drive. Heck, my wife and I drove 12 or so hours and spent $85 on gas by the time we got through one state.

I believe if there were a HSR system in the US, even if it were in major areas, we could see some increase in the economy. Heck, if there were a HSR from Cleveland to Columbus to Dayton to Cincinnati, the Ohio economy would see a big change. Here in South Dakota, no one that lives in Sioux Falls likes the drive to Rapid City (and vice versa). If they had a HSR from Sioux Falls to Pierre to Rapid City, you could make a trip to Rapid City in no time. They have high schools here that have to travel to Rapid City from Sioux Falls (a 5.5+ hour drive) for just a single game. Put them on a HSR that can travel from Sioux Falls to Rapid City in an hour and a half or even two hours, that's a huge improvement.

There was a lot of talk in Las Vegas about a HSR to either LA or San Diego. That would turn a 4 or 6 hour trip into a 1 or 2 hour trip. There's a lot of people that would be willing to do that, in my opinion. People in the US have just grown accustomed to being "in control" of their transportation. Doing whatever they want, whenever they want. It is nice. But it is also a lot nicer having more money in the pocket to do whatever you want, whenever you want. Like I said earlier, even if the HSR was just from big areas to other big areas, there would be more travel opportunities and more tourist opportunities people would get involved in.

For whoever said Americans won't live with European density, the economic forces are already making it happen:

http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/durbanism/18756/new-census-numbers-confirm-resurgence-cities

It will only gain momentum in the decade(s) ahead until we reach equilibrium.

OSH;712217 wrote:There was a lot of talk in Las Vegas about a HSR to either LA or San Diego. That would turn a 4 or 6 hour trip into a 1 or 2 hour trip. There's a lot of people that would be willing to do that, in my opinion. People in the US have just grown accustomed to being "in control" of their transportation. Doing whatever they want, whenever they want. It is nice. But it is also a lot nicer having more money in the pocket to do whatever you want, whenever you want. Like I said earlier, even if the HSR was just from big areas to other big areas, there would be more travel opportunities and more tourist opportunities people would get involved in.

I don't think HSR is worth it in the Dakotas as of right now. However some places are perfect.

The biggest advantage with HSR is that you can put the station literally in a downtown setting. It's not like flying into a city and having to sit in traffic for 20+ minutes, you are there and boom you are there. For that reason alone, the economic gains from these projects are huge in terms of property value and taxation income for schools. You want to connect downtowns, not just cities. I want to be able to get on a train in downtown Columbus and be in Toledo's Fifth Third Field in less than like 90 minutes. That'd be incredible, and optimal. With the resurgence in urban living this model will make more economic sense.

The biggest hurdle is that is costs a considerable amount of money and needs to be a private-public partnership, like airports. Too many people are afraid of the government (and have great reason to be that way) or cannot see the immense savings that would happen in a few years after the investment.

Some places are great for HSR. The Texas triangle. Cleveland--Toledo--Chicago. Chicago--St. Louis. St. Louis--Kansas City, Kansas City--Denver. Kansas City--Oklahoma City--Dallas. Miami--Orlando--Jacksonville. Houston--New Orleans. Etc. Etc. If it's flat and the driving time is ~5 hours, HSR is the best option economically when starting funds are equal. Train prices won't skyrocket like plane tickets and gas pump visits though.

41 of Amtrak&#8217;s 44 routes lost money in 2008 with losses ranging from nearly $5 to $462 per passenger depending upon the line.
http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/amtrak/

Tobias Fünke;712287 wrote:For whoever said Americans won't live with European density, the economic forces are already making it happen:

http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/durbanism/18756/new-census-numbers-confirm-resurgence-cities

Not to just attack the source you posted, but 2 things.

1. He cut off areas of cities that had substantial suburban growth such as all of Delaware County in Central Ohio.

2. His map for Central Ohio (Columbus) is 100% opposite of what the dispatch posted

Pick6;712289 wrote:41 of Amtrak&#8217;s 44 routes lost money in 2008 with losses ranging from nearly $5 to $462 per passenger depending upon the line.
http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/amtrak/

Weak. Amtrak is not HSR, or even a streetcar. Amtrak is slow and the biggest losses were on extremely long routes. HSR is designed for regional transportation, and fast. Planes are still the best answer for that sort of travel.

Also HSR wouldn't technically need to make a profit because the economic gains from business and people would be tremendous and outweigh it. Somewhat like a gas station losing money on getting you to fill up, but making a killing once your there in the store.

And lastly, your expressway didn't make any money for the government in 2008 either.

LJ;712309 wrote:Not to just attack the source you posted, but 2 things.

1. He cut off areas of cities that had substantial suburban growth such as all of Delaware County in Central Ohio.

2. His map for Central Ohio (Columbus) is 100% opposite of what the dispatch posted.

I don't mean to insinuate that other areas aren't growing too. The state of Ohio grew by like 1.6% and Columbus grew 10%. That says something. That map you provided is indeed the opposite, but with the Census data, not an estimate, saying it has topped 700,000 (not bigger than Cleveland and Cincinnati combined)...I don't see how that can be true.

Pick6;712289 wrote:41 of Amtrak&#8217;s 44 routes lost money in 2008 with losses ranging from nearly $5 to $462 per passenger depending upon the line.
http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/amtrak/

I've been on the DC-NYC line more times than I can remember (both Acela and the NE express) - I've never been on a train where I had to sit next to a person other than by choice. There simply isn't demand for this monstrous infrastructure project when the future is likely telecommuting. Who the hell is going to take a train from Cleveland to Columbus regularly?

Manhattan Buckeye;712324 wrote:I've been on the DC-NYC line more times than I can remember (both Acela and the NE express) - I've never been on a train where I had to sit next to a person other than by choice. There simply isn't demand for this monstrous infrastructure project when the future is likely telecommuting. Who the hell is going to take a train from Cleveland to Columbus regularly?

That line made ~$150,000,000 in 2008. 7.5 million people rode it. No?

At 200mph, plenty of people would take the train regularly between Columbus and Cleveland.





Still though, that wasn't my initial point. We've turned the issue of getting away from automobiles into a national HSR system debate. That wasn't by goal and shouldn't be the issue. People drive typically to work, so it's primarily a local issue. The train systems I most support are the streetcar models that are typically less than five miles long. Columbus axed the idea in 2006, but it won't go away forever. It is my opinion that streetcar investments will save crumbling downtowns in the rust belt. Simple, efficient, and a fucking magnate for real estate investment. It is happening all over the world and country.

List of Gasoline Companies who DO NOT import oil from the Middle East
Department of Energy

Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 5:08:56 PM by Dallas

WHERE TO BUY YOUR USA-GAS, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW. READ ON--

Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia Just buy from gas companies that don't import their oil from the Saudis.

These companies import Middle Eastern oil:
Shell...........................205,742,000 barrels
Chevron/Texaco.........144,332,000 barrels
Exxon /Mobil...............130,082,000 barrels
Marathon/Speedway...117,740,000 barrels
Amoco..........................62,231,000 barrels

Citgo Gas comes from South America, from a Dictator who hates Americans.

Do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION! (Oil is now $100-$110 a barrel)

Here are some large companies that DO NOT import Middle Eastern oil:
Sunoco................0 barrels
Conoco................0 barrels
Sinclair.................0 barrels
BP/Phillips...........0 barrels
Hess....................0 barrels
ARC0...................0 barrels

Also: Pilot, Flying J, Love's, RaceTrac, Valero.