Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
prices.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754

On May 11, 12:17*am, "Giusi" > wrote:
> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> prices.
>

Because it means we have to pay a lot more money each month. Our gas
has gone up a lot. The prices of food are going up again. The cost of
products are going up. The cost of heating the house in winter has
gone up.

For most of us, we can't cut out a lot of our driving, so that
increased cost is something we must pay. We can shop sales, but costs
of food and products are higher. That means it is harder to pay for
the normal things we must pay for. For some people, that means less
money to spend on fun things. For many people, it means struggling to
pay the regular bills.

For me, it means no profit for my business this year. If I cut back on
cat shows, I will lose the shows for future years. So, I have to keep
going as an investment. Local shows (45 minutes to 1 1/2 hours away)
are still making a small profit since my expenses do not include
hotel. Shows that include hotel are either breaking even or losing
money. Part of it is increased costs. Shows that cost me $40 in gas
now cost me $60 in gas. Most shows cost me more than that now in gas.
That doesn't include the hotel and vendor fees.

But worse, fewer people attend the shows when the gas costs are high
since most people have to travel. It doesn't matter where the show is
located, the vast majority of people have to travel several hours each
way, so they have gas and hotel costs. So, fewer people at shows means
fewer potential customers. And those who do get to the show spent more
to be there, so they have less money to shop. Last weekend, I had $165
in sales. Last year, at the same show, I had over $700 in sales.

It was the same thing in 2008 when the gas was high. Attendance at
shows went way down, and sales dropped. When the gas went back down,
sales went back up.

The cost of gas really affects our whole economy. I don't know why it
is so different in Europe. I would assume that gas prices there would
affect your economy too. I realize you currently pay higher prices
than we do. So, I suppose you just feel we are whining about it. But
it isn't like we are all rich with extra money to burn. Finances are
tight,. The economy sucks right now.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:17:24 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> prices.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
>

<shrug> The article was pretty clear. We have more daily commute
distance to cover than Brits (for instance) do and everybody is
looking for a deal. For instance, I learned yesterday that the
citizens of southern (Bavaria) Germany cross the boarder into Austria
to buy their gas. Why? Because it's cheaper there.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

> ha scritto nel messaggio
...
On May 11, 12:17 am, "Giusi" > wrote:
> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> prices.
>

Because it means we have to pay a lot more money each month. Our gas
has gone up a lot. The prices of food are going up again. The cost of
products are going up. The cost of heating the house in winter has
gone up.

For most of us, we can't cut out a lot of our driving, so that
increased cost is something we must pay. We can shop sales, but costs
of food and products are higher. That means it is harder to pay for
the normal things we must pay for. For some people, that means less
money to spend on fun things. For many people, it means struggling to
pay the regular bills.

For me, it means no profit for my business this year. If I cut back on
cat shows, I will lose the shows for future years. So, I have to keep
going as an investment. Local shows (45 minutes to 1 1/2 hours away)
are still making a small profit since my expenses do not include
hotel. Shows that include hotel are either breaking even or losing
money. Part of it is increased costs. Shows that cost me $40 in gas
now cost me $60 in gas. Most shows cost me more than that now in gas.
That doesn't include the hotel and vendor fees.

But worse, fewer people attend the shows when the gas costs are high
since most people have to travel. It doesn't matter where the show is
located, the vast majority of people have to travel several hours each
way, so they have gas and hotel costs. So, fewer people at shows means
fewer potential customers. And those who do get to the show spent more
to be there, so they have less money to shop. Last weekend, I had $165
in sales. Last year, at the same show, I had over $700 in sales.

It was the same thing in 2008 when the gas was high. Attendance at
shows went way down, and sales dropped. When the gas went back down,
sales went back up.

The cost of gas really affects our whole economy. I don't know why it
is so different in Europe. I would assume that gas prices there would
affect your economy too. I realize you currently pay higher prices
than we do. So, I suppose you just feel we are whining about it. But
it isn't like we are all rich with extra money to burn. Finances are
tight,. The economy sucks right now.

Please. How is that different from any other country in the world? Other
than, arguably, a country whose only product is petroleum?

"sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
"Giusi" >
> wrote:
>
>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
>> prices.
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
>>
>
> <shrug> The article was pretty clear. We have more daily commute
> distance to cover than Brits (for instance) do and everybody is
> looking for a deal. For instance, I learned yesterday that the
> citizens of southern (Bavaria) Germany cross the boarder into Austria
> to buy their gas. Why? Because it's cheaper there.

My closest British friend commutes 1.25 hours each way to London. He reads
and studies on the train.

"Giusi" > wrote in message
...
>
> "sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> "Giusi" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
>>> prices.
>>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
>>>
>>
>> <shrug> The article was pretty clear. We have more daily commute
>> distance to cover than Brits (for instance) do and everybody is
>> looking for a deal. For instance, I learned yesterday that the
>> citizens of southern (Bavaria) Germany cross the boarder into Austria
>> to buy their gas. Why? Because it's cheaper there.
>
> My closest British friend commutes 1.25 hours each way to London. He
> reads and studies on the train.

Ah... Train! Something we don't have here! Yes some big cities have
things like that. But not here. If you don't live in the city proper
(Seattle) you are pretty much screwed if you need public transportation. In
some areas you can take a bus and get to the city and back. But in some
cases there is no bus on Sunday and if you are taking a bus after hours,
forget it.

"Julie Bove" > ha scritto nel messaggio >
>> "Giusi" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
>>>> prices.
>>>>
>> My closest British friend commutes 1.25 hours each way to London. He
>> reads and studies on the train.
>
> Ah... Train! Something we don't have here! Yes some big cities have
> things like that. But not here. If you don't live in the city proper
> (Seattle) you are pretty much screwed if you need public transportation.
> In some areas you can take a bus and get to the city and back. But in
> some cases there is no bus on Sunday and if you are taking a bus after
> hours, forget it.

Then it may be time to do something to correct those problems. We once had
all the public transport other countries have, but we ripped it out in favor
of cars, ever bigger, that use too much energy for the modern situation. It
can't last forever, right? So spend the money to fix the situation which
will also goose the economy.

"Giusi" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Julie Bove" > ha scritto nel messaggio >
>>> "Giusi" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
>>>>> prices.
>>>>>
>>> My closest British friend commutes 1.25 hours each way to London. He
>>> reads and studies on the train.
>>
>> Ah... Train! Something we don't have here! Yes some big cities have
>> things like that. But not here. If you don't live in the city proper
>> (Seattle) you are pretty much screwed if you need public transportation.
>> In some areas you can take a bus and get to the city and back. But in
>> some cases there is no bus on Sunday and if you are taking a bus after
>> hours, forget it.
>
> Then it may be time to do something to correct those problems. We once
> had all the public transport other countries have, but we ripped it out in
> favor of cars, ever bigger, that use too much energy for the modern
> situation. It can't last forever, right? So spend the money to fix the
> situation which will also goose the economy.

I don't see how we possibly could. It's just not feasible. The way the
streets are laid out here, people are just too spread out. Many of our
cities here are hurting financially. They can ill afford to do needed road
repairs. Putting in a transit system is certainly not in the budget.

BTW, I am not one of those Americans you claim is bitching. I might
complain about some things but the price of gas isn't one of them. I figure
there's just not anything I can do. We all have to pay it. Yes, I do think
twice before I drive anywhere. I do try to combine trips to various places.
And I do stay at the dance studio sometimes when I'd rather go home after
dropping my daughter off. But I don't go around bitching about the price of
gas. Actually I only really know of one person who does bitch about it. He
lives in Chicago and I only know him online.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:48:05 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

> Please. How is that different from any other country in the world? Other
> than, arguably, a country whose only product is petroleum?

You brought up the subject as if we're not hurting too.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:49:22 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

> My closest British friend commutes 1.25 hours each way to London. He reads
> and studies on the train.

So your friend commutes by train to London. To my knowledge, the best
places for train commuting in the US are on the East Coast (the NYC
bridge and tunnel crowd) and for those who take CalTrain or BART into
San Francisco. I understand Chicago has a good commute train system
too, but I know nothing about it. Since this seems to be a score
thing, it makes three for us and one for them.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Giusi" > wrote
>>
>> Ah... Train! Something we don't have here! Yes some big cities have
>> things like that. But not here. If you don't live in the city proper
>> (Seattle) you are pretty much screwed if you need public transportation.
>> In some areas you can take a bus and get to the city and back. But in
>> some cases there is no bus on Sunday and if you are taking a bus after
>> hours, forget it.
>
> Then it may be time to do something to correct those problems. We once
> had all the public transport other countries have, but we ripped it out in
> favor of cars, ever bigger, that use too much energy for the modern
> situation. It can't last forever, right? So spend the money to fix the
> situation which will also goose the economy.
>
>

If is was only so simple. The way our country has grown in the past 50
years, it is probably impossible to build a sensible train line now.
Perhaps over 25 to 50 years, you could fix some of the problem, but not all.
One end is easier. You can put in a commuter line to the cities and build
stations (collection points) so you can drive a few miles to them and train
to the city. The problem comes in the other sectors with industrial parks
sprawled out over many miles and not enough people to every justify a rail
line.

There are some lines being revived, and busways being built, but it is not
enough to make drastic reductions in driving.

Carpools help too, but they have not taken off as you'd expect. One reason
is practicality, but a big reason is people don't want to give up their
independence, no matter how inefficient.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:48:05 +0200, "Giusi" >
> wrote:
>
>> Please. How is that different from any other country in the world?
>> Other
>> than, arguably, a country whose only product is petroleum?
>
> You brought up the subject as if we're not hurting too.

That's true.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:49:22 +0200, "Giusi" >
> wrote:
>
>> My closest British friend commutes 1.25 hours each way to London. He
>> reads
>> and studies on the train.
>
> So your friend commutes by train to London. To my knowledge, the best
> places for train commuting in the US are on the East Coast (the NYC
> bridge and tunnel crowd) and for those who take CalTrain or BART into
> San Francisco. I understand Chicago has a good commute train system
> too, but I know nothing about it. Since this seems to be a score
> thing, it makes three for us and one for them.

That's true but a great many people like me, live in the suburbs. There is
no way we could have a train system to the suburbs. Could you imagine what
it would look like if we did? I can't even imagine where they would put it.

You can get a bus here if you are able to walk to where the bus is. It's
several blocks from my house. There is one bus that runs limited hours and
days and goes to near my parent's house in Edmonds. And another that goes
to downtown Seattle. My husband used to take that when he was working
there. But again, I believe it is limited days and hours.

The people I know who do not drive are very limited as to where they can
work and live. They pretty much must be on a bus route or live in an area
where their job is within walking distance and they can get most of the
services they need by walking or by bus. Otherwise they must depend on
someone to give them a ride. The woman who owned this house before us had
to sell it because she did not drive. When she bought it she assumed she
was on a bus route. Well not really. There were a couple of options but
not to where she needed to go.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Giusi" > wrote
>>>
>>> Ah... Train! Something we don't have here! Yes some big cities have
>>> things like that. But not here. If you don't live in the city proper
>>> (Seattle) you are pretty much screwed if you need public transportation.
>>> In some areas you can take a bus and get to the city and back. But in
>>> some cases there is no bus on Sunday and if you are taking a bus after
>>> hours, forget it.
>>
>> Then it may be time to do something to correct those problems. We once
>> had all the public transport other countries have, but we ripped it out
>> in favor of cars, ever bigger, that use too much energy for the modern
>> situation. It can't last forever, right? So spend the money to fix the
>> situation which will also goose the economy.
>>
>>
>
> If is was only so simple. The way our country has grown in the past 50
> years, it is probably impossible to build a sensible train line now.
> Perhaps over 25 to 50 years, you could fix some of the problem, but not
> all. One end is easier. You can put in a commuter line to the cities and
> build stations (collection points) so you can drive a few miles to them
> and train to the city. The problem comes in the other sectors with
> industrial parks sprawled out over many miles and not enough people to
> every justify a rail line.
>
> There are some lines being revived, and busways being built, but it is not
> enough to make drastic reductions in driving.
>
> Carpools help too, but they have not taken off as you'd expect. One
> reason is practicality, but a big reason is people don't want to give up
> their independence, no matter how inefficient.

In this area we have something called Vanpool. I don't know all of the
particulars. My husband did it for a while as did my dad. The problem?
Finding enough people who lived close enough together to warrant it and
those people also needed to be going to the same place of business and be
working pretty much the same hours. That doesn't happen very often. Also
one person has to be in charge of the van and people generally just don't
want to do that.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:28:33 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>
> "Julie Bove" > ha scritto nel messaggio >
> >> "Giusi" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> >>>> prices.
> >>>>
> >> My closest British friend commutes 1.25 hours each way to London. He
> >> reads and studies on the train.
> >
> > Ah... Train! Something we don't have here! Yes some big cities have
> > things like that. But not here. If you don't live in the city proper
> > (Seattle) you are pretty much screwed if you need public transportation.
> > In some areas you can take a bus and get to the city and back. But in
> > some cases there is no bus on Sunday and if you are taking a bus after
> > hours, forget it.
>
> Then it may be time to do something to correct those problems. We once had
> all the public transport other countries have, but we ripped it out in favor
> of cars, ever bigger, that use too much energy for the modern situation. It
> can't last forever, right? So spend the money to fix the situation which
> will also goose the economy.
>

Passenger service was dropped in favor of more profitable and less
vocal goods that can sit on a side track for days and not complain. I
imagine that better passenger service will resume if our government
ever thinks it's worthwhile to subsidize at the same rate European
governments subsidize their passenger service.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Giusi" > wrote:

>Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
>prices.
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
>

We love our cars. We like 'em big, fast, and cheap.

I love when the newsdroids interview someone at the pump whining about
the price of gas, then they back up and the wide shot shows that they
are all alone, driving a 4mile per gallon guzzler.

Our problem is, that when gas went to $2 a gallon in the 70's, the PTB
allowed them to go back down to below $1. Our cars got bigger in a
hurry- we took gas for granted- and we're right back there again.

I want sustained $5/gallon gas & maybe we'll all get off our asses and
come up with a better solution. [well, I'd settle for $4]

Jim

On 5/11/2011 7:22 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
>> prices.
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
>>
>
> We love our cars. We like 'em big, fast, and cheap.
>
> I love when the newsdroids interview someone at the pump whining about
> the price of gas, then they back up and the wide shot shows that they
> are all alone, driving a 4mile per gallon guzzler.

But really I need my 4 ton fluffed up truck with 89,000 lbs towing
capacity, 16 cup holders, 4 DVD players and a 7l V8 to haul myself and a
large beverage around...


>
> Our problem is, that when gas went to $2 a gallon in the 70's, the PTB
> allowed them to go back down to below $1. Our cars got bigger in a
> hurry- we took gas for granted- and we're right back there again.
>
> I want sustained $5/gallon gas& maybe we'll all get off our asses and
> come up with a better solution. [well, I'd settle for $4]
>
> Jim

"sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
"Giusi" >
> wrote:
>
>> Please. How is that different from any other country in the world?
>> Other
>> than, arguably, a country whose only product is petroleum?
>
> You brought up the subject as if we're not hurting too.

I posted a link to a news story. But I gotta say, Americans whine about gas
prices that are half what everyone else pays. Is anyone happy with this last
round? Of course not. But it does sound strange to have the people who pay
the least complain the most.

"Jim Elbrecht" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> "Giusi" > wrote:
>
>>Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
>> >>prices.
>
> We love our cars. We like 'em big, fast, and cheap.
>
> I love when the newsdroids interview someone at the pump whining about
> the price of gas, then they back up and the wide shot shows that they
> are all alone, driving a 4mile per gallon guzzler.
>
> Our problem is, that when gas went to $2 a gallon in the 70's, the PTB
> allowed them to go back down to below $1. Our cars got bigger in a
> hurry- we took gas for granted- and we're right back there again.
>
> I want sustained $5/gallon gas & maybe we'll all get off our asses and
> come up with a better solution. [well, I'd settle for $4]

There is never a better time than now to get going on solutions. 1973 would
have been ideal, when we were lined up in the streets to buy gas. 38 years
later, the situation is worse and still nada.

George > wrote:

>On 5/11/2011 7:22 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
>>> prices.
>>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
>>>
>>
>> We love our cars. We like 'em big, fast, and cheap.
>>
>> I love when the newsdroids interview someone at the pump whining about
>> the price of gas, then they back up and the wide shot shows that they
>> are all alone, driving a 4mile per gallon guzzler.
>
>But really I need my 4 ton fluffed up truck with 89,000 lbs towing
>capacity, 16 cup holders, 4 DVD players and a 7l V8 to haul myself and a
>large beverage around...

You're right. I was just thinking about passengers-- not 'Big Gulps'.
Mea culpa.

Jim

On 5/11/2011 6:08 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Giusi" > wrote
>>>
>>> Ah... Train! Something we don't have here! Yes some big cities have
>>> things like that. But not here. If you don't live in the city proper
>>> (Seattle) you are pretty much screwed if you need public
>>> transportation. In some areas you can take a bus and get to the city
>>> and back. But in some cases there is no bus on Sunday and if you are
>>> taking a bus after hours, forget it.
>>
>> Then it may be time to do something to correct those problems. We once
>> had all the public transport other countries have, but we ripped it
>> out in favor of cars, ever bigger, that use too much energy for the
>> modern situation. It can't last forever, right? So spend the money to
>> fix the situation which will also goose the economy.
>>
>>
>
> If is was only so simple. The way our country has grown in the past 50
> years, it is probably impossible to build a sensible train line now.
> Perhaps over 25 to 50 years, you could fix some of the problem, but not
> all. One end is easier. You can put in a commuter line to the cities and
> build stations (collection points) so you can drive a few miles to them
> and train to the city. The problem comes in the other sectors with
> industrial parks sprawled out over many miles and not enough people to
> every justify a rail line.
>
> There are some lines being revived, and busways being built, but it is
> not enough to make drastic reductions in driving.
>
> Carpools help too, but they have not taken off as you'd expect. One
> reason is practicality, but a big reason is people don't want to give up
> their independence, no matter how inefficient.
>
>
>
But simple stuff adds up too. Just came back from walking the dog and
there is a fitness place in a nearby strip. As usual there were multiple
single occupant SUVs dueling in front of the place to try to park as
close as possible.

We ride our bikes for exercise.

One of the problems with car pools is you need a place to park. PennDOT
recently built two huge lots in my area expressly for car poolers and
often the lots are filled.


I worked at a place for close to 15 years and carpooled almost every day
with two other folks who worked in my office. Its just a matter of
common sense. Having an extra $5,000 in my pocket to do what I want
instead of buying gas, tires etc is also independence.


Some of the happiest couples I know are college friends who live and
work in big cities. They raise families and enjoy life. They don't even
own cars. Some of the unhappiest former couples I know are the ones who
decided they could never live in a city and needed the huge house in the
country so they commuted 5 hours/day.

Often we are like goldfish. We just keep on growing into whatever space
is available.

sf wrote:

> Passenger service was dropped in favor of more profitable and less
> vocal goods that can sit on a side track for days and not complain. I
> imagine that better passenger service will resume if our government
> ever thinks it's worthwhile to subsidize at the same rate European
> governments subsidize their passenger service.

I can drive to the city and park my car for the day at Port Authority
for the cost of two people taking the train from here. Expensive,
and they're still struggling to avoid fare hikes. The trains are full
during rush hour, it's not as if people don't patronize it.

I don't understand why all these people are going to Europe and
complaining about gas prices here.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
>
> I don't understand why all these people are going to Europe and
> complaining about gas prices here.
>
> nancy

Neither do I. Take a look:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...809900,00.html

Dora

Dora wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>> I don't understand why all these people are going to Europe and
>> complaining about gas prices here.

> Neither do I. Take a look:
>
> http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...809900,00.html

Ah! I see, it's the taxes there causing a great deal of the pain,
I wondered why they paid so much more. Hey, that free medical
care has to be paid for somehow. And it would appear not everyone
is taking the train there, either, or they wouldn't be screaming about
the price of gas.

nancy

On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:49:35 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>
>"Jim Elbrecht" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>> "Giusi" > wrote:
>>
>>>Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
>>> >>prices.
>>
>> We love our cars. We like 'em big, fast, and cheap.
>>
>> I love when the newsdroids interview someone at the pump whining about
>> the price of gas, then they back up and the wide shot shows that they
>> are all alone, driving a 4mile per gallon guzzler.
>>
>> Our problem is, that when gas went to $2 a gallon in the 70's, the PTB
>> allowed them to go back down to below $1. Our cars got bigger in a
>> hurry- we took gas for granted- and we're right back there again.
>>
>> I want sustained $5/gallon gas & maybe we'll all get off our asses and
>> come up with a better solution. [well, I'd settle for $4]
>
>There is never a better time than now to get going on solutions. 1973 would
>have been ideal, when we were lined up in the streets to buy gas. 38 years
>later, the situation is worse and still nada.


Using petrol miserly is not the answer, ergo mass transit is a total
waste of resources, it's much too late to build transportation systems
that rely on fossil fuel.... petrol can only be stretched so far but
eventually it will run out, for everyone... were're almost there, our
children will see the bottom of the barrel. Research needs funding to
better develop non-fossil fuel energy sources... we have the
technology, just need to quit being so near sighted and stop
reinventing the wheel.

"Nancy Young"

> I don't understand why all these people are going to Europe and
> complaining about gas prices here.
> nancy

Who would that be?

Giusi wrote:
> "Nancy Young"
>
>> I don't understand why all these people are going to Europe and
>> complaining about gas prices here.

> Who would that be?

Just commenting on the people you mentioned wondering
why we're irked about gas prices; while I can see reporting
on the cost increase here, I don't see the newsworthiness of
reporting how people feel about it.

nancy

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> I am in a bit of a bind about grass mowing. I have more than an acre of
> lawn to cut. I could let it grow longer and cut it less often.

You could get some goats.

On 11/05/2011 3:49 AM, sf wrote:

> <shrug> The article was pretty clear. We have more daily commute
> distance to cover than Brits (for instance) do and everybody is
> looking for a deal. For instance, I learned yesterday that the
> citizens of southern (Bavaria) Germany cross the boarder into Austria
> to buy their gas. Why? Because it's cheaper there.

I could cross the border to get cheaper gas too. It is mush easier for
Germans to scoot into Austria and back that it is for Canadians to go
into the US. First of all, they have open land borders. You have to
keep your eyes open to know when you cross the border. I have to pay a
$3 toll to cross a bridge and then wait in line for 15 minutes to an
hour or more to get hassled by some power tripper in a uniform who
thinks I may be an Arab terrorist but who can't discriminate so he has
to hassle everyone. Between the 40 mile return trip, the tolls, the
time wasted and the gasoline burned while idling at the border..... not
winning strategy.

On 2011-05-11, Jim Elbrecht > wrote:

> We love our cars. We like 'em big, fast, and cheap.

Nonsese. I've driven everything from tuna-boats to rollerskates and
I'll take a small car. Besides, cars in the US havne't been "cheap"
in over 20 yrs. A full size P/U or SUV cost more than a home, here.

> hurry- we took gas for granted- and we're right back there again.

It's the auto and petro industry screwing with us. We had gas
efficient cars. We had BIG cars that were gas efficient. My ol'
girlfriend's Cadillac DeVille got 24 mpg! So did my full size Ford
van. My Lincoln Mk IV pimpmobile with a 460 CID V8 got 18 mpg. These
roadhogs like the Ford Incursion and Exhibition get crappy mileage cuz
they're designed to get crappy mileage. Even the little cars now get
fer-crap mileage. My old Honda Civic h/b got 38 mpg. It was still
getting 34 mpg when I sold it with 250K miles on it. Now, brand new
Civics barely get 30 mpg. We're being jerked around.

nb

On May 11, 3:17*am, "Giusi" > wrote:
> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> prices.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754

Because prices have doubled in a short time.

Because our public transportation system is woefully inadequate,
having been deliberately gutted by the automobile and gasoline
industries.

Because the high price, rather than supporting public services such as
medical care and infrastructure through taxes, simply augments the
profits of oil companies.

Because the distances we travel are nearly unimaginable to most
Europeans. One-way commutes to work of 100 kilometers are not the
norm, but not unusual, either. I drive 250 Km to visit my daughter's
family. That is considered "nearby". When I visited friends last
summer, I drove 1900 Km, just over half way across the country. Once,
in Utah, I asked a tourist from Germany what most impressed him about
the USA. He threw his arms wide and said, "The extent!"

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can
get.
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

> wrote in message
...
> On May 11, 12:17 am, "Giusi" > wrote:
>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
>> prices.
>>
>
> Because it means we have to pay a lot more money each month. Our gas
> has gone up a lot. The prices of food are going up again. The cost of
> products are going up. The cost of heating the house in winter has
> gone up.
>
All the more reason to drive an economy car. I seem to remember after the
"gas crisis" of the 1970's the focus was on smaller economy cars. Now all I
see Americans driving are weird modified Hummers (since when did driving
what was designed as a military vehicle popular?) and huge "mini vans" (I
use the word "mini" lightly) with seating for 8. Um, excuse me? And since
when did pickup trucks need back seats and 5 doors? Pickup trucks used to
be work vehicles.

> For most of us, we can't cut out a lot of our driving, so that
> increased cost is something we must pay. We can shop sales, but costs
> of food and products are higher. That means it is harder to pay for
> the normal things we must pay for. For some people, that means less
> money to spend on fun things. For many people, it means struggling to
> pay the regular bills.
>
I live 25 miles from the nearest grocery store. I can shop for a few things
closer to home, at local vegetable stands. But to get most staples I have
to drive 25 miles and that means the price of gas definitely does affect
everything.

> For me, it means no profit for my business this year. If I cut back on
> cat shows, I will lose the shows for future years.

Cat shows?

Jill

On 5/11/2011 10:11 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2011-05-11, > wrote:
>
>> imagine that better passenger service will resume if our government
>> ever thinks it's worthwhile to subsidize at the same rate European
>> governments subsidize their passenger service.
>
> We don't. Shrub almost completely destroyed Amtrak by reducing
> subsidies year after year While increasing and bailing out airlines,
> repeatedly. Regardless, I'll take the train over a plane every time!
>
> nb

I would take the Acela train to New York from DC tho' it is slow by
European standards. Overall, it is probably faster than flying.

They could pick up more passengers if they stopped at a suburban station
with long term parking. It is a bit of a time consuming pain to park at
stations on the Metro system and take a train to the Amtrak station,
even if I have to, more or less, do that for a plane or else take an
expensive taxi to the airport.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not*

On Wed, 11 May 2011 15:12:04 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >, Brooklyn1 says...
>>
>> Using petrol miserly is not the answer, ergo mass transit is a total
>> waste of resources, it's much too late to build transportation systems
>> that rely on fossil fuel....
>
> So why not have electric trains and trams like other countries? Use
>renewables to generate the power to run the trains.

Electric is either generated with fossil fuels or very risky nuclear
ie. Japan. So electric/hybrid autos are not the answer.

On 5/11/2011 10:29 AM, Andy wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> In >,
>> says...
>>>
>>> That's true but a great many people like me, live in the suburbs.
>>> There is no way we could have a train system to the suburbs. Could
>>> you imagine what it would look like if we did?
>>
>> Just like suburban trains in Europe? Where they are still building
>> new
>> trainlines and tramways in and through urban areas.
>>
>> If you don't like them aboveground, or have no space, why not build
>> them underground, or on an overhead rail.
>>
>> Janet
>
>
> How to build transportation is a difficult endeavor.
>
> The electric trolley/trains all over the world with above ground wires
> connections are ultra-convenient with the drawback of ugliness of wires
> overhead in the streets.
>
> The Euro high speed rails I've traveled can't be beat. Although they do
> cut ordinary real estate travel in spots.
>
> Auto travel, like the high speed autobahn, while a wonderful success at
> one time, is now as traffic congested as slow roads.
>
> Airmobiles are the future way to go. Trouble with that is how to avoid
> angular air traffic congestion when coming and going into wide open
> airstreams.
>
> We aren't there yet but the concept has great future potential!

When I first came to Washington there were trolleys (trams) with
underground third rail connectors but the city was persuaded that buses
would be an improvement (and make a real estate fortune from the car
yards for O. Roy Chalk.)
--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not*

On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:16:13 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 11/05/2011 3:44 AM, wrote:
>
>> For most of us, we can't cut out a lot of our driving, so that
>> increased cost is something we must pay. We can shop sales, but costs
>> of food and products are higher. That means it is harder to pay for
>> the normal things we must pay for. For some people, that means less
>> money to spend on fun things. For many people, it means struggling to
>> pay the regular bills.
>
>Mot of us? A lot of us can.
>I was in the gym locker room a while back and someone was chastising
>another member for having flown out to BC for a wedding and complaining
>how such trips are no sustainable. Ironically, the complainer lives less
>than a mile from the gym and drives to there for his workout. He could
>walk or bicycle, but he chooses to drive. Not only does it seem to me to
>be a lazy way to get to the gym for exercise, but it is less sustainable
>than flying across the country for a vacation that involves a wedding.

He may drive because he has to travel elsewhere after his workout...
many go to gyms before going to their place of employment, that's why
so many gyms open at 5 AM. My neighbor is an OR nurse, she drives the
short distance to the YMCA prior to beginning her shift at the
hospital, that is a 20 mile drive. Years ago in Calif. I bicycled to
the Jack LaLaine gym until one day an old Pasadena biddy turned into
a parking lot but first ran into me, over her car I flew and
fortunately I received only a few bruises and needed stitches on my
shin, my bicycle was not so lucky, it went under her car... she never
even stopped, she swore she didn't hit anything... moral is bicycling
on city roads is not very safe, rural roads are far more dangerous
(hillybillys don't drive under the speed limit and can't drive without
guzzling beer). Unless there is a prescribed bicycle path I don't
recommend peddling.

Giusi wrote:
>
> "Julie Bove" > ha scritto nel messaggio >
> >> "Giusi" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> >>>> prices.
> >>>>
> >> My closest British friend commutes 1.25 hours each way to London. He
> >> reads and studies on the train.
> >
> > Ah... Train! Something we don't have here! Yes some big cities have
> > things like that. But not here. If you don't live in the city proper
> > (Seattle) you are pretty much screwed if you need public transportation.
> > In some areas you can take a bus and get to the city and back. But in
> > some cases there is no bus on Sunday and if you are taking a bus after
> > hours, forget it.
>
> Then it may be time to do something to correct those problems. We once had
> all the public transport other countries have, but we ripped it out in favor
> of cars, ever bigger, that use too much energy for the modern situation. It
> can't last forever, right? So spend the money to fix the situation which
> will also goose the economy.

Public transit is only viable in high population density areas like much
of Europe. The US most certainly does have public transit, and it is in
the same type of area in the US as it is in Europe. It is the vast areas
of the US that do not have high population densities where public
transit is simply not viable.

Spending huge amounts of money to expand public transit outside it's
viable areas in the US will not in any way help the economy. Such an ill
conceived expansion will require fares that are higher than people can
commute privately for and/or massive subsidies that will drag the
economy down. Further, most people will still have to drive a some
distance to get to a public transit station, requiring significant
parking availability at those stations and security, while making a
small impact on commuting miles.

What the US does need to do is put greater emphasis on is telecommuting.
There are still a huge number of people who commute long distances to do
work that they could readily do from home. This has by far the most
benefit since it eliminates moving people, rather than trying to
consolidate moving people from disparate areas to disparate areas on a
train or bus. I've worked from home full time for 7+ years.

Certainly not everyone can telecommute, but a pretty high percentage of
people could. For those that can not telecommute, rather than taxing the
entire population to build and subsidize an inefficient public transit
system that only a small percentage of the population can utilize, it
would be better for large employers to operate company shuttles which at
least have the efficiency benefit of having a single location at one end
of the route.

Janet wrote:
>
> In article >, says...
> >
> > "Giusi" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> > Then it may be time to do something to correct those problems. We
> once
> > > had all the public transport other countries have, but we ripped it out in
> > > favor of cars, ever bigger, that use too much energy for the modern
> > > situation. It can't last forever, right? So spend the money to fix the
> > > situation which will also goose the economy.
> >
> > I don't see how we possibly could. It's just not feasible. The way the
> > streets are laid out here, people are just too spread out.
>
> Works in London, Paris, Tokyo.

Some of the highest population density areas in the world. Certainly not
comparable to 90%+ of the US. The US cities that do have high population
densities do have public transit, for the rest of the US public transit
will never be viable.

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2011-05-11, Jim Elbrecht > wrote:
>
>> We love our cars. We like 'em big, fast, and cheap.
>
> Nonsese. I've driven everything from tuna-boats to rollerskates and
> I'll take a small car. Besides, cars in the US havne't been "cheap"
> in over 20 yrs. A full size P/U or SUV cost more than a home, here.
>
>> hurry- we took gas for granted- and we're right back there again.
>
> It's the auto and petro industry screwing with us. We had gas
> efficient cars. We had BIG cars that were gas efficient. My ol'
> girlfriend's Cadillac DeVille got 24 mpg! So did my full size Ford
> van. My Lincoln Mk IV pimpmobile with a 460 CID V8 got 18 mpg. These
> roadhogs like the Ford Incursion and Exhibition get crappy mileage cuz
> they're designed to get crappy mileage. Even the little cars now get
> fer-crap mileage. My old Honda Civic h/b got 38 mpg. It was still
> getting 34 mpg when I sold it with 250K miles on it. Now, brand new
> Civics barely get 30 mpg. We're being jerked around.


Cars have to meet CAFE standards. The trend since Bush 1 was installed saw
those standards loosened to a large degree. Now just the mention of raising
it so much as 1 mile per gallon and the auto industry has conniption fits
and republicans donning tri-corner hats and screaming tyranny. But left to
their own devices consumers do create markets for high mileage vehicles.
But they also demand performance. So Honda et al design cards with small
engines but high horsepower. Getting 300 HP out of a 1.8 CI 4 banger is no
small feet. The tradeoff is fuel economy. I very well remember the old
Honda Civic line; very reliable, economical and durable. But the
performance was something along the lines of a garbage truck. The new ones
are very quick and nimble. You cannot have both worlds. There is a
tradeoff. People love performance and are willing to accept lower mileage.

If you really want to place blame on gas prices look no further than Wall
Street and their commodities trading. Oil companies do not set p[rices,
traders set prices. The CFTC no longer limits trading positions to 5% like
they used to. It is now unlimited and Golmine Sachs and company have as
much as 95% of their trading in oil alone. The result being that WS can
control most of the world's oil prices because they can buy up all the
futures options in one massive contract. Until they once again regulate the
futures market you will never see gas prices much lower than they are now.

Paul

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Giusi" > wrote
> >>
> >> Ah... Train! Something we don't have here! Yes some big cities have
> >> things like that. But not here. If you don't live in the city proper
> >> (Seattle) you are pretty much screwed if you need public transportation.
> >> In some areas you can take a bus and get to the city and back. But in
> >> some cases there is no bus on Sunday and if you are taking a bus after
> >> hours, forget it.
> >
> > Then it may be time to do something to correct those problems. We once
> > had all the public transport other countries have, but we ripped it out in
> > favor of cars, ever bigger, that use too much energy for the modern
> > situation. It can't last forever, right? So spend the money to fix the
> > situation which will also goose the economy.
> >
> >
>
> If is was only so simple. The way our country has grown in the past 50
> years, it is probably impossible to build a sensible train line now.
> Perhaps over 25 to 50 years, you could fix some of the problem, but not all.
> One end is easier. You can put in a commuter line to the cities and build
> stations (collection points) so you can drive a few miles to them and train
> to the city. The problem comes in the other sectors with industrial parks
> sprawled out over many miles and not enough people to every justify a rail
> line.
>
> There are some lines being revived, and busways being built, but it is not
> enough to make drastic reductions in driving.
>
> Carpools help too, but they have not taken off as you'd expect. One reason
> is practicality, but a big reason is people don't want to give up their
> independence, no matter how inefficient.
>
>

Carpools and vanpools have the significant drawback that they are only
viable for those who live very simple lives - get up, go to work, go
home, go to sleep - for 95% of the population it's more like - get up,
go to work, get out of work early or get stuck at work late, go
shopping, go to entertainment, kids activities, etc. and eventually go
home. This is why carpools and vanpools will never be more than a tiny
percentage of commuting.

The same issue applies to busses and trains as well to a lesser extent.
If the busses or trains run frequently enough to be convenient for the
bulk of the population who has variable schedules, then they operate at
a huge loss with few riders on any given run. If they operate
infrequently enough to build ridership and improve efficiency then they
are too inconvenient and people will defer to using their own vehicle
rather than waste an hour waiting for the next bus/train.

Further, when a person's activities require transporting more than a
couple bags, be it luggage, sports gear, groceries or general shopping,
people will again defer to their own vehicle rather than try to manage
such cargo on public transit. For nearly anyone in a single family
house, the cargo needs nearly always exceed what public transit can
handle so public transit can never be viable for anything but work
commuting, and again with the scheduling issues it often isn't viable
for that either.