# Ridiculous Gas Prices



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Well, here in Halifax, Nova Scotia, gas prices have hit $1.20 per liter. Unbelievable. Prices so high have kept my Mazda3 locked in its garage unless required for a good reason. If prices stay at their current rates - or higher - I'm going to be one mad camper this summer.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

This is why I love bussing to work. Costs me $60/month and takes 20-30 minutes to get to work and offers me some quiet time to read before/after work. Using the car only on the weekends makes life affordable.


----------



## Jeepdude (Mar 3, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> This is why I love bussing to work. Costs me $60/month and takes 20-30 minutes to get to work and offers me some quiet time to read before/after work. Using the car only on the weekends makes life affordable.


You're fortunate that you have adequate transit you can rely on. The GO train doesn't GO anywhere near work for me...makes driving the only alternative. Wish I knew someone to carpool with...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The prices WILL encourage density along major transit corridors. 'Course the speculators know that too


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

High gas prices are good. Increased public transit use. Lower emissions. Move toward major centre density vs urban sprawl. All good for the environment.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RicktheChemist said:


> Long live the Montreal metro


Overcrowded, smelly and prone to frequent delays...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Overcrowded, smelly and prone to frequent delays...


Tell me about it... I hate taking the Skytrain... Hopefully I don't snap one day...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Jeepdude said:


> You're fortunate that you have adequate transit you can rely on. The GO train doesn't GO anywhere near work for me...makes driving the only alternative. Wish I knew someone to carpool with...


You gotta love the mileage on your Jeep. I get about 6.6 km per litre on mine.  

My options for commuting are:

1. Driving (40 minutes door to door + $12 parking + gas)
2. Skytrain (35 minutes door to door -> $4.50 a day)
3. Motorbiking (30 minutes door to door  + $12 parking + gas)

The thing that sucks about my bike, is that in Vancouver you pay the same price for parking as a car, and yet some places won't even let you park in the garages. The City own't let you park on the street for free, but they should encourage it to cut down on gas use and to free up space on the road. I have no incentive to take my bike. I have to dress professionally, so all things being equal I will take my car before my bike. If I could park for free on my bike, I would do that instead. Toronto gets it, why doesn't Vancouver?tptptptp


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Hopefully I don't snap one day...


That's my fear also


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I suppose the City is going to have to start giving out parking tickets to Mopeds
and Scooters that park on the sidewalk again, Guess they'll need to recoup lost
revenue from less cars commuting to downtown Toronto.

D


----------



## LaurieR (Feb 9, 2006)

A lot of you are probably going to disagree with me but...
I think it's great! And I drive 230 km most days.

I look at my car as a luxury item and I am well aware that there are plenty of people who manage just fine without one (or two). If it makes people consider alternative forms of energy, then I say let the prices soar! And apparently, many people are reconsidering buying SUVs which can only be a good thing.

I do, however, feel for cab drivers and others who pay for their own gas for the sake of their livelihood. There should be some kind of break for them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dave I thought there already WAS a break for motorcycle parking in Toronto.
••

High prices - the independent truckers really get killed as they are paid by the mile. 

Individuals - hey it's peanuts compared to Tim Horton or Starbucks  expenditures and can be offset with more efficient driving, tuneups, tire pressure etc.

Taxis etc I think should be mandated on alternative fuels and gov supported in that and get the speculators in medallions out of the picture.

Personally I find diesel buses a very distressing part of urban living and would gladly see cleaner, quieter alternatives Some form of EEStor system and a high tech diesel might be in the works as regenerative braking is obvious for a bus and the electrics offer better quieter take off torque as subways demonstrate.

I'm actually looking forward to more alternatives and if it takes the $$ factor to drive it so be it.
I see what we get on the computer side -- way more for less money even tho it was costly at the being of the "revolution".
Now it's incredible for the money.

Perhaps energy and transport is in that early zone with amazing things to come.
Hey running out of batteries in a flashlight is almost a thing of the past already thanks to LED and hand regenerators.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

LaurieR said:


> A lot of you are probably going to disagree with me but...
> I think it's great! And I drive 230 km most days.


I guess your employers pays for the petrol?


----------



## LaurieR (Feb 9, 2006)

Nope. I pay for it.
Thank goodness we bought a Honda Civic.



ArtistSeries said:


> I guess your employers pays for the petrol?


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Personally I find diesel buses a very distressing part of urban living and would gladly see cleaner, quieter alternatives Some form of EEStor system and a high tech diesel might be in the works as regenerative braking is obvious for a bus and the electrics offer better quieter take off torque as subways demonstrate.


[rant]Bring back the trolleys! When the TTC decided to go big on streetcars, the trolleys died. Trolleys had the advantage of not requiring a dedicated lane, they could pull over to the right to pick up passengers (or be moved over in case of break-down), they were lighter and quiter than streetcars (no rumble as they passed by), and there was no track to maintain and re-build every so often, not counting the re-paving of roads which will happen anyway. [/rant]

Batteries would be a nice alternative to all the overhead wiring too.

My $0.02.

Miguel


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Dave I thought there already WAS a break for motorcycle parking in Toronto.


There are lots of good incentives for motorbikes in Toronto. The motorbike lobby here in BC has been using it as an example to pressure the City of Vancouver to bring in similar measures. 

You can fit 3 or 4 bikes per parking stall, as opposed to one car. A bike doesn't take up as much room in traffic and can manuver more quickly to free up space. They also burn less gas which is good for the environment. But, in Vancouver, it's just easier to take your car because its hard to find parking. Why make it hard for people to get to work this way?


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

LaurieR said:


> A lot of you are probably going to disagree with me but...
> I think it's great!


I totally agree
and when I work from home and use a Smart car to go to meetings I can smile 

It's about time people started to realise that North America's obsession with driving is not sustainable.....expecially, as someone mentioned, when they get 6.6km to the litre, that's criminal!


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

miguelsanchez said:


> [rant]Bring back the trolleys! When the TTC decided to go big on streetcars, the trolleys died. Trolleys had the advantage of not requiring a dedicated lane, they could pull over to the right to pick up passengers (or be moved over in case of break-down), they were lighter and quiter than streetcars (no rumble as they passed by), and there was no track to maintain and re-build every so often, not counting the re-paving of roads which will happen anyway. [/rant]
> 
> Batteries would be a nice alternative to all the overhead wiring too.
> 
> ...



Agreed.

Toronto's streetcars are big, noisy and cumbersome. Why do they need such an infrastructure when you can do it with Trolley buses ?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think I read an article about Air Canada looking at the weight of the carts to save fuel. In a car, you've got the air conditioning temperature, extra junk being carried around, tire pressure and, a big one, speed. 

We've embedded a thousand little decisions into our lives and businesses that essentially ignored energy costs. Time to start including that consideration. There are many little quick gains to be made. Then, when new items are bought, big gains can be made with items such as smaller vehicles and homes.

In cities, speak out against those NIMBY groups that always seem to pop up when someone wants to build a highrise. We could have done this a while back, but better late than never.


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

Jeepdude said:


> You're fortunate that you have adequate transit you can rely on. The GO train doesn't GO anywhere near work for me...makes driving the only alternative. Wish I knew someone to carpool with...


Similar here. We do have a transit system of sorts but it's caught between a rock and a hard place: a very small minority of the residents do use the buses but not enough to make it really viable, so there's not much incentive to make them run on a really frequent schedule ... which means the passenger levels never really pick up.

Also, the buses quits running entirely at about 9 or 10 p.m. -- and I work until nearly midnight. Cost of a cab home: $10.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

$3.05 a gallon for regular here in the NY area (sorry, I don't do metric.) The Democrats are looking to exploit this problem and blame Republicans for this happening on their watch.

I don't think the gas situation is Bush's fault exactly, but I'd sure be happy to see him get blamed for it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MissGulch said:


> $3.05 a gallon for regular here in the NY area (sorry, I don't do metric.) The Democrats are looking to exploit this problem and blame Republicans for this happening on their watch.


Canada is happy to take your money. We are your #1 oil supplier.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Beej said:


> Canada is happy to take your money. We are your #1 oil supplier.


Thanks a lot for the dinosaur sludge. Will you be having a sale soon?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

No, we actually keep sending lower quality oil at higher prices, but our sales pitch is so friendly ("No dictators in over 3 years!") that I think you guys overpay.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Beej said:


> No, we actually keep sending lower quality oil at higher prices, but our sales pitch is so friendly ("No dictators in over 3 years!") that I think you guys overpay.


We all overpay. 

As for me, I'm going off now to hoof it one mile to the bus stop. Thereafter, bus and subway to work. I do my little part. Not all Yanks are profligate fuel fiends. 

Backing up words with action here. And thinking green.


----------



## DP004 (Mar 9, 2005)

If it was not for all the hills, I would bike to work.
If it was not for all the transfers, I would take the bus to work.
If the fuel was less expensive, I would drive to work without feeling guilty.

Must solve the equation soon...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

If only I had a way to get to work other than car. My kingdom for transit! Although, if driving to the office were covered by my employer, that would be better.

I almost always stop for hitchhikers, though. My own version of carpooling!


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Oil hits US$75 per barrel

Not long 'til the price of everything else starts to climb.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> $3.05 a gallon for regular here in the NY area (sorry, I don't do metric.) The Democrats are looking to exploit this problem and blame Republicans for this happening on their watch.
> 
> I don't think the gas situation is Bush's fault exactly, but I'd sure be happy to see him get blamed for it.


$3.05 US for a 3.8-litre US gallon works out to about .92/litre by my rough calculations.

Whatever the price, I'm not sure how this is a problem or overpayment. Isn't the market simply doing its job? Or does some mechanism other than market forces set the price of gas?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

iMatt said:


> $3.05 US for a 3.8-litre US gallon works out to about .92/litre by my rough calculations.
> 
> Whatever the price, I'm not sure how this is a problem or overpayment. Isn't the market simply doing its job? Or does some mechanism other than market forces set the price of gas?


MANY forces set the price other than market forces. Supply is restricted, for example, which manipulates the price. Taxes affect the price, and since at least one of those taxes is a %, it does make higher prices higher still. And, of course, oil is traded like most commodities, which means that it's price is at least in part reflective of the manipulation of traders looking for a short term profit.

I don't necessarily see the high prices as bad, despite the royal screwing my finances are taking as a result. Just saying, that this isn't simply a market mechanism at work.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> MANY forces set the price other than market forces. Supply is restricted, for example, which manipulates the price. Taxes affect the price, and since at least one of those taxes is a %, it does make higher prices higher still. And, of course, oil is traded like most commodities, which means that it's price is at least in part reflective of the manipulation of traders looking for a short term profit.
> 
> I don't necessarily see the high prices as bad, despite the royal screwing my finances are taking as a result. Just saying, that this isn't simply a market mechanism at work.


Restricted supply: the mother of all market forces. 
Commodity trading/speculation: also the market
Taxes are the one element you cite that aren't strictly the market at work.

A number of other factors can certainly distort the market, such as Middle East wars, but in the grand scheme of things I don't think there's any wriggling out from under the harsh reality of diminishing supply and growing demand. Unless, of course, exploration leads to the discovery of massive new reserves. Could happen.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.oppi.gc.ca/faq_e.htm


----------



## highapostle (Apr 21, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Personally I find diesel buses a very distressing part of urban living and would gladly see cleaner, quieter alternatives Some form of EEStor system and a high tech diesel might be in the works as regenerative braking is obvious for a bus and the electrics offer better quieter take off torque as subways demonstrate.


I recall reading something in the paper recently about Toronto receiving diesel-electric hybrid version of the OrionVII buses. Here's hoping that they're more reliable and less prone to breakdown than the OrionV CNG's ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh that would be good news. I have this vision when the EEStor stuff hits of buses clustering around windmills like mechanical bees.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Local radio station said today gas in Norway is $6.36 a liter.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

And Norway is an oil exporter. Go figure.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Now here's a good sensible long term solution to rising fuel prices:



> Washington — U.S. President George W. Bush ordered a temporary suspension Tuesday of environmental rules for gasoline, making it easier for refiners to meet demand and possibly dampen prices at the pump.


source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060425.wbushgas0425/BNStory/International/home

It's nice to see someone taking action! After all, you want to make sure most people can afford to drive a safe, practical, comfortable vehicle... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Excursion


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Brazil is a huge country yet forsaw this coming and they are 100% energy self sufficient yet have no oil.
Sugar cane rules.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Brazil is a huge country yet forsaw this coming and they are 100% energy self sufficient yet have no oil.
> Sugar cane rules.


funny how Brazil can take care of its citizens' fuel needs, but somehow North America can't

and what about the fact that the oil companies haven't built a new refinery in about 20 years?

middle east instability does nothing but create increased nervousness in the commodities exchange which automatically leads to higher prices

oh and what about car fuel efficeincy?
why has that dropped by the wayside?

how much profit is enough?
and when does it become "usery?"


----------



## RISCHead (Jul 20, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and when does it become "usery?"


I think you mean usury.

Obviously we're going to need alternatives in our lifetime.
In the meanwhile, we continue to rant. Nothing wrong with that, except a sense of my serious lack of omnipotence


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> funny how Brazil can take care of its citizens' fuel needs, but somehow North America can't
> 
> and what about the fact that the oil companies haven't built a new refinery in about 20 years?
> 
> ...


We are taking care of our needs, which includes the import of oil.

I bet the per capita ownership of cars in Brazil is about 1/10th what we have in North America. I don't know about you, but I'd rather keep my car(s), which has been afforded to me by the capitalistic system we have. 

Efficiency of cars has improved over 20 years. Unfortunately (from a conservation point of view), that efficiency has gone into making bigger vehicles (SUVs). Thus, on average, consumption has remained consistent. 

Profit is a signal for competition to enter the marketplace. With these high prices, hopefully somebody will want to build a refinery. Richard Branson thought about doing it. Maybe this will help influence him.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> oh and what about car fuel efficeincy?
> why has that dropped by the wayside?


Average fuel consumption (not efficiency) is back where it was in the '70s because people want big, powerful vehicles with plenty of creature comforts and safety features. One reason for this is the fact that fuel has been really cheap for most of the past 20 years or so, which means people can afford to drive around in minivans, SUVs, etc.


MACSPECTRUM said:


> how much profit is enough?
> and when does it become "usery?"


Usury is unlawfully high interest on lending money -- there is no such thing as excessive profits, unless a company breaks the law to make them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What does per capita have to do with anything.
Brazil will produce 2.4 million vehicles this year alone and IS fuel independent.

The US is not independent and has no leadership comparable to Brazil's to get there.

The market does NOT make strategic national decisions...leaders do.

Governments acting responsibly to citizens look at long term issues.
Shall we let the market supply say the strategic military decisions??.....why not.

Economic and strategic materiel supply are likely a greater threat today than military threats.

Thanks to that decision Brazil is now brilliantly positioned at home and for export purposes and should be applauded.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Gas should be even higher. Global warming is here now and affecting us. Add to that the fact that oil is running out faster than ever. If we don't start getting off the habit soon, _by choice_, we will be forced to by necessity, - with no Plan B in place. I'd rather we start to get Plan B working and ready for when we need it.

Phase in green taxes on fossil fuels. Use the money to build better energy alternatives. Start a revenue neutral "feebate" system on new vehicle purchases where an extra fee on the Hummer and the Excursion provides a rebate on the Smart car or the hybrid. There's a wealth of great alternative ideas out there that will start to stimulate the economy in so many ways if money is available to them.

People's lives will have to start changing. We will have to rethink a lot of things in the coming decade around energy use and our lifestyle choices. The time is past putting our heads in the sand.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Gas should be even higher.
> 
> We will have to rethink a lot of things in the coming decade around energy use and our lifestyle choices.


That or move to a small island where it is easy to propose such measures. The real world's energy needs are much different.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> That or move to a small island where it is easy to propose such measures. The real world's energy needs are much different.


Well, that is a lifestyle choice around energy use, which is one of the things he mentions in his post...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> What does per capita have to do with anything.


It matters a lot. Macspectrum criticized North America since we have to import energy while Brazil is energy neutral. My point is that it is easier to meet your energy needs when your standard of living is lower. Brazil has 1/10th the GDP per capita as the US and likely 1/10th the cars per person. We are comparing apples and oranges.

High energy prices mean more investment in alternate energy. From what I recall, 2005 was the greatest amount ever invested and I bet 2006 will be even higher.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The US is not independent and has no leadership comparable to Brazil's to get there.
> 
> The market does NOT make strategic national decisions...leaders do.
> 
> ...


I agree with most of your post. The US is currently devoid of leadership.

I believe that markets can make strategic and efficient economic decisions. But, I also believe there are limits to what the market can do. The market is poor at making long term investments since the current value of future cash flows are so low. When you throw in uncertainty, it is rare for a corporation to invest past 30 years. Clearly we need to make strategic planning decisions well beyond this time so there is a big role for government to play. For example, I think we need to put more money into design of a nuclear fusion reactor (not fission). Once this is engineered, we will have CLEAN and sustainable energy. It might take 50 years to figure it out, but the benefits could save our planet.

As far as building new oil refineries goes, I think that is best left to the market.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Brazil is a huge country yet forsaw this coming and they are 100% energy self sufficient yet have no oil.
> Sugar cane rules.


Brazil has oil production and only recently became self-sufficient, or will be soon (1-2 million barrels per day?). They have huge bio-fuel production, which has its own problems but, to me, has much untapped potential worldwide when combined with responsible farming practices and genetic modification with fuel and food in mind. I'm not sure Brazil is responsible about it and would like to learn more. Is it a case of rainforest trade-in?

[Edit: I looked into Brazil ethanol some more. Apparently only 4 billion gallons (a little more than the U.S.). Brazil energy info: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Brazil/Profile.html ]


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The US is not independent and has no leadership comparable to Brazil's to get there.
> ....
> The market does NOT make strategic national decisions...leaders do.


I agree on no leadership but independent isn't an inherent good, the full implications need to be considered.
....
Strategic decisions are often the buzzwords for disastrously bad policy by wingnuts and local porkers. There is room for energy strategy (Canada doesn't have one, but has nice pieces of one) but 'strategy' means very different things to different people and parties. Can you imagine if a twit like Bush really got into hands-on 'strategery'?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> That or move to a small island where it is easy to propose such measures. The real world's energy needs are much different.


Please tell me all about the "real world's energy needs", SINC. 

I know I live in it, even on my island. And I know that 20 years from now some young people might not like the way their real world has turned out after previous generations have wrecked the balance of the planet's climate and sucked the last drops of easy crude out of the ground. Those people might think that our version of "real" was just a wee bit selfish.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Please tell me all about the "real world's energy needs", SINC.
> 
> I know I live in it, even on my island. And I know that 20 years from now some young people might not like the way their real world has turned out after previous generations have wrecked the balance of the planet's climate and sucked the last drops of easy crude out of the ground. Those people might think that our version of "real" was just a wee bit selfish.


We got handed a huge debt. Now we have to pay for that, high CPP rates because it was and is (to a certain extent) a pyramid scheme and revolutionizing our energy system? Bring it on.


----------



## Pylonman (Aug 16, 2004)

LaurieR said:


> Nope. I pay for it.
> Thank goodness we bought a Honda Civic.


What year is it? Where thinking of getting one


----------



## iLabmAn (Jan 1, 2003)

Even though my current place of work rocks! (i.e. I love it!), I am seriously considering moving to a job much closer to my home to reduce the commute and consumption of gas.

There you go.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

The price of gas is changing my employment considerations as well.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

pondered by Beej;


> Can you imagine if a twit like Bush really got into hands-on 'strategery'?


You mean like the Middle East?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

While walking to work today (in the snow!), I saw a sign at the co-op gas bar that read $1.25 per litre.

Right now I live very clost to work. A 13 minute walk. Services are also close by. But because of a flood, our entire neighbhour of a 100 families has to relocate. We are looking at a house now that will be in cycling distance from work in good weather, but in bad weather and rain, we'll have to depend on a vehicle or car pool.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Have you guys actually worked out the cost change. Until it doubles or more I'd say it's a pretty small factor on an overall family budget and there are a number of ways of improving mileage.
There are some terrific vehicles in the works as well.
Uprooting housing just for that factor seems a bit extreme.

Good National Geo on Green Cars last night.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

What was the price of gas per litre in 2000, what is it today?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*Gass prices have doubled since 1998*



MacDoc said:


> Until it doubles or more I'd say it's a pretty small factor on an overall family budget


http://climate.uvic.ca/people/ewiebe/car/fuel_price.html


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

People considering moving so they aren't relying on their cars so much?

I LOVE it! The news just keeps getting better and better. How much will things improve if we go to $2/litre?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I'm of two minds with rising gas prices. Evironmentally, it is a good thing. It will force people to conserve more, pollute less, look for alternatives, and try to live more sustainably.

However, it all means that world conflicts are much more likely to happen over securing natural resouces and energy sources. Wars are very hard on the enviroment. So in that way it is bad.

The sad thing is most people have not altered their petroleum consumption habits as prices increase. They just eat the increase, throw up their hands, and say "what can you do?".


----------



## LaurieR (Feb 9, 2006)

Yep - people are going to think twice before moving out to the suburbs, where they'd have to drive to get anywhere. Definitely a good thing.



guytoronto said:


> People considering moving so they aren't relying on their cars so much?
> 
> I LOVE it! The news just keeps getting better and better. How much will things improve if we go to $2/litre?


----------



## LaurieR (Feb 9, 2006)

It's a 2002 and it's been a great car...though we regret getting a two door.
There's also the Honda Fit to consider now - look into that one, too. That may be our next car.



Pylonman said:


> What year is it? Where thinking of getting one


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Wow, just looked up the Honda Fit on their website. It's uncanny how much the form factor and overall appearance parallels the Suzuki Aerio. This kind of profile appears to be a hit with a certain segment of urban commuter - smallish footprint but great utility. I'm going to have to keep an eye out for them in the streets - love to see one up close and check out where it's similar to our Aerio and where it's different. First off, it looks like the seats go truly flat, which is a big bonus. I love vehicles that offer real dynamism in terms of reconfiguring the interior for different tasks.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Max said:


> Wow, just looked up the Honda Fit on their website. It's uncanny how much the form factor and overall appearance parallels the Suzuki Aerio. This kind of profile appears to be a hit with a certain segment of urban commuter - smallish footprint but great utility.


It's also really popular in Asia, where gas is expensive and streets are crowded. We are just starting to see some of these cars over here now, but the fit and it's ilk have been around for a while in the home market.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Have you guys actually worked out the cost change. Until it doubles or more I'd say it's a pretty small factor on an overall family budget...


Agreed!

The main cost of running a newish car driven an average distance is usually depreciation, not fuel.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"People considering moving so they aren't relying on their cars so much?" Guytoronto, we considered this when we moved to our current home 9 years ago. Our home is in the center of St.John's, near everything within walking/biking/short driving distances.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> "People considering moving so they aren't relying on their cars so much?" Guytoronto, we considered this when we moved to our current home 9 years ago. Our home is in the center of St.John's, near everything within walking/biking/short driving distances.


Remember the good old days when cars where rare, people settled in villages, built communities, that kind of crazy stuff....

Crime was low, you knew your neighbours name, you could get your wagon repaired while you went across the street to buy milk at the farmer's market.

Imagine if we could update that for the 21st century. Get rid of the urban sprawl. Reduce our dependancies on major highways. We can all dream.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:



> Imagine if we could update that for the 21st century. Get rid of the urban sprawl. Reduce our dependancies on major highways. We can all dream.


And a nice dream it is too. When I was in elementary school we lived in a town of 500 people. I can still remember the "dray wagon" pulled by a team of horses that met the train three times a week and then delivered all the freight that came into town. Since all businesses were on main street, it was one trip up one side, then the other and usually took the driver most of the day.

He alternated sides of the street each delivery day.

Saturday evenings were special as everyone gathered on main street, most taking in a movie and then talking and visiting in the two cafes or in their parked cars, or on the wooden sidewalks.

It was quaint, but it was nice and crime was a very rare occurrence and usually involved transients passing through.

They were simpler times indeed.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, when I was in elementary school, everything that we needed was within walking distance. For our wants, such as museums, major league baseball/hockey/basketball, certain landmarks (e.g, the Statue of Liberty), one needed to take a bus or subway. Still, I agree that these were simplier times, even though New York City is only now nearing the 8 million population mark that it had when I was growing up.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> doubling prices


Yeah but I'm talking within the last year or so - housing prices are ridiculous too and that's gonna hurt people moving far more.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> We are taking care of our needs, which includes the import of oil.
> 
> I bet the per capita ownership of cars in Brazil is about 1/10th what we have in North America. I don't know about you, but I'd rather keep my car(s), which has been afforded to me by the capitalistic system we have.


Wrong... in certain areas of Brazil, car ownership approaches that of North America. What Brazil has, that we lack was leadership in understanding the benefits of energy self sufficiency.

I would gladly give up my cars if more public transportation options were available to me. When I lived in Toronto my car was parked all week and only used on the weekends to see the inlaws.



Vandave said:


> Profit is a signal for competition to enter the marketplace. With these high prices, hopefully somebody will want to build a refinery. Richard Branson thought about doing it. Maybe this will help influence him.


Profit does not necessarily signal room for competition. Profit is Profit. In many cases it only signals a closed captive market at the whim of monopolistic practices of an industry colluding to maintain higher prices.

If what you said was true, than we would have a price war with the major oil companies driving prices down to compete... haven't seen that have we?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> If what you said was true, than we would have a price war with the major oil companies driving prices down to compete... haven't seen that have we?


What makes you think we haven't seen that? Because prices are 'high' you think there isn't competition?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Wrong... in certain areas of Brazil, car ownership approaches that of North America. What Brazil has, that we lack was leadership in understanding the benefits of energy self sufficiency.


Brazil's gdp per capita is about 1/4 that of Canada and the U.S. While good policy MAY be a factor their basic lack of wealth is a huge factor behind less automobile use.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> What makes you think we haven't seen that? Because prices are 'high' you think there isn't competition?


There is not that much competition happening if ALL the energy companies are announcing record profits... Can you say collusion? I knew you could


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> There is not that much competition happening if ALL the energy companies are announcing record profits.


Wrong. But it would make people feel better if they can blame something other than rampant demand growth and an increasingly expensive resource to develop.

There is limited supply and demand is growing (then prices go up  ), that's why the companies are ramping up things in Alberta and everywhere they can: to boost supply.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Only if marketshare is at stake will mature industries making high gains through a "necessity" ever push their profit line down for a bit.

MY industry competes ( despite Apple's best efforts ), energy industries by and large charge as much as the market will bear and a bit more for convenience cuz the consumer's got no choice.

WHEN there is some real alternatives for fuel .....what the prices change then.
Only the alternative fuel companies are after marketshare these days.
Competition is far overrated as a driving force within mature high entry industries.
More like "Now just what can we get away with......"


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Saw a show on T.V. last night about hybrid, Electric and fuel cell cars,
There was a little Porsche featured that was really smoking the tires to prove just
how powerful an electric car can be.

Looked a lot like this:

http://www.electroauto.com/gallery/vp914.shtml

I'd love to get an electric car, But unfortunately...We can't get one.

Btw...If all the 1974-1979 Porsche 914's start disappearing from the want ads, This is why.

D


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Wrong. But it would make people feel better if they can blame something other than rampant demand growth and an increasingly expensive resource to develop.
> 
> There is limited supply and demand is growing (then prices go up  ), that's why the companies are ramping up things in Alberta and everywhere they can: to boost supply.


Ah but here lies the rub... And it is counter capitalist I am sure.

The Supply is limited... Demand is growing...

The current supply is a constant. There is only so much capacity in the system. The current demand is increasing, however higher prices are not the result of scarcity as higher prices do not decrease demand in this situation... people and industry simply pay more.

If we were in a situation like we were in the 70's where there was actual shortages and line ups at the pumps. Then the argument for limited supply equalling high costs might make more sense.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep it's called "no alternatives" so .....*How much can we get away with* is the operant principle.




> HINGTON (AP) — Top executives from the country's largest oil companies rejected arguments Tuesday that size has allowed them overwhelming market power to force up gasoline and other fuel prices.
> The executives, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, said industry mergers — a dozen over the last decade — have allowed U.S. companies to improve efficiency and achieve the size and scale of operation to compete with the world's government-owned energy companies in the search for oil.
> 
> "Every time there is a merger the prices have gone up. Is that just coincidence?" asked Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee's ranking Democrat.


http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-03-14-big-oil-explains_x.htm

Even the land of the supposed "free market" has it's doubts


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> industries by and large charge as much as the market will bear and a bit more for convenience cuz the consumer's got no choice.


Competitive industries charge as much as the customer will bear; assumptions about 'Big Energy' notwithstanding.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> The current supply is a constant. There is only so much capacity in the system. The current demand is increasing, however higher prices are not the result of scarcity as higher prices do not decrease demand in this situation... people and industry simply pay more.


Short-term supply is limited, long-term isn't and that's what price signals: more investment here and balancing current supply and demand. Without, you'd need 'energy stamps' and a way to deal with the energy black market.

Higher prices are the result of scarcity and do impact demand. 'Growing' doesn't mean prices haven't had an impact; they've slowed growth. SUV sales in the U.S. are in trouble; a testament to how much consumers want their SUVs.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

It has hit $8US a gallon in the UK. Norway and Germany are not far behind, followed closely by Labrador, here in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada....home of some of the world's largest off-shore oil deposits.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> It has hit $8US a gallon in the UK. Norway and Germany are not far behind, followed closely by Labrador, here in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada....home of some of the world's largest off-shore oil deposits.


Resources don't have much to do with it, especially for an island with low population density.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Beej, Exxon-Mobil walked away from the Hebron oil deal earlier this month. Premier Williams of NL said provincial negotiators were close to reaching an equity stake of five per cent. Williams said that hopes for a negotiated deal by a March 31 deadline looked good late last month, until the companies asked for tax credits and exemption on fuel costs. Williams said that the province would buy out Exxon-Mobil's 37% stake, but the consortium did not want the province to have any more than 5% at most. The Hebron field is estimated to contain about 700 million barrels of oil.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Beej, Exxon-Mobil walked away from the Hebron oil deal earlier this month. Premier Williams of NL said provincial negotiators were close to reaching an equity stake of five per cent. Williams said that hopes for a negotiated deal by a March 31 deadline looked good late last month, until the companies asked for tax credits and exemption on fuel costs. Williams said that the province would buy out Exxon-Mobil's 37% stake, but the consortium did not want the province to have any more than 5% at most. The Hebron field is estimated to contain about 700 million barrels of oil.


Danny is up to his same old games and someone stood up to him. Negotiating is tough, but yelling, screaming and lowering flags only works with weak governments. 

If Danny calms down a bit, there's a good opportunity out there for your province and the country. I think it will work out eventually, but he needs to know that Exxon-Mobil is not Martin and EM needs to believe Newfoundland isn't going hat-in-hand to interested parties anymore. This example, however, seemed more Williams' unreasonableness than anything else. Ownership stakes are meaningless (and troublesome for everyone involved) compared to a well-designed royalty regime. He also seemed to be playing 'central planner' instead intelligent policy-maker. Things may have gone better. Of course, he loves playing it up for his voters.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Beej, I agree with your point about "a well-designed royalty regime". I don't think that Williams should have let them walk away from the agreement, but neither do I feel that he should have given in to their demands for tax credits and exemption on fuel costs. I guess this is how E-M has become the most profitable company this past year.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Beej, our premier wanted development to start sooner than later. The Hebron field is heavy oil which costs more to develop. Exxon-Mobil and Chevron are sitting around waiting for the government to cave. Tuff cookies, if they won't proceed, there are other partners ready to take the challenge.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ErnstNL, sadly, it shall be difficult to get control over these tracts of land offshore of NL to let other companies drill. We shall see.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Wrong... in certain areas of Brazil, car ownership approaches that of North America. What Brazil has, that we lack was leadership in understanding the benefits of energy self sufficiency.


Two key words... "Certain Areas". If we are talking about a national policy, we need to look at the whole picture. The fact is that Brazil has far less cars per capita when compared to North America which is primarily due to lower GDP per capita.

There are populations within Africa that meet their energy needs purely by burning elephant dung. Does that mean they have good leadership?



da_jonesy said:


> Profit does not necessarily signal room for competition. Profit is Profit. In many cases it only signals a closed captive market at the whim of monopolistic practices of an industry colluding to maintain higher prices.
> 
> If what you said was true, than we would have a price war with the major oil companies driving prices down to compete... haven't seen that have we?


The oil industry is not a closed captive market and it is far from being a monopoly. Nobody has proven collusion yet. What evidence do you have that brings you to this conclusion?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Just announced on the evening news that gas will rise to 118.9 at midnight in Edmonton. Yikes!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

That's only about five cents less than us, Sinc!!! Why is Alberta getting such hikes, unless the rest of the country is going up as well?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Two key words... "Certain Areas". If we are talking about a national policy, we need to look at the whole picture. The fact is that Brazil has far less cars per capita when compared to North America which is primarily due to lower GDP per capita


so what - the issue is energy independence not cars per capita and no it's not a monoploy it's an oligopoly and the price of entry is daunting. If no one moves to lower price none of the others will.

A very few companies control both the refining and distribution including in the latter to "independents".

When we get a substantial biofuel option then we may indeed see some "competition.

Were it not for California and for fuel efficiency and Nader and seat belts we'd be driving guzzlers and still killing a thousand people every weekend and smoking in restaurants.

Don't ever tell me corporations serve the public weal nor unrestricted markets make a better or sustainable planet 

ask the whales or the Clayoquot...... 

National leadership has different goals than corporate leadership - gov is not a business. ( Kulyk 2005 ® ) .....it damn well better.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Why Dr. G ???- because the can and guess who they have in office in both countries, Texas and Texas north natives.

That said high prices aren't the issue - using them to drive transition to a sustainable energy structure is.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here's why high prices are good IF the resulting windfall can be guided to provide infrastructure support for cleaner, greener fuels
Also far more restrictive controls on carbon release by ALL fossil providers should balance these costs out further.
Opportunity is here - is the courage at te government level.

Why do I doubt it.

Coal CAN be clean too......takes money.....hmmmmmm.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

We all know gas tax usually gets diverted to general revenue. The only way to build a true demand for alternative fuels (and vehicles that use them) is for gasoline to become unaffordable--and not through a government "trick" of making it unaffordable by taxing it. 

I watched local recycling industries destroyed around Toronto in the early 1990s due to tax policy flips. Tipping fees were doubled to discourage dumping in landfills--recycling industries sprang up based on those fees--which were slashed a year or so later when city revenue for dumps had fallen. End of recycling boom.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ErnstNL said:


> Beej, our premier wanted development to start sooner than later. The Hebron field is heavy oil which costs more to develop. Exxon-Mobil and Chevron are sitting around waiting for the government to cave. Tuff cookies, if they won't proceed, there are other partners ready to take the challenge.


It was negotiations and Danny was being Danny and EM is being EM; a bad combination for reasonable negotiations. Danny, like Klein (in the past) knows how to play it up for the people.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> I don't think that Williams should have let them walk away from the agreement, but neither do I feel that he should have given in to their demands for tax credits and exemption on fuel costs. I guess this is how E-M has become the most profitable company this past year.


Negotiations are tough, especially with EM (from my experience with Imperial). But Danny has to learn that he can't bully everyone. He got too used to Martin's caving in.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> so what - the issue is energy independence not cars per capita


Yes it is the issue. We can't reduce our car ownership per capita to that of Brazil. Nor can we heat our homes with elephant dung. I agree that energy independence is a good thing along with sustainable energy. All I'm saying is that we need a unique approach because our problems are different than Brazil's.



MacDoc said:


> and no it's not a monoploy it's an oligopoly and the price of entry is daunting. If no one moves to lower price none of the others will.
> 
> A very few companies control both the refining and distribution including in the latter to "independents".


Uhhh....nope. I won't bother cutting and pasting from Google, but feel free to read about it yourself. The Herfindahl-Hershman Index (HHI), the commonly accepted measure of market concentration, is relatively low in the oil industry.

You can either trust what most economists say, or you can spout nonsense. It's your choice. 



MacDoc said:


> Don't ever tell me corporations serve the public weal nor unrestricted markets make a better or sustainable planet
> 
> ask the whales or the Clayoquot......
> 
> National leadership has different goals than corporate leadership - gov is not a business. ( Kulyk 2005 ® ) .....it damn well better.


When did I tell you that? Read back a few pages and you will see that I agree with you on this point. The free market can't do everything. It doesn't deal well with negative externialities nor is it good at placing value on future benefits (say beyond 30 years). Government is needed to manage these issues.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Not sure I understand your point, Beej. Why shouldn't Danny hold out to get the best for the Province? If one company won't play ball, other can be found.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Gah. Posting while sleepy. Bad Matt!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Not sure I understand your point, Beej. Why shouldn't Danny hold out to get the best for the Province? If one company won't play ball, other can be found.


He absolutely should. But tough negotiating and pigheadedness are different things. Example: lowering the flag. Those antics may play well in provincial politics as he becomes a local hero, but what happens when the other party is just as pigheaded?

If the companies that hold leases won't play ball, the resource doesn't get developed. That's why Danny's next brilliant tactic was expropriation and renegging on contracts just because he didn't get his way. Hate the companies all you want, but signed contracts are signed contracts.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

posted by Vandave;


> I agree that energy independence is a good thing along with sustainable energy.


what's next?
you agree that not smoking is a good thing?
weclome to 1975


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> , but signed contracts are signed contracts.


 ....hmmm Bush must have skipped that class at Haavaad.

I think there is a serious slow motion collision going on between various levels of gov prov and federal and big oil and the between massive power blocs geopolitically.

At this point as in Russia and Venezuala and parts of South America contracts I perceive are open to "national interest" changes.
Given the profits involved I think big oil has to be perceived to be in a "fair share" mode or suffer the consequences of political overrides.

Just look at the US Congress for proof of that "contract rethink".


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> ....hmmm Bush must have skipped that class at Haavaad.
> 
> I think there is a serious slow motion collision going on between various levels of gov prov and federal and big oil and the between massive power blocs geopolitically.
> 
> ...


Our best plan would be to not act like Bush and the gang in this case. Canada has a strong commitment to this and it is part of our advantage and a big reason behind the billions of investment we were getting before energy prices skyrocketed. We are a destination of choice for investors, in part, due to our commitment to honesty, Danny notwithstanding.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I agree - I was being snarky considering softwood.
That said commercial interests and national interests in Canada need aligning post haste so everyone is on the same page.

My take - there is enough windfall to go around and being percieved to address that by big oil is their best bet to dodge annoyed and suspicious sovereign powers being upbraided by citizens.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> My take - there is enough windfall to go around and being percieved to address that by big oil is their best bet to dodge annoyed and suspicious sovereign powers being upbraided by citizens.


Yep. In the right or not, political powers are enormous and industry needs to be careful while maintaining their support for Canada's approach. It's a tricky minefield. 

My recommendation to industry: don't oppose any 'data-related' initiatives to get the public more info or inspect pricing practices. They should openly work with and encourage MPs/bureaucrats to design effective and permanent processes for ensuring and -- most importantly -- publicising how competitive markets are working. This is the 'show me' era; they can either help design good processes or get beaten down by idiotic processes designed by people who don't understand what's going on but are very very angry.

We'll see what they do this round.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sadly, the tax windfalls reaped by the various levels of government dwarf any profits from the oil companies. I suspect that if any review is done of oil pricing--even from a PR perspective--it should be done by independent parties. People are unlikely to believe anything the oil companies say, and the government's hands are too sticky with oil tax revenue to be taken seriously.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Sadly, the tax windfalls reaped by the various levels of government dwarf any profits from the oil companies.


I'm not sure about that. Maybe if you're including personal income taxes on employees, but then how much is 'windfall' and how much is just business as usual? Governments are getting lots of money though. It would be nice if they didn't blow it all.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Profits......



> ExxonMobil amasses record $36B 2005 profit
> By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY
> *ExxonMobil (XOM) reported the largest annual profit in U.S. corporate history Monday, a $36.1 billion jackpot* that included a record-setting fourth quarter.
> Exxon earned $10.7 billion, or $116 million every 24 hours, in 2005's final quarter, up 27% from the same period one year earlier.
> ...





> Other oil companies have reported soaring third-quarter profits this week. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, based in the Hague, said yesterday that its third-quarter profit was not far behind Exxon Mobil's: $9.03 billion, up 68 percent. London-based BP PLC reported profit of $6.53 billion, up 34 percent.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102700449.html?sub=AR

and on the flip side in the US



> U.S. Has Royalty Plan to Give Windfall to Oil Companies
> 
> By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
> Published: February 14, 2006
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/b...87dc413fa6add582&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=r

and they can't get universal healthcare plan together but CAN forgo $65 billion in royalties......what a messed up nation.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/flexcar_sets_on.html#more

Flexcar: the sort of thing we'll probably see a lot more of as people seriously look at their energy use habits. There's a lot more 'flex' in people's energy use than many realize, but it does take time.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/flexcar_sets_on.html#more
> 
> Flexcar: the sort of thing we'll probably see a lot more of as people seriously look at their energy use habits. There's a lot more 'flex' in people's energy use than many realize, but it does take time.


There is a great car co-op in Vancouver that's quite a few years old now and is growing steadily. It's a great deal for city dwellers who don't need a car all the time. I was all set to join in the late '90s, but then I moved out to the boonies.

I hear talk about the Victoria car co-op having vehicles available at the Swartz Bay ferry terminal for the use of Gulf Islanders, so joining might become an option for me in the future.

There are car co-ops/car share organizations in most of the bigger Canadian cities. They are inexpensive to join and the more members they get, the better their service becomes.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There is a great car co-op in Vancouver that's quite a few years old now and is growing steadily. It's a great deal for city dwellers who don't need a car all the time. I was all set to join in the late '90s, but then I moved out to the boonies.
> 
> I hear talk about the Victoria car co-op having vehicles available at the Swartz Bay ferry terminal for the use of Gulf Islanders, so joining might become an option for me in the future.
> 
> There are car co-ops/car share organizations in most of the bigger Canadian cities. They are inexpensive to join and the more members they get, the better their service becomes.


Playing devil's advocate...

How is a car co-op going to be more economically efficient than a car rental business or hailing a cab?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

It's when people switch to public transit most of the time (or just walking/riding) and just use a car for necessities. The rental business could also have a growing role in renting out larger vehicles for occasional use so people don't use their camping/soccer team suvs for everyday driving. It's a small thing but another example of room for savings. Not speeding is another. Carpooling yet another.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> It's when people switch to public transit most of the time (or just walking/riding) and just use a car for necessities. The rental business could also have a growing role in renting out larger vehicles for occasional use so people don't use their camping/soccer team suvs for everyday driving. It's a small thing but another example of room for savings. Not speeding is another. Carpooling yet another.


My question assumes the person does not buy a car to begin with. The choices are:

1. Car co-op; or,
2. Rental / Taxi.

I am not convinced a car co-op is going to be cheaper in the long run when compared to just renting a vehicle.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave, have any data to back that up?

I had gone carless for two years - only used Taxis and public transport. There was a lot of wasted time waiting for Taxis and public transport - and time is money in many cases. Some tasks can be a pain (grocery shopping, ad hoc shopping, trips to the lumber yard). Any movement has to be planned. Living in the suburbs would almost be impossible... All this to say that there was an increase in wasted time and efficiency. 

I have a friend who is doing the car co-op. There is a fixed monthly fee plus a user fee. So far, he's told me it's less expensive as you can rent the car by the hour. With a car rental, it's usually a fixed number of days.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Vandave, have any data to back that up?
> 
> I had gone carless for two years - only used Taxis and public transport. There was a lot of wasted time waiting for Taxis and public transport - and time is money in many cases. Some tasks can be a pain (grocery shopping, ad hoc shopping, trips to the lumber yard). Any movement has to be planned. Living in the suburbs would almost be impossible... All this to say that there was an increase in wasted time and efficiency.
> 
> I have a friend who is doing the car co-op. There is a fixed monthly fee plus a user fee. So far, he's told me it's less expensive as you can rent the car by the hour. With a car rental, it's usually a fixed number of days.


No, just speculation.

Myself, I have three vehicles: a car; a Jeep and a motorbike. I used to have 2 motorbikes, but I sold one last year.

And if you can believe it, I take transit to work. :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

If you have fixed hours at work (9 to 5), I can see transit being beneficial. With variable hours, working around a transit systems schedule is a pain. It only adds to stress, instead of helping relieve it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think insurance plays a big role in monthly costs.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I hear talk about the Victoria car co-op having vehicles available at the Swartz Bay ferry terminal for the use of Gulf Islanders, so joining might become an option for me in the future.


Sounds like a good option that would probably save both time and money, as it would be cheaper to take the ferry without a car, and you would never have to wait for the next sailing as a foot passenger.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I am not convinced a car co-op is going to be cheaper in the long run when compared to just renting a vehicle.


The Calgary car sharing coop (which I have no experience with) seems cheaper than rental cars for short around town trips. Their rates are $3/hr + $0.30/km or $30/day + $0.10/km for a well used economy car. (source: http://www.catco-op.org)

It looks as though they are cheaper than rental cars because:
-They don't need to turn a profit
-They require a decent driving record which keeps insurance costs down
-They run mostly older economy cars which likely have a very low cost per mile

It also looks like it would be practical to use one of these cars for a couple of errands, while I can't imagine renting a car from Budget or Avis to go grocery shopping.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

I don't think oil price is High, but i must admit it is in the "dangerous" level. Stealing gas accident took 150 lives. :0

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4765695.stm


----------



## DP004 (Mar 9, 2005)

Thanks to the price of gas, I have been biking to work for the last 15 days.
I found paths to avoid most of the traffic, got myself some bags to carry my clothing and I am saving about 25$ a week.
My legs are stronger, I feel much better about myself, I am more energetic at work and I lost 10 pounds so far only by going to work (40 mores to go...).
It will only last to next fall but until then, I will enjoy and accumulate the benefits.


----------



## min_max9000 (May 15, 2005)

I started taking the bus for the first time in 16 or more years! The jump from $40/week last year to $50+/week this year is hard considering my annual income has remained the same despite $520/annum hike in gas expenses.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I put the office phone on call forward to the cell and quit driving to the office save for one day a week to do mail and banking. Now using 80% less fuel. Not everyone can do that, but it works for me!


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> I put the office phone on call forward to the cell and quit driving to the office save for one day a week to do mail and banking.


I envy you SINC, Deerfoot has been horrendous three days in a row. Of course if you could get away with that you wouldn't even need to live in a city...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

While I don't find the gasoline price increase to be much of an impact it has changed my strategy a bit for vehicles.
My daughter's car getting wrecked in front of our house by a hit and run led to a really fuel efficient Hyundai parked in the driveway.
Rather than a summer car as we envisioned it's now going to be an all year "cheap to drive" family run about. More than the cost it's just that it has a smaller eco footprint than the van.

BTW I've used synthetic oil for years in vehicles - you get better mileage, much better cold weather starting and go twice the distance between oils changes so it does not cost more than regular oil.
My previous Windstar that my staff is now driving has 220,000 km running on synthetic and the motor is super tight- doesn't leak or burn a drop of oil between the 10k changes. I have never once topped it up.
Highly recommended to go with synthetic.

I suspect down the next vehicle change will see me with a hybrid hatchback and just one van for company use rather than two.
As Portland has discovered with their green initiative it's not just cost savings but a good part the driving force is people WANT to have a smaller eco footprint.

I'll recommend again on Movie Network *Too Hot Not to Handle* - scary and encouraging at the same time.
It's on tonight at 9 pm and other times
http://www.themovienetwork.ca/schedule/

http://www.themovienetwork.ca/details/?43880/1147478406000


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I am like Sinc. I don't drive unless I absolutely have to, and then only reluctantly. Amazingly, in the week I was in Cuba, my son only used up about 1/2 a tank of gas in the Echo. I was able to fill it up for $30. A tank used to last me a month to 6 weeks, now I get about a tank every 3-4 weeks.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

My daughter was excited as the Hyundai is a $30 fill up too. She's just going to start into the "paying her own way" mode this summer and she's now far more aware of the cost of things.

There was a Discovery on the other night with a "make your own diesel" segment I got a kick out of.
Depression era "make do" types are gonna thrive.
You must have heard tales about that Dr. G from parents.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, that was $30 to fill up half a tank in the Echo. With gas going for $1.20 here in St.John's, I wait for the announcements of a change in gas prices. If they are stated to go down at midnight some night, I wait for this drop to fill up. If they are slated to go up at midnight, I go out and fill up ASAP. For one 10 day period, my son did not drive the car, and I was able to get nearly 45mpg using every gas-saving technique I have learned.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, re the notion of "make your own diesel", I was amazed at what was being done in Cuba.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

.......and Brazil.
The EEStor technology is going to see some very interesting things sprouting on houses as people can convert wind and sun into storable transport.

Another segment in Too Hot was a bunch of engineers getting 103 miles per us gallon in a stock Honda hybrid doing your sort of driving tricks.

Best I could get was about 23 MPh in the Windstar with hard tires and careful driving.
Be fun to see with the Hyundai.
Where hybrids score big is short hop - in town trips.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Yes, MacDoc, Brazil has made great advances with its conversion away from gasoline to sugar cane-based products. They no longer import foreign oil.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah yes, the ways to beat high gas prices. Back in the 50s and 60s the government allowed sale of specially priced gas to prairie farmers for use on the farm. Authorities dyed the fuel purple to readily identify it and it became widely known as "purple gas".

It was legal for farmers to buy and use on the farm, but not on highways or trips to town. That required a fill up of "bronze gas" the traditional colour of today.

Mounties used to commonly set up "purple gas check stops" on rural roads and siphon a small bit out of the tank to check the colour. If you had purple in the family car, or the pickup while on the way to town, you were fined.

Trouble was, there was a way around the problem. Farmers, and us kids too, used to get our hands of the cheaper purple fuel and put it into one gallon glass containers and set it out in the sun. The sun would bleach the purple dye to clear and it could then be added to just a bit of the bronze and no one was the wiser.

It became almost like a sport to dodge the purple gas check stops back in those days.

Oddly enough, bronze was about .25 cents a gallon and purple was about .17 cents a gallon, but it did save you over $1.00 a tank if you could get away with it. Most tanks back then were only 12 to 16 gallons and a fill up of bronze was $3 to $4. Good times remembered.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Prarie ingenuity, Sinc.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> Prarie ingenuity, Sinc.


In some cases it was necessity!


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> Trouble was, there was a way around the problem. Farmers, and us kids too, used to get our hands of the cheaper purple fuel and put it into one gallon glass containers and set it out in the sun. The sun would bleach the purple dye to clear and it could then be added to just a bit of the bronze and no one was the wiser.


My mom described doing just this to fill up her Volkswagon at my grandparents farm back in the day...


----------

