BusTalk Forum Index BusTalk
A Community Discussing Buses and Bus Operations Worldwide!
 
 BusTalk MainBusTalk Main FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups BusTalk GalleriesBusTalk Galleries   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

'IT'S DEJAVU ALL OVER AGAIN'

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BusTalk Forum Index -> Hot Topics & Current Events
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mr. Linsky
BusTalk's Offical Welcoming Committee



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 5071
Location: BRENTWOOD, CA. - WOODMERE, N.Y.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:37 am    Post subject: 'IT'S DEJAVU ALL OVER AGAIN' Reply with quote

Thumbing through my document files principally to purge what is no longer relevant I came across the following essay that I had written at the height of our last bout with exorbitant fuel prices and I thought it apropos to replay it here.

Note that while the circumstances this time around might be slightly different than those of three years ago, the remedies outlined are still applicable.

There is no question that the present fuel crises is now going to affect every aspect of our lives including the price of the foodstuffs that we buy for our dinner tables!

What can we do about it? Of course, the government could either regulate or takeover the oil companies altogether, or they could impose an ‘excess profits’ tax upon them – the proceeds of which could be used to pay us back in the form of reduced prices at the pump.

These are good ideas that merit further consideration but implementation could take years and I’m afraid that the economy and our pocketbooks won’t be able to wait that long!

It seems a though the price of a gallon of gasoline is based upon ‘supply and demand’, and in this case the demand may be somewhat out of proportion due to an inordinate number of pickup trucks and S.U.V.’s (their close cousins) that use an unfair amount of available fuel!

The original concept of the pickup truck was as a tool for farmers and businesses alike to carry goods to markets and customers – not as personal transportation now available in sizes that compare to half that of a Mack truck!

There is a simple, inexpensive and ‘fair’ solution to this problem; the State of New York bases registration fees on the weight of a vehicle – and that’s just the way fuel should be dispensed. In other words, the guy that pulls up to the pump in the 7,000lb Hummer with the 500 cubic inch V8 engine is the one that should be paying $10 a gallon (get my point?).

A system could be devised using either scales or computer scanners at the pumps to more equitably dispense by the net weight of the vehicle (lighter cars would pay less, and heavier ones more).

An unintended benefit could be the eventual demise of the ‘monster’ trucks altogether!

BTW; don’t think what I have suggested is ‘sour grapes’, because I drive a Range Rover myself!

Mr. Linsky - Green Bus Lines, Inc., Jamaica, New York
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RailBus63
Moderator



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 1063

PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting idea. We definitely need to determine a way to incentivize the use of more fuel-efficient vehicles and modes of transport. I would also like to see a more forward-thinking approach that includes exploring how we can safely access more of our own oil (including offshore drilling and hydrofracturing) to start to reduce our susceptibility to these price spikes and begin to assure consumers of long-term availability, while at the same time developing a better overall system to require each user of the transportation system to pay their fair share. We may have an unprecedented opportunity to do this now by compromising partly in favor of American drivers (in terms of drilling for more oil) while sending the message to the environmentalists that they cannot get 100 percent of everything they want and that they need to work with the rest of the population to develop safer practices that we can all live with. The average driver may be willing to live with a new tax and fee structure if there's 'something in it for them'.

JD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ripta42
Site Admin


Age: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 1035
Location: Pawtucket, RI / Woburn, MA

PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The person with a less fuel-efficient vehicle already pays more per-mile for fuel. Interestingly, a byproduct of people trying to be more fuel efficient is less gasoline taxes being paid, meaning less funding for highway maintenance and transit. Rhode Island proposed rectifying the situation by replacing gasoline taxes with a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax - effectively rewarding the gas-guzzlers by making them pay the same amount of tax per mile, even though heavier vehicles do more damage to the roads.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mr. Linsky
BusTalk's Offical Welcoming Committee



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 5071
Location: BRENTWOOD, CA. - WOODMERE, N.Y.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your comments - all of which are very constructive.

Michael mentions the damage that heavier vehicles do to our roads which is interesting because in a very recent news conference here in L.A., Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa claimed that the articulated buses that LACMTA now uses slash by half the lives of the roads they travel.

I think that I might dispute that finding because of the weight distribution factor involved but, then again, I'm no engineer and I would have to leave that determination to the experts.

What's your opinion?

Regards,

Mr. 'L'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
timecruncher



Age: 73
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 456
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't have a problem with someone who owns a gas guzzler. You make a decision to own a large vehicle and you pay for the fuel to drive it. Scaling fuel costs to the type of car is not the answer, although it is an interesting approach.

Fuel costs are high because we use so damn much of the stuff. It is also affected greatly by the fact that our government is simply printing money with nothing to back it up. Sure, we've been doing this for decades now, but never so much as in the past few years (before and since the current administration, I might add). When your dollar isn't worth as much overseas, you can't buy as much of their "stuff" as you previously did with it.

Taxing profits at the oil companies won't work either, although it looks like a great way to get "revenge" on them. Trouble is, IT WON'T WORK! If you raise the cost of doing business, a business will simply pass that increased cost along to its customers. Raising taxes on petroleum conglomerates will do nothing for us, but it will help our Congress to rake in some more $$ so they can spend it. Ultimately, if the Congress taxes big oil 25 cents on the gallon, our cost at the pump will follow that cost increase. We'll be worse off, big oil and our elected representatives will both laugh all the way home!

And really, when I fill up the Sienna or the wife's Elantra, 10 gallons costs me $10.00 more than it did a year ago. $10 isn't going to throw my family finances into a tailspin. Its ten bucks I won't have to spend on something else, but it is still a small percentage of my weekly or monthly costs. It does make me pause and think about each and every trip I take that involves the car.

...and no, I'm not wealthy. I make about what one of our bus drivers makes if he/she actually comes to work regularly.

timecruncher
Schedulers give you the runs!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
HwyHaulier




Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Posts: 932
Location: Harford County, MD

PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2011 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RailBus63 wrote:
...We definitely need to determine a way to incentivize the use of more fuel-efficient vehicles and modes of transport...while at
the same time developing a better overall system to require each user of the transportation system to pay their fair share...

There are chronic fallacies in all the discussions. Seems to be entirely too much emphasis of pros and cons of use of
consumer owned and operated "four wheelers" in the mix. Few writers appear to "get it" about links between fuel
costs, and economical distribution of enormous tonnages of every kind of shipment. Some talk of imagined good of
rail freight. It usually doesn't consider that a loaded "pig" trailer carries as many as hundreds of individual parcels,
each delivered over the roads to myriad receivers. Or, higher costs are immediately seen in higher prices at grocery
and retail stores, as well as everywhere else...

While perhaps unintended, the principle of all paying some sort of "fair share" hints that, with common carrier services,
air services better choice than endless rail experiments? Too, various transit kinds of services should be expected to
deliver net surpluses, entirely thru fare boxes? Present financing schemes beset with endless contradictions and
problems. Noted a writer with a succinct remark: It is about who benefits. Who pays. A result is endless discussion
of "fair share" propositions?

.........................Vern......................
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shortlineMCI



Age: 54
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 241

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

{quote"What can we do about it? Of course, the government could either regulate or takeover the oil companies altogether, or they could impose an ‘excess profits’ tax upon them – the proceeds of which could be used to pay us back in the form of reduced prices at the pump}quote"

We must realize that this is not the oil companies fault!!! And I get very, very angry when I hear people say that the almighty government should
"take over" the oil companies. They have already taken over the banks, car companies and many other things...student loans and such. I will bet anyone on this board 100 bucks to live in Cuba and France for one full year where the goverment does own everything and the people have no choices. Complete and utter socialism.

This my friends is socialism and communism happening right before our very eyes. RIGHT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES!!

It is not the oil companies fault to any degree!! This is Obama's and the environmental whackos policy. For gods sakes!! the oil companies want to DRILL BABY DRILL!!!! They have million upon millions of dollars invested in drilling already and this will drop our dam gas prices down below a dollar a gallon. What is stopping them? Our dearly beloved, hopefully soon to be departed Obama.

Of course their will be tragedies like the gulf accident, but we must take these risks to advance forward. I love those envro- sickos that said... OH IT'S GONNA TAKE 30 YEARS FOR THE GULF TO RETURN TO NORMAL. BUT THERE'S NO OIL DAMAGE TO BE FOUND IN THE GULF OF MEXICO!!!! ANYWHERE!!!!!

Obama has completely dismantled any drilling anywhere in the United States. Shutting down BP's drilling capacity. WHat do you think happened? BP closed up shop, putting and estimated 30-40 thousand people OUT OF WORK.

Of course he wants to shut down the oil companies, because..."oh dear, oh my..oil is bad for us my friends.it's a terrible, terrible thing and we should just...umm abolish oil and let's just all Go GREEN!! And just rely soley on the sun and the wind. ITS NOT SUNNY AND WINDY ALL THE TIME!!!!!LOLOL!!!! So what do we have to do for back up systems? WE have to build....What? MORE ELECTRIC PLANTS!!!!

keep up the good work Bamster. Your doing a helluva fine job up there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ripta42
Site Admin


Age: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 1035
Location: Pawtucket, RI / Woburn, MA

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
We must realize that this is not the oil companies fault!!! And I get very, very angry when I hear people say that the almighty government should
"take over" the oil companies. They have already taken over the banks, car companies and many other things...student loans and such. I will bet anyone on this board 100 bucks to live in Cuba and France for one full year where the goverment does own everything and the people have no choices. Complete and utter socialism.


I've never heard any serious proposal or suggestion that the government take over the oil companies. They didn't "take over" the banks or car companies, either; they made some investments in failing companies to keep them from going under, have already sold off most of those investments, and in most cases made money off the deal. The goverment never controlled those companies.

Quote:
This my friends is socialism and communism happening right before our very eyes. RIGHT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES!!


No it isn't. The government does not have a monopoly on the production of anything.

Quote:
It is not the oil companies fault to any degree!! This is Obama's and the environmental whackos policy. For gods sakes!! the oil companies want to DRILL BABY DRILL!!!! They have million upon millions of dollars invested in drilling already and this will drop our dam gas prices down below a dollar a gallon. What is stopping them? Our dearly beloved, hopefully soon to be departed Obama.


The oil companies do not need need additional drilling right now. Spring is typically when demand is lowest, so that's when refineries shut down for maintenance. The problem is that demand is UP because the economy is recovering. It's not a result of an insufficient supply of crude.

The oil companies also do not want to drop prices below a dollar a gallon, either, although they will fall to a more reasonable level once the refineries start ramping up production for summer. I'd expect it to peak Memorial Day weekend.

Quote:
Of course their will be tragedies like the gulf accident, but we must take these risks to advance forward. I love those envro- sickos that said... OH IT'S GONNA TAKE 30 YEARS FOR THE GULF TO RETURN TO NORMAL. BUT THERE'S NO OIL DAMAGE TO BE FOUND IN THE GULF OF MEXICO!!!! ANYWHERE!!!!!


Louisiana fishermen will be quick to disagree with you on the lack of damage.

Quote:
Obama has completely dismantled any drilling anywhere in the United States. Shutting down BP's drilling capacity. WHat do you think happened? BP closed up shop, putting and estimated 30-40 thousand people OUT OF WORK.


Completely false. As of April 20, 60 new offshore drilling permits have been issued since the BP spill. And BP did not "close up shop." In fact, the first drilling permit issued after the spill was to a partnership between BP and Noble Energy.

Quote:
Of course he wants to shut down the oil companies, because..."oh dear, oh my..oil is bad for us my friends.it's a terrible, terrible thing and we should just...umm abolish oil and let's just all Go GREEN!! And just rely soley on the sun and the wind. ITS NOT SUNNY AND WINDY ALL THE TIME!!!!!LOLOL!!!! So what do we have to do for back up systems? WE have to build....What? MORE ELECTRIC PLANTS!!!!


It's sunny and windy enough of the time that it can reduce the need for oil, gas, and coal fired power plants, but certainly not eliminate the need. The President has never suggested we should rely solely on solar and wind energy or abolish oil.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bystander



Age: 81
Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Posts: 26
Location: South Eastern Pennsylvania

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 4:41 pm    Post subject: Worth a try.....Maybe? Reply with quote

Perhaps the Federal government, through Tax Incentives, or outright Bribery, could cause the following to transpire over the next Ten Years.(They seem to love Ten Year Plans)

Every Highway vehicle will be a hybrid with some sort of regenerative braking

Every waterway will contribute a little Hydro-electric power.

Every windy place will have windmills.

Every railroad will be electrified.

Every sunny place will have solar cells.

The oceans will be made to generate power through wave action.

Every house, garage, mall, office, and Garden Shed will have solar panels.

Rebuild the Nukes to a "Floating" design so that if an Earthquake comes, they won't come apart. If you want more on this idea, let me know.

Individually, each of these is about a hill of beans against our national need, but all working together, they would go a long way toward American Energy Independence.

Oh, yeah, And Drill,Baby, Drill!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mr. Linsky
BusTalk's Offical Welcoming Committee



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 5071
Location: BRENTWOOD, CA. - WOODMERE, N.Y.

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bystander,

Nice list of alternatives but mostly unnecessary if efforts are concentrated on the harnessing of ocean wave action worldwide which, according to the experts, could be done rather cheaply and would solve our energy needs for the rest of time!

You mention 'floating designs' for Nuclear power plants to reduce the damage caused by earthquakes - I would imagine that you mean that they should be more resilient during tremors.

I have to laugh because some forty years or so ago when New York's Long Island Lighting Company attempted to open the Shoreham Reactor at Wading River but was forced to abandon the project due to public outcry, I suggested that all future reactor designs incorporate flotation so that they could be towed out to sea in the event of a meltdown.

That application might just have saved the day last month at Fukushima in Japan!

Regards,

Mr. 'L'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shortlineMCI



Age: 54
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 241

PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike... Bamster has agecies such as the EPA that work directly for him and his agencies that are not elected, but appointed and We the People have no say as to what they do.

The EPA want nothing more than to do away with oil. They feel as if oil is dirty and not a natural resource, (which I beg to differ, it comes from the ground right?) Now remember something..unless the law has changed, the EPA (remember..the appointed adminstration by obama) the EPA has determined that WE the People are not allowed to have available to us, incandecent light bulbs by the year 2012 and they will be made illegal in the US. The EPA will be forcing us to buy the lousy spiral bulbs, which give us horribe, horrible lighting.

Now, the oil companies are making about 8 cents per gallon. Why would anyone want to punish them?

You will never hear Obama say he wants to do away with oil he doensn't have to, the EPA is doing a fine job of that, Bamster and the EPA has set in place restrictions so thick and impossible to deal with. Take coal for instance. His words exactly.......

"My admistration will put restrictions in place for the coal companies, that I will put them out of business because prices will neccessarily skyrocket" Not my opinion.

Bamster is a dangerous socialists. Don't believe me? the past November elections told us that the American people have had enough.

Mike, we might not see eye to eye on things, but I have much respect for you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ripta42
Site Admin


Age: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 1035
Location: Pawtucket, RI / Woburn, MA

PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

shortlineMCI wrote:
Mike... Bamster has agecies such as the EPA that work directly for him and his agencies that are not elected, but appointed and We the People have no say as to what they do.


The Department of the Interior is also appointed and "works directly for" the President. They approved sixty offshore permits. The EPA rejected one.

Quote:
The EPA want nothing more than to do away with oil. They feel as if oil is dirty and not a natural resource, (which I beg to differ, it comes from the ground right?) Now remember something..unless the law has changed, the EPA (remember..the appointed adminstration by obama) the EPA has determined that WE the People are not allowed to have available to us, incandecent light bulbs by the year 2012 and they will be made illegal in the US. The EPA will be forcing us to buy the lousy spiral bulbs, which give us horribe, horrible lighting.


No one in power right now wants to "do away with oil." Al Gore possibly did, but he's out of politics. As far as CFLs go, they're much, much improved over what was available even a year ago, and that's probably due to the upcoming mandate.

Quote:
Now, the oil companies are making about 8 cents per gallon. Why would anyone want to punish them?


If that number is accurate, that's an enormous amount of profit. A barrel is 42 gallons, and the U.S. consumes 21 million barrels of oil a day. That's 12 billion dollars a year. I'm guessing it's really a percentage of the price, in which case it makes sense that their profits would soar along with the price.

I don't think that means oil companies should be "punished," and neither does the government. Rather, it's unfair that on top of those profits, the taxpayers also subsidize those companies to the tune of $4 billion per year, meaning that however high the cost appears to us, it's actually artificially low. Why not level the playing field with alternate energy sources, if not by subsidizing them, then at least by letting the oil companies operate the old fashioned free-market way?

Quote:
You will never hear Obama say he wants to do away with oil he doensn't have to, the EPA is doing a fine job of that, Bamster and the EPA has set in place restrictions so thick and impossible to deal with. Take coal for instance. His words exactly.......

"My admistration will put restrictions in place for the coal companies, that I will put them out of business because prices will neccessarily skyrocket" Not my opinion.


Context is everything. He's talking about investing in clean coal and alternate sources by taking away financial incentives for not exploring alternatives.

Quote:
Bamster is a dangerous socialists. Don't believe me? the past November elections told us that the American people have had enough.

Mike, we might not see eye to eye on things, but I have much respect for you.


I don't believe you, but the respect is mutual.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bystander



Age: 81
Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Posts: 26
Location: South Eastern Pennsylvania

PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:38 pm    Post subject: Floating Nukes Reply with quote

Mr. Linsky:
The Long Island Plan is close to what I had in mind,but, As we learned a few years ago in the San Francisco Earthquake, when you build something on fill and an earthquake comes, the fill will act like a liquid and your stuff will sink. So using the Long Island Blueprint, our Nuke would just kind of float around until the quake was over. And if you put in a generator with a seven second delay on it, you wouldn't loose power and your pumps would keep it cool. better than what happened in Japan? Y/N
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BusTalk Forum Index -> Hot Topics & Current Events All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group