Local gas now 99.9

[KevanGuy]

Originally posted by InTheSlot@Aug 13 2005, 12:06 AM
I live in the U.S. and around here gas has just climbed to $2.45 per gallon. I dunno what that computes to in Canadian money and liters, but I'm sure it's just as outrageous.

Actually, thats only about $0.77 CAD per litre. And we are at $1.00 per litre, or $3.18 USD per gallon.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by InTheSlot@Aug 13 2005, 12:06 AM


I live in the U.S. and around here gas has just climbed to $2.45 per gallon. I dunno what that computes to in Canadian money and liters, but I'm sure it's just as outrageous.


Specifically I'm from Florida, and I really just wish they'd start drilling in the Gulf of Mexico already. Some people are complaining it would hurt tourism cuz of the eye-sore, but c'mon, it'll be miles off shore you won't even be able to see it. Besides that, it'll actually probably be a good spot for fishing of all sorts, because of the heat the derricks let off.


Of course there's the obvious environmentalists who have a problem with the rigs destroying the coral reefs, but I would still rather have the oil to drive down some prices at the pump. The same is true for all the oil in the Alaskan Pipeline, I'm pro for drilling up there as well.

I would much rather the ideals of conservation of our natural resources be preached and acted upon rather than drilling in enviromentally sensitive areas. Don't get me wrong I don't like high gas prices, but until people stop driving V8 Hemi's in the city you are going to find that gas prices will remain high. In the average month I spend around 60 dollars if that. I get around 700 km in on the bike at the same time saving myself quite a bit there.

Personally before I start drilling into the Gulf of Mexico (although there already is drilling which occurs there right now I do believe) why not:

1) Offer government incentives for initiatives involving ideals such as riding a bike.
2) Establish high speed bike paths for said bikes.
3) Further promote energy wise choices (turning your furnace off at night and when you leave the house in the winter, discounts on appliances with the Energy Safe logo attached to them or whatever that is)
4) Put greater money into the funding of research devoted to alternitive sources of energy.
5) Less urban sprawl needs to be looked at, and ways of combating the issues which are associated.

When everything like that is done then go wild and drill, but right now drilling in a kneejerk reaction to save you $7.50 on your next fillup would be a very foolish move from a sustanability of resources perspective, and from an enviromental perspective.

[InTheSlot]

Well first off, there's no guarantee that drilling would definitely ruin the environmental areas in question, it's just a risk that could potentially go bad, which is why people don't want them to start drilling.


Secondly, what exactly would implementing so called "high speed" bike paths accomplish? How fast do you think the average person can ride a bike and for how long? Sure you might kill two birds with one stone and solve America's obesity problem, but it's just not practical by any means. The average person commutes to work probably a half-hour driving distance, and unless you're Lance Armstrong, which even then it would be a nice task; it just isn't gonna happen.

As for alternative sources of energy, I believe there's already a huge budget in the government devoted to finding another source, but I don't think anyone expects to find a savior any time soon.

Not sure what you mean by urban sprawl, perhaps clarify.

Lasty, you said we would be saving something like $7.50 on our next fill-up if we did start the drilling, well...sure $7.50 might not seem like a lot, but if you're doing a lot of traveling on a daily basis, it can add up. Besides that, we're not just talking about one or two people here, virtually the entire North American continent has faced substantial increases, so saving that extra $7.50 each time you fill-up would make a significant difference in the lives of many.

[Hakan]

I made a topic about oil a while back, too bad it has been archived or deleted.

See the movie, The End of Suburbia. Scary stuff when we're so dependent on a non-renewable resource.

To the above post. High speed bike paths are a really good idea. Here in Vancouver they have decided to close down two entire lanes on the Burrard bridge and dedicate them to bikes. This will be a huge improvement in speed as the way the path works now, you have a small lane which both bicyclists and pedestrians use. It's slow and terribly unsafe. Vancouver is really a great place to be a cyclist, I can get anywhere in Vancouver proper in 40 minutes thanks to the extensive network of bike lanes.

[InTheSlot]

Originally posted by Hakan@Aug 13 2005, 04:17 PM
I made a topic about oil a while back, too bad it has been archived or deleted.

See the movie, The End of Suburbia. Scary stuff when we're so dependent on a non-renewable resource.

To the above post. High speed bike paths are a really good idea. Here in Vancouver they have decided to close down two entire lanes on the Burrard bridge and dedicate them to bikes. This will be a huge improvement in speed as the way the path works now, you have a small lane which both bicyclists and pedestrians use. It's slow and terribly unsafe. Vancouver is really a great place to be a cyclist, I can get anywhere in Vancouver proper in 40 minutes thanks to the extensive network of bike lanes.

Sorry to have to bring this up again, but how fast do you think people can ride bikes? Pro cyclists themselves can really only go as fast as 50mph, and they can't keep that up at a constant pace. Mind you that's when they are as wind resistant as possible, too, with special bikes that cost around $25,000.


Seriously, I find it absolutely ludicrous that people are suggesting "high speed" bike paths. It's no where near practical.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

A high speed bike path, I know more than a few people that would use that, especially in the summer months where there really is no other option to get into the downtown core. If one does decide to ride a bike into the core at any (legal) rate of speed they have to do so on a major roadway such as Crowchild, Memorial and or Shaganappi if they are coming from the northwest, and I am fairly certain that the issue is similar for those who commute from the south. Put a number of high speed bike paths into the city, as well as make it so that some roads in the city are more bike friendly then you really will find that people will go out onto the roads.

It isn't that difficult to pick up a bike and ride around 20 km which accomidates for a large percentage of the cities population. I know I am not in the greatest of shape, but I can do that in around 40-45 minutes, and if I am busting my balls I can do it in just over half an hour with an average speed of 35 km/hour. But at the same time I would bet that it wouldn't be that big of a difference between driving into the city and riding a bike into the city. Hell you set up those bike paths and I am sure you would find reduced numbers of cyclist collisions with autos as well as collisions with pedestrians on the pathways.

But really I don't want to be risking the enviromental stability of a region, especially one as sensitive as a coral reef so people can save 7.50 on a fillup, and really (if we can use you line of thinking) we don't even know that it will have a significant impact on gas prices at least not for a while while the offshore oil wells are up and running - which takes a heck of a long time.

Urban sprawl - happening to a certain extent, but growing up and not out. Right now Calgary is just scooping up land left right and center and building out. Results in people having really long drives into work, rather Calgary should be focusing on getting people in the inner city areas, or in the development of innercity appartment buildings. In doing so eliminate a huge chunk of the driving which takes place in the average commute.

Just spitballing ideas though.

1) Manditory service checks - change oil filter and keep tire pressure at the correct levels.
2) Increased use of telecommuting.

Edit: No one is saying the high speed bike paths would be around 50 mph as you suggest, but rather bike paths which are designed specifically for bike use, and trust be it is easy to get around 30 km.hour on a bike.

[Hakan]

Originally posted by InTheSlot+Aug 13 2005, 04:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (InTheSlot @ Aug 13 2005, 04:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Hakan@Aug 13 2005, 04:17 PM
I made a topic about oil a while back, too bad it has been archived or deleted.

See the movie, The End of Suburbia. Scary stuff when we're so dependent on a non-renewable resource.

To the above post. High speed bike paths are a really good idea. Here in Vancouver they have decided to close down two entire lanes on the Burrard bridge and dedicate them to bikes. This will be a huge improvement in speed as the way the path works now, you have a small lane which both bicyclists and pedestrians use. It's slow and terribly unsafe. Vancouver is really a great place to be a cyclist, I can get anywhere in Vancouver proper in 40 minutes thanks to the extensive network of bike lanes.

Sorry to have to bring this up again, but how fast do you think people can ride bikes? Pro cyclists themselves can really only go as fast as 50mph, and they can't keep that up at a constant pace. Mind you that's when they are as wind resistant as possible, too, with special bikes that cost around $25,000.


Seriously, I find it absolutely ludicrous that people are suggesting "high speed" bike paths. It's no where near practical. [/b][/quote]
You completely and perhaps willingly missed the point. The point is that biking places takes alot longer then it should because there are not adequate lanes and such for bikers. Therefore making wide direct bike lanes along direct travel routes instead of a leisurely path along the river is a high speed bike lane. It has nothing to do with how fast you can actually peddle but how easy and direct you can get there.

[InTheSlot]

Originally posted by KevanGuy+Aug 13 2005, 09:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KevanGuy @ Aug 13 2005, 09:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-InTheSlot@Aug 13 2005, 12:06 AM
I live in the U.S. and around here gas has just climbed to $2.45 per gallon. I dunno what that computes to in Canadian money and liters, but I'm sure it's just as outrageous.

Actually, thats only about $0.77 CAD per litre. And we are at $1.00 per litre, or $3.18 USD per gallon. [/b][/quote]
Ah, well that is higher than here, but lower than some places in the U.S., like California, and New York.


@MeanMrMustard: About the bike paths, who wants to ride a bike 40 or 45 minutes to work as you claim you could do and get there nice and sweaty just in time for your presentation to the board?

[Envitro]

That would be approximately $0.625US and $0.73CDN per LITRE....

[InTheSlot]

Originally posted by Hakan+Aug 13 2005, 04:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hakan @ Aug 13 2005, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Sorry to have to bring this up again, but how fast do you think people can ride bikes? Pro cyclists themselves can really only go as fast as 50mph, and they can't keep that up at a constant pace. Mind you that's when they are as wind resistant as possible, too, with special bikes that cost around $25,000.


Seriously, I find it absolutely ludicrous that people are suggesting "high speed" bike paths. It's no where near practical.

You completely and perhaps willingly missed the point. The point is that biking places takes alot longer then it should because there are not adequate lanes and such for bikers. Therefore making wide direct bike lanes along direct travel routes instead of a leisurely path along the river is a high speed bike lane. It has nothing to do with how fast you can actually peddle but how easy and direct you can get there. [/b][/quote]
Um, no I did not willingly miss the point. Excuse me for being a little ignorant, but I tried to clearly point out that I live in the U.S., and therefore am not completely up to speed on what goes on in and around Canada. I know where I live I don't hear people on a daily basis complain about the inadequate space on bike paths, nor do I think expanding the paths would somehow provide people with an amazing amount of room for mobility that it would alleviate the transportation problems at hand, which I do believe was the point of this thread.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by InTheSlot@Aug 13 2005, 06:27 PM
@MeanMrMustard: About the bike paths, who wants to ride a bike 40 or 45 minutes to work as you claim you could do and get there nice and sweaty just in time for your presentation to the board?

Ok I did a little test as too how long it takes to get downtown riding a bike at above average speed on the pathways (didn't get caught either) and it took a grand total of 23 minutes and 50 seconds, less time actually than it would take if one were to be stuck in rushhour traffic or at least comparable time, as a result I really don't think that the arguement of time could come into consideration unless someone was living out in the boonies (I live out in Ranchlands - which is besides Crowfoot if you didn't know). Secondly the issue regarding sweat, I must say pretty much every major corporation has showers and other amenities which are available for use for those who do activities such as go for a run over lunch. You know what you have a meeting really early in the morning, drive in. But for the average day I see no reason as to why the shower at work would be such a horrible alternitive.

Plus that travel time would be cut down significantly with the establishment of the high speed bike paths where one doesn't have to continually slow down for pedestrians and other objects on the bike path.

Really you seem to be stretching pretty heavily for arguements against the building of high speed bike paths. It reduces gas consumption, increases exercise and thus creates a healthier population, increases safety for pretty much everyone on the road (especially cyclists, and to a lesser extent pedestrians on the bike paths who have a habit of walking pretty much everywhere without a care in the world or paying any attention at all, and even the average motorist who wouldn't have to look out for cyclists on the major roads and could pay more attention to the actual driving).

But you don't want to ride your bike into work, then don't but at the same time I see way to many advantages associated with the establishment of these paths to dismiss the idea out of hand.

[InTheSlot]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard+Aug 13 2005, 09:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mean Mr. Mustard @ Aug 13 2005, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-InTheSlot@Aug 13 2005, 06:27 PM
@MeanMrMustard: About the bike paths, who wants to ride a bike 40 or 45 minutes to work as you claim you could do and get there nice and sweaty just in time for your presentation to the board?

Ok I did a little test as too how long it takes to get downtown riding a bike at above average speed on the pathways (didn't get caught either) and it took a grand total of 23 minutes and 50 seconds, less time actually than it would take if one were to be stuck in rushhour traffic or at least comparable time, as a result I really don't think that the arguement of time could come into consideration unless someone was living out in the boonies (I live out in Ranchlands - which is besides Crowfoot if you didn't know). Secondly the issue regarding sweat, I must say pretty much every major corporation has showers and other amenities which are available for use for those who do activities such as go for a run over lunch. You know what you have a meeting really early in the morning, drive in. But for the average day I see no reason as to why the shower at work would be such a horrible alternitive.

Plus that travel time would be cut down significantly with the establishment of the high speed bike paths where one doesn't have to continually slow down for pedestrians and other objects on the bike path.

Really you seem to be stretching pretty heavily for arguements against the building of high speed bike paths. It reduces gas consumption, increases exercise and thus creates a healthier population, increases safety for pretty much everyone on the road (especially cyclists, and to a lesser extent pedestrians on the bike paths who have a habit of walking pretty much everywhere without a care in the world or paying any attention at all, and even the average motorist who wouldn't have to look out for cyclists on the major roads and could pay more attention to the actual driving).

But you don't want to ride your bike into work, then don't but at the same time I see way to many advantages associated with the establishment of these paths to dismiss the idea out of hand. [/b][/quote]
You're telling me that you think you could bike to a place faster than you could travel by car? You said "above average speeds"...let's say that's 25mph, assuming the average person takes a lesiurely bike ride coasting at 15-20mph. (That might even be a little generous)

I have to believe that, even during some heavy traffic times, cars would be moving above 25mph. Unless there's an accident or some sort which renders bumper-to-bumper traffic which is always an exception, then your car should still provide faster transportation.

If you're still stubborn and refuse to accept it, I still go with the idea that even if you did implement these new bigger/wider sidewalks, it wouldn't necessarily eliminate any sort of heavy traffic periods on the highways nor reduce the amount of oil consumption via motor vehicle enough so that oil would no longer be an economic concern.



EDIT: Don't get my wrong here, I'm all for constructing new bike paths, I just don't think it will do any economic good. Like I said you might be able to some solve obesity problems by allowing more people to ride their bikes at once, but I don't see it being a solution to the world's oil usage.