Gas prices possibly heading soon to $6-$7 a gallon

[Hugh Conway]

And if you don't do the upgrades, it takes far too long to get to North Van, so everyone would just continue driving

 

I was thinking for destination tourists, not Vancouver commuters. The Perimeter shuttle bus already takes 3-4 hrs. Once you get to Whistler you've 0 need for a car so if you are flying in it's stupid to rent one but the shuttle buses leave you on the same crappy road.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

closer to home it'd be cool for rail service to Snoqualmie pass again

 

A ski train to Stevens would be way cool. They've already got the tracks (how close do those get to Steven's anyway?). Just build a station and bus shuttle up there, and maybe a station at Shillshole or Magnolia.

 

People already paying big bucks for the damn lift tix. You could probably soak 'em for a train ticket too. That would be sweet not having to drive home after a tiring day on the slopes. Just think of the $$$ they could get from beer sales alone!

 

Yeah, we greens need mass transit to all our luxury sport destinations! That's what's important!

 

[foraker]

Yeah, we greens need mass transit to all our luxury sport destinations! That's what's important!

 

An escalator up to Givler's Crack. Yeah!, baby.

[chucK]

Couldn't hurt!

 

Though I agree that public money would be better spent on mass transit serving the work commuters.

[jmace]

Jeez I dunno Murray..

 

Gas at 10 bucks a gallon seems like a fine reason to build a rail line over a gas guzzling boat. Topography..they sure seem to be able to add 4 lanes why not a straighter faster rail line ?

 

just seems that adding bigger and faster roads is already behind the times, what we need is better more efficient transport not huge swaths of highways through the mountains.

 

The sea to sky corridor sure seems to be growing with homes so the user base should start to be there

[whirlwind]

I don’t understand. We invade and occupy Iraq for oil? Or to control the oil. Yet prices go up and up…..looks like we have no control over the oil. Or is that perception yet another smoke screen for something bigger?

 

to anwser your question; the reason the us and sadia arabia wanted the Iraqi oil was not to drill it and increase supply that wouldn't make sence cause then the oil they own and pump out is worth less, the resaon for Bush's invasion.. stop suply. the iraqis were practically giveing oil to the seria, not counting what they sold to us and other nations, the more oil availible, ie the higher the suply, the less each barrel is worth. you think there is any corraltion with the fact that this is the Bush admin last little drain before there out in 6 mounths?

ya summers ussaly brings and increase in price due to an increase in demand, but what other than the lack of supply and or increase in demand brings up the price of a product?

so simple attck iraq, saction and "protect" their oil fields so no one gets any. there by increaseing the price of whats available. and as a side note its not to hard to blame those with the most to gain from this action, especally when they are in a position to make it happen.

 

Load of extreme bullshit above.

 

piss off you merly proved my point that suply and demand are the reason for price increase. so the lack of suply from iraq along with the increase in demand from china and else where equals, higher price. and who still benifits from iraqi oil being controled and for the most part off the market. maybe i was wrong in the claim that the recent price was due to the Bush admin wanting to go out with a bang, but i really dought that it isn't atleast part of the reason. so before you call it a load of bullshit maybe you use your "superior" intelct to prove it wrong rather than giveing the asertion more ground on which to stand.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I don’t understand. We invade and occupy Iraq for oil? Or to control the oil. Yet prices go up and up…..looks like we have no control over the oil. Or is that perception yet another smoke screen for something bigger?

 

to anwser your question; the reason the us and sadia arabia wanted the Iraqi oil was not to drill it and increase supply that wouldn't make sence cause then the oil they own and pump out is worth less, the resaon for Bush's invasion.. stop suply. the iraqis were practically giveing oil to the seria, not counting what they sold to us and other nations, the more oil availible, ie the higher the suply, the less each barrel is worth. you think there is any corraltion with the fact that this is the Bush admin last little drain before there out in 6 mounths?

ya summers ussaly brings and increase in price due to an increase in demand, but what other than the lack of supply and or increase in demand brings up the price of a product?

so simple attck iraq, saction and "protect" their oil fields so no one gets any. there by increaseing the price of whats available. and as a side note its not to hard to blame those with the most to gain from this action, especally when they are in a position to make it happen.

 

Load of extreme bullshit above.

 

piss off you merly proved my point that suply and demand are the reason for price increase. so the lack of suply from iraq along with the increase in demand from china and else where equals, higher price. and who still benifits from iraqi oil being controled and for the most part off the market. maybe i was wrong in the claim that the recent price was due to the Bush admin wanting to go out with a bang, but i really dought that it isn't atleast part of the reason. so before you call it a load of bullshit maybe you use your "superior" intelct to prove it wrong rather than giveing the asertion more ground on which to stand.

 

So much for the thesis that "FAR right" posters have a monopoly on shitty spelling and grammar.

 

[glassgowkiss]

I don’t understand. We invade and occupy Iraq for oil? Or to control the oil. Yet prices go up and up…..looks like we have no control over the oil. Or is that perception yet another smoke screen for something bigger?

 

to anwser your question; the reason the us and sadia arabia wanted the Iraqi oil was not to drill it and increase supply that wouldn't make sence cause then the oil they own and pump out is worth less, the resaon for Bush's invasion.. stop suply. the iraqis were practically giveing oil to the seria, not counting what they sold to us and other nations, the more oil availible, ie the higher the suply, the less each barrel is worth. you think there is any corraltion with the fact that this is the Bush admin last little drain before there out in 6 mounths?

ya summers ussaly brings and increase in price due to an increase in demand, but what other than the lack of supply and or increase in demand brings up the price of a product?

so simple attck iraq, saction and "protect" their oil fields so no one gets any. there by increaseing the price of whats available. and as a side note its not to hard to blame those with the most to gain from this action, especally when they are in a position to make it happen.

 

Load of extreme bullshit above.

 

piss off you merly proved my point that suply and demand are the reason for price increase. so the lack of suply from iraq along with the increase in demand from china and else where equals, higher price. and who still benifits from iraqi oil being controled and for the most part off the market. maybe i was wrong in the claim that the recent price was due to the Bush admin wanting to go out with a bang, but i really dought that it isn't atleast part of the reason. so before you call it a load of bullshit maybe you use your "superior" intelct to prove it wrong rather than giveing the asertion more ground on which to stand.

 

So much for the thesis that "FAR right" posters have a monopoly on shitty spelling and grammar.

 

you far righters have a monopoly of being real cunts. and stupid too. now go and play with your gerbils wanker.

[olyclimber]

high gas prices will be an awesome catalyst for CHANGE

[NateF]

high gas prices will be an awesome catalyst for CHANGE

Word. Adapt and enjoy!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

high gas prices will be an awesome catalyst for CHANGE

Word. Adapt and enjoy!

 

Change. Like an economic downturn. A new Great Depression. Fuck yeah!!!

[builder206]

My industry was hard hit by the downturn in '92-'93. I don't want to go through that again.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

My industry was hard hit by the downturn in '92-'93. I don't want to go through that again.

 

EMBRACE CHANGE. AND HOPE.

[olyclimber]

high gas prices will be an awesome catalyst for CHANGE

Word. Adapt and enjoy!

 

Change. Like an economic downturn. A new Great Depression. Fuck yeah!!!

 

there you go with your glass half empty again

 

what about faith in the American ability to innovate?

[G-spotter]

CHANGE OR DIE

[kevbone]

$4.10 by my house......sucks.....

[KaskadskyjKozak]

$4.10 by my house......sucks.....

 

Evolve or die.

 

[builder206]

My industry was hard hit by the downturn in '92-'93. I don't want to go through that again.

 

EMBRACE CHANGE. AND HOPE.

 

Not helping!

[sobo]

CHANGE OR DIE

Change? ...we fear change...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

My industry was hard hit by the downturn in '92-'93. I don't want to go through that again.

 

EMBRACE CHANGE. AND HOPE.

 

Not helping!

 

you need to see the glass as half full. $7/gal gasoline will be a GOOD thing. we need to save the planet. we need to force everyone to do it now. look for the silver lining

 

[Jim]

 

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: May 28, 2008

Imagine for a minute, just a minute, that someone running for president was able to actually tell the truth, the real truth, to the American people about what would be the best — I mean really the best — energy policy for the long-term economic health and security of our country. I realize this is a fantasy, but play along with me for a minute. What would this mythical, totally imaginary, truth-telling candidate say?

 

For starters, he or she would explain that there is no short-term fix for gasoline prices. Prices are what they are as a result of rising global oil demand from India, China and a rapidly growing Middle East on top of our own increasing consumption, a shortage of “sweet” crude that is used for the diesel fuel that Europe is highly dependent upon and our own neglect of effective energy policy for 30 years.

 

Cynical ideas, like the McCain-Clinton summertime gas-tax holiday, would only make the problem worse, and reckless initiatives like the Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep offer to subsidize gasoline for three years for people who buy its gas guzzlers are the moral equivalent of tobacco companies offering discounted cigarettes to teenagers.

 

I can’t say it better than my friend Tim Shriver, the chairman of Special Olympics, did in a Memorial Day essay in The Washington Post: “So Dodge wants to sell you a car you don’t really want to buy, that is not fuel-efficient, will further damage our environment, and will further subsidize oil states, some of which are on the other side of the wars we’re currently fighting. ... The planet be damned, the troops be forgotten, the economy be ignored: buy a Dodge.”

 

No, our mythical candidate would say the long-term answer is to go exactly the other way: guarantee people a high price of gasoline — forever.

 

This candidate would note that $4-a-gallon gasoline is really starting to impact driving behavior and buying behavior in way that $3-a-gallon gas did not. The first time we got such a strong price signal, after the 1973 oil shock, we responded as a country by demanding and producing more fuel-efficient cars. But as soon as oil prices started falling in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we let Detroit get us readdicted to gas guzzlers, and the price steadily crept back up to where it is today.

 

We must not make that mistake again. Therefore, what our mythical candidate would be proposing, argues the energy economist Philip Verleger Jr., is a “price floor” for gasoline: $4 a gallon for regular unleaded, which is still half the going rate in Europe today. Washington would declare that it would never let the price fall below that level. If it does, it would increase the federal gasoline tax on a monthly basis to make up the difference between the pump price and the market price.

 

To ease the burden on the less well-off, “anyone earning under $80,000 a year would be compensated with a reduction in the payroll taxes,” said Verleger. Or, he suggested, the government could use the gasoline tax to buy back gas guzzlers from the public and “crush them.”

 

But the message going forward to every car buyer and carmaker would be this: The price of gasoline is never going back down. Therefore, if you buy a big gas guzzler today, you are locking yourself into perpetually high gasoline bills. You are buying a pig that will eat you out of house and home. At the same time, if you, a manufacturer, continue building fleets of nonhybrid gas guzzlers, you are condemning yourself, your employees and shareholders to oblivion.

 

What a cruel thing for a candidate to say? I disagree. Every decade we look back and say: “If only we had done the right thing then, we would be in a different position today.”

 

But no politician dared to do so. When gasoline was $2 a gallon, the government never would have imposed a $2 tax. Now that it is $4 a gallon, the government should at least keep it there, since it is really having the right effect.

 

I was visiting my local Toyota dealer in Bethesda, Md., last week to trade in one hybrid car for another. There is now a two-month wait to buy a Prius, which gets close to 50 miles per gallon. The dealer told me I was lucky. My hybrid was going up in value every day, so I didn’t have to worry about waiting a while for my new car. But if it were not a hybrid, he said, he would deduct each day $200 from the trade-in price for every $1-a-barrel increase in the OPEC price of crude oil. When I saw the rows and rows of unsold S.U.V.’s parked in his lot, I understood why.

 

We need to make a structural shift in our energy economy. Ultimately, we need to move our entire fleet to plug-in electric cars. The only way to get from here to there is to start now with a price signal that will force the change.

 

Barack Obama had the courage to tell voters that the McCain-Clinton summer gas-giveaway plan was a fraud. Wouldn’t it be amazing if he took the next step and put the right plan before the American people? Wouldn’t that just be amazing?

 

 

[olyclimber]

My industry was hard hit by the downturn in '92-'93. I don't want to go through that again.

 

EMBRACE CHANGE. AND HOPE.

 

Not helping!

 

you need to see the glass as half full. $7/gal gasoline will be a GOOD thing. we need to save the planet. we need to force everyone to do it now. look for the silver lining

 

"we" would not be forcing anything. its called the INVISIBLE HAND OF THE MARKET bitch slapping us for being short sighted.

[Hugh Conway]

"we" would not be forcing anything. its called the INVISIBLE HAND OF THE MARKET bitch slapping us for being short sighted.

 

market forces only bitch slap liberals porter

 

they give conservatives hand jobs

 

 

[underworld]

"we" would not be forcing anything. its called the INVISIBLE HAND OF THE MARKET bitch slapping us for being short sighted.

 

market forces only bitch slap liberals porter

 

they give conservatives hand jobs

 

 

 

 

victim!!!!!!!!!`

[canyondweller]

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: May 28, 2008

Imagine for a minute, just a minute, that someone running for president was able to actually tell the truth, the real truth, to the American people about what would be the best — I mean really the best — energy policy for the long-term economic health and security of our country. I realize this is a fantasy, but play along with me for a minute. What would this mythical, totally imaginary, truth-telling candidate say?

 

For starters, he or she would explain that there is no short-term fix for gasoline prices. Prices are what they are as a result of rising global oil demand from India, China and a rapidly growing Middle East on top of our own increasing consumption, a shortage of “sweet” crude that is used for the diesel fuel that Europe is highly dependent upon and our own neglect of effective energy policy for 30 years.

 

Cynical ideas, like the McCain-Clinton summertime gas-tax holiday, would only make the problem worse, and reckless initiatives like the Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep offer to subsidize gasoline for three years for people who buy its gas guzzlers are the moral equivalent of tobacco companies offering discounted cigarettes to teenagers.

 

I can’t say it better than my friend Tim Shriver, the chairman of Special Olympics, did in a Memorial Day essay in The Washington Post: “So Dodge wants to sell you a car you don’t really want to buy, that is not fuel-efficient, will further damage our environment, and will further subsidize oil states, some of which are on the other side of the wars we’re currently fighting. ... The planet be damned, the troops be forgotten, the economy be ignored: buy a Dodge.”

 

No, our mythical candidate would say the long-term answer is to go exactly the other way: guarantee people a high price of gasoline — forever.

 

This candidate would note that $4-a-gallon gasoline is really starting to impact driving behavior and buying behavior in way that $3-a-gallon gas did not. The first time we got such a strong price signal, after the 1973 oil shock, we responded as a country by demanding and producing more fuel-efficient cars. But as soon as oil prices started falling in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we let Detroit get us readdicted to gas guzzlers, and the price steadily crept back up to where it is today.

 

We must not make that mistake again. Therefore, what our mythical candidate would be proposing, argues the energy economist Philip Verleger Jr., is a “price floor” for gasoline: $4 a gallon for regular unleaded, which is still half the going rate in Europe today. Washington would declare that it would never let the price fall below that level. If it does, it would increase the federal gasoline tax on a monthly basis to make up the difference between the pump price and the market price.

 

To ease the burden on the less well-off, “anyone earning under $80,000 a year would be compensated with a reduction in the payroll taxes,” said Verleger. Or, he suggested, the government could use the gasoline tax to buy back gas guzzlers from the public and “crush them.”

 

But the message going forward to every car buyer and carmaker would be this: The price of gasoline is never going back down. Therefore, if you buy a big gas guzzler today, you are locking yourself into perpetually high gasoline bills. You are buying a pig that will eat you out of house and home. At the same time, if you, a manufacturer, continue building fleets of nonhybrid gas guzzlers, you are condemning yourself, your employees and shareholders to oblivion.

 

What a cruel thing for a candidate to say? I disagree. Every decade we look back and say: “If only we had done the right thing then, we would be in a different position today.”

 

But no politician dared to do so. When gasoline was $2 a gallon, the government never would have imposed a $2 tax. Now that it is $4 a gallon, the government should at least keep it there, since it is really having the right effect.

 

I was visiting my local Toyota dealer in Bethesda, Md., last week to trade in one hybrid car for another. There is now a two-month wait to buy a Prius, which gets close to 50 miles per gallon. The dealer told me I was lucky. My hybrid was going up in value every day, so I didn’t have to worry about waiting a while for my new car. But if it were not a hybrid, he said, he would deduct each day $200 from the trade-in price for every $1-a-barrel increase in the OPEC price of crude oil. When I saw the rows and rows of unsold S.U.V.’s parked in his lot, I understood why.

 

We need to make a structural shift in our energy economy. Ultimately, we need to move our entire fleet to plug-in electric cars. The only way to get from here to there is to start now with a price signal that will force the change.

 

Barack Obama had the courage to tell voters that the McCain-Clinton summer gas-giveaway plan was a fraud. Wouldn’t it be amazing if he took the next step and put the right plan before the American people? Wouldn’t that just be amazing?

 

 

Allowing the Government to take MORE of people's hard-earned money, thus removing it from the marketplace? Price controls? Sounds like the first step towards Maxine Waters's dream of a nationalized oil industry. No thanks.