OK, so the photo is from the last price spike (hat tip to the reader who sent it to me then). But the O is reporting that gas prices are up 36 cents in the last month.
Seemed like a joke at the time, now it’s with us…
Original Post: 3/29/07
OK, so the photo is from the last price spike (hat tip to the reader who sent it to me then). But the O is reporting that gas prices are up 36 cents in the last month.
0 responses to “Sign of Times
to Come?”Prices can vary over a span of a few miles. In Capitol Hill, gas is $3.09 for Regular, $3.09 in SOuth Lake Union, $2.92 in SOuth Seattle. That was for regular.
If it is already $3 per gallon in some areas in March, it is shocking to think what it will be by Memorial Day!
Prices can vary over a span of a few miles. In Capitol Hill, gas is $3.09 for Regular, $3.09 in SOuth Lake Union, $2.92 in SOuth Seattle. That was for regular.
If it is already $3 per gallon in some areas in March, it is shocking to think what it will be by Memorial Day!
I can’t believe people refer to these as “spikes” as if it is a serious price increase.
A real price increase is going from $3 – 5 bucks. THAT is a price increase. That’s when the economy gets ROCKED and people start thinking differently.
When it hits $5-8 bucks (let’s say it starts covering road maintenance and costs) then we Americans will have a more realistic expectation of what is and is not a spike.
What happens these days are merely fluctuations… and should be treated as nothing more.
Heh. The comments seem short sighted at this point. It seems that $3.50 was the tipping point for a least a chunk of people – seeing the drop in VMT, the decrease in bridge traffic and the increase in trimet boardings.
Survey USA says 80% of Americans believe we’ll see $5/gal before we see $3/gal again.
I propose an SUV buyback program – like they have the gun buyback programs in areas of severe gang activity and crime – the government will buy your SUV from you (seeing as you can’t trade it in) and we’ll use the reclaimed materials to create three smaller cars.
gas prices are such a crock of you know what…
Gas in this area comes from the refinery in Anacortes to all of Washington and into Portland by pipeline… The major petro selling companies were making a healthy profit when gas was priced at half the current prices.. You can go to Anacortes and watch the tankers arrive and unload from th e comfort of a chair in the local McDonalds, then get angry and disgusted that Chevron etc. insist on charging world prices…
YEA BABY!
How do you spell…
D-E-R-E-S-S-I-O-N,
and it’s heading right at us like a runaway train.
Keep on sleeping Americans, hey it’s baseball season and what’s Paris Hilton up to nowadays?
another in a long list of my typo’s..
that’s supposed to read DEPRESSION..
I’ve never been in a “deression” before, but I hope it’s not as bad as a “depression”! :)
We will never, ever see gas prices under $3/gal. again.
Meanwhile our US Treasury is being drained by a useless war…..
Freedom and Democracy!
YEA BABY!
We’re #1….
We’re #1…
We’re #1…
LOL!!
your too late, I already corrected it!
So I don’t know how to type, and usually don’t bother proof reading…
so sue me…
Most sincerely,
Al (your pal)
Al: My attorney has the weekend off, so you’re in luck. :)
LOL!!
good one nouvorevcord!
>bow
“Gas in this area comes from the refinery in Anacortes to all of Washington and into Portland by pipeline… The major petro selling companies were making a healthy profit when gas was priced at half the current prices.. You can go to Anacortes and watch the tankers arrive and unload from the comfort of a chair in the local McDonalds, then get angry and disgusted that Chevron etc. insist on charging world prices…”
Where should I begin?
1) McDonalds chairs aren’t comfortable.
2) The refineries need to buy oil today to make into gasoline next month. If they don’t do that, then there will be no gasoline next month. And a [42 gallon] barrel of crude runs them $132 right now, so they need to sell the gasoline they make from that oil at $3.14 to just pay for the oil, but more like $3.40 to actually pay for electricty/wages/the loans to build the refinery. (Add in some taxes and some money to distributors and the 2% cut that the credit card companies take, and suddenly you are looking $3.90/gallon to the customers.)
3) If the price of gasoline on the wholesale market isn’t at least $3.40 next month, then they are going to have to sell the gasoline at a loss, which means they need to make a profit off the gasoline they sell right now from the oil they bought last month at $110/barrel.
4) Alternatively, they can sell the gasoline on the futures market next month at the current price and not have to risk the price going down. But the FTC tends to yell at the oil companies when the price of gasoline doesn’t come down when the price of oil does. So that is politically unpopular: it is much safer to make money on rising prices and use that money to cover the losses when prices are falling.
The refinery+marketing+taxes margin (the cost of converting oil to gasoline and then selling it at the pump) has been a fairly consistent $0.75/gallon for about 20 years. Last spring it rose to $1/gallon, but there were spot “shortages” in the distribution system in this country, (for instance, Denver was down to 6 hours of gasoline for most of April of 2007,) and so gasoline from our refinery was being put in rail cars and barges and shipped out of the state…
What I think you meant to complain about was the price of oil, not the price of gasoline. The same arguments can be made about oil as the about gasoline, except that instead of them needed “to buy oil this month to make into gasoline next month” they need “to drill wells this year to make oil 5 years from now.” And given that there aren’t very many profitable places to drill oil wells for $20/barrel anymore, that means the price has to go up…
Yes, most of our oil itself comes from Alaska by ship. But if the refinery don’t pay market prices for it, those ships can and will go to somewhere that will pay market prices for them: China, Japan or India. (And if they didn’t, the shareholders (hey, that is me,) of the oil companies will complain that they aren’t making enough money.)
If you don’t like the prices, you are welcome to ride a bicycle or take public transit. (I’ve put 7000 miles on my bicycle in the last 18 months.)
Matthew:
but more like $3.40 to actually pay for electricty/wages/the loans to build the refinery.
Just a small point of contention, the last refinery was built in 1976, so chances are nobody’s paying off loans on the building of a refinery.
The last refinery was built in 1976 in this country. We do import gasoline, (not just crude oil) from other countries though, 1.4 million barrels the first week of May, so I imagine some gasoline costs have gone to pay for some initial construction loans somewhere…
In any case, the refinery equipment doesn’t last forever, they need maintenance/replacement/etc, so old refineries with no [initial construction] loans are not that much cheaper to run in the long term than new ones that do have to pay those loans off. Also, many refineries have gotten bigger than they were when first built, and almost all of them are producing higher grades of fuel from lower grades of crude than when they were first built. And the money to upgrade that equipment came from somewhere…
“””The refinery+marketing+taxes margin (the cost of converting oil to gasoline and then selling it at the pump) has been a fairly consistent $0.75/gallon for about 20 years. Last spring it rose to $1/gallon, but there were spot “shortages” in the distribution system in this country”””
Uh,
well,
hmmm,
let see,
uh……
I AM SO CONFUSED!
This is a good example of why the free market is god’s gift to mankind!
A trillion dollars could buy a lot of bling…
A trillion dollars can buy most anything…
AL M writes: “This is a good example of why the free market is god’s gift to mankind!”
While free markets may be god’s gift to mankind we certainly don’t have them in America.
MHW
Michael H-
Correct,
I was being my usual sarcastic disrespectful self.
Most Sincerely,
Al (your pal)
And the reason we don’t have 100% free markets in America is because… they don’t work! It’s been tried, but too many were exploited for too few to benefit.
“And the reason we don’t have 100% free markets in America is because… they don’t work! It’s been tried, but too many were exploited for too few to benefit.”
B-I-N-G-O!!!!
But you see the word “market”, it conjures up the mom and pop grocery store you see.
How can anyone be against a “market”?
The correct word is CAPITALISM, which means private ownership of the capital.
Of course the capital is owned by a very select group of people, who own just about everything.
But the word “market” is so much more pleasant to use.
It’s like saying, we are bringing “freedom” and “democracy” to the poor helpless Iraqi’s.
So much more palatable than saying that we are expanding American dominance across the globe much like the romans did centuries ago.
the whole point of my diatribe is nothing has changed, costs the same to sall that ship down from Valdez now as then… so the price of gas should be the same even with a small increase for inflation, etc. definitely not a free market here…
According to this post from Garlynn’s blog, using some back-of-the-envelope math, it would seem that gas prices are actually lower than they should be given historical measures of gas price in relation to oil prices and customary overhead.
Further, it is true that in isolation it shouldn’t cost more to extract and ship that oil from Valdez, but if prices in other markets soar sufficiently high, it becomes economical to ship that Valdez oil to overseas ports… so therefore in a global market the price of local oil will track the rest of the market, up to a threshold where it is more profitable to sell the oil domestically rather than ship it off overseas.
“the whole point of my diatribe is nothing has changed, costs the same to sall that ship down from Valdez now as then… so the price of gas should be the same even with a small increase for inflation, etc. definitely not a free market here…”
Free market means you get to sell what you own to the highest bidder, regardless of how much it actually cost you in the first place. People (in this case, companies) maximize profit in a free market system. And while I agree that that isn’t always fair, I think they should do something about housing or food long before they worry about oil prices. But don’t say that that isn’t a free market, because that is exactly what is causing this.
You are right, it doesn’t cost [much] more to sail that ship from Valdez this month than it did last year, but the Chinese would be happy to have that tanker sail over to them, and they are willing to pay $132/barrel for it, so unless you want to that to happen, we’ve got to pay $132/barrel ourselves, (or nationalize the oil industry and get rid of the free market.)
The real problem is that supply has been flat for 3 years now, and demand is going up. We actually pumped less oil in 2007 than we did in 2005, but everyone tried to buy more of it. Prices have to go up in that situation, to signal to people that they should buy less, or there will be shortages…
Jason writes: “And the reason we don’t have 100% free markets in America is because… they don’t work! It’s been tried, but too many were exploited for too few to benefit.”
Jason about the only two areas where free markets have been tried, or at least something close to that would be the press which for the most part is free except for a few exceptions and religion where we probably have a 1000 varities. Both for the most part are unlicensed and unregulated. Let me know if you know of something, or some industry that we have allowed to be free for any length of time. Please clue me in.
MHW
“But don’t say that that isn’t a free market, because that is exactly what is causing this.”
Yea, right, and the tooth fairy is coming to town too!
Nah, there is no collusion in America, there is no corporate greed, nah, its all the free markets responsible for everything.
You really disappoint me Mathew, over and over.
I suppose you also believe that we actually live in a “democracy” huh?
And that we have “freedom” too eh?
See how much freedom you have if you run out of money with nobody to help you and can’t pay the rent.
Yea, your free alright, to live under a bridge.
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Financial_Tsunami/Oil_Speculation/oil_speculation.HTM
We are now over $4 per gallon in the Seattle area at most stations.(NOt sure about ARCO stations, yet. They are usually a little cheaper.) My main concern is Diesel. There is one station in my neighborhood selling it for $4.93 per gallon. Now the bus I took going by that station heading downtown was electric, but still, I wonder how soon most public transit operations in this region will have to add some kind of a fuel surcharge. Taxi Cabs in Seattle already have one, in addition to the meter fare, and that surcharge is now nearly $2. Peak-Hour one-zone on King County Metro is now $1.75, two-zone(routes radiating from Seattle to other points in King County) are $2.25. Sound Transit’s maximum one-way fare on SOUNDER(Tacoma-Freighthouse Square to Seattle’s King Street Station) is $4.75.(SOUNDER went from bus-based zone fares to distance-based fares, $2.50 base, 5.5 cents per mile). The effect higher gas prices are having? The station in Puyallup is the busiest on the SOUNDER system but they have not much parking, and merchants want some of those spots back.
I have heard that the tiny bus system in the Wenatchee Area has seen a rise in ridership because of the higher gas prices. Now will they go for rail? No, but maybe be ordering some bigger buses in the near future.
Another interesting place where transit ridership is up where you least expect it. Alaska, mainly in Anchorage and the Mat-Su Valley. There is talk of adding commuter railroad up there, but the potential operator of it is weary, then again, the Alaska Railroad is the last Full-Service Railroad in the U.S, and their passenger trains operate alongside their freight trains. The ARR is also supposed to make money. The ARR thinks a Commuter Train will be feasible up there at $5 per gallon. Their is talk by some of using the DMU procured for the Chugach Whistle Stop service, which will arrive too late for the season this year, in demonstration service for commuter rail outside of Anchorage.
http://www.adn.com/anchorage/story/389859.html
http://www.masstransitmag.com/web/online/Top-Transit-News/Alaska-Commuter-Rail-Gains-Fans/3$6130
“My main concern is Diesel. There is one station in my neighborhood selling it for $4.93 per gallon. Now the bus I took going by that station heading downtown was electric, but still, I wonder how soon most public transit operations in this region will have to add some kind of a fuel surcharge.”
TriMet uses 6.5M gallons/year of diesel fuel in the fixed route+LIFT service. (I don’t know how much is used by maintenance and etc. Anyone know?) They collected $75.8M in tickets in 2007. And ridership grew 3.6% (YoY) in April, which they blamed on high fuel prices. Assuming that the revenue grew by 3.6% as well, (which isn’t necessarily a good assumption: People with passes taking more trips per month than normal increases ridership but does nothing for revenue, but I suspect that much of the ridership increase was adults making no-transfer commute trips, so the increase may be more than 3.6%,) then they have $2.7M more to spend on fuel, or 40 more cents per gallon, (assuming that more ridership doesn’t force them to expand service to relieve overcrowding.) So, yes, it looks like it.
They had a 11.3% (YoY) increase in November, so that is an extra $1.32/gallon…
Al wrote: “Nah, there is no collusion in America, there is no corporate greed, nah, its all the free markets responsible for everything.”
Al, in a purely free market, there are no restrictions on collusion and market manipulation. Corporations are free to scheme and engage in monopolistic behavior, conspire to create false scarcity, block new players from entering the market (by making deals with suppliers to shut out new competitors), etc.
So I don’t think you’re really in disagreement here.
“Al, in a purely free market, there are no restrictions on collusion and market manipulation.”
True Bob R, quite true indeed!
As I said earlier, the free market, god’s gift to mankind. (or that’s what they want you to believe)
Hell in a truly free market we would still be using 8 year olds in factories for 1 dollar a day, like it is in the third world!
How do you think the union movement started?
The communist threat?
All a response to the free market and the evils that come with it.
Those that have get more and those that have not basically are slaves.
The basic root of the problem with the “free market” (aka capitalism) is that it attempts to turn everything into ‘capital’ and all endeavors are undertaken if there is a ‘profit’ to be made.
It’s quite a bizarre theory if you think about it and its equally bizarre that human evolution has lead to this.
While all of us chatting here are doing pretty well, billions of people are struggling just to find food, and most of us are slaves to our employers weather we realize it or not.
Gas prices, (see my link above) are just another step in this process to remove wealth from us (working class) and give it to the upper class (capitalists).
and to continue……
Part of the desire for max lines is to eliminate jobs.
Trains hold more people than buses hence eliminates jobs.
Once again, the ‘capitalist” class finds economics more important than people.
Of course you never hear this when they talk about max. I believe Lenny mentioned it once.
In a free market the government would not have made competition in the public transportation business illegal as it did when they, that being local government’s, passed laws in the early 1920s to outlaw jitney which competed with streetcars. Nor would the Congress have passed the Public Utilities Holding Act of 1935 which required that the public utilities that owned streetcar companies to sell off those same streetcar companies. But politicians being greedy people as well get re-elected by seeming to hlpe the public when what they are often doing is screwing the public. But that’s another form of greed.
MW
Without regulation you have chaos.
The anti government folks don’t seem to get that.
Left to themselves, people resort to cannibalism.
And the reason government got into the transit business is because the “free market” wasn’t doing the job.
Certain services need to be government provided, police, fire, streets, army (although Lord Bush is trying to change that) etc.
Not every activity of mankind needs to generate a profit.
Has mankind lost all sense in thinking that it does?
If it were free markets, we’d have a whole ton more of the following…
efficient streetcars and transit options that didn’t come out of taxpayer pockets.
we’d have streetcars that ran at LEAST greater than the 10mph average of the early 1900s instead of the appallingly slow 5-6mph of the current one. We’d also pay about 1.2-1.4 million per streetcar (or less) if there was an actual free market that was competing.
cars would have NEVER caught traction. roadway costs are shoved off on the highest income brackets (what some call the rich) and they bear that cost. The middle class would not, and based on what many of their respective opinions where then and now they wouldn’t have a car if there were options.
in a free market gas would cost at least $7-10 a gallon because of the additional costs of security and labor that is often offset by Government funds and military security that is provided.
In a free market TriMet wouldn’t cater to politicians, but instead we’d have companies catering to riders.
In a free market we’d have toll roads that we could travel 120+mph on instead of crappy Interstates that are limited to 50-80mph.
In a free market we’d have less road incidents and congestion because much fewer people would drive because they’d actually have to PAY for it.
In a free market the overall cost of auto based transportation to society would be far less than it is now.
In a free market the cost of transportation as a whole would be much less, and zero to the Government (because they’d stay out of business and not operate something the people should run as either a trust, corporation, or public corporation – NOT as a public authority under mandate of the Government)
In a free market, we’d have REAL choices vs. the ones “allowed” and “given” to us by the city, state, and feds.
…at least when things where more free-market oriented that is exactly what the country had. Choices.
But I digress…
actions speak louder than words, and political actions rarely offer us choices. more by accident than intention to we ever really get choices.
AH HA!
I was wondering when we would hear from you ADRON old buddy!
btw – Much better picture. I think it is slightly more LOCAL than the one displayed. :) You’ll dig this one Chris.
http://adronbhall.com/blogs/my_transportation_obsession/archive/2008/05/14/7016.aspx
Of course the prices displayed are now more around $4.05 for the cheap stuff I believe. That is over the course of just a few weeks too. Kind of bad news when one thinks of it. :o
To be clear, my previous comments about the pitfalls of pure free markets should not be interpreted to be anti-capitalist.
Rather, I believe that capitalist principals work best (and benefit society more) when markets are open, fair, non-monopolistic, and have minimal barriers to entry for new, small players. This requires some degree of regulation.
Just how much regulation (and by whom) is the big question, and the center of many political and philosophical disagreements.
ADRON-
Your the greatest guy and I love your blog and respect your opinion, HOWEVER:
That’s a pretty pie in the sky point of view fella!
You remember child labor?
Robber barons?
All products of the so called “free” market.
If only the world operated the way you describe, if only…….
[Al drifts off to never never land]
That is a great picture, Adron.
great picture yea..
i put the following comment on that post:
“yea but you guys don’t need that streetcar, you can most likely walk to wherever it is your going, or at least ride a bike!
We need that transit in the outlying areas, not the city!”
Adron wrote: cars would have NEVER caught traction. roadway costs are shoved off on the highest income brackets (what some call the rich) and they bear that cost. The middle class would not, and based on what many of their respective opinions where then and now they wouldn’t have a car if there were options.
Wow…
Cars came about BECAUSE of the free market. Cars came BEFORE the highway system. It was that free market, that people wanted the freedom to travel on their own terms and schedules, and not that of the greedy, monopolistic railroads and streetcar systems, that they demanded better roads. It was that free market that allowed Henry Ford to build a factory to churn out Model Ts that anyone – not just the elite – could afford, and brought transportation freedom to the common folk.
And because of that free market, the popular citizenry voted in favor of taxing themselves for better roads – Oregon was the first state to enact a gasoline tax – and thus the free market combined with the democracy voted to create a public road system, funded by the public, open to the public, to take advantage of this free market that broke the monopolistic rail based transit systems that were greedy, refused to invest in their own systems, refused to serve the public, and had tariffs that were certainly unfriendly.
It was the Interstate Commerce Act that created the first U.S. “agency”, specifically designed to regulate the railroads, in 1887.
It was the Southern Pacific and Oregon Electric Railroads, who in the mid-1910s finally had to invest in their own railroads to attract ridership. It was too little, too late – the railroads never gained significant business and the SP’s Red Electric line barely lasted 15 years before the wires were pulled down. The OE, only a few years longer.
If there is anything that I can agree on…is that if we had a truly Free Market, TriMet would not be pandering to special interests, politicians, Metro, and developers – TriMet would be aggressively seeking transit use from existing customers, by investing in its system five years ago. Right now the transit gains TriMet is getting in the bus system won’t last – history proves it. Passengers will only take TriMet until the situation improves (the definition of “situation” or “improves” is up in the air).
in a free market gas would cost at least $7-10 a gallon because of the additional costs of security and labor that is often offset by Government funds and military security that is provided.
And our overall general tax rate would drop to what?
And the cost of mailing a letter would increase to what (since the USPS is exempt from taxes and road use fees)?
Without a publicly owned road system, the cost to call someone on the phone, or to use the internet, would increase (because the publicly owned right-of-way that those phone lines use would go away). Same for electricity, water, sewer, natural gas, and cable TV.
Fire and police protection could no longer operate as a government service – because the road system that they depend on to get to emergencies would now be privatized. Because the U.S. Constitution precludes the takings of private property, they could not require free and clear access.
Of course, transit systems would not function as well. Part of the reason MAX and other light rail/streetcar systems can operate as cheaply as they can is because they use publicly owned right-of-ways that are exempt from taxes. If TriMet had to pay property taxes, utility taxes, etc., that MAX ride would get a lot more expensive too.
(Nor would much of the MAX line exist.)
If you don’t believe me – when was the last, all new railroad built in this country? One that required the railroad company to acquire a right-of-way? I know of one that has been proposed for the last 15-20 years, a coal hauler in Wyoming, that is still tied up in litigation and is decades away from completion.
ALSO-
I’ve seen plenty of documentaries describing how the auto/gas/rubber industries ‘conspired’ to tear up all the transit streetcars in most American cities in order to facilitate the automobile.
Free market my arse.
Speaking of gas prices, here are some pretty good comics on the subject:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/al_margul/sets/72157605268497946/
AND-
Speaking of capitalism and increasing gas prices,
this is a fairly extreme article, but if you read it carefully and thoroughly,
it does make sense out of many events, both current and past:
http://www.rense.com/general81/extr.htm
Cars might have come before the 1950’s highway system, but they did not come before roads. Roads were actually pushed during the good roads movement for bicyclists that started in 1880 which were then overtaken by the road lobby. But in fact, the development brought by streetcars made roads possible. With the channeling of growth and densification that came with the streetcars in new parts of the city, it was more likely that assessment districts and franchises could be formed to build streets and utilities, unlike the omnibus which created a pattern that could not have done this, much like auto sprawl today which needs around $8,000 per home in assessments per year to pay its way in services(wonder why we get huge houses in sprawl land?).
In some cases auto mooching is what caused the streetcars decline. In particular, the streetcars in Denver had a franchise agreement to keep up the roads, however when cars started coming on the scene, they damaged them so much the streetcar companies could no longer keep a profit and the fares were over regulated so that they couldn’t invest in capital unlike your claim that they were over monopolistic and just wouldn’t invest in it. Unlike the horror stories of the NCL which Al M discussed, this is how many other cities streetcar lines died, at the hands of over regulation (fare limits) and automobile subsidization. If transit was subsidized to cover for the reduction in fares due to over regulation, there might have been a different story.
A statistic of interest. From 1921 to 1932 the US government spent $21 Billion on roads, of which motorists contributed $5 Billion. That’s hardly free market and making users pay.
I’m also fascinated by the framing of cars as free market and railroads and streetcars as monopolistic. Railroads and streetcars were of the free market while automobiles were fed by roads paid for by socialistic moves by the federal government. Spending on roads, infrastructure, the GI Bill, mortgage lending that didn’t allow reinvestment in cities. In a pure free market, there would be greedy road builders and automobile builders as well no? But as much as folks want to be in a completely free market, they don’t really…because they are offered protections today that they don’t realize.
I tend to agree with Adron that if we had a more free market system with some regulation for health and safety and fair competition we would have more light rail and streetcars. They would do what they did back in the day and have franchise agreements with the city and existing ROW in medians would suffice for rapid transit. We would also have denser cities because regulations on zoning wouldn’t be as stringent and it would grow organically rather than according to zoning restrictions. People would be less willing to pay that $8,000 a year in taxes finding that collectively by living closer in at higher densities they would pay less over all. We can’t separate the free market in transport from the free market in land use. Therefore the car was not free market because its all tied to a highly regulated and subsidized infrastructure and land use of this country.
Al M: I’ve seen plenty of documentaries describing how the auto/gas/rubber industries ‘conspired’ to tear up all the transit streetcars in most American cities in order to facilitate the automobile.
While there is rumor to that effect, the “National City Lines” had absolutely, positively NOTHING to do with Portland.
Not even as a minority shareholder of Rose City Transit.
Nada.
Portland’s streetcar system failure did not have any involvement by General Motors or the other parties to National City Lines – it happened on its own.
The Overhead Wire: Cars might have come before the 1950’s highway system, but they did not come before roads. Roads were actually pushed during the good roads movement for bicyclists that started in 1880 which were then overtaken by the road lobby
What did horses use, going back to the 1700s and even previously?
When cities were built in the 1700s and 1800s, did they have streets? Or were they just buildings linked together in the middle of a field?
The Overhead Wire: much like auto sprawl today which needs around $8,000 per home in assessments per year to pay its way in services
And MAX sprawl in Orenco, Quatama, Willow Creek, Elmonica, Beaverton Creek…?
The Overhead Wire: In some cases auto mooching is what caused the streetcars decline. In particular, the streetcars in Denver had a franchise agreement to keep up the roads
Not the case in Portland. PGE/PEPCO/Rose City Transit never had to maintain city streets.
The Overhead Wire: I’m also fascinated by the framing of cars as free market and railroads and streetcars as monopolistic. Railroads and streetcars were of the free market while automobiles were fed by roads paid for by socialistic moves by the federal government.
How many companies provided rail service in a given area?
How many companies could sell you a car?
Let’s see – a choice of ONE railroad, that gave me five or six departures for a city…at a “take it or leave it” price…and a level of service that the railroad dictated to me was sufficient…
Yeah, that’s “free market”.
Would you ride Amtrak if your choice for intercity travel was a 55 year old coach car with no heating or air conditioning, poor lighting, a “second-class” schedule, frequently late trains, poor connections with other trains, no dining or baggage services?
The Overhead Wire: Unlike the horror stories of the NCL which Al M discussed, this is how many other cities streetcar lines died,
Again, not the case in Portland. NCL had no interests in Portland.
The Overhead Wire: A statistic of interest. From 1921 to 1932 the US government spent $21 Billion on roads, of which motorists contributed $5 Billion. That’s hardly free market and making users pay.
And how did the U.S. Government get that $21 billion dollars?
Did the U.S. Government use those same roads? Did the public want those roads and for the government (including the U.S. Mail) to use those roads?
They would do what they did back in the day and have franchise agreements
Wait a second, I thought we were talking about a “free market”!! Franchise Agreements, by definition, cannot exist in a “free market”!!!
Merriam-Webster: 1: freedom or immunity from some burden or restriction vested in a person or group
2 a: a special privilege granted to an individual or group; especially : the right to be and exercise the powers of a corporation b: a constitutional or statutory right or privilege; especially : the right to vote c (1): the right or license granted to an individual or group to market a company’s goods or services in a particular territory; also : a business granted such a right or license (2): the territory involved in such a right
By definition, if a railroad needed a franchise, the city is granting an exclusive right for said railroad to exist, without competition from other railroads – THUS, a Monopoly, and NOT Free-Market!!!
In a truly “free market”, any railroad that wanted to would be able to build and exist, without franchise agreements. Nor would any city have the right to regulate a railroad; so if said railroad wanted to build a maintenance facility (including a machine and boiler shop) next to a residential development – they could. And the homeowners? They’d have no recourse but to move.
The Overhead Wire: We would also have denser cities because regulations on zoning wouldn’t be as stringent and it would grow organically rather than according to zoning restrictions.
No, we wouldn’t. People would move to where they want to. We would see more development in “choice” locations like along the ocean and along rivers. The environment would take a back seat. Because with a “free market” zoning regulations and building restrictions go away.
Government Island would be the hot spot of development right now.
Downtown Portland would still be a swamp. Northwest Portland would still be a lake.
The Overhead Wire: Therefore the car was not free market because its all tied to a highly regulated and subsidized infrastructure
The same statement would also be true replacing “car” with “streetcar”:
Therefore, the Streetcar was not free market because it’s all tied to a highly regulated and subsidized infrastructure.
Thus, the concept that automobiles are the result of a monopolistic, non-free market railroad-based transportation network is not disproven; and in fact numerous reports, studies, and books all show that automobiles opened up a free market where one did not previously exist.
It is merely a sore point in the eyes of rail enthusiasts and light-rail supporters (note: not “transit supporters”) that the people have wanted good road transport for many years and have approved higher taxes to pay for it; but taxes related to mass transit uses often get voted down. In Washington State, a tax to increase transit funding got shot down; but a gas tax increase just a year later strictly for highway purposes got approved.
If the concept that streetcars are representative of a “free market”, then here’s how to prove it:
Remove all transportation resources from the government. That means highways, streets, light rail, busses, Amtrak, airports, maritime ports, etc.
Make them earn their own keep.
Watch which ones succeed and which ones fail.
EH: It is merely a sore point in the eyes of rail enthusiasts and light-rail supporters (note: not “transit supporters”) that the people have wanted good road transport for many years and have approved higher taxes to pay for it; but taxes related to mass transit uses often get voted down. In Washington State, a tax to increase transit funding got shot down; but a gas tax increase just a year later strictly for highway purposes got approved.
Yes because we don’t love buses as much as you do we’re not transit supporters. Get over yourself. Last year in Washington, a tax got turned down for roads and transit, and the polling stated it was because of the roads. They’ll be coming back later this year with transit only. We can go back and forth a billion years pointing out tax increases for both.
I appreciate your sarcasm though.
EH: What did horses use, going back to the 1700s and even previously? When cities were built in the 1700s and 1800s, did they have streets? Or were they just buildings linked together in the middle of a field?
Well central cities had cobbles or macadam surfaces in the mid 1800s. But most streets were dirt. Haven’t you ever seen the pictures of boardwalks keeping people off the dirt and mud streets in smaller cities?
EH: How many companies provided rail service in a given area? How many companies could sell you a car?
Well there are a number of different companies that provide streetcars. However the roads and the rails are provided through a monopoly of government no? Cars just let you choose when you want to go. I have no problem with them, they just happen to be more expensive than collective transit. You would have the same complaints about the airlines correct? So why aren’t people clamoring for their own planes?
EH: And how did the U.S. Government get that $21 billion dollars?
Well it was actually money for stoking the fire for the automobile as an incentive for folks to buy more cars. But whatever it was, it was still a subsidy for a favored mode. I highly suggest reading 20th Century Sprawl and Internal Combustion. Both excellent books.
EH: No, we wouldn’t. People would move to where they want to. We would see more development in “choice” locations like along the ocean and along rivers. The environment would take a back seat. Because with a “free market” zoning regulations and building restrictions go away.
Considering automobiling and mobility would be much more expensive, and people need to be around other people to make money, cities would grow fast and up. People wouldn’t be able to afford to live further away. I think we’ll just disagree on this. I’m glad we have environmental protections.
I still believe that the free market would create more density and a number of different transportation modes. But I don’t think we’ll be finding out anytime soon and the deck is already stacked against alternatives due to the long list of subsidies over the years for a sprawling lifestyles, and its not just taxes for roads.
[Moderator: Italics added for clarity.]
What did horses use, going back to the 1700s and even previously? When cities were built in the 1700s and 1800s, did they have streets? Or were they just buildings linked together in the middle of a field?
They were paved with horse poo and good intentions to build vehicles that didn’t fling poo on the occupants.
I wonder if the car-free fighters would have been horse free in the 1800’s. I mean, horses caused localized pollution, the increased fecal matter is likely to spread disease, and they eat like horses. That’s got to cost as much (or more) than gas.
Overhead wire commenting here. Rock on!
Overhead: Last year in Washington, a tax got turned down for roads and transit, and the polling stated it was because of the roads.
Explain the nickel gas tax increase that was widely supported – in part because it was specifically dedicated to roads, and couldn’t be used for transit.
Overhead: Well central cities had cobbles or macadam surfaces in the mid 1800s. But most streets were dirt. Haven’t you ever seen the pictures of boardwalks keeping people off the dirt and mud streets in smaller cities?
And who owned those streets? Were they city right-of-ways? Or were they owned by private parties who charged tolls for anyone walking on their land?
Overhead: Well there are a number of different companies that provide streetcars.
And when those original streetcar companies existed, how long did they exist until (often government supported) consolidation, up until the time that either they shut down or were bailed out by the government?
Overhead: You would have the same complaints about the airlines correct? So why aren’t people clamoring for their own planes?
This is actually one of the most un-informed statements I’ve read here!
According to a public records search at the Federal Aviation Administration, there are currently 1,143 private aircraft registered in Multnomah County (PDX, Troutdale Airport); 816 in Washington County (Hillsboro Airport); and 877 in Clackamas County (Aurora State Airport, Mulino Airport).
Many of these aircraft are owned under “fractional shares” meaning the aircraft has more than one owner (think Zipcar, except the owner has a specific aircraft). Since, after all, it’s rare for someone to need full use of an aircraft anytime, all time. Just like a typical Portland commuter leaves their car in a parking lot much of the day.
If people don’t want to own their own aircraft, then why does the Port of Portland own FOUR airports? Sounds like a redevelopment opportunity.
Overhead: Considering automobiling and mobility would be much more expensive
Again you fail to prove this point other than some assertion that it will be more expensive. How will it be more expensive? The cost of the public road system in the U.S. is mere pennies per passenger-mile, all costs included. Maybe an additional $200 per person per year.
Overhead: people need to be around other people to make money
Tell that to farmers. Or do you not need to eat?
People make quite a good living in Alaska and Northern Canada – they aren’t “around other people”. You don’t see too many homeless people in the sticks.
Overhead: I still believe that the free market would create more density and a number of different transportation modes.
Well, there is absolutely nothing preventing private business to build Streetcar lines of their own initative.
Except, of course, government intervention to build competing streetcar lines. Maybe we should force the CoP/Metro/TriMet to divest of the transit systems in Portland and truly find out??? I sure would love the additional income from not paying Metro and TriMet taxes.
Erik wrote: This is actually one of the most un-informed statements I’ve read here!
Please refrain from venturing into personal attack territory. Thanks.
Bob,
Overhead wrote: Yes because we don’t love buses as much as you do we’re not transit supporters. Get over yourself.
Nice to see the selective enforcement (again).
Nice to see the selective enforcement (again).
Erik, if I applied any kind of enforcement against that comment, I’d have to apply enforcement against your original comment which provoked such a response.
I’ve continued to let your comments stand, and all I’ve done is ask you to please not venture into personal attack territory. I’m sorry if that offends you. Take it or leave it.
Bob,
How is It is merely a sore point in the eyes of rail enthusiasts and light-rail supporters (note: not “transit supporters”) that the people have wanted good road transport for many years and have approved higher taxes to pay for it; but taxes related to mass transit uses often get voted down. In Washington State, a tax to increase transit funding got shot down; but a gas tax increase just a year later strictly for highway purposes got approved. a personally directed comment?
There is absolutely, positively NOTHING that is, was, or could be construed to be personally directed at Overheadwire or anyone else in particular.
If there is an objection to rail enthusiasts and light-rail supporters (note: not “transit supporters” then I would argue that there are a lot of statements made on this forum of people who do not support the various opinions in favor of smart growth, reduced oil consumption, more light rail/streetcar/bikeway/pedestrian investment, so on and so forth, are openly permitted. Therefore, are you going to flag any such statement made by anyone else?
I’m sorry but I do not buy your argument that I am in violation of any rule of this forum. It is crystal clear. I originally made a comment about people at large wanting road investment, to which Overheadwire made the personally directed comment to “get over yourself”. I then made the comment This is actually one of the most un-informed statements I’ve read here! which was directed at a comment, not a person.
Else, ANYONE someone described someone else’s opinion (i.e. “Joe Schmoe’s opinion about roads is stupid) would be in violation of the rule, and as such I would expect you to warn that individual.
“I then made the comment This is actually one of the most un-informed statements I’ve read here! which was directed at a comment, not a person.”
Comments are not self-sentient. You cannot describe a comment as being uninformed without describing the commenter as being uninformed.
(Please also see the part in Rule #1 about repetitiveness.)
I don’t understand your continuing appeals for moderator intervention. I’ve let you go on uncensored for weeks and weeks, yet you continue to call out to me to intervene. I’ve already admonished others who ventured into getting personal when responding to your own remarks. If you want heavy-handed moderator intervention, then you too have to live with the consequences.
Perhaps you should just tell me, for each and every comment on this site, who I should censor/admonish/redact/ban and how severely, and why. Will that settle matters?
I’ve let you go on uncensored for weeks and weeks, yet you continue to call out to me to intervene. I’ve already admonished others who ventured into getting personal when responding to your own remarks.
And did you admonish Mr. Overheadwire for making a very painfully clear personal remark when responding to my own remark?
No.