Log in

No account? Create an account

Oil, $100 a barrel

« previous entry | next entry »
Nov. 12th, 2007 | 11:41 am

Looking at the market reaction to the stock plunge made me wonder when oil would hit $100 a barrel.

The difference in cost? Well at around $94 a barrel right now the percentage of difference in price is slight... but...

Psychologically what does this do? People are still driving to work, and I bet that few have given up cars based on the price of gas (for daily commutes, vacations are another thing), but at what price do people question their own consumption?

Last week in Washington we had a vote for a new road bill. The bill had a lot of mass transit tossed in to counter the impression that it was only a road bill, but in the end it was a road bill.

It was also a bill to extend 520, and as far as I am concerned I am not voting for anything which widens the road going through the arboretum or damages the arboretum in any other way.

I would rather vote separately on mass transit and roads. Sure, they work hand in hand, but I am willing to shell out more for rail then what I am for roads.

If oil hits a certain price then mass transit has to pick up, which in theory could lower road usage (though this is a naive view of what the outcome is... where there is capacity someone will use it). If I figure in total cost though... I help pay for the roads and then I pay for the gas, how does this compare to me paying for a share mass transit plus a ticket?

There is a shared cost in either case, roads or mass transit. For those who just drive, mass transit is mitigation costs. Mitigate the need for more roads (or hell... more open space for driving faster).

How this will work out in my lifetime?

Two more years before I can take light rail to SeaTac.

And if I were to dream a bit?

Within 15 years Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver are tied together with a European style bullet train. The cities would be linked together.

30 years out? San Francisco to Seattle via a bullet train. Have it run around 300 miles per hour. Link the economies of the west coast together.

Link | Leave a comment |

Comments {25}

Brian "Krow" Aker

(no subject)

from: krow
date: Nov. 12th, 2007 08:41 pm (UTC)

Trains to me mean potential for more capacity. Also in the US we spend a lot of wasted time in airports waiting in lines and having our bags searched. Trains do not have this issue (though this is probably just a yet...). I find the entire experience to be nicer.

I've never see a cost analysis on rail vs planes for carbon footprint.

Trains seem to connect people more then planes do. More people are willing to just hop on one and make the trip, compared to dealing with an airport.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Grin with cat attached

(no subject)

from: wechsler
date: Nov. 12th, 2007 09:26 pm (UTC)

I can't find numbers online - I have a couple of books though - but I presume, as Virgin Trains have been advertising on carbon footprint reductions recently, that there's some info hidden in http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/gogreener

Reply | Parent | Thread

Scheduling business travel

from: dmarti
date: Nov. 13th, 2007 12:37 am (UTC)

Instead of the current schedule of fly, then stay in hotel, then do your thing in the destination city, if you timed the trains right you could "check into a hotel" that happened to be on rails, get a good night's sleep and a good breakfast, and go straight from the train to your thing.

Reply | Parent | Thread


(no subject)

from: delyth
date: Nov. 13th, 2007 05:58 pm (UTC)

For me, this is one of the main attractions of living on the east coast.

Reply | Parent | Thread