Usatoday: "former Oil Exec: $5-a-gallon Gas On The Way"

[84mpg]

England has had a price that roughly equals $6/gal for years and doesn't seem to be a real problem over there.

I knew England was a small country, but didn't realize how small. You could place England inside the State of Michigan and have a couple of thousand square miles to spare. Shipping, commerce, travel, etc has to be greatly different in a country that small. Don't know how that figures into the conversation, but it did strike me.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

England has had a price that roughly equals $6/gal for years and doesn't seem to be a real problem over there.

Do you mind paying for my gas then? I ask because I'm struggling to pay for it as is.

 

[AriLea]

England has had a price that roughly equals $6/gal for years and doesn't seem to be a real problem over there.

Well....... It helps that they have a very good mass transit system. But that is easier to implement in a smaller, more limited territory.
So a person there will most likely have a shorter commute than the US or Australia, or just save up that cash for those longer trips where mass transit will not suffice.

They do have licencing and other rules against private vehicles in daily use (plus the petrol costs/and/taxing) that makes mass transit more attractive (by design). And those mass-transit venues are electric in many cases, and where possible, using renewables.

So the average person there is somewhat insulated from petrol pricing, compared to the US and Aus.
(hee,hee, Mark Bex is the wizard of Aus?, or rather the wizard of Aut ? (Aut-ocycles))

 

[Grumpy Cat]

Well....... It helps that they have a very good mass transit system. But that is easier to implement in a smaller, more limited territory.
So a person there will most likely have a shorter commute than the US or Australia, or just save up that cash for those longer trips where mass transit will not suffice.

They do have licencing and other rules against private vehicles in daily use (plus the petrol costs/and/taxing) that makes mass transit more attractive (by design). And those mass-transit venues are electric in many cases, and where possible, using renewables.

So the average person there is somewhat insulated from petrol pricing, compared to the US and Aus.
(hee,hee, Mark Bex is the wizard of Aus?, or rather the wizard of Aut ? (Aut-ocycles))

Are you saying government is trying to limit people's movements to keep them in certain locations?!

 

[Hog]

England is also pretty flat terrain, at least until you get into Scotland, but yes, very compact country.

 

[AriLea]

Are you saying government is trying to limit people's movements to keep them in certain locations?!

( I could take that as a deadpan joke, but it's actually quite a serious point)
Not exactly, but close. I'm saying they purposely sway the mass effect of choices by making some more attractive and some less. Yet, admittedly, in a way, they do favor locations living near easy access to mass transit. So the effort is to encourage, not exactly limit. Although, much infrastructure activity has the effect of limiting (or herding) the public. It's called urban design. (but yes, Ayn Rand thought urban design was one aspect of overlord control)

The US does that too. Basically the diamond lane is one example. It makes the choice of busing or ride sharing more attractive at the cost of less access for single rider driving. It has not always worked very well in the US, but the threshold that triggers a mass change has not often been reached.

Here in Pheonix, I would have to change many busses to get to some places of work, taking me hours to arrive. And bus hours do not cover the schedule window for many destinations. Three hours out and back plus 9 at work is well over 14 hours total. Who can live like that? While a car maybe gets me there in 30 minutes to an hour.

A bus pass cost maybe $30 to $70 /mo? A car costs hundreds in gas and insurance and hundreds more in loan interest etc. Even so, my threshold to switch to busing has not been reached. If you live just next to a rail-car station, and work is too, maybe your threshold is different.

But in NewYorkCity, the subway is the faster/ cheaper method in most commutes. They had no choice but to do the urban design that way, individual transport was not going to cut it. Are New Yorkers being herded? You bet ya. De-centralizing all cities might have been a better option, but location and money politics favors centralization.

SO, on that last point, New York City (by itself) would never spend any money to create New YorkTwo (or improve the wider New Jersey), only on transport that feeds into New York commerce. They choose the best design for properity of those weilding the money, not as much for the comfort of the public at large. (What the Goose likes is not always what the Gander needs )

(No wonder some of us feel like rats in a maze, I hope that was a joke. )

 

[AriLea]

PS,

Not exactly, but close. I'm saying they purposely sway the mass effect of choices

Back to the point about the difference between England and the US/Australia.
It's like Heart-Worm. The bigger the worm, the bigger the heart grows, making more room for the worm. At some point it's impossible to take the worm out and go back. Enlarged heart is also a problem. i.e. choices were made, and now it's not easy to change. It's worse than simple momentum.