Skip to comments.Yikes, gas prices climb again (through the roof)
Posted on 02/25/2012 6:12:30 PM PST by Deo volente
Gas prices climbed higher Saturday, continuing to march ever-closer to the all-time average local high of $4.60 per gallon set in 2008.
Jitters over the standoff in Iran's nuclear program have led to surging oil prices and unstable markets worldwide. Locally, a big refinery fire also hiked prices for motorists, with no end in sight.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
Yeah, great, put more air in the tires, haha, but you end up paying in the end because of tire damage.
And president dumbass probably thinks that worn out tires are OK, as long as we use less gas. No petroleum used in tire production I guess.
“You can’t legally plow through cities at 150 mph in a train. You have to go 30mph for safety regulations. And who the hell wants to go to Fresno in the first place, let alone on a train?”
Where on earth did you ever get such an idea?
Amtrak runs 100mph, 125mph, and faster right through urban areas.
I’m retired now, but I used to run passenger trains through the outlying areas of Boston (Readville area) at 100mph. They’re going that fast now, or faster, with the Acela service.
They don’t waste any time through densely-populated New Jersey, either.
Coming into New Carrolton (MD, just out of DC), they’re at 100 (or even a bit faster).
Where did you ever get such an idea?
I was reading about the Ford Shale deposits in South Texas.
Seems there is one county sitting on the shale area....4 years ago started drilling (horizontal and fracking)...now supports 12,000 high paying jobs as is shipping 100,000 barrels of oil a day.
Standard recommended tire pressure in the United States is on the low side due to our preference for a smoother ride. Tires can typically be inflated at least 10 psi above manufacturer recommendation without abnormal wear or other adverse effects, and it does reduce rolling resistance, thereby increasing gas mileage. Going higher than that does start getting into the problem territory you describe.
I guess you’re not aware of railroad speed limits? How can that be?
I traveled by Amtrak quite often throughout the US and became aware of the speed limits. Not only can the feds regulate the speed, but state and local entities have a say in them also.
In the United States, the Federal Railroad Administration has developed a system of classification for track quality. The class of a section of track determines the maximum possible running speed limits and the ability to run passenger trains.
Track type Freight train Passenger
Excepted [us 1] <10 mph (16 km/h) not allowed
Class 1 10 mph (16 km/h) 15 mph (24 km/h)
Class 2 25 mph (40 km/h) 30 mph (48 km/h)
Class 3 40 mph (64 km/h) 60 mph (97 km/h)
Class 4 [us 2] 60 mph (97 km/h) 80 mph (129 km/h)
Class 5 [us 3] 80 mph (129 km/h) 90 mph (145 km/h)
Class 6 110 mph (177 km/h)
Class 7 [us 4] 125 mph (201 km/h)
Class 8 [us 5] 160 mph (257 km/h)
Class 9 [us 6] 200 mph (322 km/h)
Do you remember what brought down gas prices the last time we went through this BS.
The President (NOT the pResident) was going to open our strategic oil reserves and look what happened...
gas prices came down!
Do you think Obummer has the zalls to do this (think again)... a G20 conference was held today in Mexico City and our clueless tax cheater Geithner stated that the US is considering this option, but don’t count on it!
My grandpa was a lifer brakeman for Burlington Northern, later full conductor for Amtrak. Never heard of 125 mph, ever.
Not saying wrong, just never seen it, or heard of it.
Funny how politician after politician keeps talking about the necessity to drill for more oil in the U.S., be it in Alaska or in the Gulf of Mexico or on public landsconsidering that America has been breaking records this year for exports of petroleum.
‘Set them up at home.’
NOT AT HOME, UNLESS THERE’S A SOUNDPROOF OFFICE!
Not for dad’s sake, but for the family!
Homes are for busy kids, babies and moms while dad is at another location.
I have seen first hand dad requiring mom to keep the kids quiet while he attempts to talk on the phone, hoping the crying baby or barking dog won’t ‘give him away.’
This is unfair and nuts!
There could be other styles of inexpensive cluster offices or something in every town.
Bet there is already.
Keep the house a home, and the office, the office.
Huh? How many moms with babies and barking dogs wouldn’t like dad working at home? And why the need not to have dad’s location given away?
And dad coming out of the home office all blustery and irritated at everyone because of a deal gone wrong, or whatever.
I’ve seen the creeping tendency of folks working at home, and the atmosphere is not acceptable, IMO.
Congratulations to those who achieve a near-perfect work/home situation. We’ll probably hear of a few soon . . .
People start raising cain.
My hubby has worked at home for years now and it’s been a blessing. No wasted hours spent in traffic, no gas expenses, wear and tear on cars, wardrobe, lunches, etc.
So many folks work from home now that no one pays attention or cares about a barking dog or crying baby. The dog and the babies are far better off with dad/mom AT HOME all day rather than a few frantic, exhausted hours in the evening.
You’re probably right - some would like those conditions, and some would not.
Giving dad’s location away?
There is a level of professionalism expected with many occupations, and crying babies and barking dogs just don’t have a place during those transactions.
Guess I’m called old fashioned.
I’m serious, tho, about having some sort of inexpensive ‘cluster’ offices - sharing a receptionist, for instance. This would keep people near home.
Happening as we speak, I’ll bet.
Sure, that already happens primarily for consultants and the like, usually for the address and occasional in-person meeting. For non-phone talkers: Starbucks.
There are now actually more women than men in the workforce, and how many of the men are married parents with kids under, say, age 4, at home? Probably not too many. And probably even fewer of these prospective home professional workers live far enough out in the boonies that a barking dog isn’t a burden on a whole neighborhood, let alone whoever else is on the other end of the phone.
The percent of men who wouldn’t prefer to at least sometimes work from home if possible? That, in contrast, would be quite high and the vast majority of those would already have some sort of dedicated office or desk space set up for that.
Further, the percent of those men with stay-at-home moms and babies who don’t have a large enough house to have an office space far enough from potential baby noise? Minuscule.
Meanwhile, I’ve been talking by phone with professional men from such firms as IBM while they are “working from home today” (which is quite often every day) for decades. Not an issue if you are a genuine professional.
Wouldn’t some of that capacity increase be offset by the increased demand in the NE created by the recemt shut down of some older refineries in NJ / Philly?
I don’t have babies, they are now 14 and just turned 18 (about to head to college come August) and DH has been working from home quite a bit over the last few months, mainly because his office has become a zoo but that is another story. I don’t mind for a day or two at a time but add that up with the weekends and I’m like go to work P-L-E-A-S-E . . . cuts into my routine. LOL
If people in the US start feeling pain this summer when food costs soar at least Obama will be further out the door. In that sense $5-6 per gallon is good, maybe conservatives should drive more and help it along. The system needs to be taken down, disruption should not belong solely to the left.
Let’s consider, where cheap energy can improve lives the US people are generally afraid of nuclear, want to stop using ugly coal, chase away drilling from all over the continent, won’t build refineries because they are dirty, etc, etc. General voter sentiment? “Oil is dirty, factories too, all should be banned.”
When the average USA voter cares less about who wins the big game today than how they will eat, then change will come.
“I guess youre not aware of railroad speed limits? How can that be?
I traveled by Amtrak quite often throughout the US and became aware of the speed limits. Not only can the feds regulate the speed, but state and local entities have a say in them also.”
I’m quite aware of RR speed limits. I was a railroad locomotive engineman for 32+ years. I daresay that in all your train travels, you have but a drop in the ocean of time I spent running locomotives.
Yes, some towns can request that a railroad lower the speeds through certain areas, but in the end, it’s pretty much the railroad’s call as to whether they’ll comply.
I can only think of one example in the territory in which I worked (from New York to Boston, from New Haven to Springfield, MA, both sides of the Hudson from NY/NJ to Albany, through the Southern Tier of NY, etc.), and that was after a bad accident at a grade crossing in Wallingford, Connecticut. I don’t know for sure if the town tried to compel Amtrak to reduce speeds through there (numerous grade crossings within a short distance), or whether the railroad decided to do that on their own. They did lower speeds there.
But in other places, they RAISED speeds. I’m thinking through the Bronx, the south end of Boston, etc. In most places the tracks are fenced off, but that still doesn’t prevent trespassers from getting in.
The FRA classification for track speed has NOTHING to do with where the tracks are — and everything to do with how the track is constructed. That’s why they can do 100-125 just a few miles outside of Boston South Station — because it’s high-speed track with concrete ties and appropriate signaling.