Ohio Chatter DEV

LJ

Tobias Fünke;712323 wrote:

I don't mean to insinuate that other areas aren't growing too. The state of Ohio grew by like 1.6% and Columbus grew 10%. That says something. That map you provided is indeed the opposite, but with the Census data, not an estimate, saying it has topped 700,000 (not bigger than Cleveland and Cincinnati combined)...I don't see how that can be true.

The Dispatch used real Census data. Columbus' population is 787,000
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/11/census-shows-columbus-growth-was-uneven.html

Your website you cited is bunk.

LJ

sonofsam;712343 wrote:List of Gasoline Companies who DO NOT import oil from the Middle East
Department of Energy

Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 5:08:56 PM by Dallas

WHERE TO BUY YOUR USA-GAS, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW. READ ON--

Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia Just buy from gas companies that don't import their oil from the Saudis.

These companies import Middle Eastern oil:
Shell...........................205,742,000 barrels
Chevron/Texaco.........144,332,000 barrels
Exxon /Mobil...............130,082,000 barrels
Marathon/Speedway...117,740,000 barrels
Amoco..........................62,231,000 barrels

Citgo Gas comes from South America, from a Dictator who hates Americans.

Do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION! (Oil is now $100-$110 a barrel)

Here are some large companies that DO NOT import Middle Eastern oil:
Sunoco................0 barrels
Conoco................0 barrels
Sinclair.................0 barrels
BP/Phillips...........0 barrels
Hess....................0 barrels
ARC0...................0 barrels

Also: Pilot, Flying J, Love's, RaceTrac, Valero.

Or you could tell regulators to get off their asses and allow a new pipeline from Cushing to the refineries so that we could use all the oil that is overflowing that they cannot get to the refineries.

And to build a refinery on the west coast so our sweet sweet Alaskan oil is used here rather than exported.

Manhattan Buckeye

"At 200mph, plenty of people would take the train regularly between Columbus and Cleveland. "

Why? If Cleveland and Columbus were 30 miles apart how many people would travel regularly between them other than for sporting events? What's the point?

Pick6

Manhattan Buckeye;712324 wrote:I've been on the DC-NYC line more times than I can remember (both Acela and the NE express) - I've never been on a train where I had to sit next to a person other than by choice. There simply isn't demand for this monstrous infrastructure project when the future is likely telecommuting. Who the hell is going to take a train from Cleveland to Columbus regularly?

I agree. I think I read somewhere that the only city where public transportation makes a profit is in NYC and understandably so. I can see HSR being something we need in the future, but there isnt enough demand for it now.

OSH

Tobias Fünke;712287 wrote:I don't think HSR is worth it in the Dakotas as of right now.

I completely agree, it was just an example though. It would work wonders here for people...but it's not ideal financially for the state. I would love it, I dread those drives at times.

sonofsam;712343 wrote:
Here are some large companies that DO NOT import Middle Eastern oil:
Sunoco................0 barrels
Conoco................0 barrels
Sinclair.................0 barrels
BP/Phillips...........0 barrels
Hess....................0 barrels
ARC0...................0 barrels

Also: Pilot, Flying J, Love's, RaceTrac, Valero.

I do most of my fill-ups at BP. So I do not support the Middle Eastern oil...for whatever that is worth. I don't think I spend any money at gas stations that get the most oil from the Middle East.

Manhattan Buckeye;712362 wrote:
Why? If Cleveland and Columbus were 30 miles apart how many people would travel regularly between them other than for sporting events? What's the point?

If I lived in Cleveland or Columbus, I would definitely travel to the other city by HSR more than I would make the trip traveling by car. Why not? I'm always up for doing things. There's many activities people can do in either city.

Manhattan Buckeye

"If I lived in Cleveland or Columbus, I would definitely travel to the other city by HSR more than I would make the trip traveling by car."

Indeed, but how much more? 4 times a year instead of 2? For rail to make sense you need a sustainable daily commitment to make up for the astronomical infrastructure costs.

OSH

Manhattan Buckeye;712567 wrote:Indeed, but how much more? 4 times a year instead of 2? For rail to make sense you need a sustainable daily commitment to make up for the astronomical infrastructure costs.

If I did it two more times, that means my whole family would probably do it two more times. Which is more trips total. Then if there are 100,000+ people that could do the same...that's THAT many more trips.

I can't say how many more times I'd do it in a year. I don't live in Columbus currently, nor do we have a HSR system to even test it out.

Then, if they get these "casinos" built in the cities, how good would it be for the gamblers to have better transportation to the different spots?

gut

Ha....High speed rail in Las Vegas is only to bring in more gamblers. There's nothing in between Vegas and CA otherwise to support such a project. And with unemployment in Vegas higher than Detroit, people aren't going to do it for the jobs. Might be cheaper for some people to live in Vegas and work in CA, but once you get over an hour it's really not a viable commuting option (well, most people don't want to spend 2.5 hours a day commuting).

Tobias Fünke

HSR is not for commuting, no one is suggesting that. HSR is for things like replacing the turnpike.

LJ it may be. But according to your link the downtown's population grew, as did the Short North's. Ironically that is my point. I just saw the link's numerous maps and assumed but hey it worked out. At least if my eyes don't deceive me and blue was good.

LJ

Tobias Fünke;712820 wrote:HSR is not for commuting, no one is suggesting that. HSR is for things like replacing the turnpike.

LJ it may be. But according to your link the downtown's population grew, as did the Short North's. Ironically that is my point. I just saw the link's numerous maps and assumed but hey it worked out. At least if my eyes don't deceive me and blue was good.

Because it is all new development of the Arena district between 2000 and 2010. It's not like an area was just taken over and gentrified, which is what your source is trying to say was happening in Columbus. The biggest growth areas were still the burbs. It doesn't prove that people are moving back into the city, it just shows that new development will draw people wherever it is for a time. If the CBJ moved out of Columbus, you would see that area blue again. The majority of people aren't moving to those areas because of what you say, they are moving there because they are "hip".

But I am not sure how it "worked out", because, like I said, the suburban growth more than outpaced any growth downtown.

gut

Tobias Fünke;712820 wrote:HSR is not for commuting, no one is suggesting that. HSR is for things like replacing the turnpike.

The problem is it's not very economical in that situation because then you need to rent a car or take a cab to get to your ultimate destination and/or get around while you're there. They only make money with a lot of commuters, and it's why it only makes sense in high density areas like NY or CHI.

Yeah, it's great if you live in CLE and get a job in Columbus and can get there in 30 minutes, provided you don't have to rent a car, take a cab or a long bus ride to ultimately get to your job.

These aren't going to work crisscrossing the country because you need density at both points, or you might get by with a little less density if you can have decent density along most of the route.

BigYtownRed

If it was Bush's fault in 08' since he & Cheney were in bed with big oil, is this Obama's fault since he received the largest campaign funds from BP between 04' - 08'?

Tobias Fünke

LJ;712843 wrote:Because it is all new development of the Arena district between 2000 and 2010. It's not like an area was just taken over and gentrified, which is what your source is trying to say was happening in Columbus. The biggest growth areas were still the burbs. It doesn't prove that people are moving back into the city, it just shows that new development will draw people wherever it is for a time. If the CBJ moved out of Columbus, you would see that area blue again. The majority of people aren't moving to those areas because of what you say, they are moving there because they are "hip".

But I am not sure how it "worked out", because, like I said, the suburban growth more than outpaced any growth downtown.

Relatively false.

The immediate downtown Columbus population grew, not including the Arena District. In 2005 the population was a mere ~2,200. Now it is ~6,000. Tiny in size, but not in growth.

The Short North was absolutely taken over, and is a great example of gentrification. Yes, not between 2000-2010. It's known nationally for being that way. It is that suburban home neighborhood within biking distance of downtown. Make no mistake, that is the model planners want to facilitate. Of course it's not going to happen overnight. Columbus' streetcar plan was to facilitate growth between Ohio State, the Short North, the Arena District, and downtown; taking all of the catalysts and linking them together for investment and thus a snowball effect.

You are correct that it is happening because it is "hip." No question about it. Municipalities realized that they have the power to control where sports facilities go (and transportation). Back in the day, when it was thought that suburban sprawl has no negative effects, these arenas were placed in suburban settings (i.e., the Pontiac Silverdome, Palace of Auburn Hills, Coliseum at Richfield). It isn't by chance these arenas have being moved inward. Toledo just opened their Huntington Center for their hockey team downtown, near Fifth Third Field. It's the same idea. Get some excitement downtown. It's why they built the Arena District in the first place. But this isn't some suburban shopping center that will go dry in twenty years because a better one was build, the Arena District is here to stay. I agree the CBJ leaving would be horrible. Let's not talk about that scenario haha

I assume your point is that it is because of these initiatives and not purely economics. You would be correct again. But I am talking about the future, when has hits $5.00 or $6.00. It will grow exponentially, or there will be gas riots.

The construction of the Arena District is the entertainment form of "building for momentum," and a streetcar line is the transportation form. I'm am 1000% more adamant about building streetcar lines than I am HSR. I think HSR is awesome, but I don't think anyone disagrees the use wouldn't be high at first.

gut;713398 wrote:The problem is it's not very economical in that situation because then you need to rent a car or take a cab to get to your ultimate destination and/or get around while you're there. They only make money with a lot of commuters, and it's why it only makes sense in high density areas like NY or CHI.

Yeah, it's great if you live in CLE and get a job in Columbus and can get there in 30 minutes, provided you don't have to rent a car, take a cab or a long bus ride to ultimately get to your job.

I think you're thinking about HSR as meant for commuting. Please don't; there is still a shit ton of travel on I-71 and most aren't commuters.

One huge advantage with streetcars (as opposed to buses) and HSR is that the stations are relatively permanent. This leads to massive real estate development. Similar to how an interstate path changes make or break property values. Also, the HSR stations are with walking proximity to downtowns. There are currently more than 110 companies with headquarters downtown, and 100,000 downtown employees, who carry a spending potential of $375,000,000. Surprisingly large figures in my opinion. There are also ~40,000 students who come every day.

Yes, you are correct that not everything is within walking distance; you would need a car to get around the city and that is a turn-off. That is precisely what is wrong with American planning from 1950-present (the difference being there is more success today, but still failures like the casino placement). The answer is to have an intra-urban streetcar system before you have a HSR station. It has been proven time and again that permanent transportation stations create real estate investment and higher densities. It's the driving force behind transit-oriented development. Arlington, VA is one of the best cases.

These aren't going to work crisscrossing the country because you need density at both points, or you might get by with a little less density if you can have decent density along most of the route.

Along the route? That is completely irrelevant. The point of HSR is to connect high-density places like a downtown Chicago to downtown St. Louis, or downtown Chicago to downtown Toledo to downtown Cleveland. It doesn't stop in more than one stop in a city, so consider it an airport. A cheaper, cleaner, and in moderate distance scenarios faster than taking the plane....that also yields greater economic investment to immediate downtowns.

Manhattan Buckeye

"Along the route? That is completely irrelevant. The point of HSR is to connect high-density places like a downtown Chicago to downtown St. Louis, or downtown Chicago to downtown Toledo to downtown Cleveland. It doesn't stop in more than one stop in a city, so consider it an airport. A cheaper, cleaner, and in moderate distance scenarios faster than taking the plane....that also yields greater economic investment to immediate downtowns."

Downtown Toledo isn't high density. There is NO demand for this and it isn't cheap, it is incredibly, incredibly expensive. This might have made sense pre-internet era but to tout rail today is like trading hay futures.....it is simply a thing of the past. Even in higher demand areas (per my earlier post) the trains aren't even close to being filled - and again it isn't cheap. An Amtrak ticket on the east coast is about the same cost as a flight - and you don't get miles or other benefits.

dont_belong

Has anybody noticed that the price of gasoline jumps immediately with a rise in the price of oil. Oil was at like $106/barrel last week, and prices were around $3.50/gallon. Oil prices are now down below $100 and gas prices sure as shit aren't reflecting this.

LJ

dont_belong;713813 wrote:Has anybody noticed that the price of gasoline jumps immediately with a rise in the price of oil. Oil was at like $106/barrel last week, and prices were around $3.50/gallon. Oil prices are now down below $100 and gas prices sure as shit aren't reflecting this.

Prices jump immediately because gas stations have to pay for full shipments on delivery.

gut

Manhattan Buckeye;713810 wrote:"Along the route? That is completely irrelevant. The point of HSR is to connect high-density places like a downtown Chicago to downtown St. Louis, or downtown Chicago to downtown Toledo to downtown Cleveland. It doesn't stop in more than one stop in a city, so consider it an airport. A cheaper, cleaner, and in moderate distance scenarios faster than taking the plane....that also yields greater economic investment to immediate downtowns."

Downtown Toledo isn't high density. There is NO demand for this and it isn't cheap, it is incredibly, incredibly expensive. This might have made sense pre-internet era but to tout rail today is like trading hay futures.....it is simply a thing of the past. Even in higher demand areas (per my earlier post) the trains aren't even close to being filled - and again it isn't cheap. An Amtrak ticket on the east coast is about the same cost as a flight - and you don't get miles or other benefits.

No, they can stop every 30 miles or so, but the rest is pretty accurate. My point about density "along the route" is it could do Chicago to Columbus to CLE, or to Toledo to Detroit. But for commuters you need places to park and so you need a reasonable density because just like 4-5hours of driving is sort of "break-even" time-wise for a plane, a few hours will be break-even for a train. And to the extent people incur expensive rental cars or cabs because they have another 30-60 miles to go beyond their destination it's the same issue.

Plane travel can be fairly convenient for business travelers in many cities, and these people aren't going to be the least inconvenienced to save a few bucks on a train because it isn't out of pocket. I'm not saying the economics can't work for a train from CHI to STL, but if it's $200 vs $100 it would take less than half the passengers (figure maybe 30 flights a day from CHI to STL, guessing). And the bigger issue is a lot of people are connecting to flights. IMO high speed rail generally has failure written all over it. For $100 each, it's cheaper to drive a family 3 hours in a car and the convenience factor also dominates.

WebFire

LJ;713814 wrote:Prices jump immediately because gas stations have to pay for full shipments on delivery.

So they all got full shipments within minutes of oil prices going up?

LJ

WebFire;713841 wrote:So they all got full shipments within minutes of oil prices going up?

???

What you just said makes no sense. Think about it. You have 100,000 gallons of gasoline that you buy per week. Your current shipment was price at $2.95 per gallon, that was 2 days ago, and you have 5 days until your next shipment. You anticipate the next shipment costing you $3.15 per gallon. You have 2 choices. Leave the current price at $3.00 per gallon, leaving you $15,000 short, or you raise prices to $3.20, so that you have $5,000 worth of breathing room. That $315,000 is due the minute that gas shipment is pumped into your tank.

So tell me, would you rather be $15,000 short, or have $5,000 of breathing room?

dont_belong

LJ;713844 wrote:???

What you just said makes no sense. Think about it. You have 100,000 gallons of gasoline that you buy per week. Your current shipment was price at $2.95 per gallon, that was 2 days ago, and you have 5 days until your next shipment. You anticipate the next shipment costing you $3.15 per gallon. You have 2 choices. Leave the current price at $3.00 per gallon, leaving you $15,000 short, or you raise prices to $3.20, so that you have $5,000 worth of breathing room. That $315,000 is due the minute that gas shipment is pumped into your tank.

So tell me, would you rather be $15,000 short, or have $5,000 of breathing room?

I understand that argument, but where is the anticipation of the next shipment costing less due to lower oil prices?

LJ

dont_belong;713874 wrote:I understand that argument, but where is the anticipation of the next shipment costing less due to lower oil prices?

Are they not allowed to make a profit every now and then on their razor thin profit margin? A gas station makes only a few cents per gallon.

dont_belong

LJ;713881 wrote:Are they not allowed to make a profit every now and then on their razor thin profit margin? A gas station makes only a few cents per gallon.

Sure they can make a profit. I'm all in favor of free markets, but the dangerous part of that is when things like gasoline, which is so necessary to our economy and country as a whole, are left to market forces and profit motives we are heading down a risky path. I mean if jeans are marked up 500%, that's fine, I don't consider that a national necessity, but gasoline on the other hand is in a different category.

LJ

dont_belong;713913 wrote:Sure they can make a profit. I'm all in favor of free markets, but the dangerous part of that is when things like gasoline, which is so necessary to our economy and country as a whole, are left to market forces and profit motives we are heading down a risky path. I mean if jeans are marked up 500%, that's fine, I don't consider that a national necessity, but gasoline on the other hand is in a different category.

You have 2 choices then. Nationalize the oil supply and gasoline companies, or deal with it. Their profit margins are very thin. Sure, Exxon made eleventy billion dollars last year, but that was onlu 10% of their gross.

Gas stations make a few cents per gallon, the state and feds combined make around $.60 per gallon, and Exxon makes around $.20-$.30 per gallon depending on price. Now, tell me, who is gouging you?

fan_from_texas

dont_belong;713913 wrote:Sure they can make a profit. I'm all in favor of free markets, but the dangerous part of that is when things like gasoline, which is so necessary to our economy and country as a whole, are left to market forces and profit motives we are heading down a risky path. I mean if jeans are marked up 500%, that's fine, I don't consider that a national necessity, but gasoline on the other hand is in a different category.

What would you propose as an alternative? Nationalize all gas companies and have bureaucrats in charge of running them? Think about the quality of roads/bridges. Think about the difference between the USPS and UPS/FedEx. Do you really think the solution is to nationalize and/or regulate gas prices? It's a very competitive market right now; prices are high because demand is outstripping supply. The solution is probably to increase taxes on gas and rebate it back to people via a tax credit--it's revenue neutral, but it sends an even stronger signal to conserve.

Look at a country like Iran or Venezuela. How have they done since nationalizing oil companies? A huge chunk of their budget goes to subsidizing gas prices, while output falls, because the gov't can do things as efficiently as the private sector.

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Anything that drives an economy shouldn't be traded as a commodity. Plain and simple.

Archive

Why High Gas Prices?