[Closed] fuel prices?

check the states!! 80cent / gallon!

When, in 1990?

It's actually around $2.80 per gallon

when my bro was there in texas 2 months ago 😉

ive just come back from texas yesterday 2.60 dollars/gallon 8)

[url= http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D9E81IR01.html ]texas gas (why did I bother)[/url]

80 cents to 2.57 in two months is some inflation!

p.s. and a US galon is only 3.785 litres

There are always excuses for excessive tax.

The problem is now that the government are as addicted to fuel duty as the public are to fossil fuels. If we think the cost of travel is ridiculous now, it's only going to get worse.

While fuel prices escalate, it would make sense to divert some of this revenue into public transport. Instead £177bn has been given out to a wunch of bankers.

i reckon when you take into account the fact that cars are getting more and more efficient, the per-mile cost is just the same.

I remember my old Rover 200 costing around 8-9p per mile back in 2001 (when i was young and driving like a wally) and my Golf diesel is now costing around the same.

no one forced you to live in that hamlet .....ergo you do not NEED fuel to carry on life it mearly makes it convienant for you to live where you choose (or where you got a cheaper house)

I filled my van & car yesterday, £93 for my van & £67 for my car, I never think about the expense,I need to use fuel to earn money, I look on it as that's £160 I'm not going to be paying income tax on.

Its simply not excessive tax. Its necessary tax. Where ever taxation is raised from you moan about it - and you also moan about poor services. The money to pay for services has to come from somewhere

As for those who say a car is a necessity - it is only a necessity for your chosen lifestyle. Don't live in dormitory / commuter villages or don't complain about cost of cars.

It is the people who commute from these villages that have made public transport not viable in these areas by not using it and have killed local shops and pushed up property prices to the point that people who work in rural areas cannot afford to live there.

It will take another generation to sort out but petrol and energy in general is only going to get more expensive.

If petrol was 5 times the price how quickly would we have 100+ mpg cars? Those of you moaning about petrol prices why don't you have more economical cars - 70 mpg is feasible now.

Where and when are these cheap train journeys?

We live 40 miles out of London, and its £27 at peak time for a return - and peak been the time everybody goes to work. And you've still got to get to the station (£5.50 to park - or £3.50 each way in a taxi).

So £27 to do 80 miles, and 2 hours in and 2 hours out.

Anyway while I can complain about the price of public transport, I can't about fuel - I run a V8 😆

As an aside, we went to Afan today - 400 mile round trip, best value day out so far this year - try doing that on public transport, on a Sunday!

the point im trying to make is fuel is going up far higher than the rate of inflation, but wages are not in fact people have had pay cuts, the same as many of us on here,

Me too but I don't come on here and moan about my lifestyle choices.

b r - Member

Anyway while I can complain about the price of public transport, I can't about fuel - I run a V8

As an aside, we went to Afan today - 400 mile round trip, best value day out so far this year - try doing that on public transport, on a Sunday!

Game, set and match

"It is the people who commute from these villages that have made public transport not viable in these areas by not using it "

Its the other way round. It all started with the "Beeching axe".

I can't afford a v8.

I run a family hatchback, which I only use at weekends (yes, I use my bike to commute the 5 miles to my local railway station).

Br, read my posts for some examples. And the fact that I can get to afan for £14 from here. Granted, not sure you could on a Sunday, so I'll go on Saturday....

RichPenny - I'd like some examples please. My g/f and I wanted to book tickets to visit friends in Morpeth, but the cheapest we could find was the thick end of £250.

Where's the incentive?

"It is the people who commute from these villages that have made public transport not viable in these areas by not using it "

make it cheaper in the first place and we might??

Easter is approaching, people using cars for staycations = higher fuel prices. The price will go down for a couple months and then rise again end June beginning July.

HoratioHufnagel - Member
"It is the people who commute from these villages that have made public transport not viable in these areas by not using it "

Its the other way round. It all started with the "Beeching axe".

I cannot get a bus to work so it is car or bike. No car share because no-one working with me stays anywhere near me.
If my wife were to use buses it would take 1hr to travel the 5mls with a change of bus half way.

Fossil fuel users are cash cows, pure and simple. 90% of everything travels by road at some point, the 'high fuel tax' advocates don't get that. Do you know how many bike panniers you would need to fill to get your average 40'trailer load of goods to market? Neither do I, but I reckon it'd be a lot. Net result is the high tax on fuel has a direct cost implication on everything including the mass transportation system which last time I looked didn't run on fresh air.

Why not just tax those who are selfish enough to drive large fuel ineficient cars for their personal gratification.

'I asked him how he thought I could tow the caravan behind a train (once he has priced me off the road) - he did not reply to this question.'

Now that made me laugh.

Weester - I tend to go on holiday by bike and train and camp once there. Rarely but sometimes I hare a car

I can't fault you TandemJeremy. I wish I could but the 4 year old and the wife with Scoliosis might not wear it.

Interesting thought though, how many miles to the gallon does a train carrying 300 people do?

"Fossil fuel users are cash cows, pure and simple. 90% of everything travels by road at some point, the 'high fuel tax' advocates don't get that."

I'm sure most of them do. You'll find most people who support high fuel costs also support reducing road haulage and improving freight infrastructure as well as public transport. But transportation costs are a small part of point-of-sale prices.

Good news Folks since Tesco have opened in Newtown Mid Wales a price war has broken out and all the petrol&diesel there was at 1.09 a litre...handy if you are local or passing!

Ok let me put it another way, how many bicycle panniers would you need to fill in order to transport 16 tonnes of scrap metal to the docks?

Ta weester - I try not to be a hypocrite on this. Week before last I had a hire car to go up into the mountains to do some mountaineering. The first time I have driven a car for a quite but winter mountaineering is very difficult without a car. I probably drive of be driven less than a couple of thousand miles a year.

Indeed northwind - I would like to make all transport more expensive which would encourage local production and sale. Supermarkets are particulaly bad for transporting stuff all over the country - if it became more expensive for them to do so they might alter their distribution. Many super markets have one distribution centre - so food produced near to a store may travel hundreds of miles to a distribution centre and back again.

dunno about the MPG of a train - I shall google it. I believe per passenger mile they are better but I'll see what I can find.

Edit Weester - there are some things indeed that a car / van / truck is essential for - people who travel with tools to different sites such as tradesmen for example. could the scrap you mention not go on a tain?

weester, let me put it another way, that's a ridiculous straw man argument and I have no idea why you'd even bother to type it.

Northwind, how do you and your ilk intend on moving anything too heavy to put in a car?

UK Freight train average about 1.5-2.0 MPG Loaded. Compared with road transport it is very efficient; if lorries did the same trip they would use 70% more fuel than a freight train. Uk Passenger trains average from 8MPG - 12MPG.

Cunard state that their liner, the RMS Queen Elizabeth 2, travels 49.5 feet per imperial gallon of diesel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

"Northwind, how do you and your ilk intend on moving anything too heavy to put in a car?"

I have an ilk? Well, I'll get the ilk to carry it.

Correct answer is trains, the perfect heavy materials transport. Your next question will be "What if there's no trains nearby", the answer to that is that a) if we want to get away from our ridiculous overdependance on road haulage we'll need more train lines but also b) Mohammed can go to the mountain. Same issue as commuters who "have" to drive 30 miles because they live in the wrong place.

Your actual green would point out that shipping scrap metal to the docks so that it can be transported around the world to be reprocessed in china is nuts. But if we're going to live in a global economy mad stuff like that is going to happen, so they can just deal with it. However, they would be right to say that if increasing road haulage costs by say 25% makes hauling something unviable, the other answer is to not haul it at all.

OK! But how does any of the above help the OP as a small independent trader?

shouldnt be costing him "any" more - prices should be adjusting accordingly

I'd be happy to commute by public transport, however the last time I did, it took nearly two hours for what takes 30 mins in the car. Given my normal working hours that'd mean leaving the house at 6am, getting home around 9-10pm. What an awesome life that would be.

thought this was an interesting article from the 70s:[url= http://rts.gn.apc.org/socid.htm ]the trouble with cars[/url]

I think the problem lies in the fact that although some people squander fuel (and the greener of us like to use these examples as reasons to keep fuel costs high) many people do not squander fuel and are still crippled by the cost of it. I can afford fuel for whatever I choose to do, but I don't think the prices are sane. Sure high costs mean fewer people waste it, but that's not very fair for those who DONT waste it, and since the fuel cost increases are currently dictated primarily by the oil companies selling them, not taxation, it's the fuel companies we should be more angry at. I'm quite greenie at heart, I grow a lot of my own food, I buy goods with less packaging from local sources even though it's a pain to do, I cycle to work where practical, I own a dog slow high mpg car but it still costs me £70 for me and the other half to visit my family and go for a ride with my brother. But it would cost me considerably more to do the same if I wanted to use public transport to do the same journey, and I'd struggle to get bikes and all my bags onto a train to do it, plus I'd have to get a taxi to the train station in the first place.

Fuel costs here have risen 15% in 12 months. Public transport is a more expensive and less convenient solution currently, so what's happening is we're being squeezed between the need to be green, the fuel company profits and the train/bus company profits. Down this path be dragons, non shall fair well in this, not even the green movement.

The cost of housing in the city near jobs forced people out of the city, people then needed cars to commute (in general it can be accepted that 10+ miles a day, rain or shine is a big ask for even STWers), cities declined so housing in cities has become either very expensive OR very poor and crime ridden, so people no longer want to live near cities so rural towns flourish, supermarkets etc set up and people find it easier to live away from the city but businesses rarely can afford to be out of cities (especially large institutions with existing assets). So the general public is stuck with the choice of live in a hovel in the city surrounded by crime and pollution, but not have to drive to work (but if you want to do anything else you'll get stung by public transport costs, and if you want to do things that require equipment you're going to need a car to transport them so owning a car becomes practically essential). Or the public can live miles away where house prices are cheaper, commuting by car is still cheaper than public transport and more convenient, and they don't have to live with crime and ugliness of city dwelling, but fuel costs continually increase.

IF you want people to drive less either decrease public transport costs and increase frequency, build cheap, QUALITY, well sized homes nearer to the city and police the areas correctly instead of letting them become gang warfare areas, and/or provide adequate solutions to allow people to work from home where possible, or make it easier for businesses to move out of the city.

None of the above things win votes because they cost a vast amount, and it's easier to just lump the costs onto the drivers than it is to say "as a government we need to do this".

The only fair way to stop people driving AND allow for the fact that some people need to drive and should be able to afford it is... ROAD PRICING!

It solves literally all of the problems with the blunt tool of fuel duty. The theory was developed some time in the 50's i think, but there wasn't the technology to implement it. There were several key things that were to key to making it work, like total transparency and a lack of 'jumps' in the cost (must be gradual incremental increases in driving cost). i've forgetten most of the details.

unfortunately, 99% of the public hate it and the government would probably balls it up like most the other high-tech projects they try and implement.

cont...TBH as soon as you take 2 people in a car, or a bulky piece of kit, it becomes cheaper to use a car. Even with 2x the fuel costs on many routes. So increasing fuel taxation or cost doesn't really deter people until train fares become a viiable option. The for example my weekends journey:

Booked weeks in advance the ticket costs required (time-wise) were going to be £85 return, x2 for the two of us, £170. The journey would have been about 30 minutes faster, but required a taxi at each end, costing £12 each side, both days, so thats plus £48. That's without taking into account the fact that I needed to take a piece of equipment that weighed 20kg and was too large to fit into a train carriage easily. The car cost me £70 return and allowed me to do an intermediate trip of 70 miles with another family member as a "treat" day out for someone who rarely leaves the village. So for me the choice was obvious, and these are the sorts of trips I normally do in my car. So you could increase my fuel costs 3x to reach the price of the public transport route to try to put me off using the car, but that is a false-hope because all you're doing is playing into the hands of the fuel companies and train companies. The more you up (or allow them to up) the fuel costs the more the train company can up it's prices (and has to to some extent due to fuel costs), and the fewer choices people have. The stick is not an option, people have put themselves in a position where long distance travel is often required (living miles from family and work) due to that being where the jobs are and needing to earn the cash to keep afloat. To then increase costs like that is to punish them for trying to look after themselves and find work and a house. Privatising public transport was a cockup to start with, but possibly with good intention. Many people DO try hard to reduce fuel use, I know loads of people who car share, who ride when they can etc, but all feel like they're being beaten time after time despite them making the effort. This wins no favours and simply turns people against the greater good.

Ok, Ok, someone has to say it...

... Thatch is to blame.

There,

Done.

(incidentally I tend to be more on the conservative side, so that wasn't a thatcher stabbing, but I believe that all(?) of the best public transport systems are state owned and state run, and work very well for the majority of journeys.

I don't regard myself as politically left or right leaning - political dogma from either side hacks me off...

... But, as someone who left school in 1983 I have rather bitter memories of the job prospects etc from that time. The social fabric that had prevailed was largely dismantled in the early 80s. I was discussing this with some friends recently. Our school year was the first where going on to the major local engineering employer (Navy Dockyard) or into the Armed Forces, was in the minority. Of the school years above mine, most boys ended up working locally or in the services. Many girls still chose to get married and have families etc. Only a very few went on to further eductaion etc. In 83 we didn't have those choices. Apprenticeships in the Dockyard were suddenly very rare - services, dole, FE or HE were the main options...

Poverty of ambition? - perhaps: but prior to the early 80s, people from all over the UK had the ability to live and work locally. Normo Tebbs told my generation to get on our bikes. I have done so (well my mtb...)not through choice, but through necessity. like many, I now live and work away from the countryside where I was brought up (and which is still strongly my spiritual home), away from my parents - so no support for childcare emergencies etc, and in a place where both me and my wife need to travel to work.

Should I move closer to work? - well where is work?? The required flexibility in the job market means that jobs aren't fixed at one geographical location anymore. In the last 12 months my wife has worked on short term contracts in Bridgend, Caerphilly and Newport - Should we move house each time??? Or should we fix our home address and expect to be able to afford to commute to work?

Ok, firstly lets dispel the theory that oil companies are pushing up the cost of fuel. They are not. Profits from petrol retailing are generally small and there is a great deal of competition. Yes oil companies make large profits from oil extraction but it is not legal to use this side of the business to subsidise another (as this distorts competition). The large profits generated by extraction also provide the funds for further exploration and the development of new technology.

The high cost of fuel relative to other countries is from taxation. The actual cost of fuel pre-taxation is actually smaller than most other counties.

I would agree with previous comments that road pricing per mile would be the fairest way of taxing road use and this could also prove an effective tool against congestion. This would also encourage people to take jobs close to where they live. As for the suggestion that city housing is more expensive than rural ...piffle! Its more a case that the desirable areas in a city are more expensive than others ...no change there then.

There are great public transport schemes out there. Where I live I can get a GMPTE subsidised rail ticket which makes taking the train far more economical than driving (and avoiding the congestion). Unfortunately this does not extend to where my new job will be (Warrington), making it far more convenient and cheaper to drive.

Personally I'm in favor of road pricing providing that the revenue is fed back into public transport.

Montrose to Carnoustie £10 return; "return" train at 5.12pm or 7.12pm.Trains frequently cancelled,even a week pass is £42. Car share with a fellow teacher,£12/18 a week depending on who does the third journey.It was not the price of the fare that eventualy made me buy a second car,it was the crap service.

The high cost of fuel relative to other countries is from taxation. The actual cost of fuel pre-taxation is actually smaller than most other counties.

Explain to me what taxation has risen 10%+ in the last 12 months then (to produce a pump-price increase of 10%)?

This would also encourage people to take jobs close to where they live.

How, I'm trained in a particular job, I'm a specialist in that area, I don't have too many places that I can work? If I were to stack shelves or be a brickie then fine, but I'm not, and the country needs both types of work.

As for the suggestion that city housing is more expensive than rural ...piffle!

Good quality housing of equivalent size, in a place not crime-ridden IS more expensive, trust me I'm looking for a house as we speak, I've been to literally dozens from city centre flats to houses in the hills. Go to any area with equivelent quality of life and "desirability" (read as lack of knifings and crime, and some level of greenery) and houses out of town are cheaper, WAY cheaper. Sure there are cheaper houses available in cities, but they're shoeboxes in a block of flats.