Get ready for 2008 revisited: 5 bucks a gallon?

Remember this one?

From National Public Radio: Rising Gas Prices Could Put Sting On Summer  February 19, 2012

The national average for unleaded gas has risen to $3.50 a gallon only three times in history. This year's rise to that threshold is the earliest ever, and the Department of Energy suggests that prices could near $5 a gallon by the start of the summer driving season. Weekend Edition Sunday host Rachel Martin talks with Phil Flynn of the futures brokerage PFGBEST.

Well, aside from noting that the $3.50 number should be looked at in an inflation-adjusted context, that is a worthy admonition to Americans. Think ahead.

Yep. Getting expensive again, relative to historic U.S costs. Figure from previous link in InflationData.

As I've said before, we don't know what the future will bring in terms of energy costs. Energy is a global commodity and the state of the world economy is as unpredictable as predicting who will make the next major gaffe in the Republican Presidential Primary. So let's make sure folks have reasonable options that can share the spotlight with Old Belchfire. Keep yer options open. Save the gas money for vacation. Ride yer bike to work or the store.

Note later in passing: Steve Avery (see comments) is right: gasoline is pretty cheap energy on a dollar per calorie basis; a lot cheaper than pasta and a lot cheaper than gas is in Europe due to punitive taxation. And as both Steve and Cliff Slater have intimated or said, all forms of commuting have their costs. One is we value our time: bicycling longer distances can eat up time. Unless one is poor or responding to other drivers (i.e. lack of parking, closeness of destinations such as on a college campus) the choice to bicycle is often not made on economic terms but rather lifestyle choice. Or, as in Honolulu, traffic was so bad there really wasn't a time penalty for my choice to bike to work. I had a hot shower waiting for me when I got to work, though, so I could hammer the eleven miles to the University, making as much or more forward progress as motorists.

Separately from all that, gasoline and crude oil are extremely energy dense liquids but they are after all non-renewable resources.  Americans tend to think of two buck a gallon gas as a birthright but in a world market increasingly shared with other major industrial economies, the remaining oil in the world (as well as non-traditional fossil fuel liquids) will be up for bids. For those out there who say "drill baby drill", lets not forget the ancillary costs of drilling. Its not every day we soak the Gulf Coast in oil. Not to mention, even offshore oil fields have limits as well as risks.  Harder to get energy (deep drilling, secondary recovery, etc) will only be exploited as prices rise, so there is, Newt Gingrich's assertions not withstanding, no free lunch in capitalism. Keeping one's options open as far as transportation makes transportation sense (I'll pass on the health and environmental bennies for now).

Oil, Sugar, and 35 Wasted Years

I just read something by Larry Littlefield, a fellow New Yorker, it would seem. Worth linking here even though it is going on four years old. Found this through Streetsblog. Never know where you might find interesting stuff.

I was well acquainted with both the '73 and '79 oil crises. In 1973, as a college sophomore, I had recently bought my first motor vehicle, a Honda 450 motorcycle.  That bike was a good balance between practicality and crotch rocket.  That fall, I watched the price of gas double in a few weeks. But fortunately, I had committed to a motorcycle rather than a car and it got 50 mpg on a bad day; living in the dorms there were few bad days.  In 1979, living a dozen miles from campus and beginning a life of bike commuting, I discovered the politics of oil could be deadly.  I was hit while riding my bicycle to the University at Stony Brook by a motorist making a run for a gap that opened in a mile-long gas line at a Long Island gas station. Waking up a bloody mess in a roadside ditch ain't much fun, especially with a doctoral qualifying exam a week away. But what doesn't kill ya makes ya stronger, right?

Read on....esp. since that little issue called Iran seems to be surfacing once again. Nah...we can ignore this another 35 years, right?

Oil, Sugar, and 35 Wasted Years

 The United States is heading for a major anniversary on October 20th, 2008. It will be the 35th anniversary of the OPEC oil boycott, which began on that date in 1973 in the shadow of the Yom Kippur war. (Gee, a war in the Middle East! There is no reason to worry about another one of those, is there?) That was the first signal, years before the environmental consequences of fossil fuel use were understood (by some), that abject dependence on a depleting resource increasingly concentrated in potentially hostile hands was a future economic and national security disaster.  The 1979 oil crisis, associated with the Iran Hostage Crisis was the second signal. (Gee, conflict with Iran, that’s not likely to recur is it?) The 1990 Gulf War was a third signal. The attack on 9/11 was the fourth signal. But two generations of Americans willfully ignored these messages...
...It is nearly 35 years since the 1973 oil embargo, and many of the politicians now in charge have been around for most of them, given perpetual incumbency. So what do our "leaders" have to say for themselves? 

February 11, 1974 - United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger unveils the Project Independence plan to make U.S. energy independent.

White Rock NM-4 Construction in full swing

I took a mad dash down to White Rock after lunch. The construction is in full swing. The Pajarito Road/Grand Canyon Ave vs. Rt. 4 intersection is completely dug up and would be tough on skinny road tires. So if you are riding through White Rock on NM-4 on the way to and from Bandelier or riding the loop, and especially if you are not familiar with the area or just want to avoid the whole ugly mess, I advise using the route shown by the the blue trace I put on the Google map at this link (Rover/Grand Canyon/Sherwood/Piedra Loop). I doubt it adds more than a mile to the distance if that, but I'll clock it next chance I get. There is no legal requirement to do so, but why be a glutton for punishment unless you really need to use the construction zone? In that case, be careful, be visible, don't cut behind barriers, and use robust equipment. Etc., etc.....

Have fun. Its a nice ride through White Rock and less nerve wracking to everyone. I've discussed that here.

Link to Los Alamos County page on NM4 construction.

Act Now on Key Transportation Votes

 I don't agree with every project ever done under the auspicies of Federal bike-ped programs, and don't agree that every bikeway keeps you safe or improves bicycling.  However, I think the current bill throws out the baby and the bathwater. So I'm linking to this auto-bother-your-congressman site. Thanks.  Also, if you read the last post, you can see how much damage can be done by not being careful of what you pass as a public official.

 

 Ask the Senate to Support Cardin-Cochran, Tell Your Representative to Oppose the House Bill

It’s time to ask both chambers of Congress to save our streets.

The current Senate transportation bill (MAP-21) weakens walking and biking programs. To improve the bill, we’re asking senators to vote for a bipartisan amendment to guarantee local governments a voice in transportation decisions and allow them to build sidewalks, crosswalks, and bikeways that keep people safe.


Currently, 75 percent of 17- to 24-year olds in the US cannot serve in the military, primarily because they are physically unfit, have not graduated from high school, or have a criminal record.  Investing early in the upcoming generation is critical to securing our nation’s future.  Retired admirals and generals understand that whether young people join the military or not, we must increase investments so that all young people can get the right start and succeed in life — whatever career path they choose. --Mission: Readiness

To the 2010 NM UTC: There is not a Mandatory Sidepath Law in New Mexico.

This all started with a message from Tim Brown to the BikeABQ list. Tim was doing some research for a rewrite of Rio Rancho's City Code for bicycle operation and came across a provision in the 2010 New Mexico Uniform Traffic Code, compiled by the Municipal League, stating there is a mandatory sidepath provision in state law.

A Mandatory Sidepath  (MSP) section of NM Traffic code, originally present in the 1978 NMSA, was repealed in 1997 via a bill pushed by the late Dr. Gail Ryba and introduced by Rep. Rick Miera. I just found a link to the 1997 bill, way down below. Unfortunately, the 2010 New Mexico Uniform Traffic Code document produced by the Municipal League and disseminated to the various municipalities apparently missed that. I googled and found a lot of communities have either adopted or at least have links to the 2010 document. It includes this provision:
http://www.taosgov.com/documents/2010_UTO_Compilation.pdf

12-8-5 RIDING ON STREETS AND BICYCLE PATHS
 C. Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a street, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the street. (66-3-705 NMSA 1978)

So will this be enforced?

Meanwhile, while I was looking on the web for documentation of the repeal and wondering if somehow the Legislature slipped  a MSP back in, Roger Macon from the NM Municipal League returned my call (thank you, Mr. Macon!) and verified that it was repealed in 1997 and was not re-introduced by the Legislature at any time. Apparently the folks compiling the 2010 UTC (UTO?) missed that the MSP had been repealed. The UTC is therefore incorrect in including that provision.  I've checked on Conwaygreene and Justia, which claims to cover New Mexico law through the beginning of the 50th Legislature (2012) and there is nothing in it as far as an MSP law.

I don't think a MSP law can be put back into force by accidentally forgetting it was repealed and printing a UTC, even if it is adopted by municipalities in error, since the code assumes it is quoting state law correctly. Unless, of course, the municipality decides to go with the error. In that case, I really don't know what happens.  Diane Albert, the BCNM President and a JD, says on the BikeABQ e-list:

"A local government could/can adopt a sidepath law any time it wanted to, as long as the process used was legal, and the law applied only within its boundaries. Local laws can be more restrictive than state or federal laws,

if the law is deemed to be for the general safety etc. of the populace."

Taos, for example, seems to have adopted this document in its entirety. But since it was adopted by reference it may be easier to fight or change, since I doubt they even knew it was in error.

http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=60210.04.010: ADOPTION OF THE NEW MEXICO UNIFORM TRAFFIC ORDINANCE AND ITS AMENDMENTS:

The most current version of the New Mexico uniform traffic statutes shall be adopted by reference as the most current ordinance for the town of Taos and such all previous versions are amended, replaced or superseded except additional amendments added by ordinance of the town council shall remain in full force and effect unless specifically repealed. (Per correspondence dated 11-10-2003: Ord. 00-12, 2000)
 http://www.taosgov.com/documents/2010_UTO_Compilation.pdf

Meanwhile, I guess bicyclists better carry around a copy of the actual state code if local police are looking at the 2010 Municipal League Uniform Traffic Code document! And, of course hope that municipalities don't decide to pile on now that they have the chance. This is also a good reason to have bicyclists in positions to catch these things (i.e., Gene Dougherty here and Tim Brown in Rio Rancho) and to pass laws requiring some uniformity in traffic law as it applies to bicycling. Imagine if motorists had to worry about huge changes in law every time they crossed a county line. Wouldn't happen.

some refs.

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2011/chapter66/article3/section66-3-705/
http://www.nmlegis.gov/sessions/97%20Regular/bills/house/HB0197.html
http://www.candjmarsh.com/BCNM/NMB2011-1.pdf

Current State law is at the link below. By the way, I checked today and Los Alamos County has not adopted this document. Whew.

66-3-705. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.

HB 12 is in the Senate

Back to serious matters. House Bill 12 passed out of the House and is in the Senate. It needs some help to keep it moving.