No mention of gallons. People don't care about gallons. The PEOPLE are using litres and understanding it. Even British and American prices are shown in litres only. Litres, the people's choice.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2005/08/17/1176522-sun.html


Gas hits a buck
City drivers fume over fuel prices
By MAX MAUDIE and AJAY BHARDWAJ, EDMONTON SUN


Courier Shelly Knutson fills up her vehicle yesterday at a Domo station on 34th Avenue and 92 Street, one of many of the city service stations where gas was selling for more than one dollar a litre. (Jordan Verlage, Special to the Sun)

Edmonton hit a dubious milestone yesterday, when for the first time in the city's history, motorists paid more than $1 per litre for regular gasoline.

"It's disgusting," said Christine Drysdale as she put $10 of fuel into her van at the Petro-Canada at Argyll Road and 75 Street.

The posted price was $1.029 per litre. Many, but not all, gas stations in the city charged similar prices.

"It's frustrating," said Dwight Massey, 46, at the same gas station. "It's like we're being held hostage. It's ridiculous."

A decade ago, in early August 1995, Edmonton saw a gasoline price war where prices fell as low 39.9 cents per litre. A few days before the war, gasoline cost 46 cents per litre.

Gordon Sick, a professor of finance at the University of Calgary, said there's no short-term relief in sight.

But he said the long-term projected price of oil still sits around $60 US per barrel.

"What the markets are telling us is we're consuming oil at an unsustainable rate," Sick said. "Compared to 1980, we've got a lot more people in the world."

The economic growth of developing countries like India and China has created a huge demand for fuel.

"We have all these new people (in developing countries) and they've got enormous appetite for oil."

Sick said oil companies may want to expand exploration and motorists may have to think twice before buying a large SUV.

"We're seeing prices push up right across the country," said Kathy Hay, senior associate at Calgary-based MJ Ervin and Associates.

But she said, of 44 markets surveyed across the country, Edmonton had the cheapest average gas price.

The national average sat at $1.04 per litre, while Montreal was most expensive at $1.14 per litre. According to edmontongasprices.com, Edmonton saw an average price of a 96.92 cents per litre yesterday.

"The big driver is record-high crude oil prices," said Hay.

Crude oil prices sat at $66 US a barrel yesterday, $10 higher than it was three weeks ago and 43% more than last year at the same time, Hay added. Prices won't go down until at least after the peak driving season, sometime after Labour Day, she said.

In Vegreville, 99 km east of Edmonton, the posted price of gasoline was just 92.9 cents per litre, according to a 7-Eleven employee in the town.

"We had it down to 87.9 on Saturday,"said Tyler Milligan. "A lot of Edmontonians are coming down here (to gas up.)"

In Camrose, often an oasis of cheap gas, one station was selling it at 97.5 cents per litre. Another was charging $1.024 per litre.

Last week, the United Kingdom set a gasoline record of its own. For the first time, the average price for a litre of gasoline crept past the 90-pence mark. That's $1.96 Cdn per litre.

According to the latest U.S. government survey, the average price of a litre of gas in the U.S. is a record high 80.1 cents Cdn per litre.

Uhh, you know Edmonton is in Canada, right?

And all those prices are C$, right?

Canadians are pretty metric. They still have minor Imperial use here and there, but less than UK. And the Canadian press has converted both US$ and US gallons to units Canadians understand, ie litres and C$.

What a card our Daniel Jackson is, to be sure.

Er, the news article was from *Canada*, not the U.S.A. The clue was in the word 'Edmonton'.

And I noticed this in Mr Jackson's posting:

"Edmonton hit a dubious milestone yesterday..."

Our Mr Jackson just shot himself in the foot - twice over!

That's one of "those minor Imperial uses".

The "litre" was the give-away, that it was somewhere else. If it were US, it would have been "liter."

If I post something that someone else has written in a paper that contains the word "milestone" am I shooting myself in the foot too :-)

I found the reference to "Argyll" in the address of the Canadian petrol station quite amusing. Wasn't the first £1/litre in the UK on the Isle of Colonsay, Argyll, Scotland.

London Government serves that community sooooo well! (Imagine a really sarcastic tone as I say that)

I knew it was from Canada. I was just showing how the people of Canada happily accept the usage of litres when speaking of gas prices and don't give a hoot what it might be in gallons. They even converted the US gallon price to litre pricing so they could compare to their own and didn't even mention the price was originally in gallons US.

In Canada, milestones, if they do exist, would be marked in kilometres. Does that still make them a milestone?

Again Tony finds an old term that is used in a vague sense meaning a turning point and having nothing to do with the unit miles. It is a recycled word, like the word pint that in most countries where the unit has fallen into disuse now refers to a glass. It isn't a win for imperial if old imperial terms continue to be used but with totally different meanings. If anything it shows imperial as a collection of measurement units is truly fading away.

Tony

When we go completely metric, what are we going to call those things on the bottom of our legs?

<<
In Canada, milestones, if they do exist, would be marked in kilometres. Does that still make them a milestone?
>>

I would call them "Location markers". The real test is whether or not they are changed if the road is rerouted. For example, if a by-pass adds a short distance to the road, are the markers that appear after the bypass modified to reflect the additional distance, or are the markers on the by-pass differentiated from the original markers in some way. The ultimate question is "Is the purpose of the markers to identify points on the road or to give the distance from the start point". I think that usually the case is to uniquely identify a point on the road.

Look at poor Daniel, mopping up after him.

I think it's time to 'do a euric' on him folks.

Poke him with a stick to get a response but don't enter into needless dialogue with a fantasist who is "always right"!

:-D

<<I knew it was from Canada. >>

So, perhaps
"Gas hits a looney per litre"

Martin, in the UK it may be possible to change the markers down the road from the point where it was rerouted, because roads are relatively short. In the US, for many freeways that would be next to impossible. Yet we still call the posts "mileposts" and they are labelled with mile numbers.

Bud wrote

<<
Martin, in the UK it may be possible to change the markers down the road from the point where it was rerouted, because roads are relatively short.
>>


Bud - the A1 (London - Edinburgh) is over 600km long.

In South Africa, road numbering starts at the Provincial boundary - if they adopted the same principal in the US there would be no problems.

<<In South Africa, road numbering starts at the Provincial boundary - if they adopted the same principal in the US there would be no problems.
>>

We do. On a "macro scale" all Interstates are viewed as predominantly north/south or east/west, which determines whether they get on an odd or even number. North/south ones are numbered from each state's southern boundary; the numbers start over at the next state, resulting in a break. East/west interstates are numbered from western state boundary.

The exit numbers are rounded to the nearest mile, although mile markers, placards on overpasses, etc, give miles to nearest 0.01, mostly as info for road crews.

Connectors are numbered in the same way from a southerly or westerly starting point. I don't know how they do "ring roads."

Without being rude, 600 km isn't "long," in fact, it is roughly the distance I'll routinely choose to drive to avoid the hassle at an airport. For longer distances, I'll look at how many people are travelling, schedules, would I prefer to have my car there, etc.

In the US, 49 of the 50 states number their exits, and the majority number each exit according to the nearest milepost. (The 50th state is in the process of numbering its exits right now). However, interstate highways are much longer than anything you will find in Britain. The I-10 goes straight from coast to coast: about 3000 miles. But of course the numbering will restart each time you change states. The I-5 goes straight through California vertically, I would say the California section is about 800 miles.

Does anyone know the true distance between S England and Scotland?

600km is about 400 miles in "UK" measures and that sounds far too short.

According to www.viamichelin.com, the Michelin-recommended route from London to Edinburgh (via Carlisle) is 656km while the shortest route (using the A1) is 599km.

However, Lands End to John o'Groats is 1356km.

Aaaah, you have to use a foreign planner rather than a UK one like theaa.com so that you can see kilometres. I believe you can also get the cost in euros. So that's two bits of information that's totally useless to a British driver.

Congrats!