[OT] Saving the environment?

x1134x said:

The most unbelieveably boneheaded idea do introduce itself to the
highway system is the "carpool lane" Whoever's pregnant idea this was
ought to be shot, and all of their progeny should also be executed to
prevent this type of stupidity from spreading. The entire concept is
oxymoronic. "We're going to cut down on pollution by encouraging
people to carpool" What really happens is you increase pollution by
having 5 lanes of parking lot with thousands of cars getting 0 miles
per gallon, while there is a free open empty lane that could get
traffic going. The idea that people would carpool to save time is
predicated on the fact that the other lanes will be at a standstill.
If they are not, why carpool? If they are, then the whole idea of
reducing pollution doesn't happen because cars are getting less that 4
miles per gallon during peak hours. Seems like an idea for the
elitists, especially when single occupant vehicles CAN drive in this
lane if they convert their vehicle to natural gas.

Yes I know these extra lanes were supposedly paid for by "federal tax
dollars" but they were still paid for by TAX DOLLARS, and the citizenry
that paid for it are being denied access to it. Rhymes with taxation
without representation. And its put in your face every day you drive.

x1134x

What the plan didn't take into account was the general population's
laziness and resistance to carpooling, no matter how much (economic or
otherwise) sense it makes.
Do you think you'd feel differently if you participated in a carpool?

Oh, and how's that Walgoose holding up?

Matt

MattB said:

x1134x wrote:

<SNIP DUMBASS WHO DOESN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RUSH HOUR AND
REGULAR TRAFFIC>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes I know these extra lanes were supposedly paid for by "federal tax
dollars" but they were still paid for by TAX DOLLARS, and the citizenry
that paid for it are being denied access to it. Rhymes with taxation
without representation. And its put in your face every day you drive.

x1134x

What the plan didn't take into account was the general population's
laziness and resistance to carpooling, no matter how much (economic or
otherwise) sense it makes.
Do you think you'd feel differently if you participated in a carpool?

He doesn't realize that on 98% of HOV lanes, they are open to all
traffic at non-rush hour times. Rarely have I ever seen an HOV lane
crawling unless there is a flat or accident. Those effect all lanes
anyway from rubber necking. I for one support HOV, even if I am a
single driver. My problem is not being able to find people who want to
travel at the same time I do.

Quoted message said:

Oh, and how's that Walgoose holding up?

Matt

LOL!!!

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws

MattB said:

What the plan didn't take into account was the general population's
laziness and resistance to carpooling, no matter how much (economic or
otherwise) sense it makes.

Again its PREDICATED on the idea that the other lanes are at a
standstill, so people will carpool to save time, which would appeal to
the laziness, but still doesn't accomplish its main goal of reducing
pollution.

Quoted message said:

Do you think you'd feel differently if you participated in a carpool?

With my job I usually could travel during the non-HOV hours and it
really doesn't affect me personally, It just irritates me that anyone
could possibly think that its a good idea.

Quoted message said:

Oh, and how's that Walgoose holding up?

Just about to break it out again today actually (A walgoose used for 2
seasons now! New world record). I had a revelation about the weight of
the walgoose. . . . its like a medicine ball for basket ball, pass that
heavy thing around for a while, when you get a good basketball it seems
lighter and easier to handle. Perhaps the same will happen for me when
I trade up for the Christini.

x1134x

Ride-A-Lot said:

He doesn't realize that on 98% of HOV lanes, they are open to all
traffic at non-rush hour times. Rarely have I ever seen an HOV lane
crawling unless there is a flat or accident. Those effect all lanes
anyway from rubber necking. I for one support HOV, even if I am a
single driver. My problem is not being able to find people who want to
travel at the same time I do.

Funny you mention that. I find (especially in phoenix) that people
really don't get that on weekends and during the day (not 7-9 am and
4-7 pm) that you can drive in those lanes no problem. But *I* did get
that after reading the sign for the 1st time. Still doesn't make it a
good idea. It doesnt' reduce pollution during rush hour. If that lane
were open to ALL traffic, then everyones cars would be getting better
mileage, thus less pollution total. If you are from AZ you will
remember the alternative fuels fiasco where people were allowed to
deduct from their state taxes, (not deduct from income but directly
deduct from taxes) the cost of converting their cars to natural gas.
Since converted cars could drive in the HOV lane with single occupants
MANY people took advantage of this so much that it bankrupt the state
budget.

x1134x

x1134x said:

Ride-A-Lot said:

He doesn't realize that on 98% of HOV lanes, they are open to all
traffic at non-rush hour times. Rarely have I ever seen an HOV lane
crawling unless there is a flat or accident. Those effect all lanes
anyway from rubber necking. I for one support HOV, even if I am a
single driver. My problem is not being able to find people who want to
travel at the same time I do.

Funny you mention that. I find (especially in phoenix) that people
really don't get that on weekends and during the day (not 7-9 am and
4-7 pm) that you can drive in those lanes no problem. But *I* did get
that after reading the sign for the 1st time. Still doesn't make it a
good idea. It doesnt' reduce pollution during rush hour. If that lane
were open to ALL traffic, then everyones cars would be getting better
mileage, thus less pollution total.

You're right. We should just expand every highway to 15 lanes, and all
the problems would go away. Genius.

cc said:

You're right. We should just expand every highway to 15 lanes, and all
the problems would go away. Genius.

At what point in my post did i say that? Genius?

x1134x

x1134x said:

The most unbelieveably boneheaded idea do introduce itself to the
highway system is the "carpool lane" Whoever's pregnant idea this was
ought to be shot, and all of their progeny should also be executed to
prevent this type of stupidity from spreading. The entire concept is
oxymoronic. "We're going to cut down on pollution by encouraging
people to carpool" What really happens is you increase pollution by
having 5 lanes of parking lot with thousands of cars getting 0 miles
per gallon, while there is a free open empty lane that could get
traffic going. The idea that people would carpool to save time is
predicated on the fact that the other lanes will be at a standstill.
If they are not, why carpool? If they are, then the whole idea of
reducing pollution doesn't happen because cars are getting less that 4
miles per gallon during peak hours. Seems like an idea for the
elitists, especially when single occupant vehicles CAN drive in this
lane if they convert their vehicle to natural gas.

Yes I know these extra lanes were supposedly paid for by "federal tax
dollars" but they were still paid for by TAX DOLLARS, and the
citizenry that paid for it are being denied access to it. Rhymes
with taxation without representation. And its put in your face every
day you drive.

x1134x

There are full-size dolls for this exact purpose...
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Phil said:

There are full-size dolls for this exact purpose...

Family newsgroup, buddy.

x1134x said:

cc said:

You're right. We should just expand every highway to 15 lanes, and all
the problems would go away. Genius.

At what point in my post did i say that? Genius?

"What really happens is you increase pollution by
having 5 lanes of parking lot with thousands of cars getting 0 miles
per gallon, while there is a free open empty lane that could get
traffic going. "

"Still doesn't make it a
good idea. It doesnt' reduce pollution during rush hour. If that lane
were open to ALL traffic, then everyones cars would be getting better
mileage, thus less pollution total. "

Follow the (il)logic.

The point is (quite obviously, I might add), that those that carpool are
rewarded for doing so, at the expense of those that drive alone. As
enough drivers - for whom simply conserving is not enough incentive -
decide that going faster is worth picking someone up on the way to work,
the demand for HOV lanes during rush hour will increase, at which point
either another HOV lane is created or a normal lane is converted. The
goal is that eventually everyone will carpool, and that extra lanes will
be unnecessary.

cc

x1134x said:

The most unbelieveably boneheaded idea do introduce itself to the
highway system is the "carpool lane" Whoever's pregnant idea this was
ought to be shot, and all of their progeny should also be executed to
prevent this type of stupidity from spreading. The entire concept is
oxymoronic. "We're going to cut down on pollution by encouraging
people to carpool" What really happens is you increase pollution by
having 5 lanes of parking lot with thousands of cars getting 0 miles
per gallon, while there is a free open empty lane that could get
traffic going.

I agree totally. They should ban SOVs from all the lanes.

Here's hoping gas goes to $8/gallon.

CC

Sorni said:

Phil said:

There are full-size dolls for this exact purpose...

Family newsgroup, buddy.

Wow, snipping context to make a joke?

Unheard of.

E.P.

cc said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're right. We should just expand every highway to 15 lanes, and all
the problems would go away. Genius.

At what point in my post did i say that? Genius?

"What really happens is you increase pollution by
having 5 lanes of parking lot with thousands of cars getting 0 miles
per gallon, while there is a free open empty lane that could get
traffic going. "

That is the same as: "We should just expand every highway to 15 lanes,
and all the problems would go away."? I'm sure in your mind 2=1 then.

Quoted message said:

"Still doesn't make it a
good idea. It doesnt' reduce pollution during rush hour. If that lane
were open to ALL traffic, then everyones cars would be getting better
mileage, thus less pollution total. "

That is the same as: "We should just expand every highway to 15 lanes,
and all the problems would go away."? I'm sure in your mind 2=1 then.

Quoted message said:

The point is (quite obviously, I might add), that those that carpool are
rewarded for doing so, at the expense of those that drive alone. As
enough drivers - for whom simply conserving is not enough incentive -
decide that going faster is worth picking someone up on the way to work,

Proving my point, the idea is predicated on the fact that the other
lanes are ridiculously slow, thus carpooling will save TIME. Lanes
being ridiculously slow = more pollution, not less.

Quoted message said:

the demand for HOV lanes during rush hour will increase, at which point
either another HOV lane is created or a normal lane is converted. The
goal is that eventually everyone will carpool, and that extra lanes will
be unnecessary.

Sorry, the goal is NOT that everyone will carpool, the goal is to
*reduce pollution*. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make
it drink. People do not want to carpool as a whole. But if you did
get more people to carpool, at that point there would be no incentive,
and people will go back to NOT carpooling once they see the normal
lanes are as fast as the HOVs. I guarantee that transition will never
happen. The only way to keep it would be to keep the HOV lanes, which
have been in service now for YEARS, and are still not being utilized.

I think I'd rather have your 15 lanes of freeway and breathe a little
less polluted air, than breathe the exhaust of thousands of cars idling
at 0 miles per hour.

x1134x

Corvus Corvax said:

I agree totally. They should ban SOVs from all the lanes.

LOL! at that point you'd have anarchy, you couldn't hire enough police
to pull everyone over. . . . {:-)

Quoted message said:

Here's hoping gas goes to $8/gallon.

Never happen. But if it did, it wouldn't hurt the gas companies, nor
help the environment. It would help walmart though, because they sell
cheap [censored]. People still *HAVE* to drive they have no choice, so other
things they would have bought will go unpurchased, and the economy will
take a big dump. Instead of Prada people will buy Levis. No one will
be able to buy the new specialized and will have to go to walmart for a
walgoose {:-) I've offset the cost of gas by stopping buying xbox
games, now i rent them from blockbuster and just copy them. savings:
about $45 a game. One tank of gas. I also do not buy music CDs
anymore, which I used to spend about 50 bucks a month on. I use
Morpheus. People will adapt and overcome.

x1134x

x1134x said:

cc said:

Quoted message said:

>You're right. We should just expand every highway to 15 lanes, and all
>the problems would go away. Genius.

At what point in my post did i say that? Genius?

"What really happens is you increase pollution by
having 5 lanes of parking lot with thousands of cars getting 0 miles
per gallon, while there is a free open empty lane that could get
traffic going. "

That is the same as: "We should just expand every highway to 15 lanes,
and all the problems would go away."? I'm sure in your mind 2=1 then.

Quoted message said:

"Still doesn't make it a
good idea. It doesnt' reduce pollution during rush hour. If that lane
were open to ALL traffic, then everyones cars would be getting better
mileage, thus less pollution total. "

That is the same as: "We should just expand every highway to 15 lanes,
and all the problems would go away."? I'm sure in your mind 2=1 then.

No, but it's the same line of argument. I don't know why you're arguing
it's not. I'm sorry, but more lanes do not equal less pollution. More
lanes means more cars. Or did you miss that connection? Believe it or
not, traffic IS a deterrent to people driving during rush hour and in
general.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The point is (quite obviously, I might add), that those that carpool are
rewarded for doing so, at the expense of those that drive alone. As
enough drivers - for whom simply conserving is not enough incentive -
decide that going faster is worth picking someone up on the way to work,

Proving my point, the idea is predicated on the fact that the other
lanes are ridiculously slow, thus carpooling will save TIME. Lanes
being ridiculously slow = more pollution, not less.

Lanes being slow = less people driving solo = less cars = less
pollution. Some of us can see past the immediate results of such programs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the demand for HOV lanes during rush hour will increase, at which point
either another HOV lane is created or a normal lane is converted. The
goal is that eventually everyone will carpool, and that extra lanes will
be unnecessary.

Quoted message said:

Sorry, the goal is NOT that everyone will carpool, the goal is to
*reduce pollution*.

Well, the goal of the program is to increase carpooling, which will
decrease emissions overall. There have to be immediate goals. Obviously.
It's called an investment in the future. It doesn't always immediately
pay off.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make

Quoted message said:

it drink. People do not want to carpool as a whole.

Well, I'm glad you've got it figured out. Perhaps we should put you in
public office, and then we could give up on trying to do anything about
the environment at all. You've clearly demonstrated that you believe
efforts to mitigate our destruction of the planet are pointless, so it's
frankly hard to take your argument based on *your perception* of the
"effectiveness" of the program seriously.

But if you did

Quoted message said:

get more people to carpool, at that point there would be no incentive,
and people will go back to NOT carpooling once they see the normal
lanes are as fast as the HOVs.

I think you missed the part above where I mentioned that more HOV lanes
would be added. Not to mention those that realize how nice it is to only
have to drive and pay for gas to work every third or fourth time and
would continue otherwise. Many people are waiting for the incentive to
do what's right. You clearly are only motivated by what's best for you.
Right now.

I guarantee that transition will never

Quoted message said:

happen. The only way to keep it would be to keep the HOV lanes, which
have been in service now for YEARS, and are still not being utilized.

I'm glad I have your guarantee, soothsayer.

As far as their use, I drove them quite frequently in the Portland and
Seattle areas, where they were well-used. Buses also use them, which
often makes them faster than single drivers.

Quoted message said:

I think I'd rather have your 15 lanes of freeway and breathe a little
less polluted air, than breathe the exhaust of thousands of cars idling
at 0 miles per hour.

Your argument is awful. Believe it or not, the expense and inconvenience
of 9-5 commuting will force us to use other modes of transportation, and
sooner than you think.

x1134x said:

Corvus Corvax said:

I agree totally. They should ban SOVs from all the lanes.

LOL! at that point you'd have anarchy, you couldn't hire enough police
to pull everyone over. . . . {:-)

Quoted message said:

Here's hoping gas goes to $8/gallon.

Never happen. But if it did, it wouldn't hurt the gas companies, nor
help the environment. It would help walmart though, because they sell
cheap [censored]. People still *HAVE* to drive they have no choice, so other
things they would have bought will go unpurchased, and the economy will
take a big dump. Instead of Prada people will buy Levis. No one will
be able to buy the new specialized and will have to go to walmart for a
walgoose {:-) I've offset the cost of gas by stopping buying xbox
games, now i rent them from blockbuster and just copy them. savings:
about $45 a game. One tank of gas. I also do not buy music CDs
anymore, which I used to spend about 50 bucks a month on. I use
Morpheus. People will adapt and overcome.

By living with less fossil fuels. Idiot.

Ed Pirrero said:

Sorni said:

Phil said:

There are full-size dolls for this exact purpose...

Family newsgroup, buddy.

Wow, snipping context to make a joke?

Unheard of.

Or just following the lead... 😉

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Ed Pirrero said:

Sorni said:

Phil said:

There are full-size dolls for this exact purpose...

Family newsgroup, buddy.

Wow, snipping context to make a joke?

Unheard of.

Jokes aren't mean-spirited, "Ed".

cc said:

No, but it's the same line of argument. I don't know why you're arguing
it's not. I'm sorry, but more lanes do not equal less pollution. More
lanes means more cars. Or did you miss that connection? Believe it or
not, traffic IS a deterrent to people driving during rush hour and in
general.

Only a deterrent to those who don't HAVE to drive during those hours.

Quoted message said:

Lanes being slow = less people driving solo = less cars = less
pollution. Some of us can see past the immediate results of such programs.

Ok, I dont' think you thought that one through. But since, I'm such a
good teacher, I'll break it down for you. Take one single lane of
highway. how much pollution does it produce per day? Vandemann might
disagree, but in general one lane produces NO pollution. With no cars
at all driving down the lane, there would be NO pollution. I realize
at that point there would be no point for the lane, but we've got to
get around, so we build roads. Look at the other extreme. How could
that one lane of traffic produce the MOST pollution? By having cars
bumper to bumper going 0 miles per hour. You couldn't possibly put out
anymore pollution. (unless they were ALL large engine vehicles bumper
to bumper I suppose.) Somewhere in the middle of no cars, and cars
bumper to bumper going 0 is the most efficient use of that lane where
pollution is low and economy is maximized. In the 70s they decided
that speed was 55MPH. So no, the answer isn't 15 lanes so there is
tons of room for everyone, the answer is enough lanes to keep the
bumper to bumper traffic going 55mph during peak usage. The first part
of your arguement is a fallacy by observation. Lanes being slow (at
least in Phoenix metro area where I have experience) does not equal
less people driving solo. It just equals more pollution from going
slower.

Quoted message said:

Well, the goal of the program is to increase carpooling, which will
decrease emissions overall. There have to be immediate goals. Obviously.
It's called an investment in the future. It doesn't always immediately
pay off.

Another fallacy in your thinking, and the thinking of the HOV idea in
general is that you could possibly DECREASE emmissions overall. It
will never happen due to *exponential population growth* If this year
there are 100,000 new drivers, that number will be exponentially bigger
the next year and so on. The only thing possible is to reduce the rate
of pollution increase.

Quoted message said:

Well, I'm glad you've got it figured out. Perhaps we should put you in
public office, and then we could give up on trying to do anything about
the environment at all. You've clearly demonstrated that you believe
efforts to mitigate our destruction of the planet are pointless, so it's
frankly hard to take your argument based on *your perception* of the
"effectiveness" of the program seriously.

I don't think efforts to mitigate pollution are pointless, just the
stupid ones being enacted now, like HOV lanes. A *much* better
approach would be to make the freeways TOLL lanes.

Quoted message said:

I think you missed the part above where I mentioned that more HOV lanes
would be added. Not to mention those that realize how nice it is to only
have to drive and pay for gas to work every third or fourth time and
would continue otherwise. Many people are waiting for the incentive to
do what's right. You clearly are only motivated by what's best for you.

That delves into many personal matters for the individual. I, for
one do not trust other people's driving. And no not really, I'm
actually motivated to better manage pollution.

Quoted message said:

I guarantee that transition will never

Quoted message said:

happen. The only way to keep it would be to keep the HOV lanes, which
have been in service now for YEARS, and are still not being utilized.

I'm glad I have your guarantee, soothsayer.

As far as their use, I drove them quite frequently in the Portland and
Seattle areas, where they were well-used. Buses also use them, which
often makes them faster than single drivers.

The only times they're used in Phoenix during rush hour is when a
couple or a family is going somewhere together and are legally able to
use it. I would estimate less that 10% are poolers and 80% are SOVs
that are natural gas, or hybrids.

Quoted message said:

Your argument is awful. Believe it or not, the expense and inconvenience
of 9-5 commuting will force us to use other modes of transportation, and
sooner than you think.

Yours is illogical, and pipe-dreamish. Believe it or not people
(especially in the southwest) do not like the claustrophobia of urban
transit, and many have moved there to get away from the more congested
eastern cities. That inconvenience and expense will simply make other
parts of the economy suffer when people make the concessions they have
to make to get to work still.

x1134x

cc said:

By living with less fossil fuels. Idiot.

When we run out of them{:-)