🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep14.202832.17114@linus.mitre.org> woycke@smiley.mitre.org (Daniel Woycke) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.165834.6721@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep10.134253.22715@linus.mitre.org> woycke@smiley.mitre.org (Daniel Woycke) writes:
>>>The point of the HOV lane is to reduce the number of cars on the road
>>>by giving carpoolers somewhere to go. I think it is serving that
>>>purpose. Those people who ride in carpools are now able to get to work
>>
>>What do you base this conclusion on?
>>
>
>I base it on the fact that there are people using the HOV lanes.
>Obviously there are people who can find a way to carpool. This has
>then reduced the number of cars on the road.

Umm, so you're assuming that all people who are legitimately using
the HOV-3 lanes just started car-pooling on September 1 so that
they could make a quick trip in here?  I think that is a bad
assumption.  Before September 1, car-poolers could make a quick
trip in, after September 1 they still can make a quick trip in.
How many people have started to car-pool in order to use the HOV-3
lanes has not been determined yet.  The only figures I've seen
have been how many vehicles are using the HOV-3 lane which doesn't
even come close to answering the question (can you say cheaters?).

>
>If there was an adequate mass transit system I can see no reason that
>people could not use that instead of driving to work. I only used my
>biking as an example, and it would be cheaper than to have built the
>extra lane on the Toll Road. Improving the mass transit system and
>getting all of those people who feel that their comfort is more
>important than the air we breathe to ride on the mass transit will
>cost alot of money. 

Yes, and if cars had wings... The point is that we don't have an
adequate mass transit system for people in the suberbs.
Therefore, it is invalid to use it as any kind ofjustification for
the HOV-3 lane.  The fact is that the HOV-3 lane was implemented,
but no thought at all was given about how to go about encouraging
people to use it except for punishing non-compliers.  So until
more thought is given, it would be gracious of the VDOT to
withdraw it's HOV-3 edict and allow time to plan for sanity.

>
>>>
>>>The government should not encourage polluters in industry, why should
>>>it encourage polluting commuters? The government is not responsible
>>>for our behavior, but they should avoid encouraging wrong behavior.
>>
>>The government regulates pollution in the commercial world by
>>capping the amounts that are dumped into the air.  It does NOT
>>penalize the existence of the factories themselves.  Using the
>>same analogy, it should then put a cap on the amounts of
>>pollutants that a car can expel.  Perhaps the current limits should
>>be adjusted?
>>
>
>The government also limits the building of structures where it would
>harm the environment (you know, wetlands). I agree, until 30 cars
>produce the same amount of polution as a bus or train, people should
>not be allowed to drive them. Geez, what we need is a little common
>sense. The reason big corporations can clean up their act is because
>they can afford it. The guy who can afford a $500 used car can't
>afford to make it super environmentally efficient. They actually need
>an alternative to using the car.

Are you saying that you don't want to spend a little more money on
a car so that you can have a less polluting car?  Dan, I'm suprised
and shocked! :)

>
>Daniel W. Woycke             |"I went out drinking with Thomas 


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729