Re: Saving the environment?


cc wrote:
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.


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.


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.

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.


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.


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'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.

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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Saving the environment?
    ... but more lanes do not equal less pollution. ... lanes means more cars. ... If the HOV lanes serve to instigate that conversion, ...
    (alt.mountain-bike)
  • Re: Utah: I-15 HOVs becoming managed toll lanes.
    ... you count the number of bodies in the car. ... get across all the 6 or 8 main lanes to get to the HOT lanes. ... sure if it is "no expanded capacity - period" ... ... what if you take other measures to reduce air pollution? ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: Saving the environment?
    ... Genius. ... "We should just expand every highway to 15 lanes, ... It doesnt' reduce pollution during rush hour. ... Sorry, the goal is NOT that everyone will carpool, the goal is to ...
    (alt.mountain-bike)
  • Re: Saving the environment?
    ... "We should just expand every highway to 15 lanes, ... It doesnt' reduce pollution during rush hour. ... then everyones cars would be getting better ... Well, the goal of the program is to increase carpooling, which will decrease emissions overall. ...
    (alt.mountain-bike)
  • Re: Saving the environment?
    ... they actually *cause* more pollution than there would be without them. ... I do not need documentation to back up an opinion. ... and I-17 when using the hov lane in morning rush hour. ... bottlenecked into the remaining lanes. ...
    (alt.mountain-bike)