Jump to content

A Beginning


Recommended Posts

Driver fee would help fight warming, Los Angeles Times April 1, 2008

I think we should be prepared to see a lot more proposals like this in the future, and be ready to propose exemptions for historic registrations immediately. (The added fuel "fees" are likely something we'll all have to live with anyway, but an argument against the global impact of rarely driven antiques can easily be made to exempt registration "fees" for them.)

The science on this gets grimmer every day, and there will certainly be a lot more proposals like this made in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Driver fee would help fight warming, Los Angeles Times April 1, 2008

I think we should be prepared to see a lot more proposals like this in the future, and be ready to propose exemptions for historic registrations immediately. (The added fuel "fees" are likely something we'll all have to live with anyway, but an argument against the global impact of rarely driven antiques can easily be made to exempt registration "fees" for them.)

The science on this gets grimmer every day, and there will certainly be a lot more proposals like this made in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or, here's an idea....we fight ALL of the fees in the first place! </div></div>

So we don't come off like neanderthals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or, here's an idea....we fight ALL of the fees in the first place! </div></div>

So we don't come off like neanderthals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or name callers....... </div></div>

Only if you volunteer for the title. Now why would you do that?

Oh, so you can continue a one-sided personal issue. I forgot.

-------

(BTW, I hope everyone else is actually reading the article and not posting knee-jerk reactions 1 minute after the thread is started obviously without bothering to do so.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or name callers....... </div></div>

Only if you volunteer for the title. Now why would you do that?

Oh, so you can continue a one-sided personal issue. I forgot.

-------

(BTW, I hope everyone else is actually reading the article and not posting knee-jerk reactions 1 minute after the thread is started obviously without bothering to do so.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ZondaC12

Every time I read something like this I'm glad I don't live out there.

If it were me in that situation with an SUV or other gas-sucker I'd just pay the fine. I will NOT cave into government pointing a finger at me and telling me YOU WILL stop driving that and drive something more efficient and clean. My God, last I checked I didn't live in Soviet Russia.

Espeically when there's still no solid conclusion either way on the whole warming deal, at least for me. I mean the hottest year of the last century was 4 years before my Buick was bought new anyhow! (Well, after NASA quietly corrected their data last August).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ZondaC12

Every time I read something like this I'm glad I don't live out there.

If it were me in that situation with an SUV or other gas-sucker I'd just pay the fine. I will NOT cave into government pointing a finger at me and telling me YOU WILL stop driving that and drive something more efficient and clean. My God, last I checked I didn't live in Soviet Russia.

Espeically when there's still no solid conclusion either way on the whole warming deal, at least for me. I mean the hottest year of the last century was 4 years before my Buick was bought new anyhow! (Well, after NASA quietly corrected their data last August).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I mean the hottest year of the last century was 4 years before my Buick was bought new anyhow! (Well, after NASA quietly corrected their data last August). </div></div>

WRONG! (see link) And don't believe <span style="text-decoration: underline">anything</span> you read from a single source (especially if it's a single source all being cited by related outlets). Check this one as well.

Like I said, the <span style="font-weight: bold">science</span> on this gets grimmer every year. frown.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I mean the hottest year of the last century was 4 years before my Buick was bought new anyhow! (Well, after NASA quietly corrected their data last August). </div></div>

WRONG! (see link) And don't believe <span style="text-decoration: underline">anything</span> you read from a single source (especially if it's a single source all being cited by related outlets). Check this one as well.

Like I said, the <span style="font-weight: bold">science</span> on this gets grimmer every year. frown.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ZondaC12

Well that's all fine and good but I just can't bring myself to feel that "grim" about it. Again it's just me personally, but I just don't see this apocalyptic fate looming over us. Hell, if the seas being a foot or two higher a hundred years from now is the worst of it....well I'll stay myself away from the coast! And if I lived there, I'd make that not the case anymore.

Also...so NASA shouldn't be trusted? Just because most climate scientists rely on NOAA makes NASA's data completely invalid? Also, then who's right? I mean that's just experimental error etc. There's what the actual temperatures were and what whomever, wherever, measured it to be.

LOL I just thought an organization like NASA might command a little more authority!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ZondaC12

Well that's all fine and good but I just can't bring myself to feel that "grim" about it. Again it's just me personally, but I just don't see this apocalyptic fate looming over us. Hell, if the seas being a foot or two higher a hundred years from now is the worst of it....well I'll stay myself away from the coast! And if I lived there, I'd make that not the case anymore.

Also...so NASA shouldn't be trusted? Just because most climate scientists rely on NOAA makes NASA's data completely invalid? Also, then who's right? I mean that's just experimental error etc. There's what the actual temperatures were and what whomever, wherever, measured it to be.

LOL I just thought an organization like NASA might command a little more authority!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, everyone knows who's right if they're paying attention. There's litterally far more support in the scientific community for a flat earth than there is for the professional anthropromorphic (man-made) global warming "doubters". The reason you're talking about the absurd rantings of a few (less than a dozen, tops) "scientists" of varying qualifications is because they have very well-funded sponsors in the oil and mining industry, mainly Exxon-Mobil, spreading their gospel as loud and far as they can. (Even among the oil industry majors there are serious efforts to combat the propoganda these people create, such is the dubiousness of these efforts.)

I have a Master's Degree in the environmental sciences, and was studying this problem 25 years ago before the predictions started coming true. I have an advantage in that way, but that doesn't mean that you have to spend that kind of time to realize the danger. Any genuine investigation into the facts and the qualifications of those who compile them on both sides will come to a reasonable conclusion.

However, if you still want to think that the "doubters" are credible because they can afford a better bullhorn than the tens of thousands of real scientists working on this problem for Associate Professor wages, fine. Just keep watching Fox News and pretending. But don't think that it makes for much of an argument among others, or that it will disuade in <span style="text-decoration: underline">any</span> way the comming of more governmental efforts like the one currently proposed in SoCal.

In the mean time the rest of us will need to keep vigilant to make sure our baby isn't thrown out with the bath water in the serious efforts of the rest of the world to combat this problem. If we have to do that with a bunch of people standing behind us shouting that there is no problem then it's going to make the job a lot harder, kind of like showing up drunk for DUI hearing. crazy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, everyone knows who's right if they're paying attention. There's litterally far more support in the scientific community for a flat earth than there is for the professional anthropromorphic (man-made) global warming "doubters". The reason you're talking about the absurd rantings of a few (less than a dozen, tops) "scientists" of varying qualifications is because they have very well-funded sponsors in the oil and mining industry, mainly Exxon-Mobil, spreading their gospel as loud and far as they can. (Even among the oil industry majors there are serious efforts to combat the propoganda these people create, such is the dubiousness of these efforts.)

I have a Master's Degree in the environmental sciences, and was studying this problem 25 years ago before the predictions started coming true. I have an advantage in that way, but that doesn't mean that you have to spend that kind of time to realize the danger. Any genuine investigation into the facts and the qualifications of those who compile them on both sides will come to a reasonable conclusion.

However, if you still want to think that the "doubters" are credible because they can afford a better bullhorn than the tens of thousands of real scientists working on this problem for Associate Professor wages, fine. Just keep watching Fox News and pretending. But don't think that it makes for much of an argument among others, or that it will disuade in <span style="text-decoration: underline">any</span> way the comming of more governmental efforts like the one currently proposed in SoCal.

In the mean time the rest of us will need to keep vigilant to make sure our baby isn't thrown out with the bath water in the serious efforts of the rest of the world to combat this problem. If we have to do that with a bunch of people standing behind us shouting that there is no problem then it's going to make the job a lot harder, kind of like showing up drunk for DUI hearing. crazy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ZondaC12

Well I respect where you're coming from and the field you're in. I don't have any desire to go back and forth here I think we don't need that (why was Misc. Chat eliminated? laugh.gif ).

Just thought I'd mention that to keep things civil and to not seem like I ducked out and didn't even bother to read what you wrote. smile.gif

I brought up that NASA thing only because I was aggravated that the changes were quiet and recieved no mainstream media coverage from ANYone, that I recall. (And generally in my household my mom and I do watch Fox and it was the summer so I was around, not at school and not even they mentioned it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ZondaC12

Well I respect where you're coming from and the field you're in. I don't have any desire to go back and forth here I think we don't need that (why was Misc. Chat eliminated? laugh.gif ).

Just thought I'd mention that to keep things civil and to not seem like I ducked out and didn't even bother to read what you wrote. smile.gif

I brought up that NASA thing only because I was aggravated that the changes were quiet and recieved no mainstream media coverage from ANYone, that I recall. (And generally in my household my mom and I do watch Fox and it was the summer so I was around, not at school and not even they mentioned it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ted sweet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i am still waiting for ice age predicted in the mid 70s. </div></div>

Why? confused.gif

Are you still waiting for the mid-engine Corvette and AMX3? That would make just as much sense, especially since both were predicted at that same time with far more certainty than any ice age. Just as any expert in <span style="text-decoration: underline">that</span> field would let <span style="text-decoration: underline">those</span> predictions go (as would the enthusiasts who follow cars), so would any climatologist let predictions about any imminent ice age go (as would any reasonable person who values knowledge).

And, just as giving up on the mid-engine AMX3 coming out doesn't mean the prediction for a redesigned Prius for next year is bunk, so giving up on an imminent ice age doesn't mean that the current thinking among virtually all scientists is bunk as well.

===================

That said I didn't mean for this thread to be a debate over global warming. That's over anyway.

<span style="font-weight: bold">I'm concerned about how efforts to combat global warming may effect the car hobby.</span> Throwing a near $100/yr. <span style="font-style: italic">defacto</span> tax on our cars is a big deal for most of us. A big deal we may be stuck with if we're too stubborn or limited to concede the need the for the tax, and to therefore argue persuasively that we shouldn't be it's victims.

There are going to be more measures, for sure. The 3 remaining Presidential candidates (Obama, Clinton, <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">&</span></span> McCain) are among the strongest supporters of anti-global warming initiatves. Be prepared for more "fees", "tolls", and restrictions to come. Many more.

There's a good reason why I titled this thread "<span style="font-weight: bold">A Beginning</span>"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ted sweet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i am still waiting for ice age predicted in the mid 70s. </div></div>

Why? confused.gif

Are you still waiting for the mid-engine Corvette and AMX3? That would make just as much sense, especially since both were predicted at that same time with far more certainty than any ice age. Just as any expert in <span style="text-decoration: underline">that</span> field would let <span style="text-decoration: underline">those</span> predictions go (as would the enthusiasts who follow cars), so would any climatologist let predictions about any imminent ice age go (as would any reasonable person who values knowledge).

And, just as giving up on the mid-engine AMX3 coming out doesn't mean the prediction for a redesigned Prius for next year is bunk, so giving up on an imminent ice age doesn't mean that the current thinking among virtually all scientists is bunk as well.

===================

That said I didn't mean for this thread to be a debate over global warming. That's over anyway.

<span style="font-weight: bold">I'm concerned about how efforts to combat global warming may effect the car hobby.</span> Throwing a near $100/yr. <span style="font-style: italic">defacto</span> tax on our cars is a big deal for most of us. A big deal we may be stuck with if we're too stubborn or limited to concede the need the for the tax, and to therefore argue persuasively that we shouldn't be it's victims.

There are going to be more measures, for sure. The 3 remaining Presidential candidates (Obama, Clinton, <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">&</span></span> McCain) are among the strongest supporters of anti-global warming initiatves. Be prepared for more "fees", "tolls", and restrictions to come. Many more.

There's a good reason why I titled this thread "<span style="font-weight: bold">A Beginning</span>"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Skyking

Dave, if you removed all the illegals out of this country, especially in California, that'd be a start...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

OK, I did read the article, and it made my blood boil! These (insert explitive here) public officials and their "tax the hell out of us" attitude is ridiculous. I don't know what the CA MTA issues are, but if they're ANYTHING like what we see in Pittsburgh, it's mass transit that's the cause of alot of problems.

Here, we have unions that dictate what kind of vehicles must be driven by their union members. So bus routes into rural areas are driven by senior level union members and they MUST drive the big busses. No smaller transporter vans for them. Well, I'd often see the bus drive by with at most 2 people on it. Now, lets see, an 80 passenger bus with a driver getting paid waaay too much and 2 passengers. Wow, that's environmentally, fiscally, and any other way NOT right. But wait, it gets better.

Well, we can't afford to run all the bus routes we have (DUH!), so we'll have to cut back and that will mean more emissions in the air, so you better fund our bus routes. Uh, last time I looked, the bus was empty. CANCEL THE ROUTE! It'll make the air cleaner and reduce fuel consumption as I see it. But wait, it gets better.

OK, we can't figure out a solution like smaller public transit vehicles, so routes got cut. But the union agreement means pay raises, so we really didn't save anything. We need $30 million more a year to keep in the black. Let's pass a 10% poured alcohol drink tax to make up that money. Yea, it's a sin to drink, so, that's an easy one to pass. (I don't drink, but I don't approve of the tax either in case you wondered.) The first month realized more tax dollars than initially expected. Wow, this must be a good thing we've done. Mass transit is saved. But wait, it gets better.

You must understand our topology here a little for this last topper. We have 3 rivers that converge forming a Y shape. The Allegheny river and the Monongahela River come together and form the Ohio river. OK, we need to get from one side of the river (downtown Pittsburgh) to the north side of the Allegheny river. Well, what's the best way to get there? I'll give you a hint...Pittsburgh is nicknamed the "City of Bridges" because we have so many bridges over our rivers and tributaries. OK, so, how do we cross the river? A bridge you say. MUHAHAHAH, you fool! How stupid can you be? No, a bridge is inexpensive and goes over the water in the air. Haven't you been watching the discovery channel? We have to make a tunnel UNDER the river!! Think Boston and the Big Dig. Think tunnel boring machine. Now you got it. Last we heard, this was a $485 Billion (yes, with a <span style="font-weight: bold"> B</span>) project, 80% of which comes from the federal government. So we only need to find 20% to do this. Did I mention that they think the fare to take the new tunnel to the north side is only going to be a few dollars. We've heard $5, we've heard $10. In any case, they want this to go to the stadiums, Heintz Field for the Steeler games and PNC Park for the Pirates. How many times have you seen somebody take tailgating supplies on a subway car to a game. Is there a surcharge for the keg and grill? Oh, and the Pirates, the team that barely draw 5,000 people total for a game. Ahem, real load of big spenders there to take the new subway tunnel. We're opening a casino over there too sometime (when, we don't know...it's become a mess too). But how many casio high rollers do you see taking public transportation to the casino. If you can't afford to drive to the casino, you won't be able to afford the trip home on the subway after losing your last dollar on a slot machine. Yea, we can't afford to keep public transit afloat, but we're creating jobs to dig a useless tunnel. Oh, maintenance costs of the tunnel, we never got an explaination for that.

Yup, we better start forking over extra dollars to help keep mass transit afloat. Hrmm, afloat, ironic term as they dig a tunnel under a river. Yes, big empty busses using fuel at an alarming rate while not carrying passengers is the way to go. Uh, if it were so lucrative to run this mass transit system, why doesn't a private business get involved?

How about this, lets quit wasting money, energy, and other resources on frivolous government projects. Treat this like a business. If it's profitable, do it. If it's a loser, give it up and find another way.

OK, I'm done ranting for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan, the Allegheny River is about 250 yards wide at the Point. Boston's "Big Dig" was for a tunnel slightly over 3 miles long, with a like section of above ground interstate. It's costs, including obscene overruns and what can kindly be called questionable expenditures, was $14.8 billion on completion. From downtown Pittsburgh the "Big Dig" tunnel alone would nearly reach Ross Park Mall. There's no way that $495 billion figure is accurate. You could fight a war in Iraq for that. (If you knew what you were doing! smile.gif )

That North Side secion of the rail transit system is something I helped work on in the 1980s when I was working for Baker Engineers. I doubt the entire system, including the southern section completed 15 years ago would cost even what the Big Dig did. That said I see little reason for the tunnel as well, other than (expensive) prestige for the city.

However Pittsburgh is dying largely because it invested practically ZERO in transportation infrastructure between 1955 and 1990, and today has one of the worst commuting averages in the U.S. despite having shrunk to such a small city. Even after 1990 the roads built (and the tiny subway) are laughable compared to those in major cities around the country. The bus system as well is a shambles, and hardly just because of the unions. <span style="font-weight: bold">It's precisely because these kinds of investments weren't made that the city's in such trouble. Trying to use that as an argument NOT to do it now is civic suicide.</span> And today, with fuel cost increases comming that make today look comfy, this investment has to be made in mass transit. It's the only kind of transportation system that makes sense long term.

And not investing in it in every city ASAP is very likely societal suicide. That's why there will be more edicts to come like the one in L.A. It's well understood by planners and citizens alike. If we stand in the way or ignore it instead of working with people our interests will just be plowed under by torrent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even after 1990 the roads built (and the tiny subway) are laughable compared to those in major cities around the country. </div></div>

For instance, do you know how to tell you're 25 miles from downtown Cincinnati? The interstate opens to 8 lanes. That's pretty typical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's 4 lanes each way, Wayne. (In places, 5) Pittsburgh has only two interstates that are 6 lanes (3 in each direction) for any distance at all (I-279 North for about 4 miles and I-376 East for about 2 miles in 2 places, one 8-10 miles from downtown in the eastern suburbs), and the I-279 section was only opened in 1989. Otherwise Pittsburgh has 4 lane interstates exclusively, and no beltway.

I-71 and I-75 are both 8 lanes roads in the entire Cincy Metro area. I-74 is 6 lanes for only about 3 miles, and we have an 87 mile beltway that's more often 6 lane than 4.

At the time these roads were built Pittsburgh was twice the population of Cincinnati and a far more vigorous city. They're now virtually tied, and moving in opposite directions. (That's largely how I wound up here!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to say Dave, that poor old Virginia has very few 8 lane roads (4 in each direction), mostly around the southern part of Washington DC and some of the outskirts of the Norfolk/Tidewater area.

I find it amazing that our neighboring states of Maryland and North Carolina have so much better highway improvements and additions. confused.gif

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with people who beat the drum for mass transit is that these people tend to live in heavily urban areas (where it is practical) and cannot relate to those of us in rural areas (where it is totally impractical). By choice, I live 27 miles from work. There IS no mass transit from home to there, and if there were it wouldn't run anywhere close to my varying work schedule. It wouldn't be a practical run for any company who might try to establish it either, since it would have to cover two-lane state highways between two small cities.

Wayne, the scales are tipped in favor of the Golden Crescent when it comes to highway funding in VA. We have been trying to get US 58 four-laned from Virginia Beach to the Coalfields for over 20 years, and NoVA's transportation woes always trump the funding for that project. Then a bunch of scatterbrained legislators sign off on those idiotic "abusive driver fees" in an effort to fund transportation, with predictable political fallout. The constituent backlash was rough enough that they fell all over themselves to introduce repeals at the 08 opening session.

If NoVA has such dire road needs, the solution is simple. Establish a pro-rated fuel tax in those areas ONLY and let them pay for their own roads so other projects can get funded and move ahead. Better yet, establish transportation-dedicated user fees to be paid by the developers who keep clogging up the area. Also make them pay for installing and maintaining any stoplight erected for benefit of their development.

Don't even get me started on stoplights. "Progressive green" used to be the order of the day- keep traffic moving as smoothly as possible. Now it's swung toward "progressive red" and camera-controlled signals. All I've seen that do is congest traffic even further, since it is constantly stop-start. It has become impossible to travel from one end of this city to the other on any major throughfare without being caught at EVERY stoplight- I've often said they defy the laws of probability. Wastes fuel, wastes time, and causes road rage. I see it in other cities too, so somebody once again listened to too many damn consultants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having driven I-64 from West Virginia to Virgina Beach last summer, I must say that no state I've ever been in does a better job of making the interstates attractive. The stretch around Charlottesville in particular is what the rest of our roads should look like! cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Dave, the Commonwealth does a nice job with their rural Interstates. I suspect it has a little to do with the communities I64 passes thru too.

Now if we could only get the Charlottesville/Albemarle County folks on board for the US 29 bypass around Charlottesville... it's the biggest bottleneck on 29 between Atlanta and the DC area. I think C-Ville is afraid of being bypassed and losing traffic. With the UVA community there, I don't think they have to worry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...