Hybrids - a threat to car-pooling?

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   The value of less time commuting should be quantified. Otherwise slugs are treated as being of no value.

	Hourly salary is figured on about 2,000 hours a year. There are about 8,000 hours in a year. Divide your hourly salary by four to find out your personal value of time.

	For instance, if you are the typical Washington area employee (as seen by a taxpayer way outside the beltway, your $100,000 per year salary works out to $50 per hour. That is what your employer thinks you are worth. Divide that by four. The $12 per hour is what you think you are worth. Your employer does not pay you for the time spent commuting. That is on your own nickle (or $12 per hour.)

	Time is like altitude above you or runway behind you. What good is it if you can't use it. Some time is more valuable than other. If you are a parent coming home from work to pick up a child at day care or the babysitter, you may be charged $40 per hour late fees for every fifteen minute increment you are late. Unless you are a parent, you may not look at the value of time in that light.

	If you are a parent that spends more time commuting than you do with your family, there are other costs. If you aren't there when your kids need you, they join a gang, spray paint graffiti and make a mess. The cost of that mess is astronomical. Maybe $40,000 per hour.

	The cost of frustration, especially if you don't have a cat to kick is upwards of $200 per hour in doctors bills to treat high blood pressure.

	Please take a minute to quantify in your own mind the value of slugging. If you find that slugging has a value, please pay your dues. Get the pitchfork, light the torches, storm city hall, kill the monster, free Shirley Highway.

	On the juice (Pepsi) early today.

	dickboyd@aol.com

	quote:
Originally posted by qorc

	[br]bunk.

	My Prius cost me $23,000 out the door (taxes, tags included). FAR less than the cost of my mini-van.

	and since I had a trade-in worth $14,000, I basically paid $9,000 for it.  

	So I get the advantages of HOV (for now) and I'm getting approximately 4 times the mileage I got with the pick-up truck I traded in.  I am spending less time commuting (that has advantage to me that can't be quantified) and I'm spending on average $120 LESS a month in gas ($1,440 per year) for a car that still has a much higher RESIDUAL trade-in value than the truck I traded in.

	Sounds pretty good to me!

	dickboyd@aol.com

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
dickboyd Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote dickboyd Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 03 Mar 2005 at 12:17pm
	The value of less time commuting should be quantified. Otherwise slugs are treated as being of no value. Hourly salary is figured on about 2,000 hours a year. There are about 8,000 hours in a year. Divide your hourly salary by four to find out your personal value of time. For instance, if you are the typical Washington area employee (as seen by a taxpayer way outside the beltway, your $100,000 per year salary works out to $50 per hour. That is what your employer thinks you are worth. Divide that by four. The $12 per hour is what you think you are worth. Your employer does not pay you for the time spent commuting. That is on your own nickle (or $12 per hour.) Time is like altitude above you or runway behind you. What good is it if you can't use it. Some time is more valuable than other. If you are a parent coming home from work to pick up a child at day care or the babysitter, you may be charged $40 per hour late fees for every fifteen minute increment you are late. Unless you are a parent, you may not look at the value of time in that light. If you are a parent that spends more time commuting than you do with your family, there are other costs. If you aren't there when your kids need you, they join a gang, spray paint graffiti and make a mess. The cost of that mess is astronomical. Maybe $40,000 per hour. The cost of frustration, especially if you don't have a cat to kick is upwards of $200 per hour in doctors bills to treat high blood pressure. Please take a minute to quantify in your own mind the value of slugging. If you find that slugging has a value, please pay your dues. Get the pitchfork, light the torches, storm city hall, kill the monster, free Shirley Highway. On the juice (Pepsi) early today. dickboyd@aol.com quote: Originally posted by qorc [br]bunk. My Prius cost me $23,000 out the door (taxes, tags included). FAR less than the cost of my mini-van. and since I had a trade-in worth $14,000, I basically paid $9,000 for it. So I get the advantages of HOV (for now) and I'm getting approximately 4 times the mileage I got with the pick-up truck I traded in. I am spending less time commuting (that has advantage to me that can't be quantified) and I'm spending on average $120 LESS a month in gas ($1,440 per year) for a car that still has a much higher RESIDUAL trade-in value than the truck I traded in. Sounds pretty good to me! dickboyd@aol.com

felixthecat Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 04 Mar 2005 Location: virginia Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote felixthecat Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 04 Mar 2005 at 11:08am
	I am extremely new to this post and I am the current owner of an Escape hybrid which is touted as the only Full Hybrid on the market, not that that has any bearing on my point. My point being that allowing the hybrids to travel on the HOV lanes greatly reduces traffic in the main lanes, unfortunately at the expense of the folks that slug in. But this expense is my issue, your commute time is increased by 30 minutes, give or take, whereas the persons using the main lanes can experience a commute of upto 3 hours traveling from the burg to DC. People who slug in were used to a quick easy ride into work and back home while the masses had to suffer and now it seems that because there may be an additional 20-30 minutes tacked on they are being robbed of some life liberty of some sort. It appears that by forcing hybrid vehicles back into the main lanes, they are simply taking a pile of dirt and displacing it as opposed to cleaning it up. There are many issues that have caused the alleged recent problems with HOV congestion: increase in jobs, the increase in real estate which forces more folks to move farther out thus necessitating the use of HOV lanes, the weather (and is it just me or should weather persons and meteorologists be fined now everytime they botch the forecast), as well as the drivers themselves who are now in such a hurried lifestyle that they feel the need tailgate, speed and serpentine through traffic in the sad attempt at getting someplace 15 minutes early. Well I've probably spoken too long in one thread, however my point is the issue isn't with hybrids ruining the HOV lanes, but the overall traffic problems that need to be addressed and we as citizens need to have the powers that be address these problems, we must unite as one as opposed to fight amungst each other, okay that was my corny moment for the day. Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion, no matter how meaningless it may be. GO SOX!!

wdossel Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 02 Jan 2002 Location: VA Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote wdossel Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 04 Mar 2005 at 11:21am
	quote: Originally posted by felixthecat [br]... I am the current owner of an Escape hybrid which is touted as the only Full Hybrid on the market, not that that has any bearing on my point. My point being that allowing the hybrids to travel on the HOV lanes greatly reduces traffic in the main lanes, unfortunately at the expense of the folks that slug in... It appears that by forcing hybrid vehicles back into the main lanes, they are simply taking a pile of dirt and displacing it as opposed to cleaning it up... OK, explain again why you think that you should be allowed as a solo driver to utilize the HOV-lanes (absent the current exemption which expires next year)? I think you will find the brunt of the anti-hybrid sentiment in here is based on solo-occupantship. I have no beef with hybrids in HOV, per se, as long as they are complying with the intent of the first two words -- High Occupancy -- in HOV3... - Will

14thDriver Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 29 Mar 2004 Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote 14thDriver Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 04 Mar 2005 at 1:26pm
	quote: Originally posted by felixthecat [br]My point being that allowing the hybrids to travel on the HOV lanes greatly reduces traffic in the main lanes, unfortunately at the expense of the folks that slug in. But this expense is my issue, your commute time is increased by 30 minutes, give or take, whereas the persons using the main lanes can experience a commute of upto 3 hours traveling from the burg to DC. People who slug in were used to a quick easy ride into work and back home while the masses had to suffer and now it seems that because there may be an additional 20-30 minutes tacked on they are being robbed of some life liberty of some sort. Felix, It is the choice of cars in the main lanes not to use HOV. Slugs make a sacrifice to gain a benefit. That is, you either give up the freedom of driving (slugs) or you drive perfect strangers to work with you (drivers). In exchange for helping to relieve congestion, you get a quicker commute. If someone is unwilling to make the sacrifice to use HOV, they they are contributing to the congestion and it is difficult to have sympathy for their 3 hour commute. The choice is available to everyone so those that choose not to use HOV have no right to complain and do not deserve to share in the benefit. If the argument is that additional cars in HOV that do not have 3 people (that is, hybrids) relieves the main lanes then why not rotate the benefit of driving solo in HOV among all main laners and slugs? Since congestion is the main problem in northern VA and you can't convince me that the material benefit of hybrids to the environment trumps HOV-3 (eventually there will be enough hybrids in HOV to be a disincentive to HOV drivers - also, I would like to see the numbers that show taking 2 cars off the road is less environmentally-friendly than the difference between using a regular car and a hybrid car) then why should hybrids be a special class? So yes, hybrids take congestion from the main lanes but not at nearly the rate they would if they were additional 3-person vehicles. HOV should be simply that, HOV. Why shouldn't slugs be upset that their sacrifice has less benefit when people who aren't making a sacrifice are the cause of that loss? Here's a thought, why not make all lanes (the main lanes and the HOV lanes) on 395 and 95 HOV-3 during rush hour?

dickboyd Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote dickboyd Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 04 Mar 2005 at 6:03pm
	Hybids? Issa. Short enough? quote: Originally posted by 14thDriver [br] quote: Originally posted by felixthecat [br]My point being that allowing the hybrids to travel on the HOV lanes greatly reduces traffic in the main lanes, unfortunately at the expense of the folks that slug in. But this expense is my issue, your commute time is increased by 30 minutes, give or take, whereas the persons using the main lanes can experience a commute of upto 3 hours traveling from the burg to DC. People who slug in were used to a quick easy ride into work and back home while the masses had to suffer and now it seems that because there may be an additional 20-30 minutes tacked on they are being robbed of some life liberty of some sort. Felix, It is the choice of cars in the main lanes not to use HOV. Slugs make a sacrifice to gain a benefit. That is, you either give up the freedom of driving (slugs) or you drive perfect strangers to work with you (drivers). In exchange for helping to relieve congestion, you get a quicker commute. If someone is unwilling to make the sacrifice to use HOV, they they are contributing to the congestion and it is difficult to have sympathy for their 3 hour commute. The choice is available to everyone so those that choose not to use HOV have no right to complain and do not deserve to share in the benefit. If the argument is that additional cars in HOV that do not have 3 people (that is, hybrids) relieves the main lanes then why not rotate the benefit of driving solo in HOV among all main laners and slugs? Since congestion is the main problem in northern VA and you can't convince me that the material benefit of hybrids to the environment trumps HOV-3 (eventually there will be enough hybrids in HOV to be a disincentive to HOV drivers - also, I would like to see the numbers that show taking 2 cars off the road is less environmentally-friendly than the difference between using a regular car and a hybrid car) then why should hybrids be a special class? So yes, hybrids take congestion from the main lanes but not at nearly the rate they would if they were additional 3-person vehicles. HOV should be simply that, HOV. Why shouldn't slugs be upset that their sacrifice has less benefit when people who aren't making a sacrifice are the cause of that loss? Here's a thought, why not make all lanes (the main lanes and the HOV lanes) on 395 and 95 HOV-3 during rush hour? dickboyd@aol.com

qorc Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Location: va Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote qorc Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 08 Mar 2005 at 10:43am
	I'm curious as to the selective outrage over hybrids. No outrage over motorcyles - they take up lane space too. where's the "end the motorcycle exemption" thread?? When does a motorcycle qualify as HIGH occupancy? No outrage over HOV-3 including kids and infants - how many drivers have we removed from the roads in those cases? It's all very selective, isn't it? The hybrid exemption will end, surely. Too many being built now. I can live with that. I'm back then to either slugging or being a driver. No problem.

vabigblue Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 16 Jul 2003 Location: VA Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote vabigblue Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 08 Mar 2005 at 11:46am
	It is selective; however, as wdossell stated, it the fact of solo driving in lanes designed for 3 or more. I have no problem with hybrids either, but its odd that hybrid owners feel somewhat violated at the mention of the exemption being lifted earlier than 2006. Motorcycles are built for one (in most cases). Kids and infants qualify as persons, so hybrids are left. One car with 5 seats, 4 empty is not high occupancy.[\|)]

qorc Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Location: va Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote qorc Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 08 Mar 2005 at 2:14pm
	quote: Originally posted by vabigblue [br]It is selective; however, as wdossell stated, it the fact of solo driving in lanes designed for 3 or more. I have no problem with hybrids either, but its odd that hybrid owners feel somewhat violated at the mention of the exemption being lifted earlier than 2006. Motorcycles are built for one (in most cases). Kids and infants qualify as persons, so hybrids are left. One car with 5 seats, 4 empty is not high occupancy.[\|)] yeah but the point of high occupancy is to take DRIVERS off the road - kids and infants aren't drivers. So let's be consistent. Motorcylces? Most could easily carry TWO and they take up lane space. But you object to empty seats? so when I see a full size van with 3 people and 5-6 empty seats does it apply to them as well? Or again, is it only selective? Even my minivan can transport 7. The point is that the arguments are very selective and inconsistent. If the point is to take DRIVERS off the road, then it should be no hybrids, no motorcyles, no kids or infants. Period. that would open up all kinds of space.

VA4ver Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 09 Feb 2005 Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote VA4ver Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 08 Mar 2005 at 3:45pm
	gorc, I understand that you are trying to make a point by being irrational. [:)] It's human nature to take the path of least resistance -- take advantage of HOV w/o 3 by purchasing a hybrid AND blaming the hybrids for ALL the problems. Both camps are guilty of the "Me, Me, Me" complex that is pervading this region and turning it ugly. This is such an well-done topic. The exemption will end, unless they turn HOV into HOT then it will continue.... AND, for all the hybrids out there, start practicing HOV 3 whenever you can. Focus on keep the lanes from being HOT.

Wagonman Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 05 Aug 2003 Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote Wagonman Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 08 Mar 2005 at 4:03pm
	quote: yeah but the point of high occupancy is to take DRIVERS off the road - kids and infants aren't drivers. So let's be consistent. Motorcylces? Most could easily carry TWO and they take up lane space. But you object to empty seats? so when I see a full size van with 3 people and 5-6 empty seats does it apply to them as well? Or again, is it only selective? Even my minivan can transport 7. The point is that the arguments are very selective and inconsistent. If the point is to take DRIVERS off the road, then it should be no hybrids, no motorcyles, no kids or infants. Period. that would open up all kinds of space. So you want to limit it to drivers only? So when someone gets pulled over in the HOVs the cops can ask all the passengers for their drivers license to make sure they are drivers? How about a slug line where young looking people get IDed by the drivers? I'm not against getting rid of motorcycles(BTW, it will never happen. There are too few of them to draw enough complaints), but the drivers only thing is difficult in practice. What about the soccer mom that drives several neighbors kids somewhere instead of each parent driving their own kid? Even though an extra driver isn't in the car, an extra driver may have been taken off the road. Anyway, you are muddling different issues. Hybrids are just like other cars in terms of passenger carrying ability. Stumping for or against hybrids by bringing motorcyles into it just diverts attention from the hybrid issue. Can you seriously say that even if a motorcyclist wanted to get a passenger they'd be able to find a willing one? I'd love to see what would happen when a motorcyclist pulled up to a slug line. Same with kid/infant issue, that's about who qualifies as an occupant, not about how many occupants a vehicle should need to use HOV.