| Author |
 Topic  |
|
N_or_S_bound
Advanced Member
649 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Sep 2005 : 07:28:39
|
"After the campaigns".
Ok, good point, let's see:
Let's see how many people who actually use HOV as HOV will get out and vote. Even before voting, who is going to express their opinion (which drives which way they'll vote) through the various forums available in this democratic republic?
I'm thinking there will be plenty of folks who "vote their wallets" that are sitting in the main lines wondering about the "lexus lanes" (I don't like the term personally, but trying to reflect their attitude here). My money is on them voting for anything that reduces their congestion WITHOUT affecting them (that's how we like to vote, zero sum in our favor & at someone else's expense).
We know which way hybrid drivers are going to vote and I expect they'll be pretty active in voicing their support of candidates who talk about extending the exemption.
Then again, do the campaigns really matter? Big biz runs the elections. Those who come up with the cash make the decisions. Some people are so stuck on keeping what cash they have that they won't support anything that is a long shot.
The money is there amongst the commuting populace, but that populace isn't united (if this site is any indication of that).
NoSb's predictions (ALWAYS a dangerous proposition):
1. Hybrid exemption extended
2. HOT becomes a reality
3. HOV will pay eventually to use HOT if not immediately
4. Effective clean fuel alternatives will not become viable due to manipulation of prices and corporate influences in the elections (national, state and local).
I think 4 is enough, will make the %'s easier to figure out later.
I'm liking the higher prices at the pump, it is making the commute much smoother these days in the HOV! (Is that twisted or what!?!)
NoSb
SOV because you can, HOV because you care! |
 |
|
|
NoSUV
Advanced Member
1024 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2005 : 07:45:26
|
| NoSb: I think you will be 4 for 4. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
632 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2005 : 12:04:25
|
If that's the case, NoSUV, then we're all screwed! But why should I wonder when it's the big money that drives political decisions anyway! Do you actually think for a minute that the car companies are selling solutions to our oil, congestion and polution problems? Hey, No SUV, "the emperor wears no clothes!" (Google that for a history lesson on the ethanol burning engine and the Bush family business). Auto makers are using marketing to add product choices! They have not created an environmentally friendly choice, they have created a choice that appeals to your "green" side and let's you sleep at night thinking you are helping the situation. Wake up; "Light" cigarettes still cause cancer! Hybrids still burn gas (not to mention the environmental impact of those disposed batteries)! Every car in HOV with less than 3 passengers adds congestion! You, and every other hybrid driver, have bought into a feel-good marketing ploy that clogs our streets with yet another fossil fuel burning vehicle. And the "better gas milage" argument is moot as long as they can make non-hybrids that equal hybrid MPG claims.
NoSb, I applaud your argument, reasoning and deduction. Ethanol is a viable solution, as is bio-diesel and others; renewable, plentiful, relatively clean, and domestic-produced. But these options won't be profitable for the fuel production companies until the unit cost is up to about $5.00 a gallon (which may happen soon). Until then, the policitians will bleed us dry with taxes, tolls (more taxes), oh and did I say taxes?! Don't you know; development and construction is good for the economy. Construction of toll roads will help the economy at the expense of our pocketbooks. And auto manufacturers will continue to profit from our needs, good intentions and ignorance. |
|
|
|
N_or_S_bound
Advanced Member
649 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2005 : 13:10:03
|
raymond,
Thanks, just a few insights and prognostications on my part.
I do realize though that DISTRIBUTION and DEMAND are where the potential for change exists.
As I look at the refining process for oil and the potential disruption due to this storm coming to the Houston area, doesn't it seem a bit strategically unwise to have to depend on foreign oil (not assured), coming in through ports on the periphery of the nation (not as easily protected) and located in areas subject to the whims of nature (e.g. hurricanes)?
Now, take some of the other options you've illustrated and consider how we could better buttress ourselves to mitigate those risks I stated. Where is the source for ethanol? (Ans: the heartland) Where could we produce ethanol? (Ans: the heartland) How would we get the ethanol to the requisite locations for utilization in vehicles? (Ans: existing distribution system with some adjustments)
Who owns the existing distribution system? Oil companies and independents.
What would they have to charge to make ethanol profitable for them? Same, maybe higher prices (maybe less post-Rita). Ballpark guesses and not backed up by any serious analysis.
How can I, as Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss Consumer help oil companies realize that I want this change to happen? Start buying cars equipped to burn E85 then actually purchase E85 for consumption. Money talks and buffalo chips walk. It is amazing to me how many companies are producing vehicles that are FFV and yet we in America don't know this. All of the following make FFVs: Daimler Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Isuzu, Mazda, Mercedes, Mercury, and Nissan.
Ok, don't want to make such a huge leap by going to an 85% ethanol solution? How about asking retailers to consider E10 which has 10% ethanol mixed in with gasoline and can be burned in your CURRENT vehicle with no adjustments/modifications? Start the demand at least. Give them time to spool up production. Let them have their distribution infrastructure not go to waste AND they can even have their profits.
Now, why don't we do this? I dunno, lazy I guess.
My next vehicle will utilize alternative fuel(s). Hope I get the same tax credit/deduction that less effective "alternatives" get currently (hey, I'm not completely altruistic!).
I'm also going to start educating our politicos on this from my point of view (consumer with money and active voter who actually votes).
I'll still HOV since alternative fuels is only one piece of the puzzle and we all know there's more to the argument than fuel type(s).
NoSb
SOV because you can, HOV because you care! |
|
|
|
NoSUV
Advanced Member
1024 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2005 : 14:12:51
|
But don't you agree that less consumption of conventional fuel is needed? As has been pointed out but several, there needs to be a consumer incentive to have less consumption. Although HOV helps on the commute, it does absolutely nothing for the vehicle when it's not on the commute - and those who are permanent slugs are VERY guilty of that (100% of their miles are relatively "bad" miles for conservation/environment). So, what incentives can be given to bring down the consumer cost for vehicles that can ONLY have less conventional fuel consumption?
Hybrid exemption is one, but not the only or even best way. Others include banning all POVs from the express lanes, and configuring tanks/gas pumps so only ethanol can go it (remember "regular" leaded gas vs unleaded) - and giving those vehicles an express lane exemption as well.
The key remains to use less - and the only thing the legislature has done to help that is the HOV and hybrid exemptions in the bus lanes. |
|
|
|
N_or_S_bound
Advanced Member
649 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2005 : 14:53:01
|
Reducing is most definitely a part of the solution.
I am amazed at how people still insist on driving their vehicles the way they do and they probably complain as much as anyone else about the rising price of gas. An IMMEDIATE partial solution is to modify our driving habits. AND, this takes no material or technical solution to make it happen (e.g. it's FREE).
Interesting this website is there for all to read. Gives tips to saving fuel, yet who is willing to change one iota how they drive?
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/drive.shtml
Not to brag on myself, but I've reduced my speed to the speed limit. I also accelerate slower and decelerate earlier (without brakes). I monitor my average economy (per trip) and allow it to somewhat govern my driving habits.
Of note on that website: Most vehicles are engineered for most efficient gas mileage in the 45-55 mph range. Pigheaded Americans won't accept that even in the name of "national defense".
Use less, sure. That IS a piece of the equation. I wouldn't suboptimize an overall system though to achieve efficiency in only one part. How much impact does increased fuel efficiency have over what time period and at what expense to other portions of the system? And which system?
One challenge for hybrid elec/gas technology is that the most efficiency is realized at the lower speed city driving, not highway speeds.
One comparison (viewed from overall impact to the entire system): A vehicle that gets 25 mpg and carries 3 people (minimum) in the HOV equates to 75 mpg. One Hybrid Civic at highway speed gets 47 mpg (pulled from that website's EPA fuel economy numbers) with one person in the HOV equates to 47 mpg. Which is better? Ok, the system here is HOV make sure you limit your response to that system.
I don't think anyone said hybrids aren't a part of the solution. I think in ALL cases HOW we choose to use them and existing vehicles is worthy of serious immediate consideration for trying to put less pressure on the system.
Oh, edit and editorial comment: I don't count on government to do anything FOR me. I know they will do things TO me though.
NoSb
SOV because you can, HOV because you care! |
Edited by - N_or_S_bound on 22 Sep 2005 14:54:02 |
|
|
|
NoSUV
Advanced Member
1024 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2005 : 16:19:06
|
| NoSb: the problem with your example of effective mpg is that you are only comparing the miles used in the commute. To be fair, you need to also look at the miles driven while NOT on the commute - that gives the REAL figure. Limiting the discussion to just hours of HOV and hybrid exemption discounts the actual value of less consumption - which is what the incentive is all about. |
|
|
|
NoSUV
Advanced Member
1024 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2005 : 16:20:58
|
| By the way, both major governor candidates have now responded to my request for their position: Kaine AND Kilgore support the hybrid exemption. |
|
|
|
NoSUV
Advanced Member
1024 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2005 : 16:36:38
|
Besides, if we want to make a fair comparison with the overall consumption, we'd have to look at the average mpg for the non-hybrids and the hybrids both during and not during the commute. It's unlikely that the average conventional car is getting 25 mpg (it only takes a few pickups and SUVs to skew the average).
To make the math easy, use the figures of a hybrid which averages 50 mpg (many of the compacts do - some get above 60 mpg - so this figure might be low) and compare that with your conventional car getting 25 mpg (none of the SUVs do this, so if anything this figure is high) and look at 15K miles commuting and 5K miles not. Interestingly, both will use 400 gallons. Carpool 1 time with that hybrid, and it's already better. Change the % to more miles not commuting (like many slugs) and the advantage becomes even more clear.
Want to have less consumption? Insist on more breaks for hybrids besides express lane exemption. |
|
|
|
MDC
Moderator
631 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2005 : 18:17:35
|
I think we want SOV's out of HOV. That will encourage more slugs, which will reduce consumption much more than getting more people to buy overpriced, new cars. Hybrids are great, but they are causing increased consumption when they clog up HOV lanes.
This isn't arguable, so don't even try. |
|
|
|
NoSUV
Advanced Member
1024 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2005 : 07:31:55
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by MDC[/i]
[br]I think we want SOV's out of HOV. That will encourage more slugs, which will reduce consumption much more than getting more people to buy overpriced, new cars. Hybrids are great, but they are causing increased consumption when they clog up HOV lanes.
This isn't arguable, so don't even try.
Of course it's arguable. Why can't all of the HOVs be hybrids only? Isn't that the way to solve both problems? However, there are too few hybrids to change the express lanes to HOV hybrids alone, so the interim step needs to be made for the express lanes to allow SOV hybrids. After all, didn't you say the cars were overpriced? |
|
|
|
MDC
Moderator
631 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2005 : 07:39:50
|
| See, what did I say? You have no plausible, or comprehensible argument. SOV hybrids is the interim for hybrid only HOV? That's the best you can come up with? Screw all who don't own hybrids, or want to spend hours getting from point A to point B using busses and metro. |
|
|
|
NoSUV
Advanced Member
1024 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2005 : 07:59:32
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by MDC[/i]
[br]See, what did I say? You have no plausible, or comprehensible argument. SOV hybrids is the interim for hybrid only HOV? That's the best you can come up with? Screw all who don't own hybrids, or want to spend hours getting from point A to point B using busses and metro.
MDC - almost as silly as miltrades rant. Almost... Remember that price is determined by supply and demand, so when gas supplies are short and demand is constant, prices go up. How can demand be reduced? Go back to the major gas crisis of early 70s and institute buses only into the express lanes. HOV-40. And since hybrids get better mileage than conventional cars even when not on the commute, provide better incentive than cash to get consumers to purchase them. Why not hybrids and buses only in the express lanes? Would you help out the nation by buying a hybrid? |
|
|
|
N_or_S_bound
Advanced Member
649 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2005 : 08:29:49
|
NoSUV,
Sorry man, I think I did define the portion of the overall system I was looking at and that was adequately qualified to limit discussion to just that one point. The external benefits and impacts of that narrowly defined system result in some trades that reduce the benefits many would like to promote. Consider the impact to parking and environment when SOVs are encouraged. This is an offset to the non-HOV miles you described.
I think I granted you some limited benefit of the elec/gas combination. My major point is this flocking to an overpriced technology (much like the premium vehicle manufacturers had on SUVs and pickups during the 80s and 90s). I don't want to play their game and be subject to their marketing schema. Consider that SUVs/pickups DIDN'T decrease in price or devalue as fast because the DEMAND was so great. The price of the technology isn't the driving factor. The fear of gas prices will keep the prices elevated for years...until they come out with the next marketing gimmick for us to buy into (and they will exploit that then too).
Hybrid gas/elec is a marketing ploy with little overall effect. Give me a VW Jetta TDI that gets 50mpg on diesel and I can burn biodiesel to help the environment. Guess what though? The TDI doesn't qualify for an HOV exemption!
The marketing message is being received and replayed by hybrid owners (who frankly don't give a flip about the OTHER impacts in our area) to the politicos. The manipulated buyers then make the politicos feel good about taking the campaign contributions from the automobile manufacturers (and probably the oil companies too) by telling them how beneficial hybrids are to the NoVa region.
I do grant with the last couple days backups caused by gawkers of accidents that the hybrids are getting better "gas mileage" (is it really gas mileage if you're using batteries?) as they sit in the traffic caused by congestion exacerbated by accidents. And therein lies the challenge for the electrics, they get better "mileage" when sitting in mainline traffic. EPA mileage for Toyota Prius, 60 city, 47 highway. That logic alone says: put them in the mainlanes, unless they meet HOV criteria.
I am encouraged though....I see more and more hybrids carrying more than one person in the vehicle. This trend is a positive one. Most are husband/wife combos from all appearances, but that is a step in the right direction. More people per car = less cars on the road which is a part of many answers to the overall challenges we face.
NoSb
SOV because you can, HOV because you care! |
|
|
|
hotscr17
Junior Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2005 : 09:49:09
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by NoSUV[/i]
[br]Besides, if we want to make a fair comparison with the overall consumption, we'd have to look at the average mpg for the non-hybrids and the hybrids both during and not during the commute. It's unlikely that the average conventional car is getting 25 mpg (it only takes a few pickups and SUVs to skew the average).
To make the math easy, use the figures of a hybrid which averages 50 mpg (many of the compacts do - some get above 60 mpg - so this figure might be low) and compare that with your conventional car getting 25 mpg (none of the SUVs do this, so if anything this figure is high) and look at 15K miles commuting and 5K miles not. Interestingly, both will use 400 gallons. Carpool 1 time with that hybrid, and it's already better. Change the % to more miles not commuting (like many slugs) and the advantage becomes even more clear.
Want to have less consumption? Insist on more breaks for hybrids besides express lane exemption.
those numbers only work if the person driving the hybrid is doing around 60-65. anything over that and the gas mileage comes way down and we know in this area the average commute speed is probably 80mph. plus all the newer hybrids coming out (suv's and pickups) don't get great mileage (about 25mpg). there are some regular cars out there that would get better mileage than that so those hybrids shouldn't even qualify.. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
hybrids get them off HOV
