Found this on another board.

He needs to research what he's talking about. He mentions the TDI engine (volkswagen), and then says that nothing is mentioned of diesels. Uhhh, the TDI IS a diesel engine.

As for alleviating traffic. He's right. However, there is one hurdle - the exact same hurdle that is getting increasingly in the way of ANY solution to ANY problem. The environmentalists.

They complain about pollution, but block processes that would expand the current highway network, and help reduce the congestion issue.

They repeatedly file lawsuits, which diverts road use funds to pay for court costs. Now our road use tax money isn't going as far as it needs to. This in effect further slows already too slow of road improvement projects.

 

One of the first cautions in writing centers around the fact that that credence of your whole document is lost if even one statement is recognized by the reader as false or seriously exagerated .. read: "most hybrids in use are returning about 35 mpg (owner's reports)".

Although Henry is listed as a rookie prius poster, I seriously doubt that Henry owns a Prius. I strongly suspect that Henry is someone simply trying to use the forum to drive his own private rather naive agenda.

 

Welcome to the board Henry.
I believe traffic is a problem and reducing it would solve a lot of pollution problems. One thing I noticed here in the frozen North during the winter is the amount of exhaust put into the air by conventional vehicles stopped at traffic lights. Our Pri shut down and don't pollute. The same thing occurs in stop and go traffic. Looks like a perfect solution to me. If you want to reduce traffic, you need to reduce population and reduce people's ability to own a vehicle.....first item won't happen any time soon and second item is bad for the economy. Building more roads only spreads the problem around while reducing green space that can absorb some of the pollution.
On the subject of diesels. They are currently a very dirty but efficient engine system. Particulate pollution is many times higher than gas engines and until low sulfur fuel is available here, they just won't help the problem.
Another real big part of the transportation pollution problem is tires. As they wear, they leave behind fine rubber compound dust in surprisingly high concentrations in urban areas. I have read reports that attribute high asthma rates in urban centers to this material. The development of more environmentally-friendly tires should be a priority. A company called Amerityre is well on the way to producing a run-flat polyurethane tire that lasts twice as long as a rubber tire with lower rolling resistance that can improve fuel economy by 10% - a whopping 5 mpg in a Prius!
Pollution solutions have to deal with the uses and systems already in place. Reducing traffic is very hard to do so it's probably more effective to attack changing how much the traffic pollutes, and the Prius is the best solution out there right now.

 

Building more roads to alleviate pollution and traffic congestion is kinda like buying a fat man a longer belt. Still, there are absurdly stupid highway bottlenecks in LA that ought to be fixed.

You wanna do something about traffic and pollution? Live near work. Take the train whenever possible. Don't have more than two kids. Switch your electricity provider to a company that doesn't use coal.

 

Welcome Henry and thank you for posting the information you found. You'll find that there are people who are sensitive (yet incedibly knowledgeable) about hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles. No worries. The solution is to ride more motorcycles (R1200C!!) but the problem is, my Prius gets better milage! :lol:

Anyways, I'll be heading up to the bay area this weekend so be on the look out for a Seaside Prius!

 

HAHAHA. That's the best analogy I've heard in a long time.

I have to agree that more road construction is a short-sighted solution at best. My analogy would be buying a drug addict more crack to stop their shivering, cold sweats. Anyway, roads without traffic still pollute. Rainwater that runs off highways and pavement tend to erode soil. Add oil and rubber from the driving surface, and the damage to a watershed can be pretty bad.

I've always thought that traffic could be eliminated by staggering work times. Its the basic pipelining concept (for those in the CS business). For example (taken from every textbook I've ever read): when you do the laundry, after the first load is done washing, you stick it in the dryer and start washing the second load. Then, you move everything down one spot, wash the third load and fold the first load. This way, your clothes washing capacity is maxed out. No one in their right mind would wash, dry and fold one load of clothing before starting to wash the second load. Yet we all try to use our highways at the same time (9AM, 5PM) while leaving it basically empty for much of the rest of the day.

I realize that there are lots of social implications here. People can't meet up after work, their natural sleep schedule are interrupted, not enough sunlight/Vitamin D for the night shift etc. But I know lots of people who are already doing this to a certain extent: leaving work much later than usual to avoid traffic (heck, I've done it in the past). If most major employers simply implemented two shifts, they would basically double the capacity of all of our roads (not to mention their office space).

Anyway, I guess that'll never happen (borderline Brave New World). A more realistic solution would be expanded mass transit. Metro envokes more civic pride here than the Wizards, Capitals and (until recently) Redskins combined. Most major cities could use an upgrade and expansion of their respective mass transit systems. As for LA... well, that half of the state is sliding into the ocean after the Big One anyway. We'll just be sure to build a proper subway for New LA. (I'm gonna miss SF though).

 

I ride the LA metrolink most days from Irvine to Burbank (65 miles by car). Work & home are close to the train stations, so it works well for me. There definitely are tradeoffs. It takes 50% more time by train, I don't get to choose my seat mate, once at work I'm stuck at work etc. It is satisfying though when the train rolls on by a jammed freeway! Economically, I don't save money by taking the train ($13 round trip), but it does save the wear and tear on the prius. The savings in long term maintenance costs even things out.

All things considered, I like driving a car more than public transit, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I don't know how, but if you can somehow make it more attractive to take a train rather than drive, people will do it. I would hope it could be done by making trains better, rather than making the roadways worse.

Slightly off topic but to further my point: Other threads here have pointed out that the financial payback on solar energy isn't that attractive, and thus consumers are not flocking to solar power. If on the other hand you tell me that by installing solar panels, I can keep my house at 72 degrees all summer for free, well sign me up!

 

You can't possibly be talking about the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, either that, or you're only an occasional rider. The Washington Metro riders pay a larger share of the subway operating cost than in most other cities. For this we get broken escalators (which Metro Management recently gave a grade of "A"), surprise "walk to work days", and apathetic station managers. I can't wait to get my Prius, so I can start driving to work and saving money.

BTW, analogies about fat men or drug addicts may be humorous, but have nothing to do with continuous urban growth, the resulting increased tax base, but yet no money for new roads or road improvements.

 

I can't believe that you can get from some point in the suburbs to some point downtown faster by driving than by taking Metro. Factor in parking, and its probably much more expensive to drive too. DC streets are also, to put it mildly, complete crap.

Another problem unique to the Washington Area is the Federal government. In Montgomery County, Federal facilities sit on some very valuable real estate. Right here in Bethesda, NIH occupies hundreds of acres of, what would otherwise be, housing and businesses. NIST, Walter Reed, Bethesda Naval Hospital, NOAA, etc. are all here. Yes, these provide valuable jobs, but if they weren't here, there would be (taxable) business in their place. This is the very reason DC is unable to sustain itself. The city is full of (untaxable) government buildings.

Anyway, more roads do not mean less traffic. LA has plenty of roads, highways and alternate routes, and its not exactly a driving paradise.

Despite its problems (closes too early), I'm still more proud of Metro than the Caps/Wiz, which might as well be minor league teams. And if you think Metro is bad, you ought to visit SF (BART/MUNI are just awful, no offense to Bay Area residents).

 

well to henry's defense, it looks to me as if he is quoting something. its not nice to quote without identifying the source.

also: i am not lucky enough to live in an area where i can pick and choose my electricity provider. although 90% of the power here is hydroelectric we still have a coal fired plant (Widco in Tenino, WA) that provides supplementary power.

also about staggering work shifts, I realize that my area's traffic congestion is worse than average, but from 6 AM to 6 PM there is basically no real slack time on the freeways.

One of the largest employers in the area has their truck drivers on split shifts starting at 1 AM because the traffic is so bad during daylight. In fact, the traffic situation was so bad it nearly drove the company out of the state despite having millions of dollars in factories and resources here. to be honest with you, I have no confidence in their future here as I dont see any solution for the traffic problems here. This area is unwilling to pay for major transportation solutions that are necessary here.

 

Our local government is trying to get commuter rail extended from Lowell, MA to Nashua, NH. To accomplish this, funding was targeted to use state gas tax money to match federal funds as required under the current federal law.

However, the NH Constitution requires gas tax money to be spent on roads and related infrastructure and the NH Supreme Court blocked the expenditure.

For me, commuter rail might be a plus (depending on timing) as I commute from Nashua to Cambridge, MA. My commute in the morning is about 50 minutes. Rail service into North Station is a couple of subway stops from where I work. The timing of travel would have to permit me to arrive at work between 5:30 and 6:00AM. At present, the Lowell, MA trains don't begin running until 5:35AM and arrives in Boston at 6:22AM and add 15 minutes for the subway which is too late.

 

in this day and age, 24 hour service is a must. if the
system is going to be closed on weekends and holidays,
it might as well not be built.