From: woycke@smiley.mitre.org (Daniel Woycke)
Newsgroups: dc.general,dc.driving
Subject: Re: Missing the point (was Re: Dulles Toll Road, HOV, and Air Pollution)
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:28:32 GMT
Followup-To: dc.driving
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA

In article <1992Sep11.165834.6721@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.134253.22715@linus.mitre.org> woycke@smiley.mitre.org (Daniel Woycke) writes:
>>The point of the HOV lane is to reduce the number of cars on the road
>>by giving carpoolers somewhere to go. I think it is serving that
>>purpose. Those people who ride in carpools are now able to get to work
>
>What do you base this conclusion on?
>

I base it on the fact that there are people using the HOV lanes.
Obviously there are people who can find a way to carpool. This has
then reduced the number of cars on the road.

>>I don't think the government should be spending money to build roads
>>encouraging irresponsible transit habits.  The government should be
>>spending money on improving the mass transit system in this area and
>>also encouraging bicycling. I biked to work this morning. My 15 mile
>>drive from Sterling to the Tysons area turns into a 24 mile bike ride
>>in order to find a safer route. (I was almost killed on Rt. 7 last
>>Janurary.) If there was a bike lane or path paralleling Rt. 7, or
>>connecting to the W&OD, and perhaps one paralleling 123 I would be
>>happy. I think more people would ride too. I had to spend about a two
>>hours scouting around for a safer (note, it is not safe) route to
>>work.
>
>Dan, I might only point out that what might be irresponsible to
>you might be a necessity to other people. And your alternatives
>which suit your lifestyle might not be an alternative for someone
>else.
>

If there was an adequate mass transit system I can see no reason that
people could not use that instead of driving to work. I only used my
biking as an example, and it would be cheaper than to have built the
extra lane on the Toll Road. Improving the mass transit system and
getting all of those people who feel that their comfort is more
important than the air we breathe to ride on the mass transit will
cost alot of money. 

>>
>>The government should not encourage polluters in industry, why should
>>it encourage polluting commuters? The government is not responsible
>>for our behavior, but they should avoid encouraging wrong behavior.
>
>The government regulates pollution in the commercial world by
>capping the amounts that are dumped into the air.  It does NOT
>penalize the existence of the factories themselves.  Using the
>same analogy, it should then put a cap on the amounts of
>pollutants that a car can expel.  Perhaps the current limits should
>be adjusted?
>

The government also limits the building of structures where it would
harm the environment (you know, wetlands). I agree, until 30 cars
produce the same amount of polution as a bus or train, people should
not be allowed to drive them. Geez, what we need is a little common
sense. The reason big corporations can clean up their act is because
they can afford it. The guy who can afford a $500 used car can't
afford to make it super environmentally efficient. They actually need
an alternative to using the car.

>>Daniel W. Woycke             |"I went out drinking with Thomas 
>
>
>-- 
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     ata@hfsi.com
>HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet!hfsi!ata
>7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
>McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729

Thank You,

Daniel W. Woycke             |"I went out drinking with Thomas 
The MITRE Corporation	     |Paine..." -- Billy Bragg
7525 Colshire Drive (MS Z213)|"But I am still thirsty..."
McLean, VA   22102           |-- Arrested Development
woycke@mitre.org, woycke@smiley.mitre.org
From: David.Gursky@p394.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (David Gursky)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP