Precisely. Democrats want to make it more expensive to upgrade to a lower-emissions vehicle.
Posted on 07/07/2002 10:52:42 AM PDT by John Jorsett
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:29:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
SACRAMENTO - Tapping into the outrage among conservatives about recently approved legislation to reduce tailpipe emissions, Republicans plan to attack Democrats for a string of policy moves they say amounts to a "war on drivers."
Gov. Gray Davis has backed more than doubling vehicle license fees, borrowing money from the state's highway account and forcing automakers to lower greenhouse gases produced by their vehicles, a measure automobile manufacturers say will boost the cost of cars.
(Excerpt) Read more at bayarea.com ...
Mr. Orwell, we have a winner.
Don't get me started on Diamond Lanes. This is the worst idea since Jerry Brown declared war on Freeways. I think the only reason that we still have Diamond Lanes in California is (I'm guessing but I'm a pretty good guesser) that A) The politicians get to ride the Diamond Lanes even if they have no passenger and B) Federal funding for freeways requires Diamond Lanes.
My personal experience with Diamond Lanes is that they are killers. Very very bad accidents on the 91 Freeway in LA were routine when I was driving that route back in the late 90's.
Most of the overturned vehicle and fatal (looking) accidents were in the Diamond Lanes. Just imagine yourself driving 80 miles an hour down the Diamond Lane when the traffic on lane to your right is moving at about 15 miles an hour. It only takes on bozo for that 15 mile an hour lane to cut into the Diamond Lane illegally and take your life. If anyone has a source of data on the relative Diamond Lane accident rate I would be very interested.
Another amazing thing to watch is the Diamond Lanes on weekends when about 75% of the cars on the road qualify to drive the Diamond Lane. The Sheeple still think that the Diamond Lane is the fast lane. Hardly. Not on weekends. It is the slow lane. Amazing to watch.
Not quite. California has standards that make it more expensive to buy a LESS polluting vehicle. I'v kept my old truck for precisely that reason.
Precisely. Democrats want to make it more expensive to upgrade to a lower-emissions vehicle.
I have two cousins in New England that love these vehicles but always vote democrat.
They can't seem to make the connection that they are always voting AGAINST their own lifestyle.
Where on this motorcycle do I put the 1,200-1,500 pounds of tools that I carry? I'll keep my 990,000 mile 65 Chevrolet pickup, it's smog exempt, reasonably cheep to maintain, easy to work on, licence fees are cheap, and I can repair almost anything on it with the tools that I carry.
Pardon my ignorance, but what are Diamond Lanes?
That works for you, now anyway. With two million new vehicles sold in California last year, you're part of a shrinking minority.
Aka HOV or carpool lanes, they are lanes set aside in certain congested stretches of freeway whereby someone with multiple occupants in a vehicle (in some areas you also need a permit) can zip along in their own private lane while the peasant class sweat amongst the 18-wheelers and Winnebagos.
The excuse was to promote carpooling so less vehicles would be using getting folks to and from work but it often becomes just another way for certain people to live the Clinton dream of living a privileged lifestyle at the expense of the "little people".
You don't, and you have a good reason to be exempt. No problem here with trucks for legitimate work purposes. If you need your toolbox, you need your toolbox. It's one thing thing for Joe Rancher who needs a truck to pull bales and make a living, it's another thing for a suburban mom to drive her kid to practice in an Excursion because it makes her feel like a supertanker captain. There is a difference.
Grrr. . . I always find that a good time to open my door to spit.
Sorry for all you bay area commuters... but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That'll teach you. You can always drive down to the Bay Bridge, but it'll cost you more in gas.
Friday, July 05, 2002
The Las Vegas Review-JournalROAD WARRIOR: Nevada, California share goal of easing I-15 travel
Nevada tourism officials have taken a keen interest in a California highway project.
The California Department of Transportation recently completed its study of a proposed six-lane highway, dubbed the High Desert Corridor, to link Palmdale and Victorville. By facilitating travel between Interstate 15 and Interstate 5, the $1.5 billion project would help alleviate congestion on Interstate 15, which is a major concern to area tourism officials.
Traffic on I-15 at the California-Nevada state line has increased by an average of 3.9 percent a year in the past five years, according to the Nevada Department of Transportation. Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the implementation of stricter security at airports, the numbers have climbed even faster, with traffic on the route up by 11 percent this year.
"What was a 4 1/2-hour drive now takes six to seven hours on busy weekends," said Tom Skancke, a transportation consultant and the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority lobbyist on the High Desert Corridor project. "If I'm in L.A. I just don't want to go on I-15.
"We have to give Southern Californians two options to get to Las Vegas. We have to get another north-south and east-west arterial."
Fortunately for valley officials, California officials agree.
The CalTrans study said the High Desert Corridor is needed to accommodate growth in the area that has created an "alarming disparity" between road capacity and demand.
Lured by inexpensive housing and wide open spaces, population growth in some High Desert communities has grown by more than 300 percent in the past two decades.
Motorists on I-15 now encounter Southern California commuter traffic as far north as Victorville.
Although I-5 is a logical alternate route to escape the Los Angeles metropolitan area before eventually connecting to 1-15, Tim Anderson, a longtime resident of Victorville and radio station manager, said many motorists avoid that option. That's because to link to I-15, drivers also would have to traverse state routes 138 and 18, both of which are viewed as dangerous.
"It's a one-lane highway through a rural area," he said, describing the route as "very treacherous."
While area officials' intense interest in the High Desert Corridor isn't unusual, the fact California and Nevada officials agree the project needs to be built is.
Nevada transportation officials long have monitored California's plans for major routes to the state and lobbied for what they believed were needed improvements. Kent Cooper, the Nevada Department of Transportation's assistant director for planning, said in the past California officials viewed I-15 congestion largely as a Nevada problem.
"The prevailing attitude in California was, `Why spend money to build a road so our citizens can go to Las Vegas and spend hard-earned dollars in the casinos?' " he said.
The state's differing road building priorities led to Nevada taking some unusual steps to help get California roads built.
At the tourism industry's urging, Nevada became the first state to send a portion of its federal road funds to another state when about $26 million was handed to California for improvements to Interstate 15 near Barstow. More recently, Clark County sent $7 million to the Golden State for reconstruction of the Needles Highway, a major route to Laughlin.
On the High Desert Corridor, Skancke is helping galvanize the High Desert communities on the issue and assist them in lobbying Washington for funds to build the project.
"He monitors it, expedites it and intercedes," said Manny Cortez, president and chief executive officer of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority.
Cortez believes the cooperation on the High Desert Corridor project is a sign California has changed its view that I-15 is a Nevada problem.
"In the last several years, they've grown to realize I-15 is more than the highway to Las Vegas, but is also important to their ability to survive," he said. "As congestion increases they need to make sure those roads are passable. That's why they're cooperating."
That's your personal preference, which you're certainly entitled to.
However, it is myopic to assume that everybody shares your attitude.
In fact, YOU benefit when THEY choose to use modern, efficient mass transit through less highway congestion, greater availability of fuel and more abundant parking availability. You should be grateful that others use mass-transit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.