Another Reason Why I Hate Living In California
From yet another Boi From Troy post comes a link to a post in California Energy Blog.
California Energy Blog comments on opposition to a bill that would allow hybrid vehicles to use HOV lanes. As usual, there are hippy-dippy comments from Bay Area officials:
Whatever. The most interesting part of the post is the assertion from Brian D. Taylor, director of UCLA's Institute of Transportation Studies, that the sole purpose of HOV lanes is to improve traffic flow. And what, pray tell, is his authority for that -- legislative intent? As any first-year law student can tell you, legislative intent is often difficult to ascertain and commonly regarded as irrelevant.
As long as CARB continues its wrongheaded rejection of diesel (and biodiesel) as an eco-friendly fuel source, and fuel cells are still not a mass-market reality, hybrids are the best thing we've got. If you want to debate whether HOV lanes are a good idea, fine. But as long they're around, what's so wrong with letting hybrids use HOV lanes? To me, it seems like another sensible idea to encourage citizens to think critically about the energy they consume and the pollution they generate.
California Energy Blog comments on opposition to a bill that would allow hybrid vehicles to use HOV lanes. As usual, there are hippy-dippy comments from Bay Area officials:
Bay Area transportation officials have raised the strongest objections. They say the measure could scuttle their efforts to encourage more commuters to use express buses, and could cost as much as $2 million a year in lost toll revenue because drivers in some carpool lanes cross toll bridges for free.Um, Bay Area transportation officials, we're all in this together, right?
Whatever. The most interesting part of the post is the assertion from Brian D. Taylor, director of UCLA's Institute of Transportation Studies, that the sole purpose of HOV lanes is to improve traffic flow. And what, pray tell, is his authority for that -- legislative intent? As any first-year law student can tell you, legislative intent is often difficult to ascertain and commonly regarded as irrelevant.
To the critics [e.g., Scalia], so-called“legislative history” is a patchwork quilt of incomplete, manufactured, and ambiguous statements of self-selected legislators, each with their own axes to grind.... <source>I certainly didn't know that the sole purpose of HOV lanes was to improve traffic flow. Improving traffic flow is an obvious benefit of HOV lanes, but so is reducing pollution and increasing energy efficiency. So when Taylor "suggests" opening HOV lanes to schoolteachers, eaters of roughage and other general do-gooders, his shot is off the mark.
As long as CARB continues its wrongheaded rejection of diesel (and biodiesel) as an eco-friendly fuel source, and fuel cells are still not a mass-market reality, hybrids are the best thing we've got. If you want to debate whether HOV lanes are a good idea, fine. But as long they're around, what's so wrong with letting hybrids use HOV lanes? To me, it seems like another sensible idea to encourage citizens to think critically about the energy they consume and the pollution they generate.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home