Unpopular Anything Road-Related Opinions

[Rothman]

BTW, I have yet to see our government create something for consumers that is so good, there is a line of people that forms to get it without being pressured.

National parks routinely have long lines. No one is forcing to go to them.

No, they're forcing people to wait in line to pay for admission, instead of just driving in without stopping.

How dare they.  Next, you'll tell me they're limiting the daily number of visitors at some parks. </s>

Makes me think of Disney, Cedar Fair and Six Flags.  They shouldn't make people line up, either.

[MultiMillionMiler]

BTW, I have yet to see our government create something for consumers that is so good, there is a line of people that forms to get it without being pressured.

National parks routinely have long lines. No one is forcing to go to them.

No, they're forcing people to wait in line to pay for admission, instead of just driving in without stopping.

How dare they.  Next, you'll tell me they're limiting the daily number of visitors at some parks. </s>

Makes me think of Disney, Cedar Fair and Six Flags.  They shouldn't make people line up, either.

As a rollercoaster enthusiast, I have to say, Cedar fair operations are much more efficient than six flags. The line is always moving, and they can crank out 25-30 trains an hour. Six flags no one knows what the hell they are doing, you'll have 6-7 people at one station trying to figure out what some stupid technical issue is on a panel, or it'll take them 15+ minutes to get you some slices of pizza. National parks should have toll by mail entrances for drivers so they don't have to stop and pay in cash one at a time.

[Quillz]

That depends on the park. The ones in Alaska have no gates, no admission, but also no real infrastructure. Then ones like Lassen have virtually no lines dependent on the time of year. (Went there in August and there was just two cars ahead of me).

[swake]

And electric cars are not overall better for the environment. The electricity likely comes from oil or coal.

This is an argument that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If you have an ICE, it can only take the fuel it was built with, usually gasoline. Electricity puts every fuel source in play. Sure, all of the electric cars in Oklahoma City are coal-powered now, because OG&E runs a coal-fired power plant. But if they switch us all over to wind, that converts everyone's car in town to wind in one fell swoop. Or if I want to invest in my home and put a solar panel on my own roof, now my car is solar powered. If I take a trip to Las Vegas, my car is hydroelectrically powered.

Power in Oklahoma is not "all coal", it's actually very little coal. Coal makes up only 7% of the power in Oklahoma. Natural Gas is the leader with 47%. Wind and Hydo make up 46%. And that's NOW.

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=OK#tabs-4

[Max Rockatansky]

That depends on the park. The ones in Alaska have no gates, no admission, but also no real infrastructure. Then ones like Lassen have virtually no lines dependent on the time of year. (Went there in August and there was just two cars ahead of me).

I'd make the argument some places that are National Parks would have been popular no matter what.  I don't see crowds not going to places like Yosemite in the hypothetical scenario the NPS doesn't exist. 

[Rothman]

That depends on the park. The ones in Alaska have no gates, no admission, but also no real infrastructure. Then ones like Lassen have virtually no lines dependent on the time of year. (Went there in August and there was just two cars ahead of me).

I'd make the argument some places that are National Parks would have been popular no matter what.  I don't see crowds not going to places like Yosemite in the hypothetical scenario the NPS doesn't exist.

Makes you wonder if the crowds would be smaller if they weren't national parks in some cases.

Before Yosemite was a national park, there was a small hodgepodge of outfitters and the like.  Given its remote location, maybe a lesser level of services would have actually kept crowds down.

[Rothman]

BTW, I have yet to see our government create something for consumers that is so good, there is a line of people that forms to get it without being pressured.

National parks routinely have long lines. No one is forcing to go to them.

No, they're forcing people to wait in line to pay for admission, instead of just driving in without stopping.

How dare they.  Next, you'll tell me they're limiting the daily number of visitors at some parks. </s>

Makes me think of Disney, Cedar Fair and Six Flags.  They shouldn't make people line up, either.

As a rollercoaster enthusiast, I have to say, Cedar fair operations are much more efficient than six flags. The line is always moving, and they can crank out 25-30 trains an hour. Six flags no one knows what the hell they are doing, you'll have 6-7 people at one station trying to figure out what some stupid technical issue is on a panel, or it'll take them 15+ minutes to get you some slices of pizza. National parks should have toll by mail entrances for drivers so they don't have to stop and pay in cash one at a time.

I thought you had only been on the Fury 325 at Carowinds over and over...

Integration with DMV databases and the like is tricky, even for those toll authorities.

[Max Rockatansky]

That depends on the park. The ones in Alaska have no gates, no admission, but also no real infrastructure. Then ones like Lassen have virtually no lines dependent on the time of year. (Went there in August and there was just two cars ahead of me).

I'd make the argument some places that are National Parks would have been popular no matter what.  I don't see crowds not going to places like Yosemite in the hypothetical scenario the NPS doesn't exist.

Makes you wonder if the crowds would be smaller if they weren't national parks in some cases.

Before Yosemite was a national park, there was a small hodgepodge of outfitters and the like.  Given its remote location, maybe a lesser level of services would have actually kept crowds down.

That's my assumption.  Private interests were already moving in on Yosemite well before the Park Service was a thing.  The main thing the Park Service brought to the table was improving the infrastructure to enhance visitor experience.  I envision a scenario where no Wawona Tunnel, new Big Oak Flat Road and new Tioga Road get built as they are now.  There would still be roads, but they would way more primitive or possibly come to even maintained by the state eventually.  I could even envision a scenario with a more active Forest Service role.

[MultiMillionMiler]

BTW, I have yet to see our government create something for consumers that is so good, there is a line of people that forms to get it without being pressured.

National parks routinely have long lines. No one is forcing to go to them.

No, they're forcing people to wait in line to pay for admission, instead of just driving in without stopping.

How dare they.  Next, you'll tell me they're limiting the daily number of visitors at some parks. </s>

Makes me think of Disney, Cedar Fair and Six Flags.  They shouldn't make people line up, either.

As a rollercoaster enthusiast, I have to say, Cedar fair operations are much more efficient than six flags. The line is always moving, and they can crank out 25-30 trains an hour. Six flags no one knows what the hell they are doing, you'll have 6-7 people at one station trying to figure out what some stupid technical issue is on a panel, or it'll take them 15+ minutes to get you some slices of pizza. National parks should have toll by mail entrances for drivers so they don't have to stop and pay in cash one at a time.

I thought you had only been on the Fury 325 at Carowinds over and over...

Integration with DMV databases and the like is tricky, even for those toll authorities.

Yeah, and Carowinds is a cedar fair park. It was better than the two six flags I've been to in my life.

[JoePCool14]

And electric cars are not overall better for the environment. The electricity likely comes from oil or coal.

I like I'm repeating myself often on this:

The point is that most ICE vehicles run at about 20-30% efficient with the fuel it uses. Much it is converted to heat waste and frictional losses, of which a fraction of that is used to heat components or exhaust gas recirculation, but that's about it.

A power plant and associated transmission of power is more efficient (levels of 40-70%) because A) it doesn't have to move or go places B) other wastes can be reused so there's greater thermal efficiency C) they're obviously very large things and individual transportation is not.

Don't conflate a modern power plant with being somehow worse than a bunch of 1880s technology in terms of greenhouse gasses and other noxious environmental problems. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a better overall solution for a pollution problem. Even a coal plant is more efficient in using its fuel than the average car is.

If that's not good enough, get walking or take a bike. If the real reason is that you want an exhaust note, its range, and the existing infrastructure that gasoline provides, just say so.

I agree that ICEs are not the most efficient means of producing energy. Clearly there's wasted energy. However, batteries that sit gradually lose their charge. I can see that on my phone and laptop if I don't use them for a few days. Imagine the same for a car. Meanwhile, gasoline goes bad after several months. There's also other points of waste in the system as others have mentioned. In the end, you might be trading one loss for another.

Please don't make the argument about "get walking or take a bike". Maybe you were joking with this one, but I'm not walking or biking to my job that's 10+ miles away. That's not practical. Also, I live near Chicago, so I have the cold weather to contend with. And no, I'm not interested in working remotely every day.

I didn't mention in my previous post, but yes, I'm of course biased towards hearing an engine and being able to fill up with gas quickly. The former is just preference that doesn't mean anything, but the latter is genuinely important to the debate. I'll assume that charging infrastructure (not energy production, just charger availability) will continue to improve over time.



When it comes to solar power, in Chicago I think I'd have to write solar off as being feasible at a large scale. The past two months have been almost nothing but clouds, all day, every day. Sometimes we have some sunshine in the morning, but that's it. I know some solar energy can still get through, however, not enough to justify it. Wind has its own issues that have been hashed out already.

[formulanone]

Please don't make the argument about "get walking or take a bike". Maybe you were joking with this one, but I'm not walking or biking to my job that's 10+ miles away. That's not practical. Also, I live near Chicago, so I have the cold weather to contend with. And no, I'm not interested in working remotely every day.

This was more of a explanation for those expecting a near-zero-waste form of transportation, which is naturally impossible. Just when I hear all sorts of arguments why they think that full-electric is somehow on par with ICE emissions or contributes to more waste. It isn't practical for everyone.

Personally, there's a really lack of "feeling" with electric cars that takes some getting used to. But like most discussions about technology on the internet, I feel we're beating this issue down much swifter than the rate of any advancements can improve it, which always makes it seem more glacial than it really is.

(I'm anything, I'm one of the highest contributors to CO₂ on this entire forum, so I shouldn't be one to talk.) 

[J N Winkler]

Back in the days when misc.transport.road was still active and received frequent crossposts from alt.planning.urban and misc.transport.urban-transit, someone tried to argue that the "real" environmental burden of bicycling (taking into account the fossil fuels required to produce and transport the food the bicyclist eats, using current production and logistics networks) corresponded to fuel efficiency of about 50 MPG.

I didn't necessarily buy the argument--it was clearly intended to serve the interests of the cars-über-alles contrarian tendency on APU and MTU-T--but it does illustrate how sensitive this type of analysis is to starting assumptions.

[Bruce]

Back in the days when misc.transport.road was still active and received frequent crossposts from alt.planning.urban and misc.transport.urban-transit, someone tried to argue that the "real" environmental burden of bicycling (taking into account the fossil fuels required to produce and transport the food the bicyclist eats, using current production and logistics networks) corresponded to fuel efficiency of about 50 MPG.

As if motorists don't need to eat...this is by far the dumbest argument (along with "cyclists breathe more and contribute to CO2 emissions that way").

[US 89]

Back in the days when misc.transport.road was still active and received frequent crossposts from alt.planning.urban and misc.transport.urban-transit, someone tried to argue that the "real" environmental burden of bicycling (taking into account the fossil fuels required to produce and transport the food the bicyclist eats, using current production and logistics networks) corresponded to fuel efficiency of about 50 MPG.

As if motorists don't need to eat...this is by far the dumbest argument (along with "cyclists breathe more and contribute to CO2 emissions that way").

I mean, it's a dumb argument in the context of CO2 emissions, but regular cyclists presumably do have a higher daily calorie need than the average person.

[on_wisconsin]

Current sign materials are almost always better than the button copy and porcelain of yesteryear...

[J N Winkler]

Back in the days when misc.transport.road was still active and received frequent crossposts from alt.planning.urban and misc.transport.urban-transit, someone tried to argue that the "real" environmental burden of bicycling (taking into account the fossil fuels required to produce and transport the food the bicyclist eats, using current production and logistics networks) corresponded to fuel efficiency of about 50 MPG.

As if motorists don't need to eat...this is by far the dumbest argument (along with "cyclists breathe more and contribute to CO2 emissions that way").

I mean, it's a dumb argument in the context of CO2 emissions, but regular cyclists presumably do have a higher daily calorie need than the average person.

It was a shitpost before we had that word to describe it.  One of many other things that would have to be taken into account if the calculation were done in earnest would be the reduction in doctor visits for the bicyclist, since exercise improves health.

[Fredddie]

The MUTCD should incorporate Vienna Convention signing practices, but not totally replace the MUTCD. Blue circles for mandatory instructions. Triangles for extra emphasis.

[skluth]

That depends on the park. The ones in Alaska have no gates, no admission, but also no real infrastructure. Then ones like Lassen have virtually no lines dependent on the time of year. (Went there in August and there was just two cars ahead of me).

I'd make the argument some places that are National Parks would have been popular no matter what.  I don't see crowds not going to places like Yosemite in the hypothetical scenario the NPS doesn't exist.

Makes you wonder if the crowds would be smaller if they weren't national parks in some cases.

Before Yosemite was a national park, there was a small hodgepodge of outfitters and the like.  Given its remote location, maybe a lesser level of services would have actually kept crowds down.

That's my assumption.  Private interests were already moving in on Yosemite well before the Park Service was a thing.  The main thing the Park Service brought to the table was improving the infrastructure to enhance visitor experience.  I envision a scenario where no Wawona Tunnel, new Big Oak Flat Road and new Tioga Road get built as they are now.  There would still be roads, but they would way more primitive or possibly come to even maintained by the state eventually.  I could even envision a scenario with a more active Forest Service role.

I'd argue the main thing the park service did was remove private commercial interests from destroying the best parts of Yosemite. Ranchers were using the valley meadows for grazing, unscrupulous entrepreneurs were claiming exclusive rights to feed and house visitors, and loggers were happily cutting down the redwoods before the government put a stop to it. The park's popularity was increasing before the NPS came in and removed those exploiting the park for their own purposes. They also kicked out local native Americans who inhabited the land. The better infrastructure came later (though I agree that it is also important) but it's not like Yosemite wasn't already becoming popular before the NPS.

[Chris19001]

I'd argue the main thing the park service did was remove private commercial interests from destroying the best parts of Yosemite. Ranchers were using the valley meadows for grazing, unscrupulous entrepreneurs were claiming exclusive rights to feed and house visitors, and loggers were happily cutting down the redwoods before the government put a stop to it. The park's popularity was increasing before the NPS came in and removed those exploiting the park for their own purposes. They also kicked out local native Americans who inhabited the land. The better infrastructure came later (though I agree that it is also important) but it's not like Yosemite wasn't already becoming popular before the NPS.

That is similar to my take away from Yosemite's history as well.  Loggers were chopping those sequoia's down to sell as matchsticks and there was simply nothing in place to stop it.  I believe the soldiers sent in to protect the park were civil war veterans giving names to the General Grant and General Sherman trees. For those disinterested, those tree groves are utterly incredible in person and only mature after many hundreds of years. 
Anyway, the government does have a role to play in guiding priorities along whether it be clear air/water, science behind GPS, or insurance regulation.  Say what you will, but the private market is interested in profit, not the "public" good in the end.

[Scott5114]

The MUTCD should incorporate Vienna Convention signing practices, but not totally replace the MUTCD. Blue circles for mandatory instructions. Triangles for extra emphasis.

The problem is that the triangle blank has half of the area of the diamond blank. That means either you need a really big triangle or a really tiny symbol.

The diamond is in the Vienna Convention as an option, though, so you don't necessarily have to use the triangle if you use the Vienna Convention.

[Fredddie]

The MUTCD should incorporate Vienna Convention signing practices, but not totally replace the MUTCD. Blue circles for mandatory instructions. Triangles for extra emphasis.

The problem is that the triangle blank has half of the area of the diamond blank. That means either you need a really big triangle or a really tiny symbol.

The diamond is in the Vienna Convention as an option, though, so you don't necessarily have to use the triangle if you use the Vienna Convention.

That is true, but my point is that a red and white triangle in a sea of yellow diamonds would stick out.

[Scott5114]

The MUTCD should incorporate Vienna Convention signing practices, but not totally replace the MUTCD. Blue circles for mandatory instructions. Triangles for extra emphasis.

The problem is that the triangle blank has half of the area of the diamond blank. That means either you need a really big triangle or a really tiny symbol.

The diamond is in the Vienna Convention as an option, though, so you don't necessarily have to use the triangle if you use the Vienna Convention.

That is true, but my point is that a red and white triangle in a sea of yellow diamonds would stick out.

Why not do a red and white diamond, if that's what you're going for? (Yes, that's not allowed by either convention, but if we're mixing and matching already...)

[Tom958]

Trucks shouldn't use right-side climbing lanes. Instead, more agile vehicles should use such lanes to pass slower vehicles on the right. That way, truck drivers wouldn't have to worry about rude or oblivious motorists interfering with their efforts to merge at the end of the climbing lane. The other way to deal with the merging problem would be for the left, passing lane to be the one that ends, but I'm militantly opposed to forced rightward merges and that won't work if there are two or more mainline lanes.

I came up with this during a several-week period during which that barely-needed climbing lane on southbound I-75 near Kennesaw, GA was on my commute. A good many people were using it that way anyway. Hilariously, on one occasion, everyone was in the mainline lanes except for an Amazon 18-wheeler passing everyone else on the right.

[Dirt Roads]

Trucks shouldn't use right-side climbing lanes. Instead, more agile vehicles should use such lanes to pass slower vehicles on the right. That way, truck drivers wouldn't have to worry about rude or oblivious motorists interfering with their efforts to merge at the end of the climbing lane. The other way to deal with the merging problem would be for the left, passing lane to be the one that ends, but I'm militantly opposed to forced rightward merges and that won't work if there are two or more mainline lanes.

I came up with this during a several-week period during which that barely-needed climbing lane on southbound I-75 near Kennesaw, GA was on my commute. A good many people were using it that way anyway. Hilariously, on one occasion, everyone was in the mainline lanes except for an Amazon 18-wheeler passing everyone else on the right.

On two-lane upgrades, NCDOT still has a number of climbing lanes that do not end; rather the left lane ends and has to merge back in with the climbing lane.  This allows the climbing lane to be signed with "Keep Right Except to Pass".  But the headache is that the same "rude or oblivious motorists" still aggressively pass at the last minute.

This is closely related to my pet peeve about on-ramps.  It seems like almost anytime that somebody [driving 80MPH in a 65MPH zone] moves left to create a gap for somebody else coming up to the merge point, a string of traffic [driving at 90MPH+++] moves right and takes over.  Since many of these folks are using adaptive cruise control, I've been wondering what would happen if someone actually merged in front of them at 65MPH.  The third car back is gonna smack something.

[hbelkins]

Kentucky almost exclusively uses right-lane-ends signage and pavement markings on its truck climbing lanes.

On non-freeways, West Virginia likes to end the left lane and have traffic merge to the right.