::check your CAPS LOCK at the door::

in response to this comment from a previous post

first, a little courtesy goes a long way in conveying your point. please refrain from SHOUTING in the future.

second, i am a college student who did a speech on this topic based on what is being tested in eugene, oregon. i have done a fair amount of research on the topic. i'm not flying blind.

third, i didn't go into great detail because of a lack of time (classes, homework, full-time job). at the very least, i found it difficult to pass up the opportunity to get the word out. however, i'll do my best to sum up, for your benefit. simply:

one: our gas tax is swiftly becoming obsolete, especially with the advances being made to improve the fuel efficiency of our cars. i recognize that there is a sore need to revise our current methods for funding the upkeep of our roads.

two: i am in favor of hybrid and alternate fuel source vehicles.

three: i value my privacy highly. i disagree with the notion that the public should have to submit to having gps devices mounted in their vehicles. i do not believe the government needs to know what roads i've traveled and when.

four: there is threat of an additional tax for those who would be on the roads at peak times. regarding those who, for example, work in the OC but live in riverside county because they can not afford the cost of homes nearer their workplace, this is an extremely harsh penalty. the 91 fwy carries the bulk of these cars, and the metrolink eases some of the burden.

as far as congestion is concerned, of course it is a problem. traveling in rush hour traffic can at least double the amount of time it takes to get from point a to point b. however, central london has a rather interesting way of combating that which deserves a second look. at least it is a little less invasive in comparison to the gps proposal.

five: i lack a better solution to the problem stated in #1, but i'm not willing to give up #3.

that, m. nolips & fellow readers, is where i'm coming from. hopefully that is a better explanation than, well, none at all.