Why get rid of ALL carpool lanes, all the time? I can see opening up the carpool lanes on weekends and/or between 8 PM and 4 AM. And, I can believe that certain carpool lanes are way under-utilized. But, I can think of a couple examples where opening up the carpool lanes will result in no relief to congestion. And I don't understand why voters in Spokane and Vancouver should have any say in the transportation policies for the Puget Sound.

For example, when I carpool, I am able to use the carpool entrance to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in the westbound direction, during the evening commute. Opening up the entrance to all traffic, will not speed up anyone's commute. It will only shaft people who carpool. What business is it of anyone besides the residents of Pierce and Kitsap counties? I don't follow the logic of this. Please explain.

Another example is the evening rush hour commute up the Southcenter Hill. It is not uncommon for the carpool lane to be travelling at less than 20 mph! So, opening it up to all traffic appears to provide little benefit to all commuters. If anything, the minimum number of passengers in a vehicle should be raised from the current 2 to 3, or even 4. Again, this is just the carpool lane on I-5 soutbound between I-405 and Hwy 516.

Finally, there are carpool lanes which come to an abrupt end (i.e. Hwy 520), and the traffic must merge back in with the other vehicles. This is an unsafe condition. We should be raising the minimum number of occupants in a vehicle, not lowering it, when there is a high potential for unsafe conditions.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 21, 1999

Answers

"It will only shaft people who carpool. " Are car poolers paying any more for the privilege of using HOV lanes and your controlled access on-ramp than non car-poolers? Why then should they be granted special privileges that other taxpayers don't have? And how about these 30 ton buses that ride in them with the driver and 2-3 passengers. Why don't they pay THEIR fair share?

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), December 21, 1999.

Looking forward to Craig's response. Do HOV lanes actually encourage carpooling, or just enhance the experience a bit?

Carpooling is one of the most effective ways to deal with congestion, and it cost taxpayers nothing, (except the cost for HOV lanes) If enough commuters carpooled, there would be no advantage to maintaining HOV lanes.

It would seem this area would be more suited to alternatives like carpools and one destination bus routes for large employers, (similar to what the Navy and Kitsap Transit have done for years) rather than light rail.

What would it take to get all of you to carpool? Any chance at all? Could it be a successful alternative to mass transit?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.

Marsha..... "What would it take to get all of you to carpool? Any chance at all? Could it be a successful alternative to mass transit?" Better yet could we be MANDATED to carpool? A Papal (whoops I meant government) edict that there shall be ONE vehicle allowed for each four homes in each neighborhood.

Yep that's a great idea!!! Let's present it to Mao Tse Gary Locke..

This idea reminds me of when I owned a business in the newly formed city of Encinitas. The mayor issued a decree that ALL businesses would open the bathrooms up for the homeless to use...

Luck would have it that a few years after the IRS consumed the Mayor's business she died..

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.

maddjak,

Not. You've been reading my posts long enough to know mandating anything won't fly with me. I meant what would it take to get people to voluntarily carpool? And would you be willing? Since I did it for years, and my husband still does, I see no reason not to consider it seriously. It's fairly painless. How about new car give aways? Get dealers and employers to kick in a bit. Would you do it for a new car? A free vacation? I want to know what incentive it would take to get people to carpool. HOV lanes don't seem to be incentive enough. Since many transit agencies already register carpoolers, and give stuff away, we would just try to enhance a program already in place.

It's OK if you don't like my idea, just come up with a better one that won't cost taxpayers anything.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.

Basically, the demographic problems that are taking people away from transit are also taking people away from car-pooling. Like transit, it has a niche where it is cost effective. Attempts to push it beyond its niche become costly quickly. There is also great controversy regarding wwhat constitutes high occupancy. The bulk of the people using HOV lanes are family groups. As one 3+ person HOV advocate said, two people in a car isn't high occupancy, it's a date. But HOV lanes and, to a lesser extent, van-pools are more acceptable to more people than transit. And therein lies the problem. The more you change the mode to make it like a personal auto (SOV), the more acceptable it is to the public ........ but the more it is like an SOV. The more you put the "mass" in mass transit, the more efficient it has the potential to be, but that potential is never realized for lack of public acceptance. That is why, in the nation as a whole (please don't tell me about your SRO commuter bus that sits empty the other 23 hours and 10 minutes of the day) we do nat have a capacity problem with transit, we have a demand problem. And that is also why the energy efficiency of autos in terms of BTUs per passenger mile EXCEEDS that of transit. The demand just isn't there to fill the buses for many of the miles they are being operated. Not politically correct I know, but factually correct.

Now you can FORCE a change if you are willing to do so (hey, I was in the military, I know what you can do with brute force if you're willing to employ it) but in a democracy you won't stay in power very long doing that.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crooswinds.net), December 21, 1999.

PS, my family is sure glad I have some place to vent my frustrations over government waste/spending.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.

To Mike Alworth: My point is, in some cases, opening up the carpool lane to everyone helps NO ONE, but does shaft people who carpool. Why would you want to do that? Why would you want voters in Spokane and Vancouver to shape the HOV policy for people who use the Tacoma Narrows?

I take your (and others, as well) inability to provide an answer as proof of the illogic of Tim Eyman's proposal to open up all HOV lanes, regardless of actual traffic conditions.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 21, 1999.

[To Mike Alworth: My point is, in some cases, opening up the carpool lane to everyone helps NO ONE, but does shaft people who carpool. Why would you want to do that? Why would you want voters in Spokane and Vancouver to shape the HOV policy for people who use the Tacoma Narrows?] Of course it does. It increases utilization of HOV lanes that are greatly underused. They've done this recently in New Jersey with considerable success.

[I take your (and others, as well) inability to provide an answer as proof of the illogic of Tim Eyman's proposal to open up all HOV lanes, regardless of actual traffic conditions.] You post a message and my inability to reply to it before I read it is PROOF of your point? Not unless your point is that I'm not a mind reader. Get a grip!

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), December 21, 1999.

Marsha, I already carpool. My girlfriend and I own ONE car. We usually go most places together. That's as close to carpool as I will get.

Maybe if you happen to work at a place with hundreds of other people and they all live in the same neighborhood ....fine...

But if you Really want to get rid of traffic congestion then 90% of government jobs should be online. That would save us BILLIONS of tax dollars. Most government vehicles would disappear. Most government buildings would become useful edifaces. All the government waste associated with giving government employees vehicles, cell phones, offices etc etc etc would disappear. Communication would be online and all the crap would be gone.

No more standing in line so we could bring tribute to the government for each and every thing they devise to remove our substance. No more clogged highways and parking lots attempting to get in those lines at government offices.

We could tear down governmetn structures and build skateboard parks for our teenage criminals!!!

No more limos or limo drivers for pimps like Ron Sims.

Give the government wonks a keyboard and a monitor and let them all develop flat asses and arteriosclerosis.

More on transit/carpool lanes..especially buses only lanes.

Now Aurora (I'm sure other places too) has this nice 'buses only' lane. Runs for MILES and MILES (kinda like the BYRDS sang about)and allows ONE #$#%#$@&*&!!!! bus to drive in it every thirty minutes or so.. WOW cool!! The intelligence of government astounds me.

Carpool lanes?? Dump em..

There should be NO social engineering. Ther should be government engineering and WE the PEOPLE should do the engineering.

Government is a sewer. It collects the lowest common denominator in every country where it is allowed to exist. Sure there are a few good people in every government but the excess is on the other side.

And people who want carpool lanes to be mandated for MORE occupants can take a hike. Carpools do NOT pay for highways. Carpoolers receive WELFARE from the rest of us. WE pay for the roads and OTHERS reap the benefits.

If you want to carpool then you should be satisfied that you have done your part to take a few extra cars off of the road and saved yourselves a lot of money in the process. But don't expect the rest of us to give you MORE MONEY on top of it...

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.

"Carpooling is one of the most effective ways to deal with congestion, and it cost taxpayers nothing, (except the cost for HOV lanes) If enough commuters carpooled, there would be no advantage to maintaining HOV lanes. "

Building more roads is one of the most effective ways to deal with congestion, and it cost taxpayers nothing, (except the cost for roads) If enough commuters had roads, there would be no advantage to maintaining HOV lanes.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.

maddjak, thank you for carpooling, and a no cost solution.

zowie, I said no cost to taxpayers. If HOV lanes do not, in fact encourage enough carpooling to make a difference in congestion, then by all means, do away with them. But if all carpoolers become SOV's, were gonna need alot more lanes than we already have a need for. I'm trying to be constructive.

Be nice zowie, remember, I'm one of the good guys.

You won't see me in the carpool lane. We don't have them here. We don't even get passing lanes. Whose bonehead idea was that anyway?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.

"Be nice zowie, remember, I'm one of the good guys. " Not being mean. It has already been established that car-pooling is on the decline for the same reasons that transit is. We don't have that many big companies doing shiftwork all at the same time. Everything that peak traffic demand management does (encourage telecommuting, alternate work schedules (4-10s), shifting work schedules earlier or later, etc.), decreases peak demand but makes it harder to have traditional carpools. Besides, The majority of people using HOV lanes ARE NOT CARPOOLS. They are family groups who would have traveled together anyway.

"The high proportion of trips using the HOV mode (33% in 1997) is CHARACTERISTIC of daily travel, when family members frequently accompany the adult driver on shopping, recreation, and other trip types." http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/orpp/benchmrk/bench99/99-bm-ch5.pdf

If wishes were horses than beggars would ride- Old French Proverb

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.

To Mike Alworth: Okay, I'll give you one more chance to defend the logic of opening up the carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge to all vehicles.

Tell me which option you would choose, and why.

Option #1: Carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge. Average commute from I-5 to other side of bridge for those who carpool: 15 minutes. Average commute for those who don't carpool: 25 minutes. Other: Neighborhoods near the carpool entrance experience minor headaches.

Option #2: Last entrance to the Narrows Bridge is open to all. Average commute from I-5 to other side of bridge for those who carpool: 24.9 minutes. Average commute for those who don't carpool: 24.9 minutes. Other: Neighborhoods near the entrance experience major headaches.

Defend your choice. And, then, explain why voters in Spokane and Vancouver should help decide the issue.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 22, 1999.

to maddjak: You say carpools do not pay for highways. This is not true. Ridesharing vehicles purchase gasoline like anyone else. Therfore, the cost of the carpool lane is paid for by those who carpool. Will you now stop your whining?

I think the fairest solution is to use the carpool lanes as the basis for a network of tolled roads, which people could optionally choose to use as an alternative to the "free" way. Then, you and those who carpool would be treated the same. And, the rest of us wouldn't have to pay attention to your diatribes against government-sponsored compassion.

In the final analysis, you're simply opposed to government-sponsored compassion. A lot of us are ambivalent towards government-sponsored compassion, but when we read your words, then we're definitely for it. You are your own worst enemy.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 22, 1999.

to zowie: You say 33% of the carpoolers are families. I do not believe this is true during rush hour on I-5. I travel every day up I-5 to Seattle, and I see very few vehicles in the carpool lane with families, especially at 6 AM! Also, I doubt I will ever observe families in a Sound Transit bus during rush hour. Likewise, in the evening, most of the vehicles I observe in the carpool lane on I-5 have two people, usually male. When the anecdotal evidence during rush hour supports your bonehead theories, then people will pay attention to what you have to say.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 22, 1999.

Proposed Ballot Title for the "Traffic Improvement" Initiative

Shall road construction and maintenance receive 90% of transportation funds, carpool lanes be unrestricted, and road construction materials be exempt from sales taxes?

How many people would be willing to support dedicating 90% of transportation funds to construction and maintenance of roads, and that exempting road construction materials from sales taxes would be worthwhile, but have a problem with unrestricting carpool lanes?

Does the inclusion of the carpool section have the potential to threaten the downfall of this initiative?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 22, 1999.

"to maddjak: You say carpools do not pay for highways. This is not true. Ridesharing vehicles purchase gasoline like anyone else. Therfore, the cost of the carpool lane is paid for by those who carpool. Will you now stop your whining? "

Yeah, like the cost of transit is paid for by the people who use transit, which varies from 6% (Whatcom County) farebox recovery to 21% (MetroKC).

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 22, 1999.

"I doubt I will ever observe families in a Sound Transit bus during rush hour" And damn few any other time unless going to a special event (Mariners game or something). Increased number of women in the workforce and the difficulty in getting your kids to childcare if you use mass transit is one of the demographic trends causing transit to continue to lose market share, worldwide. It is also one of the drivers of decreased HOV market share, since with more workers having to drop a kid or two off at childcare, car-pooling becomes vastly more complicated.

I think it's also necessary for you to understand that anecdotes aren't a real good thing to make policy from, Matt. Facts generally are better. And the issue isn't whether or not HOV lanes are ever used, Matt, it's whether that is the most effective way to control congestion. Transit, in its niche, is effective. So are HOV lanes. But when you try to push even a good idea too far, it becomes much less effective. And that's what has happened with both transit and HOV lanes.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 22, 1999.

THE ANSWER: Option #2: Last entrance to the Narrows Bridge is open to all. Average commute from I-5 to other side of bridge for those who carpool: 24.9 minutes. Average commute for those who don't carpool: 24.9 minutes. Other: Neighborhoods near the entrance experience major headaches.

RATIONALE: Equity. One class of users shouldn't have more rights than any others. Same as there shouldn't be water fountains that one class of users get to use while the others do not. How about an "Asians only" on-ramp. Or Scandinavians, for that matter? That ought to decrease the use of the on-ramp considerably.

Defend your choice. And, then, explain why voters in Spokane and Vancouver should help decide the issue. WELL GEE. If you hadn't taken any MONEY from the voters in Spokane and Vancouver to build that on-ramp, you might be able to make the case that it's none of their business. But you know what, Matt? You DID take their money to build the on-ramp. Ever here of no taxation without representation? You don't want them to have a say, build your roads without state taxes.

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), December 22, 1999.

Matthew, carpool lanes are NOT paid for by carpoolers. The majority of the money that has been extorted from us for 'road construction' has been used to build and improve carpool and buses only lanes. Now to explain my first comment.. A typical carpool van carries 9 passengers. Now I had a van like that once and I 'personally' paid for all the gas that it used. And the tax from all that gas went toward roads (supposedly). So just using the van as an example..each one of us 'single occupant commuters' pays NINE times as much money as the HOV commuters to build and maintain lanes that we are NOT allowed to use. Yep you pay for it NOT!!

And the total dreck about government sponsored compassion???? Government has NO compassion. Government is the mechanism by which the most amount of cash and resources can be disposed if in the least amount of time and with the least amount of actual benefit.

And they accomplish all of thsi with money they have stolen from the public..

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 22, 1999.

"Does the inclusion of the carpool section have the potential to threaten the downfall of this initiative? " Heck, that alone get's my signature and vote.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 22, 1999.

Mike,

One of your posts mentioned New Jersey opening up HOV lanes to all traffic recently. Do you know of a Web sight with information regarding this?

Zowie,

The initiative gets my support in spite of the inclusion of the HOV lanes becoming unrestricted.

I want a new highway, before this one washes down the hill for a third time.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 22, 1999.

After doing a little research, (New York, New Jersy and California) it would seem that HOV use, Or LOV use (low occupancy vehicle, 1 passenger) may in fact have the same effect as light rail. It takes passengers away from an existing transit system.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 22, 1999.

The RABID anti0highway people are indeed even against HOV lanes. But the mode share for HOV is continuing to decrease, for the same demographic reasons that the mode share for transit is decreasing.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 22, 1999.

According to data from the FTA sight, the rate of accidents in at least 2 of Seattles HOV lanes are much higher than the adjacent mixed flow lanes. (per million vehicle miles)

I-5 median lanes (Seattle) 3.2 HOV, - 2.1 mixed

I-405 outside lanes (Seattle) 3.6 HOV, - 1.3 mixed So Tim Eyman's latest initiative might even save some lives.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 22, 1999.

RE: Mike, One of your posts mentioned New Jersey opening up HOV lanes to all traffic recently. Do you know of a Web sight with information regarding this?

Here is perhaps more than you would possibly want to know about this (wanted you to have all sides of the story).

http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/p70825b.htm http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/p81130b.htm

http://www.cpanj.com/legislative/dfrhov_9898.html http://www.lostvoice.com/lostvoice/hovlane.htm http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/framed/press/sept1998/hov9_9_98. htm http://www.edf.org/pubs/EDF-Letter/1999/Jan/f_HOV.html http://www.tstc.org/bulletin/19980501/mtr17101.htm

Now, IMHO, there were shenanigans going on both sides here. Since the anti-car crowd has succeeded in making some federal funding contingent upon HOV lanes being built, some HOV lanes are being built (either by accident or design) where they simply won't be utilized. This really pi**es off (can I say that here? better go back and asterisk (can I say that??) out) the drivers who get tickets for using an otherwise empty road. This either motivates them to be anti- HOV and anti-transit (since they see a rare transit bus using the lane all by itself) or motivates them to make politicians convert HOV lanes to general purpose lanes.

Now the latter infuriates the anti-car crowd, who believe as a matter of deep religious conviction (really, may be wicca or something , but it's what passes for religion in an anti-car type) that general purpose lanes ought to be converted to HOV-2, HOV-2 to HOV-3, HOV-3 to dedicated busways, and the busways converted when nobody is looking to a jogging path. The anti-car crowd goes apeshi...uh...., that is, I mean they get REALLY INCENSED.

Maybe that's the solution, we just add on HOV lanes and let anyone use them. Do like they did with the federally mandated 55 mph limit in some states, make violating it a $2 fine and no points.

I'd personally LOVE to be on a jury trial for an HOV scofflaw. The jury would either let him/her go, or be a hung jury for a long long time.

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), December 22, 1999.

Mike-

Jury nullification! I'd go for it. So would Thomas Jefferson.

"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is medicine necessary for the sound health of government." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 22, 1999.

Convert all diamond lanes to dollar lanes. Lease them to a private company. Equip cars that need to use the former HOV lanes with transponders. Raise the price during rush hour.

The entire problem with roads is that they are common property. There are no market forces involved. As I stew in road rage I think, "Yes I do own the roads." The problem is that you and everybody else does too.

Think about what privately owned roads would mean. Most businesses are delighted when they get more customers. They expand capacity when that happens. Transportation planners do the opposite. They whine about the fact that no matter how many roads they build the roads just fill up. Supply and demand, anyone?

Financing roads with a gas tax is sort of OK. The people who use it more pay more. But State planning of roads is like state planning of anything else - inefficient. In a choice between the greedy businessman and the corrupt political creature, I'll take the businessman every time.

-- Frank Hemingway (pvtc@aol.com), December 23, 1999.

To Frank Hemingway: I'm with you a 1000%. Once we have a network of tolled roads, then it makes sense to privatize transit. For people who have a strong desire to save time, but not willing to pay a lot of money, they will rideshare. Sign me up. How do we get this started?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 23, 1999.

to maddjak: You come across as such a moron. Your argument that carpoolers don't pay their fair share of the gas tax is mathematically inept. But, why am I not surprised? First, you claim that a van with 9 passengers pays 9 times less in gas taxes. This is incorrect, since the van gets worse mileage. So right off the bat, you're off by a factor of 2, even more if the passengers drive Honda Civics. Second, you fail to take into account that 9 cars will cause more wear and tear to the highway than one van. So, now you're off by a factor of 4 (and that's being overly generous), let's say. Finally, the passengers own cars, so they paid license tab fees, just like everyone else. Now, you're off by a factor of 10. So, in other words, ridesharing folks pay more than their fare share. And, it is you, the SOV'er who is the real welfare slime. Driving on roadways paid, in part, with license tab fees of those who carpool. Shame on you!

The fact is, depending on the roadway, the users of the road may or may not be paying their fair share of the actual cost of using the road. Therefore, according to you, if they're not paying their full share, they're welfare scum. I would venture to guess that most of the people who use I-90 across Lake Washington are such welfare scum, since it must have cost a pretty penny to build such a magnificent structure.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 23, 1999.

to Mike Alworth: Thank you. Your response shows how much spite and bile run through your veins when it comes to HOV lanes. I hope people who label themselves as politically moderate come across the vile venom you spew, and I'm sure the HOV lanes will have many more proponents

It wouldn't matter to me who benefits from the carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge. Scandanavians or otherwise. At least somebody would be getting relief from an intolerable situation. Perhaps a fairer system would be to assign each day of the week to license plates ending in a given number or letter. In any case, dedicating the entrance to carpoolers is reasonable, since everyone is capable of carpooling, regardless of their ethnicity, income level, political persuasion, etc.

And, your assertion that folks in Spokane and Vancouver should have a say on the Narrows Bridge because they paid gas taxes is pathetic. In practical terms, the gas taxes paid by one region of the state go to build and maintain roads in that region. Using your logic (or lack thereof), no state in the union could make any decision about their roads until the whole nation voted on it. Since, after all, everybody pays a gas tax.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 23, 1999.

to acorn_nut: Anytime you have traffic going at vastly different speeds and no physical separation, one would expect to have a higher rate of accidents. Upon occasion, I have found myself doing 55 mph in the HOV lane, while the other lanes are at a near stop. And, I've chosen to slow way down, because it's incredibly risky. As a rule, you should avoid being in a lane where the car next to you is 15 mph slower or faster than you. It's very dangerous.

So, in that regard, Tim Eyman's proposal would reduce the percentage of time one lane would be moving while the other was not.

Unfortunately, the rationale holds no water when it comes to the carpool entrance for the Tacoma Narrows bridge. In that case, Eyman's proposal will result in more accidents (assaults), as road rage reaches unseen heights.

Another alternative to Eyman's approach, albeit more expensive, would be to physically separate the carpool lanes from the surrounding traffic. This would require the construction of special on and off ramps to the carpool lane. I have no problem with raising the gas tax to fund such a venture. But do you really think maddjak et al. would vote for it???

In general, I have no problem voting for a higher gas tax to fund additional road construction. I don't care whether it's for an HOV or SOV lanes. I believe the gas tax is too low, and that's why we have the lack of roads we have now. It's the same problem across the country. The problem is even more difficult for the Puget Sound, since the cost of land is so high. Therefore, our gas tax (at least in the Puget Sound) should be much higher than most other states. A state like Texas or Arizona would have a lot more cheap land, plus, if you privatize road construction, private companies can hire Mexicans for next to nothing.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 23, 1999.

Matthew,

You post "Anytime you have traffic going at vastly different speeds and no physical separation, one would expect to have a higher rate of accidents". So we should continue to utilize HOV lanes?

You also stated "Another alternative to Eyman's approach, albeit more expensive, would be to physically separate the carpool lanes from the surrounding traffic". What point of lowering taxes and costs don't you understand?

If you slow down from 55 mph in the HOV lane, and are not traveling at the speed of the remaining vehicles in your lane, you become a dangerous obstruction. Can you say "preventable accident"?

I sympathize with you. I HAVE spent considerable time waiting to cross the Tacoma Narrows. I am also a firm believer in carpooling, (and living someplace that has no built in bottleneck on the way to work!) But the safety issue alone, is enough to make me consider doing away with HOV lanes. I think it contibutes to more than just accidents.....

As long as you bring up road rage, although I have no documentation, I believe HOV lane use may also contribute to that nasty problem.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 23, 1999.

To Marsha: You ask: "So we should continue to utilize HOV lanes?" Well, the safety issue is a valid point. Perhaps the alternative is to severely increase the fines for the individuals who caused the accident. Maybe, then, you'd have fewer of them. In any case, the logic does not apply to the carpool entrance at the Narrows Bridge.

Furthermore, anytime you have an adjacent lane coming to an end (i.e., an exit only lane), you have a similar scenario. So, to be consistent. you should close off certain lanes during rush hour, because they're almost guaranteed to cause an accident. Likewise, there are on-ramps to I-5 which are short and uphill, and all the ingredients for high rates of accidents? Are we going to shut down these during rush hour. Finally, in the past several years, I've seen many severe accidents involving tractor trailer trucks near the Tacoma Dome. Using your logic, we should ban tractor trailer trucks between the Puyallup River Bridge and the Tacoma Mall during rush hour.

I'm willing to buy into your logic. But, it should be its own separate initiative, and the language should apply to ALL potentially unsafe scenarios. And, again, the carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge would not be such a scenario.

You then ask: "What point of lowering taxes and costs don't you understand?" I guess I must be very confused. It is my belief (hence, my "understanding") that new road construction costs money. Are you aware of some magical way of building new roads without spending money? The current gas tax will only pay for MAINTENANCE of the existing roads. If you want new roads, you have to raise the gas tax, at least to take into account inflation. The gasoline tax is an excise tax, unlike a sales tax. Therefore, until society raises the amount of the tax, it is always being "lowered", in terms of its purchasing power relative to inflation.

You then say "If you slow down from 55 mph in the HOV lane, and are not traveling at the speed of the remaining vehicles in your lane, you become a dangerous obstruction. Can you say 'preventable accident'?". Well, I'm not slamming on my brakes to lower my speed. So, the vehicle immediately behind me is going to gradually slow down. But, perhaps that is why HOVs have a higher rate of accidents. But, I must slow down, because I have to be able to react if someone cuts into the HOV lane. Do you know if rear-end collisions occur at a higher rate, or are the accidents due to people cutting in while traveling at a dramatically lower speed? You suggest "living someplace that has no built in bottleneck on the way to work!" I'm not sure what you mean by that, since most people I know who work in Seattle have a hellacious commute. For people who carpool to Gig Harbor, there isn't much of a bottleneck. You still haven't convinced me that we should open up the carpool entrance to the Narrows bridge to all traffic. Why should people move, when all they need to do is carpool?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 23, 1999.

Matthew,

Gee, did you leave something out in your response?"

What point of lowering taxes and costs don't you understand? was in response to your statement "Another alternative to Eyman's approach, albeit more expensive, would be to physically separate the carpool lanes from the surrounding traffic".

Your last post stated "I guess I must be very confused. It is my belief (hence, my "understanding") that new road construction costs money".

Well, yes Matthew, I never stated otherwise. You, in fact made the statement, "Another alternative to Eyman's approach, albeit more expensive, would be to physically separate the carpool lanes from the surrounding traffic. Hmmmmm....In order to try to prove your point, you take my comment out of context......It didn't work.

I don't believe in giving YOU special consideration over other traffic, if it involves an increased risk of accidents, and the added costs involved to "physically separate the carpool lanes from the surrounding traffic."

You also say "Well, I'm not slamming on my brakes to lower my speed. So, the vehicle immediately behind me is going to gradually slow down".

YOU HOPE! One of the major cause of traffic accidents is due to different speeds being traveled by traffic in the same lane. Not neccessarily the slamming on of brakes, but of other vehicles trying to get around you. (told this by Sheriff's Deputy just a few weeks ago, after he helped scrape someone off the pavement) So if other drivers are blocked in by traffic in the adjacent lane and you decide to slow everyone behind you down, you are only adding to the road rage and should get the heck out of the way! The more you respond, the more unsafe HOV lanes appear to become!

If you or your friends don't like the commute, move closer to where you work and quit whining.

Your not making any points with me, the more you huff and puff at the idea of losing "YOUR" HOV lanes, the more convinced I become. Your not a do gooder carpooler, like myself, (or maddjak, the dinosaur) your a special interest group all by yourself!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 23, 1999.

"Unfortunately, the rationale holds no water when it comes to the carpool entrance for the Tacoma Narrows bridge. In that case, Eyman's proposal will result in more accidents (assaults), as road rage reaches unseen heights. " This could just as easily have been controlled by a light on the on-ramp allowing a few cars at a time to enter, as has been done in Auburn and a variety of other areas. NO PART OF THIS PROBLEM REQUIRED AN HOV LANE TO BE CREATED. A more equitable solution was always possible. Controlling traffic volume at this point by limiting numbers of cars entering without limiting them to HOV only would have solved all the local problems as well as the current solution, without barring one category of taxpayers from using an on-ramp that they paid for. Every SOV driver that goes by (and they are the vast majority) resents what he/she views as "cutting in line" by the HOV people. If you think this furthers the cause of HOV, your wrong. IMHO, it'll lead them to sign and vote for this initiative.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 23, 1999.

To Craig: You wrong (as usual) about ramp metering. Opening the carpool entrance to all vehicles will merely result in the traffic backing up to the surface streets, where there is a three-way light. Ramp-metering would only cause the backup to occur more quickly.

The fact remains that there are two choices: 1) Open up the carpool entrance and everyone suffers or; 2) reserve the entrance for some subset of the population, so at least someone catches a break. It doesn't have to be carpoolers. The entrance could be a tolled, but then there's the problem of who decides what to do with the money.

Ramp metering would be an excellent complement to the carpool entrance, so that the traffic already on Hwy 16 is minimally disrupted.

I've never born any resentment toward people using the carpool entrance when I'm in an SOV. Most of the Narrows Bridge commuters understand, I think, that reserving the entrance for carpoolers is as fair as a solution as we're going to find. You see, Craig, most people are not hateful and spiteful. That's why neo-nazis don't tend to do well, politically.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 24, 1999.

To Marsha: As I said before, if you're going to base your argument on the safety issue, then the initiative should be about safety, and it should apply equally to all unsafe conditions. For example, no more 18-wheelers on I-5 by the Tacoma Dome.during rush hour.

If I come across as whiney, you anti-ridesharers come across as spiteful and hateful. Pretty tough choice for the disinterested voters. Do they side with the whiners or the neo-nazis???

I have no problem letting the voters in King and Pierce counties decide the issue of opening up the HOV lanes in South King County to all. Likewise, I prefer to have the voters in Kitsap and Pierce counties decide the fate of the carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge. I don't believe it's fair to let folks from other parts of the state to take part in the decision. If that makes me whiney, so be it.

I-695 deserved to be a statewide initiative because we all pay license tab fees. The future of HOV lanes should be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the voters of the affected counties. Why should folks in Kitsap County decide the fate of HOV lanes on I-405? Likewise, why should folks in Bellevue decide the fate of the carpool entrance to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge?

Anyway, have a merry one, a happy one, and a safe one.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 24, 1999.

Matthew,

The problem I have with your choice is that you are excluding people from having a vote based on locality. So a Kitsap Commuter gets a choice and a Mason County Commuter does not, in the case of Tacoma- Narrows. How generous of you.

How far should this local vote be extended? Someone will surly whine when they are excluded, and conversely, will whine when they think a specific population inclusion exceeds the affected area.

Now, since you also utilize HOV lanes on I-5, you believe you should have no say in their use? Does it matter that you don't live in the voting district, but drive twice a day on roads in that district that you have paid taxes to support? Make up your mind.

Since you support the use of toll roads, how should the toll be charged? Based on vehicle axles? In the case of passenger cars, not vehicle occupancy?

You are still expecting special privledges for carpoolers, at everyone elses expense. If you don't want to wait in line on the Narrows, MOVE!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 24, 1999.

Matt-

"To Craig: You wrong (as usual) about ramp metering. Opening the carpool entrance to all vehicles will merely result in the traffic backing up to the surface streets, where there is a three-way light. Ramp-metering would only cause the backup to occur more quickly."

Actually Matt, you're wrong. People who study queing theory and voluntary choices indicate that the only thing that traffic flow for the whole segment would go much better if there was not a constant unregulated flow of merging traffic. That is why they have such lights. And decreasing the volume allowed to use that on-ramp would rather rapidly decrease its desirability and hence its use. This would have the same effect of unloading the neighborhood it does now, without inducing all the HOV drivers to go through all the numerous neighborhoods and back streets that they do now to get there from I-5. This was the REAL reason for restricting this ramp. Disruption of the local community by people driving through local low capacity streets to jump to the head of the line going over the bridge. They don't like all the cars disrupting their community every day, regardless of whether they've got one person in them or two. Let us suppose the HOV advocates were really successful and we dramatically increased the proportion of vehicles that were HOV. We are right back to where we started. With metering, the problem remains solved.

" Ramp metering would be an excellent complement to the carpool entrance, so that the traffic already on Hwy 16 is minimally disrupted" But didn't you just say this would cause a backup to occur more quicky? Why will it do this for SOVs but not HOVs. How do the ramp meters know the difference?

And don't believe that there isn't animosity when one category of taxpayers is excluded. Politicians have been successfully playing the politics of envy card for a long time.

In the spirit of the season, I'll pass on the hateful, spiteful and neo-Nazi cooments. Have a merry Christmas, Matt. May the new year bring you peace and prosperity.

The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 24, 1999.

To Craig: Perhaps you misunderstand my position about ramp- metering. I never said ramp-metering wasn't a good thing. I merely said ramp-metering alone would not effectively improve the commute. The choices for the Narrows Bridge remain the same: 1) let everyone have access to the carpool entrance, and everyone suffers equally or; 2) let some subset of the rush hour commuting population have access, and at least they'll catch a break.

In either case, ramp-metering is fine. But to suggest ramp-metering would magically (queueing theory noted) improve the commute is like saying one can cut taxes and balance the budget without cutting spending. It's bulldinky (excuse my French)! Ramp-metering is currently in effect for traffic merging onto I-5 (southbound) near the bottom of the SouthCenter Hill. It hasn't done a damn thing.

As for your nonsense about what would happen if there were a dramatic increase in the numbers who chose to carpool, and thus have access to the carpool entrance at the Narrows Bridge. That would be wonderful, since no one would bother to use the entrance, because there would be dramatically fewer cars on Hwy 16 as there are now! You really have no idea of what you're talking about, do you? If, in fact, the number of ridesharing vehicles started to clog up the surface streets leading up the HOV entrance, then the solution would be to raise the minimum number of passengers in a vehicle, in order to qualify for use of the entrance.

And I too wish you peace and prosperity. And, I appreciate your patience and civility.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 25, 1999.

To Marsha: The bottom line is there are two choices for the Narrows Bridge: 1) Open up the current carpool entrance to all vehicles and everyone suffers equally or; 2) reserve the entrance for some subset of the rush hour population, whether it be carpoolers or otherwise, so at least someone catches a break.

Those are the choices. Whether I move (or not) doesn't change the scenario for the choices. Why should any community not affected by the choices have a say? If Mason County wants to be included, that's fine.

Tim Eyman's transportation initiative should provide local communities more control over whether or not the HOV lanes remain. As for your drivel about my taxes having paid for the HOV lanes in South King County, give me a break. Using your logic, I've paid for every darn road in the US. It's silly. The voters of King & Pierce counties are a good enough sample of the population for me, and I'll respect their decision. Why are you so afraid of letting the voters of King and Pierce counties decide the fate of the HOV lanes? Are you implying the voters of the two counties aren't intelligent or capable of making a good decision? It just reveals the weakness of your position.

As for how a toll should be charged, that's not the decision of the consumer, that's a decision for the investors who bought the toll franchise. They can charge whatever the toll they want! If I can't afford it, I won't use it, and I'll plod along on the "free" way.

I firmly believe all of our complaints about congestion would be resolved by a parallel network of tolled roads. If you don't like sitting in traffic on the "free" way, then pay your way for a better alternative. Theoretically, depending on how the tolls are charged for buses and/or vanpool vans, people would have a pretty strong incentive to rideshare, all as a result of free market forces. There would no longer be a need for HOV lanes.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 25, 1999.

"You really have no idea of what you're talking about, do you?" Actually, I've studied this pretty extensively on both the pro and con side. I feel considerably more comfortable with my well researched and documented position than I do with your undocumented assertions. But unless you value research and facts over opinion, I don't think I'm going to convince you. So let's just agree to differ without a lot of belittling of one another, OK. You've got your opinion, I've got mine. Reality doesn't change because someone doesn't like it, and I think my model is closer to reality than yours. You don't, and I'm not sure what it would take to change your mind.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 25, 1999.

To Craig: I'm not sure what "model" of reality you're talking about. You made a bizarre claim that ramp-metering would solve the congestion on the Narrows Bridge. Although you may be able to quote "research", it does not make it a fact. Facts are what the rest of face everyday.

You make many claims that are not factual. They are severeley biased, but not factual. And, I suppose we can disagree, and perhaps more cordially.

Your most severely biased claim is the one about the roads being paid for by user fees, and thus being less subsidized than transit. Nothing could be farther from the "truth" (from my point of view). The Narrows Bridge is a perfect example, as well the bridges across Lake Washington. Do you really expect me to believe that most of us who drive across the structures have paid our fair share? Drivel! Drivers in the past paid the tolls for the Narrows and Hwy 520. Today's drivers enjoy the benefits at minimal cost. In other words, they're subsidized. Do you really expect me to believe that the drivers across the I-90 have paid their fair share? Give me a break!

Common sense should tell you that some roads cost more than others. Therefore, depending on which roads you drive, you may or may not have paid your "fair share". If a road is exorbitantly expensive (i.e., I-90), or it was paid for by tolls of drivers from the past, then you're not coming close to paying your fair share.

If we're going to talk about minimizing subsidies, then we should put tolls back on the aforementioned structures, providing exemptions to those who paid tolls in the past. And part or all of the tolls collected should go to those who paid tolls in the past, since they should be considered the "rightful owners", as it was their hard- earned cash which paid for the structures.

That's why it ticks me off when SOVers attack transit out of spite and hate. They're so hypocritical, as they're as subsidized as anybody. Now, admittedly, you try to frame the argument in terms of "facts" and "models". But models are only as good as the axioms they're founded upon. And your axioms are flawed, since you believe roads are paid for with user fees. They're not. That's why we're in the predicament we're in today, because, finally, the citizens are going to have to face the music and pay their fair share. Or, continue to face worsening, intolerable congestion.

I'm not sure what's the best way to manage congestion. But, I'll certainly respect the vote of the people. If they vote for a modest excise tax on cars (i.e., Sound Transit), that's cool. If they vote for higher gasoline taxes, that's fine, too. If they vote for the creation of a network of tolled roads, paralleling the existing "free" roads, hey, that might be the best solution of all. Or, maybe we need some combination of all of them.

And, I'd certainly like to see more data on the HOV lanes. Perhaps we should open up the HOV lanes on Tuesdays and Thursdays for a year, and we could find out the consequences.

You deliberately mislead people with your mantra of "It's the demographics, stupid". When, in fact, the Sound Transit bus routes (thanks to the pioneering efforts of Pierce Transit) have a track record of increasing ridership.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 26, 1999.

"You deliberately mislead people with your mantra of "It's the demographics, stupid". When, in fact, the Sound Transit bus routes (thanks to the pioneering efforts of Pierce Transit) have a track record of increasing ridership."

I don
ft know if you are just doing whatever it takes to be argumentative, Matt, or if you are truly that ignorant.

Even if you ignore the fact that user fees only pay for 17 cents on the dollar of operating expenses, Pierce Transit bus service contributed a total of 75,066,079 passenger miles by bus in the last year serving a service population of 616,285. That
fs somewhat less than 122 revenue and non-revenue passenger miles per individual. People average 14,000 plus passenger road miles per year. They provided about 0.9% of the passenger road miles used in their service area.

Now I
fm GLAD that they can meet with some small success in certain areas of their niche, but the big picture is what is important. If they TRIPLED their average ridership (and the express buses constitute a very small fraction of their ridership), it still wouldn
ft make a big difference in congestion. And they are NOT tripling their ridership. If you look at THEIR OWN FIGURES, They aren
ft seeing any increase in passenger trips per vehicle revenue mile, that is, their load factors are staying the same. They are losing money on every passenger, and gaining passengers only by increasing the miles traveled. Their annual vehicle revenue miles (7.4 million) divided into the annual passenger miles indicate that, on the average, they carry just over ten passengers on each bus at any given time. While they may be expanding in some areas, they are contracting in others.

http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/0003/ $File/P0003.PDF

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 26, 1999.

Craig-

Is there really a Matt Warren? Or is he just a strawman that you post under, so you can have a chance to get your point across in apparent response to someone too arrogant and too ignorant to evoke any empathy from the readers. Are you just putting us on, and answering your own pseudonymonic posts? If not, you have the patience of a saint. If so, stop. Watching you post as "mattinsky" is like, embarrasing. Nobody could be simultaneously that arrogant and that ignorant. No ignorant is wrong, I meant stupid. Ignorance is curable. Stupid is forever.

Mikey

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), December 27, 1999.

Gee Mikey, do ya think? The writing style seems to be the same, and not alot of typos....hmmm

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 27, 1999.

Not even a chance-

Mattinsky lacks my self-effacing humor.

The Craigster (AKA der Spellmeister)

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 28, 1999.