Are HOV lanes social engineering?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

So if social engineering is an attempt to force us to do something we wouldn't want to do otherwise, does the construction and the continued existence of HOV lanes constitute social engineering?

Why not look at what the people of Washington say? The DOT sends out a survey every year to drivers (bus and carpool RIDERS are NOT included). Of the 30,000 surveys mailed out since 1993, roughly a quarter respond. Since this survey does rely on respondent action, it is not a random sample and is not scientific. However it does give a pretty good indication. The results below are from the 1998/99 results of 2,300 freeway users.

When asked to agree or disagree with the statement "HOV lanes are a good idea." 72% of the SOV users agreed, 19% disagreed, and 9% were neutral. 95% of the HOV users agreed, 3% disagreed, and 2% were neutral.

When asked to agree or disagree with the statement "HOV lanes should be opened to all traffic." 56% of the SOV users disagreed, 33% agreed, and 11% were neutral. 86% of the HOV drivers disagreed, 8% agreed, and 6% were neutral.

On the statement "Constructing HOV lanes is unfair to taxpayers who choose to drive alone." 56% of the SOV users again disagreed, 27% agreed, and 17% were neutral. 82% of the HOV users disagreed, 7% agreed, and 11% were neutral.

Finally, on the statement "HOV violators commit a serious traffic violation." 58% of the SOV users agreed, 21% disagreed, and 21% were neutral. 66% of the HOV users agreed, 10% disagreed, and 24% were neutral.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 27, 2000

Answers

What point are you trying to make?

That 72% of SOV drivers and 95% of HOV drivers think HOV's are a good idea?

Yeah, and. . . .?

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000.


From the thread "That 47 miles of new roads figure"

Patrick, "overweight egotist of a legislator?" This is the second time you have referred to Benton in this manner. What has being overweight got to do with it? Do you also insult developmentally disabled? This is bigotry at it's worst. If you are not intelligent enough to find a better description, then you are truly an ass. I find your bigotry offensive and I believe your posts should be boycotted with no response, unless you apologize.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

This person does not deserve a response.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000.


ARE HOV lanes Social engineering? Sure. Read the literature. http://www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/retk.html

One excerpt:

Re-Thinking HOV - High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities and the Public Interest

Highway design manuals, road fund programming guidelines, transportation laws and plans, and other guidance should require study of the conversion to HOV of general purpose lanes as the prime alternative when any construction of new general purpose or HOV lanes is being considered. Sooner or later, large-scale conversion of general purpose lanes to HOV use as a way to more efficiently use our public roadways seems inevitable. Projected traffic volumes are increasing far beyond what can be accommodated by any foreseeable construction of new lanes. Unfortunately, we are missing the window of time when conversion would be easiest, and when transit and ridesharing could most use the boost. Conversion of a general purpose lane is most difficult once that lane has become congested, and when solo drivers have come to regard it as their own. In all lane conversions, there must be an accompanying public information and public relations program that is carefully planned and executed. Building bus ridership and carpooling, takes time. A policy to seek conversions early and support them with well-funded public relations campaigns is the most far-sighted approach.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 27, 2000.


The point of the figures is to show that if the DOT is providing us with a service that a large majority of the drivers approve of, then it really can't be called social engineering now can it?

And Marsha, feel free to boycott (although I'm not holding my breath) since an apology is not going to be coming. The man is overweight. Does that mean that all overweight people are egotists? Nope. Besides, your righteous indignation rings a little hollow. Have you forgotten your little "Perhaps his existence is due to a genetic mutation of some sort" comment? So are fat jokes off limits but cracks at the expense of people with genetic problems okay? Time to get off the high horse there Marsha.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 27, 2000.


Marsha-

There are a few jerks on this BBS, but I'm kind of philosophically opposed to letting their propaganda go without rebuttal.

I sympathize with your reluctance to engage with dialogue with these people, but sometimes you need to post to the larger audience, even if the original poster isn't someone you'd voluntarily associate with. If you're in a war and refuse to fight against the bad guys because they are unworthy people, they may well win.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 27, 2000.



Walked around my office, did an unscientific survey, where 100% surveyed responded: 100% against hov's.

But this isn't really the issue. The issue is, whether or not people *like* hov's or dislike them is pointless. The point is, in an assessment of their actual value to road congestion overall, they don't work. This is why most of the states which have performed HOV experiments have pulled them.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), January 27, 2000.


Paul- Are they willing to take the next step; refuse to convict anyone ticketed for using an HOV without enough people in the car? Seems like unconscionable discrimination to me. I can use the HOV lane if I am driving my family somewhere, can't if I'm going in my car by myself, can if I'm riding my motorcycle, can't if I'm driving my Geo. Who wants to be the Rosa Parks of this issue? If I'm on the jury, they WALK.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000.

Actually Paul if you look at the previous thread, the studies performed in this state show that in 8 of the 10 spots they watched, the HOV lane carried just as many if not a whole lot more people than their GP lane counterparts. Sounds like they work to me.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 27, 2000.

Patrick:

Do you remember, a while back, I posted an article here, responding to a newspaper letter, where an individual described a situation where there was an HOV lane over a toll bridge in...San Diego, I think it was... anyway, he described a scene where he was a visitor with a carload full of people and he whizzed past everyone stuck in the regular lanes, which were clogged to the absolute maximum, whereas the hov lane was moving freely and was nearly empty? Then he went on to say that this was a great idea and we should use this concept here?

What this person (apparently) unwittingly described, was the complete and utter failure of HOV lanes, yet his 'perception' was that this was a grand idea:

A highway clogged to a complete standstill of regular commuters, where an occasional, non-carpool vehicle full of out of town sightseers could whiz by, undaunted by the normal commuter traffic. Something he was eager to try here?!?!?

Highway 167 is the PERFECT example of this. Highway 167 is one of the most clogged arteries of greater puget sound. Where I work, I am actually the EXCEPTION as I DON'T commute on that highway, whereas all of my coworkers do. So I get to hear the traffic horror stories every morning. 167 was under construction for quite some time while they added a new lane. During this construction, 167 was a screaming nightmare of a traffic jam. After the construction was done, they turned the new lane into an HOV lane, and the result is that now, 167 is a screaming nightmare of a traffic jam. And the HOV lane is now populated with the occasional mother and children, or DOT construction vehicle, with 3 construction workers on their way to construct new HOV lanes.

The fact that HOV lanes carry more people, is not a statistical conclusion that it means that they are reducing TRAFFIC. It merely means that they carry more people. The reason is, that the people who have a high occupancy vehicle, who are going to drive on the roads ANYWAY, USE the HOV lane, because they can. So, statistically, it skews the results to show that the HOV lanes carry more PEOPLE but less cars. Looks good on paper. The HOV lanes were INTENDED as a social engineering scheme to LURE people into carpooling, when they saw the ease and speed at which HOV traffic moved. The actual result: Very few people carpool BECAUSE of the carpool lane. Little or no change in general behaviour. There are simply more single driver cars piled into the lanes which are legal for them to use, and the relatively small number of vehicles which are high occupancy, simply use those HOV lanes because they can.

There are also pleny of arguments which show danger factors with HOV lanes, which are probably too difficult to get into here, but it has been noted, and stated, and discussed that HOV lanes in certain areas force or induce more panic lane changing and exit and onramp clogs due to people who have to suddenly get over from an HOV lane, or in the case of sections of 405, get OUT of the hov lane, because they put it on the RIGHT side of the road.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), January 28, 2000.


"Very few people carpool BECAUSE of the carpool lane. Little or no change in general behaviour. "

And the demographics bear this out. Despite all the things that should (according to social engineers) have induced people to use transit and car-pooling over the last thirty years including massive subsidies and creation of HOV lanes, the reality (according to the National Personal Transportation Surveys that USDOT does every five years)is that fewer people car-pool to work than ever before (9% and dropping), transit market share isn't going up hardly anywhere, and in most areas is not only losing market share but actually declining in numbers. The other trends in the world (increased females in the workplace, increased linked trips, increased prosperity, increased telecommuting, increased variable work schedules (4-10s, etc), all have more than offset any tendency for the HOVs to make car-pooling or transit more desirable. The social engineers solution, more HOV lanes. It isn't working. Time to build roads. Good old all- American non-discriminatory, any licensed driver can use them, roads.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 28, 2000.



Paul,

Less than three months. That's how long it took for you to start complaining about the consequences of your support for 695.

You should actually take the time to drive the 167 corridor before you draw conclusions. There are two major choke points that cause backups on that road: 1. The 405-167 interchange in Renton; and 2. The end of the HOV lane in north Auburn near Emerald Downs. These two areas are where the backups consistently occur, every single day.

The 405 interchange is a mess for two reasons: 1. because it difficult to get onto 405 in all directions because of that old- school clover leaf design where cars constantly merge into each other; and 2. Because 167 ends with a stoplight, which obviously causes big backups for people moving north into Renton. Pretty much any freeway that ends with a stoplight is going to cause backups, and there's really no way to solve that problem.

Southbound on 167 backups usually go into Kent because of the end of the HOV lane. Traffic usually moves relatively smoothly until that lane ends.

Pre-695, the state was planning to correct both these problems by rebuilding the 4 leaf clover 405-167 interchange and extending the HOV lanes from their current end all the way into Pierce County. Of course 695 defunded these projects, so now the state doesn't have the funding to complete them.

It was your choice. You voted for 695, and said you didn't want to fund these projects that were ready to get started. Now you're complaining because 167 is congested. You can't have it both ways.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 28, 2000.


Your WSDOT at work. Let's FIRE Sid Morrison!

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/regions/northwest/hovpage/Conversion.htm? General Purpose Lane Conversion to HOV Policy 1 When proposing projects to address capacity deficiencies, one of the alternatives to be considered shall be the conversion of a general purpose lane to an HOV lane.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 28, 2000.


B:

Hate to break it to ya, but these changes were implemented pre 695. I win, you lose.

Next

"You should actually take the time to drive the 167 corridor before you draw conclusions."

I do drive the 167 corridor, just not on a commuter basis. And it's a mess even then.

Next: "The end of the HOV lane in north Auburn near Emerald Downs. "

I'm glad you see things my way, B. See my previous post... no, I'll quote it for ya:

I wrote: "...and discussed that HOV lanes in certain areas force or induce more panic lane changing and exit and onramp clogs due to people who have to suddenly get over from an HOV lane..."

You also write that pre695, the state was planning to correct these problems. They should have corrected those problems in the previous construction snarl that lasted far longer than it should have, but they didn't. According to my co-workers who drive 167, twice a day, the construction project was a two phase job which totalled over 3 YEARS of time. Time wasted, in the opinion of all those I know who commute that every day. In fact, as one co-worker commented on your posting... "why would he even say something like that???". But that's neither here nor there...

I also noticed that you failed to comment on the meat of my message which was HOV lanes don't affect the behaviour changes to which they were originally intended. Nor do they affect overall traffic, except for pushing already existing hov traffic into the hov lanes, and squeezing all the single occ. vehicles into the other non hov lanes.

167 needed an extra gp lane, not an extra off limits lane because, as everyone will attest, there was no noticeable change in traffic pattern.

In summation, by Patrick's original logic, if you made MORE hov lanes, then traffic would decrease. Whereas my rebuttal to that is, that what you would do is disperse already existing hov traffic into more lanes, and leave the ever growing single occupancy vehicle traffic in its original predicament.

You see, B, it's not always about what government does, it's about what they do badly. I guarantee that some of those 167 commuters that work here might not have been so angry and voted for 695 if after 3 years of driving in a traffic/construction nightmare, they actually got to use the lane for which they paid. See the connection???

You think their problems are BECAUSE of 695, whereas they percieve (and rightly so) that their problems are IN SPITE of 695.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), January 28, 2000.


Paul,

You write:

>>I do drive the 167 corridor, just not on a commuter basis. And it's a mess even then.<<

As I said, there are two choke points, at least during commute times: the 405-167 interchange and the end of the southbound HOV lane at NW 15th St. in Auburn. Both were going to be fixed by the state under R- 49. Because you passed 695, you told the state that you didn't want to fund those projects anymore. If you wouldn't have passed 695, it wouldn't have been a mess for much longer.

Any time I've driven 167 during non-commute times, it hasn't been at all congested, so I'm not sure how you can determine that it's a mess if you don't drive it when you commute.

>>I wrote: "...and discussed that HOV lanes in certain areas force or induce more panic lane changing and exit and onramp clogs due to people who have to suddenly get over from an HOV lane...<<

Once again, you should actually drive 167 before you draw conclusions. The HOV lane ends probably 1/2 to 1 mile before the NW 15 St. exit. It's in the lefthand lane, and it turns into a general purpose lane. The right hand lane turns into an exit only lane, but there's a fair amount of time where the freeway's got three southbound general purpose lanes, meaning that there is no sudden merge mess.

>>According to my co-workers who drive 167, twice a day, the construction project was a two phase job which totalled over 3 YEARS of time. Time wasted, in the opinion of all those I know who commute that every day.<<

Time wasted? The backup southbound on 167 used to start in North Kent. Now it starts in North Auburn, about three or four miles to the south. If the HOV lanes had been extended into Pierce County, as they were supposed to be before you took away the funding, the backup might very well have gone away. Seems to me that the time was well spent in moving congestion choke points further and further south, with the eventual goal of getting rid of them altogether.

>>167 needed an extra gp lane, not an extra off limits lane because, as everyone will attest, there was no noticeable change in traffic pattern.<<

As I stated above, there was a change in traffic pattern, but since you don't actually drive the corridor, you probably don't know about it. It's my understanding that the HOV lanes were also at least partially funded by federal money which would not have been there for general purpose lanes.

While I don't doubt that there is a need for another GP lane, I also think that given the choice of building an HOV lane or nothing, you build the HOV lane.

In any case, the biggest congestion problem in the 167 corridor is the interchange with 405. As I stated before, the state was going to fix it under R-49, but you told them that you didn't want to pay for it, so now they're back to square one.

You made the choice to pull the funding, and now you complain because the state isn't building projects that you pulled the funding for. Oh well.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), February 01, 2000.


to BB and Paul: Yes, that's a point the roadbuilders conspicuously avoid, an HOV lane represents increased capacity. Hence, it represents a decent compromise between those who want to increase capacity and those who want to subsidize ridesharing.

I can understand Paul's concern, since HOV lanes would appear to be stupid when there is very little GP capacity. If 167 was a 10-lane highway, then having a couple of the lanes being HOV might not be so offensive. But, with only six lanes, it's not clear that the HOV lanes actually mitigate congestion, especially in the north-bound direction.

I'm not familiar with bus routes which may ply the HOV lanes of 167. So, I don't know if one could expect significantly more congestion if subsidies to transit were completely eliminated.

I know from my own experience that I-5 nortbound in Pierce County would probably encounter significantly greater congestion, if transit subsidies were eliminated. This would be particularly true between Hwy 16 and the Puyallup River Bridge.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 02, 2000.



FYI:

Vance acts to head off Eyman on the HOV lane Proposal would open them to all at off-peak hours Monday, February 7, 2000 By NEIL MODIE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER A King County councilman wants restrictions loosened on freeway car-pool lanes to short-circuit a proposed initiative that would do away with such lanes and cripple mass transit programs. Councilman Chris Vance will introduce a motion today asking the state Transportation Commission to allow all motorists to use high-occupancy vehicle lanes during non-peak hours: at midday, nights and weekends. An aide to County Executive Ron Sims said Sims is "intrigued by the idea" and is working on it with Vance, who believes a majority of the council would support it. But the state Department of Transportation believes flexible HOV hours would confuse motorists, complicate enforcement, cause accidents, disrupt bus schedules and require spending millions of dollars on variable-message freeway signs.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 08, 2000.


to Craig: The carpool entrance to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in the westbound direction only applies from 3 PM to 7 PM. I'm not sure how much the sign cost, maybe $10?

Personally, I've observed no problem with accidents, bus routes, or enforcement. Apparently, the police know when to set up shop and rake in the bucks. Perhaps, the police who work the Tacoma Narrows are part an elite corps of state troopers.

But, if the WSDOT says there are obstacles with other HOV lanes, then it must be so. No words can describe their competence, responsiveness, humility, or incorruptibility.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 08, 2000.


Matt-

This dogma is repeated throughout the pro-transit literature, that HOV lanes must be kept sacrosanct because they are REALLY destined for HOT (busways only) as the number of passengers/vehicle are gradually increased over time. The fear is that those people in non- transit vehicles will gradually believe that they own these lanes, just because they've paid for them, and want to make use of them.

Read the website I posted above (http://www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/retk.html ) for all the sordid details.

Note also that the authors are a couple of locals.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 08, 2000.


County councilman says HOV lanes an untapped resource Tuesday, February 08, 2000

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

By Dean A. Radford Journal Reporter

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Solo Eastside drivers could use the carpool lanes on State Route 520 as well as Interstate 405 and I-90 under a proposal by a King County Councilman.

Chris Vance wants the state to open up some of the carpool lanes on local freeways during nonpeak hours to ease traffic congestion.

His suggested freeways also include Interstate 5 and SR-167. However, he wouldn't include the carpool lane on SR 167 as it enters Renton because to do so could create a bottleneck as the freeway narrows to two lanes.

In addition, the measure calls on the state to better utilize the reversible lanes on I-90 and I-5 on weekends and for special events to help reduce congestion.

The state Department of Transportation currently restricts use of the lanes by single-occupancy vehicles at all times.

`` The HOV lanes are real assets, and the state should open them to alleviate traffic whenever and wherever possible. If you open them, they will come,'' said Vance, who leads the council's Transportation Committee.

Vance, of Auburn, introduced the measure at the County Council meeting yesterday. He's hoping for bipartisan support from the council -- and the county executive.

`` The executive's office is intrigued,'' said Elaine Kraft, a spokeswoman for Executive Ron Sims. ``We are willing to sit down and look at it, you bet.''

Vance admits that comparisons are being made to a Tim Eyman-sponsored initiative that would basically open carpool lanes to traffic at all hours.

He can't support such a plan because the state would have to reimburse the federal government for its share of the carpool lanes, and because buses would get stuck in traffic without their wide-open lane. EXCEPT NEW JERSEY FOUND IT REAL EASY TO GET WAIVERS WHEN THEY CONVERTED HOV LANES TO GP LANES, AND DIDN'T HAVE TO REFUND ANY FEDERAL HIGHWAY BUCKS.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 08, 2000.


to Craig: I read the paper you referenced, and it just confirms my belief that any NEW road construction should be part of a parallel, tolled network of roads. This, I believe, would facilitate your desire for privitization of transit (i.e., buses) agencies.

My community will not have the option of paying a toll OR sit in a traffic. We will pay a toll AND sit in traffic.

I found the paper to be contradictory, as it really doesn't like the idea of long-haul buses, anyway. Apparently, we are supposed to live in a highly, densely populated area, where the surface streets have "bus-only" (light rail?) lanes. So, why build HOV lanes on the interstate, or convert GP lanes to HOV lanes, if, in the final analysis, there should not be long-haul buses.

As I've mentioned before, the most important element of ridesharing is the level of financial subsidy society provides. An HOV lane is nice, but not as important as society paying for the capital cost of the rideshare vehicle. Of course, the existence of a comprehensive network of HOV lanes will further encourage people to rideshare. So, theoretically, as the network of HOV lanes expands, one might expect the ridesharer to pay more of the capital cost, rather than just the operating costs. For ridesharers, the choice is between time and money. From my own personal experience, I have not observed a willingness on people to pay 10% more for a 10% savings in the time in their commute. Therefore, I conclude that money has a higher priority than time.

But, unfortunately, if our vanpool took longer to get to work because of the coversion of the HOV lane, then we may have to consider dropping the last stop, which adds mileage (cost) and time. So, I would predict a decrease of 20 - 30% of ridesharers if we convert the HOV lanes to GP lanes.

Again, I recommend that all NEW road construction be part of a tolled network or roads, paralleling the existing roads. Then, we can all make a choice - sit in traffic or pay the toll. The network of tolled roads could be auctioned off as a 5-year franchise to the highest bidder. So, the marketplace would determine the level of pricing, and there would be minimal growth in the existing governmental beauracracy. If society received more money from the auction of the tolled roads than the cost to build the roads, then more tolled roads could appear over a shorter period of time.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 09, 2000.


"Patrick, "overweight egotist of a legislator?" This is the second time you have referred to Benton in this manner. What has being overweight got to do with it? Do you also insult developmentally disabled? This is bigotry at it's worst. If you are not intelligent enough to find a better description, then you are truly an ass. I find your bigotry offensive and I believe your posts should be boycotted with no response, unless you apologize."

Whoa there Marsha! "Bigotry at its worst"? Looks like Patrick has discovered your Achilles Heal (He probably found it before you did). Me's thinks that you protesteth to much! "If you are not intelligent enough to find a better description, then you are truly an ass."

Yeah Patrick! Of all the nerve! Why cant you be intelligent enough to find a better description? Try Marsha's "intelligent description": "ASS"

You dont leave the trailer that often, do you Marsha?

-- Aaron Richards (bigbass@hotmail.com), February 09, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ