Hey, We Paid For Those HOV Lanes. Who Are You To Tell Me I Can't Drive In Them.

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

I firmly believe that my rights as a taxpayer are being violated by the HOV restriction. Whereas a portion of my tax dollars, like yours (state & federal) have been used to build ALL the lanes. I feel discriminated against as there is apparant favortism towards a minority of commuters vs. the MAJORITY. I would approve of however, if we take the HOV lanes,redirect their purpose and build them for "Commercial Traffic" i.e. Class-7 & Class 8 trucks. Commercial vehicles pay a huge sum of taxdollars for road construction and maintenance. Let them go. Free up the right lane restriction so "LOCAL" commuters have easier access and departure from the interstate. It is in our best interest that consumer & industrial goods make their destinations on-time. Let's free up commercial surface transportation so those drivers can get the products to market.

Doug Masser Fineline Transportation Services, Inc.

-- Doug Masser (dougmasser@earthlink..net), February 09, 2000

Answers

The real intent of the pro-HOV people is to ultimately convert these to HOT (transit only) lanes. This will be the ultimate irony since the taxes to build these lanes will disproportionately be paid by people who use the GP lanes while the buses will ride essentially free, despite being 30 ton behemoths that tear up the road equivalent to a 30 ton truck.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 09, 2000.

So wait, you think it's discrimination to have a lane dedicated towards high occupancy vehicles, but for some reason it wouldn't be discrimination for a lane dedicated to commercial vehicles? Basically what you're saying is that you only approve of discrimination if it helps you?

And Craig, as a HOV advocate, I DO NOT fall under your broad swath of wanting to turn the lanes into transit only.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 09, 2000.


to Doug: I'm all for having a separate highway system for large trucks. Then, we'd find out exactly how much wear and tear you guys really do cause. If it turns out we're not charging you enough, then we can raise your fees even more.

Personally, most of the problems I encounter during the commute are related to large trucks. It is extremely dangerous to mix large trucks with smaller vehicles, especially when the trucks are travelling at speeds significantly different from the cars.

Many times, when I get off of I-5 to Hwy 16, I encounter trucks barely going over 40 MPH, while the rest of us are barreling along at 60 MPH. How many times has a large truck jack-knifed on I-5 by the Tacoma Dome on I-5? I'm not saying it's the truckers' fault, but it happens.

The Port of Tacoma on-ramp to I-5 southbound is uphill and fairly short, and I've never seen large trucks merge onto I-5 at comparable speeds to the existing traffic, when the traffic is moving at full speed. This is a recipe for disaster and/or congestion.

By the way, if you believe your rights are being violated, then, by all means, take your case to court. It certainly did the community of Gig Harbor a lot of good.

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


HOT - High Occupancy Toll lanes. For use by Transit,HOV, and SOV drivers willing to pay a toll. Also known by their detractors as the "Lexus Lanes".

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), February 10, 2000.

If roads were constructed to accommodate large vehicles, the issue of US tearing up the roads would be solved. The fact is, everything you own, rent and/or use including the asphault and concrete that makes up the roads you drive on, comes by truck. As for a truck doing 40mph while your going 60mph can only be explained as the truck is probably carrying 44,000 lbs. of the fancy bottled water you drink or parts for your "high dollar" vehicle. Whatever the case, if we put commercial traffic out to the far left lanes, trucks will move right along and gladly stay out of everyone elses way. Truck Drivers are PROFESSIONAL drivers that specialize in driving. Who knows more and has more time to solve traffic problems than those who drive each & everyday as a primary function of their profession. I'm not at all asking to discriminate against another however, I for one either say, let the commercial traffic have the lanes(build for the weight) or Open the HOV lanes to us all. As for the carpoolers who use the HOV lanes, "use them, stay in them and quit darting in & out when they become i n c o v e n i e n t for you."

I hope this clearifies my position. Thank you for your responses.

Doug

-- Doug Masser (dougmasser@earthlink..net), February 10, 2000.



http://home.earthlink.net/~malli/hoved.html HOV Lanes - Their Time Has Expired When HOV restricted lanes ("High-Occupancy", "Carpool Lanes", or "Diamond Lanes") were first proposed in the mid-'70s it seemed like a pretty reasonable idea. Restricting a lane to carpools, would reduce congestion in that lane and offer an incentive for people to form more carpools. This would reduce the number of vehicles on the road, thereby reducing overall congestion, polluting emissions and fuel consumption. Orange County set forth to lead the nation in HOV lanes, with over 200 lane-miles currently operational or planned. But now, 20 years later, there still has been no proof, here or elsewhere, that HOV lanes accomplish any of those fundamental objectives. And the simple rationale above, neglects adverse effects on the other lanes which may well outweigh the obvious benefits to the HOV lane occupants. It may seem that it would be simple to measure before- and after- conditions to determine how much congestion and air quality are improved by the lanes. But, in practice, this has not happened. In fact, making such a measurement validly may be impossible. The reason for this is that it takes a long time - several years for whatever carpooling might be motivated by the lane incentive to fully develop. In the meantime, population growth, business and housing expansion, and economic conditions are almost certain to cause changes that mask the much smaller effects of an HOV lane. Census statistics show that whatever additional carpooling the lanes may have caused, has not been enough to have any measurable impact on the long-term downtrend of fraction of persons carpooling. Lacking any such direct proof, HOV lane advocates have put forth several misleading half-truth arguments such as "The HOV lane is carrying twice as many people as a regular lane and doing so in fewer cars." A little thought will show that such arguments: 1) measure only the separation of HOV and non-HOV vehicles among the lanes; itself a provably adverse effect on overall congestion; 2) fail to consider the adverse occupancy and congestion effects on the other lanes; and 3) misleadingly suggest, but in no way prove HOV lane benefits. So how can we know? Fortunately we no longer have to guess. In the last twenty years, significant advances have been made in our quantitative understanding of the basic effects that govern HOV lane success or failure including: - the amount of additional carpooling motivated by given time-savings; - the effect of changes in traffic volume on travel-time; and - the effect of changes in traffic volume and congestion on polluting emissions. Comprehensive computerized Traffic Planning Models ("TPM"s) take all this accumulated understanding of the fundamentals into account objectively. Most major cities in the US, and Southern California, and Orange County have developed and proven the effectiveness of such TPM models in studying the relative benefits of various transportation system physical or operational changes on congestion and emissions. Almost unanimously, the verdict of such models is that unrestricted lane operation is far superior to HOV operation in every congestion, air-quality, and energy consumption measure. The reason is simple if not obvious. In choosing to operate a lane as HOV, the adverse effect of extra traffic imposed on the other lanes almost always far outweighs the beneficial effect on the HOV lane. Immutable laws of traffic engineering dictate that this is so. Last year the Orange County Transportation authority completed a $3.1 million dollar "Major Investment Study" using their "OCTAM" TPM model. Comparing Mixed flow to physically comparable HOV lanes, Mixed Flow was found to provide 7 times more total travel time reduction 2.5 times more freeway decongestion 2 times more arterial decongestion, and 12 times more reduction of Carbon Monoxide emissions,

all at 1/2 the total net cost of HOV lanes. This year the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") in their Draft 1998 Regional Transportation Plan found mixed flow lane additions would provide more than three times the total benefit of comparable HOV lane additions. Similar results have been found in fundamental studies at UC Berkeley, and in environmental studies for the SR-55, SR-57, and SR-91 freeway expansions in Orange County. My own studies of the SR-55 on several different data-sets, with three different analytic approaches have all shown that HOV operation wastes typically half the potential lane person-carrying capacity. Orange County HOV lanes are wasting the equivalent of 100 lane-miles of new freeway, ($800 million in replacement cost), and directly responsible for County -wide congestion of some 50 million person-hours ($500 million per year in hidden costs to County residents). That's serious waste, even in Orange County. OCTA, staff and directors have invested a great deal of money, and political capital in the nation's foremost HOV network. They are understandably reluctant to abandon this course without strong evidence. But that evidence now exists, much of it produced by OCTA themselves. But OCTA ignores that best evidence. In the face of a serious looming capacity shortfall, congestion, and irrefutable evidence of HOV wasted capacity and unnecessary pollution, and energy consumption, it is well past time to correct this misuse of our freeways. Jack Mallinckr

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), February 12, 2000.


to Mark: Let's open up the HOV lanes every Tuesday and Thursday for two months. Then we'll have some real data to review. With the data in hand, let the affected voters (e.g., King, Snohomish, and Pierce) decide for themselves.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 13, 2000.

"to Mark: Let's open up the HOV lanes every Tuesday and Thursday for two months. Then we'll have some real data to review. With the data in hand, let the affected voters (e.g., King, Snohomish, and Pierce) decide for themselves."

Let's just open them up. They were paid for with everyone's tax dollars, not just HOV users, not just voters from Pierce and Snohomish, not just with the tax dollars of people who drive on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

I see no better rationale for saying that only this particular group can use them than saying that only Caucasians or African Americans or only men or only women or only Democrats or only Republicans can use them. Who paid for them? Everybody. Time to stop the discriminati

-- (Mark842@hotmail.com), February 13, 2000.


to Mark: If the voters of Pierce, King, & Snohomish counties vote to open up the carpool lanes to all, then so be it. Personally, as a voter, I would like some real data on what will happen.

As for your argument about who paid for them, this is philosophical. I didn't pay for anything I use, since I only moved here a few years ago.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 14, 2000.


Matthew,

The voters of KING, PIERCE and SNOHOMISH Counties are not the only ones who paid for HOV lanes. So why should they be the only ones to vote for it?

As for data, take the time to read all the data at http://home.earthlink.net/~malli/ It certainly convinced me all HOV lanes should be open.

Excellant find Mark!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 14, 2000.



to Marsha: Who the hell did pay for the HOV lanes?? It surely wasn't me. So, should we have a NATIONAL vote on the HOV lanes in King County??

I went to the website, and I can't say I was convinced one way or the other. There are no carpool lanes on I-5 in Pierce County. So, it's almost a moot issue. Even the website concedes that a HOV lane is better than no lane at all.

In the case of the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge, there will be a carpool lane which is about 2 miles in length. I don't care if you make it a GP lane or not, during rush-hour periods, the 2-mile lane will be a source of congestion and accidents. Only if you limit the lane to buses only will you enhance safety, and this primarily due to the fact there is very little transit on Hwy 16.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 15, 2000.


Matt-

Is there any possibility that you could QUIT WHINING ABOUT THE NARROWS BRIDGE?

Maybe just until March or something?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 15, 2000.


to Zowie: Where did I "whine" about the Narrows Bridge? Would you feel better if I talked about the HOV lane on the 520 bridge?? If you open it up to all traffic, you will have an extremely unsafe condition.

Could you stop whining about someone else's alleged whining?? At least until after my birthday (in July)?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 17, 2000.


"Where did I "whine" about the Narrows Bridge?"

I've begun to wonder if you've multiple personalities. I suppose it hinges on the meaning of whine.

"Would you feel better if I talked about the HOV lane on the 520 bridge??"

Only if you promise to stop beating your dead horse.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), February 17, 2000.


to Brad: Provide the quote where I'm whining about the Narrows Bridge. I was merely using the proposed Narrows Bridge design as an example of how opening up the HOV lane will not reduce congestion. I could've just as easily used Hwy 520 as an example.

My point is that opening up the HOV lane in ALL cases is bad public policy.

Apparently, when someone makes a valid point against opening up ALL HOV lanes, people like you and Zowie have to resort to name-calling (i.e., whiner). I guess I should be flattered that you are unable to apply logic to pick my point of view apart.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 17, 2000.



to Brad: Provide the quote where I'm whining about the Narrows Bridge. I was merely using the proposed Narrows Bridge design as an example of how opening up the HOV lane will not reduce congestion. I could've just as easily used Hwy 520 as an example."

Let me see if I have this right, I'm to provide a quote showing you whining about the Tacoma Narrows Bridge because (presumably) you don't think you have. Ummm, I guess I mistakenly thought you represented mono-maniacal opposition to the new bridge and it's associated tolls.

"My point is that opening up the HOV lane in ALL cases is bad public policy."

Ummm, it might be, but I wasn't responding to that point.

Regarding the HOV lanes, I believe they don't affect congestion now. Furthermore, I don't think they congestion would be affected if they were open to all traffic. IOW, I don't particularly care *either* way.

"Apparently, when someone makes a valid point against opening up ALL HOV lanes, people like you and Zowie have to resort to name-calling (i.e., whiner). I guess I should be flattered that you are unable to apply logic to pick my point of view apart."

Yep, you got me. Feel free to flatter yourself in the future.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), February 17, 2000.


"to Zowie: Where did I "whine" about the Narrows Bridge? " "to Brad: Provide the quote where I'm whining about the Narrows Bridge"

By the way, if you believe your rights are being violated, then, by all means, take your case to court. It certainly did the community of Gig Harbor a lot of good.

This may spell the demise of the new Narrows bridge. As the private investors were counting on being able to squelch the threat of competition via the WSDOT stranglehold of transportation alternatives. Yahoo! There is justice, after all.

If we defer the Narrows Bridge project, the $525 million could become $575 million. -- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 17, 2000.

YOU'RE RIGHT MATT, YOU DON'T WHINE .................MUCH.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.


Personally, I think most everything I post, consists of some element of whining.....STOP! STOP! Hey wait, come back here, that's MY money your stealing to pay for your pork!

I prefer Matthew's whining (yes Matthew, you did whine. Please don't make me go back through all those threads to prove it. You would only defend yourself by saying you didn't consider it to be whining.) to someone with a real lack of common sense, posting outrageous garbage based on misconceptions etc. (Like Craig has recently been accused of the serious offense of being a Traffic Engineer?) The Narrows Bridge is not exactly off topic....IMO. The congestion there affects a large population. It should be part of the discussion. HOV related and all.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.


Marsha-

I didn't insist that he NOT whine. I just asked for a moratorium. Just until March 1. Just about the Narrows. I even AGREE with him about the Narrows. It was a gerrymandered election and the DOT ought to be horse-whipped for it (Just hyperbole, thought police, it really isn't possible to horse-whip an organization) (Just an expression PETA people, I LOVE horses and other companion animals. Anyone who would abuse an animal ought to be shot) (Just kidding, thought police. Just humoring those crazy PETA types) (Didn't mean anything by the "crazy" comment, mental health advocates, just an expression) (Damn I hate this politically correct stuff) I'd just like to not hear about it for a few weeks.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.


zowie,

Fair enough. Does this mean I can't whine about my wasted tax dollars?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.


You can whine about anything but the Narrows. And after 1 Mar, you can even whine about that.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.

to Zowie: You still haven't shown where I've whined on THIS thread, started by Doug Masser. I'm providing an argument on why it doesn't always make sense to open up ALL HOV lanes. I happen to use the proposed Narrows Bridge as an example.

I'll concede that on other threads, I may come across as whiney. But, not on this thread. If you can't present a logical argument on why ALL HOV lanes should be opened up, that's your problem. Don't call me a whiner on THIS thread.

You can call me a whiner on some other thread, and I'll defend my argument in the context of that thread.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 17, 2000.


Matthew,

Are you to stupid to understand Mark's post or what? Read it again! Then point me to data you have that proves your point, if you can.

As usual, you only care about congestion that affects Matthew. The fact that changing HOV lanes to mixed use reduces congestion for everyone, and reduces pollution, threatens your narcissistic little self.

If you can't present a logical argument on why ALL HOV lanes shouldn't be opened up, that's your problem!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ