A.P. news item in this morning's Eastside Journal.

"The federal government is warning Washington state not to open its freeway carpool lanes to all motorists, an idea increasingly popular with state lawmakers and the subject of a new initiative by Tim Eyman. A recent letter from the Federal Highway Administration warns that the state might be forced to repay hundreds of millions in federal dollars if it abandons the original purpose of building the new diamond lanes." Ie., if you suck up to the Federal trough you're basically selling your soul to them.

And another item in yesterdays Times: State is going to close a number of rest stops along I-5 and I-90.

They are really starting to play rough now.

My recommendation regarding the Federal Highway Administration would be to send them the money, advising them (nicely, of course) where they could put it.

-- Albert Fosha (AFosha@aol.com), February 17, 2000

Answers

Careful Al- Someone will be suggesting to the webmaster that you've made a THREAT and recommending the FBI be called.

Gee, New Jersey called their bluff on this one, and I'd recommend we do the same.

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

Sounds like a case of discrimination to me. Let's sue the the feds!

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

Yes, that's the problem with Tim Eyman's initiative, it provides no objective rationale for when we should open up the HOV lanes to all vehicles.

For example, I perceive the HOV lanes on I-405 to be underutilized, so I can see how opening up those would improve traffic flow.

The best approach is to open up ALL the carpool lanes every Tuesday and Thursday for two months. Then, society would possess some type of data on which to make a decision. Who knows, even the Feds might be impressed with the data, too??!

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

The WHOLE story behind the New Jersey exemption (which either Eyman hasn't looked up, or doesn't want to have people find out) is that there was a provision in the TEA-21 bill passed a few years back that specifically allowed New Jersey to not pay back the Federal funding on the HOV lanes it built IF it could determine that the lanes were not easing congestion and air polution. Washington does not have this provision, nor could it probably prove that the HOV lanes aren't helping in this state. It WAS NOT a matter of New Jersey "calling the Federal government's bluff."

As for the HOV lanes on 405, another study isn't needed. At NE 72nd St. the HOV lane southbound carries about 27% more people than the average GP lane, and almost 50% more people in the northbound HOV lane. At 112th Place SE the northbound HOV lane carries about 70% more people and the southbound HOV lane about 84% more people than their GP lane counterparts.

By no coincidence though, there was an article in today's Times that mentions how opening up the HOV lanes at various times to all traffic would probably be the worst idea since it would add confusion and almost certainly more congestion.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 17, 2000.

"As for the HOV lanes on 405, another study isn't needed. At NE 72nd St. the HOV lane southbound carries about 27% more people than the average GP lane, and almost 50% more people in the northbound HOV lane. At 112th Place SE the northbound HOV lane carries about 70% more people and the southbound HOV lane about 84% more people than their GP lane counterparts. " Which really doesn't mean anything. You have stratified your sample (ie, intentionally run all your buses in one lane) which OF COURSE WILL INCREASE NUMBERS FOR THAT LANE. It doesn't necessarily indicate that the congestion would be less if that statification were eliminated. It might be, it might not be. You'd have to do the test. If there's remaining excess capacity in the HOV lane, it well might decrease congestion to transfer HOVs into it.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 17, 2000.

Craig wirtes, in part:

"You have stratified your sample (ie, intentionally run all your buses in one lane) which OF COURSE WILL INCREASE NUMBERS FOR THAT LANE..."

So - am I now to accept as true that a bus is not an HOV?

This reminds me of the 4-H youth at the county fair that once told me that she did NOT have a horse - it was an Arabian.

-- Curious George (---@---.---), February 17, 2000.

Numbers...shumbers...statistics....majistics...Help Patrick! I'm confused! I can't think! Oh what to do!

Just open the lanes to all traffic at all times. 2 years ago the Feds tried their bully tactics of "repayment" on a Southeast US state which opened their HOV lanes. They quietly went back to DC.....

-- Doug (dgoar14@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.

"So - am I now to accept as true that a bus is not an HOV? " Who said that? What nefarious thing did you think I was implying?

But according to the TRAC, a very high percentage of HOV passenger miles come from bus riders. That shouldn't surprise anyone, only about 9% of people carpool to work, even when there are HOV lanes. As the anti-HOV urban planners and the KingCo planning office metrics indicate, the majority of cars (as opposed to buses) using HOV lanes are family groups, who would likely have ridden together with or without the HOV lane. Matt and a few other carpoolers notwithstanding, the primary users of HOV lanes are bus riders and families.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 17, 2000.

Average number of people per car in the HOV lane at NE 72nd St Southbound= 2.5 Northbound= 2.4

Average number of people per car in the HOV lane at 112th Place SE Northbound= 2.3 Southbound= 2.5

Still want to contend that these are buses skewing the results?

I'll note that the SR 520 at Hunts Point study found the average vehicle occupancy in the HOV lane to be 11.3. THERE you can contend that the majority were in buses, but this is the only place the data supports this theory

The studies were done at peak hours of the morning and afternoon commute times during the work week.

Still want to contend that these are families? I know I tend to take family trips through the Seattle Metro area at 7:00 in the morning.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 17, 2000.

To me it sounds like two adults with 1 child, on the way to drop off the child at daycare and proceed to drop 1 adult at work and then go to work themselves.

Or mom taking 2 kids to private school.

Or an individual taking a family member to sea-tac.

Or some retired couple going out for breakfast.

Or some teens on the way to early sports training.

Or a few friends on the way to the gym.

Or a cab with fare.

Or maybe even two co-workers carpooling because they don't want to waste time with busses and vanpools.

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

Patrick-

"Average number of people per car in the HOV lane at NE 72nd St Southbound= 2.5 Northbound= 2.4 Average number of people per car in the HOV lane at 112th Place SE Northbound= 2.3 Southbound= 2.5 " I don't get your point. There can hardly be LESS than 2.o. They'd get tickets. Do you mean these are the average number per VEHICLE or the average number per car?

"Still want to contend that these are families? I know I tend to take family trips through the Seattle Metro area at 7:00 in the morning." I posted this just a few days ago. It's from the 1995 NPTS: (http://www-cta.ornl.gov/npts/1995/doc/NPTS_Booklet.pdf)

- Commute trips are in the minority, even during rush hour In examining the work trip as a component of total travel, it is useful to compare work trips by time of day with trips for all other purposes. There is a common perception that most of the trips made during the traditional "rush hour" are for commuting to work. The survey results show that the work trip share during these times is smaller than expected. Approximately 37 percent of trips for all purposes start during the two rush hour periods, defined here as 6am to 9am and 4pm to 7pm. Only 10 percent of trips for all purposes are work trips starting these two periods. Less than one out of three person trips starting during rush hour are trips to or from work. This seemingly small share of work trips probably reflect trip chaining, where stops are made on the way to or from another destination, like the workplace. In NPTS, these stops are counted as separate trips, and labeled with the appropriate purpose. As steps are taken to improve the survey to capture more of these incidental trips, it is likely that the work share will continue to decline.

And from indicator 43 of the King County benchmark metrics: http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/orpp/benchmrk/bench99/99-bm-ch5.pdf

% The high proportion of trips using the HOV mode (33.0% in 1997) is characteristic of daily travel. Looking at all trips, family members frequently accompany the adult driver on shopping, recreation, and other trip types. Peak hour HOV usage is approximately 20% of all person trips. % In 1997 the split in the mode of transportation for all day travel was: Transit: 5.7%; High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Carpool: 33%; Non-Motorized/Other: 6.9%; Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV): 54.4%. % 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. % The U.S. 1990 Census reports the countyUs mode split for work trips as 74% SOV, 12% HOV, 9% transit, and 5% by non-motorized modes. These figures apply to peak hour travel, and cannot be compared to the all day data reported in the table for this Indicator.

I am not trying to pick a ight with these figures. Just pointing out that the vast majority of HOV users would have not been in an SOV anyway. A 12% HOV mode share just isn't a real impressive number, and if you back out the transit people and the family groups, that's all you get. If you aren't counting transit, you're dedicating a lane for one-eighth of the commuters. Maybe not unreasonable if you have a 16 lane highway. Buses and family groups are what drive the numbers that make HOV look good on paper. Now maybe you can make a case that it's worth it for transit alone, and maybe you can make a case that HOV lanes are good because they support family values, but unless both the DOT and the KingCo office of planning (and a half dozen other agencies) are wrong, the number of people not in the same family who commute by carpool in rush hour by itself really is pretty trivial. Not saying they don't exist, just that unless the freeway is HUGE, they don't justify a dedicated lane.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 17, 2000.

to Craig: You write: "Not saying they don't exist, just that unless the freeway is HUGE, they don't justify a dedicated lane."

That's why I think that opening up the HOV lanes on I-405 or Hwy 167 would make a huge difference, because the total number of lanes isn't that great. Whereas, opening up the HOV lanes up the Southcenter Hill will provide very little benefit, if any. Likewise, opening up the carpool entrance to the Tacoma Narrows bridge will provide very little benefit. And, opening up the carpool lane on Hwy 520 is just plain dangerous.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 18, 2000.

Patrick--"Average number of people per car in the HOV lane at NE 72nd St Southbound= 2.5 Northbound= 2.4

Average number of people per car in the HOV lane at 112th Place SE Northbound= 2.3 Southbound= 2.5"

Since Craig was talking about buses and this references cars, this is a meaningless statistic. Of course, if car means cars&&buses then the statistic could be meaningful.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), February 18, 2000.

Many of the contributors to this forum have voiced their displeasure over transit and ferry subsidies.

Doesn't anyone think that these federal monies are in essence a road construction subsidy?

And if you believe that is so, shouldn't the money be repaid to the federal government as Mr. Fosha proposes (not necessarily in the method that he implies)?

Wouldn't it be hypocritical to try and keep the money?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), February 18, 2000.

"Likewise, opening up the carpool entrance to the Tacoma Narrows bridge will provide very little benefit. " It might be pointed out here for those unfamiliar with this area that the reason for an HOV lane at Jackson WAS NOT to expedite the flow of traffic during rush hour. The local communities objected to the large number of vehicles that would use small community streets to avoid highway 16, and wind up gridlocking neighborhoods not designed for this kind of volume, as they would leap-frog to the head of the line by getting on 16 at the last on-ramp before it went over the Narrows. The on ramp certainly couldn't be closed, but a compromise was struck to decrease the number of vehicles cutting through this area by making it an HOV on- ramp. It was only partially successful, since the local backup now just goes back an on-ramp, and all the HOV drivers (like Matt) continue to congest the Bridgeport area while the SOV back-up happens around Pearl and 6th. It decreased the problem in the Bridgeport area by moving it somewhere else, but it's unlikely the throughput has changed much (since the limiting factor is the bridge) and it's unlikely it has made much of a difference in car-pooling (it does nothing for the morning commute at all, and in the evening you can just back up to 6th street).

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 18, 2000.

"Many of the contributors to this forum have voiced their displeasure over transit and ferry subsidies." I have, certainly.

"Doesn't anyone think that these federal monies are in essence a road construction subsidy?" No. Someone might argue that the CAPITAL expenses are the equivalent of a grant for road construction, but it would be a stretch.

"And if you believe that is so, shouldn't the money be repaid to the federal government as Mr. Fosha proposes (not necessarily in the method that he implies)?" Heck no. Where do you think THEY got the money from? We already pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes in this state since citizens in states with income taxes are permitted to exclude that amount from their federal taxes but we are not allowed to exclude what we pay through an 8+% sales tax.

"Wouldn't it be hypocritical to try and keep the money?" Not hardly. My complaint about federal grants and matching funds is that they distort the market and induce you to make economic decisions that you wouldn't otherwise make that have short term gain and long- term adverse economic consequences. Despite the limitations of our legislature, I would much rather DECREASE THE MONEY SENT TO WASHINGTON DC AND INCREASE THE MONEY SENT TO OLYMPIA BY A CORRESPONDING AMOUNT. If I'm going to have fools and bureaucrats spending my money, I'd rather they were fools and bureaucrats that I can watch closely.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 18, 2000.

As it was pointed out, I did use the term "car" when describing the number of people in the HOV lanes. That was an error in terms. The average number of people was calculated by "vehicle" which does include cars, SUV's, motorcycles, buses, and any other motorized vehicle. I mentioned this statistic because Craig made the assumption that the reason why the HOV lanes carry significantly more people is because the buses skew the data. Since the data shows the average vehicle carrying about 2.5 people, it can be easily be assumed that buses do not skew the data, and that the average vehicle using the HOV lanes are private low occupancy (5 or less)vehicles.

As for the studies, first off, the NPTS study is a NATIONAL study which doesn't take into account the fact that many here have noted: Washington is pretty unique about its HOV policy. It takes the numbers from this state and combines them with the numbers from all the other states that either don't have HOV systems or have limited hour systems. If you're going to make an assumption of driving habits from a national study, you first have to make sure that the thing you are making an assumption about has the same characteristics as the study. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.

But for the sake of argument, let's look at those figures claiming a low number of "work" trips during the day. As the study points out, every time you stop someplace that counts as a trip. So say I start from home in the morning and stop off at McDonalds for an Egg McMuffin. I then go and pick up my dry cleaning. After that I stop to get gas. Then I go to work. According to the study I just completed 4 trips, 25% of which were work related, even though I would consider the whole thing just one big trip to work.

As for the King County study, the numbers themselves do not factor in all the people whose commute to work doesn't include a significant amount of HOV lanes to use (the data is 10 years old, which means a great deal of the HOV lanes now in use weren't even built). If you REALLY wanted to figure out how useful the lanes are, you'd figure out how many people who have access to them actually use them. I mean, counting the number of carpoolers on the Aurora Bridge won't exactly give you a good indication of the use of HOV lanes SINCE IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY!

But using the King County figures we can make at least a guestimate of the HOV commuter usefulness (even though the comparative data has a 10 year difference, and we really don't know if the county wide data on commuters vs. "others" holds true for these freeways). The data shows that 60% of all the peak hour HOV lane users are commuters (20% of all users are HOV users, and 12% of all work trips are HOV trips[12 is 60% of 20]). So if we factor out 40% of the people who aren't commuters 5 of the 10 spots they tested STILL move more people than the GP lanes, and two others are extremely close.

Again, this is comparing information that scientifically couldn't be used together, but for our informal discussion here does go to show that even with a 40% handicap, the HOV lanes still hold their own in terms of effectiveness.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 18, 2000.

Well let's see...we have all these stitistics on how many people per vehicle are in the HOV lane at any given time.

How do we get these figures? do we have people posted and counting all the vehicles and occupants? If so isn't that an awful lot of money to waste for NO GOOD REASON?

Do we have a sampling for five minutes at ten different spots? Then the information is bogus.

Either way the information is a waste of time and a waste of money.

Why don't we figure out how effective the HOV lanes and the SOV lanes would be if people were REQUIRED to use the designated lanes.

Like if there are two or more people in your vehicle you are REQUIRED to use the HOV lane.

Now Matthew would say "this is stupid"...well it's not stupid. On person vehicles are REQUIRED to use the SOV lanes..

And about your park and ride goodies....most of the people who use those do so because they don't want to pay exhorbitant parking rates... Not because a bus does the job better... Well some people should not be allowed to drive so the bus automatically does the job better.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), February 18, 2000.

"So say I start from home in the morning and stop off at McDonalds for an Egg McMuffin. I then go and pick up my dry cleaning. After that I stop to get gas. Then I go to work. According to the study I just completed 4 trips, 25% of which were work related, even though I would consider the whole thing just one big trip to work. " And this clearly illustrates why the demographics are moving against both transit and car-pooling. Trip-chaining as it is called is highly conducive to SOV use and causes marked decreases in transit and HOV use (at least in non-family group settings).

Another issue is really to what extent the HOV lanes ENCOURAGE car pooling and to what extent do they simply segregate into a slightly faster lane those individuals who would have been car pooling (or riding with their families) anyway. If the load factor in an HOV lane vehicle is 2.5 (compared with the average of 1.13 in a GP lane0 that is not a trivial increase in throughput, but it isn't huge either. It becomes a significant factor in total commute flow ONLY when you allow the GP lanes to congest to the point that their throughput goes DOWN do to stop and go driving. And even then, that will drive HOV speeds down due to "friction" effects (HOV drivers are reluctant to drive full speed alongside stopped GP cars for fear that another HOV will pull out from the GP lane) unless physical barriers separate the HOV from the GP lanes. In the absence of GP congestion, HOVs aren't much good. In the presence of GP congestion, they become less efficient. Seems like we ought to do something about GP congestion.

With regard to the "comparing apples and oranges comment" I didn't ddo that anymore than you have acknowledged doing above. I did it for the same reason that you did it. We do not have actual readings for this unique situation, and we are both trying to infer what is appropriate from such information as is available. I don't see any problem with doing that by either you or me, as long as we are honest with the limitations of the data and the assessments that can be drawn from the data. If the ANSWER were known with certainty, we wouldn't be debating it.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 18, 2000.

The effectiveness of HOV lanes has been discussed in other areas, but the original thread here was whether or not to repay federal funds if HOV lanes were open to all.

I had raise an issue that these federal funds basically constituted a government subsidy for road construction. And if that were so, then those who have voiced opinions against government subsidies should want to repay those federal funds.

Craig has been the only person to comment (indicating that it would be a stretch to consider these federal funds as a government subsidy). What about the rest of you who have voiced pro- and anti-subsidy opinions? Zowie? Marsha?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), February 18, 2000.

Well at the very least we don't appear to be at polar ends here. As I have stated in the past, I have no objections to new GP lane construction, and I agree that gridlocked GP lanes slows down the HOV lanes. With good reason of course. I've seen more than my fair share of people pull out of a dead stop in a GP lane right in front of a car in the HOV lane going 60 MPH. However, as I've also tried to point out, simply adding some new GP lanes or converting HOV lanes is not the panacea that a lot of people here seem to think it would be.

Congestion will always exist. Even with that multi-billion dollar "Big Dig" in Boston, they are expecting to only decrease the amount of congestion hours, NOT eliminate it (just wait, in 20 years when that system is maxed out, how fun will it be to try and expand a tunnel under water!). There are several places in the Seattle area where, unless we build about a dozen lanes in each direction, traffic will ALWAYS get backed up, and as the area grows in density, there will be more and more of these places. Since the dozen lane idea is neither fiscally nor politically (read: the citizens would hate it) feasible, there has to be some alternative solution to get people from point A to point B. And unless someone has a better idea, getting single people in single vehicles to join together for multiple people in single vehicles is pretty much the most practical solution out there. The "continue to build roads to ease congestion" argument is like a dog chasing its own tail. We are NEVER going to beat the congestion of SOV's, but if we try to do so at full speed we'll blow a LOT of money, pave over a LOT of green space, and not gain any headway out of it.

I do agree that there is not enough information to get a complete and accurate view of just how effective or ineffective HOV lanes are. For that reason alone I'd be against getting rid of HOV lanes. Getting back to New Jersey, they got their ducks in a row FIRST, doing studies on congestion relief and air quality, AND THEN decided to eliminate most(if I'm not mistaken, some HOV lanes still exist there) of the HOV lanes. Again, that is why the Federal government didn't demand its money back. NJ was able to show that in its case (and I haven't seen how they did it) HOV lanes did not have the intended benefits. As of right now all Tim Eyman can do is try to play off the "I don't want to listen to studies since they might prove my preconceptions wrong" attitudes so excellently portrayed from our man maddjak (gotta love that "what other info is there, NO WAIT, it's stupid anyway" kind of response) by winging out completely basely claims and hope people believe him because he's Tim. It all comes back to that on-line registration thing again. Do you want to take the time to think this through, or would you rather just close your eyes and start running in the hopes there isn't a cliff in front of your. But then again if Tim is sucessful in getting the HOV lanes eliminated and it actually INCREASES congestion, I'm sure he'll make up some excuse about how the government PUT that cliff there for the people to fall off.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 18, 2000.

"as the area grows in density, there will be more and more of these places. " And I absolutely agree, bringing up the question of why on earth are we accepting increased population density as a goal, particularly now that the Net and telecommuting can allow a more dispersed lifestyle. And why on earth can't we find a way to take the significant number of individuals for whom Seattle is NOT a destination (but merely an obstruction). With increased trade (including truck traffic) between Oregon, California and points South, and Canada, we are getting an increasing number of people just transiting Seattle. Now most of these can use the non-rush hour times (although not all), but even these will contribute to pavement wear and tear which will increase maintenance frequency that will spill over into rush hours.

I don't really have a vested interest in this, I don't work in Seattle anymore and generally take the ferry (just cause it's ridiculously over-subsidized, doesn't mean I won't use it. If they tripled the fare (which they ought to do) it'd still be a good deal) on those rare occasions when I go downtown. But I am irritated as a taxpayer to see money wasted on non-solutions be people pursuing philosophy rather pragmatism. Like most people, I don't want big government, but more importantly I DO want the government we have to WORK, and these philosophically based social engineering nostrums (I'm old enough to remember when urban renewal was going to be the salvation of the cities. Anyone visit Anacostia lately?) just don't work.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 18, 2000.

You want to know why I wouldn't give the money back to the feds? Because it wasn't theirs to begin with. It belonged to taxpayers. If it gets paid back to the feds, then they better return it to the rightful owners, us.

They took it from us so they could be benevolent and give it back in the form of subsidies and grants, to control issues that are better dealt with on a state level.

I resent the interference, dictation and over taxation. I am tired of being taxed for every dollar earned, and every dollar spent. and I am tired of do gooders who keep thinking of new ways to waste my money, so they can have a purpose in life. You endanger democracy with your constant socialized ideals and your too caught up in your self serving behavior to realize it.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 18, 2000.

What do you think of an initiative that would forbid the State accepting any Federal grants for anything? While that would keep us from getting some of our tax dollars back, (and remember, these have all been previously extorted from us by the IRS), it would at least start weaning us away from the Federal trough, and to some slight degree keep their social planners out of the state's affairs.

-- Albert Fosha (AFosha@aol.com), February 19, 2000.

to Zowie: You write: "The on ramp certainly couldn't be closed, but a compromise was struck to decrease the number of vehicles cutting through this area by making it an HOV on- ramp. It was only partially successful, since the local backup now just goes back an on-ramp, and all the HOV drivers (like Matt) continue to congest the Bridgeport area while the SOV back-up happens around Pearl and 6th. It decreased the problem in the Bridgeport area by moving it somewhere else, but it's unlikely the throughput has changed much (since the limiting factor is the bridge) and it's unlikely it has made much of a difference in car-pooling (it does nothing for the morning commute at all, and in the evening you can just back up to 6th street)."

I usually come to the carpool entrance around 4:15 PM, and I've observed no backups in the Bridgeport area, most of the time. Now, I 'm not really sure what happens at 5-6 PM, so you may have a valid point, but, then again, you may not.

You are correct when you say throughput has not changed, since the bridge is the limiting factor. I never claimed throughput did change. But, opening up the carpool lane will just shaft carpoolers. So, it is a policy based on spite and hate. Zieg heil, Zowie.

As to your claim that it makes little difference in carpooling, I don't agree. Without the carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge, in my case, it increases the probability that I would dissolve the vanpool. Why?? Because I endure a lot of hassles to keep the vanpool going, and without the significant time-savings due to the carpool entrance, I would have much less of an incentive to rideshare.

The carpool entrance saves ridesharers at least 10 minutes on a good day, and up to 30 minutes on a bad day. It is an overwhelming incentive to rideshare.

As for your claim it does not help the morning commute, this is partially correct. As long one crosses the bridge before 6 AM, there is no problem in the morning. By taking away the carpool entrance in the evening, you will have also removed the incentive for ridesharers to leave before 6 AM. Thus, you will increase the congestion after 6 AM. Thus, the carpool entrance does indirectly aid the morning commute.

I don't really care, anymore, Zowie. If the voters want to open up the HOV lanes and close down the Park'n'Rides, so be it. It will be particularly brutal for the commuters on I-5 in South King County, as the result will be thousands of more cars joining the commute. A commute that is already strained to the bursting point.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 19, 2000.

From the original question: "  the state might be forced to repay hundreds of millions in federal dollars if it abandons the original purpose of building the new diamond lanes."

The federal government was set up for the convenience of the States. The States can call a constitutional convention to modify or end the federal government at any time. A governor with courage could respond to this threat by:

1. Calling for a constitutional convention.
2. Require all federal taxes collected in the state to be place in escrow pending the resolution of the dispute.
3. Succeed from the union.

-- Pasta Fasoli (pastafasoli@hotmail.com), February 19, 2000.

" As to your claim that it makes little difference in carpooling, I don't agree. Without the carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge, in my case, it increases the probability that I would dissolve the vanpool. Why?? Because I endure a lot of hassles to keep the vanpool going, and without the significant time-savings due to the carpool entrance, I would have much less of an incentive to rideshare." By this I assume you mean that the DEMAND for vanpooling is pretty minimal. Otherwise a minor inconvenience wouldn't deter you to the point where you'd be contemplating dissolving the vanpool.

"I endure a lot of hassles to keep the vanpool going" Don't suppose some of these hassles could be asociated with your arrogant personality, do you?

"But, opening up the carpool lane will just shaft carpoolers. So, it is a policy based on spite and hate. Zieg heil, Zowie." No, it will equitably share the available roadspace among ALL those who paid for it. A policy of spite and hate would grant one favored class privileges to the detriment of another class, kind of like the HOV lanes do now. And it's SIEG, not Zieg. You're abviously IGNORANT as well as ARROGANT.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 20, 2000.

to Zowie: You write: "And it's SIEG, not Zieg. You're abviously IGNORANT as well as ARROGANT".

Thank you for improving my abysmal knowledge of German. By the way, the spelling is "obviously", not "abviously".

The bottom line is you would advocate a policy of opening up a carpool lane, which you seem to agree would not improve congestion across the Narrows Bridge. But, it does provide a major incentive for ridesharing. Look, I hope you and others advertise this to the voters, and I'll rely on their hearts to do the right thing.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 20, 2000.

"But, opening up the carpool lane will just shaft carpoolers. So, it is a policy based on spite and hate. Zieg heil, Zowie. " Sorry, I only check in every now and again, but am I correct in assuming that this IDIOT is equating the potential for those people who carpool having to SHARE the HOV lanes with the rest of the population as the moral equivalent of a Nazi regime that KILLED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE for their mad dreams of ethnic purity??

That goes well beyong hyperbole, it's an insult to every individual that died in the Holocaust and an insult to every Allied soldier who fought in WWII.

Let me tell you, Matt, the Nazis were a little bit more evil than the potential addition of 10-15 minutes to your commute.

With an ego like yours, it's a wonder there's room in your carpool for anyone else. YOUR haughty, self-serving attitude is more like that of the Nazi leadership than anyone else posting here.

How pathetic you are, Matt.

Mike Alworth

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), February 22, 2000.

to Mike Alworth: The elements of spite and hate are key pillars of the nazi philosophy. Don't forget that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. Does this mean that democracy is an insult to the memories of WWII veterans and/or victims of the holocaust??

Likewise, we have politically active individuals who espouse the cause of hate with a fervor that good old Adolf would be proud to witness. I can name David Duke and Pat Buchanan as real life examples.

Did you know that David Duke used to celebrate Adolf Hitler's birthday??

So, don't give me any of your crap. It is extremely fair to equate any individual who espouses policies rooted in spite and hate as a NAZI!!!

And labelling someone as nazi-like doesn't insult anyone's memory or life. Rather, it profoundly says that their efforts were not in vain. And good people will remain vigilant against evil whereever it may be and no matter how tiny or insignificant it may start out.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 22, 2000.

Matt-

You're an idiot and not worth further response.

Mikey

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), February 22, 2000.