Craig and a few others at times have presented some very basic ideas on how to relieve traffic conjestion in the Seattle area. It's time to rehash some of these ideas and perhaps present some new ones.

I-711 will force our leaders to build more roads and rely less on tranist. Here are a few suggestions that need to be brought to the table again and again and again until our leaders get the message.

1. Build I-605 around Seattle starting at Puyallup and continuing to State Route 18 to I-90. I-605 should then proceed around the east side of Sammish Lake (or follow state route 203 to Everett). This would re-route a lot of traffice around Seattle and Tacoma. It would be far less expensive than adding additional lanes to I-5.

2. A Puget Sound Bridge from Burien to Vashon Island that connects to state route 160 would help greatly and reduce the need for some ferry's. It would be a better project than a second narrows bridge.

3. A bridge on the southern tip of Bainbridge Island that would connect to state route 60 (and the proposed Puget Sound bridge) would eliminate the need for several ferrys.

4. Adding another two lanes to the state route 520 bridge over Lake Washington would be another significan improvement.

Our leaders seem to fixed on solving the traffic problem by dumping more money into transit. The EPA wants to reduce the miles traveled in this state by 20% and increase the cost of automobile travel by 10 cents a mile over what you pay at the present time.

I-711 will force a huge public discussion on how to solve the conjestion problem by building more roads and bridges. So folks lets force our leaders to think outside the transit box.

Help us get signatures to force that public discussion for the November election.

-- Monte Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), April 05, 2000

Answers

Monte writes:

>>I-711 will force our leaders to build more roads and rely less on tranist.<<

They were going to spend a couple billion dollars more on roads until you came up with 695 and defunded the projects.

This is classic. You take away the money for roads, then blame the government for not "getting the message" and building enough roads.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), April 05, 2000.

Ahhhh, yes.... all good ideas. But notice how one key piece of I-711 has been very quietly and cleverly omitted from the above. Trying to divert attention from the true hidden purpose of I-711, eh? If your intention really is "Traffic Improvement," what is the reason you are trying to open up HOV lanes at rush hours -- something that you KNOW will dramatically worsen the commute for EVERYONE, including solo drivers -- and trying to trick people into thinking that it will make their commute faster? Let's see how long it is before the people figure it out.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 05, 2000.

Just like 695, this initiative does not provide specific direction to the government. Even if it passes, the government could apply all of the monies to transportation projects outside of the Puget Sound region. People still need to contact their representatives directly to voice their opinions.

The problem will be, just like 695, people will expect their representatives to read their minds to discover where they feel transportation funds should be spent. Since ESP is not an ability that most representatives have, people will again be upset that the government is ignoring their untold message.

I am not against the initiative process, but the initiative process does not relieve people of their PRIMARY responsibility of communicating their wants and desires to the representatives.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), April 05, 2000.

These are all interesting ideas, but where do you think they came from? Pretty much all of them were considered and then regected by the DOT. If the DOT can't think outside the box, how come these projects were mostly developed WITHIN the department?

"1. Build I-605 around Seattle starting at Puyallup and continuing to State Route 18 to I-90. I-605 should then proceed around the east side of Sammish Lake (or follow state route 203 to Everett). This would re-route a lot of traffice around Seattle and Tacoma. It would be far less expensive than adding additional lanes to I-5."

Considered by the DOT a long time ago. It would be great for truckers, but would have a MINIMAL impact on commuters. It would also be fiercely opposed by those who live there. Who wouldn't turn down the opportunity to become the next 405 corridor?

"2. A Puget Sound Bridge from Burien to Vashon Island that connects to state route 160 would help greatly and reduce the need for some ferry's. It would be a better project than a second narrows bridge."

One of the proposals considered and regected by the Solve 16 task force. There isn't enough non-South Sound traffic crossing the Narrows to justify the enormous expense, and again, would have MINIMAL impact on existing traffic congestion.

"3. A bridge on the southern tip of Bainbridge Island that would connect to state route 60 (and the proposed Puget Sound bridge) would eliminate the need for several ferrys."

Considered several times over the years with the same results: WAY too expensive and dangerous. The expense of building and maintaining the bridge, not to mention the additional traffic expenses associated from its construction, would exceed the costs now associated with running the ferry system. Then you have to consider the logistics of putting a bridge across one of the most active waterways in the country and consider that two much shorter bridges in the area have failed due to extreme weather conditions, and a third is hanging by a thread.

"4. Adding another two lanes to the state route 520 bridge over Lake Washington would be another significan improvement."

About the only reasonable idea of the pack, seeing as the bridge needs to be either replaced or completely remodeled anyway. Only problem is that it will be VERY costly, and the addition of just two lanes will not do much to ease congestion. This is something that the DOT is looking into right now, so to think that I-711 would force the state into considering it is just a tad dishonest.

I'll echo the previous comments here about funding. Anyone that thinks this initiative will suddenly open up the floodgates for road construction is delusional. With the passage of 695, the state already IS spending about 10% or LESS on transit (and remember, I-711 DOES NOT include ferries as "transit"). All this would pretty much do is force local voter approved taxes for transit (and I'm not just talking Sound Transit here) to go towards road construction.

There won't, and I repeat, WON'T be enough money to even consider some of these pie in the sky projects that Monte has listed even if they were considered useful. At the VERY most optimistic estimate, there will be a few extra million dollars to kick around. This, when almost all of the projects on Monte's list have construction estimates in the billions of dollars (and that's EACH one).

But I can see where this is going. I would assume that the people at Permanent Offense have at least done SOME estimates as to how much money this would "free" up, so Eyman knows that when he's hyping up the massive amounts of new construction that will result from this initiative he is blowing a lot of hot air (note that in the end Monte says that it will force the state to THINK about building more roads, not that it will be able to). But in a pretty good tactical move, this will actually help continue his efforts. If the initiative passes, it will have a minimal impact on the amount of money available for road construction. When people start to wonder why, Tim will tell people that it isn't because there wasn't a massive amount of money being "wasted" on transit, but because the money is being wasted somewhere else. He'll target some other program (probably the ferries), claim that is the thing that is REALLY preventing money to be spent on roads, and start the next campaign.

Eyman's using the classic shell game. Using the tagline of "If the government had an ounce of compassion, it would find the money to pay for the things we really need" he is going to continue claiming that utopia is just around the corner if we keep on following him. But that's just it, Tim doesn't WANT to find utopia. His craving for the spotlight is now legendary, and if he were to actually solve the problems he professing to want to eliminate, he would find himself quickly out of the limelight. So he'll keep pointing out "problems" and coming up with solutions that don't actually solve the problem but creates a new situation in which the government has to deal with it. But as part of Tim's "solution" the government now has several new issues it must deal with as well that makes a real solution next to impossible, and when it does fail to find an acceptable solution a pre-fab "problem" has now cropped up for Tim to help us solve again.

Quite an interesting shell game.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 05, 2000.

A friend of mine told me a phrase that is oft mentioned during planning meetings. Have any of you folks heard of NIMBY which stands for Not In My BackYard.

As Patrick mentioned a lot of these ideas sound good, but will be shot down by the people who live in the affected areas, the I-605 corridor and the widening of the 520 bridge for example. The residents along Lake Samamish would definitely oppose to having a freeway running through their neighborhood. In addition, the by-pass would seem to benefit shipping. The problem of congested commuters still remains. As for widening 520, the residents in Medina would throw a hissy-fit and fight to the bitter end to keep their property the way it is.

So much for the ideas. Game Over. Insert Credit To Continue...

-- Keiichi Morisato (keiichi@crystaltokyo.com), April 05, 2000.

"Only problem is that it will be VERY costly, and the addition of just two lanes will not do much to ease congestion. " If this is true for the case in point, why wouldn't the same apply to the Tacoma Narrows? That's the addition of a mere one lane each way, and an HOV lane at that?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), April 05, 2000.

to Zowie: You write: "...will not do much to ease congestion. " If this is true for the case in point, why wouldn't the same apply to the Tacoma Narrows? That's the addition of a mere one lane each way, and an HOV lane at that?"

Is this a rhetorical question? If not, I'm quite willing to respond.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 05, 2000.

to Monte: You list several road construction projects for the greater Puget Sound area including:

1) I-605 (which by the way, as a matter of respect, should be called I-695)

2) expansion of Hwy 520 (or, perhaps, even better, a new bridge across Lake Washington)

3) A cross-sound bridge, easily linking the Peninsula to I-5 and I-405.

If you really want people to support your initiative, you should provide some detail as to the costs (and schedules) of the projects, and, then, how much would be available as a result of the initiative. This would allow people to make some type of a rational decision.

Item #1, I-605, will be a federally funded. Therefore it would aid your cause if you could gain support from members of our existing congressional delegation, promising support for the projects if the initiative passes.

You write: "A Puget Sound Bridge from Burien to Vashon Island that connects to state route 160 would help greatly and reduce the need for some ferry's. It would be a better project than a second narrows bridge."

Here, you are being either deceptive or ignorant. The currently proposed contract between the DOT and the private company, which will build, operate, and maintain the new Narrows bridge, gives the company veto power over any DOT project which may adversely affect the stream of toll revenue across the new bridge. Therefore, I recommend that you drop the project as a possibility when the initiative passes. It is not a possibility.

Also, your proposal for an expansion to Hwy 520 does not seem consistent with Washington State history, as most, if not all, such bridges are tolled projects.

In general, then, the above projects do not benefit commuters from the Peninsula or those who commute on I-5 between Tacoma and Seattle. The I-605 project may benefit those who commute on Hwy 167. And, obviously, an expansion to Hwy 520 may benefit commuters between Seattle and Bellevue-Redmond. So, I think you really need to be more specific as to why voters on the Peninsula and along the I-5 corridor in Tacoma/South King County should vote for Initiative 711.

It would have been really helpful if the initiative included specific recommendations for road construction projects. As it stands now, I think I would only expect to see I-605 as a result of your initiative and not much else. Since I-605 will not relieve congestion on Hwy 16, and your initiative will worsen congestion on Hwy 16, I, personally, am not real motivated. It was easy to vote for I-695, as it saved me a lot of money.

It's not a question of thinking outside the box, it's a question of facts and numbers. Please present some level of details, so the voters have a real opportunity to decide their future for themselves.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 05, 2000.

And, as Craig would no doubt say, you just can't fight the demographics....  A & E  Environment  Technology  Machinery  Misc. Services  Credit  General News  Public Notices  Federal Projects  Auctions  Special Issues  Weekend  Classifieds

---

 Subscribe!  Advertising  Contact us  Work for us

---

 Directories
   Lawyers
   Consultants
   Contractors  

April 6, 2000 County plans to sell park and ride lot Journal staff SEATTLE - King County is taking another run at selling the Olson/Myers Park and Ride lot in White Center. The county issued a request for proposals from developers interested in redeveloping the 9.3 acres at 9000 Olson Place South. Proposals are due April 17. Requests went out two years ago, too. Then, the county said the land appraised at $3.04 million. The new RFP says the "fair market value is $2.07 million as is, without restrictions." County officials in 1997 described the lot as under-utilized as a park-and-ride and said White Center residents preferred a use of the land that created more jobs. "A desirable development would be something like a SODO Center, a low-impact manufacturing facility or a multi-story office building," county development specialist Mat Harris said then. "Overall, we're looking for some type of light-manufacturing business." The site is immediately north of 50 acres that Nintendo of America bought in 1990. County officials said they foresee the property eventually serving as a symbolic gateway to West Seattle.

http://www.djc.com/news/re/11006311.html

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), April 06, 2000.

to Mark: I wonder how much the county paid for Park'n'Ride. If they're making money on the deal, maybe society should "invest" in more Park'n'Rides.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 06, 2000.

But Matthew, I thought you said we need more park and rides lots because they were all at capacity! ; )

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 06, 2000.

It doesn't say how much they paid for it, but generally they have to pay the appraised value. If they actually bought it at the appraised value, it would appear that they are LOSING somewhat in excess of $100,000 PER ACRE on this deal, assuming of course, that they can sell it. Since they've been marketing it for TWO YEARS (note the headline, taking ANOTHER run at.....), it wouldn't appear that selling it at even this loss is any "lead pipe cinch."

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), April 06, 2000.

to Marsha: I'm not sure I said ALL Park'n'Rides are full, but certainly, when I see Park'n'Rides adjacent to a major artery (i.e., I-5, Hwy 16, etc.) in the middle of the day, they certainly seem fairly full to me.

You see, Marsha, it's the demographics. It stands to reason that if the commuting population expands, then you'll need more Park'n'Rides.

Not all Park'n'Rides are equal. The ideal Park'n'Ride would probably have easy access to the major artery it serves, plus it would be near well-populated institutions (e.g., a mall, government buildings, etc.), as an isolated Park'n'Ride may invite car break-ins.

With the demise of the MVET, there probably isn't enough money to build new Park'n'Rides, anyway. So, the government should sell off the "poor performing" Park'n'Rides, and use the money to build "better performers".

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 06, 2000.

to Mark: The article doesn't say when the county bought the land. Hopefully, they'll sell it for more than they paid for it.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 06, 2000.

Matthew,

And if they don't get what they paid for it, would that mean park and rides shouldn't be thought of as an investment?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 06, 2000.

"And if they don't get what they paid for it, would that mean park and rides shouldn't be thought of as an investment? " And even if they did, how about all those years of PROPERTY TAXES that they would have gotten had this been private property, that they never got because it was used as a park n ride? That's an opportunity cost that needs to be subtracted from the net profits or added to the net losses.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 06, 2000.

to Marsha & Craig: The taxpayer should consider all facets and costs objectively. If Park'n'Rides are inordinately expensive, then where's the cost-benefit?? On the other hand, if, even taking account lost property taxes, society is able to dispose of the property for a handsome profit, then Park'n'Rides are an intelligent choice.

I'm still waiting to hear from anyone on the costs vs. benefits of the projects listed by Monte. And, by benefits, I'm particularly interested in how it mitigates congestion for I-5 between Tacoma and South King County and how it relieves congestion or improves safety on the Peninsula.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 07, 2000.

Matthew,

Since you are so keen to protect the environment by ridesharing, please explain why I should be willing to pay to lay down more asphalt for a parking lot. What about all that runoff? Parked vehicles concentrate more oil, transmission fluid, fuel, etc. The air AND water would be far better off if none of those vehicles took to the road.

At least I thought "outside the box".

Based on the added stops you have already admitted to providing, and the fact that you must "recruit" riders, it sounds like your transit agency does a poor job of administering the rideshare program.

The Transit Agency Audit section of I-711 might be more beneficial to your cause than you think.

If you were utilizing park and ride lots as a transfer station, and people who rideshare were picked up at or very near their homes, I am certain you WOULD see an increase in ridership. WHY? Because riders would basically wind up with door to door service.

Think "outside the box" Matthew. My idea would eliminate more congestion than yours, AND more pollution. Demographics!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.

"If you were utilizing park and ride lots as a transfer station, and people who rideshare were picked up at or very near their homes, I am certain you WOULD see an increase in ridership. WHY? Because riders would basically wind up with door to door service. "

Maybe, Marsha, but I wouldn't bet on it. The problem is that transit and car-pooling really do take significantly more time than just hopping in the old SOV and going. If the driver lives the farthest out, and the riders happen to live on a direct line to the destination, the LAST rider picked up has closest to the convenince of an SOV (excepting of course that he/she must be ready earlier to offset the lack of predictability in arrival time). At the other extreme, is the van pool driver, who basically has to drive the route he/she would have driven anyway, but stop, wait for, load, and accelerate for 9 other people. This rather dramatically slows down the time from home to work for the driver and, depending where they are on the chain, significantly increases travel time for all but the last person picked up. And this is the IDEAL case, where everyone is lined up on the route. Any deviations from the best route make the situation worse. Any person who is late getting ready or slow in loading affects the whole downstream chain, and ultimately the driver winds up leaving earlier and wasting more time for everyone to offset the slow loader/not-ready people. This is just elementary queing theory, and it's pretty well established mathematically. What makes ride-sharing (and transit for that matter) work is where you have a significant collection of people in a small geographic area all going to the same place at the same time. In the 40s, with "company housing" it worked pretty well. The military used to (probably still do) run shuttles to base housing with pretty good effectiveness.

The problem now IS the demographics, and it's multifactorial. We rarely see tract homes of workers serving one big employer anymore. It is not uncommon to have different shifts at the same plant, people on 4-10s, people who have flextime, people who telecommute some days. It is very common to have mothers in the workplace who disproportionatley still cart the kids to daycare, school, etc., en route to or returning from work. All of these demographic trends (and more) make it difficult and more time-consuming to get stable van-pools together, and make the trip longer time-wise for most of those who utilize this mode, compared to what their SOV time would be. For some people it works, but it is again, a niche market. And the NPTS demonstrates that the niche is getting smaller all the time. Now before Matt goes ballistic, I'll concede that the niche isn't totally exhausted. I am sure that there are viable vanpools out there that haven't yet been formed. I'm also sure that there aren't enough of them to make any real difference in either traffic congestion or air pollution, because of the demographics. With the right technical support, we could perhaps ferret out a few potential linear vanpool routes that would help, but that is asking a lot statistically for all people working the same shift at a company to live in a linear fashion along a transportation route to that company, and with the career changing that is now the norm, the dynamics would require a constant changing of the vanpool members. Not going to happen by chance very often, I fear. Of course we could mandate where the workers live for the good of the collective, I suppose;-)

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 07, 2000.

From the PI

SEATTLE -- Speeding down the car-pool lane past miles of stop-and-go morning traffic, six members of Jennifer Ricketts' VanPool tick off reasons for choosing King County's commuter van service.

If you guessed they share the ride to cut down on their commute time or to avoid fighting for parking spaces, you'd be only partly right.

"It gives me something to tell my wife when I get home," said software engineer Eric Hanson, 33.

Hanson uses the 25-minute commute to catch up on his technical reading but relies on fellow rider, Jodi Payne, to liven up his routine with "bizarre stories."

"I had to relocate a woman's frozen embryos once," said Payne, who coordinates Microsoft's company relocation program.

Payne said sharing stories is a mandatory part of belonging to this mini-division of King County Metro's VanPool, a program that began 20 years ago and has grown into the largest publicly owned van pool program in the United States.

Ricketts said commuting by van pool is not always faster than driving because of stops to pick up members of the group. But saving time is not her main motivation. "I do it to reduce pollution and (the number of) cars on the road," she said.

In that respect and others, the VanPool program is a Metro success story. More than 705 Metro van pools serving nine counties reduce traffic by 11,124 vehicle trips per day, said Cathy Blumenthal, Metro's Rideshare coordinator. On average, a single van pool means 5.4 fewer tons of air pollution and 8,000 gallons of gasoline saved each year.

The VanPool program also provides transportation for people who live outside Metro's regular service areas. It supplies regular transportation to Seattle for people from as far away as Port Townsend, Mount Vernon and Olympia.

Four-wheel-drive vans cross Snoqualmie Pass five days a weekto bring commuters from Cle Elum into Seattle.

And unlike Metro's other heavily subsidized programs, VanPool pays for itself. Revenue from riders and companies that pay employee fares pay for the vans themselves.

Costs range from $26 to $157 per person, depending on van size, trip distance and riders in the pool. Vans hold eight, 12 or 15 riders.

Many companies pay for van pools to help meet commute-trip-reduction requirements, as employment incentives and to be environmentally responsible.

Microsoft, for example, financed Ricketts' eight-person van pool, one of at least 30 for its employees.

Microsoft spokesman Dan Leach said the company encourages everyone on its campus to use buses, bicycles, car pools and van pools. The company provides bus passes, matches commuters for rideshares on its corporate intranet and subsidizes employees who use van pools for at least three round trips per week.

About 28 percent of Microsoft employees use some alternative form of transportation to get to work, Leach said.

"That's how we can work as a community to deal with our success. We all need to work together to figure out what's best for the region, to reduce congestion and the environmental impact on the area," Leach said. "Every company has a responsibility to do that, and we want to do our part."

But employers' reasons vary as much as van poolers.

United Rental in Tukwila pays about $700 per month to a van pool to help six employees commute from Monroe, branch manager Jerry O'Neill said.

O'Neill said the company decided to pay for the service to entice quality employees to stay with United after it consolidated a Woodinville branch.

"It works out well because I can keep very experienced people with us," O'Neill said. "There was a certain amount of obligation to cover their costs of coming down here."

But United Rental has no immediate plans to expand its program.

"It's not a small fee," O'Neill said. "It's not something that we are likely to consider in other cases, because of the expense."

Employees from Puget Sound companies, including The Boeing Co., U S West, Siemens, Costco and many others, use van pools as a regular way to get to work.

Tom Sewell, a 40-year-old software engineer, said his big incentive is the ride home. His pool's 4:30 p.m. departure from Redmond gets him out the door on time so he can spend more time with his wife and daughters Allysa, 2, and 4-month-old Emma.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 07, 2000.

Yes Patrick-

In it's niche it's an effective program. The point is that it isn't a big niche, not that there is no niche.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 07, 2000.

to Marsha & Craig: Marsha, your ideas are most excellent, and I never claimed to be "thinking outside the box". So, I'm happy to nominate you as the most visionary among us.

Right now, my vanpool puts on at least 18 round trip miles just to be at Hwy 16 and I-5. If there were a central depot (close to I-5 and Hwy 16) where the vanpool vans could park overnight, then a plethora of vanpools plying I-5 nortbound from Tacoma could utilize your concept to reduce pollution even more than they already do now.

Does such a central depot exist? Amazingly, it does! There is a massive parking garage at the Tacoma Dome Park'n'Ride. By parking my van at such a location, I could reduce the monthly fare by as much as $13 per passenger. That money could certainly go towards funding your concept. Additional monies could be realized by selling existing Park'n'Rides.

Also, Pierce Transit could set up a maintenance/repair facility at the central depot. There could also be gas pumps and a car-washing facility.

Now, there might still be a need for folks to park their cars, on days when they were running late, or needed their car to run some errands after work. But, because of your concept, the parking would not be free, and there should be a modest charge of $1 or $2.

Perhaps, an even better central depot would be one located near I-5 and Hwy 18, as I would venture to guess that most of the nortbound vanpools from Tacoma on I-5 are travelling at least as far as Hwy 18. The depot could also serve folks in Federal Way, increasing the probability that new vanpools could be formed. Right now, there aren't many vanpools where half the people are from the Peninsula and half are from Federal Way, but it could work out that way. Alternatively, riders may have several vanpools to choose from, in case their "shuttle ride" ran into unanticipated problems.

The concept of a central depot housing the vanpool vans may also mitigate Craig's criticisms. For example, a linear relationship already exists for folks commuting from the Peninsula. I would estimate as much as 90% of the vehicles on Hwy 16 eastbound, before 7 AM, are traveling to I-5 nortbound. And, probably, similar scenarios are played out with commuters from Puyallup/Lakewood. If they're on I-5 northbound before 7 AM, they're probably travelling as far as the Tacoma Mall.

In fact, this is a major flaw of the WSDOT's proposal for a Hwy 16 and the new Narrows bridge. They will have 3 lanes of traffic converging to 2 lanes about a mile before I-5. Therefore, with almost 90% of the traffic travelling to I-5 nortbound, the bottleneck will have been moved from the bridge to where the 3 lanes converge to 2. Result - no improvement in the eastbound morning commute, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars expended.

I'm still uncertain as to the monthly cost to the commuter. I guess it would be a market-driven scenario, but the "shuttle drivers" would have to be "certified" by the transit agencies as least as much as the vanpool drivers are now. Actually, some of the vanpool drivers could be the "shuttle drivers", themselves. And, they could drive to the central depot in either their own vehicle, or, a vanpool van. For example, there might be several people living close to me who vanpool in other vans, besides my own. It's hard to say.

The transit agencies could facilitate the process by building the central depots and maintaining the computer scheduling program on the internet, or something. Might want to have the shuttles equipped with GPS-type technology, so the system could adjust to traffic snafus.

Another nice feature of the central depots would be to have on and off ramps, quickly depositing the vanpools onto and from the nearby arteries they serve.

If there were some way of rewarding communities for the reduced pollution (both air and ground), then your concepts are even more likely to succeed.

What we need to do is come up with a pilot program, collecting some real-life data.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 07, 2000.

Matthew,

"So, I'm happy to nominate you as the most visionary among us". Umm, not exactly, most of these ideas are in practice at Kitsap Transit. I am going on prior experience, and maybe a teeny bit of dreaming.

"For example, there might be several people living close to me who vanpool in other vans, besides my own. It's hard to say."

Yes. And this is difficult to determine under the current system, correct? The software needed to do the matching/scheduling has been available for years. In fact, a less complicated program may be in use now. While it IS pricey, the cost is still alot less than the one "under-utilized" park and ride.

In spite of Craig's opinion, I believe this should be explored. I am not advocating huge funding for a boondoggle, but this does have the potential to make an impact. Many of your riders could come via fixed bus routes as well. While some of your input seems far fetched, the reality is, I have seen a similar idea like this work, and save alot of money in the process.

You would not need a maintenaince facility however. A mobile facility would work just fine. A fuel truck and service crew can do fueling/servicing of many "vanpool lots" in one evening. This also helps keep fuel costs down, by allowing the purchase of the lowest cost fuel. In this manner, the Agency has the ability to change locations as demographic needs change.

One thing that assists this along, is that these would be regular stops done on a daily basis. You can trim alot of travel time when this is a regular routine. Your passengers should know when to expect you, and should be outside, ready and waiting. If they are not waiting, they miss their ride. Having transferred passengers heading to a common destination, the additional time factor becomes less of an issue.

You could not possibly cater to every vanpool rider in this manner, but it would eliminate the need for more park and rides, and expand the "niche" just enough to make that bridge situation a little more tolerable. We have no idea how many new riders could be attracted. I think the idea of leaving a $35,000 SUV in a park and ride lot would prevent me from ever considering vanpooling.

Just to play Devil's advocate, does anyone know what the average waiting time is to cross the Narrows during the evening commute? It looked pretty horrid to me Tuesday evening.

One last thing. The cost of this does NOT need to be unreasonable. Once you have the software installed and registrations done, it would only require 1 staff person to maintain and update the system, and perhaps 1 or 2 customer service people to take the calls and make driver/route changes and notification. I am sure the staff is already available doing the same job now, the hard way.

The whole point of this thread is to think outside the box. I see no reason not to explore a maximization of the program.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.

to Marsha: You ask: "Just to play Devil's advocate, does anyone know what the average waiting time is to cross the Narrows during the evening commute? It looked pretty horrid to me Tuesday evening."

Well, my experience is that commute times follow a log normal distribution, as most days are about the same, but there are a few days where the backups are unreal. So, I would estimate the median (not the average) time of extra wait to be about 12 minutes.

Typically, what happens, is your speed ends up being around 12 mph. So, if this occurs 3 miles before the bridge, then it'll take you 15 minutes to traverse what normally should have taken you 3 minutes. Hence, you've spent an extra 12 minutes waiting to get to the bridge. The majority of the time, the backup doesn't extend past Cheney stadium, so the wait is probably no more than 20 minutes extra.

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

An interesting article in the PI describes a plan to add two full time HOV lanes to the I-90 bridge by narrowing the shoulders (which interestingly enough is the PROBLEM that the new Narrows bridge is supposed to cure). But in the fine print, it makes mention of the fact that HOV lanes are ALREADY used for SOV drivers, if you happen to be a Mercer Island resident. Now where IS the ACLU and the other defenders of civil rights. Whatever happened to the equal protection clause. How do we justify rich Mercer Islanders (only slight demaoguery, look at the average income of Mercer Islanders relative to the rest of the King County region) being allowed to drive sol in HOV lanes, but not the REST of us.

At a minimum, this gives the lie to the arguments that the feds wouldnt permit it (they are obviously ALREADY permitting it) or that it would lead to increased scofflaws, unless of course its OK to be a scofflaw if you are from Mercer Island.

She said ST's Bellevue-Seattle express can run up to 30 minutes late during rush hour because buses returning to pick up commuters are bogged down in general traffic lanes. Since the two-lane HOV reversible portion of I-90 operates only with the flow of peak-hour traffic, buses traveling in the opposite direction can't use the faster lanes. The three-county transit agency is scheduled to implement commuter rail service in September and light rail between SeaTac and the University District by 2006. The planned conversion of the downtown transit tunnel from bus to light rail between 2004 and 2006 means shutting down the underground route and running all buses on downtown Streets. "Our goal," said Govern, is to have something in place (on I-90) before buses come out of the tunnel in order to help mitigate the impact on riders." Mercer Island Mayor Alan Merkle said adding the lanes to I-90 through his community "is worthy of a close look" and may be a good compromise. "It gives you full-time transit lanes," the mayor added, "and it preserves the center (reversible) lanes for HOV and the single- occupant vehicles" from Mercer Island. Mercer Island had insisted on the latter exemption from HOV rules. The city signed a memorandum of agreement in 1976 that gave its residents -- whether driving alone or not -- use of I-90 HOV lanes between Bellevue and Seattle. http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/hov11.shtml

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), April 11, 2000.