This post is prompted by Craig's response to my post in the thread, "Part 3: Effect on the 520 commute...". I want to respond to his points, but I would like that thread to remain dedicated to SR-520 issues, so I'm moving the discussion to a new thread.

Here's Craig's response:

[begin quote] "1. Numerous NPTS surveys have shown that only a small fraction of non-family groups carpool to work, and this number continues to decrease as the number of cars per licensed driver approaches one. Put succintly, not enough people are attracted to carpooling to make a great deal of difference. The fraction that do carpool with HOV lanes who would not carpool without HOV lanes is a smaller subset within this already small subset.

2. The VAST majority of those that use the HOV lanes do so because they are riding buses, not because they are car-pooling. Your own figures (11.32 average occupancy) clearly indicate this. The demographics of this group is also well known, and clearly different from the demographics of the average commuter. Most will continue to ride buses with or without the HOV lane.

3. The 46% figure that you give for the percentage of people carried by the HOV lane is somewhat misleading, in part because it is bus (rather than non-bus HOV) driven. Were you to designate any lane to be used specifically FOR a given class of vehicles, you would by definition see a higher percentage of that category of vehicles use that lane. In states that do not let trucks use the far left lane, surprise surprise, a disproportionate percentage of the ton-miles are carried in the right lanes. In Selma Alabama in 1955, a disproportionate share of blacks were carried in the back of the bus. Pushing the demographics with the law, and then trying to imply that this is the natural order of things (blacks are happier in the back of the bus?) is the sheerest kind of folly.

4. Your constant references to "car salesmen" makes you sound like a paranoid wacko. If you do the math, you'll find that the incremental gain possible in car-buying divided the number of car salesmen out there is trivial for each car salesman. Why do you keep demagoguing this issue.

5. Your pseudo-modeling, assuming things that are known demographically to not be true, severely undermines what little logic is otherwise present in your posting.

I have 2 problems with HOV lanes.

1. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the problem with transportation is a "commons" problem. People use common property inappropriately (ie, wastefully) when they are charged less for using a common resource than the cost of providing that resource. We have this in the EXTREME with HOV lanes, where the users are not only not paying their share, but are highly subsidized by non-users who are not allowed to use the service their gas taxes are buying.

2. As long as the politicians can play at solving the transportation problems with non-solutions such as transit and HOV lanes, they avoid REALLY solving the problems. No one reading the TTI reports over the last several decades would seriously believe that HOV lanes are working. The issue is do we want to create an acceptable transportation system, or simply accept the congestion levels necessary to decrease demand artificially for the current inadequate system?

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 24, 2000"

[end quote]

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 26, 2000

Answers

Now my response to Craig. Craig, thanks for listing your specific objections clearly.

First let me state a couple of points on which I agree with you:

1. I agree with the general principle that people who use expensive resources should pay for them. One of the drawbacks of violating this principle, as you've pointed out, is that people would then use those resources wastefully (at other people's expense).

2. Whether or not there are HOV lanes, and whether or not there is transit, I agree that some new lanes will be needed on this region's most congested traffic corridors sooner or later. The population is projected to grow at a high rate and there are going to be more cars.

But for now let's just focus on the issue of how the existing lanes should be divided up, i.e. whether there should be HOV lanes.

You have argued elsewhere that HOV lanes should be opened up at OFF- PEAK hours. I am neutral on that point; I haven't researched it enough to have a strong opinion and I don't want to get into it here. There may be merit to it.

However, I-711 opens up HOV lanes even at PEAK hours. I want to focus specifically on that issue - whether HOV lanes in WA should exist at PEAK hours, and what would happen if they were opened up.

"The VAST majority of those that use the HOV lanes do so because they are riding buses, not because they are car-pooling. Your own figures (11.32 average occupancy) clearly indicate this."

Correct, on 520 most of the HOV users are bus riders. (BTW, that's not so true in the other HOV lanes. 520 is the only one that requires 3 people for a carpool, and it's much harder to organize a 3- person carpool than a 2-person carpool. That's probably why most of the HOV users there are bus riders and that accounts for the unusually high AVO (average vehicle occupancy) of 11.3. Other HOV lanes are more heavily used, and have more carpools; their AVO's range from 2.3 to 3.6. The one on I-5, for example, carries 42% of the people and has an AVO of 3.4.)

"The demographics of this group is also well known, and clearly different from the demographics of the average commuter."

When you say "the demographics of this group," I'm guessing you mean the demographics of the bus riding population. Let me point out one thing. The issue at hand is whether HOV lanes in WA should be opened up at PEAK hours. If you are going to use demographics to make predictions about how HOV ridership would change at peak hours, it's not valid to use the demographics of the entire bus riding population. You should use the demographics of the PEAK HOUR bus riding population. Moreover, you should use the demographics of peak hour bus riders in not the whole country or even the whole state, but in King Co, which has 90 percent of WA's HOV lanes (and ideally, only the bus riders along the specific heavily-traveled corridors that have HOV lanes).

(Since you said, "The demographics of this group is... clearly different from the demographics of the average commuter," I assume you must have been using data that was not specific to peak-hour commuters. If you were, then, given that 42% of the peak hour commuters are in the HOV lane, you'd be saying that the demographics of 42% of the commuters is clearly different from the demographics of the average commuter, which is patently self-contradictory.)

If you have data about the demographics of peak-hour bus riders on congested routes, please point us to it. In the absence of objective data: My personal observation, as well as the observation of more regular bus commuters, including many who travel routes other than my own, tell me that the vast majority of people riding the buses along the major corridors at peak hours are -- and this should be no surprise at all -- office-goers. Not the disabled, retired, homeless, poor, drug addicts or bums, trying to get a free ride at somebody else's expense, but regular, productive, contributing, taxpaying members of society, on their way to or from their workplaces. Most of them have cars, (and yes, pay gas taxes when they are not riding the bus,) and yet they have reasons for choosing to ride the bus. Their reasons usually have little to do with the bus fare. (Indeed in the telephone poll of bus riders that King Co Metro conducted before I-695 passed, most people surveyed said they would rather pay higher fares than lose bus service, so I don't know why the council chose not to raise fares after the election.)

"Most will continue to ride buses with or without the HOV lane."

I believe you are wrong there. I'll explain why when I post my "Part 4".

I'll get to your other points later. Are you with me so far?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 26, 2000.

to Anirudh: I commute every day from Gig Harbor to South Seattle - about 75 miles round trip. There are no carpool lanes on I-5 in Pierce County. In the evening, it is not uncommon for the carpool lane up the Southcenter Hill to average less than 20 MPH!!! This despite the fact that the DOT has a written policy requiring them to increase the minimum number of people who can use the HOV lane when the average speed falls below 45 MPH.

Therefore, I can testify from my own experience that there would be little change in congestion on I-5 in South King and Pierce counties, if the HOV lanes were open to all. The commute for buses and vanpools would worsen, somewhat, but the decline in ridership would be gradual, not immediate. It's really the driver (i.e., me!) of the vanpool or bus who suffers, not so much the passengers, as they're reading or snoring away. In fact, I think some of my passengers prefer a longer commute, so they can get a better nap!

As for HOV lanes being unfair, I obviously disagree with Craig & Marsha. Everyone has the legal right to carpool or take the bus. There is no inequity.

But, the current design of HOV lanes is inadequate, if not dangerous. HOV lanes ought to have their own on-ramps and off-ramps, particularly connecting HOV lanes to Park'n'Rides.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 26, 2000.

"I'll get to your other points later. Are you with me so far? " Well, yes except you HAVEN'T gotten to my points.

But here are a couple to chew on:

1. All users of transit use it because, for that particular trip, it's perceived by them as their best option. The same can be said of HOV users. There is a significant difference between the two groups, however, since the vast majority of HOV users are not carpoolers or van poolers. They tend to be family groups. Even during rush hours, they dominate the individuals able to use HOV lanes as even the HOV article on the website that you posted indicates. These people will be unaffected by whether or not there is opening of the HOV lanes. They will not get divorces, split up their families, etc., just because they no longer have exclusive use of the HOV lanes. I will concede that there may be some marginal effect on the bus riders by lengthening their commute (as will happen anyway when the bus tunnel goes away). But since they are attracted to transit by a variety of incentives including free passes from employers, avoidance of parking fees, high levels of subsidization (fares accounting for 21% of operating expenses and 0% of capital expenses), the effects should only be marginal. My contention remains that returning the HOV lanes to the public domain would not greatly affect the average vehicle occupancy and certainly not match the proeposterous figures you posted in your model.

2. It wouldn't matter to me in the least if return of the HOV lanes to the public domain DID increase congestion, because the issue of equity is more important. You make it sound as if 43% of people use transit for their commute. The reality is nothing like that number. Since the HOV lanes were paid for by what amounts to a user fee (gas taxes) there is no justification in dedicating them to transit (whose fuel tax contribution to the cost of HOV construction was negligible) and not much more for HOV users whose fuel taxes paid per passenger mile are LESS than that of SOV drivers. Transit riders are already getting an exceedingly high subsidy and HOV occupants are benefiting from lower taxes (and overall operating expenses) per vehicle mile already. There certainly is no equity in now EXCLUDING SOV drivers from a public accomodation that their taxes paid for. If you desire to have dedicated HOV lanes paid for by taxes levied exclusively on the users of those lanes, I have no particular problem. That's paying for what you get. The current system is, IMHO, discriminatory.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 26, 2000.

to craig: You write: "It wouldn't matter to me in the least if return of the HOV lanes to the public domain DID increase congestion, because the issue of equity is more important."

I can only hope and pray the pro-I-711 folks use your words as their argument in the material the state publishes for the voters.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 26, 2000.

"I can only hope and pray the pro-I-711 folks use your words as their argument in the material the state publishes for the voters. "

Tell me, Matt, if we had a state policy to control congestion in the state by not allowing those of Asian ancestory (or Scandinavian, or African, for that matter) to drive vehicles on weekdays, would you you accept that because it would indeed work?

It's a slippery slope you are starting down with special privilege legislation, whatever the rationale. Be careful that the precedent that serves your purposes now doesn't come back to haunt you at a later date.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 26, 2000.

to Craig: You write: "Tell me, Matt, if we had a state policy to control congestion in the state by not allowing those of Asian ancestory (or Scandinavian, or African, for that matter) to drive vehicles on weekdays, would you you accept that because it would indeed work?"

This is a poor analogy, since people have no control or choice concerning their ethnicity. However, people can CHOOSE to carpool or take a bus.

You also write: "It's a slippery slope you are starting down with special privilege legislation, whatever the rationale. Be careful that the precedent that serves your purposes now doesn't come back to haunt you at a later date."

Now, here, your argument is a little more persuasive, as we have a moral and ethical obligation to protect the cause of freedom. Therefore, we should always pursue opportunities to limit interference by the government.

In fact, I am tempted to vote for I-711 just for that reason. I resent the fact that the politicians and/or beaureaucrats ignore us and claim to know better than us. I find it insulting and infuriating.

On the other hand, I-711 will transfer money from local/regional control and give it to Olympia. I'm not thrilled with that, either.

So, I'm still not persuaded to vote for I-711, YET.

You have shaped my views on HOV lanes and subsidies for transits and ferries. I would support charging an annual fee for use of HOV lanes, and I believe transit and ferry users should pay for the operating costs, since society has already graciously paid for the capital costs. I have no problem providing the disabled and elderly with vouchers, if necessary.

You just have to be patient with people like me. I am willing to change my point of view. Because, and I know this is hard to believe, even I don't know it all (just kidding, Craig; don't go ballistic on me).

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 26, 2000.

Matthew,

I know where we can put some of the road building money....

http://www.northmasonsun.com/northmasonsun/news/2000/april/0420main.ht ml

http://www.sr101belfair.org/update.htm#update

The most important part of the project is now funded. I-711 could help in funding the 101 connector as well.

It won't be hard to collect signatures around here....

I'm humming "It's a wonderful day in the neighborhood"

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

"This is a poor analogy, since people have no control or choice concerning their ethnicity. However, people can CHOOSE to carpool or take a bus. "

Actually, people can't necessarily choose to carpool or take a bus. Go ahead and look up in the Kitsap and Pierce transit information sites the routes that you would have to take (theoretically of course) for you to take a bus from the nearest bus stop to your home to the nearest bus stop to your place of work. Calculate your elapsed time enroute by public transportation according to the posted schedules, FOR YOUR PARTICULAR CASE. Post the BEST CASE elapsed time. Next to it, post your AVERAGE time going with your van-pool. How much would the CHOICE to take a bus cost in your particular case? Now let's suppose that you aren't any worse than AVERAGE. Half the people would have an even greater delta between their current elapsed time enroute and their best case transit time enroute than you do.

Now let's talk car-pooling. The demographics are similar. Tacoma is a town of Mom and Pop industries. The average employer in Tacoma has less than 50 employees. The largest employers are the schools (which have a lot of employees in the aggregate, but have them split up to a great many geographically separated locations) and the medical facilities (which have a bewildering array of different shifts and on- call people). All of these things make car-pooling/van-pooling more difficult. You have stated yourself the fact that, despite the economical advantages, the time-lost involved in picking up and dropping off all the riders makes the whole process somewhat marginal in return, even for you. If you worked for a small somewhat geographically isolated employer. your chances of finding coworkers (or nearby workers who happened to be on a more or less straight line course to your home and therefore might be candidates to pool with you) is even lower. Now imagine you are the average van-pooler, and that for half of the people remaining, the delta of the advantages of carpooling minus the hassle is even lower than it is for you. And for people in special situations (on-call workers, people who must drop children off or pick them up enroute to or from work, people who work at late night or early morning when few others work, etc.) there may be NO PRACTICAL ABILITY TO CAR OR VAN POOL OR USE TRANSIT AT ALL.

Transit advocates routinely smear people who try to bring logic to the transit debate with allegations about "not caring for the poor and handicapped" but people in the pro-transit/HOV crowd routinely ignore those people who just happen to fall at the extremes of the bell shaped curve due to geographic/demographic reasons and even somewhat contemtuously say that they have made the wrong choices in living locale, profession, or job location. If I were to imply that people had made the wrong choices in doing the things that lead them to be low income or injured I would be castigated for "blaming the victims" by the same people who have no compunction about espousing contempt for those who can't effectively car pool or use transit for other equally valid reasons.

If you are honest to yourself, you'll admit that there are a whole lot of people to whom transit and HOV use are not a real option, for a variety of reasons that are perfectly valid. For those who don't think so, take the challenge. Pull five jobs at random out of the next employment want-ads you see and figure how much time it would take for you to get to that job from your house by public transit. Not with wishful thinking, or the public transit that oughta be, but with public transit that we have right now today.

Have a url on me, and tell me what elapsed time you get, compared to your current mode:

http://www.ptbus.pierce.wa.us/buservi.htm http://www.kitsaptransit.org/routeskd.html http://transit.metrokc.gov/bus/area_maps/regional.html http://www.commtrans.org/

the craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 26, 2000.

Craig: I think you're a little confused. There are no carpool lanes on I-5 in Pierce County. So, all your chatter about people working in Tacoma is irrelevant. If I'm working in Tacoma, then the only relevant HOV option is the HOV on-ramp to the Narrows Bridge in the westbound direction. Opening up the HOV on-ramp is, in my opinion, more likely to make congestion worse.

Therefore, you need to focus your argument on use of the HOV lanes in King County. The only buses from Pierce County which ply the HOV lanes are the Sound Transit express buses. As far as I can tell, the buses (articulated, at that) appear to be full. As far as taking a bus from Kitsap County to Tacoma, you are correct, it would be a mighty challenge. But, that is due, in part, to society choosing to invest in a new bridge rather than Park'n'Rides, buses, and vanpool vans.

But, again, if someone in Kitsap County CHOOSES to take a job in Tacoma, and they CHOOSE to go home between 4 & 6 PM, and they CHOOSE not to carpool, then that is not the same as being barred from the HOV entrance because of your ethnicity.

I am willing to bow to the wishes of the voters in Pierce and King Counties. If they feel the same way you do about "equity", then, yes, by all means, open up the HOV lanes on I-5 to all.

But, I do not see the relevance of having folks in Spokane and Vancouver decide an issue which does not necessarily impact them directly.

I am skeptical that SOVers from Kitsap to Tacoma would be so concerned about "equity", that they would support policies which may very well lengthen their commute.

But if the voters of the Kitsap Peninsula vote to open up the HOV lanes to all, then that's the right thing to do. But, I don't see what would motivate them to do that.

I've taken buses from Gig Harbor to South Seattle. I live about 37 miles from work. It took me about an hour and fifteen minutes in the morning, and about 2 hours in the evening. I was so grateful when I found a privately-run vanpool, as the commute home is only about an hour. The driver charged $60/mo., but I would've gladly payed $100/mo. The driver moved to a different job and the vanpool disbanded. I contacted Metro and Pierce Transit, and determined Pierce had the better deal. For the longest time, Kitsap offered really good deals to Kitsap residents, of which I am not.

For people who live in Kitsap County and work in Tacoma, they're facing a tough row to hoe, unless they can find an effective vanpool. There just aren't that many useful bus routes from Gig Harbor to Tacoma. In fact, I think there is only one, maybe two, bus routes, and I hardly see anyone using them. Personally, I would axe the routes and set up routes which would be more heavily utilized.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 27, 2000.

Matthew,

You made a point several times, that all are free to rideshare. Craig has asked you to really examine the issue, including an exercise, to see if ridesharing is practical. In other words, put your money where your mouth is.

You seem to be saying the exersize is not relevant, because of a lack of HOV lanes in Pierce County.

HOV lanes are irrelevant to the issue. But to satisfy your demand, let's incorporate a likely scenario that would put a south Kitsap commuter adjacent to HOV lanes northbound on I-5 during their commute....

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

"There are no carpool lanes on I-5 in Pierce County. So, all your chatter about people working in Tacoma is irrelevant. "

Your statement was:

"This is a poor analogy, since people have no control or choice concerning their ethnicity. However, people can CHOOSE to carpool or take a bus. "

What I am doing is to realistically examine whether people CAN INDEED choose to carpool or take a bus. You have apparently already answered part of this with your statement that:

"There just aren't that many useful bus routes from Gig Harbor to Tacoma. In fact, I think there is only one, maybe two, bus routes, and I hardly see anyone using them."

And you have answered the second part by saying:

"For people who live in Kitsap County and work in Tacoma, they're facing a tough row to hoe, unless they can find an effective vanpool. "

Given that some people will work in situations (small employers, odd shifts, on call, etc.) that pretty much preclude their effective participation in a vanpool, I think you have proved my point that people can't necessarily CHOOSE to carpool or take a bus.

All I am asking is that people who actually believe that these options can work for everyone, just pull a job out of the newspaper and see what options truly exist for people to avoid using a SOV, and what the time-costs of those options are. Just do the experiment. See how long it would take YOU to get where you need to go by public transportation. This was the result for Matt:

"I've taken buses from Gig Harbor to South Seattle. I live about 37 miles from work. It took me about an hour and fifteen minutes in the morning, and about 2 hours in the evening"

What would the result be for you?

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

A question: isn't there some kind of special exemption granted the 520 HOV lane, where it can't be converted back into a general purpose lane because of the width (or lack thereof) of the shoulder from Lake Washington Blvd. to the bridge deck?

If this is indeed the case, who's to say that other HOV lanes wouldn't suffer the same fate as 520's if they're forced to be opened? Anybody driven I-5 southbound from I-90 to the end of the HOV lane on Southcenter Hill? There's very little shoulder there either; in most places it's a foot or two.

So can we expect the HOV lane on I-5, rather than being opened up to all traffic, to be shut down entirely if 711 passes, for the same reasons as 520?

In general, if an HOV lane bordered a particularly narrow shoulder, would it would be converted into a general purpose lane, or, like 520, shut down?

If this is the case, in the end we'd end up with an HOV lane shut down, and no GP lane to replace it. This is what is supposed to help traffic congestion?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), April 27, 2000.

Since I don't have to commute, I went shopping at the Silverdale Mall instead.

I could drive the 45 miles in 50-55 minutes, or I could take the bus.

I would have to leave my house at 0715 to catch the Mason Co. Transit Bus at 0735. That bus would put me at the West Bremerton Transfer Station at 0855, where I could catch the 0900 #12 Silverdale West route. This would put me at the Kitsap Mall at 0930.

Taking the bus would add 1 hour and 20-25 minutes, and this is with only 1 transfer. I think I will drive thank you.

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

Craig's exercise demonstrates the problem, but it dramatically understates it in many cases.

For example, in Marsha's case above. by leaving the house at 7:15 (as opposed to 8:30) she was able to get to where she wanted to go by 9:30, costing her "only" an hour and 20-25 minutes one way.

But in the REAL situation for work commuting, her work would not necessarily be scheduled to starte at a time when she would be most efficiently arriving by public transportation. In the above case, what would have happened if the work started at 09:15? How much earlier would she have potentially had to come in to "twiddle her thumbs" if her work schedule and the transit schedule just didn't happen to match. Her "best case transit scenario" of an added 2 hours 40 minutes (round trip) is unlikely to really happen, since it assumes that her work schedule will allow her to arrive immediately before work and depart immediately after work with no wasted time.

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), April 27, 2000.

"If this is the case, in the end we'd end up with an HOV lane shut down, and no GP lane to replace it. This is what is supposed to help traffic congestion? "

This is what is called a strawman argument.

Better questions might be: 1. If the HOV lane isn't safe, why are we allowing it to be used? 2. If it's safe for a big old bus or Econoline van, why wouldn't it be for my Jetta?

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), April 27, 2000.

to Craig: By the way, not only did it take me 2 hours to get home by bus, but since I got on the Gig Harbor "express" at the last stop in Seattle, there were no seats left, and I had to sit on the floor. But, gee, I thought it was a "demand" problem, not a capacity problem.

It's kind of a "chicken or the egg argument". You say that transit doesn't work for everybody. But, you have to build a transit system. All of the Park'n'Rides along Hwy 16 are full. And that's with lousy bus routes and schedules. So, if you had decent bus routes, there wouldn't be any place for people to park. There are so many pieces that have to be put into place. You need the buses and vanpools. You need the Park'n'Rides. You need the HOV lanes. You can't expect all of it to be there just like that. It takes time and perseverance.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 28, 2000.

""There just aren't that many useful bus routes from Gig Harbor to Tacoma. In fact, I think there is only one, maybe two, bus routes, and I hardly see anyone using them." "

Well Matt, you either have to make the assumption that the transit planners are idiots incapable of making decent business decisions, or that they've made the best business decisions that they can (subject to the politics of insuring SOME degree of access to the people of the Key peninsula and other low population density areas). Let's see if YOU can do better?

"You say that transit doesn't work for everybody. But, you have to build a transit system. "

So OK, tell me what it would take to build a transit system that would get people from, let's say HOME (the town, not their domicile) on the Key peninsula to wherever you think is best, the TCC transit center or the Tacoma Dome. What frequency of buses would you run from Home? How many people would you be serving? Would they stop at other stops along the way (further slowing their 30mph max speed on that route) or be express buses. How frequently do you believe transit must come by YOUR stop to be viable? How many bus runs a day, and at what hours? Are these your standard $400,000 plus buses, or smaller buses? You going to pay these drivers "family wages" or whatever Laidlaw is willing to get some stumble-bum to work for?

It may surprise you to know that there are mathematical formulae that approximate the equipment and FTE requirements for such a theoretical situation (not the Laidlaw part, but the logistical part). And these UNIFORMLY indicate skyrocketing cost of doing business if you try to do conventional transit in low density areas. Even the demand response services that Marsha talks about can only partially mitigate this.

So give us a model for the people of HOME. What would be an adequate system to allow them to use transit for their commute, and how much do you think it would cost? How many people's transportation needs are you buying with that cost. Or should we move them out, to a more highly populated area?

Mikey

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), April 28, 2000.

Picking up where I left off, several posts ago...

To Craig: Granted many carpoolers may be families who won't change their commuting habits. (Although again, are you including off-peak carpoolers? There are plenty of organized carpoolers at my workplace who are not related to each other.) Still, the point is that SOME will change, hence the number of vehicles will increase. I'll get to a discussion of actual numbers later.

Before I address your point about HOV lanes and equity, I want to point out something I've observed both on this forum and elsewhere. That is that non-transit users seem to be very out of touch with transit users' issues. Non-transit users seem to think that anyone would prefer to use a car, if they could only afford it, and transit is primarily a "charity" for the transit-dependent. They take that for granted, as though it goes without saying. You can see that underlying assumption in numerous posts on this forum, including an entire thread with the title, "Maybe we should buy the poor cars instead of transit..."

It doesn't seem to occur to them that many people who DO have a choice might actually PREFER to use transit, for reasons that have nothing to do with cost. For many peak-hour commuters, a big motivation to use transit is the time SAVING that results from being able to occupy oneself usefully on the bus: reading, dozing, working on a laptop or palmtop, etc., instead of wasting time and peace of mind concentrating on rush hour traffic. These people would gladly shoulder more of the cost of the service they use in order to continue using it.

Your posts above reflect some of the misconceptions. When someone says "peak hour bus" I immediately picture a crowded bus full of busy office-goers, while you have to cite studies of the demographics of bus users (which in fact don't apply at rush hours). Most of the incentives you cited for riding the bus were economic ones: "since they are attracted to transit by a variety of incentives including free passes from employers, avoidance of parking fees, high levels of subsidization..., the effects should only be marginal." In my opinion, which is borne out by a stack of letters written to Metro by nearly a hundred co-workers, most office-going commuters' decision about whether to use the bus has much more to do with time and convenience than anything else. The money saving is just a nice bonus. (To be honest I should mention that we have free parking at our Eastside offices, so the point about parking fees doesn't apply to us, but it may be significant to others.)

That's not to say non-transit users are stupid for having those misconceptions. For one thing, transit advocates themselves are guilty of perpetuating the stereotype that transit is primarily for the transit-dependent. Even in my relatively short involvement in transit issues, I've already witnessed the exact phenomenon you described above: when some people (typically conservatives) try to talk about the economics of transit, many transit advocates respond by brandishing the "guilt" argument about the poor, elderly, etc. instead of addressing the economic concerns. So the conservatives give up in disgust and are left with the false impression that transit is primarily for society's leeches, while the transit advocates miss out on some valuable things that the conservatives could teach them.

(As an example of valuable things a conservative could say, it was Brad who first pointed out to me that my own experience with Metro was an argument for privatization. I had never thought of looking at it that way. Another example: a Libertarian wrote to me that if we were worried about transportation needs for the poor we could issue them "transit stamps" (much like food stamps, or like subsidized bus passes for students), while normal transit users paid more. Makes quite a bit of sense.)

Neither side bothers to state the things that it thinks are "obvious," which sometimes ends up in amusing misunderstandings. At the transit rallies and committee hearings in Olympia after I-695 passed, a steady stream of handicapped, elderly, etc. showed up to complain about the hardship they would suffer if their only means of transport was cut and plead for preserved service. Average commuters have jobs to do and couldn't make it down to Olympia in the middle of a weekday, so they were virtually absent. So the Republican party responded to the public input by proposing a one-time backfill for Paratransit and Access service for the handicapped and elderly "whose lives depend on it". It seemed "obvious" to them that the handicapped would be pleased about that; but instead the handicapped community's reaction was, "Huh? What are you talking about? We want the REGULAR bus service preserved. Only a few of us use Access..."

I suspect another BIG reason the misconceptions exist is that much of America is suburban or rural, while transit works best in dense urban areas. When I lived and worked on the (suburban) Eastside (which I did for 6 years), I *myself* never used the bus, and I had *no* idea what it would be like to ride a bus in Seattle. The bus was infrequent and followed circuitous routes, and I had no reason to use it. My car took me straight where I wanted, when I wanted. I wasn't really sure why some people who lived in Seattle rode the bus to work; I thought that perhaps they were environmentalist fanatics, or trying to save money on car insurance or something. I remember the trepidation I felt the first time I got on a Seattle bus. I had no idea what sort of people I would encounter, whether the driver would be helpful, etc.

And now, having lived in Seattle for 4.5 years, all the opposite things seem "obvious" to me. It seems obvious to me that anyone would rather be driven than drive in city traffic, if the bus was somewhat conveniently located and frequent. It seems obvious to me that commuter buses are filled with regular working people, not environmentalist freaks and transit-dependents. I almost forgot that I held opposite views just 5 years ago. It's not surprising that those who have grown up in the city forget to mention things that may not be obvious to people who live in less dense areas and vice versa, and the two sides end up talking past each other.

I'll get to your point about HOV lanes and equity next. Must get back to work for now, it's a weekday...

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 28, 2000.

to Mikey: The people in Home would have to drive to the closest Park'n'Ride. We could build a Park'n'Ride in Home, if there were enough demand. However, Park'n'Rides are usually situated near a major artery (i.e., Hwy 16).

Any bus leaving from a Park'n'Ride off of Hwy 16, should be a non- stop express bus to either the Tacoma Dome Park'n'Ride or a Park'n'Ride in Federal Way. Under no circumstances should there be an express bus to the TCC Park'n'Ride.

As for frequency, the "express" to Seattle from Gig Harbor, the bus leaves every 15 minutes starting at 5 AM. It used ot start at 5:30 AM. But, apparently, there was a CAPACITY problem (not a DEMNAND problem). So, my recommendation would be to have the non-stop express leave every 15 minutes, but adjust the frequency based on ridership. If ridership remains low, then terminate the experiment. If ridership is high, add more buses, and have them leave every 10 minutes. Or, even betterm, recruit riders from the buses and get them to start their own vanpools.

In any case, Mikey, opening up the HOV entrance to the Narrows Bridge isn't going to so squat for the commuter from Home. But ridesharing will likely decrease, so the commuter from Home will likely face a longer commute.

So, please explain why a commuter from Home, who crosses the Narrows Bridge during rush hour in the evening, would enthusiastically advocate opening up the carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 29, 2000.

Matthew,

I can see you have problems following directons.....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 29, 2000.

Getting to Craig's point about HOV lanes and equity.

Craig: At peak hours in a congested region, roadway space is at a premium. The roadway is a precious, expensive, limited, publicly funded resource. We seem to agree on that.

Your main argument, I think, is that the commuters in SOVs *pay* more for that resource, since they pay more gas taxes, hence they should be allowed more use of that resource than the people in HOVs.

But as the lane usage statistics clearly show, the solo commuters ARE getting more of that resource than the HOV users. On I-5, for example, the HOV lane carries nearly as many people as the three lanes next to it, combined. That means that each SOV driver, on average, is ALREADY enjoying the benefit of nearly THREE times as much roadway space as each HOV user. Right? Why is that not good enough already?

Another way to look at it: Commuters who choose more space-efficient means of transport should be allowed to keep the benefit of their action, namely, the extra roadway space that allows them to travel faster. Agree? I-711 seeks to take that benefit away from them, and give it to the commuters who are using less space-efficient means of travel. Why do you think that's fair?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 29, 2000.

Anirudh-

I have posted article after article that answer the questions that you again ask. There are times that I despair of ever getting the facts across. First of all, I want you to understand that FACTS are not about advocacy. Facts are facts, regardless of individual biases. The biases of the author, my wishes, or your wishes, do nothing to change the facts. As I think even you will be willing to admit, the bulk of the articles that I have posted have come from fairly authoritative sources, not from John DoeUs "IUm mad as he** and IUm not going to take it anymore" website. Most are from USDOT websites, most in fact are from people who frankly admit that they are pro-transit, but have the intellectual integrity to put down what their findings really are, not what they wish their findings were.

With regard to your experiences given above (When I lived and worked on the (suburban) Eastside (which I did for 6 years), I *myself* never used the bus, and I had *no* idea what it would be like to ride a bus in Seattle.), it is apparent that you have gone from one biased experience to yet another, and believe that you have experienced enlightenment. You have not. Enlightenment would mean realizing that your experience is an inadequate sample size for forming a useful opinion on transportation issues. That is why our government has spent billions on such studies, so we get an adequate enough sample size to make generalize-able conclusions, rather than just trying to generalize from an inadequate sample size, as you have now done twice. So my recommendation would be for you to actually read the articles whose URLs I have posted.

As far as your assertions that people desire transit over the auto and that transit is faster than the auto, you again are attempting to generalize from your experience rather than getting a larger sample size. For those in the niche, transit is advantageous. For the VAST majority transit is MORE time consuming and poorly fulfills their needs. This is CLEARLY recognized by anyone who has done research in the field, regardless of whether that person is pro or anti transit. Any number of studies show that transit is NOT the mode of choice, even for no-car families in areas with good transit. If you really read the thread about providing the poor with autos, there are numerous articles that clearly demonstrate that the auto is the mode of choice, that it allows them a faster commute, that it permits necessary trip-chaining, etc. If you have read the thread about the demographics of working women you will appreciate how poorly transit serves many of their needs, even where transit is excellent. Please read these articles, please get a "large n" perspective.

I have repeatedly (and I canUt emphasize the repeatedly too much) said that transit has a niche where it is both desirable and cost-effective. The difficulty is that this niche is EXTREMELY dependent upon population density, and for much of the urban area and MOST of the suburban area the population density is such that transit is exceedingly uneconomical. And the farther that transit is pushed out of its niche of cost-effectiveness, the greater the cost and lower the benefit transit provides.

I concur with your assessment that transit advocates have repeatedly used the transit dependents as an excuse for demanding additional resources for the non-transit dependent transit users. But what you apparently fail to realize is the effect of this on the transit dependent. The willingness of the general population to be taxed is FINITE. When people who are not transit dependent use the transit dependent to EXTORT tax money for their "transportation choices" they hurt the transit dependent, they hurt the schools, they hurt public health, they hurt everybody else who would have benefited from the tax dollars that went to subsidize their choices. I have repeatedly stated that I have no problem with "transportation choices" funded by the users, but when user fees cover less than 20% of the operating costs of these discretionary users (as opposed to the transit dependent) they basically are stealing tax monies from more worthy (ie., better support the needs of society as opposed to subsidizing a special interest group) causes.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 30, 2000.

"Craig: At peak hours in a congested region, roadway space is at a premium. The roadway is a precious, expensive, limited, publicly funded resource. We seem to agree on that." Partially. It is only limited in the sense that it would require considerable money to expand the system, but expansion is clearly possible. But it is resource constrained. And it is less "publicly funded" than it is user funded, at least at the state and federal level.

"Your main argument, I think, is that the commuters in SOVs *pay* more for that resource, since they pay more gas taxes, hence they should be allowed more use of that resource than the people in HOVs." No! My main argument is that the SOV users pay the overwhelming majority of the user fess, therefore they should be allowed to utilize the resource AT LEAST on a par with the HOV users.

"But as the lane usage statistics clearly show, the solo commuters ARE getting more of that resource than the HOV users. On I-5, for example, the HOV lane carries nearly as many people as the three lanes next to it, combined. That means that each SOV driver, on average, is ALREADY enjoying the benefit of nearly THREE times as much roadway space as each HOV user. Right?" That certainly is NOT right Anirudh. The SOV drivers have four lanes that they pay for, and three that they get to use. The HOV users get to use all four lanes, while paying MUCH LESS in user fees (gas tax) per capita than the SOV drivers.

"Why is that not good enough already? " Because as demonstrated above, it's fundamentally unfair. But more than that, it's an economic model that can't succeed.

"Another way to look at it: Commuters who choose more space-efficient means of transport should be allowed to keep the benefit of their action, namely, the extra roadway space that allows them to travel faster. Agree?" Obviously not!

"I-711 seeks to take that benefit away from them, and give it to the commuters who are using less space-efficient means of travel." I-711 permits the providers of the roads to use them on an equal basis with the non-providers.

"Why do you think that's fair? " Call me old fashioned, but I really think that the providers of a social good ought to be entitled to use that social good on at least a co-equal basis with those freeloading on their efforts.

But more than that, this is a bankrupt economic model, in that it can NEVER meet the transportation resource requirements. This is because you have almost a binomial situation. Since the resources for the HOV lanes are disproportionately provided by the people who don't use them, if your social engineering WAS successful your funding source would go away as the SOV users became HOV users. Since the cost of maintaining the service don't change (in fact, buses are considerably harder on roads than cars), ultimately the true costs must be borne by the HOV users themselves. Same argument applies for transit.

If your intention is to have an eternal subsidy on the virtuous few at the expense of the profligate many, it may work for awhile. The problem in a democracy is that the profligate many may well decide that they don't wnt to support the virtuous few, and vote it out. That's what I rather expect will happen, sooner or later.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 01, 2000.

Craig,

I have found you to be one of the more intellectually honest pro- 695ers on this forum, which is why I'm especially interested in what you have to say. My post of April 28th was not meant to be at all scientific, nor was it meant to be a general pro-transit pitch; it was merely meant to provide some illustrations of how transit users and non-transit users misunderstand each other, because the two sides use the same words to talk about different things, and each side fails to state the things that are "obvious" in their own frame of reference. These misunderstandings are not something that can be scientifically measured (except perhaps by a linguist). All I can do is provide anecdotal examples.

There was one sentence in my post which was worded too generally: "It seems obvious to me that ANYONE would rather be driven than drive in city traffic, if the bus was somewhat conveniently located and frequent." I should have more accurately said, "It seems obvious to me that MANY people who commute from the city would rather be driven than drive in heavy rush hour traffic, if the bus was somewhat conveniently located and frequent." Worded this way, this statement is not in conflict with your statement, "transit has a niche where it is both desirable and cost-effective." The intent of my statement was just to provide an example of how a city-dweller and an equally intelligent suburb-dweller can have oppposite beliefs about transit seem "obvious" to them since their frames of reference are so different. I believe that the unstated "obvious" is at the root of many miscommunications.

(I haven't read everything you've posted about transit on this forum, but as you know, I agree with your position that transit is less cost- effective, and should be funded less, in the low-density suburbs than in high-density areas; I've said this in several threads that you've participated in.)

The point in your last paragraph about the harmful results of underpriced transit fares is a good one. I will bring it up if I talk with county council staff involved with transit or transit advocates in the future. Again, I know that the Metro poll showed that bus riders favored a fare increase, and I know that Metro staff recommended a fare increase after the election, so I don't know why the council chose not to go with their recommendation.

But getting back to HOV lanes. You said that your main issue with HOV lanes had to do with equity. You didn't respond to my post of April 29th, which dealt with that issue.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 01, 2000.

OK, looks like our posts crossed. I wrote the above right after seeing your first response and before seeing your second.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 01, 2000.

Craig: In response to your second post (the one dated "May 01").

Firstly, you are insinuating once again, falsely, that HOV users contribute nothing whatsoever to the cost of the roadway.

Secondly, on a congested highway, the HOV lane users themselves are not the only ones who benefit from their decision to commute by HOV. Since they are not the only ones who benefit, why do you think it's fair to make them the only ones who pay?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 01, 2000.

Craig's actual statement:

"The HOV users get to use all four lanes, while paying MUCH LESS in user fees (gas tax) per capita than the SOV drivers."

What Anirudh apparently thinks Craig said:

"Firstly, you are insinuating once again, falsely, that HOV users contribute nothing whatsoever to the cost of the roadway."

A) Anirudh has a comprehension problem, or

B) He believes what he wants to. Regardless of "fact"

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), May 01, 2000.

"Firstly, you are insinuating once again, falsely, that HOV users contribute nothing whatsoever to the cost of the roadway." I INSINUATE nothing. They clearly pay the same user fees per gallon of gas as anyone else. But certain users are subsidizers of the system and certain users underpay their costs of the system, as vividly demonstrated by a post Mark Stilson put up on a separate thread. Clearly, HOV users underpay their user fees realtive to the SOV users. That's mathematical fact. You can argue whether or not this serves some greater sociological good, perhaps, but the revenue produced for building and maintenance of the highway system per capita is clearly less for HOV users than for SOV users. That's not even argueable, Anirudh. And you misrepresent my statements in an intellectually dishonest way when you make statements like the above.

"Secondly, on a congested highway, the HOV lane users themselves are not the only ones who benefit from their decision to commute by HOV. Since they are not the only ones who benefit, why do you think it's fair to make them the only ones who pay? " And in paying for the cost of maintaining society, someone who does not pay their fair share (cheats on their taxes, perhaps?) is still paying something and society as a whole is still gaining to some degree because they are not refusing to pay altogether. But would it be equitable to excuse people who elect not to pay all their taxes, because they are paying SOME of their taxes, and making them pay their FAIR share would make them the ONLY ones to pay more? I think not.

And how do you justify the "I want transportation options" transit and HOV user's subsidies that clearly pulls tax money AWAY from the transit dependent, as well as other worthwhile public purposes (schools, libraries, public health, fire department, etc.)? Why should this sub-group of the population be REWARDED with more than their pro rata share of this common resource, let alone why should they pay LESS in user fees for a GREATER access?

Phrase the argument the way it really is. HOV and transit users aren't victims. The victims are the transit dependent, and they are being victimized by their non transit dependent transit riding and HOV using brethren. How do YOU justify this?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 01, 2000.

""It seems obvious to me that ANYONE would rather be driven than drive in city traffic, if the bus was somewhat conveniently located and frequent." I should have more accurately said, "It seems obvious to me that MANY people who commute from the city would rather be driven than drive in heavy rush hour traffic, if the bus was somewhat conveniently located and frequent." Worded this way, this statement is not in conflict with your statement, "transit has a niche where it is both desirable and cost-effective." The intent of my statement was just to provide an example of how a city-dweller and an equally intelligent suburb-dweller can have oppposite beliefs about transit seem "obvious" to them since their frames of reference are so different. I believe that the unstated "obvious" is at the root of many miscommunications. "

And I believe that you once again have failed to achieve enlightenment.

The reason for posting the plethora of demographic studies was to attempt to get YOU out of your "FRAME OF REFERENCE" and get you to look at the demographic studies that have been done in abundance. The REALITY is very different from your perception. Transit IS NOT faster and it IS NOT the mode of choice for even the average transit user, let alone the average non-transit user.

Your statements are not a "miscommunication." I thoroughly understand what you are saying. There is no part of your assertions that I don't understand. Your assertions are wrong. They are not bad. They are not evil. They may or may not be self serving. I am not saying that you are lying or morally deficient, I'm saying that you are factually incorrect. Like saying 2+2=5, your assertions are erroneous, and there is a fairly large body of factual information that I have repeatedly posted that demonstrates that. That is not to say that every transit rider wishes he/she were driving their own car, nor that every transit trip is always more time-consuming than driving a car on the corresponding distance. I won't even take issue with your MANY statement, given that with the numbers we are talking about, even a small fraction is a lot of people. But certainly the AVERAGE transit user takes longer and would prefer their own auto.

Please READ some of the demographic articles I've posted, Anirudh. Read some fact based research, as opposed to the advocacy stuff you've been posting. And please understand that the reason we use large sampling numbers is the inherent unreliability of "It seems obvious to me that ...." Such a statement should ALWAYS be viewed with suspicion, perhaps most especially by the individual who makes it.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 01, 2000.

Craig,

Once again, you are over-reacting to a single sentence in my post. The point of that sentence was to contrast the differing viewpoints of a city-dweller who sometimes uses transit and a suburb-dweller who never uses transit. Period. If you had understood that, you would not be going off for several paragraphs accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, of failing to have achieved enlightenment which I don't claim to have achieved, etc.

I am most interested in your answer to my question, "On a congested highway at peak hours, the HOV users themselves are not the only ones who benefit from their decision to commute by HOV. Since they are not the only ones who benefit, why do think it's fair to make them the only ones who pay?"

You said, "... would it be equitable to excuse people who elect not to pay all their taxes, because they are paying SOME of their taxes, and making them pay their FAIR share would make them the ONLY ones to pay more? I think not."

And, "how do you justify the "I want transportation options" transit and HOV user's subsidies that clearly pulls tax money AWAY...?"

We are not going to have a productive discussion if you insist that I justify statements that somebody else made. I assume it was a rhetorical question.

It sounds like the central issue for you is to find the FAIR share. I think the main point of your answer is that the people in the HOV lane are already being rewarded by having subsidized bus service. In your view, this monetary subsidy is a more-than-adequate reward for the time savings that they give to the others on the road. They should not be further rewarded by having a lane to themselves. If they want a lane to themselves, they should each pay as much for the road as each person in an SOV does. Is that an accurate summary of your position? Or can you state more accurately what you believe would be a fair division of resources?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 01, 2000.

"Is that an accurate summary of your position? Or can you state more accurately what you believe would be a fair division of resources? "

My position is that there ought to be no categorical based restrictions on activities that have been paid for by the users. All payers of gas taxes have contributed to building all of the lanes through there user fees. There is no justification for restricting SOV users from lanes that have been paid for through their user fees.

Additionally, I don't believe that the non transit dependent should be subsidized to use the transit system by the non-users of that system. AT ALL! I don't mind them having whatever transportation choices they are willing to pay for through user fees, but right now they are paying for less than 20% of the resources that they are using. They need to pay full value for their "choices."

What's more, they should assist the REST of us in providing reasonable subsidies TO the transit dependent, rather than utilizing funds that should go to the transit dependent to fund their own "transportation choices." Nobody who isn't needy should expect a subsidy form anyone. Anyone who isn't needy should expect to contribute a reasonable subsidy to those who are.

Have I made myself clear?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 01, 2000.

to Craig: You write: "There is no justification for restricting SOV users from lanes that have been paid for through their user fees."

For commuters in northwest Pierce County and southwest King County, subsidies (including HOV lanes and Park'n'Rides) to people who rideshare results in a mitigation of congestion. Therefore, there is a JUSTIFICATION, although there may be various differences in opinion as to how much of a subsidy is too much. You, apparently, are of the opinion that even a penny is too much.

If the commuters follow your philosophy, they may very well end up with more congestion. Gee, thanks a lot.

Until there are specific road-construction proposals for SW King County and NW Pierce County, complete with schedules, costs, etc., the commuters have little choice but to stick with HOV lanes and Sound Transit.

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

"For commuters in northwest Pierce County and southwest King County, subsidies (including HOV lanes and Park'n'Rides) to people who rideshare results in a mitigation of congestion. "

I disagree. These are band-aids that serve as an excuse for NOT doing what is necessary to meet the transportation capacity needs. And to the extent this can be used by the politicians to justify doing nothing else, nothing else will be done. And to the extent that ferries, AMTRAK, and transit are subsidized to perform poorly, out of their niche, resources will be diverted from things that could work, and nothing will be done.

From an economic standpoint, your statement is the equivalent of saying that the way to get the water out of the boat is to drill a hole in the bottom to drain it. Congestion is a result of underfunding of needed transportation improvements. Subsidizing people to use modes that deprive the system of revenue will not fix the problem. If you lose money on every sale, you aren't going to be profitable, no matter what your volume. Transit and HOV loses money on every sale, since each user takes more resources out of the system than he/she puts in in user fees. How do you ever get better like that?

Ultimately, transportation resources suffer and congestion must ultimately get worse whenever users underpay relative to their use of the system. Such subsidies can be justified as part of aiding the transit dependent.

And even you, Matt, must appreciate the stupidity of adding a whole additional bridge (which you will pay tolls for in perpetuity) to add one lousy HOV lane each way.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 02, 2000.

Craig: "Have I made myself clear?" - Yes, mostly.

It looks like we have got into at least 4 different, though related, questions:

(1) How much should the transit system be subsidized for the non- transit-dependent passengers, and by whom? (Your position: Not at all. Those who incur cost should pay the cost, and not expect others to bear the cost.)

(2) How much should the transit-dependent pay for transit? (Your position, with which I agree: Less than the non-transit-dependent pay. The p***-poor excuse of hardship to transit-dependents should not be used to lower fares for the NON-transit-dependent. Using transit-dependents as "human shields," as King Co councilmember Rob McKenna put it.)

(3) Who should pay for construction and maintenance of the GP lanes? (Your answer: The users of the GP lanes, and they are, through gas taxes.)

(4) Who should pay for construction and maintenance of the HOV lane, if there is one? (Your answer: The users of the HOV lane. Currently, the carpools and vanpools in that lane do pay their fair share, since they pay gas taxes, roughly on a per-vehicle (not per- user) basis, which is fair - right? Except that there are fewer vehicles in that lane than in a GP lane, so ideally, they should be charged MORE per vehicle. (Since there are more PEOPLE in the HOV lane, this would still work out to less per person.) A bus does not pay its fair share, since there is no equivalent 'diesel tax'. A fair charge for a bus would reflect the cost of its wear and tear on the roadway, and would be divided among the bus passengers.)

Moreover, in your view, since the cost of the HOV lane is currently not fully borne by the HOV lane users themselves, the SOVs should be allowed to use that lane too.

Have I got it pretty accurately now?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 02, 2000.

Pretty close, Anirudh, pretty close. Regarding (4), there IS a diesel tax, but the best estimates of bus derived fuel tax versus bus caused wear and tear indicate that they (like the very largest trucks) only pay about 40% of their highway costs through their fuel and other taxes.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 02, 2000.

Addendum:

"Moreover, in your view, since the cost of the HOV lane is currently not fully borne by the HOV lane users themselves, the SOVs should be allowed to use that lane too."

Not exactly. Remember that we are still not excluding the HOVs from using the OTHER lanes. If HOV users are to be not be parasitic to the total transportation system, they must fully fund their dedicated resources (HOV lanes, HOV on-ramps, etc.) and the GP lanes to the extent to which they use them.

Rationally, why should ANYONE (other than for purposes of helping the transit dependent or transitioning welfare to work) be subsidized in their transportation. If we are identifying the problem as congestion, excess vehicle miles travelled, urban sprawl, or whatever, why on earth would we wish to SUBSIDIZE someones travel that clearly contributes to the things that we have indicated we do not as a society desire to encourage?

-- (craigcar@crosswind.net), May 02, 2000.

"Ultimately, transportation resources suffer and congestion must ultimately get worse whenever users underpay relative to their use of the system. Such subsidies can be justified [only} as part of aiding the transit dependent. "

I think that Craig has cut to the heart of the matter here. By paying for other people's transportation alternatives we are robbing the transportation system of the resources it needs to fix itself.

Time for the freeloaders to start contributing to the system, rather than just being parasites.

No rational physician would recommend curing anemia by using more leeches, but that's what our so-called transportation experts have been doing for years.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 02, 2000.

to craig: You write: "And even you, Matt, must appreciate the stupidity of adding a whole additional bridge (which you will pay tolls for in perpetuity) to add one lousy HOV lane each way."

No, Craig, the stupidity is adding an HOV lane on a Hwy 16, before there is an HOV lane on I-5.

The stupidity is building a bridge before you've expanded Hwy 16 between the bridge and I-5 in the easterly direction. And it would be stupid to expand Hwy 16 before expanding I-5.

That is the stupidity of the toll project, not the the fact that there is only the addition of an HOV lane.

However, in the case of Hwy 16, there is a questionable need for an HOV lane, as there is not a single non-stop express bus to I-5. Most of the vanpools leave early enough in the morning that they don't need an HOV lane in the easterly direction. There is already an HOV entrance in the westbound direction. So, for whom are they building the HOV lanes?

People can see with their own eyes that HOV lanes and Park'n'Rides mitigate congestion on I-5 in S. King County. Sure, commuters would love to see the roadways expanded, but no one has a plan. Sometimes, a bad plan is better than no plan.

You talk a fancy talk, but you, like others, offer no specifics. Sorry, but the commuters aren't buying your rhetoric.

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

"Rationally, why should ANYONE (other than for purposes of helping the transit dependent or transitioning welfare to work) be subsidized in their transportation..."

This is a reasonable position. Making those who incur cost pay the cost makes a lot of sense to me. That way, people will self-adjust to the least 'costly' habits.

The main problem I have with the model above is that the entire definition of 'cost' incurred by users of the highway revolves around ONLY the cost of providing and maintaining the highway lanes. I don't see the cost of congestion caused by the vehicle accounted for anywhere. In addition to causing wear and tear on the highway, each vehicle on a highway incurs an intangible, but very real, cost to other users of the highway simply by taking up space on that highway. Do you agree that congestion has a cost?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 02, 2000.

"I don't see the cost of congestion caused by the vehicle accounted for anywhere. In addition to causing wear and tear on the highway, each vehicle on a highway incurs an intangible, but very real, cost to other users of the highway simply by taking up space on that highway. Do you agree that congestion has a cost? "

Certainly, but it is a cost that is borne entirely by the users. As such, it's the equivalent of a user fee. This cost includes extra wear and tear on the vehicles, extra fuel consumption, extra insurance cost to cover fender benders, and that's only the tangible costs. I think (without excusing the conduct) that the increasing "road rage" we see is a cost of congestion.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 02, 2000.

Right, that's part of the cost. But I didn't make my question clear enough.

Imagine 3 commuters who regularly commute in 1 car at peak hours along a congested highway. One day, they decide to commute in 3 cars instead of 1 car. What additional costs are caused by their decision, and who bears those costs?

One part of the additional cost is the additional fuel consumption, additional wear and tear on the cars and road, etc. That part of the cost is borne by those users themselves, which is quite fair.

Another cost is the additional delay they cause to OTHER users of the road. By taking up 3 times as much roadway space, they have increased the time it takes for all of the drivers behind them to get through the highway. I'm not saying that they are 'bad' for having done so, I'm just saying that this action (commuting in 3 cars) has more cost to others than the other action (commuting in 1 car) does. Do you agree that the additional delay caused to others is a 'cost' worth considering?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 02, 2000.

Absolutely and unequivocally NOT. They have gone from a status of NOT paying their full share to paying their full share. They should be CONGRATULATED. Now I will grant you that the short term effect will be more congestion, until the additional resources they are putting put into the system has adequate time to increase the system capacity to offset their increased use, but the alternative is worse. That is that they systematically underfund the system the long term result of which can only be INCREASED congestion.

And that in a nutshell is the dilemma we have gotten into in the Puget Sound region over the last 30 years. As we have progressively subsidized "transportation choices" at the expense of building self-supporting capacity, congestion has dramatically increased.

The solution, is to make sure that users pay the costs of their use. The exception, if any, should be the transit dependent. Not those for whom transit is merely a choice.

The principle, Anirudh, is no different than any other business. When you give away the product for less than it costs you to produce it, you lose money. If you do it long enough, you go broke. You may make the customers real happy while you are going broke (at least the ones you are selling to for below market rates) but ultimately the business becomes nonfunctional.

So it's time to get past the short -term thinking where individuals who use the system without paying their own costs are perceived as HOV and Transit heros while those who pay for the system are perceived as the problem. Let's stop the double-speak and the double-talk and quit subsidizing anyone but the truly needy. Nobody who is paying their full share should be viewed as the problem. No one who ISN'T paying their full share should be viewed as the solution.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 03, 2000.

To Craig: You write: "Absolutely and unequivocally NOT. They have gone from a status of NOT paying their full share to paying their full share. They should be CONGRATULATED. Now I will grant you that the short term effect will be more congestion, until the additional resources they are putting put into the system has adequate time to increase the system capacity to offset their increased use..."

I've never laughed so hard in my laugh. I can't believe you would actually spout such nonsense. Of course they were paying their fair share before, they were only using ONE vehicle. Adding more cars to Hwy 16 will not even come close to paying for a new bridge across the Narrows. I love your phrase of "adequate time to increase the system capacity". Try "MY LIFETIME". I can only hope the pro-I-711 forces use your words in their advertising. Absolutely moronic.

You also write: "So it's time to get past the short -term thinking where individuals who use the system without paying their own costs are perceived as HOV and Transit heros while those who pay for the system are perceived as the problem. Let's stop the double-speak and the double-talk and quit subsidizing anyone but the truly needy. Nobody who is paying their full share should be viewed as the problem. No one who ISN'T paying their full share should be viewed as the solution."

It's not a question of heroes and problems. It's a question of cost vs. benefits. It's conceivable that for every dollar spent subsidizing ridesharing on the main arteries during rush hour congestion, the Puget Sound gets back $3 to the economy. Ridesharing facilitates the ability of people to live where housing is cheaper. Thus, the pool of available employees is expanded. This is a positive development for companies like Microsoft, Boeing, etc. Likewise, the employees make more money than they otherwise could have if they chose to work where the housing is affordable. Hence, the jobs and the growth of business might have taken place in some other region of the country.

So, for example, the community subsidizes me by as much as $1000.yr., let's say. But, I end up making $10K more per year than I otherwise would have working closer to home. Result is $2800 more goes to the federal government - $1500 in income taxes and $1300 in payrill taxes (split between the employer and employee). Let's be optimistic, and assume that $2500 of that makes its way back to the state of Washington. Also, I have an extra $7K in discretionary income. Let's say I save $3K of it, leaving me with $4K to pump into the economy.

Only a bozo would pass up a deal like that. As far as I can tell, Boeing, Microsoft, and other big employers love ridesharing. The smaller companies know that when Boeing, Microsoft, etc. are prospering, they prosper, too.

Those of us who commute, day in and day out, can see the full Park'n'Rides. We can see the full buses. We can see vanpools like mine, which often have more than 10 people. And many of the people are going to good paying jobs. Good paying jobs means more tax revenue. More tax revenue can lead to government surpluses. Government surpluses can lead to lower interest rates. Lower interest rates leads to rising wealth in the stock market, assuming it can coexist with low unemployment.

I previously predicted that higher gasoline prices would be devastating to the stock market. A couple of weeks later, the stock market collapsed, evaporating trillions of dollars of paper profits. When are you going to learn? When I say that ridesharing is good for the economy, you can bank on it!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 03, 2000.

Matt needs a lesson in basic economics.

His periodic self-serving diatribes appear to only interfere with what otherwise is a quite interesting discussion between Anirudh and Craig.

He should butt out and start his own thread, and permit the interesting discussion to continue with less "noise."

Better yet, he might start his own discussion site (ALL4ME.COM?)

Mikey

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), May 03, 2000.

"The principle, Anirudh, is no different than any other business. When you give away the product for less than it costs you to produce it, you lose ... The solution, is to make sure that users pay the costs of their use."

I agree with these principles. I also understand that one of the things you're saying is that subsidies for transit are draining money away from road building.

The transit subsidy issue is making the discussion complicated. In order to simplify the discussion, let's suppose for a while that there were no buses at all, and that everyone was wealthy enough to afford a car. I want to know if you would support the concept of an HOV lane in that case.

Consider my example of the 3 commuters in 3 cars vs. 1 car on a congested highway again. I assume most of your answers would remain the same, under these simplifying assumptions. A couple of things strike me about your answers.

Firstly, you said:

"They have gone from a status of NOT paying their full share to paying their full share." and "... until the additional resources they are putting put into the system has adequate time to increase the system capacity to offset their increased use..."

In other words, 3 times as many cars will generate 3 times as much gas tax, so there will be 3 times as much money to build and maintain freeway lanes. Hence it will be possible to build 3 times as many freeway lanes to accommodate them.

There is an underlying assumption here that 3 times as much money will be enough to build 3 times as many lanes. Isn't there? In other words, an assumption that each successive lane will cost as much to build as the previous one did -- that the 10th, 11th and 12th lanes will each cost as much to build as the 3rd or 4th one did.

Secondly, I asked,

"each vehicle on a highway incurs an intangible, but very real, cost to other users of the highway simply by taking up space on that highway. ... Do you agree that the additional delay caused to others is a 'cost' worth considering?"

and your answer was, "Absolutely and unequivocally NOT."

I really find that answer striking. Do you really feel that the delay that peak-hour commuters experience while waiting in a backup of vehicles on a congested freeway is not something worth considering?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 03, 2000.

There is an underlying assumption here that 3 times as much money will be enough to build 3 times as many lanes. Isn't there? In other words, an assumption that each successive lane will cost as much to build as the previous one did -- that the 10th, 11th and 12th lanes will each cost as much to build as the 3rd or 4th one did.

No there isnt. If we are talking about lanes that HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUILT, then we are talking about lanes that have been paid for by the users through their gas taxes. Those who have paid their gas taxes have already earned the right to use existing lanes. If you are talking about adding capacity, it goes without saying that the costs have almost certainly gone up, even in constant year dollars, from highways built in the mid 60s. And in non constant dollars, well heck, I could have bought a New Porsche 911 in 1966 (shortly after they replaced the C model for $7500, if Id had the $7500.

Now if what you are trying to get at, Anirudh, is that the revenue from gas taxes is inadequate to fund future expansion, that may be a rationale for raising gas taxes. That is not a rationale for having a segment of the user population pay less than its pro-rata share. And it certainly is not a rationale for depriving the SOV users from infrastructure that they have already paid for. Secondly, I asked, "each vehicle on a highway incurs an intangible, but very real, cost to other users of the highway simply by taking up space on that highway. ... Do you agree that the additional delay caused to others is a 'cost' worth considering?" and your answer was, "Absolutely and unequivocally NOT." I really find that answer striking. Do you really feel that the delay that peak-hour commuters experience while waiting in a backup of vehicles on a congested freeway is not something worth considering? 

I guess I somehow failed to make myself clear on this issue Anirudh. What part of "Absolutely and unequivocally NOT." Did you not understand?

The roadways are a commons, and those who contributed to the commons have a right to it. Because the HOV users did not previously exercise that right, does not deprive them of the right to this commons. If they now use three cars rather than one, would you punish them for doing so? Will that have an effect on the commons? Sure. But it is their RIGHT to have that effect. If someone does not vote in elections for several years, while I do, does he lose his franchise? Of course not. If I vote in EVERY election while another citizen rarely votes, should I be deprived of my franchise until he catches up? Of course not. What about if when he does return to vote, he cancels my vote? Does he have an effect on the election, adverse in my opinion. Sure. But he has a RIGHT to vote, even if it cancels mine, and I would not be justified in denying him his franchise as long as he is a citizen like me. SOV users are not second class citizens. They pay their share. The same cant be said of the HOV users, particularly the transit users.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 03, 2000.

to Anirudh: Another problem with HOV lanes is that the users are no longer paying as much as they once did, as a result of the passage of I-695. Therefore, there is less opportunity to expand the HOV lanes. Hence, their usefulness will steadily decline.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 04, 2000.

Anirudh-

It's been five days.

No response?

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

Finally got a chance to return to this discussion... sorry for the slow response, got called away on many other things.

"I guess I somehow failed to make myself clear on this issue Anirudh. What part of "Absolutely and unequivocally NOT." Did you not understand?"

You said, quite clearly and unequivocally, that you don't think the delay caused to commuters by congestion is a cost worth considering (compared to the cost of gas taxes). I found that such a surprising viewpoint that I had to ask again to make sure that was what you were really saying. In Seattle, it's generally taken for granted that congestion has a cost to life; it goes without saying.

We may disagree about the relative importance of the cost of gas taxes vs. the cost of delay due to congestion, but we need to both appreciate that the cost of delay due to congestion IS important, in order to get further with the discussion.

I wonder if people who don't deal with the commute on a daily basis really appreciate the seriousness of the traffic congestion problem. On Highway 520 (the one I'm most familiar with), for example, a 12- mile commute between Seattle and the Eastside that takes just 15-20 minutes at off-peak hours, often takes as long as 45-60 minutes during the peak period. The 'peak period' has been growing over the years; these days, it lasts over 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the evening. Tens of thousands of office-goers sit in the frustrating, stress-inducing peak-period backup in BOTH directions, every day! These are productive, waking hours that could be spent in many better ways than concentrating on bumper-to-bumper traffic. The cost to the quality of life is enormous.

The biggest stalling problem to building more lanes across the lake is not lack of funds, but opposition by many groups who have an interest in the matter, especially neighborhood groups on either side of the lake. Even if the number of lanes is doubled, it will not be enough to keep up with the peak-hour demand, as the population of the region continues to grow. Even with additional funding, there will always be a problem of limited roadway space.

The other very interesting thing I picked up from your latest remarks is that some SOV users seem to think they are being treated as "second class citizens" by being "excluded" from the fast-moving HOV lane. I think I'm starting to understand what the feeling of "unfairness" that some people have about HOV lanes is all about. It sounds like a feeling of, "I was good and hard-working, I paid for my car, I paid my share of gas taxes for the road; those people in that OTHER car paid no more than I; I even helped pay for that !@#$! BUS those people are riding in!! How come THEY'RE getting to drive in the fast lane and I have to sit in this @#$! backup??! It's the HEIGHT of unfairness!"

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

"Even if the number of lanes is doubled, it will not be enough to keep up with the peak-hour demand, as the population of the region continues to grow. Even with additional funding, there will always be a problem of limited roadway space. " This is a fairly nihilistic statement, that could equally be applied to ANY transportation mode. Light rail capacity is ultimately finite, heavy rail capacity is ultimately finite, ferryspace capacity, airspace capacity, etc., etc.

This statement is a justification for doing nothing, not a method of solving problems. If you are just plain anti-growth, say so, don't confuse it with a transportation issue.
The reality is that the bulk of the demographic trends that have been driving (no pun intended) VMT per capita are now peaking. It IS within our capability to build adequate roadway to cover the needs for the current population, despite 25 years of underspending on capacity.
What you are describing is not a problem of dealing with VMT per capita but a problem of dealing with population.
As I have repeatedly said, if you want the economic drivers, you are going to attract people. And the transportation needs of those people are going to have to be paid for.

And of course I appreciate the problems of commuters. But they will not be solved by saying it's hopeless, let's not even try. And ultimately it's not even about fairness, but about solving problems. Right now, HOV and transit are being used as an excuse for not doing what needs to be done. By any reasonable measure, they are not working in solving the region's congestion problems. There are numerous studies that demonstrate that they not only are not working, but they are unlikely to work in the future. Why not go with what does work?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 10, 2000.

Once again, as I said in my very first response near the top of this thread, I agree that more lanes will be needed on the region's most congested corridors, sooner or later.

However, in corridors such as 520, where the number of lanes that can be built is limited by special factors, the demand will always outstrip the supply, even when more lanes ARE built. That's what I meant by, ""Even if the number of lanes is doubled, it will not be enough to keep up with the peak-hour demand... there will always be a problem of limited roadway space."

Now this point doesn't apply in a rural environment where space is plentiful. On a highway such as I-90 running through the open fields in Eastern WA, it's a relatively simple matter to increase the road capacity by building more lanes. All you have to do is acquire a strip of land on either side of the roadway and pave it over. It may well turn out to be even CHEAPER to build the next set of lanes than it was to build the first few.

But contrast that with an urban environment where the space for roadway expansion is limited. One example is 520, where expansion is limited by neighborhood opposition. As another example, think of I-5 running through downtown Seattle. On one side of the freeway is Capitol Hill, a rocky cliff topped by the densest concentration of apartment buildings north of San Francisco. On the other side (and partly on TOP of the freeway) are the Washington State Convention Center and a number of highrise office buildings. Over the freeway at various points run several bridges connecting Capitol Hill and First Hill with downtown. If you wanted to widen the freeway, you'd have to destroy an entire block along the length of Capitol Hill, or demolish the perfectly good Convention Center and relocate a few skyscrapers. If you wanted to build another layer of lanes on top, you'd have to rebuild a number of bridges, and overcome opposition from irate landlords on Capitol Hill whose views would be impaired. Alternatively you'd have to tunnel under the existing freeway. Any of these options would end up costing WAY more per lane than the original lanes did. The supply of lanes will never be able to keep up with the demand.

Hence, on highways in congested urban areas where space is limited, we will always have to deal with the problem of how to divide up the existing lanes in a way that is fair, alleviates congestion and maximizes the number of people transported per hour.

"By any reasonable measure, they [HOV lanes and transit] are not working in solving the region's congestion problems." - On the contrary, the numbers show that HOV lanes, at least, are working extremely well in reducing peak-period congestion in WA. The numbers are what convinced me to support HOV lanes.

Besides reducing congestion, I also think that HOV lanes are fair. I'll explain why I think they are fair later.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 11, 2000.

"The supply of lanes will never be able to keep up with the demand. "

You've talked around the issue, Anirudh, but missed the point. If the above statement is true (and I believe it to be true only in the sense that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, if people are convinced it can't be done, they won't try, and Surprise! it doesn't get done) it is EQUALLY true for all other modes of transportation. It is, as I have stated, a nihilistic sort of transportation philosophy that applies equally to bus transit (never be frequent enough, have adequate capacity, be close enough to walk to, etc.), light rail (too costly, not enough capacity, etc.)

This is not a way to solve the transportation problem, Anirudh. It's an excuse to do nothing. The results of doing nothing will be, in a free and mobile society, the diversion of resources and people to those rural areas that you talk about. Anti-sprawl laws won't stop that. Preaching the virtues of a "sustainable community" won't stop that.

As long as you allow people to be free and have a market economy, they'll go to where their needs ARE met.

Now if your agenda is anti-growth for the Puget Sound area (and for many that's a perfectly valid agenda, Emmett Watson was joking about being a member of "Lesser Seattle Incorporated" (a take-off on the then prominent Seattle booster group, Greater Seattle Incorporated) back in the 60s). And if that's your desired result, OK.

But if you think there is going to be any other result of failing to give the customer what the customer wants in a free market environment, you are wrong. Just as you are wrong when you say that the supply "can't" keep up with the demand.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 11, 2000.

Anirudh-

If you want an even more evidence of what Craig is telling you about a free society, read this: http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/susp11.shtml

We basically lack the will to keep even unlicensed drivers off the road. Until or unless someone infects the general population with a "pro-transit" gene or virus, people will "vote with their feet" or at least with their Goodyear's, and just keep driving.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 11, 2000.

Now if we took Anirudhs attitude toward this issue wed just recommend that people shower together to conserve hot water, that whatever additional generating capacity we came up with would just be an exercise in futility, because the supply of energy will never keep up with the demand.

Risk of electricity shortage rises as we grow, officials say Long a net exporter of electricity, the Pacific Northwest is facing an increasing risk of shortages. In February, the Northwest Power Planning Council warned that there is a one-in-four chance of a regional power shortfall by 2003. The basic problem: The Northwest continues to grow.

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/elec11m_20000511.html

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 11, 2000.

Taking Anirudhs philosophy still further, why do we build more capacity in the sewer system? People will just use it. In addition to showering together, perhaps we should also urinate and defecate together?

 As the region grows, we will need more capacity in the sewage treatment system.  To protect public health and the environment we must plan and build new facilities before they are needed.

http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wtd/rwsp/tutorial/problem.htm

http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wtd/rwsp/graphics/capacity.pdf

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 11, 2000.

So where would you put the extra freeway lanes that you believe would end traffic congestion on I-5 or SR-520?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

So where would you put the extra sewer plants that the URLs listed above indicate will be needed to handle the additional poop from coming population growth?

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

"why do we build more capacity in the sewer system?" - the difference is that there isn't a shortage of space to increase sewage capacity, while there is a shortage of space to increase the number of freeway lanes.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

"why do we build more capacity in the sewer system?" - the difference is that there isn't a shortage of space to increase sewage capacity, while there is a shortage of space to increase the number of freeway lanes. "

That's a nonsense answer. We have every bit as much space to increase freeway lanes as we do sewage capacity, more in fact, since sewers require eventual access to a waterfront for discharge, and freeway lanes don't. Sewers require right of way to every inhabited building. Trunk lines require right of way to every treatment plant. Treatment plants require space (including space to store chlorine and other hazardous chemicals) and right of way to a discharge body of water, or alternatively even more right of way to a water recycling system.

You know as little about sewage treatment as you do about transportation and economics.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

So... Returning to the original question, Zowie:

"So where would you put the extra freeway lanes that you believe would end traffic congestion on I-5 or SR-520? "

-- Curious George (---@---.---), May 12, 2000.

Curious-

So where would you put the sewer lines and sewer treatment plants, since you're butting in to this discussion? And what would stop you from putting the new freeway lanes in parallel to them?

;-}

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

Doesn't look like we're going to get an answer out of Zowie. Good thing he reminded us that any new freeway lanes would need to be parallel to the existing ones, though, or we might have put them in perpendicular by mistake. :-)

Craig, so where would you put the extra freeway lanes that you believe would end traffic congestion on I-5 or SR-520? It's a sincere question. I want to know what solution you have in mind.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

"Craig, so where would you put the extra freeway lanes that you believe would end traffic congestion on I-5 or SR-520? It's a sincere question. I want to know what solution you have in mind. "

No it isn't, Anirudh, it's a straw man argument.

And zowie's example is apropos, it is no more impossible to add capacity for transportation than it is to add capacity for water, sewerage, electric power, schools, public art, or anything else. Space is space, and it clearly can be done. Won't be quick and it won't be cheap, but it clearly can be done.

And YOU have yet to address the issue of why building capacity in roads would be futile because they would simply fill up, but building capacity in transit or HOV somehow wouldn't?

If your agenda is anti-growth, it makes perfect sense, and I'm not necessarily opposed to an anti-growth agenda. But expecting both growth and social engineering that the majority finds objectionable to both work in a free society is, IMHO, an unreasonable expectation.

the craigster


-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 13, 2000.

Craig writes:

>>And zowie's example is apropos, it is no more impossible to add capacity for transportation than it is to add capacity for water, sewerage, electric power, schools, public art, or anything else.<<

It's not impossible, but you and I both know that it's a lot easier to find space to add existing sewer capacity than it is to find space for roads. You want bigger sewers, you dig up a road and put them in, and you don't need to find any new right-of-way for them. The biggest sewer pipes are about the width of one road lane, give or take a couple of feet. If you do need to find new right-of-way, it's undergound anyway, and once the work is done nobody will notice it.

You want wider roads, and in most places around Puget Sound (I-5, 405, 520, 167) you've got to start knocking down miles of buildings. Like you said, it's not impossible to do, but are you, Craig, going to be the one to advocate knocking down Key Tower, the jail, the Convention Center, etc., to find room to expand I-5 through downtown?

Or if you want to put it underground, are you going to acknowledge that it's going to be incredibly expensive? We all know that Boston's doing this, and Big Dig's currently running at about $1.2 billion per mile, with costs expected to increase before it's over.

Or if you want to double deck I-5, are you really going to be able to find public support when people will have visions of I-880 in Oakland dancing in their heads?

I'm not denying that new road space is needed, and never have. But while everybody complains about traffic, I'm not convinced that society is willing to pay the costs to fix the problem, either in terms of space, or $ (see 695's gutting of R-49 for just one example). Most places that I've lived have fought road expansion tooth-and-nail, while at the same time suffering through monstrous traffic jams during peak periods. There's a fundamental logical disconnect for many people, in that they want congestion relieved, but aren't willing to pay the costs, and I'm not sure how anybody (politicans, activists, whoever) can break through that.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), May 13, 2000.

BB-

Welcome back!

Way back when I took systems engineering, the recommended way to look at problems was something like this:

1. Decide IF you want to tackle a problem. Hence my comments to Anirudh that if he simply didn't desire to deal with increasing congestion, that was a reasonable position. There would be consequences to that decision, in terms of the Puget Sound region becoming a less desirable place, people, jobs, etc., going elsewhere. It is to that extent a forced choice option. Do something and pay a certain price. Do nothing and accept certain consequences. 2. If you decide you want to tackle the problem, look at the options and look at the cost-benefit of each option. That is essentially what you were saying people were reluctant to do. Each option has certain fiscal and environmental consequences. From what appears to be going on up above, Anirudh has not yet gotten past stage one. Clearly, if you haven't decided that the problem IS a problem, your wasting your time discussing options. If he makes up his mind that the problem needs to be fixed, then it comes down to WHICH of the options provides the most "fix" for what environmental, social, and fiscal prices.

You are right in saying that no option will be cheap and no option will be without controversy. I will also add that no option will be quick. All large public works projects require substantial lead time. Seattle and King County has already dug themselves a deep hole by not addressing needed improvements decades ago. The hurt themselves further by over-promising what Sound Transit can do, leaving people the impression that Sound Transit could somehow solve the problem when Sound Transit's own EIS indicates that even if it is on-time (doubtful in my opinon) and on-budget (lot of technical risk in those tunnels), and actually attracts the number of users projected (not impossible, but historically unlikely in the extreme), it will not have sufficient capacity to offset the increase in transportation demand generated by the population growth projected during the time it is being built.

I believe that appropriate leadership COULD make a difference, but the leadership that is there has been squandered supporting various small but vocal interest groups such as Transit riders and transit unions.

craig

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 13, 2000.

"No it isn't, Anirudh, it's a straw man argument."

Umm, Craig, which one of us is trying to "talk around the issue and missing the point" ?

"And YOU have yet to address the issue of why building capacity in roads would be futile because they would simply fill up, but building capacity in transit or HOV somehow wouldn't?"

Hmm... I think you read more than what was intended into my statement, "The supply of lanes will never be able to keep up with the demand." It wasn't meant to be an anti-growth argument, or a nihilistic argument that "success is futile, therefore we should do nothing to increase capacity." I was making the point that space, in a city, is limited, expensive and in high demand (certainly more limited, expensive and in demand than in a rural area) and that the demand is likely to continue to outstrip the supply even after capacity is increased (whether by road or by transit or a combination). That's all. BB just provided some more arguments making the very same point. The relevance of this point would have become clear from what I was about to say next.

You took the rather surprising position (surprising to me, at least) that this wasn't true. So I want to know what leads you to the belief that space in a city is NOT expensive, and that the road capacity in the city's most congested areas CAN be economically increased to the point where there is no congestion at all. Is that what you are saying? If that's what you're saying, I want to know what solution you have in mind.

On the other hand, if you were just objecting to what you thought was a nihilistic position of mine, and you do agree that roadway space in a city is limited, expensive and likely to remain so, then we have agreement so far, and I can go on to my next point.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 13, 2000.

(Wow, our posts crossed once again.) Hooray, it appears that we DO have agreement on this point.

One more thing, from your statement above (May 10), "And of course I appreciate the problems of commuters." -- does that mean that you agree that the delay caused to commuters who are waiting behind other vehicles on the road is a 'cost' worth considering?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 13, 2000.

" does that mean that you agree that the delay caused to commuters who are waiting behind other vehicles on the road is a 'cost' worth considering? " That delay is borne equally by all those causing the delay, in a commons situation, to the extent that each proportionately contributes to that selay. To those who are underfunding their use of the facilities (and that clearly is the HOV and transit users), they are causing more delay to other people than they are paying for monetarily. Those who pay their own way are in an equitable situation, they are paying both their pro-rata financeian and "congestion of commons" price for use of the facility. It is the HOV and transit users who are short changing the system, by providing less to fund it than what they take from it. So yes, congestion has a cost, and as any market driven economy (or congestion pricing scheme) would suggest, the "bad guys" in the system are the ones who under fund it.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 14, 2000.

"I was making the point that space, in a city, is limited, expensive and in high demand (certainly more limited, expensive and in demand than in a rural area) and that the demand is likely to continue to outstrip the supply even after capacity is increased (whether by road or by transit or a combination)."

And this is precisely what I meant by a nihilistic concept.

If you truly believe this, then anything that increases capacity will simply induce demand to fill that capacity (and this applies to increased sewerage, increased water supply,increased power supply, as well as to congestion), and the only thing reasonable at that point is to be anti-growth. Is this your position?

That would suggest that Seattle (and King County) has now reached some mathematical limit in turns of congestion/cost/population, where it would be more appropriate to start deterring people and businesses from moving to Seattle and encouraging them to settle in the less populated areas of the region , if in the region at all. Is this your position?

If not, it would seem that what you are saying is that we indeed must add capacity to cope with the region's growth. If that is going to be done, it must be paid for. With regard to transportation, it can clearly be shown that SOV users pay for the resources they use through user fees and taxes. It can just as clearly be shown that users of transit and HOV lanes do not.

That can be accepted for the transit dependent, as an obligation of society, and because the number of transit dependent is small, relative to the non-transit dependent.

What cannot be accepted is a model that attempts to finance increases in capacity to be met by switching individuals from the category of [paying their own way and subsidizing those who don't] to the category of [not paying their own way and not subsidizing those who don't]. To the extent that such a model would increase capacity, it would systematically decrease its own revenue stream.

Can you not understand why this cannot work as a model?

So, Anirudh, please explain to me clearly:

1. Are you anti-growth?

2. If you are not anti-growth, how will you fund your model as the proportion of people using transit and HOV lanes increases (driving up transit and HOV expenses), with corresponding decreases in the number of people paying their own way(driving down revenue for roads, ferries, and transit)?


the craigster



-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 14, 2000.

As Craig said, it wouldnUt be quick and it CERTAINLY wouldnUt be cheap, but it can be done.. It might be cheaper just to rebuild Tacoma or Everett where land values are less, and send the business and people there though. http://www.rppi.org/ps250.html#_Toc434987284

Highways 



A. The Problem of Space 



Many people assume that "We don't have space for new roads." A lot of 
the easier methods of widening roads in American cities have indeed 
already been applied. Highways designed with wide grass central 
medians have generally been paved inwards. However, there are still 
opportunities in many U.S. urban highway corridors to widen outward. A 
recent review of major freeways in the Los Angeles area (I-710, SR-60, 
I-5 and I-15) looking for opportunities for widening to add an extra four 
lanes to existing eight- and ten-lane freeways found that about 118 miles 
out of 136 miles have space within the existing right of way or require 
only small land purchases for the necessary widening. A rather similar 
situation obtains on the busy I-635 LBJ Freeway in the Dallas-Fort Worth 
area and on the I-10 Katy Freeway in Houston, where substantial 
widenings to double-digit laneage are planned. In most places sloped 
edges can be replaced by retaining walls and ramps can be rebuilt, 
though in all three cities some sections will require a choice between 
acquiring strips of adjacent land to maintain a single grade or going to a 
double-deck structure of some kind.  



If going outwards is politically impossible or too expensive, the 
alternatives are going up or going down to find the extra space. If 
neighbors are willing to sell adjacent land then simple widening of major 
highways is an option that needs to be weighed against the extra cost of 
double-decking, or undergrounding. Entirely above-ground freeways 
may go the way of early elevated transit lines (the " Els" of New York 
City) and be torn down to be replaced by sub-surface or fully 
underground roads--as is happening in Boston with the underground 
Central Artery replacing the elevated John Fitzgerald Expressway. In 
Brooklyn, NY the Gowanus Expressway, built atop the structure of an 
abandoned Third Avenue BMT El rail line, is the source of studies and 
controversy over whether it should be renovated as an El-highway or torn 
down and replaced with a tunnel. Similar argument is likely over 
renovations of I-95 along the Delaware River through downtown 
Philadelphia. In Salt Lake City people seem happy with the 
reconstruction of I-15 as a 10-lane elevated. The double-decker 
Embarcadero in San Francisco got torn down, not to be replaced at all, 
but the double-deck I-35 through downtown Austin, Texas (four-lanes 
atop four-lanes) seems accepted, as does a section of high four-lane 
HOV just south of Los Angeles CBD (I-110). Such decisions properly 
must be made not only road by road but section by section, through the 
messy and raucous, but essential processes of local consultation and 
argument.  



In Europe, Asia, and Australia there are some spectacular examples of 
urban tunnel highways being built where there is strong objection to land 
acquisition and construction of surface roads. Examples include: 



*	Near Versailles west of Paris, a missing link in the outer A86 ring road 
involves a six-lane bored tunnel 6.3 miles long with an underground 
interchange midway;
*	Southeast of the center of Melbourne, Australia the three-lane Burnley 
tunnel two miles long under parkland and housing and another--the 
Domain tunnel about one mile long (under parkland)--are currently under 
construction as part of the $1.2 billion City Link project;
*	In central Stockholm, Sweden a 12-mile underground ring road with 28 
interchanges (six underground) was designed. Political differences and 
cost increases have forced it to be scaled back by a third to a C-shaped 
tunnelled roadway;
*	In Lyon, France four miles of a six-mile northern ring road are 
underground, most in deep mined tunnels under historic areas;
*	In Sydney, Australia construction is under way on a double-deck 
(three-lanes atop three-lanes) tunnel being bored 3,000 feet long under a 
densely developed area immediately southeast of the central business 
district, and two other sections of underground motorway are in planning 
stages;
*	Oslo, Norway has ten underground highway sections constructed 
during the past 20 years;
*	Tokyo has the world's largest program for underground highway 
construction including most of the seven-mile long Shinjuku section of the 
Central Circular Expressway and two-miles of the Oji section. The 
Trans-Kawasaki and Omiya expressways within the Japanese capital 
also have substantial undergrounding;
*	Haifa, Israel plans three miles of twin tunnels under Mount Carmel to 
improve crosstown movement. The planned tunnels emerge briefly to 
provide a local interchange in a high valley midway along the route.



Every one of these costly tunnel projects is being paid for by toll 
revenues, and many are being developed and operated by private 
companies under long-term (e.g. 30 years) franchises. 
  



B. Advances in Tunneling 



Tunnels are expensive, but steady advances in tunneling technology 
have significantly reduced their cost. Many of the new techniques are 
described under the term New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM). It is 
not very new anymore, indeed it was first applied in 1958, and most of its 
proponents and practitioners are not Austrians. Some of its most ardent 
advocates indeed say it is not even a method but more an approach or a 
set of principles. NATM is widely credited with producing better bores 
for the buck. 



Prior to NATM, tunnels tended to be of rather uniform construction 
throughout their length, the structure being designed generally to the 
needs of the most difficult section. They were overbuilt. NATM 
emphasizes different techniques for different geologies along the way, 
making maximum use of natural support so as not to waste manmade 
inverts (horseshoe shaped frame sections) or other structural supports. 
It emphasizes moving quickly enough after excavation to prevent loss of 
natural support. A lot of rock bolts (forced like huge nails into native rock) 
are used to stiffen up the natural rock. Shotcrete, a stiff quickly setting 
concrete mix, is sprayed under pressure onto walls covered with steel 
mesh. Extensive instrumentation is installed so the tunellers get good 
measurement of pressures and movements in the natural walls, to be 
able to make informed judgments about further appropriate support.  



In Europe, Asia, and Australia there are some spectacular examples of 
urban tunnel highways being built where there is strong objection to land 
acquisition and construction of surface roads. 



There have been major advances in tunnel-boring machines (TBMs), 
invented by the British engineer Marc Brunel in the 19th century. The 
past 20 years have seen TBMs built much tougher, more reliable, and to 
ever larger diameters. The availability of large TBMs is especially 
important for highways because they are the largest tunnels in cross 
section. Until the 1960s the largest TBMs were about 8m (25 foot) 
diameter, hence most tunnels so built only had space for two lanes of 
traffic. Thanks mainly to Japanese innovation, TBMs are now common at 
10m (and even go to 14m as in the case of equipment used on the 
Trans-Tokyo Bay tunnel) providing room for three lanes of full-sized truck 
traffic. Once the principal challenge in tunneling was breaking up the 
hard rock and getting the debris out. Now with "road header" machines, 
relatively simple machines that deploy a large grinder on an arm and a 
conveyor belt, and with simple mechanical excavators and precise 
explosives that move the toughest rock, expensive TBMs and large 
shields can sometimes be dispensed with. 



Another major advance in tunneling is the invention of the jet fan for 
ventilation. So named because they look like the jet engine of an aircraft, 
they are hung from the ceiling at intervals along the tunnel and simply 
move the dirty air along the tunnel. It can be vented out one end, taken to 
vertical exhaust risers, or diverted into treatment channels and 
reinserted cleaned into the tunnel. On all but the very longest tunnels, jet 
fans allow the tunnel builders to dispense with the plenum or separate 
longitudinal ducting above a false ceiling that has traditionally been used 
to ventilate tunnels. That can reduce the quantity of excavation and 
construction by 10 to 20 percent, and capital costs by comparable 
amounts. Pioneered in Europe and Japan, jet-fan ventilated tunnels were 
long resisted by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration on the 
argument that fire might disable the jet-fans. A breakthrough came in 
1996 when live fire tests in an abandoned tunnel in West Virginia proved 
their safety, and they were belatedly allowed in the last designed section 
of the Central Artery project in Boston. 
  



C. Cars-only Parkways 



Providing separate roadways for trucks and light vehicles is an old idea 
in the United States but one that has been overlooked the past 50 years, 
since federal regulations forbade it. The very first grade-separated, 
controlled-access roads were reserved for cars and called "parkways" 
in the 1920s and T30s--north of New York City in Westchester County, in 
adjacent Connecticut and New Jersey, to the east on Long Island and 
also on the fringes of Washington, D.C. The legacy of that period of 
road-building remains in parkways such as Sprain Brook, Sawmill, Bronx 
River, Henry Hudson, Taconic, Hutchinson River, Interboro, Merritt, 
George Washington, Mt. Vernon, Suitland, Clara Barton, and 
Washington-Baltimore. Many were built with low clearance overbridges, 
some as low as 11 feet so that large trucks cannot drive on them. They 
usually have short, sharp interchange ramps and narrow lanes, typically 
10 feet as compared to the 12-foot that has been standard for mixed 
traffic laneage on U.S. expressways. They had no breakdown shoulders 
or median barrier originally. 



Providing separate roadways for trucks and light vehicles is an old idea 
in the United States but one that has been overlooked the past 50 years 



The parkways were sometimes built in broad (300 ft.) right-of-way, often 
along the floodplains of small rivers, something that the contemporary 
preservation of "wetlands" would never allow, but this set them in treed 
corridors, and caused them to wind sinuously left and right, giving them 
a pleasant verdant quality, utterly different in feel from an expressway or 
freeway. They tended to be designed by landscapers and 
nature-enthusiasts who made a major effort to fit them into a natural 
landscape, shaping and rounding slopes, maintaining and enhancing 
rock outcroppings, minimizing cuts and fills, and preserving trees and 
natural waterways. Herman Merkel, a landscape architect, was 
responsible for the first, the Bronx River Parkway (opened 1923) and in 
the 1930s some of the early state toll roads, notably the Hutchinson River 
and Merritt Parkways. They were highly successful financially, based on 
tolling cars only. Robert Moses, parks commissioner and public works 
coordinator of New York City for 44 years (1924-1968), oversaw the 
development of the dozen or so parkways that followed. The idea of 
parkways was to provide city people with links to beaches, parks, and 
other healthful recreation. They were designed with a special naturalistic 
quality, and most were intended not to cater to commercial traffic. They 
were deliberately built to truck-excluding width, height, and ramp 
geometry. Others were compromises like the 170-mile long Garden State 
Parkway (opened 1954), which was cars-only only in its northern third but 
mixed-vehicle elsewhere. 
  



D. The Fateful Move to All-Purpose Highways 



Robert Moses in New York City was a larger-than-life municipal boss who 
midway through his career fell out with the landscape/naturalist crowd 
over his proposal for a bridge between the tip of Manhattan and Brooklyn 
(a tunnel was built instead). He subsequently embraced mixed-vehicle 
expressways. Since the 1950s, federal funding and regulations have 
dictated that almost no cars-only roads have been built in the United 
States. The big swing to federal funding of U.S. highways came under 
President Dwight Eisenhower, who as a young captain in World War I had 
been in charge of an army truck convoy moving from San Francisco to 
New York. It had taken Eisenhower 53 days to make the transcontinental 
journey, so poor were the nation's highways. After the Korean war, with 
communism seen as a military threat, the federal government was keen 
to accommodate the Pentagon's desire for all new roads to be built to 
standards needed to carry heavy military equipment. The full name of the 
Eisenhower-initiated 42,000 mile system of Interstates is the National 
System of Interstate and Defense Highways. As defense highways, they 
have had to be built with lane widths of 12 feet, overhead clearances of at 
least 14 feet, breakdown shoulders of 10 feet, gradients generally a 
maximum three percent, and bridge and pavement design, sight 
distances, and curvatures suited to heavy trucks. And trucking lobbies 
have played a major role, too, in insisting on unfettered truck access. 



Since the 1950s, federal funding and regulations have dictated that 
almost no cars-only roads have been built in the United States. 



The beginnings of a new kind of truck/light vehicle separation are evident 
in bans on trucks in the inner lanes of multilane (five or more) 
expressways or freeways. In Los Angeles there has been a major 
program in the past six years to squeeze extra lanes out of the existing 
pavement, by re-striping the old standard 12-foot freeway lanes to 11 
feet. Studies have shown that both speeds and safety are unaffected by 
the narrowing of lanes, and in a standard eight-lane LA freeway this 
change alone contributes eight feet of extra pavement (the rest of what is 
needed for an extra pair of lanes usually being available in the median or 
on shoulders). In this "LA squeeze," prohibitions are usually imposed on 
trucks in the inside lanes. From the other direction, there is pressure to 
make lanes wider for trucks. The federal width limit on trucks was 
increased recently from eight to eight and one-half feet and with most 
truck engines now turbo-charged, trucks are also travelling faster. A 
number of proposals for new highways (notably the NAFTA Highway 
Indianapolis-Houston-Laredo Corridor proposal) provide for truck lanes 
of 13 feet. Canadian experience with extra-widetimber-jinkers has shown 
wider trailers are safer as well as more productive than those which are 
made to fit in standard mixed-traffic lanes.  
  



E. Truck Lanes and Truck Roads 



In America as elsewhere large trucks are a hot-button political issue, with 
truck lobbies constantly pressing for more generous size and weight 
limits, and motorists' organizations and local activists fighting to stop 
further truck enlargement. A former federal highway official, James Ball, 
now a truck toll road developer at Transportation International, Inc., is an 
advocate of car-truck separation. 



We have had this quite futile and unproductive fight for years in the U.S. 
between the motorists' organizations and the truckers, the truckers 
saying the economy needs to allow larger, heavier trucks and the 
motorists saying large, heavy trucks are dangerous. They are both right. 
On the major truck routes we need to build separate truck roads where 
we can cater to the special needs of trucks and provide the most 
economical mix of roadway dimensions and load carrying capacity for 
cargo movement. Yet we have to get the trucks out of lanes in which cars 
travel. This is the only way to make the major highways safe for small 
vehicles such as cars.
Ball formally proposed America's first trucks-only highway in early 1996 
to go from near Winnipeg in Manitoba to Duluth, Minnesota--a wide-lane, 
heavy pavement structure designed to bring the wheat and lumber out of 
the Canadian prairie and the Dakotas more economically than the current 
winding and slow rail lines to Thunder Bay and Kansas City. He 
estimated he could undercut the railways and make a truckway business 
out of providing links to Great Lakes shipping at Duluth and Mississippi 
barges near St. Paul, Minnesota. Ball envisaged later extending a 
truckway southeast to Chicago then east to Detroit, Cleveland, and the 
east coast. Ball's proposal has been rejected for now by state authorities 
but he is looking for other places to sponsor truck toll roads. 



"We have to get the trucks out of lanes in which cars travel. This is the 
only way to make the major highways safe for small vehicles such as 
cars." --James Ball, Transportation International 



The Pennsylvania Turnpike, which runs 25,000 heavy trucks a day (out of 
a total of 75,000 vehicles daily), has examined what it called a "dual/dual" 
concept, a 2/2/2/2 lane profile in which two lanes in each direction would 
be for heavy trucks and two for light vehicles, but so long as there are 
free parallel interstates for trucks (I-80 in the north of the state, and I-68 
just south in Maryland) it seems unlikely to be a financially viable idea. 
John Hickey, manager of research for the turnpike, says giving heavy 
trucks separate roadways is a very attractive idea. He says that many 
motorists in their cars feel extremely uncomfortable on the four-lane 
turnpike driving right alongside heavy trucks, especially in bad weather 
when the trucks' tires spray their windshields with great showers of dirty 
water as they pass. The sheer size of trucks intimidates many car 
drivers, and Hickey thinks the turnpike loses car patrons because of the 
heavy concentration of trucks in its present mixed-vehicle lanes. 



The main lanes of the turnpike are 1930s eight-inch concrete (the original 
pavement) covered with six to eight inches of asphalt overlays added 
over the past 60 years. The turnpike is beginning its first complete 
pavement rebuild. Hickey says the heavy trucks manage to rock the 
concrete slabs under all that asphalt overlay despite several years of the 
turnpike's efforts to stabilize them by pumping cementatious grout into 
voids as they develop. The new pavement for mixed-vehicle traffic will 
probably be 10 to 12 inches of asphalt. 



If the turnpike could find a way to separate trucks from cars, such an 
expensive thick slab would only be needed on the truck part. Indeed the 
existing roadway would not be breaking up, Hickey says, if it were not for 
the pounding of the big trucks. And in new, well-drained construction, 
engineers say, roads used by cars-only would get decades of use out of 
a six-inch pavement slab. Most bridges for light vehicles would be 
cheaper, too. 
  

Mikey

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), May 14, 2000.

Very interesting article, Mikey, and relevant to the "space" issue we're discussing; thanks. Hey, if those tunnels are being funded entirely by tolls, that's fine by me.

Craig, thanks for the last 2 posts; very clear; I've been thinking about them and I think I understand your position well now. I think I also see what's missing from your model.

In answer to your 2 questions:

"1. Are you anti-growth?" - No, not at all. I like big cities. (But careful here - we may not mean the same things by "growth". I like density. I think you don't.)

"2. If you are not anti-growth, how will you fund your model..." - Terse answer: By making the users pay the costs of their transportation methods. But don't jump to conclusions about what I mean by that. It'll take me a couple more posts to explain.

Again, the transit subsidy issue is making the discussion complicated. To simplify the discussion, for a while, let's talk under the conditions I mentioned earlier. We can add back the complicating factors later.

Our discussion focuses on congested roads at commute hours. Let's suppose for a while that no buses existed at all, and that everyone on the road was an office-goer, wealthy enough to afford his/her own car (so no-one in our discussion is "transit-dependent"). Let's also assume there were no HOV lanes. Let's look at a few scenarios and see if we can agree on what we think is a "fair" distribution of costs.

Scenario 1: Imagine 3 office-goers who are related and live in the same house. They commute to work in 1 car every day. They contribute the same amount towards the cost of the road through gas taxes as 1 person in 1 car does. This is fair, because they do not use or require any more of the "commons" facility, the road, than 1 person in 1 vehicle does. Do you agree?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000.

"Again, the transit subsidy issue is making the discussion complicated. To simplify the discussion, for a while, let's talk under the conditions I mentioned earlier. We can add back the complicating factors later."

But there is nothing simpler than a model when it comes to funding. Your model would have costs generated by one group of users funded by a second group, and your congestion solution would be to progressively decrease the funding group at the expense of the subsidized group. That's a graveyard spiral when it comes to having resources to fund the model. The more congested it gets, the more the resources go away. This is simplified and uncomplicated.

"Our discussion focuses on congested roads at commute hours."

Actually, no. Our discussion focuses on what is an appropriate (and functional, for that matter) way to fund a roadway transportation system. I know. It was my quote that started this thread. Read the posting at the top of this page.

"Let's suppose for a while that no buses existed at all, and that everyone on the road was an office-goer, wealthy enough to afford his/her own car (so no-one in our discussion is "transit-dependent"). Let's also assume there were no HOV lanes. Let's look at a few scenarios and see if we can agree on what we think is a "fair" distribution of costs." Looking at "a few scenarios" is how you propose to "simplify the discussion" of an economic model. You need to take some systems engineering training yourself, Anirudh.

"Scenario 1: Imagine 3 office-goers who are related and live in the same house. They commute to work in 1 car every day. They contribute the same amount towards the cost of the road through gas taxes as 1 person in 1 car does. This is fair, because they do not use or require any more of the "commons" facility, the road, than 1 person in 1 vehicle does. Do you agree? " No I don't. Each individual has logistics requirements that also use the commons. The food that each eat is delivered by trucks by means of the commons roads, the systems that maintain the utilities that they use utilize the commons roads. As I have repeatedly stated, even before the internal combustion engine, roads existed in all cities to support commerce. Ever walked through the ruins of Herculaneum or through any of the pre-automotive era towns of Europe? They all had substantial roads, just for the transportation needs of the time. Does the phrase, "All roads lead to Rome'" mean anything to you? Each and every person who eats, drinks, uses utilities, wears clothes, etc., makes demands upon the transportation system. Even if they never themselves enter a vehicle. So no, I don't agree with your statement that they are requiring no more than the single individual. That doesn't necessarily mean they are not paying their pro rata share through taxes on these other items, but it would be a mischaracterization to say that 3 people car- pooling equate to one driving solo.

Now since I've answered your question, perhaps you will answer mine. In the simplified model, how do you fund services when you have a declining number of full-payers supporting an increasing number of subsidized-users?

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 15, 2000.

to Craig: You write: "Now since I've answered your question, perhaps you will answer mine. In the simplified model, how do you fund services when you have a declining number of full-payers supporting an increasing number of subsidized-users?"

Talk about a loaded question! You do appear confused. Transit users are NOT subsidized by the gasoline taxes of solo drivers.

This is a MAIN flaw in your argument. Alternatives to roadbuilding, for the purposes of mitigating congestion, are funded via state SALES TAXES and the FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Therefore solo drivers are NOT subsidizing ridesharing with their gas taxes.

By increasing transportation choices, the state of Washington may very well be increasing the amount of sales taxes it collects, as well as contributing more to the federal government in terms of federal income taxes.

So, the state of Washington is able to fund ridesharing because it results in increased SALES TAX COLLECTIONS, as well as increase constributions of the FEDERAL INCOME TAX from the state of Washington.

Now, I can understand your desire to lower taxes and have the employers and employees who benefit from ridesharing pay the full tab. But this does not necessarily translate into an increase in the collection of gasoline taxes.

But your ultra-conservative philosophy may result in reduced growth for the Puget Sound region, as potential employees prefer regions of the country, which choose to subsidize ridesharing via SALES TAXES and FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

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

"Transit users are NOT subsidized by the gasoline taxes of solo drivers. "
They most certainly ARE. I have repeatedly posted USDOT references that indicate that buses and the largest trucks do not cover their own highway costs while autos almost do and pick-ups/SUVs more than cover their costs. This is above and beyond the issue of either operating or capital subsidies for transit, the latter of which most certainly comes from gas taxes.

"Alternatives to roadbuilding, for the purposes of mitigating congestion, are funded via state SALES TAXES and the FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Therefore solo drivers are NOT subsidizing ridesharing with their gas taxes. " Wrong again, as usual. Look at the USDOT sites I've posted or simply read TEA-21. Huge amounts of federal highway trust funds are diverted into ferries, bus transit, light rail, heavy rail, etc. I have posted these citations innumerable times, Matt.

"By increasing transportation choices, the state of Washington may very well be increasing the amount of sales taxes it collects, as well as contributing more to the federal government in terms of federal income taxes." Do you have some DATA to support this, or is this the equivalent of saying "there may very well be Roswell saucer alien bodies at Area 51?"

"So, the state of Washington is able to fund ridesharing because it results in increased SALES TAX COLLECTIONS, as well as increase constributions of the FEDERAL INCOME TAX from the state of Washington." Same comment as above.

"Now, I can understand your desire to lower taxes and have the employers and employees who benefit from ridesharing pay the full tab. But this does not necessarily translate into an increase in the collection of gasoline taxes." No, but having users cover their share of costs will have a greater likelihood of keeping a system economically viable then having them NOT cover their attributable costs.

"But your ultra-conservative philosophy may result in reduced growth for the Puget Sound region, as potential employees prefer regions of the country, which choose to subsidize ridesharing via SALES TAXES and FEDERAL INCOME TAXES."
Expecting people to pay their fare share (if able) is an ultra-conservative philosophy???
Given that we are now approaching gridlock in King County, and that it will get far worse before it starts to get any better due to the long lead time required for any major addition to capacity, this may at this point be inevitable. If you have been following my discussion on this thread with Anirudh, that's the point I have been trying to get him to address. If we do nothing, congestion can only get worse, resulting eventually in the people and resources going elsewhere. I am not anti-growth, but for those who are, our current self defeating policies are going to control growth. If that's Anirudh's desire, I can understand him supporting a system that systematically underfunds itself as congestion increases. That will achieve a gridlock and no-growth state quicker than most other options. But if you AREN'T anti-growth, then you MUST address congestion. And the current policies are not addressing congestion in any meaningful way. They may be OK for old codgers like me, since a 20 or 25 year plan probably is not something I will see completed. But if I accept a model that has no chance of winning the battle against congestion but will merely allow us to lose more slowly, I benefit from existing infrastructure now (and avoid paying for long term capital investments I will never live to see become productive) while condemning my children and grandchildren to a markedly lower quality of life. I am philosophically opposed to doing this, be it for transportation or for social security, although the selfish thing would certainly for my generation to simply squander all the resources and die of old age, rather than preparing for the future.

So except for the facts, the logic, and the motivation, you appear to have the story all figured out, Matt.
the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 15, 2000.

to Craig: I don't like the gasoline tax, anyway. It seems to punish the working poor, in my opinion.

Therefore, I recommend abolition of all state and federal gas taxes. Does this annihilate your argument, since there are no longer any user fees? All road construction, just as all mass transit projects, should be funded out of state sales taxes and federal income taxes.

I agree with you that it is wrong to fund the projects with revenues generated from the gasoline tax. There ought to be no gasoline tax in the first place.

As for buses tearing up the roads, this seems to be an argument in support of rail.

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

"to Craig: I don't like the gasoline tax, anyway. It seems to punish the working poor, in my opinion." Only to the extent that user fees punish users.

"Therefore, I recommend abolition of all state and federal gas taxes. Does this annihilate your argument, since there are no longer any user fees?" Of course not, since no one is going to pay any attention to your recommendation.

"All road construction, just as all mass transit projects, should be funded out of state sales taxes and federal income taxes." Oh right, state slaes taxes are LESS regressive than gasoline taxes? And local projects will be made more efficient by first sending the money to Washington, DC, paying for the additional overhead required to collect, play with, redistribute, and satisfy the administrative oversight requirements? I used to be part of that bureaucracy.

"I agree with you that it is wrong to fund the projects with revenues generated from the gasoline tax. There ought to be no gasoline tax in the first place. " You would prefer no connection between use and providing resources? Most every economist is going to tell you that this will drive increasingly inefficient use of the resource. They'll be right, too.

"As for buses tearing up the roads, this seems to be an argument in support of rail." No more so than for camels, dog sleds, hovercraft, and helicopters. Where did you pull that one from?

-- (craigcar@crosswind.net), May 15, 2000.

Anirudh- Just so you don't lose track:

 "Again, the transit subsidy issue is making the discussion 
complicated. To simplify the discussion, for a while, let's talk 
under the conditions I mentioned earlier. We can add back the 
complicating factors later." 
But there is nothing simpler than a model when it comes to funding. 
Your model would have costs generated by one group of users funded by 
a second group, and your congestion solution would be to 
progressively decrease the funding group at the expense of the 
subsidized group. That's a graveyard spiral when it comes to having 
resources to fund the model. The more congested it gets, the more the 
resources go away. This is simplified and uncomplicated. 



"Our discussion focuses on congested roads at commute hours." 



Actually, no. Our discussion focuses on what is an appropriate (and 
functional, for that matter) way to fund a roadway transportation 
system. I know. It was my quote that started this thread. Read the 
posting at the top of this page. 




"Let's suppose for a while that no buses existed at all, and that 
everyone on the road was an office-goer, wealthy enough to afford 
his/her own car (so no-one in our discussion is "transit-dependent"). 
Let's also assume there were no HOV lanes. Let's look at a few 
scenarios and see if we can agree on what we think is a "fair" 
distribution of costs." Looking at "a few scenarios" is how you 
propose to "simplify the discussion" of an economic model. You need 
to take some systems engineering training yourself, Anirudh. 



"Scenario 1: Imagine 3 office-goers who are related and live in the 
same house. They commute to work in 1 car every day. They contribute 
the same amount towards the cost of the road through gas taxes as 1 
person in 1 car does. This is fair, because they do not use or 
require any more of the "commons" facility, the road, than 1 person 
in 1 vehicle does. Do you agree? " No I don't. Each individual has 
logistics requirements that also use the commons. The food that each 
eat is delivered by trucks by means of the commons roads, the systems 
that maintain the utilities that they use utilize the commons roads. 
As I have repeatedly stated, even before the internal combustion 
engine, roads existed in all cities to support commerce. Ever walked 
through the ruins of Herculaneum or through any of the pre-automotive 
era towns of Europe? They all had substantial roads, just for the 
transportation needs of the time. Does the phrase, "All roads lead to 
Rome'" mean anything to you? Each and every person who eats, drinks, 
uses utilities, wears clothes, etc., makes demands upon the 
transportation system. Even if they never themselves enter a vehicle. 
So no, I don't agree with your statement that they are requiring no 
more than the single individual. That doesn't necessarily mean they 
are not paying their pro rata share through taxes on these other 
items, but it would be a mischaracterization to say that 3 people 
car- pooling equate to one driving solo. 



Now since I've answered your question, perhaps you will answer mine. 
In the simplified model, how do you fund services when you have a 
declining number of full-payers supporting an increasing number of 
subsidized-users? 




the craigster 
 

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 15, 2000.

Don't worry, I didn't lose track...

"Your model would have costs generated by one group of users funded by a second group, and your congestion solution would be to ..." and, "If that's Anirudh's desire, I can understand..."

That's at least the 4th time in this thread that you've second- guessed the point I'm trying to make and proceeded to attack the point that you mistakenly imagine I'm trying to make. Allow me to present my model before you dispute it.

"In the simplified model, how do you fund services when you have a declining number of full-payers supporting an increasing number of subsidized-users?"

There may be subsidized users in some example that you think I'm going to present, but there are no subsidized users in the example I presented above. The 3 people in 1 car are not subsidized. They are paying for the resources that they use. They use no more resources than 1 person in 1 car, and they pay the same as 1 person in 1 car.

"Actually, no. Our discussion focuses on what is an appropriate (and functional, for that matter) way to fund a roadway transportation system. I know. It was my quote that started this thread. Read the posting at the top of this page."

And read the posting right after it, in which I said I want to focus our discussion on the issue of HOV lanes at peak hours in WA, to which you agreed.

"Each and every person who eats, drinks, uses utilities, wears clothes, etc., makes demands upon the transportation system... So no, I don't agree with your statement that they are requiring no more than the single individual. That doesn't necessarily mean they are not paying their pro rata share through taxes on these other items, ..."

Umm, I'm confused because you appear to be contradicting yourself here. If the 3 people are paying for their pro rata share through taxes on these OTHER items (food, clothes, etc.) that they use, then they ARE paying their fair share for the use of the road by the vehicles that transport those items - right?? They do eat, wear clothes, etc. 3 times as much as 1 person does, but they also pay 3 times as much for food, clothes, etc. as 1 person does. So how would the fact that they eat, wear clothes, etc. justify charging them more than 1 vehicle's share for 1 vehicle's use of the road?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000.

One more thing,

[from Anirudh] "I was making the point that space, in a city, is limited, expensive and in high demand (certainly more limited, expensive and in demand than in a rural area) and that the demand is likely to continue to outstrip the supply even after capacity is increased (whether by road or by transit or a combination). That's all. The relevance of this point would have become clear from what I was about to say next."

[from Craig] "And this is precisely what I meant by a nihilistic concept."

It would be nihilistic if I tried to use it as an excuse for not increasing capacity. That's not what I'm saying. I've said repeatedly that I agree the capacity needs to be increased.

When dealing with the economics of a high-demand resource whose availability is limited by high expense or other factors, there are at least two sides to consider. One side is accumulating the funds to increase the amount of that resource that is available. That's the side that you have mostly focused on, arguing that people who don't pay are depriving the system of the funds to increase the available amount of the resource.

The other side is ensuring that the resource is used economically, such that the maximum benefit is derived from the limited quantity that is available. This side has been completely ignored in your posts so far.

A further consideration is how to divide up the existing, available resource in a FAIR way. You and I seem to agree that a good standard of fairness is "have the users pay for what they use".

I will argue that HOV lanes are a fair way to divide up the resource. Once again, please allow me to present my case before you dispute it. I'll start with a car-only scenario, and then extend it to include buses.

To continue with what I have to say, I'm most interested in your answer to the questions in my last paragraph above ("Umm, I'm confused because...").

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000.

Craig writes:

>>You are right in saying that no option will be cheap and no option will be without controversy. I will also add that no option will be quick.<<

I agree.

>>Seattle and King County has already dug themselves a deep hole by not addressing needed improvements decades ago.<<

Just out of curiousity, do you live in King County? Various local governments here have often floated ideas to expand roads, and most of the time they have been vociferously opposed by either a majority, or a very vocal and powerful minority. Blaming the government for not building additional capacity is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue. I believe that the tide is beginning to turn now, as more and more people in King County (myself among them) want expanded road capacity, but for many, many years this was not the case.

Take a look at the way things have worked with the 520 corridor over the last decade or two for just one example.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000.

to Craig: You write: "Oh right, state slaes taxes are LESS regressive than gasoline taxes?"

Yes, in my opinion, sales taxes are preferable over a gasoline tax, because the working poor can shop around or buy used goods, in order to minimize the effect of a sales tax. However, there is a limit to how much money you can save by shopping around for items like gasoline or electricity. By the way, I'm not advocating increasing the sales tax to make up for cuts in the gasoline tax. I advocate reducing the gasoline tax by cutting spending in other areas. Alternatively, society could increase fees or taxes for items or activities (e.g., yachts, ski resorts, etc.) which the working poor typically avoid. I have no problem letting the voters decide if the fees or taxes should be increased.

You also write: "And local projects will be made more efficient by first sending the money to Washington, DC, paying for the additional overhead required to collect, play with, redistribute, and satisfy the administrative oversight requirements? I used to be part of that bureaucracy."

Local projects will be funded by the state sales tax. Federally funded projects will be funded by the federal income tax. The federal government may continue to make grants, subsidizing alternative transportation choices. This makes sense if the grants result in stronger economic growth for the region, as the federal government will collect more in income taxes.

You also write: "You would prefer no connection between use and providing resources? Most every economist is going to tell you that this will drive increasingly inefficient use of the resource. They'll be right, too."

Really? So, presumably, then, we charge citizens for use of the public schools? No? Hmmm, how can that be? Or, perhaps, we charge citizens for checking out books from the library? No? Well, isn't that weird, because every economist would tell you....

Or, perhaps we charge citizens a fee for use of ALL county and city parks? No? Well, that's downright un-American. Don't the citizens understand they need to pay for every little thing they do?

Or, perhaps we charge citizens postage for a letter based on how far the letter has to travel? No? Well, surely every economist will want to fix this? After all, it encourages people to send letters across the country when they could've just as easily written to a nearby friend or relative.

Or, perhaps we charge people a fee for the military, based on the value of the assets they own? No? This is an outrage. This encourages people to create wealth and accumulate property at unprecedented rates. Better we should all live in mud huts and pay our fair share, right?

You see, Craig, you are the own who is out of touch with the way society really works. We fund most everything else from sales taxes, incomes taxes, and property taxes. Why should the transportation infrastructure be any different?

I am not opposed to toll roads, as long as I'm not forced to use them.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 16, 2000.

"Each and every person who eats, drinks, uses utilities, wears clothes, etc., makes demands upon the transportation system... So no, I don't agree with your statement that they are requiring no more than the single individual. That doesn't necessarily mean they are not paying their pro rata share through taxes on these other items, ..." Umm, I'm confused because you appear to be contradicting yourself here Not really. You asked a specific question, I gave a specific answer. Your statement: They contribute the same amount towards the cost of the road through gas taxes as 1 person in 1 car does. This is fair is false. While they may contribute the same amount to the cost of the roads through gas taxes as one person, they utilize the roads more than the one person does, because of the common logistics functions of a road that, for three people, are greater than for one person. They MAY OR MAY NOT pay their pro rata share of these expenses, depending upon how society chooses to recapture them. My point was simple. Even non-drivers, non-commuters, people who never travel anywhere except on foot, make logistics demands on the roads.

"Your model would have costs generated by one group of users funded by a second group, and your congestion solution would be to ..." and, "If that's Anirudh's desire, I can understand..." That's at least the 4th time in this thread that you've second- guessed the point I'm trying to make and proceeded to attack the point that you mistakenly imagine I'm trying to make. Allow me to present my model before you dispute it.  I attacked it? If you consider saying I understand to be an attack, you learned how to debate in a much kinder and gentler debating society than I did. But by all means, continue on with your mini-model of three people traveling in the same vehicle from the same residence to the same place of employment.

-- (craigcar@crosswind.net), May 16, 2000.

BB-

Just out of curiousity, do you live in King County? Various local governments here have often floated ideas to expand roads, and most of the time they have been vociferously opposed by either a majority, or a very vocal and powerful minority. Blaming the government for not building additional capacity is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue. I believe that the tide is beginning to turn now, as more and more people in King County (myself among them) want expanded road capacity, but for many, many years this was not the case. 

I used to live in King County, BB, but have now moved to the Kitsap Peninsula because of quality of life issues. I go back reasonably frequently, however, and each new visit my wife and I return more convinced than ever that we made a good choice in our relocation.

>>Seattle and King County has already dug themselves a deep hole by not addressing needed improvements decades ago.<<  Just out of curiosity, do you agree with this statement?

BB, I have reread my recent postings and I am not sure what you mean by blaming government. I certainly blame some of our leaders in government for pushing things that, even if they worked to specifications (on time, on budget, and planned capacity) would have a trivial effect on congestion IN LIEU OF more effective solutions and often over-selling these things (and Forward Thrust/RTA comes to mind) to an often naove and uninvolved populace more than happy to let someone else make the decisions. And you couldnt be more correct, about vocal minorities (and possibly even poorly educated majorities). Certainly the failings are many, with adequate blame to be shared by all.

But I really meant what I said about my interest in this being a legacy for my children and grandchildren. You more than many people realize what I meant by the lead-time between deciding to fix the problem and actually adding to the capacity. Short of changes in the regional economy that will drive people out of the area, we are a decade away from meaningful increases in capacity, even if we had consensus today.

But we wont EVER solve the problems if we dont get past the propaganda of the various interest groups, and the politicians that coddle and appease them. And we wont ever get a consensus if people keep butchering the facts to support their agendas. I have no quarrel with the individual who, knowing the facts, has a different vision of how to deal with them than I do. Thats what democracy is all about. I do have a quarrel with those who lie about what the facts are, or demagogue emotional issues for their personal gain. And I believe its time we stopped being non-judgemental about such issues, that we feel free to criticize anyone including the politicians and the vocal self interest groups who do lie and demagogue. I dont think that Puget Sound will remain an acceptable place to live if we dont get hold of some very basic issues of logistics, and I dont think it will survive another 20 years of political leadership whos philosophy appears to be summed up as Whatever,..

And I believe that it is an obligation of citizenship to criticize, to educate, to be actively involved, and thats what Im doing on this forum, and in others.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 16, 2000.

"The other side is ensuring that the resource is used economically, such that the maximum benefit is derived from the limited quantity that is available. This side has been completely ignored in your posts so far. " Yes it has. Historically, we have let the market (in a capitalist economy) be the driver to ensure that excessive costs are not paid for a resource. The track record of government regulated monopolies is not good in this or any country. We have made "safety net" type exceptions for the needy, but generally let things be sorted out by the free market.


You would have to have a very compelling argument to convince me that government bureaucrats have a better handle on "maximum benefit" and "used economically."


But even if you somehow could convince me of the wisdom and foresight of the bureaucrats (I have visions of Anacostia, and dozens of other failed public housing projects in my mind), I'm not at all sure that efficiency of use is what America is all about.


I could make clear and convincing arguments that this country would be better off restricting all adults to a 2500 calorie diet, prohibiting alcohol consumption, outlawing tobacco,outlawing motorcycles, powerboats, ATVs, PWCs, etc. Certainly no one has to travel by air. For most of the existence of the country, the aircraft didn't even exist. People in fact don't have to travel at all, the roadways and railroads could be restricted to the movement of goods to market only. No one really needs to travel beyond where they can walk, or at most ride a bicycle. We would all be healthier, live longer, etc.


But the other reality that must be addressed is that freedom is an important issue in this country. We fought two wars with our mother country over issues that, too the British, seemed trivial. Even now the rise of Federalism that has been ongoing since the 40s is hitting a backlash.


I think you would have a tough go convincing the American population that "maximum benefit" and "used efficiently" are priorities. They don't run their personal lives that way, and I doubt that they'd be willing to be ordered to run their lives that way from politicians, particularly not when we see the kind of messes the Clintons and Gulianis of the world make of their own lives.


But if you feel strongly about this issue, Anirudh, I'll be glad to hear what you have to say. Better be a good argument if you are going to overcome my skepticism though.

Craig



-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 16, 2000.

BB- "You want wider roads, and in most places around Puget Sound (I-5, 405, 520, 167) you've got to start knocking down miles of buildings. Like you said, it's not impossible to do, but are you, Craig, going to be the one to advocate knocking down Key Tower, the jail, the Convention Center, etc., to find room to expand I-5 through downtown? " I read an interesting paper on the Blue Ribbon Transportation Commission's website where it indicated that only about 6.2 miles of freeway are what they considered to have serious congestion. Now I realize that may merely be because those areas are the MOST constrained, and fixing them might cause other areas to now become "most constrained" although that really wasn't the argument that particular paper was making. But it really didn't require you "to start knocking down miles of buildings" and certainly was less difficult than building an equivalent amount of light rail.

And that's really what it's all about, once you decide that increasing congestion is unacceptable. Not "transportation choices," but what mode do people want and what's the least expensive way to buy the additional capacity. We've been making the wrong choices, IMHO. Craig

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

Craig writes:

>>I certainly blame some of our leaders in government for pushing things that, even if they worked to specifications (on time, on budget, and planned capacity) would have a trivial effect on congestion IN LIEU OF more effective solutions<<

More effective solutions meaning more/wider roads? As I said before, there has been widespread opposition in King County, and many other areas for that matter, to most major road construction projects for many, many years. You lived here, you probably can remember.

More road capacity may indeed have been more effective in dealing with increased congestion, but it also may not have been what the voting public wanted government to do. You can't blame politicians for bowing to the will of the people.

>>I read an interesting paper on the Blue Ribbon Transportation Commission's website where it indicated that only about 6.2 miles of freeway are what they considered to have serious congestion....But it really didn't require you "to start knocking down miles of buildings" and certainly was less difficult than building an equivalent amount of light rail.<<

I disagree with you, but I think you're not talking about what I was. Let me make myself clear. I was talking about an expansion of the following roads: 520, 167, 405, and 5. To add one or two more lanes in each direction on these highways, you most certainly would have to knock down miles of buildings.

Again, I'll ask you specifically, because I'm curious what your answer is: where do you put an expanded I-5 through downtown? Clearly there's a need for more capacity on that stretch of road, but geographic constraints would cause obviously all sorts of problems with expansion. You've advocated expanded road capacity in this forum over and over again. So where would you, Craig, put it?

And if you have an answer for where you'd put it, what would the cost be? $500 million a mile? $1 billion a mile? Do we want another Big Dig here in Seattle?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), May 18, 2000.

"More effective solutions meaning more/wider roads? As I said before, there has been widespread opposition in King County, and many other areas for that matter, to most major road construction projects for many, many years. You lived here, you probably can remember. More road capacity may indeed have been more effective in dealing with increased congestion, but it also may not have been what the voting public wanted government to do. You can't blame politicians for bowing to the will of the people. " No, but I can blame them for not advocating the things that CAN work (called leadership) and advocating instead things that are self- serving. The politicians of this area, IMHO, are currently in an equivalent status to the young man who, having murdered his mother and father, now requests the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. "I disagree with you, but I think you're not talking about what I was. Let me make myself clear. I was talking about an expansion of the following roads: 520, 167, 405, and 5. To add one or two more lanes in each direction on these highways, you most certainly would have to knock down miles of buildings. " Or double deck them, or tunnel under them, or reroute large vehicles and redesign them to carry a larger number of small vehicles, among other options. "And if you have an answer for where you'd put it, what would the cost be? $500 million a mile? $1 billion a mile? Do we want another Big Dig here in Seattle? " BB, we are headed for another "Big Dig" in Seattle for LINK and probably yet another one to pay for safety improvements to the BNSF tunnel so Sound Transit can use it. And we are paying in excess of $100 million a mile, not counting throwing in a half-billion dollar "little dig" bus tunnel for a light rail system that won't begin to have the working (not theoretical, but working) capacity of a roadway. Heck, it would appear that the transit system will put no more people through the bus tunnel than the buses are currently capable of carrying.

And that is the point. Not that roadways are cheap, quick, or easy, for they are not, but that alternative methods of increasing capacity are even less cheap and as Sound Transit is proving, no quicker or easier.

So in the final analysis it comes down to stewing in our own juices, congestion-wise, or doing something. Once the decision is made to do something, the something ought to be a something that will really do the job. Otherwise you are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It may keep you busy and your mind occupied, but you're going to sink all the same. the craigster

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

to BB: Actually, vanpooling is quite cheap, and is also timely, and it can be done in an incremental fashion.

However, eventually you would reach a point where even the vanpools would clog the highways.

Therefore, society will eventually always have unmanageable congestion.

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

(A quick note - work and other pressures are keeping me from participating here for a while. I'll be back to continue where I left off either on Friday night or on Monday night. Meanwhile I see you folks are carrying on the discussion quite well.)

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.

Picking up from where I left off. If I'm to make an argument to you that something is fair, I need to make sure I understand what you (Craig) consider to be fair. I'm trying to reconcile the positions you've expressed about (1) users should pay the cost of the services they use; (2) gas taxes cover the cost of roads; (3) 3 people who commute in 1 car may not be paying enough for the road, while 1 person who commutes in 1 car does pay enough, even though the 2 cars pay the same amount in gas taxes and have an equal direct impact on the road.

I think a consistent picture of what you believe to be "fair" goes something like the following. (The key is in what you said about "commons" property earlier. I didn't fully understand what you meant by "commons" until your May 16 response.)

(a) "Commons" facilities, such as roads, belong to all citizens -- all citizens have an equal right to use them. Every responsible and able citizen should contribute [something] towards the building and upkeep of the commons facilities. This is fair (or a pretty good approximation to "fair") because all citizens derive some benefit from the commons facilities, either directly or indirectly.

(b) Each direct user of a commons resource should also (in a perfectly fair world) contribute [something more] towards the cost of providing that resource, because s/he derives a direct benefit from it, more so than someone who doesn't directly use that resource.

(c) Finally, citizens who use a "commons" facility in a way that degrades its usefulness for others, e.g. a vehicle causing wear and tear on the road, should pay an "impact fee" that is approximately equal to the cost of their impact.

Is that more or less what you think of as fair? (I won't dispute the above notion of fairness; I think it's a pretty good one.) If so, I think you were saying that the 3 commuters in 1 car DO pay their fair share of (b) and (c), via gas taxes (since they pay just as much as 1 person in 1 car does), but they MAY OR MAY NOT be paying their fair share of (a). Correct?

(Incidentally, part (a) applies to anyone, even to people who don't commute - doesn't it? The fact that 2 people become passengers in a car should not make them any more liable for (a) than the non- passengers, right? Your exact answer isn't crucial to my argument, but I'm interested anyway.)

(Nor should it make them more liable for (b) than 1 person in 1 car. They do derive 3 times as much total benefit from the road as the 1 person in 1 car, but that is due to their own choice of a more economical use of the road and car. You wouldn't expect them to pay 3 times as much to the car dealership for their car, or to a realtor for their house, just because they are going to get 3 times as much value from it, and similarly, you wouldn't expect them to pay 3 times as much for (b). They should be allowed to keep the benefit of their more economical action for themselves. However, they should still probably pay 3 times as much for (a).)

I'm not planning on tying you down to some wording, and then nitpicking over wording; I just want to make sure I'm understanding the general ideas correctly.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 24, 2000.

Craig, no response from you on the above; I'll assume it was a more or less correct interpretation of what you've said.

Now let me pull together some things that are scattered all over this discussion. As we've talked about, in a city, space is tight, and likely to always be tight. (If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a city.) On a crowded highway in a congested urban area at commute hours, the roadway space is a precious, expensive, limited, publicly funded resource, in high demand.

We've touched on at least 3 goals that should be considered when managing such a resource: (1) increasing capacity; (2) maximizing throughput, i.e. getting the most out of the capacity that is available; (3) fairness.

Sometimes these goals conflict with each other. We both know that (1) is important; but the reality is that space is limited and expensive, and so there will always be the problem of (3), i.e. allocating the limited space fairly.

As you've stated, in most economic systems, goals (2) and (3) can often be met simultaneously by applying the principle, 'Let the users bear the costs'. Setting up the system such that the users pay the costs of the facilities they enjoy is fair, and also has the effect of aligning the interests of the system with the interests of the individuals -- i.e. since everyone has an interest in keeping the costs down, the system gets used in the most efficient manner. (But if (2) and (3) happen to conflict, you've categorically stated that (3) (which you called "equity") is the overriding concern for you.)

What is the cost of putting 1 car on a congested highway? We talked about 2 costs worth considering:

Cost (i): the 'material cost': is the cost of the fuel, the wear and tear on the car, the wear and tear on the road, etc. The cost of the fuel & car are borne by the users themselves, and you've said that the cost of the wear and tear on the road is also borne by the users themselves, through gas taxes.

Cost (ii): the intangible 'congestion costs', which we might also call the 'time cost' or 'delay cost'. By simply taking up space on the roadway, the car has increased the commute time for all the people in the vehicles behind it. This has a cost.

An interesting thing about cost (ii) is that, unlike cost (i), it isn't a constant for any given car. It depends on road conditions, and the number of people behind the car. On an uncongested rural highway, where there is plenty of space between cars, cost (ii) is zero. The presence of a car simply doesn't cause any delay to other users of the road. Cost (i) is the only one worth considering. People who live in the country might even take offense, quite justifiably, at the suggestion that they are causing a problem by taking up space on the roadway!

Cost (ii) doesn't begin to come into the picture until the cars become close enough together to slow each other down -- i.e. until there is congestion. On a seriously congested highway, with bumper- to-bumper traffic, I claim that cost (ii) becomes so big that cost (i) is insignificant in comparison.

Just how big is cost (ii)? For some very rough numbers, take the example of SR-520. During the peak period, there is typically a 4- mile backup of bumper-to-bumper traffic (from about I-405 to the lake shore) which takes about 25 minutes to get through, at a crawl of around 10 mph. If there's a car about every 20 feet in this backup, that works out to about 1,000 cars in each lane. [(4 miles) * (5280 ft/mile) / (20 ft/car) = 1,056 cars.]

Each car in the backup delays the 1,000 cars behind it. It causes them to be 20 feet further away from the lake shore than they would be if the car was absent. Thus the presence of the car makes them take slightly longer to reach the lake shore. It might sound like a trivial delay, but multiply it by the number of commuters who are delayed. If we say the average vehicle occupancy is about 1.2, it works out to a total delay of about 30 person-minutes.

So the cost (ii) caused by a single car is a delay of 30 person- minutes. For comparison with cost (i), on the entire drive from Bellevue or Redmond to Seattle, a car pays something like 20 cents in gas taxes.

Costs (i) and (ii) are not straightforward to compare, because the units are different; but I think most people would agree that cost (ii) is the more significant one. Most people's time is worth more than 40 cents per hour. If we say the average office-goer's time is worth $20 per hour, that makes cost (ii) about 50 times as significant as cost (i) !

When we last spoke about cost (ii), you agreed that it was a significant cost, but commented that the cost was borne equally by those causing the delay themselves.

You and I are thinking along the same lines here: if the users who cause a cost are themselves bearing an amount of the cost equal to the amount that they cause, then that system is already fair.

What if it could be shown that the cost was not borne by the users themselves in proportion to the amount they cause? Would you agree that that system was unfair?

Before I go on to that question I'll pause to let you express any objections you may have to this model.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 27, 2000.

"Cost (ii): the intangible 'congestion costs', which we might also call the 'time cost' or 'delay cost'. By simply taking up space on the roadway, the car has increased the commute time for all the people in the vehicles behind it. This has a cost. "

I'd agree that this has a cost. But I'd maintain that, for a commons, this cost is ALWAYS APPROPRIATELY ALLOCATED.

If individuals ELECT to use the commons and by doing so cause additional congestion related delay to BOTH THEMSELVES AND THE OTHERS who ELECT to use the commons, that is their right. Similarly, the fact that the others were using the commons previously in a less congested manner, does not give the pre-existing users a right to such uncongested use. When additional users are added, ALL SHARE THE SAME CONGESTION so additional congestion costs in the commons are by definition COMMONLY SHARED. This new level of congestion might be unacceptably high, and might motivate the entire community to increase the capacity of the commons, or it might be simply accepted by the community as a whole, while those who find it unacceptable can ELECT to modify their work habits, commuting distance, or whatever. Congestion simply becomes one more "market factor" in the individual life-style decision equation. But the system, overall, has some degree of inherent fairness

Where fairness (and stability) are lost is when asubgroup of users is systematically allowed to fund the commons at less than their pro-rata share, such as where a third of the lanes are dedicated to individuals providing far less than a third of the gas tax revenue going into capital and operating costs for these lanes, while STILL using the rest of the commons.

Ultimately, Anirudh. Everyone must pay their share. Anyone who underfunds the commons, shouldn't be using the commons. Congestion costs, like other social costs of a commons ARE commonly shared. Construction and operating costs should be also.

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

"What if it could be shown that the cost was not borne by the users themselves in proportion to the amount they cause? Would you agree that that system was unfair? " Of course not! For any incremental user of a commons, you have gone from non-use (a cost of zero) to some finite increment of increased cost.

But should the fact that I have lived here for (considerably) longer than 4.5 years and was using I-5 before you came here (or depending on your age, before you were born) "vest" me in rights to an absence of congestion? Since your car and mine now cause the same amount of congestion, whereas mine previously caused no congestion, should I have the right to deny you the commons?

This puts me in mind of the range wars of the old west.

Look, I'm not opposed to HOV lanes in principle. All you have to do is to have the HOV users completely fund their HOV lanes, and then fund the GP lanes to the extent that they use them. the craigster

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

I understand that bus riders, in your view, are underfunding the commons, in terms of cost (i). (I asked to keep buses out of the discussion temporarily; I'll add them back later.)

I still don't understand why you think that 3 users in 1 car, in a non-HOV lane scenario, are "underfunding" the commons. They don't need any more road built for them than 1 person in 1 car does, so why should they be charged 3 times as much for road construction or maintenance as 1 person does? Or do you agree that they should pay something less than 3 times as much as 1 person pays (though perhaps something more than what 1 person pays)? Perhaps you can help me understand by stating roughly what you think would be a fair charge for them.

"I'd agree that this has a cost. But I'd maintain that, for a commons, this cost is ALWAYS APPROPRIATELY ALLOCATED. ... When additional users are added, ALL SHARE THE SAME CONGESTION so additional congestion costs in the commons are by definition COMMONLY SHARED."

Ah. I would agree with that statement if every vehicle carried the same number of users. It's a different story though when the number of users per vehicle (or conversely, the number of vehicles per user) is not the same.

(10.5 years, by the way, is the length of time I have lived here, not 4.5.)

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 30, 2000.

"I still don't understand why you think that 3 users in 1 car, in a non-HOV lane scenario, are "underfunding" the commons. They don't need any more road built for them than 1 person in 1 car does, so why should they be charged 3 times as much for road construction or maintenance as 1 person does? Or do you agree that they should pay something less than 3 times as much as 1 person pays (though perhaps something more than what 1 person pays)? Perhaps you can help me understand by stating roughly what you think would be a fair charge for them. " I believe that they should be charged for their use, however this use also includes indirect logistics costs attributable to them, as well as the direct costs attributable to their one vehicle.

"I'd agree that this has a cost. But I'd maintain that, for a commons, this cost is ALWAYS APPROPRIATELY ALLOCATED. ... When additional users are added, ALL SHARE THE SAME CONGESTION so additional congestion costs in the commons are by definition COMMONLY SHARED." [Ah. I would agree with that statement if every vehicle carried the same number of users. It's a different story though when the number of users per vehicle (or conversely, the number of vehicles per user) is not the same.] I don't agree. They are deriving more benefit from the commons than most. All three are having their transportation needs met, while individually paying one-third of what the SOV driver does to support the commons. They are experiencing, per capita, no different congestion than the SOV user, while paying only a third as much per capita for use of the commons. Does this seem like they are being unfairly penalized by the common congestion experienced in the commons? It does not to me.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 30, 2000.

"I believe that they should be charged for their use, however this use also includes indirect logistics costs attributable to them, as well as the direct costs attributable to their one vehicle."

So a fair charge would be something between what 1 user in 1 car pays in gas taxes during that trip (about 20 cents) and what 3 users in 3 cars pay (about 60 cents)?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), May 30, 2000.

"So a fair charge would be something between what 1 user in 1 car pays in gas taxes during that trip (about 20 cents) and what 3 users in 3 cars pay (about 60 cents)? "

Go on.

-- (craigcar@crosswind.net), May 31, 2000.

So roughly how much do you think a fair charge would be? If you felt that they were seriously underfunding the system, you must have had at least an approximate number in mind. Pick a number, for the sake of argument. Next I'll elaborate some more on why a system without HOV lanes is unfair.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.

"So roughly how much do you think a fair charge would be? "

This is YOUR model, Anirudh, not mine. If you have a case to make, make it.

My assertion is that HOV lanes are simply unfair, and should not be built unless the users fund their costs AND their pro-rata share of the commons.

YOU are the one who is apparently attempting to make the assertion that congestion of the commons is not only a cost, but a cost that is not equitably shared by users of the commons. That seems pretty far afield from the example you are now given. Why don't we get back on topic?

So far, you appear to be a long way from giving a convincing rationale for that assertion.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 01, 2000.

(An aside: I have to say that on first reading I thought your response was just an obstinate attempt to be difficult and avoid answering my question; but thinking hard about your choice of words, I realized that it was actually a genuine reaction, coming from your viewpoint. It's fascinating how differently 2 people can approach the same problem, even when they use almost the same words. I'm trying sincerely to approach the topic from YOUR viewpoint instead of mine, believe me, but it's taking me several tries to see exactly what your viewpoint IS. I wonder how many people would have misunderstood and given up sooner than I.

There's hope! Each response of yours is helping me to see your viewpoint more clearly.)

OK let's try a different tack. I would summarize your position thus: An HOV lane should not be built AT ALL unless it's entirely paid for BY THE PEOPLE WHO USE IT. If it's built and paid for BY EVERYONE, then it should be usable by everyone, not just a select subset of the people, and everyone has an equal right to use it.

I say that I would agree with the principle behind that position. Going on from there:

The first thing we have to agree on, demographic studies notwithstanding, is that an HOV user is not a different type of person from an SOV user, as far as usage of the commons is concerned. Neither an SOV user nor an HOV user is a "second class citizen" (your words above, May 03). Everyone has an equal right to use the road.

The answer to your rhetorical question, "Since your car and mine now cause the same amount of congestion, whereas mine previously caused no congestion, should I have the right to deny you the commons?" is of course No. On a publicly funded road, no-one should deny anyone else use of the road. Everyone should be allowed to exercise his/her right to use the commons, and no-one should prevent anyone else from exercising HIS/HER right to use the commons. It is easy to agree that this much is fair.

The tougher questions of fairness begin when each person's use of the commons does inevitably impair OTHER users' ability to use the commons. How do we set up a fair system then? I say that each user who impairs others' ability to use the commons should pay the price himself. (In fact this is one of the generally accepted rationale for collecting gas taxes -- they are partly compensation for wear and tear on the road.) A corollary is that if each user's own ability to use the commons is impaired to the same extent as he impairs others' ability to use the commons, that system is a fair system. But if some people are allowed to impact others to a greater total extent than they themselves are affected, or if some people are affected to a greater extent than they affect others, that system is unfair.

So let's apply these principles to a congested road where there is no HOV lane. Once again, imagine 3 users who are sharing 1 car. As you observed, "They are experiencing, per capita, no different congestion than the SOV user." The system makes each one of them bear the same amount of congestion cost as an SOV user -- even though they have CAUSED, per capita, only one-third as much congestion as the SOV user!

What makes that fair? The fact that they paid less per capita to support the commons?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.

"The system makes each one of them bear the same amount of congestion cost as an SOV user -- even though they have CAUSED, per capita, only one-third as much congestion as the SOV user!"
Given your example of "So the cost (ii) caused by a single car is a delay of 30 person- minutes" they have decreased congestion of the commons 60 person minutes divided by ....what? 400,000 commuters? That's PERHAPS 4.5 milliseconds per commuter. They avoid (through car- pooling) a delay of 2 times 9 milliseconds in the aggregate. That's about one-tenth the time it takes for a fluorescent light to flicker on and off on 60 cycle current. This, however, only approaches 30 person minutes as the system approaches saturation. At low occupancy levels, there is little if any congestion cost to the marginal car. "What makes that fair? The fact that they paid less per capita to support the commons?" By your model, they have indeed paid only one- third of the gas taxes per capita of those who otherwise used the commons.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 02, 2000.

OK, now we're getting into the meat of the issue.

I may not have made my mail of May 27 clear enough. Take a careful look at it. It's 30 person-minutes divided by the 1,200 commuters in the 1,000 cars behind it. The numbers are approximate, but they do demonstrate the principle.

Each CAR in the backup causes a total delay of 30 person-minutes, to the 1,200 PEOPLE in the 1,000 cars that are waiting BEHIND it. Each PERSON in each car experiences a delay of 25 minutes, caused by the 1,000 CARS in FRONT of him.

"This, however, only approaches 30 person minutes as the system approaches saturation."

Correct. 30 person-minutes is the incremental cost of the marginal car during the peak period. The "peak period" is worth worrying about because it lasts about 1.5 to 2 hours in the morning, and the same in the evening.

The number 30 works out to be more than 25 because there is more than 1 person per car. It's not a coincidence that the ratio of 25:30 is 1.2, which is the average vehicle occupancy.

Now if there was an equal number of people in each car, I would say the system was totally fair. If there was exactly 1 person per car, then each car would cause 25 person-minutes of delay, and the person in that car would himself experience 25 minutes of delay, which is completely fair. If there were 2 in each car, then each car would cause 50 person-minutes of delay. Each of the 2 people in the car would be responsible for 25 of those 50 person-minutes, and would himself also experience 25 minutes of delay, which is again totally fair.

But it's different when the number of occupants is unequal. With the original numbers, an SOV user causes 30 person-minutes of delay to the people behind him, but himself experiences only 25 minutes of delay from the cars in front of him. Each of the 3 people in an HOV is responsible for causing 25/3 = 8.3 minutes of delay to the people behind him, but each himself experiences 25 minutes of delay from the cars in front of him. That is what's unfair.

If there was only a handful of people who were thus unfairly treated, it would just be an unfortunate situation that wasn't worth worrying about, or that couldn't be fixed without harming the system as a whole. But when the number of people involved is large enough, it is possible to do something that both remedies the unfairness and is good for the system as a whole.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

"Each of the 3 people in an HOV is responsible for causing 25/3 = 8.3 minutes of delay, ..."

Whoops - correct that to "Each is responsible for 30/3 = 10 minutes of delay".

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

But it's different when the number of occupants is unequal. With the original numbers, an SOV user causes 30 person-minutes of delay to the people behind him, but himself experiences only 25 minutes of delay from the cars in front of him. Each of the 3 people in an HOV is responsible for causing 25/3 = 8.3 minutes of delay to the people behind him, but each himself experiences 25 minutes of delay from the cars in front of him. That is what's unfair. "

No it isnUt.

And it is not unfair for a number of reasons:

1. Those individuals are electing to travel together. They have the right to travel in SOVs, but choose to travel together. I feel no greater need to compensate them for making this choice than I would to compensate someone who has the right to vote for making the choice to not vote or someone with the right to freedom of speech making the choice to not voice their opinion on an issue of public importance. It could be argued in either case that someone who fully exercises their franchise or their right to freedom of speech has benefited from the decision of the other, by not having the vote they cast diluted (or perhaps even cancelled) by the other individual, or by not having their opinion diluted (or perhaps successfully rebutted). But that does not justify rewarding someone for not using the right to vote, the right of free speech, or the right to use the commons.

2. Individuals who elect to carpool do indeed derive more advantage than the SOV users from the use of the commons. They benefit from the purpose of the commons (they are all able to transport themselves to their intended destination) while paying a third of the tax that their fellow SOV users pay. Moreover, they pay one-third the other costs associated with the commute (parking, fuel, some percentage of insurance costs, wear and tear, etc.) For the marginal case, they may be able to avoid the purchase of an auto (or perhaps a second household auto) by their choice to carpool. Moreover, two of the three individuals derive even greater benefit. They no longer have to devote attention to motor vehicle operation. They can read the paper or a novel, make phone calls (safely), download and work on e-mail, etc. Their 30 minute drive now has become 30 minutes of time that they have the discretion to do things that, as a SOV user, they would simply not be capable of doing, at least without undue risk to life and limb.

3. The three individuals derive benefit from the commons operations not just due to their personal use, but due to the collective use of the commons. The commons serves to provide the transportation means necessary to bring food and merchandise to their markets, to provide utility services to their homes, to bring them ambulance, fire, and police services, etc. The three individuals certainly derive more benefit from these uses of the commons, than does the single SOV user.

4. But the most important issue, Anirudh, as youUve already stated, is that THE "BENEFITS" OF HOV USE TO THE COMMONS OCCUR ONLY AS THE SYSTEM APPROACHES SATURATION." I put benefits in quotes because I do not believe that it is a benefit at all, for the following reason:

The original issue (way up there at the top of the page) is not about three guys in a car, but about HOV LANES. As long as the roadway is uncongested, there is (as you have admitted) little marginal advantage to the commons in car-pooling. As the congestion point is approached, you can make a policy decision to either do something to decrease congestion, do something to increase congestion, or to do nothingI. allowing congestion to continue to increase. The no cost option is the latter. Both of the others, strangely enough, will cost you money. So letUs look at the options with respect to HOV lanes.

The system (a commons) is approaching or exceeding capacity (at least at certain times of the day) or the issue of HOV lanes would not even come up. What is the effect of doing nothing?
Ultimately, the non-monetary cost (congestion) to the users would lead them to either expand system capacity, or stop increasing their use (through such rational approaches as building elsewhere, going elsewhere, changing to a job or workplace requiring less of a commute, etc.).

What is the effect of putting in an HOV lane?
Kind of depends. Is this a NEW HOV lane (added capacity)? If so, resources from the commons were used to build a facility that cannot be used by a significant proportion of individuals who, because of demographics, canUt carpool effectively. While this may be an equity issue, it is even more a resource issue. Those individuals using the HOV lanes get not only full use of the commons, but subsidized use of a system that is no longer really "commons," but now has entry criteria that many of those paying to subsidize it will be unable to meet. You have, in effect, the systematic looting of the commons to subsidize a subset that doesnUt pay their full way but that does, as noted above, realize at least as great a value from the use of the commons as does anyone else.

If the HOV lane is NOT a new lane (added capacity), the situation is even worse. Existing resources paid for by the commons are sequestered to be used only by a favored group, which again pays less than their pro-rata share for their use.

Either way, the net effect (as system capacity is reached, which as you will recall, is the ONLY time this is at all important) is to convert full pay users to subsidized users at a time when the system is already inadequate for its intended purpose. This is not a viable financial model, itUs a Ponzi scheme that guarantees underfunding of the commons as capacity is approached. "If there was only a handful of people who were thus unfairly treated, it would just be an unfortunate situation that wasn't worth worrying about, or that couldn't be fixed without harming the system as a whole. But when the number of people involved is large enough, it is possible to do something that both remedies the unfairness and is good for the system as a whole." I would maintain that the unfairness is to expect one class of users to subsidize another, and the "good for the system as a whole" would demand that whatever funding system you come up with be viable. Any system that DEPENDS on "A" to subsidize "B" with the intention of converting "A"s to "B"s is demonstrating the same logic as someone who believes they can empty the water out of their leaky rowboat by drilling a hole in the water for the water to drain out of. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS IS SUPPOSED TO WORK, Anirudh, it would appear that success would result in defunding the commons, converting all lanes to HOV lanes, and then filling them up to where they are no better off than they are now. The craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 04, 2000.

Sorry, mis-typed:

" Any system that DEPENDS on "A" to subsidize "B" with the intention of converting "A"s to "B"s is demonstrating the same logic as someone who believes they can empty the water out of their leaky rowboat by drilling a hole in the bottom for the water to drain out of"

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 04, 2000.

IUm afraid IUm with Craig on this one. LetUs consider another analogy:

We have somewhat of a crisis in another commons, the Public Schools.

They are, in many areas, failing in either quality, capacity, or both. The suggestion has been made to institute a voucher system that would permit parents to take a portion of the resources provided per student to fund the commons, and allow the parents to use the voucher to help them enroll their child in a private school that would better serve their needs. This would deprive the commons of some resources, BUT SINCE THE VOUCHER WAS LESS THAN THE PER-STUDENT COST OF PROVIDING THE COMMONS, WOULD RESULT IN BOTH A DECONGESTING OF THE COMMONS AND A NET PER CAPITA INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR THE STUDENTS REMAINING IN THE SYSTEM. This has been attacked by the teachers unions and supporters of public education who state that:
It will steal money from the commons.
It will undermine the concept of public education.
It will subsidize individuals who would have used private schools anyway.
It will unfairly benefit those whose demographics (location near a private school, wealth, or whatever) permits them to use the vouchers at the expense of those who simply canUt send their kids to private schools, for whatever reason.
It will lead to the demise of the commons known as public education.

Craig is right in saying that HOV lanes go farther even than a school voucher proposal, since they actually grant to the users paying the least a GREATER THAN PRO-RATA SHARE OF THE BENEFITS OF THE COMMONS. While the above complaints may or may not have been arguable, based upon a less than pro-rata share of resources expended for the schools, it would seem fairly obvious that the outcome of the rob Peter to subsidize Paul HOV scheme would provide the analogous problems, certainly if you get near the system saturation point. Explain please, Anirudh, why you think these things would NOT happen: :
It will steal money from the commons.
It will undermine the concept of public roads.
It will subsidize individuals who would have used car-pooling anyway.
It will unfairly benefit those whose demographics (location near an HOV lane, worker at a large rather than small factory, spouse works at the same firm, or whatever) permits them to use the HOV lanes at the expense of those who simply canUt carpool, for whatever reason.
It will lead to the demise of the commons known as public roads. Mikey

-- (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), June 04, 2000.

And that would go double for transit.

If we had invested on infrastructure the money we've frittered away in transit expansion, we wouldn't have near the problems we do.

Screw Transit! Build Roads!

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), June 04, 2000.

IMHO:

There'd be a lot less stupid social engineering if the would-be engineers had to fund their grandiose schemes out of their own pockets.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), June 05, 2000.

And now it's official:

Sims survey: King County Executive Ron Sims' weekly informal and 
unscientific poll on the county's home page (www.metrokc.gov) asked 
this question a week ago: "In general, where would you like to see 
regional leaders direct transportation dollars and planning efforts?"



The response: road construction, 982 replies; public transportation, 
319; alternative transportation, 24, and other, 21.

Screw Transit! Build Roads!

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

Yup, I was expecting some of those objections (the ones that Craig and Mikey listed). We are beginning to understand each other!

Re. Craig's point 1. Interesting analogy about voters. Sure, if more people exercise their right to vote, then the effect of each individual's vote is "diluted"; and similarly, when more members of the public exercise their right to operate a motor vehicle on a particular stretch of roadway, the value that each of them gets out of the roadway is diminished.

However, the difference between the voting and the road scenarios is that in the former, each voter's vote is "diluted" to the SAME net degree as his vote dilutes others'. This is fair. In the case of the road users, the individual who consumes more of the precious road space has the value that he gets from the road diminished to a LESSER degree than the impact he causes on others. This is unfair.

Re. 4, yes, as I clearly stated, way up at the top of the page, I am ONLY making a case for HOV lanes at PEAK hours.

Re. 2. You listed a number of ways in which carpooling benefits the users - better use of time during the ride, saved costs on gas, insurance, wear & tear, etc. They may be good arguments to use if your goal is to advocate carpooling, but I'm not sure why you feel that they are reasons for the system to penalize the carpoolers. Should people who drive in nicer cars be forced to wait behind those who drive uncomfortable cars, because the former are deriving more benefit from their cars than the latter are? The benefits you listed are the results of the carpoolers' own choice of economical lifestyle, not the result of "taking" anything from the system in a way that impacts others, and they should be allowed to keep those benefits.

The concern of the transportation system at commute hours is to move people, and as far as the system is concerned, it is getting to move 3 people for the space of 1, with a carpool. How the people spend their time inside their personal vehicle is not the system's concern.

I have plenty to say about the other points, especially the one which I think is the most important to you, namely the "underfunding" argument (which goes thus: A policy of subsidizing those who consume more than they contribute will lead to the demise of the system; HOV users consume more than they contribute; therefore HOV users should not be encouraged). The principle is sound, but a critical factor has been overlooked. I'll post my responses as I get time to write them down.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 07, 2000.

"However, the difference between the voting and the road scenarios is that in the former, each voter's vote is "diluted" to the SAME net degree as his vote dilutes others'. This is fair. In the case of the road users, the individual who consumes more of the precious road space has the value that he gets from the road diminished to a LESSER degree than the impact he causes on others. This is unfair. "

I disagree with both the characterization and the conclusion.

Also, I would caution you concerning discussions and using such phrases as "precious" road space. Recommend you read: JJ Straight and crooked thinking by Robert Henry Thouless

I await you further posting regarding how you view the underfunding problem

the craigster

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

Excuse me, Anirudh, but you never really did address this previous point.

"The supply of lanes will never be able to keep up with the 
demand. " 



You've talked around the issue, Anirudh, but missed the point. If 
the above statement is true (and I believe it to be true only in the 
sense that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, if people are convinced it 
can't be done, they won't try, and Surprise! it doesn't get done) it 
is EQUALLY true for all other modes of transportation. It is, as I 
have stated, a nihilistic sort of transportation philosophy that 
applies equally to bus transit (never be frequent enough, have 
adequate capacity, be close enough to walk to, etc.), light rail (too 
costly, not enough capacity, etc.) 

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

"I disagree with both the characterization and the conclusion."

I thought some more about the way in which you worded your June 04 posting.

You're saying that the HOV commuters, too, could take up more space on the road if they wanted to. They have ELECTED not to take up more space, and it's not the system's business to "reward" them for electing not to take up space.

Does everyone have an unlimited right, then, to use an unlimited amount of the road, even at times when the road is in high demand and their use of the road impacts others?

"I would caution you concerning discussions and using such phrases as "precious" road space."

The adjective "precious" was used as a shorthand for the point that we agreed on (May 13) after considerable discussion: that the roadway space in the areas under discussion is expensive and in high demand.

"you never really did address this previous point:"

Right, I will have more to say on it.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 08, 2000.

"Does everyone have an unlimited right, then, to use an unlimited amount of the road, even at times when the road is in high demand and their use of the road impacts others? " "Does everyone have an unlimited right, then, to use an unlimited amount of freedom of speech, even at times when ideas are in high demand and their use of free speech impacts others? " "Does everyone have an unlimited right, then, to vote for their candidates, even at times when other voters want different candidates and their use of the vote impacts others? " "Does everyone have an unlimited right, then, to have an unlimited amount of children, even at times when shcools and other resources are in high demand and their procreation impacts others? " "Does everyone have an unlimited right, then, to use an unlimited amount of food, even at times when there is hunger in the world and their eating habits impact others? " "Does everyone have an unlimited right, then, to believe in their own gods, even at times when most people don't practice religion and their practice of their religion impacts others? "

well, yes ...................., why wouldn't they?

the craigster


-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 09, 2000.

Because of the exact problem that you articulated, way up at the top of the page: "People use common property inappropriately (ie, wastefully) when they are charged less for using a common resource than the cost of providing [and using] that resource."

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 09, 2000.

"Because of the exact problem that you articulated, way up at the top of the page: "People use common property inappropriately (ie, wastefully) when they are charged less for using a common resource than the cost of providing [and using] that resource."

Which is precisely why we should NOT have HOV lanes, unless the users of them fund them in their entirety and their pro-rata share of the commons.

If you want to make the case that no commons should exist because they may be wastefully used, I will concede that you at least have consistency of your convictions.
But what you appear to be saying is that all should be forced to pay for the commons, but certain groups that are more socially acceptable or politically correct than others should have access to not only the commons, but to ADDITIONAL resources to be paid for disproportionately by resources taken from the people who are not permitted to use them.

How does this differ from OTHER forms of involuntary servitude?

The craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 10, 2000.

I accept that the commons should exist. (It was actually you who introduced me to the concept.)

You are talking about cost (i), the material cost of providing and maintaining the commons. I am talking about cost (ii), the congestion cost of using the commons, which you agreed was also a cost worth considering. People use space on the road indiscriminately when they are charged less for using that space than the cost of taking up that space.

My rationale for making a distinction between the HOV users and the SOV users involves no judgment whatsoever about the "social acceptability" or "political correctness" of either group. If someone else has made such a judgment, I would reproach that someone for his holier-than-thou attitude.

It has ONLY to do with the fact that one way of using the commons has a greater COST to others than the other way does.

Here is another way to see that a non-HOV lane situation is unfair. Imagine that on a congested road with no HOV lanes, 3 office-goers commute in 3 cars. One day, they switch to commuting in 1 car. Their action has saved a total of 60 person-minutes -- a quite significant saving -- for the people behind them. And yet, how many of those person-minutes do they themselves save? Zero.

A system which does not allow the individual to keep any of the benefits of his actions, and instead gives all the benefits away to others, is an unfair system. Not only is it unfair, it is doomed to unproductivity or inefficiency, because it takes away a large part of the incentive for people to behave in an "efficient" manner.

It is a mischaracterization to say that an HOV lane "denies" certain people access to a portion of the commons. The point of an HOV lane is not to "deny" certain people access to a part of the road, or to force one group of users to fund another group (in terms of cost (i)). Rather, it is this: If you wish to use the commons in a way that takes up more space, you are free to do so, but you should bear the increased cost - in terms of increased congestion and travel time (cost (ii)) - yourself, and not force others to bear the cost.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 10, 2000.

P.S. The interesting thing is, I can think of a situation in which I would agree 100% with virtually ALL the arguments that you've presented AGAINST HOV lanes, as well as the way you've characterized them... including the point about SOV users being forced to pay (in terms of cost (i)) for the HOV users...

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 10, 2000.

"Here is another way to see that a non-HOV lane situation is unfair. Imagine that on a congested road with no HOV lanes, 3 office-goers commute in 3 cars. One day, they switch to commuting in 1 car. Their action has saved a total of 60 person-minutes -- a quite significant saving -- for the people behind them. And yet, how many of those person-minutes do they themselves save? Zero." And this is THE VERY DEFINITION OF A COMMONS. When the range was open, and cattle ownership was determined by whose brand was on the cattle, every single animal a person had grazing on the range did so at the expense of forage for every other animal. That's why they call it a commons.

"A system which does not allow the individual to keep any of the benefits of his actions, and instead gives all the benefits away to others, is an unfair system." Would you include in this a system wherein someone who is paying their full share to support the commons, through gasoline taxes, has the roadways paid for by those gasoline taxes given to others who pay less than their fair share?

"Not only is it unfair, it is doomed to unproductivity or inefficiency, because it takes away a large part of the incentive for people to behave in an "efficient" manner. " And we have already gone over in great detail the advantages of car-pooling that carpoolers get to keep. And the alternative, dooms the whole system, since it progressively defunds itself as congestion grows. It's in a negative feedback loop with regard to resources, that will ultimately destroy itself if "successful".

"It is a mischaracterization to say that an HOV lane "denies" certain people access to a portion of the commons." It absolutely is not. When you use the police power of the state to deprive individuals of use of common property and restrict it to a certain category of users, it is no different than requiring them to sit in the back of the bus, use only certain public restrooms, or drink from only specially marked drinking fountains. "The point of an HOV lane is not to "deny" certain people access to a part of the road, or to force one group of users to fund another group (in terms of cost (i))." IF IT HAS THIS RESULT, IT IS IRRELEVANT AS TO WHAT YOU BELIEVE THE POINT IS. Those who supported "separate but equal" and apartheid and "the final solution" made similar rationalizations, Anirudh. They were wrong and so are you. And assuming that car-pooling is a "choice" and is unlike race or ethnicity, belies the fact that demographics fairly well control who has the option to carpool. Not everyone does, anymore than everyone has the "choice" to be whatever religion or ethnic group they wish.

"Rather, it is this: If you wish to use the commons in a way that takes up more space, you are free to do so, but you should bear the increased cost - in terms of increased congestion and travel time (cost (ii)) - yourself, and not force others to bear the cost. " And as you yourself have repeatedly indicated, congestion costs become significant only when the system approaches saturation. As you progressively defund the commons with HOV lanes, who will pay for the increasing congestion caused by the HOV users who are now paying a lesser per capita amount? And if this were to really work in a social engineering fashion, who will pay for the system as the SOV users disappear and the SOV users start to congest the SOV lanes? Do we go to 3+? 4+? Do we convert the lanes to transit only (who REALLY don't pay their road costs?)

As I have said before, Anirudh, your model melts down economically, it drives itself into bankruptcy. That alone disqualifies it from serious consideration.


-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 11, 2000.

to Craig: You're being quite silly with your claims of HOV lanes driving the system into bankruptcy. In the case of the Narrows Bridge, society is expending less than 10% of the cost of an on-ramp in order to facilitate ridesharing.

The bottom line, Craig, is does a particular HOV lane or on-ramp allow a roadway to move more people than it otherwise could. In the case of the Hwy 520 bridge or the Tacoma Narrows bridge, the answer is probably yes.

In the case of the other HOV lanes, it probably makes no difference, if, in fact, people who rideshare are going to rideshare anyway. Also, in the case of other HOV lanes, the cost of building additional lanes appears to be SIGNIFICANTLY CHEAPER than building new capacity across Lake Washington or the Tacoma Narrows.

The bottom line for most people is results, as long as it meets certain restraints of civilization (i.e., no discrmination based on "race", ethnicity, religion, politicial points of view, etc.). If people perceive HOV lanes mitigate congestion, then they'll support HOV lanes.

There are no HOV lanes on I-5 in Pierce County. The congestion on I-5 between Hwy 16 & Hwy 18 can be pretty bad, at times. If the creation of HOV lanes allows more people to commute to high paying jobs, then this is GOOD. Or, if HOV lanes reduces the length of everyone's commute, then this is GOOD.

Your model of bankruptcy is only remotely valid because we choose to fund roads through a gasoline tax. If we were to fund roads thru state sales taxes and federal income taxes, there would be even less validity to your point of view.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 12, 2000.

"to Craig: You're being quite silly with your claims of HOV lanes driving the system into bankruptcy. In the case of the Narrows Bridge, society is expending less than 10% of the cost of an on-ramp in order to facilitate ridesharing. "

Matt, you are (like Anirudh) looking at the TACTICAL (as opposed to the STRATEGIC)situation.

You are OF COURSE correct that as long as the number of miles of HOV lanes are small, relative to the number of GP lane miles, they will have a fairly trivial effect on both system finances and overall congestion.

But that doesn't change the fairness aspect (remember the topic of the thread? Are HOV lanes unfair?) Is discrimination any less unfair if it only affects a minority?

But the other issue is the consequences of a policy that purports to solve congestion through HOV lanes, the strategic issue, if you will.
It does two things
The first is that if the model does work in terms of increasing the throughput (which means increasing the fraction of people using the HOV lanes relative to the fraction of people using the GP lanes) their will be no increase in the resources building the capacity. The REST ofthe system will sustain the increase in mileage traveled with no increase in resources to pay for the growth in the rest of the system, the HOV lanes themselves, the park n rides and other items that you believe you are entitled to. To the extent that people are forced into transit (which does not even pay it's own share of the commons, let alone paying for new HOV lanes, and let alone paying a subsidy of $5.40 per rider currently for Sound Transit) the commons loses still more resources.
Eventually, either the model fails (goes broke, and you get to start over) or the HOV lanes must become HOV3, HOV4, and ultimately High Occupancy Transit only. This REALLY doesn't pay for itself.

So please stop telling me that the sytem isn't bankrupt. Even the Blue Ribbon panel unanimously concurs that we are underfunding transit needs (although it may not agree with what should be the priority for that funding). Anything that increases current spending for operations (subsidies for transit and ferries) or decreases revenue (HOV lanes) makes that negative cash flow worse.

You don't have to wait until you arrive at bankruptcy to see what the model does. This one either fails to have a significant affect on traffic (in which case, why bother) or ultimately goes bankrupt (in which case, it isn't the answer).

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 12, 2000.

to Craig: Again, you're wrong. It's simply a matter of cost vs. benefit. If the cost of building new lanes is HUGE (i.e., across Lake Washington or the Tacoma Narrows), then utilizing an HOV lane or an HOV entrance to squeeze out more capacity is a clever solution.

Yes, eventually, society will have to bite the bullet and actually build new capacity. But, for a period of time, the HOV approach is a COST-EFFECTIVE means of mitigating congestion.

I don't care how many more people you cause to wait in traffic across Hwy 520 or the Narrows Bridge, the gas taxes generated will not even come close to the cost of new capacity. In fact, not one penny of the gas tax is being used for the new Narrows Bridge. And, to add insult to injury, it is possible that maintenance of the existing bridge will be funded through tolls and not the gas tax. Our community will be the only one in the state where the maintenance of an existing bridge is not funded through the gas tax, which we still have to pay on top of the tolls.

So, stop with your "damned lies", at least as far as Hwy 520 and the Narrows Bridge are concerned.

As for HOV lanes on cheaper-to-build roadways. Again, the bottom line is cost-benefit. If by subsidizing ridesharing, society collects more in sales taxes and incomes taxes, then that is all that matters. There is NO BANKRUPTCY.

From my point of view, the anecdotal evidence shows a strong correlation between investments in ridesharing vs. above average economic growth.

I have no problem with you pointing out particularly egregious waste. Yes, by all means, let's make the transportation systems more efficient.

But, stop the drivel about "bankrupting the system". It's silly.

You would do your cause a greater service, if you would identify specific road construction projects; their expected cost and schedule and; the expected improved throughput.

If I-711 had taken the time to identify specific projects, it probably would've been wildly successful.

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

"But, stop the drivel about "bankrupting the system". It's silly. "

"Iceberg??? What Iceberg???" The Titanic captain, 60 seconds before impact.

If I were you, Craig, I'd join the other people who just don't bother to respond to old Matt. Conceptually, he's not capable of dealing with models, as he demonstrates with his "anecdotal" assertions which must be right because... he made them.

Press on with providing information to those who have the integrity, insight, and intellectual function to handle it. That's unlikely to include Matt. zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), June 13, 2000.

to Zowie: I'm flattered you've chosen to attack the messenger, implying your inability to logically criticize my arguments.

Every day, I travel up the Southcenter Hill on I-5 southbound in the carpool lane. The carpool lane is fairly full, just like all the other lanes. Yet, the carpool lane is carrying approximately twice as many as people as any of the other individual lanes, possibly much, much more.

Is this "bankrupting" the system? Quite the contrary, it is an incredibly efficient use of a scarce resource.

When you have some real-life data to present, Zowie, let me know. I yawn in anticipation.

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

"Every day, I travel up the Southcenter Hill on I-5 southbound in the carpool lane. The carpool lane is fairly full, just like all the other lanes. Yet, the carpool lane is carrying approximately twice as many as people as any of the other individual lanes, possibly much, much more."

"When you have some real-life data to present, Zowie, let me know."

Since the man doesn't know the difference between vaguely worded anecdote (approximately twice,,, , possibly much,much more) and DATA, I wouldn't waste my time on him, zowie. He lacks adequate understanding of the process to ever understand. Let him take a basic science course (or een a freshman logic course) so he understands what data and argument is, and then he may be worth talking to.

Mikey

-- (m_alworth@okympusnet.com), June 14, 2000.

to Mikey: Thank you, also, for your back-handed compliment. You, like Zowie, are unable to show how the HOV lane up the Southcenter Hill is "bankrupting" the system.

The best you guys are able to do is to criticize the messenger. I'd be the first to admit my "data" is anecdotal. So what! I drive the Southcenter Hill Monday thru Friday, and quite often, between I-405 and Hwy 516, it is filled to capacity. If you can't follow the logic of how that implies the HOV lane is carrying at twice the people as the other lanes, I'll try to do a better job explaining it to you.

You see, Mikey, each car in the HOV lane must have at least two riders. So, assuming the other non-HOV lanes have only one person in the vehicle, and assuming the number of vehicles in each lane is close to being a similar value, then I estimate that the HOV lane is carrying twice the number of people.

Let's use some numbers to get the point across to you. Let's say that over a several mile stretch, each lane is carrying 1000 cars. Since the vehicles in the HOV lanes must have at least two people, the HOV lane is servicing at least 2000 people. If the vehicles in the other lanes are carrying only 1 person, then the other lanes are only servicing 1000 people each.

Now, this assumes that the average vehicle in the HOV lane is carrying 2 people. When, in fact, the average number is higher. How much higher? Well, I agree that I have NO DATA. But, if it turns out to be, say, 3 people per vehicle, then the carrying capacity is 3000 people - which is MUCH, MUCH HIGHER than 2000.

Perhaps you don't agree that 3000 is MUCH, MUCH HIGHER than 2000.

In any case, I'll wait read YOUR DATA on how the HOV lane up the Southcenter Hill is "bankrupting" the system. I'll even appreciate reviewing any anecdotal observations you care to make.

But, so far, you and Zowie are unable to present rational arguments on how the HOV lane up the Southcenter Hill is "bankrupting" the system, and you both resort to attacking me. Again, I thank you both for the unintentional compliment of MY PRESENTATION.

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

"to Mikey: Thank you, also, for your back-handed compliment. " That wasn't a compliment, bach-handed or otherwise. I indicated that you are ignorant, and talking to ignorant people who don't desire to cease being ignorant, simply isn't worth doing. Not for zowie and CERTAINLY not for me. If you ever grow up, perhaps we'll talk again. Mikey


-- (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), June 15, 2000.

to Mikey: You write: "I indicated that you are ignorant, and talking to ignorant people who don't desire to cease being ignorant, simply isn't worth doing."

Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

I'm really impressed by your oratorial skills. NOT!!!

I guess you it never occurred to you why you never won any debating contests - "You're ignorant! I'm not going to debate you." Yeah, the judges weren't impressed, and neither am I.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 16, 2000.

"If you ever grow up, perhaps we'll talk again. " Anirudh- With regard to this conditional statement by Mikey predicated on Matt "growing up."

Don't you find it amusing that the American English slang expressions "fat chance" and "slim chance" have EXACTLY the same meanings (in this case, NO CHANCE)? Curiouser and curiouser.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), June 16, 2000.

Matt- Regarding:

""You're ignorant! I'm not going to debate you." "

Mikey was being kind. Ignorance is curable. Stupid is forever.

zowie

-- (zowie@olympusnet.com), June 16, 2000.

Reviving this discussion... I thought about a situation in which I would agree with just about every argument that's been made above against HOV lanes. That situation is in an UNCONGESTED area.

Imagine a highway running through some place similar to the desert in Eastern WA, with miles of flat open space on either side. The highway connects the villages in the area. The area is thinly populated and traffic is light, but space is cheap, so the highway was built with a generous 3 lanes in each direction. Gas taxes more than adequately cover the cost of the highway. The people are proud of their highway, and love driving their cars along the open road.

There are few buses - about 2 or 3 per day in each direction - and they are slow and inconvenient. Most people don't bother with them. They are funded by the community, mainly out of generosity toward the physically handicapped and elderly who can't drive. The only other people who ride the buses are "losers" who can't make enough money to pay for their own cars, or "freeloaders" who are too cheap to buy their own cars, and they are generally regarded with disdain. Most people are perfectly happy driving their own cars along the public roads that they helped pay for.

One day the government comes along and says, "We think too many people are driving cars, and we've decided that this is a Bad Thing. We also think that we spent too much on the highway, so we're not going to build any more lanes. In fact, we're going to take one of the lanes in each direction and reserve it for vehicles that have at least 2 people in them. The rest of you must confine yourselves to the other 2 lanes. If anyone is caught driving in the reserved lane without another person in his vehicle, he will be pulled over by the police and fined."

The people are aghast and outraged. Why are the stupid politicians doing such an arbitrary thing? If they're worried that too many cars will start to cause traffic congestion someday, why don't they just build another lane? And everyone's gas taxes paid for that special lane. Why should some people be forced out of it? And the people who are going to use the lane the most are the freeloaders who paid the LEAST for it?? If we give more and more special privileges to the people who underfund the system, how will we ever maintain our public services? They should get out and pay gas taxes just like the other hardworking folks, so that there is money to build a new lane when the traffic increases!

In such a situation, I would completely agree with just about everything that's been said above AGAINST HOV lanes. There is absolutely no reason to not build another lane. An HOV lane would not only be unfair, it would be absurd; the thought of it makes me smile. It would be as arbitrary and discriminatory as a lane marked "this lane for Asians only," or "this lane for married couples only". I understand why some people use words like "forcing us out of our vehicles," "social engineering," and "equal access to all publicly funded lanes," when they hear about HOV lanes...

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 22, 2000.

To continue... I suspect that much of the opposition to HOV lanes stems from taking arguments that are completely valid in a rural or suburban setting, and mistakenly applying them to a congested urban setting.

Speaking of systems engineering. Many engineering decisions involve trade-offs between conflicting goals. A designer of wings for civilian aircraft, for example, has to weigh conflicting considerations such as lift, drag, weight, structural strength and manufacturing cost. There is rarely a single "right" answer. He picks a solution for a particular situation based on the considerations that are most important in that situation. For example, for a trainer aircraft to be used by student pilots, he might sacrifice some lift for the sake of increased stability. For a small 20-seater commercial airplane that will be heavily used, he might pick expensive, light materials to reduce operating cost, even though they increase manufacturing cost -- the opposite of what he would do for a personal aircraft that is intended for occasional recreational use. Early in his career, an engineer may waste a lot of time going down blind alleys; but through experience, he gets better at picking the trade-offs that work the best, and automatically avoiding the trade-offs that are known to be bad.

A common type of engineering mistake is to take lessons learned in one domain and automatically apply them to another domain, where different circumstances make those lessons invalid. Interestingly, experienced engineers are more prone to making this type of mistake than novice engineers are. Even when they are well aware that the situation has changed, they will automatically exclude from consideration the choices that their past experience has taught them to avoid.

One sees this happen all the time in the high-tech industry, where technology changes faster than many engineers can keep up with. A small group of perfectly competent, experienced engineers start figuring out how to adapt their product to work with the latest cell phones, wireless handheld computers, etc. and use their collective knowledge to come up with a proposed design; and meanwhile a young whippersnapper straight out of engineering school, who is accustomed to working with the latest technology and materials, will surprise (and sometimes embarrass) his seniors by effortlessly coming up with a design that works better than the one that they proposed. Still, we do not promote the junior engineer to be the supervisor of the senior ones, because the fact that he had a better answer this time does not make him a better engineer. The more experienced ones have the broader knowledge, insight and wisdom that the junior one lacks. It is (usually) a lot easier for the seniors to recognize the flaw in their thinking and adapt to the new situation than it is for the newbie to acquire the wisdom and maturity of the others. And there will come a day when the technology changes again and the newbie will be outdone by a future newbie.

The scenario above, with the villages (let's call them Pleasantville, Smallville and Brownsville) that are mad about their government- imposed HOV lane, is an UNCONGESTED area, where space is cheap. That makes it different from the congested areas where HOV lanes are used in several ways, some of them perhaps non-obvious.

To be continued...

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 25, 2000.

Here's a little story to emphasize the point about carrying lessons learned in one domain to another domain where they are invalid.

Joe is a respected quality assurance engineer at ABC Commercial Aircraft, a manufacturer of commercial jet airliners. His job includes inspecting blueprints for new wing designs for structural soundness. Over the course of his long career he has acquired the reputation of being a stickler for safety, and his vigilant eye has saved the company from running afoul of FAA regulations on many occasions.

Joe pays a professional visit to the MAC Military Aircraft Corporation, a manufacturer of military fighter jets. While there, he looks at the wing structure for one of their best-performing fighters, out of curiosity. He is horrified to discover that its wing frame is based on a Doric truss, a lightweight structure that is known to be unsafe for aeronautical use because it will collapse due to metal fatigue after a small number of flights. He contacts the head of engineering at MAC and tells him in no uncertain terms that his team needs to change its unsound engineering practices. The head curtly informs him that "That's the way it's always been done," and that the fighter has been sold to air forces all over the world.

Joe thinks, "That's no reason to put our own boys at risk." Any aeronautical engineer worth his salt knows that you can't build a wing frame on a Doric truss. Isn't structural strength especially important in the extraordinary stresses experienced by the wings of combat fighter jets? He writes a letter to the Air Force accusing the MAC corporation of incompetence, irresponsibility and failure to understand basic mechanical engineering principles, and says it's only a matter of time before their fighters start breaking up in mid- air. He urges the Air Force to pressure the company to revise their designs.

The Air Force staff consult a few of their own military aircraft experts, who assure them that a Doric truss is a completely sound structure. They check with some of their other suppliers, and find that ALL of their top fighters of that class are built on a Doric truss! They dismiss Joe as a crackpot who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Joe is undaunted. He didn't earn his reputation by caving in to fools! He drafts letters to his senator, to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to the Secretary of Defense, citing classic studies published in old aeronautical journals that show empirically and mathematically that a Doric truss is unsound. He prepares a press release that he will ask his colleagues to sign and circulate if necessary.

What Joe has overlooked, in his crusade for structural strength, is that it is crucial for a fighter to be lightweight. In fact an overemphasis on structural strength would SHORTEN the life of the aircraft. If the designer adds too much weight to the wings in the name of structural strength, making the aircraft slow and ponderous, it will be shot down long before it breaks up due to metal fatigue! MANEUVERABILITY, which was practically a non-issue in the commercial aircraft world, is paramount for a fighter.

The other thing that no-one has pointed out to Joe is that all the studies showing Doric trusses to be unsound were done for aluminum and steel aircraft. In the military world, bigger budgets allow for the use of more expensive materials with better strength-to-weight ratios, which change the picture. If Joe goes back to basic principles and works out all the forces using these materials, he will find that a Doric truss is a completely sound structure. No mechanical principles are violated.

Meanwhile Moe, an aircraft designer at MAC, decides to quit the military field and move over to ABC Commercial Aircraft. Once there, he is aghast at the lumbering behemoths that ABC produces, and wonders how they have managed to stay competitive. One of his first actions at ABC is to propose that they start building their wings out of titanium, for greater fuel economy, quicker takeoffs and climbs to cruising altitude, and a possible competitive advantage.

The ABC management dismisses Moe's ideas as absurdly expensive and out of touch with reality. Who cares about quicker takeoffs? And if no-one can afford to buy the aircraft, operating costs are irrelevant!

Are Joe and Moe "stupid?" Far from it. They are applying ideas are completely valid in the domains that they come from, and Joe was not given an adequate explanation by the head of engineering at MAC. They are motivated by a genuine concern for the pilots and owners of their respective aircraft. By dismissing Joe as irrational, the Air Force deprived themselves of the wealth of other useful insights that he could share.

What does the Parable of the Experienced Engineers have to do with the problem of HOV lanes bankrupting the system? More when we return. Hint: What resource is available in plenty in uncongested areas, but in limited supply (or expensive) in congested areas?

[The names Joe, Moe, ABC, MAC and Doric truss are ficititious, but any resemblance to actual events or persons you might know is not ruled out...]

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), July 04, 2000.

Anirudh- The only aircraft we ever had with titanium wings, to my knowledge, was the SR-71. It was not fuel efficient, incredibly costly, couldn't even hold full fuel until it had been heated up by air friction to seal the expansion joints, required dedicated tankers because it used a non-standard fuel, and would not have been recommended by any engineer for any purpose other than the unique mission it had. The F-111 had titanium in parts of its wing. No one ever accused it of being particularly fuel efficient or economical either. It was a maintenance hog that the Navy jinked out of altogether, SAC wouldn't expcept until ordered to do so (and only after Curtis LeMay retired, at that), and was certainly not a commercial success (although we did subsidize the Aussies to "buy" (with our money) a squadron or two.

I don't agree with your analogies, and nothing you have stated in these three postings establishes your contention that HOV lanes make more sense in a congested area than they do in an uncongested area because you still haven't gotten around the issue that they don't pay for themselves. Ditto transit, except in certain limited locales, ditto Amtrak, except for the Metroliners on the NEC.

Wishing things worked, and building air castles in which you can posit them working, is not the same as having them work, Anirudh.

the craigster

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

"The only aircraft we ever had with titanium wings, to my knowledge, was the SR-71... and would not have been recommended by any engineer" - It is a fictitious story after all. :-) The point of the story is the thought processes that led the characters to take the actions they took. I can think of real-life stories along the same lines in my own field, but they're rather abstruse and hard to explain to people outside the field.

"I don't agree with your analogies..." Well, of course you don't; I haven't yet said how they relate to the HOV discussion.

Returning to the topic of HOV lanes and traffic congestion. One thing that's emerged from our discussion is that we have a trade-off between 2 approaches that are somewhat in conflict. The ultimate goal is to increase the throughput of people on a congested route. One approach to achieving that goal: Increase the amount of roadway space available to those people. Another approach: Decrease the amount of roadway space that is REQUIRED per person to move those people (by making it attractive for people to use more space- efficient means of transport, such as HOVs). Approach 2 is somewhat in conflict with approach 1, because approach 2 results in fewer vehicles, and consequently less gas tax revenue that could be used for road expansion.

(We first touched on the trade-off on May 15/16: "One side [to consider] is accumulating the funds to increase the amount of that resource that is available. ... The other side is managing the resource economically, such that the maximum benefit is derived from the limited quantity that is available. This side has been completely ignored...")

Do we go with approach 1, 2 or a combination? What combination? As with most engineering problems, the "right" trade-off depends on the circumstances: How much space do we have, what funds do we have, how expensive is space, etc. In a place where space is plentiful and cheap, as in the Smallville-Pleasantville scenario, approach 1 is the clear winner. There is no need to even think about approach 2. Space is simply a non-issue. Investing heavily in mass transit would be draining the system of resources that could be better used to increase road capacity. In a way, it would be fair to accuse transit of "causing" congestion, in the sense that it would be taking away money that could be more cost-effectively used for road expansion.

As we move to a place where SPACE is more expensive, there comes a point where approach 1 becomes less cost-effective (either more costly, or less effective, or both) than approach 2. At that point we are ECONOMIZING, not "draining the system," by investing in more space-efficient means of travel.

It's crucial to recognize that the value of SPACE in a congested area is higher than it is in an uncongested area; if one doesn't recognize that, one can make serious logical and practical errors. And I'm not just talking about the initial cost of acquiring that space.

In a dense city neighborhood, real estate, housing and parking all cost more, per square foot, than they do in a sparsely populated area, because of the high demand and low supply of space for them. The fact that the roadway space is traditionally given away for the SAME price as in an uncongested area - namely, zero (or the price of gas taxes) - does not necessarily mean that it has the same value. A realistic price for taking up roadway space in a congested area would reflect the high demand and low supply of that roadway space. The gas tax does not reflect the demand or supply of space on the particular roads that a car travels; it is a blanket price, established artificially by using the force of government, and applied indiscriminately to all users.

A vehicle traveling 8 miles from Bellevue to Seattle takes up a much more expensive and valuable piece of space (expensive in terms of the delay it causes to others, etc.) than a vehicle traveling 8 miles from Bellevue to Woodinville/Duvall [little towns to the NE, for the info of other readers], and yet it pays the same nickel or so in gas taxes. That's not a realistic price. If a private company offered a parallel road and bridge as a speedier alternative to SR-520, it could easily charge a toll of $5, maybe even $10, at rush hours, and find a substantial market willing to pay that price.

"Wishing things worked, and building air castles in which you can posit them working, is not the same as having them work, Anirudh."

Actually, all I did was describe a scenario in which an HOV lane would NOT work: in an uncongested area. On a congested road, HOV lanes do work (as a mechanism for increasing the throughput of people); but you've stated (April 26 and June 04) that your main issue with them is not whether they work, but whether they are fair, and whether they deplete the system of funds.

So, returning to the fairness and funding issues. Your argument that HOV users are unfairly underfunding the system is largely based on the premise that the gas taxes paid by SOV users are a realistic user fee for the roadway (and in the Smallville/Pleasantville scenario, they may indeed be a realistic user fee). I would be inclined to agree with that argument if gas taxes could somehow adjust themselves to reflect the value of the space that a vehicle occupies. Or, equivalently, if a road such as SR-520 had a toll (something like $8 per vehicle, perhaps), then each vehicle would have paid an equal amount to "rent" a piece of space on the road for the duration of the trip, and each vehicle would have an equal right to use all portions of the road; an HOV lane would become harder to justify. However, it is not a toll road, and the gas tax is not a true user fee, but little more than a token contribution towards the overall cost of roads in the community.

BTW, Which bus riders are underfunding the system? Not the ones on the congested routes that have HOV lanes. The system-wide average figure of "20% of operating costs" that you often cite doesn't apply to those routes. Buses on those routes at peak hours are very heavily loaded; many even have standees. A transit planner told me (informally) that the bus routes along the roads that have HOV lanes recover at least 85% of their operating costs through farebox collections. I surmise the peak hour trips recover more than 100%.

I'll have more to say on the topic, depending on your take on the above.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), July 08, 2000.

"As we move to a place where SPACE is more expensive, there comes a point where approach 1 becomes less cost-effective (either more costly, or less effective, or both) than approach 2. At that point we are ECONOMIZING, not "draining the system," by investing in more space-efficient means of travel. "

No you are not! You are not even paying to cover the average (or the uncongested) cost of the roadway you are using. If HOV operations generate no more revenue per vehicle than GP lane operations (and they don't) the users are underfunding the system. If the congested part of the system is indeed more expensive than the average system they are underfunding it even more than they would in an uncongested area. Have you ever been in business Anirudh? When you lose money on every transaction, you can't make it up in volume!

"However, it is not a toll road, and the gas tax is not a true user fee, but little more than a token contribution towards the overall cost of roads in the community. "

In point of fact, that's a difficult issue to address in this state. One thing the "blue ribbon" commission found out was that the transportation funding is such a convoluted system that is is in fact not auditable. They couldn't actually tell how much went where. Certainly, at the federal level where they have good statistics, user fees (gas tax) does indeed cover the cost of roads for all vehicles except the largest trucks and buses, based upon the federal fuel tax. I will admit that there is other funding that goes into local roads (although gas tax also apparently leaks out into non road functions, including our highly subsidized ferry system), but the overwhelming majority of that comes from (you guessed it), auto drivers. Are you seriously maintaining that transit users fund the transportation expenses of non-transit riders to the same extent as non-transit riders fund transit??



"BTW, Which bus riders are underfunding the system? Not the ones on the congested routes that have HOV lanes."

They most certainly are!!. I have posted on several threads the federal figures on who pays for roads. Buses (and the largest trucks) come nowhere near paying their way on the interstate system (and most HOV lanes were built with substantial federal money). I will concede that some bus routes pay their way through fares (there is indeed a niche of cost-effectiveness) although the longer commuter buses typically do not (Sound Transit loses about $5.40 per unlinked trip) because they largely travel empty on the return trip. But even this doesn't count capital costs (@$435K per bus) or the cost of dedicated bus ramps, park n rides, etc.

The runs that DO make money are in the CBD shuttling people around very dense areas. As you go outside that niche, you get less cost-effective. That has been established in studies and in court cases.

So basically, Anirudh, I don't find much in your last posting that I accept.

Your analogies remain flawed and you are trying to justify your "economics" from a social standpoint rather than a dollars and sense standpoint.
When I was younger, I thought the latter was a great idea too.
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs is certainly a kinder, gentler, and more enobling sentiment upon which to base a society than what's the bottom line in a market economy.
Only problem is that the people who've tried the socialism bit haven't found it worked out nearly as well as the people who tried the capitalism bit.

So it doesn't matter what erroneous analogies you put out, Anirudh. Right now HOV lanes aren't paying for themselves, and transit (except for the CBD niche) isn't coming close either.

They are subsisting as parasites off of the SOV operators who disproportionately fund the system.

Now a health animal can stand a few parasites, but when the plan for coping with increased congestion is to decrease the number of healthy animals by increasing the number of parasites........, gee Anirudh, that ain't gonna work!

the craigster

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

to Craig: You write: "Right now HOV lanes aren't paying for themselves..."

Please substantiate your claims. During the work week, I commute up the Southcenter Hill during the afternoon rush hour. The carpool lane is just as congested as the other lanes. Therefore, if the other lanes are paying their own way, so is the carpool lane. There are some benefits from rideshring including lower dependence on imported oil and potentially (albeit slight) less air pollution. What price do we place on the benfits?

Likewise, on Hwy 520, if everyone had access to the HOV lane, which comes to an end, how much shorter would people's commutes really be? It seems that opening up the carpool lane on Hwy 520 provides little in benefits, but probably (i.e., VERY LIKELY) results in fewer people ridesharing, which means even more congestion! Keep in mind, that opening up the HOV lane on Hwy 520 will not provide even close to the necessary income to build another bridge across Lake Washington. So, you are exaggerating when you talk about the parasitic nature of HOV lanes. Eliminating the HOV lane on Hwy 520 will not result in increased road capacity.

Finally, the HOV entrance to the Narrrows Bridge costs society very little. Like Hwy 520, opening up the HOV entrance to all traffic will not reduce the average commute, and will not make a difference in terms of paying for additional capacity.

I do believe, NOW, that we should charge vehicles an annual fee to use the HOV lanes. So, I suspect we're really not that far apart in our views, after all.

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

"The carpool lane is just as congested as the other lanes. " If so, what good is it doing and why would anyone want to use it?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 10, 2000.

to Mark: It's a question I ask myself quite often. Why do I even bother to use the HOV lane up the Southcenter Hill on I-5 southbound?

However, sometimes, the HOV lane moves at 10 mph, while other lanes crawl at 5 mph. So, every now and then I might save 5-10 minutes. Not much, I know.

Still, I don't see how the existence of HOV lanes dissaudes people from ridesharing.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 10, 2000.

"Still, I don't see how the existence of HOV lanes dissaudes people from ridesharing. "

And who allegedly asserted this strawman argument?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 11, 2000.

to Mark: Is that a rhetorical question (I ask, rhetorically)?

Public policy should strive to take into account cost vs. benefits, assuming no basic federal or state constitutional rights are trampled in the process.

Do HOV lanes encourage ridesharing? Several points of view: 1) Yes; 2) No or; 3) Makes no difference either way.

If you believe the answer is no, then you might believe the true answer is 3) Makes no difference either way. However, you may also be implying that there would be more ridesharing if there were no HOV lanes (i.e., the strawman argument).

Mark, how much more ridesharing do HOV lanes have to encourage before you would support the concept? Is a 10% increase in ridesharing enough to justify your support?

Strawman arguments can make effective points, too. As long as HOV lanes don't harm ridesharing, society doesn't really risk much in tolerating the public policy, particularly where the cost of expanding GP capacity (e.g., Hwy 520 bridge; Tacoma Narrows bridge) is so very high.

It all boils down to cost vs. benefits.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 12, 2000.

"Mark, how much more ridesharing do HOV lanes have to encourage before you would support the concept? Is a 10% increase in ridesharing enough to justify your support? "

Hell no. I regard the issue as the equivalent of encouraging more people to ride the bus by requiring that the people of less politically correctstatus be required to ride in the back of the bus.

Bullshit!

Lanes that are funded by everyone ought to be open to everyone.
Nobody ought to be a second class citizen when they contribute as much as anyone else to the common good.


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

"Lanes that are funded by everyone ought to be open to everyone"

No matter WHAT the funding source may be. Gas, sales, income (taxes).

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), July 12, 2000.

(Back after a few days of hectic firefighting at work, sorry for another long delay in responding)

To Craig: I might suggest taking another look at the book 'Straight and Crooked Thinking'. I'm told it discusses how non-helpful emotionally charged expressions such as "parasites" are in discussions like this one. ;-)

The expression does help me see, though, how angry you feel about people who don't pay the cost of resources that they consume.

If I'm not mistaken, your argument about gas taxes covering the cost of roads is counting, in "cost of roads," only the initial cost of building the road and the dollar cost of maintaining the road in its initial condition. Am I right about that?

"you are trying to justify your "economics" from a social standpoint rather than a dollars and sense standpoint."

I'm puzzled about what you mean - what social standpoint?

I can't tell if you got the most important point of my last posting - that SPACE on the roadway has a value over and above the cost of building and maintaining the road, simply by virtue of being a resource that is in high demand. As an analogy, the value of a plot of real estate goes up when the demand for it increases and down when the demand decreases. Its present value has to do with the demand for it, not the initial price that was paid for it. Is this a valid analogy?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), July 13, 2000.

Also:

"Certainly, at the federal level where they have good statistics, user fees (gas tax) does indeed cover the cost of roads..."

I'll take your word that the data you've posted shows this to be true (as far as road construction and mainenance is concerned) at the federal level. However, even if it is true at the federal level, that doesn't necessarily mean it is true on the specific routes that have HOV lanes. What it suggests to me is that the gas-tax payers who travel roads built on inexpensive land are (perhaps) subsidizing the gas-tax payers who travel roads built on expensive land.

(Do gas taxes cover the cost of the property taxes that are lost annually as a result of knocking down miles of buildings to make room for a freeway lane?)

"Have you ever been in business Anirudh? When you lose money on every transaction, you can't make it up in volume!"

I understand what you're saying here - a business coudn't survive if it went about engaging in loss-making transactions.

However, what is the definition of "profit" and "loss" here? A public transportation system is not a business whose goal is to make as many dollars as possible by harvesting as much gas tax revenue as possible from its users. Its goal at commute hours is to promote commerce by getting people to work at a high rate.

To draw a meaningful parallel with a business, you'd have to come up with a business that had an interest in maximizing the number of people moved per hour, and not just an interest in maximizing the net amount of money collected.

"If HOV operations generate no more revenue per vehicle than GP lane operations (and they don't) the users are underfunding the system. If the congested part of the system is indeed more expensive than the average system they are underfunding it even more than they would in an uncongested area."

Except that each SOV user has CONSUMED several times as much of the resources that enable the transportation system to get people to work as any HOV user has. (And you have cited evidence that he has paid for the road construction/maintenance materials that he consumes, but not that he has paid for the value of the roadway space that he consumes.) Twice as much as either person in a 2-person carpool, 3 times as much as each person in a 3-person carpool, 6 times as much as each person in a 6-person vanpool, 50 times as much as each person in a bus carrying 50 passengers, etc.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), July 13, 2000.

To Mark and Marsha: You wrote, "Lanes that are funded by everyone ought to be open to everyone."

And indeed they are open to everyone.

But think about this: Should some people be allowed to use up twice as much of the lanes (or 3 or more times as much of the lanes) as others, at the expense of the others, or at their own expense? If at the expense of the others, why is that fair?

(BTW notice that your approach (Marsha's especially) is different from Craig's. Marsha says the channels through which the funds are collected are irrelevant. To Craig the crux of the issue is the channels through which the funds are collected. And what I'm telling Craig is that the funds he's thinking of are not the full picture; they are the full picture in other situations, but not in the specific situations that we're talking about.)

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), July 16, 2000.

"(BTW notice that your approach (Marsha's especially) is different from Craig's. Marsha says the channels through which the funds are collected are irrelevant. To Craig the crux of the issue is the channels through which the funds are collected. And what I'm telling Craig is that the funds he's thinking of are not the full picture; they are the full picture in other situations, but not in the specific situations that we're talking about.) " Anirudh- For whatever reason, I've had real difficulty posting since my last post, I keep getting a database overflow error message on my computer. I've borrowed someone else's computer for this message, and am trying to reload my system software on mine.

Please don't think I'm ignoring you. From home, I've attempted to post several different messages, a number of times.

Basically, there is no part of what you say that I agree with, and the "channels through which the funds are collected" is certainly no big issue for me.

The biggest issue is that your model defunds itself if it converts significant numbers of SOV users to HOV users. The "parasite" analogy was not intended as a slur, but rather as a valid analogy. According to the funding figures, SOV drivers are symbiotes (contributing resources commensurate with their use of the road system). HOV users in general (and transit users in particular) contribute to the system significantly less, and certainly not commensurate with the costs of providing them with the services they use.

I reject your concept that congested highways are somehow a special case. There will always be parts of the whole system that are more expensive, sometimes enormously more expensive, than the average. Overpasses, tunnels, and bridges come to mind. The issue is simple: In the aggregate does the user fund the costs of their use of the system or not. The SOV users certainly do. The HOV users (particularly the transit users) certainly do not.

"And indeed they are open to everyone. "

And this is pure Bulls**t!

When someone is stopped and ticketed if they use an HOV lane, they are most definitely not open to everyone.

More later!


-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 16, 2000.

("To Craig the crux of the issue is the channels through which the funds are collected." This was based on your statement, "Look, I'm not opposed to HOV lanes in principle. All you have to do is to have the HOV users completely fund their HOV lanes, and then fund the GP lanes to the extent that they use them.", as well as the fact that your claim that SOV users adequately fund the system is based entirely on gas taxes.

I assumed you were away from your computer since you've been silent on all threads for a few days. I look forward to your next post.)

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), July 17, 2000.

Aniruh- I don't know if we have a semantics problem or what. My concern is the SOURCE of the fu8nding, not the "channel." If HOV users pay for their HOV lanes through special permits, fares, tolls, or whatever mechanism, it wouldn't bother me. But there is no mechanism (excepting fares for transit, a pittance compared to the marginal costs of transit services) where the users of the HOV lanes actually pay for their use while exempting from payment those SOV drivers that are barred by law from using the HOV lanes.

The main idea is just how you support the system. To the extent that HOV users use the GP roads, they ought to pay their pro-rata share of the cost of that system. By and large they do. If HOV users are going to have a special entitlement (use of HOV lanes) they ought to pay the costs of that use and SOV drivers ought not to pay the cost of that use. That is where the problem is in your model.



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

(I understand your meaning. I should have elaborated further in my last post: you want the funding to be collected through channels that, ideally, ensure that the users pay their pro rata share of costs. Collecting road funding through a gas tax, for example, is a closer approximation to this ideal than funding roads entirely through a sales tax or income tax would be. That contrasts with the view Marsha expressed: "No matter WHAT the funding source may be. Gas, sales, income (taxes).")

I realize you haven't been able to finish your response, but I have several reactions to what you've posted so far.

Remember we agreed that each vehicle causes 2 costs worth considering, cost (i) (material costs of the road) and cost (ii) (delay caused by taking up space on the road)? The gas tax goes towards compensating for cost (i), but not for cost (ii).

"HOV users... ought to pay their pro-rata share... By and large they do."

I'm glad we agree on that. I assume you mean in regard to cost (i).

"If HOV users are going to have a special entitlement (use of HOV lanes) they ought to pay the costs of that use and SOV drivers ought not to pay the cost of that use."

In regard to cost (ii): If SOV drivers are going to have a special entitlement (twice (or more) as much roadway space each) they ought to bear the costs of that use (increased delay) and HOV drivers ought not to bear the cost of that use.

About the parasite analogy (taking it at face value and not as a slur): The reasoning is something like this: Transit riders are subsidized by non-transit riders. If there are more transit riders, there will be more people who have to be subsidized, therefore there will be a bigger drain on the system.

Surely you see why the analogy isn't applicable? If more people ride transit, transit becomes MORE self-supporting. A bus carrying 70 riders is subsidized LESS than a bus carrying 30 riders, because it recovers more of its operating costs in fares.

"There will always be parts of the whole system that are more expensive, sometimes enormously more expensive, than the average. Overpasses, tunnels, and bridges come to mind. The issue is simple: In the *aggregate* does the user fund the costs of their use of the system or not."

The fact remains that every vehicle (whether HOV or SOV) that drives on an expensive road is subsidized (as far as the gas-tax contribution towards cost (i) goes) by vehicles that drive on inexpensive roads. The congested roads that have HOV lanes are generally also the ones on which expansion would be especially expensive (which is why the road has become congested, after all). Now it's possible that the same vehicle that sometimes drives on expensive roads also drives on inexpensive roads at other times, so the aggregate subsidy for a particular user works out to zero; but it's still important to recognize that there is a subsidy. I'll explain why later.

"When someone is stopped and ticketed if they use an HOV lane, they are most definitely not open to everyone."

Note that the ticket is issued for bringing more than half a vehicle into the lane (i.e. for taking up more than a fair share of space in the lane), not for being a "second class citizen" who has strayed into the sanctum of the holy. That's a somewhat tongue-in-cheek remark, but the difference is important. From the number of harshly judgmental words that have been used above -- "second class citizens," "virtuous few" vs. "profligate many," "bad guys," "politically correct," "socially acceptable," etc. -- I have the impression that some people feel resentful about an HOV lane because it makes them feel unfairly "judged" for being "bad" by being "excluded". (I'm not sure why some people get the message that they are being judged. Perhaps some environmentalists' admonitions about the "evils" of the automobile have something to do with it?) From the references to "demographics," and the nature of some of the other arguments used above, I also have the impression that some people think an HOV user is a different type of person than an SOV user. Indeed in a rural or suburban area, or in the country as a whole, there may be real differences between HOV (esp. transit) and SOV users; but on the specific routes that have HOV lanes, at peak hours, there is much less difference between HOV and SOV users. Most peak-hour bus riders on these routes are suburb-to-city commuters on their way to or from work (or vice versa), who also own cars, and yet choose to commute by bus for various reasons -- to avoid the high cost of parking downtown, to spend their time productively on the bus instead of sitting in stop-and-go traffic, etc.

The accurate "message" that should be taken from an HOV lane is very simple. Not that SOV users are "bad" or somehow "worth" less than HOV users, but simply that they have chosen a mode of transport that, in a congested area, is more *expensive*, because it takes up more *space*. (That's also why motorcycles are allowed in the HOV lane, even though they are, strictly speaking, SOVs -- they use up less space.)

I'm still interested in your take on my point about space having a value over and above the initial cost that was paid for it (June 13).

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), July 18, 2000.

Oops, I meant July 13, not June 13. "I can't tell if you got the most important point of my last posting - that SPACE on the roadway has a value over and above the cost of building and maintaining the road, simply by virtue of being a resource that is in high demand. As an analogy, the value of a plot of real estate goes up when the demand for it increases and down when the demand decreases. Its present value has to do with the demand for it, not the initial price that was paid for it. Is this a valid analogy?"

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), July 18, 2000.

"Its present value has to do with the demand for it, not the initial price that was paid for it. Is this a valid analogy?" " On this I'd agree, but I think where we disagree is at a more basic level. I believe that the roadways are a commons, they were constructed as such, paid for as such, and the contract was that they would remain such. If you desire to come up with another system, specifically funded by and for a subset of the transportation community (such as aviation and freight railroads have) I really have no difficulty with that. That is not parasitism, merely "separate but equal".

I disagree profoundly with your assertion that ticketing SOV users of HOV lanes is not discriminatory. It is self apparent that it is. Your rationale to justify it (bringing more than half a vehicle into the lane) is belied by the numerous assessments that have been done by the users of HOV lanes (particularly in this state where they are full-time). The users are disproportionately family groups who would have travelled together with or without an HOV lane, and in many cases only contain one licensed driver.

This seems an odd model to build congestion relief around.

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

to Craig: You write: "The [HOV] users are disproportionately family groups who would have travelled together with or without an HOV lane, and in many cases only contain one licensed driver."

This is a major reason why I now support charging an annual fee for use of the "HOV" lane. The current policy is indeed "odd". We, as a society, are actually encouraging families to run errands during rush hour. Society should do everything in its power to DISCOURAGE people from getting on the main arteries during rush hour.

An annual fee for using the HOV lane will also provide funding for extending the "HOV" system, without raising taxes.

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

"On this I'd agree, but I think where we disagree is at a more basic level. I believe that the roadways are a commons, they were constructed as such, paid for as such, and the contract was that they would remain such."

OK, so let's talk about the definition of a commons. I think there are several reasonable ways to think about a commons. You were the one who introduced me to the concept, though, so help me understand your way of thinking about it.

One way to think of the roadways is that they are a facility for which each user pays a fee every time he uses it, reflecting the value of the service he is receiving. Another way to think of them is that they have "already been paid for" (by whoever paid for them), and have been "given," for toll-free use, by those who paid for them to the present and future residents and visitors of the region.

Which comes closer to your way of thinking of them? If the latter, were the roadways "given" to be owned equally by all people, or by all vehicles?

Or is there another way to characterize them?

(BTW, as you know, some HOV lanes were constructed with federal funds on condition that the lanes be HOV lanes, so the contract was really that they would remain HOV lanes. But let's leave that point aside.)

"The users are disproportionately family groups who would have travelled together with or without an HOV lane, and in many cases only contain one licensed driver."

This is an argument that HOV lanes don't WORK (as a means of reducing congestion). It is not an argument that they are UNFAIR. Why do you feel it is "discriminatory" to treat 2 people in a family the SAME as 2 people who are not part of a family? It seems to me that the opposite -- to treat 2 relatives as though they had less of a right to roadway space as 2 non-relatives -- would be discriminatory.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), July 19, 2000.

"Which comes closer to your way of thinking of them? If the latter, were the roadways "given" to be owned equally by all people, or by all vehicles?"

Neither come close.

"Or is there another way to characterize them?"

The right to vote, or to even have a nation is a commons. Paid for by previous and current citizens, some at little cost, some with their lives.

"(BTW, as you know, some HOV lanes were constructed with federal funds on condition that the lanes be HOV lanes, so the contract was really that they would remain HOV lanes. But let's leave that point aside.) "If you wanted to leave that point aside, you shouldnUt have brought it up. These lanes were not paid for with "federal funds." There are no "federal funds." These lanes were paid for with taxpayerUs funds. The track record on whether or not they would remain HOV is somewhat mixed. Few other states have full-time HOV lanes, and nobody including the federal government seems to care. When New Jersey decided to convert some of their HOV lanes back to GP the federal government didIIInothing. This is hardly akin to firing on Ft. Sumter. I seriously dout if a second Civil War will be started by returning a commons to the people.

"The users are disproportionately family groups who would have travelled together with or without an HOV lane, and in many cases only contain one licensed driver." "This is an argument that HOV lanes don't WORK (as a means of reducing congestion). It is not an argument that they are UNFAIR. Why do you feel it is "discriminatory" to treat 2 people in a family the SAME as 2 people who are not part of a family? It seems to me that the opposite -- to treat 2 relatives as though they had less of a right to roadway space as 2 non-relatives -- would be discriminatory. "

That is a nonsense argument, Anirudh, and (hopefully) you know it. The statement says that since the alleged intent of the HOV lanes is to encourage an increase in the average occupancy of vehicles, the priority given by HOV groups to family groups is essentially wasted, since they would have traveled together anyway. I did not propose that family groups not be allowed to use the HOV lanes. My proposal has always been that everyone ought to be allowed to use the HOV lanes. It is disingenuous in the extreme for you to propose this as a strawman argument, Anirudh. This is Sophistry. It is the equivalent of me asking, "Anirudh, do you still beat your wife?"



-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 19, 2000.

Mr. Sahni-
Domestic violence is a terrible problem that destroys couples and hurts innocent children. But you can be helped. You don't have to be in an abusive relationship that poisons your entire family. Help is available. Domestic Violence Resources
Please act today Mr. Sahni, for you, for your wife, and for the children! Don't allow this poisoning of your closest relationships to continue!


zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), July 19, 2000.

I think we're having semantic difficulties again. Let me retry.

"Neither come close."

So, what, in your view, constitutes fair use of a commons?

"It is disingenuous in the extreme for you to propose this as a strawman argument, Anirudh. This is Sophistry."

It wasn't "sophistry"; I jumped a step ahead in reasoning. Let me step back. Perhaps I didn't get the whole meaning of your previous (July 18) post, where you call ticketing of SOV drivers in HOV lanes "discriminatory." Are you saying that HOV lanes unfairly favor those who have families over those who are single?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), July 20, 2000.

Anirudh-

I frankly am becoming tired of the games you play, rather than seriously discussing any of my concerns and objections.

Reread my last post.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 20, 2000.

to Anirudh - Much of the HOV policy is foolishly designed. The requirement ought to be more than 1 licensed driver in the vehicle. Or, at least, more than one person over the age of 16.

We ought not to be encouraging people to stuff their kids in the car, just so they can run errands during rush hour. But, that is a potentially perverse effect of the HOV lanes.

Furthermore, the HOV lanes do not have their own on and off ramps. Nor do they have on and off ramps connecting to Park'n'Ride facilities. My conclusion is that the people designing and/or managing HOV lanes have never actually carpooled themselves.

I don't know why you waste your time discussing the issue with Craig & others. They've made it very clear that they are not interested in any cost-benefit analysis of HOV lanes. No matter how beneficial HOV lanes may be, they will not budge on their beliefs.

However, one area of compromise which may appeal to some, if not all, of "them", is to convert the HOV lane to a special tolled lane.

Because of the demographic trends cited by Craig in the past, I think the best policy is to sell a special license plate, giving the vehicle the right to use the HOV lanes. This will actually encourage more ridesharing, as the purchasers of the license plates will have a financial incentive to recoup their "investment".

How do you feel about converting the HOV lanes into tolled lanes?

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

Craig:

I'm sorry that some of my recent posts made fun of your position, instead of seriously addressing it. "Good-natured teasing" rather than "ridicule" was my intention; sadly, I am independently and reliably informed that "insolent jackass" was more like how I came across. No insult was intended. If I wasn't seriously interested in understanding your concerns, or if I thought you weren't genuinely interested in finding out the right thing to do, I would have quit this discussion a long time ago.

We have very different approaches, and the number of times we have misunderstood each other, or thought each other dishonest or irrational because we were using the same words with different connotations (e.g. May 01, May 10-15, June 7-8, to cite a few) is amazing. You have made many statements that seemed extremely irrational to me at first, in this discussion as well as others. Now that I understand your position better than I did at the start of this discussion, although I still disagree with it, I am actually impressed at how logical and self-consistent it is, right from the very first post at the top of this thread.

When I find that someone who is obviously intelligent is making statements that seem illogical and irrational to me, I try to find out WHY he is making them. Usually, I find that either he or I, or both, are making assumptions that are invalid, or are neglecting factors that need to be considered; or that he is hiding his real concerns. In this case, we were both neglecting factors that needed to be considered. For example, as an occasional bus rider, it never occurred to me to think about whether the fare was $1.00 or $1.50; it wouldn't make a difference to my decision to ride the bus. As you have shown me (April 30), there are important reasons to think about what that fare is. You have also made me aware of plenty of other relevant pieces of information that I didn't know about, such as the fact that a bus causes more wear and tear on roads than an equivalent number of cars, and the surprising figures you posted about energy efficiency of cars vs. buses. On the other hand, there are important factors that your theory hasn't taken into account, and it's not obvious to me how best to convince you of them.

I'll be back after I've thought again about what you meant by your last post.

Matthew: Re. "I don't know why you waste your time discussing the issue with Craig & others. They've made it very clear that they are not interested in any cost-benefit analysis of HOV lanes. No matter how beneficial HOV lanes may be, they will not budge on their beliefs."

Actually, I have been learning a great deal from this discussion, both about how to carry on a productive discussion and about the concerns of the people participating. Most other HOV lane opponents I have talked to have simply tried to fabricate excuses to deny the evidence that HOV lanes reduce congestion, and concealed their real objections, which makes it impossible to argue with them. Craig, in contrast, is intellectually honest and bold enough to make a statement like, "It wouldn't matter to me in the least if return of the HOV lanes to the public domain DID increase congestion, because the issue of equity is more important." That statement may shock people who regularly travel on congested routes; but the fact that Craig is clear enough in his thinking to come out and say it, and articulate enough to defend it, makes it possible to discover what his real concerns are, and what assumptions they are based on. Craig has also shown that he is capable of acknowledging holes in his position once they are pointed out. (May 16 for example, "Yes it has...", and May 28, "I'd agree that this has a cost.") All of which is why I believe that he will be a strong supporter of HOV or HOT lanes once his concerns are addressed.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), July 20, 2000.

Lets talk about a different sort of commons.

Lets talk about the public school system. Now lets not talk about some uncongested public school system in Eastern Washington, but rather a congested system in a large city. Space in the classroom in the uncongested system may not be at any particular premium, but space in the congested school certainly is. It has greater value than space in the uncongested system. While it might be acceptable in the uncongested school system for a couple to send more than the average number of children to the K-12 school system with relatively little impact, because the VALUE of the classroom space is greater in the urban areas, these people are consuming a disproportionate share of the commons in a congested area. Their children should be segregated to a classroom with less space per pupil and more pupils per teacher to offset the fact that their parents have used a disproportionate share of the commons. This was, after all, a choice. Birth control/abortion has been available for as long as any K-12 school kid has been alive.

I understand and agree with your model completely, Mr. Sahni.

I cant believe Craig is being so pig- headed and unwilling to concur with such a modest proposal.


-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), July 21, 2000.

For those who don't have an appreciation of historical satire, I'd recommend the following URL:

http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/nonfiction_u/swiftj_mo dest/modest_ch1.html

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), July 21, 2000.

HMMM!

Maybe this will work better, you'll have to go through a page or two to get the text:

Jonathan Swift

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), July 21, 2000.

Whoops, tag problems: Maybe this will work better, you'll have to go through a page or two to get the text:

Jonathan Swift
In any event, nice satire Mikey

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), July 21, 2000.

"All of which is why I believe that he will be a strong supporter of HOV or HOT lanes once his concerns are addressed. "

Actually, I think I agree with Mikey's analysis. A commons is a commons is a commons. If we aren't going to penalize people for sending too many kids to the public schools, we shouldn't penalize people for having too few people in their cars.
<
Both behaviors impose the types of "congestion costs" you allude to in your postings.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 25, 2000.

to Craig: You write: "A commons is a commons is a commons".

Apparently not. Do we charge families more in taxes for sending more kids to schools? Do we charge families more in GASOLINE TAXES for driving more miles on the road? Do we charge households more in taxes for reading more books from the libraries?

Roads are unlike any other commons. If I'm not happy with the "congestion" of other commons (e.g., schools, libraries, etc.) I can turn to the private sector (e.g., private schools, bookstores, etc.). Not so with roads. If I'm not satisfied with "public" roads, there is no network of "private" roads which I can use for an additional sum of money.

You and Mikey make a flawed analogy. Roads are unique. Realistically, only the government is going to build a vast network of roads. Not so with schools or bookstores.

Therefore, since roads are unique, they require unique solutions. Hence, the HOV lane is one way of squeezing maximum use of a limited resource.

I read an editorial the other day in the Seattle Sunday paper, and some politician pointed out that the Puget Sound area generates over 50% of all sales tax revenue, but less than 30% of gas tax revenues.

Seems to me that there is a correlation between HOV lanes and accelerated growth in sales tax revenues.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 26, 2000.

(Hey, cool; I loved the Jonathan Swift piece. Hadn't read the original before.)

Mikey:

"I cant believe Craig is being so pig- headed and unwilling to concur with such a 'modest proposal.'"

"Pig-headed" ?? I hope you don't honestly think this is my opinion. If I thought Craig was "pigheaded," I wouldn't bother talking to him. Disagreeing with someone does not equate to considering him "pigheaded". I believe he is taking well-founded reasoning that is perfectly valid in one domain, and mistakenly extrapolating it to the specific cases of I-5, I-405, I-90, SR-520, SR-518 and SR-167. That sort of mistake isn't "pigheadedness," it's something that even the smartest people commonly do. You also make it sound as if I think Craig is stupid for not adopting my viewpoint right away. On the contrary, I would think there was something wrong if he did agree with me right away. His April 30 post, as well as the fact that he can name the sources for most of the data he quotes, tell me that he checks ideas out thoroughly before incorporating them into his beliefs. I would expect him to take a very critical look at my point of view before agreeing to it.

But thanks for the K-12 analogy; it actually helps me understand what Craig means by a "commons", as a publicly owned resource to which people have an unlimited right of use. You didn't make it clear whether you think the school funding situation is fair or unfair, and why; but, at the risk of opening a whole new can of worms (school funding), let me point out a couple of differences between the K-12 situation and the road situation that justify different standards of fairness.

1. Expansion of schools is not restricted by space constraints in the same way that expansion of those particular roads is. For one thing, there is considerably more flexibility in the choice of physical location. For another thing, each new teacher can be added at a cost comparable to the cost of the previous one. In contrast, on the routes under discussion, adding a lane would mean knocking down miles of buildings, and/or tunneling, double-decking, spanning bodies of water, overcoming vociferous opposition from rich neighborhoods who can't be bought out, etc., all at a cost considerably greater than the cost of adding the last lane. All of this means that expense considerations are much more important in the HOV lane situation than in the school analogy.

2. Is a child a possession, whose caretaking is the sole responsibility of the parents that brought it into being, or is a child an individual in his/her own right who deserves an education whether or not the parents are willing and able to pay for it? If you believe the former, then it is indeed unfair for some parents' children to take up more classroom space than other parents' children. If you believe the latter, then each child has an equal right to classroom space regardless of parentage. I suppose your answer would depend on your philosophy; perhaps it's somewhere in between. But would you give the same answer for a car as for a child? Is a car a posession whose upkeep and costs are the responsibility of its owner, or does it have a right to consume roadway space, regardless of the cost of that space and regardless of occupancy, simply by virtue of being a car? (I suppose to some extent the answer again depends on your philosophy. If you have been brainwashed by American car commercials, and believe that the Great American Road belongs to Buick, then perhaps you believe that every CAR (as opposed to every car passenger) has an equal and inalienable right to roadway space...) I think that most people, yourself and Craig included, would lean closer towards the latter answer for a child and the former for a car; which is another reason the standards of fairness for allocating roadway space should be different from those for allocating classroom space.

Back later with a response to Craig's other point. Craig: My best understanding of the point in your July 18 and 19 posts is this (If I haven't got it right, please let me know): The right to drive in the HOV lanes has been denied to SOV users on the pretext that this denial will result in reduced congestion. This arrangement unfairly favors family groups who would have driven together anyway, because they are getting to drive in the HOV lane even though they haven't reduced congestion by traveling as a group.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), July 27, 2000.

Mr. Sahni- I consider neither the ownership of the children nor the ownership of the cars to be the issue.

The issue is whether or not the country as a whole benefits from an educated citizenry and whether or not it benefits from equal rights for all.

We fought a couple of wars with England over the issues of rights of citizens and a civil war with ourselves over whether different categories of citizens should be treated differently.
You may convince Craig, although I really doubt it, but you aren't going to convince me that greater expense is somehow a justification to accept an injustice that we wouldn't have to accept if it were only cheaper. Principles don't depend on dollars. It would have been cheaper to pay the tax on the tea, and to buy the damn stamps. It would have been cheaper to let the Nazis keep Europe and Japan to keep the Far East, too.


-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), July 27, 2000.

to Mikey: I wasn't aware of a constitutional right to the use of roads by all citizens.

I know that the federal government has a constitutional right to build roads, as part of its obligation to govern. And, our representatives have the right to tax us, however they deem appropriate.

But, just because the government builds roads for its need to govern, it doesn't follow that we get to use them any way we wish.

The issue isn't about equal rights. The issue is about a limited resource, which, for all practicality, only the government controls. How do we best manage the limited resource?

To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been prevented from carpooling (or riding a motorcycle) because of their ethnicity, religion, creed, etc. So, exactly what "right" is being denied?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 27, 2000.

"The issue is whether or not the country as a whole benefits from an educated citizenry and whether or not it benefits from..."

Actually, the issue is not benefit, but fairness (remember the title of the thread?). If you look at one of Craig's first posts in this thread, he makes a clear distinction between the two issues, and explicitly states that the issue of equity is more important to him. If you want to discuss whether commuters benefit from HOV lanes, well yes, they all do (SOV commuters as well as HOV commuters), and that would make a worthwhile discussion as well, but a different one.

"...equal rights for all."

Now "equal rights for all" is more pertinent to the issue of fairness. It sounds like your ideal of fairness is "equal rights for all;" but you need to disambiguate "equal rights for all". Concerning allocation of classroom space, do you believe in equal rights for all parents, or equal rights for all children? Your course of action will be different depending on which one you believe. Concerning allocation of expensive road space, do you believe in equal rights for all people who use the road, or equal rights for all cars? If you believe in equal rights for all cars, then HOV lanes are indeed unfair to some cars. If you believe in equal rights for all people, then why would it be fair for some people to take up twice (or more) as much road space as others at the others' expense, rather than at their own expense? Answering, "Because it's a commons," begs the question, why would it fair for some people to use up a greater share of the commons at other people's expense, rather than at their own expense?

"We fought a couple of wars ... over whether different categories of citizens should be treated differently."

Notice you used the words different categories of citizens. This seems to be a key misconception at the root of the feeling of unfairness about HOV lanes - the belief that HOV users on the routes under discussion are a different category of citizens from SOV users. If you look at the country or the state as a whole, there is indeed evidence, which Craig has cited to me, that HOV users are a "different category" from SOV users. However, extrapolating that state-wide data to the specific routes under discussion at peak hours is a mistake.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), July 28, 2000.

"However, extrapolating that state-wide data to the specific routes under discussion at peak hours is a mistake. "
Always the straight man, why?

Where are your sources that indicate this?

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), July 28, 2000.

"Always the straight man, why?" - I'm not sure if you meant "straight man" as in comedy theater, or, "Why are you so sure you're the one who's right, given that the data is incomplete?" If you meant the latter, no, I'm not someone who's "always got it right"; but I do have a slight advantage in background knowledge for this particular discussion, because I've been regularly commuting on one of the HOV- lane routes for years. That doesn't mean that my observations and experiences constitute scientific data, but it does save me from making some assumptions that are way off-base, and help me to recognize when someone else makes such assumptions.

Note that I'm not asking you to change your belief in "equal rights for all." I'm saying that an HOV lane, in a congested area (and only in a congested area) supports the principle of "equal rights for all." In an uncongested area, where the space that a vehicle takes up is a non-issue, I agree that it would violate the principle. I admire people who use honest means to fight for principles that they believe in. However, if you have the image of an uncongested rural road in mind when you think of an HOV lane, or if you don't realize all the ways in which the space issue has changed the equation, you can end up, ironically, fighting against the very principles that you think you are fighting for, like Engineer Joe in my story.

""However, extrapolating that state-wide data to the specific routes under discussion at peak hours is a mistake." What are your sources that indicate this?"

(That leads into what I was going to say to Craig about demographics.) I don't have hard data about the demographics of peak- hour commuters on HOV routes. I mentioned that at the outset, as you'll see if you re-read my very first post in this discussion. I don't know if Metro or WSDOT even collect such data. As Craig acknowledged in the thread Why all the fuss over transit? on June 25-26, he doesn't have that data either: "Closest I could come to it is the split mode indicator... [which gives data about HOV ridership at all hours in the whole county.]"

However, I am sure that extrapolating that data to the HOV lane routes is a mistake. It's something like asking, "How do you know that the sort of people who are typically found in the Bellevue Square shopping mall have different demographics from the street people who hang out in Pioneer Square?" What would you say if someone asked you that? The first response that comes to mind might be, "Well, just go look at them." All-day data about bus riders in the whole county would be heavily weighted towards Seattle, where the bulk of the bus riders are. Peak-hour commuters on HOV-lane routes are not typical Seattle bus riders. Every time I take the bus home from work, I see the striking difference between the motley crew on the city bus that I transfer to and the much more genteel set on the Eastside-Seattle express bus that I transfer from. 98% of the people on my SR-520 buses, and the people waiting at the Montlake station each morning to catch other buses along SR-520, look just like the sort of people I see at my Eastside workplace. Most are in their mid- 20s or 30s, nearly all are between 20 and 45 (i.e. working age). Many of them are busy studying their office papers or working on laptop or palmtop computers. (And based on conversations with them, most of them own cars.) Others I know who travel on I-90 and I-405, and who ride buses much more regularly than I do (even though they all own cars as well) concur with these observations about the difference between bus riders on those routes and bus riders on other routes. A former transit planner I know also confirmed this recently in an informal conversation.

Now did you also ask yourself what leads you to believe that the demographics of HOV commuters on those particular routes at peak hours are the same as the demographics of HOV users in general? One should always be suspicious of any attempt to apply data about a large population to a very non-random sample, just as one should be suspicious of an attempt to generalize data about a very non-random sample to an entire population.

[For readers who aren't familiar with Pioneer Square and Bellevue Square: the Bellevue Square shopping mall is often stereotyped as "center of yuppieville," while the back streets of Pioneer Square in Seattle are often characterized as "seedy."]

I realize that my own observations on SR-520 represent a non-random sample of the HOV-lane routes. (They're a good sample of all the commuting hours on SR-520, but not a good sample of all the HOV routes.) So besides these subjective observations, I can give you a few objective reasons to expect the demographics of the commuters on those routes at peak hours to be substantially different from the county-wide or state-wide averages. I'll try to post a short list later tonight or tomorrow.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

"Others... concur with these observations about the difference between bus riders on those routes and bus riders on other routes."

Oops - correct that to, "concur with these observations about the difference between bus riders on those routes and bus riders on city routes."

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

Here are a few reasons to expect the demographics of peak-hour HOV lane commuters to be quite different from the all-day averages for HOV users on all routes.

1. The vast majority of people on the road at peak hours (whether in HOVs or SOVs) are working people, on their way to or from work. Most working people own cars (certainly a higher percentage than the percentage of the entire bus riding population that owns cars.)

2. Look at the WSDOT HOV System Map. The routes are suburb-to- city routes, the cities being Seattle and Bellevue (or suburb-to- suburb, if you consider Bellevue a suburb). People traveling on those routes at commute hours (whether by SOV, carpool or bus) are primarily people who live in the suburbs and work in the city. Suburb residents have substantially different demographics than city residents do. (Craig can probably substantiate this claim with real data better than I can.) Most people who live in the suburbs own cars, including people who take the bus to work; living in the suburbs is well-nigh impossible without a car.

Why would a suburb dweller take the bus to work even though he/she owns a car? Here are a couple of reasons:

(a) to spend the commute time usefully (reading, working on a laptop or palmtop computer, napping, etc.) instead of wasting time and mental energy in miles of stop-and-go traffic.

(b) to avoid the cost of parking downtown. Some typical figures for downtown Seattle are $15-$21 per day for an unreserved spot, and $5 per day for a spot reserved on a monthly basis. Downtown Bellevue probably has lower rates (I don't know what they are) but it is expensive too. Some of these people have parking subsidized by their employers, some don't.

As for people doing the so-called "reverse commute," from the city to the suburbs in the morning and back in the evening, many are people who have well-paying jobs in the suburbs (e.g. the many young people with high-tech jobs on the Eastside) and choose to live in the city because they like the life, excitement and cultural opportunities. Of the bus riders among these people, I'd expect most own cars as well, but choose the bus for reason (a). Based on my conversations with bus passengers, the fraction of non-car owners among "reverse commuters" is somewhat higher than the fraction among "forward commuters" (as one would expect, since it's easier to live without a car in the city than in the suburbs) but it's still small.

And finally:

3. The HOV lane on each of these routes carries such a large fraction of the total number of peak-hour commuters that it would be patently self-contradictory to say that the set of peak-hour HOV commuters has substantially different demographics from the set of peak-hour commuters as a whole. 35% of the people on the SR-520 HOV lane, even though it's a substandard lane with a 3-person restriction, and 42% of the people on the I-5 HOV lane. (Source: WSDOT HOV lane FAQ page.)

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), August 04, 2000.