There is an excellent article in todays Tacoma News Tribune that fairly well illustrates my concerns over the effect of HOV lanes.

The current situation, for those who havent been following it, is this:
1. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge, built 50 years ago, is now carrying loads well over design capacity, and as a consequence is congested. The current bridge has two (2) general purpose lanes each way.
2. The state DOT wanted to use this as a model for public-private financing. They had an election (some would say with gerrymandered election area, but thats another story) resulting in approval to build another bridge across the Narrows, paralleling the first. The bridge had an advertised cost of $350 million at the time of this election. Currently its looking at about $700 million in todays dollars.
3. The plan involves converting the existing bridge from two (2) lanes each way, to two (2) general purpose lanes and one (1) HOV lane (and a shoulder) going in one direction. This will apparently still be toll-free, in an effort to avoid running afoul of court problems involving re-instituting a toll on a bridge that already had its construction costs paid off by tolls years ago. Of course, once you go over it your on the other side, and will either need to get back on a ferry, go through Shelton, around the Olympic peninsula on 101 and over the Hood Canal Bridge, or take the NEW bridge.
4. The NEW bridge will have two (2) general purpose lanes, one (1) HOV lane, and one bicycle/pedestrian lane (which will remove bicycles and pedestrians from the existing bridge), and a shoulder.
5. This will result in a net increase of one (1) HOV lane each way, although DOT believes the changes will increase the safety and throughput even on the two (2) GP lanes remaining on the original bridge.

What the Tribune article discusses is the proposed toll (which was advertised as $3 during the election.
The point Id like to make is the demand curve. As usual, the government is using a static demand projection. That is, that existing traffic will continue and simply pay the fare. For those with long memories, the Congress did this not too long ago with a luxury tax on yachts. The net effect was to destroy the jobs of those who manufactured yachts in this country, subsequently leading to a proposal by one of the Kennedys (I believe the Congressman from Rhode Island) to propose tax credit for millionaires to buy yachts.
But looking at this article, it dramatically demonstrates my point on HOV lanes Currently 90,000 people go across the free (but congested) bridge. It is possible there is unmet demand now that will actually increase bridge traffic when the new bridge goes in. It is possible the demand will be the same, and they will harvest $3 a car from 90,000 cars a day. But it is also possible that the number of cars will decrease as those who right now would almost do as well driving on board a (highly subsidized) ferry or driving through Shelton decrease their travel over the Narrows. Certainly some of the shopping trips currently going to Tacoma could instead go to Silverdale. And lets say for the sake of argument that (notwithstanding the demographics) you actually were able to induce a third of the SOV users (essentially 30,000 cars) to convert to Vanpools and join Matts minions. This would reduce traffic by 27,000 cars, reducing revenue by almost $30 million a year. Except the revenue cant be reduced, so this must be transferred to the remaining users in higher tolls. It all depends on the elasticity of the demand. The clear thing that stands out, is that the HOV users will pay their own way, only when theres nobody left but HOV users (admittedly unlikely to happen).

Now you may or may not agree with SOVs for a variety of reasons, but you need to understand that they do pay for the system. Id encourage everyone to read the article. Unfortunately, this URL doesnt take you directly to the cite, but it gets you to the frontpage.

the craigster http://www.tribnet.com/

Bridge builders outline toll hikes 
Fees likely to rise from $3 at opening of new bridge to $4 in 2008, up to $6 in 2019 
Kris Sherman; 
Bridge tolls across the Tacoma Narrows likely will be $3 for three years after the new bridge opens in 2005, rising to $4 in 2008, $5 in 2014 and $6 in 2019, United Infrastructure officials announced Thursday. 
"We want to keep tolls as low as possible for as long as possible," said Larry O'Bryon, vice president for United Infrastructure Washington, the company that plans to build and operate the bride under state contract. The company estimates building and financing the second Narrows bridge and retrofitting the existing one will cost at least $700 million in current dollars, O'Bryon told The News Tribune editorial board Thursday. Earlier estimates, which didn't include the cost of financing, ranged from $303 million to $350 million. 
Under the "base case" toll-rate plan, a motorist who makes six trips a week over The Narrows would pay $57,408 in tolls from 2005 to 2040. 
A family with two single-occupant cars making six trips a week each would pay $114,816 during that same period, more than they might pay in property taxes for their modest home over the 35 years. The proposed financial plan and toll-rate structure looks like a financial house of cards to Randy Boss, a Gig Harbor resident who is one of the most vocal Narrows toll-bridge opponents. 
Boss said Thursday he hadn't seen all of the figures that United Infrastructure released earlier in the day. But he believes the company's estimates on interest rates for paying back bonds are too low, and that the cost of borrowing money will be far greater than anticipated. 
He also believes United Infrastructure's estimates of how many motorists will use the new bridge and pay tolls is "way too high, and the company will have to raise tolls to keep up with debt repayment." 
"You can take this to a math whiz, and I don't think anybody can figure out what they're doing," Boss claimed. 
Toll-bridge opponent Walter Johnson, a Tacoma resident who owns a Gig Harbor mobile home park, was immediately concerned about his checkbook. 
"Oh, boy! That's bunk!," he said. "When you have to cross the bridge two or three times a day like I do, that's going to cost a lot of money. They said it (the initial toll) wasn't going to go up right away, but man, this sure looks like it's going to go up fast." 
The bridge builders admit the base-case (or middle-of-the road) toll-rate structure, and the figures that support it, are still estimates. And a number of factors - including higher-than-anticipated interest rates and lower-than-expected use of the bridge - could drive tolls higher. 
In the worst-case scenario, tolls might rise to $4 in 2007, rise to $5 in 2011, rise again to $6 in 2014 and top out at $6.50 in 2020. 
In the best-case, or most optimistic, scenario, tolls would be at $3 from 2005 through 2007; rise to $3.50 from 2008 through 2010; $4 from 2011 through 2013; edge up to $4.40 from 2014 through 2017; and top out at $5 in 2018.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 19, 2000

Answers

Given the Fed pushing up interest rates, I'll be amazed if they can keep to their schedule for deferring fare increases, even if the project comes in on time/on budget.

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), May 19, 2000.

Craig: You don't know the half of it. There will LITTLE, IF ANY, increase in ridesharing as a result of the HOV lanes.

Because of the way the contract is worded, the more the community rideshares, the higher the toll must be. Therefore, there will be no incentive for the community to seek expanded ridesharing options. In fact, if Pierce Transit were to propose adding bus routes and building Park'n'Ride facilities, the community would have a financial incentive to come out and oppose the plans!!!

Ironically, the community may even seek to end the vanpools that currently exist. I would think, Craig, you would love the proposal, since it will minimize the number of people who carpool. Every one of us that carpools will be viewed as a financial threat to those who don't. This is exactly the nonsense you spout.

Furthermore, there is no need for HOV lanes for a couple of reasons. I vanpool every day, and the addition of HOV lanes will save me 2 or 3 minutes on my return commute. There is no cost benefit to adding HOV lanes. The money could be better used to fix unsafe roadways in the Puget Sound region. Secondly, it makes NO SENSE to build HOV lanes unless there is corresponding plan to add Park'n'Rides. Who is going to use the HOV lanes they build? Where are they going to park? But the DOT as made it clear that they are not responsible for building Park'n'Rides. I never heard such nonsense in my life. Whoever is responsible for HOV lanes must also be responsible for Park'n'Rides. The two go hand-in-hand. HOV lanes without Park'n'Rides make ZERO SENSE!!!

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

"Ironically, the community may even seek to end the vanpools that currently exist. I would think, Craig, you would love the proposal, since it will minimize the number of people who carpool. Every one of us that carpools will be viewed as a financial threat to those who don't. This is exactly the nonsense you spout. "

Excuse me? I stated that vanpools were a niche market, and clearly a larger and less subsidized one than conventional transit. I am not against them, simply don't care to subsidize them, or transit either for that matter.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 19, 2000.

As I said Craig, you should love the crazy scheme the DOT produced. It will give the community a financial incentive to OPPOSE SUBSIDIES FOR RIDESHARING!!!

Previously, one might argue that there is an economic benefit from ridesharing. But with the new Narrows Bridge scheme, the opposite will be true. This should be a great day for you, Craig.

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

"This should be a great day for you, Craig. "

And I hope you have a wonderful day too, Matt.

the Craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 20, 2000.

to Zowie: I prefer the following option:

"Form regional transportation authorities for project planning, funding and implementation."

Screw the WSDOT!!!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 23, 2000.

I think you are gradually beginning to see the light, Matt.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 23, 2000.

OK, I read it, and I'm smiling, because I totally understand the disconnect between the two sides -- you and WSDOT -- after our discussion, "Are HOV Lanes Unfair?" I understand your economic argument, and yet I see how the DOT *might* still be right, having researched HOV lanes a little and learned some things about them that I did not realize last year.

There isn't enough data here for me (or anyone else) to make a personal judgement about whether the DOT *is* right. An HOV lane isn't appropriate in all places. It's only appropriate in certain types of congested places. Also depends on what the traffic is like on either side of the bridge. I'm not familiar with the Narrows bridge and "90,000 cars per day" doesn't describe the congestion well enough.

I also don't have time right now to carry on both discussions. Maybe we can return to this discussion after I've completed what I have to say about the HOV lanes that I do know more about, in other threads.

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

P.S. I realize that wasn't a very satisfying answer; sorry. A number of concerns you expressed above were things that I was already planning to get to in the other ongoing thread, "Are HOV Lanes Unfair?" as soon as I had the time. Once we finish that thread I'll come back to this one and address whatever's left over.

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