That's what Tim Eyman would have us believe in his pitch to sell his transportation initiative. But do the figures support his theory?

The DOT did a performance snapshot of five HOV lane locations in the Puget Sound area in 1998: I-5 at 145th St, I-405 at Kirkland, I-405 at 112th SE, SR 520 at Hunts Pt., and the I-90 floating bridge. Studies were performed at peak hours of both the AM and PM commutes measuring the volume of vehicles and people in each lane.

In terms of people carried in each lane, only two of the ten samples (the PM 520 commute and the AM I-90 commute) recorded a lower volume of people in the HOV lane compared to the average general purpose lane: 1,700 vs. 2,200 on 520 and 1,300 vs. 1,850 on I-90. In comparison, there are two samples (the AM and PM I-5 commute) where the HOV lane carries over TWICE the volume of people than the average GP lane: 5,250 vs. 2,500 in the AM and 5,100 vs. 2,200 in the PM commute. Two other samples (the AM and PM commute on I-405 and 112th Pl SE) come very close to this as well, 2,900 vs. 1,700 and 3,500 vs. 1,900 respectfully. So in terms of moving people, the HOV lanes beat GP lanes 8 out of 10 times.

How about in terms of vehicle capacity? Well the average vehicle volume of the HOV lanes is 54% of the general purpose lanes, but the average volume of people in the HOV lanes is about 43% more than the average volume of people in the GP lanes.

So would opening up the carpool lanes reduce congestion? Well let's see if we were to open up the I-5 HOV lane, the most congested of the sections in terms of GP lane volume. The HOV lane is already running at 72% and 84% of the GP lane volumes. IF all of the the people ride sharing were to miraculously continue to do so, the other three lanes could spread out their volumes by about 9%. BUT, if even a quarter of those carpoolers were to stop and become SOV drivers there would be an INCREASE of volume by about 8% for all lanes.

Remind me how this idea is supposed to reduce congestion?

This information is available from the WSDOT.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 27, 2000

Answers

From the thread "That 47 miles of new roads figure"

Patrick, "overweight egotist of a legislator?" This is the second time you have referred to Benton in this manner. What has being overweight got to do with it? Do you also insult developmentally disabled? This is bigotry at it's worst. If you are not intelligent enough to find a better description, then you are truly an ass. I find your bigotry offensive and I believe your posts should be boycotted with no response, unless you apologize.

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

This person does not deserve a response.

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

I'm skeptical, too, that opening up the carpool lanes would result in less congestion. But, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation is considering turning HOV lanes into tolled lanes. They call them HOT lanes. This might be the fairest approach, since the lane would be open to everyone, as long as they're willing to pay.

One of the biggest problems I see with HOV lanes is there are not separate on and off ramps for the HOVers. So, the driver ends up having to cut through several lanes of traffic in order to get in and out of the HOV lane. This does not help in reducing congestion.

You're also assuming that people won't carpool if the HOV lanes disappear. I think there would be some drop-off, but I certainly don't know the exact amount.

Another point is the data may be misleading, since the traffic might flow better before and after the time of peak congestion. Hence, the current peak congestion would not build up to its current levels.

I respect the wishes of the voters, but I don't feel comfortable with the voters in Spokane and Vancouver having a say in how the Puget Sound manages its transportation resources. I suspect the vote won't be too dissimilar across the state, so my concern may be moot.

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

If, as indicated in the first post on this thread, total capacity of the freeways would increase only 9%, that, according to my trusty calculator, is still 4-1/2 times better than the 2% estimated to be attained by our multi-billion RTA turkey. And I strongly disagree with the idea that an appreciable number of carpoolers are going to go single if the HOV lanes go away. I think you will find that the people who carpool do it because of a lot of other advantages, not just the carpool lanes. At least this was so in my case. And are all those moms driving to the mall going to make their kids drive separately? Get real.

Probably my main dislike of the HOV concept is that it represents just about the worst kind of social experimentation. There is no traffic engineering in this concept - just social "feel-good" liberal policies. And you notice that the liberals are fighting like grim death against even a brief test to determine results of allowing all traffic to use them. This may indicate that they at least sumbliminaly know what the results would be.

-- Albert Fosha (AFosha@aol.com), January 27, 2000.

If you look at the Washington-TRAC study, you see that a number of HOV lanes had adjacent GP lanes carrying more traffic, even during rush hour. This constituted about one-half of the HOV lanes in the King County area.

But more to the point, I think we should consider these issues: Simple equity- 1) The HOV lanes do not come from a separate pot of money that is derived from the users. They come from a common pot of money that comes from roads. In fact, since the users they are targetting by making them HOV are car-poolers and transit, the users are disproportionatley NOT paying their fair share for the HOV lanes. The car-poolers are paying as a group, little more than the SOV driver pays as an individual, and doing marginally more wear and tear to the road. The transit riders are providing NOTHING in the way of user fees for the roads (their transit fares only cover 21% of OPERATING costs) while riding in a 30 ton vehicle that dramatically chews up roads. 2) Most of those who use HOV lanes other than transit are not car-poolers. They are family groups. Only about 9% of people car pool to work, and this number is declining in each new NPTS survey. Even HOV advocates acknowledge this and have recommended that HOV2+ lanes be converted to HOV3+ lanes and eventually HOT (High occupancy transit) lanes as soon as public opinion allows. 3) As long as HOV lanes exist, the social engineers are going to continue to push for more congestion, in a pathetic attempt to boost transit market share. Since this strategy is NOT succeeding, this only increases congestion. Eliminating HOV lanes will force the social engineers to admit that the only way they are going to decrease congestion is to increase capacity. We need more civil engineers, fewer social engineers.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 27, 2000.

"Even HOV advocates acknowledge this and have recommended that HOV2+ lanes be converted to HOV3+ lanes and eventually HOT (High occupancy transit) lanes as soon as public opinion allows." A great reference for this point is available on the DOT National Transportation Library Website: http://www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/retk.html You'll notice the authors are local boys....... I'd encourage everyone to read it.

Some excerpts: The authors of this paper question these claims and suggest that new HOV lane construction, as now being planned and implemented, is simply increasing the roadway space devoted to the automobile. A car with two occupants is a low occupancy vehicle, not high occupancy: a date is not a carpool.

Any proposal for construction of a new HOV lane should be closely examined. It should be compared with the alternative of converting an existing general purpose lane - a far cheaper alternative, and one that creates a greater incentive to switch from solo driving.

What is best for transit (buses and passenger vans) should be determined first and separately from the issue of what is best for carpools. Lanes available to buses but not to automobiles are a more effective way to promote transit. As transit and emergency vehicle lanes, they should be protected as a public utility. Carpools on these lanes should be allowed-if at all-only with limitations, among them that they be fully loaded or nearly so. A car with two occupants is a low occupancy vehicle, not high occupancy: a date is not a carpool.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Christopher K. Leman, Ph.D.,is executive director of the Institute for Transportation and the Environment [85 E. Roanoke Street, Seattle WA 98102; (206)322-5463]. He presented versions of this paper at 1994 conferences of the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Transportation Research Board. Preston L. Schiller, Ph.D.,is coeditor of the Transportation Bulletin and the Gridlock Gazette,publications of the Institute for Transportation and the Environment. He is also a coordinator of ALT-TRANS, the Washington Coalition for Transportation Alternatives, and chairs the Sierra Club's national UrbanEnvironment committee.

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

to Craig: A lane is a lane. The cost of constructing a new HOV lane is identical to the cost of building a new GP lane. That's something folks who believe we can add capacity as a solution to congestion need to consider: Adding an HOV lane IS adding capacity.

Mayeb you believe adding a GP adds more capacity. But a new HOV lane is better than no lane at all.

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

"But a new HOV lane is better than no lane at all. " Well I'm glad you think that Matt, cause that's all you will get from the new Tacoma Narrows bridge if DOT has their way, one (1) extra HOV lane each way.

And the long term plan is still to convert all HOV lanes to transit only HOT lanes, and if you think any different, you're deluding yourself.

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

Insight, as I noted on another thread, is not a big issue with NPDs, Craig. You are wasting your time and effort on ol' Matt here.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000.

to Craig: The Tacoma Narrows HOV lane better be a bus-only lane, because, otherwise, it will be as unsafe as hell. I don't care if you made the extra lane on the new bridge open to all or not. The whole design is idiocy. The current design is for the 3rd lane to go about a couple of miles. Anytime you have three lanes converging to two, you've got a problem during periods of peak congestion.

I vanpool the majority of the time. HOVs are not as important as subsidizing ridesharing. If you're not going to subsidize ridesharing, then there is no need to have HOV lanes.

You must first decide what level of funds you want to subsidize ridesharing. Then you can decide how much of that should be for HOV lanes. Since you're opposed to subsidizing ridesharing in the first place, it's a moot point to discuss the merits of an HOV lane.

In my particular case, the vanpool makes three stops within about 5 miles of each other. If you eliminate the HOV lane, then, potentially, the longer commute will increase the probability that the least used stop be eliminated. Hence, membership could decline. But, I would guesstimate about 20% in a worst case scenario.

It doesn't matter whether it's an HOV lane or a GP lane, if it significantly increases capacity then it's an improvement. The proposed Narrows Bridge does not provide any real additional capacity, and, in fact, is highly unsafe.

Originally, the carpool lane was to be approximately 11 miles in length. But, even this was still unsafe, because of the high volume of traffic travelling to I-5. When I attended meetings and brought this to the attention of the DOT, they claimed that 50% of the traffic gets off prior to the termination of the carpool lane in the eastbound direction. This is a lie. I rarely observe anyone getting off of Hwy 16, prior to I-5, during the morning commute. And, I've travelled at various times in the morning, sometimes out of curiosity to see if there was even a grain of truth in the DOT's claims.

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

"The Tacoma Narrows HOV lane better be a bus-only lane" Well that's a great use for taxpayer dollars, for the two or three express buses each morning and the hourly run going near empty at other times. Sounds like a good use of $400 million or so to me.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000.

to Mark: You're preaching to the choir. It make no sense to me to build a new bridge until the rest of Hwy 16 is ready to absorb the traffic.

If the third lane isn't a bus-only lane, then it should be an exit-only lane with a concrete barrier separating it from the other lanes. Otherwise, when the three lanes reduce to two (which will occur right after the bridge in the eastbound direction), you will have yet another unsafe bottleneck. But what else would we expect from the Washington State DOT?

It would have made more sense to me to first add additional lanes to I-5 (who knows how many tens of years that would take). Then add another lane on Hwy 16 between the proposed new bridge and I-5 (this is the eastbound direction, only). Then add another lane on Hwy 16 betweem the bridge and the Purdy exit (westbound, only). Then build the new bridge. Then finish adding lanes to Hwy 16, so from Purdy to I-5, in both directions, there are three lanes each way.

Instead, they're going to build a bridge that basically provides no real added capacity. However, it should result in almost no shutdowns of both directions of the bridge (not that this happens very often, now). Since, an accident on one bridge won't actually physically (although gawkers will still slow down) affect the other bridge. There will also be shoulders, which will facilitate the removal of obstructing cars from the main roadway.

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

Matthew,

From the WSDOT website: Department of Transportation (WSDOT) announced the acceptance of the final project description that will be used on the fall advisory ballot on the use of tolls to pay for a new Narrows Bridge (complete project description, pg. 2).The final project description reflects the SR 16/Tacoma Narrows Local Involvement Committee it's recommendations to the Department made at the May 8 meeting. Those recommendations include: 1) limiting the use of the toll revenues to pay for only the reconfiguration of the existing Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the new bridge, and the toll plaza; 2) indicating that when High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are constructed in the SR 16 corridor, that one lane on each bridge will be designated an HOV lane, and 3) the $3.00 round trip toll may be adjusted at any time after the new bridge is open consistent with limits imposed by state law.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/solve16/alt.html

Your interpretion? Mine is that the toll would be subjected to voter approval due to I-695.

How would your new lanes on Highway 16 be funded? Toll? This would certainly drive more people to rideshare. Which would lead to less revenue, which would lead to a need for an increase the toll. Wouldn't you rather support Initiative 711 so those lanes can be funded by us all?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 28, 2000.

to Marsha: Under my concept of a tolled bypass artery, use of the tolled road would be optional. Under Initiative 711, I have no guarantee that any improvements would be made to Hwy 16. And, to be honest, I really don't care, since Hwy 16 is the least painful part of my commute, since I'm able to use the carpool entrance to the bridge.

The sad reality is that improving Hwy 16 provides little benefit to society. A much better bang for your buck is obtained by pouring massive amounts of money in the Seattle-Eastside region. In other words, taxpayers in one region of the state will subsidize another. No matter how you cut it, the government is an entity which takes money from one group to subsidize another. You can talk about user fees all you want, but there are always political games played which equate to subsidies.

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

Matthew,

Your description of adding lanes doesn't sound like a tolled bypass artery.

"It would have made more sense to me to first add additional lanes to I-5 (who knows how many tens of years that would take). Then add another lane on Hwy 16 between the proposed new bridge and I-5 (this is the eastbound direction, only). Then add another lane on Hwy 16 betweem the bridge and the Purdy exit (westbound, only). Then build the new bridge. Then finish adding lanes to Hwy 16, so from Purdy to I-5, in both directions, there are three lanes each way."

Make up your mind!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 28, 2000.

to Marsha: Use of the new lane(s) on Hwy 16 would be optional, if it were to be tolled. Otherwise, don't build the lanes, and don't build the bridge. If the lanes are not to be tolled, then presumably the gas tax will fund their construction. If the gas tax is insufficient, then the voters would have to approve a higher gas tax.

I think I'm being fairly consistent here. I mean, the state isn't going to raise the toll on the bridge when they finally get around to widening the rest of Hwy 16 and I-5. So, I guess I don't understand what I'm supposed to be making up my mind about.

I really don't care how funding takes place. A higher gas tax is fine. Optional tolled roads are fine. Privatization of the roads is fine. As long as the people actually affected by the method get to decide their own destiny.

Marsha, the state is not going to use any of the toll money to expand Hwy 16. So, what is your point, again? From the state's point of view, it doesn't make a difference when they expand Hwy 16. It's roughly the same engineering project whether they do it before or after the new bridge. But, the order of construction makes a hell of a difference for the users of Hwy 16, in terms of how much a toll they will have to pay for no added capacity.

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