And the THREAT of 711 continues to push the HOV debate.greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread |
As I was doing my income taxes I got my car registration out to see how much MVET I paid last year (I itemize deductions). I noted with wry amusement the propaganda printed next to the amount, "this tax reflects the $30 decrease due to Prop 49." Basically, 695's predecessor WHICH DIDN'T EVEN GET ENOUGH SIGNATURES TO MAKE THE BALLOT, had frightened the political establishment (including the tax and spend Republicans) so they put a $30 off proposition together in apparent hope that : a. That would be enough to satisfy the people about the MVET, or b. They'd confuse enough people over the $30 that they'd think it had already been passed, and not sign the initiative. It clearly was on the political radar scope, but the perceived threat was inadequate for them to want to give up "their" MVET revenue. Look at the situation today. NOBODY is saying we ought to keep the MVET (except of course the transit union).
Just like I-695 caused the MVET to become politically unacceptable, 711 is already starting to move the debate. Politicians are again looking for a quick compromise that will defuse a situation that is rapidly spiraling out of their control. Two years ago I e-mailed all the King County reps and the State Transit Commission, asking about the issue of opening the HOV lanes during non-rush hours. Fifty percent ignored me. 50% said they'd CONSIDER a study studying the issue. The State Transit Commission basically said go away troglodyte, you bother me. But today, the issue is on the agenda, front and center, and it's because of 711. Let's keep the pressure on the politicians. Let's get this initiative on the ballot.
Why our HOV lanes are behind the curve: Elsewhere, most big cities restrict them only during rush-hour traffic - Defenders say congestion here so bad we need them full time 2000-03-21 by Mike Ullmann and James Klockow Journal Reporters Opening Washington's car pool lanes to all traffic on weekends wouldn't make the state unique, or even particularly brave. The campaign against full-time HOV lanes is nationwide. * Minnesota: Legislation has been proposed to convert all HOV lanes to general-purpose lanes for use by all cars. * Tennessee: The state is considering using HOV lanes for passing lanes, while reducing the fine for any violation to $1. * Arizona: Phoenix already has scaled back its HOV lanes from round-the-clock to rush-hour only. * California: Officials have determined that 24 percent of HOV lanes aren't working, by the state's own definition; seven legislative bills loosening HOV restrictions were introduced last year. * Texas: The Transportation Institute is studying whether HOV lanes actually move more people, or just divert traffic from general-purpose lanes. * New Jersey: The poster state for the HOV rebellion eliminated car pool lanes from two major highways. ``HOV lanes actually create additional safety problems for motorists and show no indication of being able to provide congestion relief in the future,'' Gov. Christie Whitman told the federal government. Washington state, while it has vastly more miles of HOV lanes than most states, is actually in the distinct minority in having full-time HOV lanes. Of about 25 metropolitan areas that have highway lanes reserved for car pools and buses, only one-third operate them on a round-the-clock basis. The rest operate them only during peak periods. Virtually no officials want to junk HOV lanes altogether. Most agree that in some places, some of the time, they work very well. ``Used correctly, in the right places, they are a benefit,'' said John Dourgarian, spokesman for the New Jersey Department of Transportation. And in Washington, they are used correctly, argue some state officials. ``Even though we're in the minority, we have some of the worst congestion anywhere in the country,'' said Harry Bennetts, Federal Highway Administration assistant division administrator in Olympia. ``That might be a reason for having HOV lanes full time.'' But Washington state doesn't have an easy way of analyzing whether its car pool lanes are working the way they should. In fact, the only hard-and-fast rule, that the lanes should be able to move vehicles at 45 mph 90 percent of the time, is pretty well ignored. ``Our analysis says almost every HOV lane, in this area, fails that standard,'' said Mark Hallenbeck, director of the Washington State Transportation Center and an advocate of the state's HOV lanes. But that doesn't mean they're not working, Hallenbeck said. In fact, the group of transit interests and local officials that decides how well the state's HOV lanes are working decided in December to keep things just the way they are. They did so based on comparing a variety of numbers, such as how many people the HOV lanes carry compared to the other lanes operating next to them. It's true that the HOV lanes are sometimes empty, Hallenbeck said. They are empty when the rest of the highway is flowing smoothly. But they fill up when the rest of the highway becomes congested, he said. The only problem arises when the highway is full and the HOV lanes are empty, which isn't happening here, he said. Here's a look at three places with substantially different HOV rules than those in Washington: ARIZONA The Phoenix area has Arizona's only car pool lanes, about 35 miles of them built around 1990 and afterward with some grant money from the federal government. Although they were built for round-the-clock use for buses and cars, a study in 1995 concluded that during rush hour, HOV lanes didn't move even a third of the people that regular lanes did. In 1996, the state's Department of Transportation opened up the car pool lanes to everybody off-peak, after the Legislature threatened to do that itself. But the fight over Phoenix's car pool lanes isn't over yet. The Legislature was only narrowly averted this year from scrapping the lanes altogether, stopping only after it found out that the state could be penalized by the federal government for doing so. Currently, only about 16 percent of all the people on Phoenix freeways with HOV lanes use the lanes, according to Arizona Department of Transportation spokesman Bill Hayden. Washington state transportation officials say Washington should not be compared with places like Arizona, where the HOV lanes exist on relatively isolated segments of a congested highway. In Washington, they say, HOV lanes are intended to operate as a system, primarily to allow transit to flow smoothly and reliably between a variety of areas. CALIFORNIA The respected Legislative Analyst's Office just finished studying California's 925 miles of HOV lanes. The state now has plans to double that number. ``We conclude that the performance of HOV lanes is mixed,'' the office reported in January. ``HOV lanes are one of the primary tools used to reduce traffic congestion on the state highway system and improve air quality,'' the report states. ``However, in recent years, HOV lanes' effectiveness in achieving these goals has come into question.'' The report says that California's HOV lanes carry an average of 2,518 persons per hour during peak periods -- substantially more than a normal lane open to all cars. But it found the lanes are operating at only two-thirds of capacity and that almost a quarter of them carry fewer than the 800 cars per hour called for in state HOV standards. ``Thus, even during peak demand, 24 percent of the state's HOV lane miles fall short of ... criteria used to justify the original construction of HOV lanes,'' the report states. In congested Southern California, the HOV lanes are always restricted to car pools. But in Northern California, they operate only during peak traffic hours. One Analyst's Office recommendation is to be more flexible in adjusting those hours. Another is to allow all cars to use HOV lanes when congestion is not present. The report also found there is no data on HOV lanes' impact on air quality. NEW JERSEY Mention HOV lanes to anyone involved with highways and transportation, and the discussion turns to New Jersey -- the rebel state that, two years ago, scrapped HOV lanes on two major highways. ``Now the congestion has eased,'' Dourgarian said. ``Both highways are functioning better, and traffic flows more smoothly.'' Less well known is what New Jersey did not do. It did not scrap its HOV program altogether. The state's two other HOV lanes -- one on a central turnpike, the other on the Holland Tunnel to Manhattan -- are still in use and considered huge successes. The HOV lanes that were scrapped were built in the 1990s on Interstate 80 and I-287. Those highways connect suburbs to other suburbs that do not have major employment centers, said Dourgarian. ``The people came from all over. It was too scattered where they were coming from and where they were going'' for the lanes to be useful. That's unlike Washington's HOV lanes, particularly those connecting the Eastside with South King County and with Seattle. Here, HOV lanes connect major population and employment centers such as Seattle, Microsoft and Boeing. While New Jersey traffic continued to build on regular highway lanes, the new HOV lanes often sat empty, carrying as few as 32 cars per hour, Dourgarian said. To be considered successful by New Jersey standards, an HOV lane must carry at least 700 cars per hour. The state's review indicated the HOV lanes were actually increasing traffic congestion, slowing traffic speeds and causing more air pollution. And they were creating hatred. Newspaper columnists railed against them. Auto organizations joined the crusade. Refrigerator magnets carried the logo of an anti-HOV Web site: sHOVe it! Finally, in October 1998, the governor opened the HOV lanes to all traffic. To avoid repaying $200 million in federal HOV funds used on one of the highways, New Jersey politicians convinced Congress to order the Secretary of Transportation to waive repayment because the lanes were ineffective in reducing congestion or improving air quality. ``Rather than live with our mistake, we decided to get rid of it,'' Dourgarian said. IT'S YOUR CALL What should the rules be for driving in car-pool lanes? To respond, call us at 425-450-1215, e-mail us at newsroom@eastsidejournal.com or fax us at 425-635-0603. Please give us your name and the city you live in. Freer HOV use would force state to repay millions to feds? Not so By Mike Ullmann Journal Reporter When Gov. Gary Locke told the Bellevue Chamber of Commerce last week that he supports opening HOV lanes to all cars on weekends, he actually went a step further, saying they should be open all the time except during rush hours. He took that back several hours later through a spokesman, but many support opening the HOV lanes except during peak traffic hours. And one of the arguments against doing it -- that the federal government would force the state to pay back millions in HOV construction dollars -- simply isn't true. ``The only way that would come into play is if you converted all the HOV lanes to general purpose lanes all the time,'' said Harry Bennetts, assistant division administrator here for the Federal Highway Administration. No state officials are proposing abolishing HOV lanes, although the new initiative by Tim Eyman would do exactly that. Doing so would require repaying hundreds of millions of dollars, the FHA has said. But the idea of turning full-time HOV lanes such as Washington's into part-time ones has already been adopted by 15 other states. None of them paid a penalty. New Jersey did turn two HOV lanes completely into regular roadways, and it literally took an act of Congress to let that state get away without a penalty. A partial conversion shouldn't be a problem, according to U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton. ``If we were talking about scrapping them altogether, then we'd have a problem,'' said Cynthia Bergman, Gorton's spokeswoman. In some cases, such as the HOV lanes on State Route 167, the federal government would have no say, Bennetts said. ``On SR 167, I'm confident that would be a state decision,'' he said. http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/retr_story.pl/15220
-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 21, 2000
Worked in NJ!http://users.nac.net/jmp/hov.htm
-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 21, 2000.
and an even better page from the same author:http://users.nac.net/jmp/hov_myth.htm
-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 21, 2000.
This one is good too!http://users.nac.net/jmp/hov_news.htm
-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 21, 2000.
Well let's see here, Craig would like us to believe that the political establishment was scared enough by an initiative that didn't even have any signatures submitted to include a $30 reduction in the MVET in R-49. Interesting theory, but not exactly compelling. The real reason R-49 had the $30 reduction was to make the thing more attractive to voters. The Republicans who drafted it knew that by removing the MVET funding from the general fund, a whole slew of opponents from education and social service groups would turn out in force. But by adding a tax break, it made R-49 much more attractive to the average voter, and squashed a lot of opposition. The decision to add the little sentence on to people's license renewal forms had to come AT LEAST 90 days before it took effect in July, which means late March, and most likely was made several months before that, placing it before 695 was even filed.I thought I'd repost a section of the article from the East Side Journal since it might have been lost in that jumble originally posted.
"Less well known is what New Jersey did not do. It did not scrap its HOV program altogether.
The state's two other HOV lanes -- one on a central turnpike, the other on the Holland Tunnel to Manhattan -- are still in use and considered huge successes.
The HOV lanes that were scrapped were built in the 1990s on Interstate 80 and I-287. Those highways connect suburbs to other suburbs that do not have major employment centers, said Dourgarian.
``The people came from all over. It was too scattered where they were coming from and where they were going'' for the lanes to be useful.
That's unlike Washington's HOV lanes, particularly those connecting the Eastside with South King County and with Seattle. Here, HOV lanes connect major population and employment centers such as Seattle, Microsoft and Boeing."
Hmm, let's see, when connecting suburban residential areas to urban employment areas (like say... the Puget Sound HOV system), HOV lanes are very successful. As for failing to meet the standard of moving vehicles at 45 MPH 90% of the time, that would tend to support the idea that they are being heavily used. Sure, in theory it could be the result of people driving slow due to the speed in the GP lanes, but the case studies done on WA HOV lanes show substantial use of the lanes.
Sure, a lot of people are suggesting that HOV lanes be opened up at certain times during the week. But are those suggestions based on sound reasonings or pandering to a hot button topic? Both the Washington State Transportation Center and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation can find NO evidence that opening up carpool lanes during non-rush hour periods. In fact, it reduces their effectiveness during the rush hour, and increases the number of HOV violations. By a not so strange coincidence, the least effective HOV lanes across the country are either suburban connectors or are only in operation during peak hours.
We keep going over this issue. There are a lot of states that developed a really poor HOV system, but by all accounts Washington is not one of them. If you want to make an argument against HOV lanes in this state TRY USING INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THIS STATE! Otherwise it's just a lot of hot air.
-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 21, 2000.
One of the main benefits of HOV lanes is that they help mitigate congestion by facilitating ridesharing. Ridesharing provides tangible benefits when the buses and vanpools are full, at a minimal cost to society.I am extremely skeptical that there is heavy use of the carpool lanes by buses and vanpools during the weekends. Therefore, I can think of no argument for continuing the HOV constriction during the weekend.
Likewise, I would not expect to see a high rate of ridesharing from 8 PM - 4 AM. So, again, who cares if the HOV lanes are open or not.
During daylight hours, the period from 10 AM - 2 PM is, again, not heavily used by buses and vanpools. So, what harm could there possibly be in opening up the HOV lanes during midday, as well.
We ought to apply some objective criteria, as well as common sense, as t when to open up the HOV lanes. If you know there are no buses and vanpools at certain times, then open up the HOV lanes.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 21, 2000.
"Well let's see here, Craig would like us to believe that the political establishment was scared enough by an initiative that didn't even have any signatures submitted to include a $30 reduction in the MVET in R-49. Interesting theory, but not exactly compelling. " And given that this could have been either a percentage reduction or a numerical reduction from $0 to $ALL, why did the sponsor JUST COINCIDENTALLY chose $30, the same number the initiative was trying to get the MVET reduced to? What was special about the $30 figure, other than Mr. Eyman was pushing a $30 initiative?
-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 21, 2000.
"Sure, a lot of people are suggesting that HOV lanes be opened up at certain times during the week. But are those suggestions based on sound reasonings or pandering to a hot button topic?" Heck, I'm easy. I can live with either option."Both the Washington State Transportation Center and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation can find NO evidence that opening up carpool lanes during non-rush hour periods." Excuse ME? Was this supposed to be a sentence? For those of you not familiar with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, pleaase read this: http://www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/retk.html They don't even like HOV lanes.
"In fact, it reduces their effectiveness during the rush hour, and increases the number of HOV violations." Do you have FACTS to support this, or is this just unfounded allegations, round 2?
"By a not so strange coincidence, the least effective HOV lanes across the country are either suburban connectors or are only in operation during peak hours. " Do you have FACTS to support this, or is it merely unfounded allegations, round 3?
"We keep going over this issue. There are a lot of states that developed a really poor HOV system," Rare agreement!
"but by all accounts Washington is not one of them." Whose accounts? Is this the documentation I requested? Where is it?
"If you want to make an argument against HOV lanes in this state TRY USING INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THIS STATE! Otherwise it's just a lot of hot air. " If someone is spending 100s of millions of tax dollars on HOV lanes, the onus is on THEM to prove that it is a reasonable expenditure of taxpayer dollars, not me. And it must be advantageous enough to justify discriminating AGAINST other taxpayers in favor of HOV users. The only argument that makes sense in doing this is that HOV lanes are really inducing more people to carpool, and no one has shown that. This argument requires FACTS, not just wishful thinking. The Washington TRAC figures absolutely don't address this. Merely redistributing existing HOV vehicles into ANY designated lane would produce their figures. It absolutely does NOT show that more people carpool because of HOV lanes, and those are the ONLY figures the local pro-HOV crowd has produced.
the craigster
-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 21, 2000.
craigster-How intolerant of you to question Patrick's religion. He doesn't need facts, he has DOGMA. You should be ashamed.
-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 22, 2000.
to Craig: I'm not sure what "facts" I can present to prove that HOV lanes promote ridesharing. I can only relate my personal experience of running a vanpool and using the HOV lanes in South King County on I-5.In general, I would submit that HOV lanes are not the highest priority. The biggest incentive for ridehsaring is the fact that society pays for the capital cost of the vehicles, and the riders pay for the operating cost.
The next biggest incentive is the existence of Park'n'Ride facilities. The actual costs to the taxpayer are debatable, since the land will have significantly appreciated in value over a long period of time. To me, more important than HOV lanes, would be on and off ramps directly connecting a Park'n'Ride to the aretry it serves. This would probably save ridesharers as much time as several miles of HOV lanes.
Finally, there is the incentive of the HOV lane. The HOV lane is only an incentive to the extent that it saves the riders time. My experience has been that the HOV lane saves about 2-3 minutes for every 5 miles of length. Not a particularly huge incentive. And, on many occasions during rush hour(s), the HOV lane is moving at the same speed as everybody else!
The one exception is the HOV entrance to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. This can typically save at least 10 minutes. Without the ten minute incentive, I would expect a significant drop-off in ridesharing from the Peninsula, since ridesharers pay a time penalty in terms of picking up and dropping off. In the case of my vanpool, I would have no incentive to recruit riders from Gig Harbor over, say, Tacoma. In fact, if could eliminate the Gig Harbor stop, and just stop in Tacoma, I'd get home quicker. Tacoma has a larger population, so it's more likely to be a fertile recruiting ground.
Interestingly, the HOV entrance to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge is only in effect during the evening rush hour, Monday thru Friday.
I hope you find a reasonable discussion to be a close substitute for "facts". Do HOV lanes promote ridesharing? Well, they don't hurt the cause. That's for sure!
The main problem I see is that the people in government making decisions about ridesharing don't actually rideshare themselves. There ought to be a Department of Ridesharing, and all the employees are required to take a bus or organize a vanpool. Then, they would quickly figure out what works and what doesn't.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 22, 2000.
My experience has been that the HOV lane saves about 2-3 minutes for every 5 miles of length. Not a particularly huge incentiveFor once, Matthew has said something that makes sense (it was an accident, Im sure). Look at the figures, simple mathematics, not really debateable. If we are to assume that his assessment of 2-3 minutes per five mile stretch is correct, whats the outcome? As long as the GP traffic is going ANYWHERE ABOVE 45 mph, you really dont derive the advantage he says, because youd have to go significantly over the speed limit to do it. Matt might, but most HOV drivers feel kind of exposed out there, and are hesitant to go much faster than the GP traffic when the GP traffic is doing near the speed limit.
If GP traffic is going 70 mph, it goes 5 miles in 4.3 minutes, therefore you must be traveling 230 mph to go 5 miles in 1.3 minutes, or 130 mph to go 5 miles in 2.3 minutes.
If GP traffic is going 60 mph, it goes 5 miles in 5 minutes, therefore you must be traveling 150 mph to go 5 miles in 2 minutes, or 100 mph to go 5 miles in 3 minutes.
If GP traffic is going 50 mph, it goes 5 miles in 6 minutes, therefore you must be traveling 100 mph to go 5 miles in 3 minutes, or 75 mph to go 5 miles in 4 minutes.
If GP traffic is going 40 mph, it goes 5 miles in 7.5 minutes, therefore you must be traveling 67 mph to go 5 miles in 4.5 minutes, or 54.5 mph to go 5 miles in 5.5 minutes.
If GP traffic is going 30 mph, it goes 5 miles in 10 minutes, therefore you must be traveling 43 mph to go 5 miles in 7 minutes, or 37.5 mph to go 5 miles in 8 minutes.
If GP traffic is going 20 mph, it goes 5 miles in 15 minutes, therefore you must be traveling 25 mph to go 5 miles in 12 minutes, or 23 mph to go 5 miles in 13 minutes.
SO AS LONG AS THE SPEED OF TRAFFIC IS ANYTHING APPROACHING NORMAL SPEEDS, THERE IS NO SAVINGS FROM HOV LANES. And once you get to where there is a savings, the savings is fairly trivial. Lets assume that you have a 15 mile commute, with HOV lanes available, on a 60 mph highway. If there is no congestion, you will take 15 minutes to get there by SOV, 15 minutes plus assembly and loading time if you are going by car-pool). If GP traffic slows to 20mph the whole way, the commute will take 45 minutes in a SOV and 36 to 39 minutes plus assembly and loading time for a carpool. Even in fairly severe conditions (a 15 mile commute with the GP lanes doing 20 mph) the time savings really doesnt begin to offset the assembly and loading time of the carpool.
AND THERE IS THE PROBLEM WITH HOV LANES. They dont make things much faster, even for the HOV users. So they induce few people to form carpools (and even many of these leave transit to form carpools). So the general effect they have is taking the same number of cars and the same number of lanes, but artificially holding down the capacity of one lane. If you have three lanes carrying all the vehicles they can, and one lane carrying less than all the vehicles it can, you will ALWAYS have less capacity than when all four lanes are carrying all the capacity they can. And if HOV traffic WERE to get going at dramatically greater speeds than the GP lanes (only possible when HOV lanes are REALLY underutilized relative to GP lanes) you create a real boundary layer problem where vehicles entering and leaving the HOV lane from the GP lane do so at risk to their lives.
So HOV lanes ARE GOOD for separating traffic into high and low occupancy vehicles (kind of like a cream separator getting the cream out of milk) but you really dont get anymore throughput from the process unless you somehow magically convert some of the milk into cream, which isnt happening. You MAY be able to do this with parking incentives (or disincentives) or with giving away vans (as old Matt wants to do), but HOV lanes ARENT doing it according to the studies that have been done. If anyone has studies that show something else, please post them. The UW TRAC studies simply show that they stratify the HOV vehicles into a certain lane, NOT that they increase the load factor for vehicles. Not the same thing at all. Not making more cream, not putting more raw milk through the cream separator. Ive got an open mind (hell, Im still reading Matts postings, it doesnt get much more open minded than that), if youve got other facts or data (not opinion pieces), post em. But from what's been posted and what I've seen, HOV lanes can't solve the congestion problem. Forced underutilization of a portion of your vehicle handling capacity will NOT increase your capacity... ever... it can't. If the HOV lane is full OF VEHICLES to the capacity of the GP lanes, THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE IN THE USE OF THE HOV LANE. It only works if the social engineering (increase average load factor) works, and the evidence is that it isn't doing this.
Mikey
-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), March 22, 2000.
From my post in the thread "Why open HOV lanes all the time"According to data from the FTA sight, the rate of accidents in at least 2 of Seattles HOV lanes are much higher than the adjacent mixed flow lanes. (per million vehicle miles)
I-5 median lanes (Seattle) 3.2 HOV, - 2.1 mixed
I-405 outside lanes (Seattle) 3.6 HOV, - 1.3 mixed
Posted just so no one can say there is no data.
-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 22, 2000.
Even the whacko pro-transit types in the bay area know that HOVs dont work for the intended purposes. http://www.trainweb.com/mts/hov/hov-facts.html
HOV Lanes Exposed Carpool lanes facts for the San Francisco Bay Area Updated 11/20/99 Carpool lanes are also called HOV lanes or diamond lanes. The original term is High Occupancy Vehicle [HOV] lanes. The definition of carpool is a distortion of the concept: 40% of carpoolers are from the same household.1 From a Rt. 237 questionnaire11, 51% of carpoolers commute with a family member. Designating one passenger in a vehicle as a "High Occupancy Vehicle" is a distortion of the concept. This is Low Occupancy. Many metropolitan areas locations only allow buses and approved vans. [The I-80 freeway is 3 persons, all other Bay Area carpool lanes are 2 persons.] The logic behind HOV lanes is to give preferential treatment to encourage commuters to change from solodriving to carpooling. Chauffeuring the spouse to work (thus doubling the commute trip by doing two round trips daily) or the kids to school is not a logical criteria for preferential treatment. Carpool lanes greatly increase solo drivers: Solodrivers accounted for 79% of 5769 vehicles added to Montague Expressway six years after constructing the HOV lane. This solodriver figure for San Tomas Expressway is 73% and for Rt. 237 is 63% of vehicles added to the roadway. (All vehicle counts are when HOV lanes are activated, AM+PM commute.) Rounded off, HOV lane construction added between 2 and 4 times as many solodrivers as HOVs. See detailed studies by MTS.3 "Thousands of solo drivers are pouring onto our freeways and filling spaces vacated by carpoolers" when constructing a carpool lane, writes Gary Richards of Mercury News.5 Carpool lanes increase air pollution: Jean Roggenkamp, a transportation planner for BAAQMD, stated that "Frankly, there is no reduction in auto emissions"5 by constructing carpool lanes. HOV lane construction has never reduced automobiles, it has always increased them. Even worse, it has ALWAYS increased solodrivers and Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT). The Bay Area is again in non-attainment of the Federal Clean Air Act, despite constructing 266 mile of carpool lanes.7 Carpool lane construction is a solo driver incentive in disguise: new solodrivers outnumber new carpoolers by (rounded off) two to four times. This is because space is freed up in non-carpool lanes as carpoolers move over to the newly constructed lane.3 Re-designating an existing lane as HOV would decrease air pollution. But in all cases carpool lanes are newly constructed lanes or the even worse situation of allowing HOVs to use bus lanes (the latter for the Bay Bridge). The claim that carpool lanes decrease air pollution by RIDEs and highway construction interests is blatently false. Their claim is also outrageous because the purpose of this propanda is to constuct even more highway lanes which further decreases air pollution. BAAQMD states that "Motor vehicles represent the largest source of air pollution in the Bay Area."16 Fewer people carpool today than before HOV lanes existed: In 1980 when there were no carpool lanes, 16.3% carpooled8 compared with 14.3%14 in 1998. This was despite constructing 266 miles of carpool lanes7, beginning in 1982. A study by RIDES found carpooling has decreased from 16.7% to 14.3% of commuters (1993-1998).8 From census data, carpooling decreased between 1980 and 1990 in the Bay Area, from 20.5% to 15.9% of motor vehicles. As percent of commuters (including mass transit, bicycles, walkers), carpooling decreased from 16.3% to 12.9% in the same period.14 In Santa Clara County carpooling fell from 17% of commute trips to 12.5%15 despite constructing 115 miles of HOV lanes in that period (1982-1990), more than all other Bay Area counties combined. 71% of car commuters drive alone to their jobs. The figure was 65% in 1996.8 A likely reason for this loss in market share is that HOV lane construction decreases travel time in other lanes, making solodriving more attractive. The drop in market share of HOVs despite spending millions on HOV lanes shows the concept is a boondoggle. No business would spend money on something that results in a drop in market share. Carpool lanes are promoted by highway construction interests: "HOV lanes are a great success" claimed Santa Clara County's highway engineers3 in their press release. In fact, it was not a success either in reduction of VMT or of solodrivers. Their "success" is based solely at looking at HOV counts and deliberately ignoring solodrivers.3 "Failure" would have been more appropriate for their press release title. Also not taken into account was that most of the increase in HOVs resulted from a switch from parallel routes to the less congested HOV lane. Paralleling routes would decrease percent of HOVs with this scenario. While no data was taken on parallel routes, the decrease in market share of HOVs indicates this is occurring. The false conclusion of "success" in the press release was based on the assumption that the entire increase in HOVs was the result of switching from solodriving to carpooling. Contrary to recent propaganda by Caltrans4, carpooling is decreasing overall. Caltrans figures only looked at the highways that have carpool lanes (most had some increases), and omitted ALL mention of how many solodrivers were added to the road as a result of HOV lane construction. For example4 "The biggest jump in carpooling occurred on Interstate 680 in Contra Costa County, rising from 495 to 1,567 people [divide by 2 for vehicles] during the peak rush hour since 1994." Not one word about how many solodrivers were added due to the increase in highway capacity. HOV lanes are only a success when the goal is to build more highway lanes. Why does Caltrans support carpool lanes? To quote Albert Yee, Caltrans chief of highway operations in the Bay Area: "Carpool lanes make it much easier to get environmental clearance" for road projects. "If we want to add a general-purpose lane for all drivers, that's going to get thrown out." 5 Caltrans' primary goal is to maximize highway construction.6
Increase in Vehicles resulting from adding HOV lanes, San Tomas Expressway (Santa Clara County).3 Vehicle counts in the peak commute direction were taken before and two years after increasing the lanes from 4 to 6. Data from Santa Clara County Transportation Agency. The increase in 2-Occupant does not mean a switch from solodriving as much as a switch from driving parallel roads to the less congested HOV lane, thus decreasing 2-Occupant on paralleling routes. When this figure was made, the definition of HOV nationally was at least three occupants. Carpool lanes reduce mass transit usage, increase automobiles: Note: this section is applicable to the case of constructing HOV lanes parallel to a significant transit corridor, and the only corridor this occurred was I-80 (in the Bay Area). A recent RIDES study13 states there would be "fewer cars on the road if casual carpooling were not an option." The newly constructed lane on I-80 increased car usage as many carpoolers previously took public transit: 74% of carpooling passengers and 33% of drivers switched from using transit according to the RIDES survey.17 The increase in automobiles from the increase in solodrivers is undoubtedly much greater than the increase in automobiles due to switching from public transit to carpooling (about 600 cars per day, says RIDES). Unfortunately, RIDES did not study how many solodrivers were added to the road as a result of lane construction, nor how many of these switched to solodriving from mass transit due to the temporary reduction in travel time on the roadway. Future studies need to query solodrivers to get this data. For more details and analysis, see Casual carpooling reduces mass transit patronage, increases pollution. Solution for carpool lanes: Change HOV lanes into fare lanes or HOT lanes [High Occupancy Toll lanes]. HOT lanes are more efficient than carpool lanes, as any unused capacity of a carpool lane is used by people paying a fare that varies depending on demand. It is called congestion pricing. Use of congestion pricing is not only fair, it is the only way to eliminate traffic congestion. Politically, this should end pressure for more highway construction. After a testing period, also change existing general lanes, at least half of a freeway, into fare lanes or HOT lanes. Above all, stop highway construction including using HOV designation as a ruse! Three reasons why carpool lanes harm mass transit: Carpool lanes greatly increase solodriving, the main competitor to transit in the urban transportation market. The minority HOV lane users who actually switch from other modes are mostly former transit patrons (on a corridor with significant transit usage or if a major transit line is built in the future). Decreasing automobile travel time decreases transit usage. This is a result of simple marketing principles applied to the urban transportation market. [This is the only statement that does not have data backing up the point, because there is no data to my knowledge.]
zowie
-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 22, 2000.
"And given that this could have been either a percentage reduction or a numerical reduction from $0 to $ALL, why did the sponsor JUST COINCIDENTALLY chose $30, the same number the initiative was trying to get the MVET reduced to? What was special about the $30 figure, other than Mr. Eyman was pushing a $30 initiative?"You really should stick to statistics Craig. Political theory just isn't your game.
R-49 was introduced in the House on January 21, 1998. Initiative 691 was filed by Tim Eyman and Martin Rood on February 26th, 1998. In addition, I-691 WOULD NOT have made licence tabs $30, it would have cut the MVET in half effective January 1, 1999 and eliminated it on January 1, 2000, leaving the license fee at the original $27.50. If anyone was trying to cash in on the popularity of somebody else, it was Tim Eyman. But I'd have to guess that the real reason was that "The $30 licence tab initiative" had a better ring to it than "The $27.50 licence tab initiative.
-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 23, 2000.
"Was this supposed to be a sentence? For those of you not familiar with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, pleaase read this: http://www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/retk.html They don't even like HOV lanes.""Do you have FACTS to support this, or is this just unfounded allegations, round 2?"
Looks like I cut off my sentence there. The entire sentence was: Both the Washington State Transportation Center and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation can find NO evidence that opening up carpool lanes during non-rush hour periods has any positive influence on traffic. Found that in an article in the Seattle Times a couple weeks ago http://archives.seattletimes.com/cgi- bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=hovv&date=20000217&query=HOV
"Do you have FACTS to support this, or is it merely unfounded allegations, round 3?"
Um, well, I found that in the article YOU posted. I just figured that if you thought it was sufficient to post, then I ought to be able to.
And zowie, thanks for posting the article that shows that the San Francisco HOV lanes reduce congestion in the GP lanes, decrease transit ridership, and increase SOV use. Isn't that what you all support? So shouldn't this make you more inclined to support HOV lanes?
By the way, am I the ONLY person that is capable of cut and pasting articles into this forum so they don't look like a mess?
-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 23, 2000.
"By the way, am I the ONLY person that is capable of cut and pasting articles into this forum so they don't look like a mess?"No.
FERRIES
Senate to vote next on funding state ferries, By Ed Friedrich, Sun Staff
Should the ferry's operations budget be supplemented by an ongoing revenue stream or a one-time bailout from general fund reserves?
House Republicans won over their Democrat counterparts to ongoing funding in the bipartisan proposal passed Wednesday. They face the same task with the Senate.
The House doesn't have much give, said Rep. Beverly Woods, R-Poulsbo. If the Senate doesn't accept the House proposal, lawmakers next year will face the same challenge they do today.
"I think the real big accomplishment here is we got the long-term revenue back into the ferry system," Woods said. "It's not everything we lost in MVET, but it's a good start.
"We've come a long way for ferries. Considering the Legislature represents the entire state, what we got is very good and it's better than the Senate because it is still looking at a one-time appropriation out of the emergency fund."
The plan provides $20 million a year for ferry operations from state sales tax. However, the ferry system would be allowed to spend only $10.1 million this year about the same as the Senate proposal provides and bank the rest, said Terry McCarthy, Washington State Ferries deputy director.
The system faces a $16 million shortfall, so service would have to be trimmed.
The $20 million a year would make a nice down payment on a $30 million annual shortfalls that start next year, McCarthy said.
Fare increases and a long-term finance plan will have to make up the difference, said Transportation Committee Co-Chairwoman Ruth Fisher, R-Tacoma.
The budget also includes $162 million for ferry-related construction projects, about the same as the Senate. That would be just enough to preserve the system through the rest of the biennium, McCarthy said.
Sen. Bob Oke, R-Port Orchard, who voted against the Senate transportation plan, prefers the House's ferry package, primarily because of the ongoing revenue.
He's also happy that there won't be a fight for $50 million to hook up Highway 16 to a second Narrows bridge. The money is in both plans.
Sen. Betti Sheldon, D-Bremerton, applauds the House for finally agreeing on a budget. It gives lawmakers something to work with, and there's much work to be done, she says.
Sheldon is worried that the House is taking money from education and child protective services.
The Senate uses from reserves instead of stealing from one program to help another.
"It's kind of like a shell game," she said of the House plan. "Which shell is the pea under? You're not sure where the money is coming from and where it's going and how the initial fund is going to be affected by the change."
Published in The Sun: 03/23/2000
-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 23, 2000.
"And zowie, thanks for posting the article that shows that the San Francisco HOV lanes reduce congestion in the GP lanes, decrease transit ridership, and increase SOV use. Isn't that what you all support? So shouldn't this make you more inclined to support HOV lanes? "No, but it does make for some interesting reading. They were comparing X GP lanes plus an additional HOV against X GP lanes alone, not X GP and an HOV lane against X+1 GP lanes. Nobody has said that HOV lanes run empty, just that there's better use that can be made of them.
The decrease transit ridership issue is interesting though, don't you think?
If you really read their stuff, it declares HOV a failure because despite millions invested, the HOV market share hasn't increased, but neglect to state that that same argument applies to transit as well, since they advocate rail transit.
That was posted just to show you that it's not just the conservative troglodytes that don't think HOV lanes really induce people to carpool much, even the pinko liberals believe it.
zowie
-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 23, 2000.
to zowie: Actually, the article you posted was a slam against increasing the capacity of non-tolled roads, HOV or otherwise. Basically, the article was saying that increased road capacity results in less clean air. Pretty hard to argue that. Although, I suppose Craig would demand "facts" to support the hypotheis.In general, it is a major contradiction of capitalism - growth results in environmental damage.
However, I believe that the principle of private ownership of property is more likely to prouce better stewardship of our natural resources. Still, I'm at a loss to explain how capitalism will defend our "right" to clean air.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 23, 2000.
"to zowie: Actually, the article you posted was a slam against increasing the capacity of non-tolled roads, HOV or otherwise. Basically, the article was saying that increased road capacity results in less clean air. Pretty hard to argue that. Although, I suppose Craig would demand "facts" to support the hypotheis. "
The "facts" are that air in the Puget Sound region has gotten progressively better over the last 30 years, despite the growth in VMT. In fact, the EPA has had to ratchet the allowable pollution standards DOWN several times, to keep us even close to non- compliance. And if you were around here 40 years ago you'd know that. In Tacoma, Asarco was pumping out incredible amounts of arsenic and sulfides, residue of a copper smelter that had been needed to supply the wire for the war effort, and turned Commencement Bay into one of the largest and most difficult to deal with superfund sites. The pulp mills dumped sulfides in the air (the Aroma of Tacoma, we called it) while lumber mills burned sawdust and scrap continuously from huge metal tepee like incinerators. If you drove through Everett northbound on old 99 (or even I-5 in the early days) you went past a rendering plant that brought tears to your eyes. Pre catalytic convertor and pre unleaded gas, there was substantially more auto pollution than there is now. Same goes for streams, lakes, etc. Water quality has drastically improved. So it's rather EASY to argue that hypothesis.
I am forever amazed at the number of individuals that justify their positions by misinformation. Transit is more energy efficient than autos (it ain't), for example. When you disprove that, they go on to the air pollution issue. When you show that one powermower mowing one yard (a lawn, not 36 inches) causes more pollution than two weeks use of an auto, and that diesel buses cause more of the type of pollution that we are closest to non-attainment status for (NOx and HC), and that we are only close because the EPA ratchets the standard down as we get cleaner air (not blaming them, not saying it's bad, just the facts, Ma'm), they leap to some other excuse (the disabled, yeah like the disabled would prefer a thirty ton bus that stops once a block rather than a small demand response van with a ramp that picks them up at their doorway).
I realize that I get a little tight-jawed on the issue, but after a fair number of years in science, I value fact. All opinions aren't equal, some are right and some are wrong. People may have an inalienable right to believe that the formula for the area of a circle is pi r^3, but it ain't. If they get a plurality of their friends to vote that way, it STILL ain't. If they get a majority, a unanimity, a resolution from the UN, if they pass an amendment to the constitution of the United States, it still ain't.
So making jest at those who simply want a factual basis behind decision making might be cheap fun Matt, but reality doesn't change.
But what irritates me most is those who simply won't admit that they are just advocating their biases (their constitutional right) and try to say that the facts are on their side when in reality their not. Opinions, as the man says ....., well everyone's got one. But facts have a reality that is independent of individual opinion, even yours and mine.
-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 23, 2000.
to Craig: I don't deny the potential for technology to improve our lives. Or, sources besides single-driver automobiles contribute to degradation of air quality.But, still, Craig, a community can encounter a period of time whereby expanding road capacity results in deteriorating air quality. I suppose I'll have to attempt some type of research, strongly correlating expanded road capacity with deteriorating air quality.
I saw a commercial the other day for a hybrid gas/electric car from Honda, which gets 70 mpg. So, I suppose, you could have expanded road capacity and less air pollution, assuming a lot of people bought the new Honda. But, realistically, I would expect to see a similar distribution of vehicles I see on the roads today. And this includes older vehicles, especially pick-up trucks. As, most of us aren't excited about spending our lifetime savings on a new car. And, some people really do need a pick-up truck, because their livelihood depends on it.
I thought I read somewhere that Houston, Texas, has really bad air pollution, now, and it is strongly correlated with increased road capacity. I'll see if I can dig up "facts" to support my point.
But, I'm not intending to shoot down your point of view, though. By carefully assessing and minimizing other sources of pollution, society could expand road capacity without increasing air pollution. Likewise, technological improvements can result in higher VMT without a similar increase in pollution.
But, would you agree that, without controlling other sources of pollution and without significant technological improvements in automobile engines, expanding road capacity will result in increased air pollution?
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 24, 2000.
Matthew,"But, would you agree that, without controlling other sources of pollution and without significant technological improvements in automobile engines, expanding road capacity will result in increased air pollution?"
I wouldn't agree. Not in the short term. If traffic is congested, and vehicles must run for a longer period of time to get from point a to point b, they would pollute more.
If you expand road capacity, and vehicles can get from point a to point be in less time, you would get less pollution. The worst poluters, trucks, would be running far less time, on uncongested roads. While I am not the scientific type, the advantage is obvious, even to me. I think it would offset an increase in cars that may or may not occur due to road expansion.
All this has been pointed out in the forum by Craig and others, with facts to back them up.
Would the expansion of roads lead to more SOV's on the road? Not necessarily. As Craig has pointed out by statistics, most of the recent increase of vehicle usage has been due to more woman in the workplace. One would expect that this trend won't continue to increase and will remain at or near the current level.
I think we are at the point of seriously harming business and commerce. It isn't just shipping of goods that is impacted. All business suffers. Service based businesses are losing money. Stop and think about each company vehicle in the lane next to you. It takes each vehicle more time and fuel to perform a service or deliver a product. Who will pay for this down the road? We all will. Higher prices coming soon to a store near you. Rampant inflation will rear it's ugly head again.
My scenario does not begin to include all those private vehicles in the lane next to you. How does congestion effect them? Is it merely an inconvenience? Or is there an economic impact as well? For them? Their employer?
I think the air quality will suffer less, not more, if we expand road capacity. If we don't expand, you can expect the quality of life to go down considerably, IMHO.
-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 24, 2000.
to Marsha: I agree with you that increasing road capacity is a very effective means of promoting economic development. But, then, what we're really talking about is economic growth. The key word is "growth". Without controlling other sources of pollution, and without technological advances, increased economic growth may very well strongly correlate with increased air pollution.Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating restrictions on growth. But, I do see the "logic" whereby air quality goes down as economic growth heats up. The "logic" is not inescapable, as technological advances can blunt the negative effects of growth.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 24, 2000.
Matt,In any case, you must show a link between an increase in road capacity and an increase in pollution in order to make your point. To say "But, I do see the "logic" whereby air quality goes down as economic growth heats up." without having any evidence that this is true, means you don't see the logic at all. More road capacity means less congestion. Less congestion means less pollution. What part of that don't you get?
I don't see expanding road capacity contributing to economic growth as much as maintaining what growth we have achieved. To do nothing will probably lead to an economic decline. Does it matter? I think it does. Would you want to sacrifice your own affluence for a miniscule reduction in air pollution? I wouldn't.
If this really mattered that much to you, why would you not move within walking/biking distance to where you work, reducing your personal impact? It sounds to me like your more worried about the impact others have on pollution, than on your own.
It's great to sit around and think about this stuff, We all defend our decisions, even when we make personal choices that don't reflect our own philosophies. I wish everyone else would move close to where they work, ride share, and pay more taxes than I do. But is that realistic? No. If we can socially manipulate and mandate lifestyle choices, your right to live where you want is in jeopardy and so is mine.
-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 24, 2000.
We recently had a discussion on the SmartGrowth thread where a correlation was done that indicated higher population density was highly correlated with increased congestion. My guess (nope, haven't researched it) is that air pollution is highly correlated with population density, if only because of the congestion connection. Marsha is right. Once you go from free flowing traffic to stop and go the air pollution per vehicle mile goes up, so cars traveling on uncongested roads, everything else being equal, will cause less pollution than cars traveling on congested roads and places of high population density would be expected to have more air pollution, not less. But whether or not you define high population density as "economic growth" is another issue. The pollution per vehicle mile congested versus uncongested is one of those "fact things" that is a function of the laws of thermodynamics and not really amenable to public opinion, although as you say, such things can be mitigated by highway engineering and vehicle technology, such as the hybrid cars. Interestingly, Honda doesn't bekieve an all electric car will be any cleaner than a hybrid, because anti-pollution technology that they are developing is better than fixed site electric plants, or so they said in the Wall Street Journal last week.Craig
-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 24, 2000.
Craig,Actually, I was thinking along more simplistic lines than population density, although without density, you would probably not have congestion.
Let's say a trip normally takes 15 minutes at 60 Mph in uncongested conditions. In congested traffic moving at 30 Mph, the trip would take 30 minutes, causing you to run the vehicle twice as long, increasing vehicle emissions by double, give or take.
If the same amount of vehicles were spread over more roadway, enabling them all to travel at 60 Mph, pollution would not be increased, and it would likely decrease from current levels. This should seem obvious, even to Matt.
I have seen the studies that cite increased road capacity leads to more vehicles on the road. But I don't expect that trend to continue. As baby boomers retire, and more people telecommute, we may see a reduction during peak periods of travel.
-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 24, 2000.
"But I don't expect that trend to continue. As baby boomers retire, and more people telecommute, we may see a reduction during peak periods of travel" And the figures show you are correct, many of the demographic trends that have increased VMT are approaching saturation. There really aren't that many more families who can't afford a car, increasing wealth has already added most of the additional cars to car-less households that it can add. We aren't going to see that many more women entering the workplace, most of them are already there. We aren't going to see a great many more VMT added as people buy additional cars, because we are already AT one car registered per licensed driver. Buying more cars for the household may increase the garage and carport requirement, but it's difficult to drive more than one car at a time, so the VMT figures to stay about the same. And that's why we really CAN build our way out of congestion, if we want to. It wouldn't take that much additional capacity, unless of course you raise the population density too much. That gives you the double-whammy of hugely increased road requirement in an area of exorbitantly high land prices, kind of like King County is trying to do to itself.
-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 24, 2000.
Air pollution trends in the state, for those who want the FACTS. Only consistently terrible non-attainment in the state is the particulate standard driven by DUST STORMS in the Richland area. For the others, the graphs show fairly ontinuous improvement. The only thing that keeps us close to the standards is that the EPA lowers them as soon as everyone meets them. Air pollution keeps getting less and autos keep getting cleaner. Going to have to go after wood burning stoves, lawn mowers, chain saws, ferry boats, and non-mobile sources to move the numbers much lower. We are ENORMOUSLY better off than we were in the 60s.http://www.wa.gov/ecology/pubs/9821
-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 25, 2000.
Air pollution trends in the state, for those who want the FACTS. Only consistently terrible non-attainment in the state is the particulate standard driven by DUST STORMS in the Richland area. For the others, the graphs show fairly ontinuous improvement. The only thing that keeps us close to the standards is that the EPA lowers them as soon as everyone meets them. Air pollution keeps getting less and autos keep getting cleaner. Going to have to go after wood burning stoves, lawn mowers, chain saws, ferry boats, and non-mobile sources to move the numbers much lower. We are ENORMOUSLY better off than we were in the 60s.http://www.wa.gov/ecology/pubs/98213.pdf
-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 25, 2000.
to Marsha & Craig: Certainly, if we increase capacity without signifcantly increasing VMT, then, yes, one might expect cars to travel at higher speeds.But, unfortunately, higher economic growth means more people migrating to the area, which means more lawn mowers and more cold starts. Which, according to Craig, means lower air quality. And, really, more people means an increase in total VMT, although not necessarily an increase in VMT per capita.
As far as my lifestyle choice of living far from work, it has little impact on the number of cold starts or how often I use a lawnmower. I could take a job closer to home, but it would pay less. I've thought about it, but, instead, I'd rather pay slightly higher taxes as a means of mitigating congestion and/or improving air quality.
I'm not adverse to building new road capacity. If there was a specific proposal on the ballot, I would probably vote for it, even if it means an increase in my taxes. But, only if I thought the road project was sensible.
Here, on the Peninsula, we're going to expend hundreds of millions dollars for little to no increase in capacity. So, where's the logic in that?
The reality is that, for my tax dollars, Sound Transit offers the best rate of return. Because it actually mitigates congestion. Likewise, building Park'n'Rides is a good investment, because it actually mitigates congestion.
But, I'd be willing to "trade in" Sound Transit, the Park'n'Rides, and the vanpools for a set of useful road projects.
It's interesting, last week on two separate days (a Wednesday and a Friday), there were multiple accidents on I-5 Northbound by the Tacoma Dome. In fact on the Wednesday, there must have been 10 separate accidents, I kid you not, all within a mile of each other. Yet, my representatives are more concerned about helping a private company build a bridge, where three lanes will converge to two. So, rather than facing a future where my family and I will observe less accidents on the road, I expect to see even more than the already unacceptably high number I observe now. In addition to the ridiculously high number by the Tacoma Dome on I-5, I expect to see a horrendous increase in accidents on Hwy 16 where there will be three lanes converging to two.
Yet, my representatives are practicing your philosophy of expanding road capacity. Although, perhaps you were expecting something more dynamic than just 3miles out of say a 15 mile stretch of a heavily used roadway.
Your philosophy of increasing road capacity just doesn't pan out in the real world. The decisions on where to build roads is too political. I look forward to an expansion of direct democracy, whereby the citizens will have more of a say on the specific road projects society will pursue.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 25, 2000.
"The reality is that, for my tax dollars, Sound Transit offers the best rate of return. Because it actually mitigates congestion. Likewise, building Park'n'Rides is a good investment, because it actually mitigates congestion. "And can you give me the figures for this rate of return? How much are we going to pay in tax dollars for each new individual lured into Sound Transit? How much are we going to pay for each current bus driver who will now get to take light rail or the train? If you speak in "rate of return" you must have numbers for this, not just more guesses, right?
"And, really, more people means an increase in total VMT, although not necessarily an increase in VMT per capita. " So we either build more capacity, stop the growth, or accept the decline in quality of life. Which do you recommend. If the first, what's the most cost-effective way to do that?
-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 25, 2000.
to Craig: You ask: "And can you give me the figures for this rate of return?"Well, let's see, if society uses my community's tax dollars to build roads on the East side, the rate of return for South King County may be close to zero. However, if society uses the tax dollars to build Park'n'Rides and expanded bus routes in South King County, then there will be some reduction is congestion.
Craig, if the voters had the opportunity to choose between specific road projects vs. subsidizing ridesharing, then we could talk about comparing the cost benefit of one vs. the other. But, the voter is rarely offered any real say in which road projects will be pursued.
The reality remains that mass transit is carried about by LOCAL governmental agencies, where there is a high probability that the tax dollars spent will directly benefit the communities paying the tax.
On the other hand, the construction of major roadways is carried out by OLYMPIA. Therefore, the voter has little to no confidence that the money spent will do any good.
You also write: "So we either build more capacity, stop the growth, or accept the decline in quality of life. Which do you recommend. If the first, what's the most cost-effective way to do that?". Well, stopping growth is out of the question, as people need decent jobs. So, if you're going to choose between your job and quality of life, you have to be able to pay the rent/mortgage, etc.
So, personally, I would prefer to build more capacity, but with as much voter control as possible. Therefore, I will prefer local agencies over state agencies. I consider buses, vanpool vans, Park'n'Rides, and HOV lanes to all be part of the capacity equation.
I would support expanding the network of general purpose lanes, but my support is proportional to the extent the voters have control over which projects are pursued.
I think the ultimate solution is to build a parallel network of tolled roads. This way, individuals can choose to sit in traffic or pay a toll. The key is CHOICE.
As congestion worsens on the "free" roads, the tolled roads will become more economically viable, and additional expansion of the network will cost the taxpayer nothing. Likewise, a network of tolled roads will facilitate the privatization of ridesharing agencies, which is something you appear to support.
Do you have any specific recommendations for expanding capacity? Or, are you going to simply preach the mantra of "Build more roads", without ever providing specifics on where the roads should be built, and what are the cost benefits?
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 25, 2000.
" So, personally, I would prefer to build more capacity, but with as much voter control as possible. Therefore, I will prefer local agencies over state agencies. I consider buses, vanpool vans, Park'n'Rides, and HOV lanes to all be part of the capacity equation. " You are continuing to talk as if you have a mathematical basis for your decision making ("the capacity equation") but you continue to dodge the question.And can you give me the figures for this rate of return? How much are we going to pay in tax dollars for each new individual lured into Sound Transit? How much are we going to pay for each current bus driver who will now get to take light rail or the train? If you speak in "rate of return" you must have numbers for this, not just more guesses, right?
If the first, what's the most cost-effective way to do that?
I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID that many of these alternate means of providing capacity are OK in their niche, but people simply don't understant how limited the niche is. So what do you think the figures are for adding the next increment of capacity. Not more empty bus seats, but capacity that is actually used. I've pointed out that Sound Transit is prepared to spen $65 million in Tacoma for a 1.6 mile light rail that replaces one (1) bus, the Downtown Connector. Since this bus never runs full, and the schedule for the light rail will be the same as for the downtown connector (five stops on a circuit over a fifteen minute schedule) it would seem to me that they are paying $65 million for NO increase in capacity.
So what is the cost to add or subtract one passenger mile of USED capacity by each of the methods that you propose? If you don't have those numbers, you have no rational basis for decision-making.
Don't lecture me about mantras. the ones using the mantra are those who say "We want transportation choices" or "I consider buses, vanpool vans, Park'n'Rides, and HOV lanes to all be part of the capacity equation" in blissful ignorance of what the marginal costs are of adding capacity in those areas.
-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 25, 2000.
If ignorance is bliss, why are so many people unhappy?zowie
-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 25, 2000.
Time to open up the HOV lanes!!http://home.earthlink.net/~malli/hoved.html
-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 25, 2000.
to Craig: I checked out your link to the website. I 've seen it before. But, I can give you a real-world example of where HOV preference promotes ridesharing.The HOV entrance to the Tacoma Narrows bridge. The cost? Maybe $100 for the cost of the signs indicating the on-ramp is an HOV on-ramp. The benefit? Well, I haven't contacted Pierce, Metro, and Kitsap transit to see how many vanpools operate across the Narrows Bridge. But, let's assume, for the moment, the vanpools carry approximately 1000 people. So, the "extra" capacity of 1000 cars on Hwy 16 is obtained at a cost of $.10 per car!!! Can you accomplish a similar feat with the building of a road?
Let's be conservative and assume vanpooling only carries 100 people. Now the costs are $1.00 per car of capacity on Hwy 16. Can you even accomplish this with road construction?
I guarantee you that if you eliminate the HOV entrance to the Narrows Bridge that ridesharing from the Peninsula will decrease. Right now, folks have a huge incentive to rideshare from the Peninsula. Probably explains why a small community like Gig Harbor has so many vanpool vans. You take away that huge incentive, and a lot of people are suddenly going to have a lot of choices that they couldn't justify before.
Now, admittedly, there are additional costs associated with the subsidies of the vanpool vans, themselves. But, your link asked the question: Do HOV lanes promote rideharing? The answer is a resounding yes in the case of the HOV on-ramp to the Narrows bridge.
And, in general, then, HOV lanes provide some incentive for ridesharing, albeit probably never as large an incentive as the HOV on-ramp to the Tacoma Narrows bridge.
The fundamental problem with HOV lanes on a major highway is that society would be deliberately placing traffic side by side, with no physical barriers, with the express intention of having the two lanes travelling at vastly different speeds. In general, the ends do not justify the means. Therefore, there is no moral or ethical basis for deliberately designing adjacent lanes of traffic with the expectation of varying speeds. It's just plain dangerous.
So, really, that is the only argument you need against HOV lanes. The design is dangerous and borders on the criminal.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 26, 2000.
to Craig: You write: "So what is the cost to add or subtract one passenger mile of USED capacity by each of the methods that you propose? If you don't have those numbers, you have no rational basis for decision-making."I've tried to get data on the operating costs of the Sound Transit buses. But, I've been unsuccessful. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction.
Now, in the past, we've discussed the cost of subsidies for vanpool vans. My estimate is that the subsidy is around $400/mo. But it could be as high as $500/mo. If we assume the van carries ten passengers, then the cost to society could be as high as $50/month per passenger. And, if we assume the van travels 1500 miles a month, the subsidy is $.03 per passenger mile. Seems awfully cheap, doesn't it? A mere 3 cents.
Don't forget, too, that the vanpool van consumes less than 150 gallons of gasoline in order to travel 1500 miles. Whereas, 10 cars might've consumed 700 gallons of gasoline. So, vanpooling also supports our national security as well as promotes economic vitality. Who knows? Perhaps, without vanpooling, the cost of gasoline would now be $2/gallon. When supplies are tight, even a slight increase in demand may result in a sharp increase in price.
So, I do have a rational basis for making some of my decisions.
Now, there are additional costs incurred for the Park'n'Ride facilities. But, one could view the acquisition of prime real estate as an investment on behalf the taxpayer. In which case, the cost of the Park'n'Ride can always be recovered ten to twenty years down the road (no pun intended). In the case of vanpooling, Park'n'Rides aren't an absolute necessity, as vanpools can probably use some of the parking spaces owned by malls and churches. But, then, the issue of parking is another obstacle which the vanpool must overcome, if society chooses not to build Park'n'Rides.
So, since I have a rational basis for my decision making, I have every right to poke fun at your mantra of "Build more roads."
Now, it's your turn to be specific on projects for South King County and Tacoma. Please provide some level of cost benefit analysis. Otherwise, you're the one who has "no rational basis for decision- making."
Kind of hurts, doesn't it? Foisted on your own pitard!
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 26, 2000.
Oh, and in today's P-I, an article on Metro's vanpools, indicating they avoid the generation of almost 4,000 TONS of air pollution and avoid the consumption of over 5 MILLION gallons of gasoline.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 27, 2000.
to Craig: You write: Well, you might try their annual report giving their budget and the number of passenger miles, subtracting fares. That would give you an idea of the cost per passenger operating mile."I'll try looking into that. Thanks for the advice.
You write: "We've already agreed that, where van pools work, they are probably the most cost-effective. As your frequent complaints about the marginal advantages that you derive from it and difficulties that you say you've had keeping it going indicate, it too is a niche market. But why estimate? Why don't you post the figures for your vanpool, the acquisition cost for the van, amortize it over...what? 12 years? What are YOUR figures?"
I'm not sure what the acquisition cost is for the van. I would guess around $25K. In any case, my vanpool collects around $600/mo. According to the transit agencies, the vanpool dues pay for the operating, maintenance, and administrative costs. I would not amortize the cost of the van over 12 years. I would only use about 6 years, and I would assume that the van would be worth around $5K after 6 years. If one divides $25K by 720 (6 years X 12 months X 10 passengers), the subsidy per passenger is below $40/mo. This doesn't take into account the residual value of the van, which I estimated it to be $5K. For the purposes of making my "rational decision", I assumed a subsidy of $50/mo per passenger. So my assumptions are quite prudently conservative.
You write: "In what way does it support national security? In what way does it promote economic vitality? Define the latter term....What percentage of the fuel used annually is used by van-pooling? Or conversely, what amount of fuel do you estimate would have been required had van pooling not been used?"
As I mentioned in a follow-up post, the vanpools of the Puget Sound region result in the avoided consumption of millions of gallons of gasoline per year. Anything we do to reduce our dependence on imported oil benefits our national security. Can you say "Persian Gulf War"? What was all that about? It was about our dependence on oil. So. please, don't act dumb. Furthermore, in a tight gasoline market as we have now, our "economic vitality" is threatened by higher gasoline prices. What does "economic vitality" mean? Well, let's see, consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of our economy. Can you say "discretionary income"? Higher gasoline prices will reduce the comnsumer's discretionary income. Thus, retailers can expect to see a drop in revenue, and we can all expect to see higher inflation. Do you think higher inflation is a sign of "economic vitality"? I don't. How much higher would gasoline prices be if it were not for vanpooling? Well, how much lower would gasoline prices be, if there were no vanpooling? What's the matter, cat got your tongue?!
You write: "All you've shown so far is that you don't know how to do the research that would provide you with a basis for making a rational decision and that you either don't realize you don't have the information, or don't care that you don't have the information. Neither option gives anyone much confidence in your ability to make rational decisions."
Well, when you propose specific road projects for South King County and greater Tacoma area, we can compare your "research" and "rational decisions" to mine. So far, it's a shutout in my favor. The fact remains that no one deserves more confidence than me in their ability to make rational decisions. Not you or anybody else has offered detailed proposals for alleviating congestion on I-5 in the South Puget Sound region. I'm not saying anyone should have high confidence in me, but I'm no worse than anyone else. You write: "And are you familiar with the great returns the government has had on surplusing military property? Look at what they've gotten got Hamilton AFB, the Presidio, and other "prime locations." It's unreasonable to look at any land acquisition by the government as an "investment."
The point I was making is that the acquisition cost of a Park'n'Ride is recoverable over a 10-20 year period. In other words, it is a capital cost with little, if any, expected depreciation. Are you claiming that, over the long run, land depreciates in value? Again, Park'n'Rides are not an absolute necessity for vanpooling. But, the long-term cost of a Park'n'Ride is actually quite low, since a high percentage of the acquisition costs should be easily recovered. And, in fact, it is quite credible to propose that the value of the land will be significantly higher 10-20 years later. This is regardless of whatever the government happened to get for the Presidio. Although the Presidio is a pretty area, I'm not sure it's fair to compare it to land bordering a major artery like I-5, Hwy 16, etc. Also, a Park'n'Ride would be a much smaller parcel, and any comparisons to the Presidio are, again, inappropriate.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 30, 2000.
Hamilton Field? Have a 360 degree view http://www.zone360.com/misc/exteriors/hamtower.htm An interesting place. I wish I had two acres of view property there. Build a $5 million house on one acre. Sell the other acre for the $5 millon. Wouldn't have any trouble getting it, either.
-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), March 31, 2000.
From the FTA Page Re-Thinking HOV - High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities and the Public Interest.http://www.fta.dot.gov/fta/library/planning/RETK/retk.html
How could solo commuting go down without appreciably reducing the total amount of driving? For one thing, ridesharing takes some additional driving. A rendezvous with fellow carpoolers or a trip to the park-and-ride can lengthen the overall journey to work. Also, some of the carpools are formed from former transit riders, so that vehicle trips may actually be increased by HOV lane construction.
And why would air quality not improve considerably? As much as half of an average trip's pollution is during the engine's warm-up ("cold start") and cool-down ("hot soak"). When people drive to meet a bus or carpool, their car emissions are still high enough that the air quality benefits of their ridesharing are minimal [EPA, 1992]. More effective air pollution strategies are those that bring busriders or carpoolers together with a minimum of additional driving.
In other words Matt, we don't need more park and rides, we need a better way to get vanpoolers, carpoolers and bus riders aboard. Your idea to build more park and rides lots is ineffective and expensive.
Instead of picking up riders at park and ride lots, pick up those in your area who would be going to the park and ride. Then do a passenger exchange with other vanpools, carpools and busses.
A decent computerized ridesharing match program for a regional area could be instituted for a lot less money than one of your park and ride lots.
If done properly, the increased travel time could be held to a minimum. Would your riders be willing to add 10-15 minutes to their commute time in order not to have to leave their vehicles in an unprotected park and ride lot? Wouldn't this give them more transportation alternatives?
-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 31, 2000.
You write: "I can say Persian Gulf War. As a matter of fact, I spent 6 months living in a bunker in Saudi Arabia during thePersian Gulf War. At no time did I really feel it threatened our national security...But our national security was never seriously at issue."Well, then why did we lose American lives over the Persian Gulf, and risk tens of thousands of other lives? Personally, for me, reducing our dependence on imported oil is good for the security of anyone who serves in the armed forces. I'm glad you didn't feel threaten when SCUDs were raining down around you. But, didn't you just once ask why the hell America was there at all. If you had, maybe you would've concluded the answer was oil.
You write: "Why? You still haven't even defined economic vitality. Do you have a definition or not?...Yes, so what? It doesn't reduce their overall income, just changes what it's being spent on...How do you get a drop in revenue? Same amount of money, same amount of spending. Just more of it going to gas retailers rather than other retailers. How do you get higher inflation? Higher inflation is caused by MORE money chasing the same or fewer goodsY.u. haven't even been able to DEFINE economic vitality. Come on Matt, give us a one sentence definition of "economic vitality"."
I can give you a two-word description of economic vitality: Clinton- Gingrich. If you want a sentence, how about: "A period of low inflation, high employment, declining interest rates, and shrinking government deficits."
Now, do you really believe that higher gasoline prices are going to positively contribute to lower inflation and high employment and shrinking government deficits? Or, is your argument going to be that there is no effect at all, so higher gas prices are irrelevant?
Let's look at it from the point of view of state and local governments. There will be a reduction in sales taxes, since the sales tax does not apply to gasoline sales.
Let's look at it from the point of view of non-gasoline retailers. Their revenues will probably shrink, at least in the near-term. This will put downward pressure on their stocks, since a drop in revenues is unlikely to boost earnings. Many new retailing operations are on- line, raising capital through new stock offerings. Thus, if investors perceive an environment of declining revenues, then the investors are not going to be willing to pay as much for the e- tailers' stock as they otherwise might have. Thus, the cost of capital for non-gasoline retailers will have increased. From their point of view, then, their economic vitality is on the decline.
In general, then, most American industries and businesses (oil- related companies would be the exception) are going to see their earnings suffer. And, as a result, their cost of raising capital is going to increase. Not a pretty picture. But, apparently it doesn't bother you. Just like the SCUDs raining down around you only brought on a stifled yawn.
Craig, how much higher do gasoline prices have to rise for even you to admit it's harming America's prosperity?
You write: "How much more van-pooling would there be if gasoline prices were higher? If you believe the price-demand curve for gasoline is elastic (and within reason, it probably is) you ought to be researching this and getting estimates, if it's the option that you are backing."
If gasoline prices continue to rise sharply, then I would expect to see a sharp increase in people who choose to vanpool. But, in general, from my experience, a ten percent change in the price of gas does not result in a ten percent change on the number of people who vanpool. Gas prices and the cost of operating a vehicle are a factor, but not the only source motivation. For vanpools like mine, which commute long distances, the ability to have a nap in the morning and/or evening is worth a lot more than a few gallons of gasoline. But, I suppose, if the price of gasoline were to suddenly skyrocket past $2/gallon, I would expect to have my phone "ringing off its hook". By the way, you still haven't provided your estimate (or research) on how much lower the price of gas would be if there were no subsidized vanpooling. What's that? Cat still got your tongue? Oh, I'm so sorry to hear that.
You write: "I gotta throw in with Zowie concerning your ego."
Fair enough. But, since my ego is the only one offering specific solutions for mitigating congestion in areas of South King County and Tacoma, I'll just have to wait and see how inflated my opinions truly are. Maybe someday you'll offer some specific suggestions on your own and make Zowie proud.
You write: "The Presidio was some of the most potentially valuable real estate in the bay area. Hamilton field is on Sasuin bay, north of Sausolito in Marin County. Either property had market vaule in the billions. Hamilton Field is a great case in point. It was surplused in the early 70s. Tens of thousands of acres of view property overlooking the northern portion of the Bay, in a county where they build multi-million dollar houses on 1/8th acre lots. The local congressman put a rider on a bill that required them to sell it to Marin County for $1. They tried. Marin County wouldn't take it until the Air Force removed a 13,000 foot runway, about 200 structures, converted it back to it's "pristine natural state" to be used as a park, and endowed the county with enough money "to fund park rangers in perpetuity." http://www.cpeo.org/lists/military/1995/msg00025.html The Air Force said to go jump, and there it stayed. Last I heard the Navy was still using a housing area for the families of Naval personnel living in Oakland. But look around this area. What did the government get for the old Nike sites? Nothing. What did they get for Larson Field (Moses Lake)? Nothing. Matt, you are long on talk and ego, and too lazy to get the FACTS to back up your guesses. I've tried hard to show you how to do that, but I'm becoming convinced that you are a lost cause. Even when you are right, you're usually right for the wrong reason. And until you get your ego under control, you really aren't motivated to do any research since, notwithstanding significant areas of ignorance you aren't capable of believing that you might be wrong. That being the case, you will always consider your ignorant guesses/biases superior to anyone else's position."
Well, if your point is that the government can't be trusted to act responsibly in a fiduciary manner, then I will have to sadly agree. Park'n'Rides aren't absolutely critical to ridesharing, so I am willing to concede that it is not necessary for the state to intervene. And, it is certainly unjustifiable for any governmental agency to exercise eminent domain for the purpose of establishing a Park'n'Ride. I would prefer to see Park'n'Rides financed by property taxes, which would require voter apprval. Perhaps it could be like school levies, requiring 60% or more approval. In order to win over the votes of people like you, the law would have to be specific on how the taxpayers' financial interests would be protected. I'm all for direct democracy. I have no problem letting the voters decide how much subsidies, if any, ridesharing should get. And, I certainly don't mind the voters deciding every facet of ridesharing: subsidies to the capital costs for acquiring buses and vanpools; construction of Park'n'Ride facilities and; determining which lanes, if any, of our roadways should be for HOV use.
But, I don't think it's right for other communities in the state to intervene and take away money from communities who chose to tax themselves for the benifit of ridesharing. Yet, this is what Initiative 711 appears to do.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 01, 2000.
To Marsha: You write: "In other words Matt, we don't need more park and rides, we need a better way to get vanpoolers, carpoolers and bus riders aboard. Your idea to build more park and rides lots is ineffective and expensive."You may be correct about the expense. But, as I've tried to convince Craig, theoretically, anyway, the cost of a Park'n'Ride is potentially recoverable, if the government has the will to sell the land for its true value in the future.
As to your claim that the Park'n'Rides are ineffective, I don't agree. When I drive along Hwy 16 and I-5 and see all of the Park'n'Rides filled to the brim, I conclude that they are incredibly effective. Perhaps, you're being redundant, and since you perceive them as expensive, they are automatically ineffective, in your eyes.
You write: "Instead of picking up riders at park and ride lots, pick up those in your area who would be going to the park and ride. Then do a passenger exchange with other vanpools, carpools and busses...A decent computerized ridesharing match program for a regional area could be instituted for a lot less money than one of your park and ride lots...If done properly, the increased travel time could be held to a minimum. Would your riders be willing to add 10-15 minutes to their commute time in order not to have to leave their vehicles in an unprotected park and ride lot? Wouldn't this give them more transportation alternatives?"
Well, I don't personally object to your concept, since it can help to mitigate the number of cold starts, thus reducing pollution. However, Park'n'Rides are free. And, you really haven't explained who is going to pay for the service you propose. As I've said to Craig, Park'n'Rides are not absolutely necessary for ridesharing. So, if my riders have to spend more time and money to implement your idea, we'll just meet at a church or shopping center for free. Or, we'll meet in a residential neighborhood and park on the street for free. Which, by the way, is what I did when I belonged to a privately run vanpool. I and others parked on the street for free, and the van picked us up in the parking lot of a strip mall.
Now, if the taxpayer wants to pay for reduced pollution, then we (by "we", I mean people like you and I) may be able to motivate people to sacrifice their time in order help the planet. Perhaps, people wouldn't have to do it every day. They could do it some of the time, and this should lessen the need to build new Park'n'Rides.
In any case, I love your concept. In general, I believe ridesharing is under-marketed. Your concept should do well in the Gig Harbor area after the new bridge is built, as people aren't going to want to pay $10 tolls.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 01, 2000.
Matt,"But, since my ego is the only one offering specific solutions for mitigating congestion in areas of South King County and Tacoma, I'll just have to wait and see how inflated my opinions truly are. Maybe someday you'll offer some specific suggestions on your own and make Zowie proud."
Now your the only one offering specific solutions? Let me see here. Using Churches as Park and Ride lots, using demand response, and/or using vanpools, carpools and busses to move passengers MORE effectively by picking them up in your own area instead of PURCHASING LAND, PAVING LAND, AND having all those commuters drive to Park and Ride lots, which, by the way, can add to congestion as well as pollution, AND costs, is not specific enough for you? Gee, at $29,000 per stall, you could hire taxi's to transport those people to a tranfer center for pete's sake.
Your ego really is pretty enormous. May I submit to you, your highness, that I have offered alternatives based on a much broader range of experience in moving passengers.
Please also ignore the fact that those demand response vehicles are driving around nearly empty. Can you say under-utilized? Can you say duplication of service?
I not only HAVE been specific, but I have suggested to you, how to get involved to make changes that you think would be beneficial. Whining, complaining and stamping your foot in this forum doesn't bring about those changes. It only highlights your ego.
Happy April Fools day, Matt....
-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 01, 2000.
to Marsha: You write: "Your ego really is pretty enormous. May I submit to you, your highness, that I have offered alternatives based on a much broader range of experience in moving passengers."Marsha, I was poking fun at Craig and others who believe in the mantra of "Build more roads". Furthermore, they would prefer to have me send my tax dollars to Olympia, rather then sending the monies to Pierce Transit.
So, my challenge to the roadbuilders remains. You're welcome to defend the roadbuilders, if you can. Please explain why I should send my tax dollars to Olympia, instead of Pierce Transit. Keep in mind that the folks in Olympia are planning to build a new Narrows bridge, whereby there is NO LIMIT as to how high the tolls can go.
Craig is always pouncing on me for not supplying detailed numbers as to the cost of ridesharing. Where are his specific proposals for building our way out of congestion in the region of South King County and Tacoma?
As for your alternatives, I don't understand how they are endorsements for sending our local tax dollars to Olympia, instead of Pierce Transit. Perhaps you're advocating elimination of the taxes, altogether. Even that is more reasonable than Initiative 711.
Marsha, the thread is about Initiative 711. Please make your case for defending the initiative. And, while you're at it, try to provide some details for specific road-building projects in the South Puget Sound region.
I've provided some facts about ridesharing. Vanpooling in the Puget Sound Region helps to avoid the consumption of approximately 5 million gallons of gasoline, annually, along with the avoided generation of almost 4000 tons of air pollution. It also helps to mitigate congestion in the region by as many as 10,000 vehicles during the rush hour. Vanpooling can be done incrementally and in a short period of time. Can society build roads incrementally and in a short period of time? Would half of a new bridge do anyone any good?
Oh, by the way, it was very gracious of you to wish me a Happy April Fool's Day. The weekend was exceptionally beautiful.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 03, 2000.
Matt,Perhaps it would be helpful for you to understand the dynamics of posting in a forum. You see, when person "A" posts a question, and person "B" responds, it is a logical and expected reaction for person "C" to respond to person "B"'s response. I responded to your responses in this forum, and if anyone is off topic, it would be you.
Using the excuse of poking "fun" at other forum participants is feable attempt to wiggle out of taking responsibility for making an incorrect statement.
You got caught. Now you attempt to divert back to the original thread topic, which, by the way is not road building, but the threat of 711 pushing the HOV debate.
Now Matt, correct me if I am wrong, but HOV lanes and HOV use in general, have been thoroughly covered by YOU in this thread. When I respond to your idiotic statement that you are the only one offering alternatives in this forum, you go off on a tangent, and tell me I'm off topic and you want me to address congestion in the south sound.
Nice try, but the ball is in your court to admit your egotistical comment was indeed, WRONG!
-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 04, 2000.
to Marsha: You write: "Nice try, but the ball is in your court to admit your egotistical comment was indeed, WRONG!"Of course, any egotistical comments I may make are inappropriate. And, I sincerely apologize if I've offended you, by implying that absolutley no one has offered any intelligent points of views besides my own.
Even Craig offers intelligent points of views. But he would hold me to a higher standard than himself. I'm still waiting to learn from him (or anyone else) about the details of specific projects for road- building in the South Puget Sound.
Please, convince me why I should vote for Initiative 711, which would take away locally-controlled monies, handing it over to the folks in Olympia, most of whom do not represent South King County and Tacoma. Where's the logic in that?
My challenge to the road-builders and proponents of 711 remains. I've presented some facts supporting the rationale for subsidizing ridesharing, which directly mitigates congestion in a timely manner.
I think your concept for privatized ridesharing will work well in the Gig Harbor area, once the tolls on the new bridge reach a sufficiently high level. So, again, I thank you for your cogent contributions to the thread.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 04, 2000.
Matt,SO is this a debate on HOV use/congestion mitigation or a debate on road construction projects? Do you even know?
State Route 3 (Belfair Bypass) is the only road project in my area (yes, South Sound) that is in need of funding to my knowledge. A bit further down the road, Highway 101 is also in need of work. I have been unable to access the PDF files on these projects for many months.
While I-711 does not specifically fund that particular project, I-711 will make more funding available.
The reason this is an important project is due to the unsafe nature of the roadway in it's current placement. People at businesses in Belfair literally must back out of a parking space onto a busy highway. Left hand turns are quite unsafe as well. A stop light has recently been installed, but it has little effect on most hazards.
If it remains unfunded because of a higher priority due to expansion of say, State Route 16, that would be fine with me. Since you have pointed this need out yourself, I guess you answered your own question. Are there other projects that need funding? Yes, but it won't happen unless we force the issue.
It's still the demographics. I-695 does not outlaw ridesharing, it puts funding where it is most needed. Roads. If more money HAD gone into road building and less to transit in the last 30 years, I-711 would be unnecessary. If your riders get discouraged from vanpooling by I-695's HOV provision, they weren't doing it for the right reasons anyway.
You are expecting us to subsidize commuters who made a poor choice where they live/work and you also want us to gaurantee the trip to be as expedient as possible. Sorry, not with my tax money. I would rather see an unsafe road be repaired, or roads in need of expansion be funded that have been ignored for 30 years.
You have not been able to convince me why taxpayers should further subsidize your long distance commute.
Why don't we pay someone a cash bonus to ride a bike/walk to work? How about a bonus to tele-commuters? These bonuses would also mitigate congestion in a timely manner, but it isn't even a consideration because it would do nothing to expand the Transit Agency Empires.
I understand your frustration with I-711. But we will continue to "butt heads" until you understand that many of us believe you are not entitled to this current level of subsidy, morally or otherwise. The fact that you attempt to justify not fully paying your own way only angers me. It puts you in the "welfare queen" category in my mind.
-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 04, 2000.
to Marsha: You write: "SO is this a debate on HOV use/congestion mitigation or a debate on road construction projects? Do you even know?"Actually, the debate includes the topic of Initiative 711. Is Initiative 711 about HOV use or is it about road construction projects? Do you even know?
You write: "State Route 3 (Belfair Bypass) is the only road project in my area (yes, South Sound) that is in need of funding to my knowledge...While I-711 does not specifically fund that particular project, I-711 will make more funding available...The reason this is an important project is due to the unsafe nature of the roadway in it's current placement...If it remains unfunded because of a higher priority due to expansion of say, State Route 16, that would be fine with me. Since you have pointed this need out yourself, I guess you answered your own question. Are there other projects that need funding? Yes, but it won't happen unless we force the issue."
Well, I believe that if I-711 passes, the legislature will throw more money away on projects like Hwy 16, continuing to ignore the greater Belfair community. Instead of throwing away the currently proposed $50 million, they will decide to plant a bed of flowers, raising the cost to $100 million. Furthermore, if you check one of the other threads, you will see that the monies from I-711 will most likely be used to build an I-605 or a new bridge across Lake Washington. Therefore, congestion and unsafe roadways will continue to plague the South Puget Sound region, despite the passage of I-711. So, if anything, your description of Belfair's nelgect is proof for me that the legislature in Olympia is incompetent and can't be trusted to properly administer the additional funding from I-711. Again, why should I favor giving up local control of funding, handing more power to Olympia???
You write:"...If your riders get discouraged from vanpooling by I-695's HOV provision, they weren't doing it for the right reasons anyway."
I'm not sure what you mean by the "right reasons". People rideshare to save money and/or time, plus they may improve the quality of their lives, if they're able to catch a decent nap. I've previously explained how taking away the HOV entrance to the Narrows Bridge will eliminate a huge incentive for me to recruit people from Gig Harbor. I would then be better off concentrating my recruiting efforts in Tacoma. Plus, opening up the HOV entrance won't improve congestion on Hwy 16, but the reduced ridesharing will worsen congestion. So, please explain what are the "right reasons". Please defend why the community of Gig Harbor should support I-711, worsening congestion on Hwy 16.
You write: "You are expecting us to subsidize commuters who made a poor choice where they live/work and you also want us to gaurantee the trip to be as expedient as possible. Sorry, not with my tax money. I would rather see an unsafe road be repaired, or roads in need of expansion be funded that have been ignored for 30 years."
I'm not expecting anything. If I-711 guaranteed that our unsafe roadways would be corrected, then I would be more sympathetic to your argument. As for roads in need of expansion, let me see, that would be a new bridge across Lake Washington. Boy, that sure helps the Peninsula. The bottom line is that I-711 is just as likely to hurt the Peninsula as it likely to help. You have yet to offer a convincing argument on why voters on the Peninsula should support I-711. If your argument is for tax relief, that's different. But I-711 doesn't repeal existing taxes, it merely dedicates the funds for road construction.
You write: "You have not been able to convince me why taxpayers should further subsidize your long distance commute...Why don't we pay someone a cash bonus to ride a bike/walk to work? How about a bonus to tele-commuters? These bonuses would also mitigate congestion in a timely manner, but it isn't even a consideration because it would do nothing to expand the Transit Agency Empires."
Marsha, I've indicated that vanpooling reduces the number of vehicles (in the greater Puget Sound) during the rush hour by as much as 10,000. The avoided consumption of gasoline is as much as 5 million gallons per year. The avoided air pollution is close to 4000 tons. No direct cash payments are being made to those who rideshare. Those who rideshare pay a user fee. Society is making a capital investment in terms of purchasing the vehicles. If you can present a reasonable case for society purchasing bicycles and/or laptops, then, yes, by all means, let's do it. If the cost-benefit is superior to vanpools, then, sure, let's junk the vanpools and go with the bikes and laptops. As for the transit agencies, I don't think they'll care if they get paid to administer a bicycle/laptop program instead of vanpools.
You write: "I understand your frustration with I-711. But we will continue to "butt heads" until you understand that many of us believe you are not entitled to this current level of subsidy, morally or otherwise. The fact that you attempt to justify not fully paying your own way only angers me. It puts you in the "welfare queen" category in my mind."
I don't believe I'm "entitled" to anything differently than other members of society. I'm a comfortable member of the middle class, and I'm extremely grateful that I can take care of myself and my family. My attempting to justify subsidies for ridesharing is based on evidence of tangible benefits to the surrounding communities, and, therefore, there is a moral and logical argument to continue such subsidies. Although, I acknowledge that not everyone will necessarily agree on the same standards of costs vs. benefits. As for your insulting remark about "welfare queens", I oppose welfare on the grounds that it rewards able-bodied people for refusing to work. People who rideshare pay a user fee in order to go to work. And, I'm not attempting to justify not paying my own way. I've merely pointed out the tangible benefits of ridesharing, directly improving the quality of life on the Peninsula. Initiative 711 takes away local control and local solutions, and allows the politicians in Olympia to fund a new bridge across Lake Washington. Using your logic, I would label the residents of Bellevue and Redmond as "welfare queens".
If you take away the subsidies for vanpools and eliminate the HOV lanes, I doubt I would purchase a 15-passenger van. I would most likely purchase a minivan, only allowing me to take on about 5 passengers (even though the dealers claim the vehicle seats six). I would also choose to only drop off folks where I happen to work. Right now, my vanpool serves 3 drop-off points, which can add as much as 15 minutes to my evening commute. It turns out that most of the people in my vanpool, who work where I do, happen to live in Tacoma. So, I wouldn't recruit riders from the Peninsula. The bottom line: congestion on Hwy 16 will be worse and congestion on I-5 in South King County will be worse; but society will have more money to spend on I-605 or a bridge across Lake Washington.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 05, 2000.
to Craig: Am I a genius, or what? Look what I posted before (re:, "This will put downward pressure on their stocks"), in light of the recent bloodbath in the stock market:"Now, do you really believe that higher gasoline prices are going to positively contribute to lower inflation and high employment and shrinking government deficits? Or, is your argument going to be that there is no effect at all, so higher gas prices are irrelevant?"
"Let's look at it from the point of view of state and local governments. There will be a reduction in sales taxes, since the sales tax does not apply to gasoline sales."
Let's look at it from the point of view of non-gasoline retailers. Their revenues will probably shrink, at least in the near-term. This will put downward pressure on their stocks, since a drop in revenues is unlikely to boost earnings. Many new retailing operations are on- line, raising capital through new stock offerings. Thus, if investors perceive an environment of declining revenues, then the investors are not going to be willing to pay as much for the e- tailers' stock as they otherwise might have. Thus, the cost of capital for non-gasoline retailers will have increased. From their point of view, then, their economic vitality is on the decline."
What can I say? To all of you who've seen your portfolios plummet, you really ought to promote vanpooling. I hate to say I told you so, but I TOLD YOU SO!!!
I hate to talk about myself, but here's one time I must. I'm the greatest. Is there a rock besides me? I know not any.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 17, 2000.
Q: "to Craig: Am I a genius, or what? "ANS: Or what?
-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 17, 2000.