Weve all heard about the initiative being pushed by Washington car dealers and their lobbyists to open HOV lanes to all traffic at all times, including peak hours. It should be obvious that the change will put more cars on the road, as carpooling and busing becomes less attractive. It should also be fairly obvious why car dealers want to put more cars on the road: If people carpool or ride public transit every day while their own cars sit at home, they are unlikely to buy a new car for a long time. More people putting miles on their own cars every day, instead of carpooling or riding transit, means that their cars will wear out faster, so they will buy new cars more often.

What may not be so obvious is just HOW MUCH the car salesmen stand to gain from this change. I found some WSDOT data on HOV lane usage in WA and did the startling arithmetic. Once youve seen it, you'll understand why they're pushing it so hard.

What may also not be so obvious is that the change will make the commute WORSE, not better, for solo drivers  and not just slightly worse, but MUCH worse. Think the people pushing I-711 are doing it for the sake of Traffic Improvement? Youll think again after youve done the math.

Other people have argued, with some justification, for opening up HOV lanes at OFF-PEAK hours. However, this initiative seeks to open them up even at PEAK hours. Dont confuse the two. Arguments that apply in one case may not apply in the other.

HOV lanes carry 42% of the people

=================================

At peak hours, an HOV lane carries far more people than a general purpose lane. This fact may be surprising, since an HOV lane doesnt look very crowded. However, each bus or carpool in that lane moves faster AND carries more people than an SOV (single-occupant vehicle), with the net result that the number of people per minute passing any point in that lane is much higher than in a general purpose lane.

The next time youre sitting in rush hour traffic on 520, try counting the people (not just the vehicles) who zip by in the HOV lane. Hint: The capacity of a single-section bus is 42 people plus standing room; of an articulated bus, 72 plus standing room.

Now the HOV lane on westbound 520 is the only one in the region that requires 3 people, not just 2, for a carpool. The requirement is there for safety reasons, to reduce the number of vehicles in the lane, because its narrow. Even so, that lane carries more people than either of the other lanes during rush hours (35% of the people, in 5% of the vehicles). Other HOV lanes in the region are even more heavily used - e.g. 42% of the people, in 19% of the vehicles, in the HOV lane at parts of I-5. Thats nearly as many people as the THREE lanes next to it, combined.

Thats the huge lost market the car salesmen are going after. If ALL the HOV commuters at rush hours could somehow be forced out of their buses and carpools and into their own cars, the increase in car sales would be tremendous. Opening HOV lanes to all traffic is an effective way to force MANY of them out, as carpools slow to the same crawl as SOVs, bus schedules become undependable, and bus riders start missing their connections.

The effect on SOV commuters is not hard to predict. At first, the effect will be to add one lane of available roadway while adding LESS than one lanes worth of vehicles, so the commute for SOVs will be slightly faster. But pretty quickly, as people abandon HOV commuting, the net effect will be to add one lane of roadway while adding MORE than one lanes worth of vehicles, and the commute for SOVs will get SLOWER.

While the number of VEHICLES per hour carried by a highway will slightly increase, the number of PEOPLE carried per hour will drastically decrease, as traffic swells to volumes never seen before - to the delight of car salesmen.

Effect on the 520 commute

=========================

On SR 520, since the bridge has no HOV lane, the change will not even increase the flow of vehicles per hour. Instead, EVERYONES commute will get MUCH worse, because the number of vehicles trying to cross the bridge will dramatically increase - potentially by 46% !! You dont have to be a transportation engineer to predict the effects of the change. Suppose you regularly drive an SOV from the Eastside to Seattle on 520 during the rush hour, and the HOV lane could be opened to all traffic. Heres how the change would affect you. Ive numbered the points to make it easier for others who are familiar with the 520 commute to point out things that Ive missed. (+) marks the factors that would improve the commute for solo drivers, (-) marks the factors that would worsen it.

(1) The speed at which you drive to the start of the traffic backup before the bridge will remain about the same.

(2) For the first few days, the point at which the backup starts will be further west than it is today, because the backup will be spread across 3 lanes instead of 2. However, that factor alone wont shorten your wait in the backup at all. The bridge will now be fed by 3 full lanes, instead of 2 full lanes and one not-so-full lane, and the rate at which vehicles enter the bridge will not increase; so the backup will just move slower.

(3) (+) However, for the first few days, the time it takes you to get through the backup to the start of the bridge WILL be slightly shortened by another factor: namely that the 5% of the vehicles that used to pass you while you sat in that backup are now sitting in the backup along with you. This factor will shave off an underwhelming one-twentieth of your wait in the backup.

(4) (-) That saving will be more than offset by the extra time it will take for the 3 lanes to merge into 2 at the bridge. Instead of only 5% of the vehicles merging from the 3rd lane, you will have 33% of the vehicles trying to merge from that lane. Similar to the merge at the Montlake entrance to 520 Eastbound today, but worse, because that entrance doesn't contribute one third of the traffic.

(5) The time it takes you to cross the bridge will not change.

(6) (-) Currently, the 5% of vehicles in the HOV lane average 11.32 occupants each; the 95% in the other lanes average 1.111 occupants each. If ALL the HOV riders switched to SOV commuting, the number of vehicles would grow to (0.95+0.05*11.32) of its present value - i.e. a *52% increase* !! If HOVs just dropped to the same 1.111 occupancy rate, it would be (0.95+0.05*11.32/1.111), a 46% increase. The actual number will be something less, since they won't be able to destroy bus ridership completely; but it gives you an idea of the market potential theyre going after.

(7) (-) Does a 46% increase mean you'll wait 46% longer in the backup? No - MUCH worse than that. The increase is in the RATE at which vehicles arrive at the bridge, so the delay is compounded as vehicles keep accumulating in the backup. The backup grows as long as the rate at which vehicles arrive exceeds the rate at which they cross the bridge, and shrinks when the arrival rate is lower. Currently, it backs up to about I-405 or Overlake. If the arrival rate at all hours increases, then (a) the backup will grow faster AND (b) it will keep growing for longer. The backup will easily extend all the way to Overlake or Redmond, and there will be lines at every freeway entrance.

I drive my own car to work across 520 much more often than I ride the bus or carpool. Much as Id like to believe that theres a simple, magic way to make my commute faster, I can see for myself that this initiative will do the exact opposite.

Now the 46% number in factor (6) is a worst-case figure (or best-case, if youre a car salesman). It assumes that most of the HOV users would switch to solo driving. How many would actually switch? That will be the subject of part 4. Stay tuned.

The source for the figures on which the above calculations are based is http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/regions/northwest/hovpage/faq.html.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 23, 2000

Answers

The above is what would happen if the HOV lane COULD be opened to all traffic. Now WSDOT has stated that the HOV lane is too narrow to safely accommodate a full lanes worth of vehicles, so if I-711 passed and HOV lanes were outlawed, they would have to close the lane altogether. How would that change the analysis above?

In only one way: the delay due to the 33% of the vehicles merging at the bridge entrance (factor (4)) would be eliminated. Instead of (4), youd have:

(4.1) (+) The delay due to the merge at the bridge would be eliminated. How much faster would the elimination of THAT merge make your commute? Not much. Only 5% of the vehicles merge there today. The much messier merge at the 84th Ave NE entrance, just a short way before the bridge, where a lot more than 5% of the vehicles merge today, will still remain.

The much bigger factors that slow your commute, (6) and (7), will still remain: a large fraction of the HOV users (who are 35% of the people at rush hours) will switch to SOV commuting, and dramatically increase the number of vehicles trying to cross the bridge.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), April 23, 2000.

To Anirudh: Yes, I-711 would be bad news for people who use Hwy 520. However, the ends don't justify the means. No matter how many people you're moving across Hwy 520, it is an unsafe design to have a lane suddenly end, forcing the traffic (however sparse) to merge with the regular traffic.

The proper solution is to expand Hwy 520, and charge a toll for the new roadway. People who are in a hurry can pay the toll; people who are tightwads can sit in traffic.

If, in fact, you're correct about how much worse the congestion will be, there is nothing stopping the state legislature from "amending" I-711, exempting Hwy 520. This assumes that there is a moral, ethical, and legal basis for continuing an unsafe traffic design.

So, in my opinion, you have not presented a strong argument against I-711.

The real problem with I-711 is that it does not present a list of prioritized road construction projects. For example, I-711 should explicitly state that Hwy 520 is to be expanded. But, it does not say this. Therefore, I have no compelling reason to vote for the initiative.

I suspect most voters will be confused by the initiative, since it does not explicitly guarantee any direct benefits, unlike I-695.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 24, 2000.

Anirudh-

your "argument" makes no sense whatsoever.

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

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

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

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

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

I have 2 problems with HOV lanes.

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

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

the craigster

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

to Craig: Anirudh's post dealt specifically with Hwy 520. You appear to be avoiding the issue.

I-711 is illogical when it comes to HOV lanes like Hwy 520 and the HOV entrance to the Narrows Bridge. If you have an intelligent argument to the contrary, please present it.

As for Anirudh's claim that I-711 benefits car sales, I personally would view this as a reason to vote for I-711. The more cars that are sold, the more sales taxes the state collects.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 24, 2000.

"I-711 is illogical when it comes to HOV lanes like Hwy 520 and the HOV entrance to the Narrows Bridge"

In what way?

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

to Craig: The HOV lane on Hwy 520 should probably be closed down altogether, It' simply a dangerous configuration. If I-711 opens it up to all traffic, I don't see why you would expect to see the existing traffic flow any smoother than it is now. On the other hand, since it will now take longer for people in buses and vanpools to get across Hwy 520, it is reasonable (at least for me) to conclude that there will be a drop-off in the number of people who rideshare. Hence, there will be an increase in the number of vehicles attempting to cross 520, with no real increase in capacity.

A similar situation exists for Hwy 16. Take away the incentive to carpool, and fewer people will carpool. Again, you're adding more vehicles to a roadway (Hwy 16) with no corresponding increase in road capacity.

I-711 is illogical because it provides no objective criteria for when a HOV lane or entrance should be opened up. Not all HOV lanes are equal!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 24, 2000.

"I-711 is illogical because it provides no objective criteria for when a HOV lane or entrance should be opened up. Not all HOV lanes are equal!"

But as a statement of users rights, ie., those paying for the services ought to be allowed to use them, it simply states that ALL HOV lanes ought to be opened up. That doesn't really require objective criteria.

And as we have discussed before regarding the part-time HOV on-ramp in Tacoma, the PROBLEM was the number of people who were taking smaller local access roads to get from I-5 to Bridgeport, both jamming these low volume streets, and backing up the access to this on-ramp for miles up and down Bridgeport. The PROBLEM was the local congestion, not necessarily any desire to increase car-pooling. Since they did not have the PR support to CLOSE this overpass, they needed some way to restrict the total volume using it during rush hour. Since only a relatively small minority of people travel in HOVs (and a smaller percentage actually carpool), by restricting the on-ramp to HOV at certain hours, this decreased the congestion on Bridgeport (backing it up to Pearl and to 6th). What percentage of those car-pooling would continure to carpool, absent the dedicated on- ramp, is difficult to say. If you haven't noticed as you take those back-roads to get to the HOV on-ramp, there is more and more "traffic calming" through converting two lanes to one plus a bike lane, etc. This is gradually negating the advantage for many of the people like you who take the smaller arterials to beat the backup between I-5 and the bridge. And that applies no matter if you get on at Union, 19th, or farther along.

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

to Craig: You write: "If you haven't noticed as you take those back-roads to get to the HOV on-ramp, there is more and more "traffic calming" through converting two lanes to one plus a bike lane, etc. This is gradually negating the advantage for many of the people like you who take the smaller arterials to beat the backup between I-5 and the bridge. And that applies no matter if you get on at Union, 19th, or farther along."

I don't understand what you're saying, here. I've been ridesharing for over 3 years, and nothing's changed. It takes us about 10 minutes to get from I-5 to the carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge. It's been that way for over 3 years. So, I don't understand what you're referring to when you say "...gradually negating the advantage". The advantage has remained consistently the same for over 3 years!!! Sometimes I take Hwy 16, on a lrk, and it's rare that I don't regret the decision.

The bottom line is that there is no benefit to the communities when you "open up" the Hwy 520 HOV lane and/or the carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge. There is the risk of detriment, as the number of carpoolers will decline and, thus, the number of vehicles will increase. Are you disputing this? Or, are you pleading ignorance?

I can't speak for the carpoolers who use Hwy 520, but I would definitely re-examine my options if I no longer had the advantage of the carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge. Right now, the optimal choice for me is to be in a vanpool which starts in Gig Harbor. If I no longer have an advantage of a carpool entrance, then I can choose to be in a vanpool starting in Tacoma or Federal Way, etc. The result could be increased vehicles on Hwy 16. Or, I might just drive myself, since the time I now spend accomodating others, I could spend crawling along on Hwy 16, which I'll end up doing anyway if I-711 passes.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 24, 2000.

"I don't understand what you're saying, here. I've been ridesharing for over 3 years, and nothing's changed. It takes us about 10 minutes to get from I-5 to the carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge. It's been that way for over 3 years. So, I don't understand what you're referring to when you say "...gradually negating the advantage". The advantage has remained consistently the same for over 3 years!!! Sometimes I take Hwy 16, on a lrk, and it's rare that I don't regret the decision. "

Depends on the route that you take, but if you take the back road through Ruston, for example, to avoid the mess on I-5 near 16, you'll find that many of the neighborhoods are being "traffic calmed" What route do you take?

"The bottom line is that there is no benefit to the communities when you "open up" the Hwy 520 HOV lane and/or the carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge. There is the risk of detriment, as the number of carpoolers will decline and, thus, the number of vehicles will increase. Are you disputing this? Or, are you pleading ignorance?" Holy strawman, Batman! (to quote another poster, BBQuax, I believe). I have already posted my reasons for desiring to get rid of HOV lanes, and I consider them valid. I certainly believe there is benefit to society from treating people equitably. Allowing Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus (as opposed to standing at the rear) neither increased nor decreased the capacity of the bus line, but it solved an inequity problem.

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

to Craig: I'll guess we'll agree to disagree. I see no inequity with HOV lanes. EVERYONE is free to rideshare, including Rosa Parks. I'm glad to hear that if Rosa Parks moved to Seattle, she'd enthusiastically support I-711 (NOT!!!).

As a voter, I'm going to vote for something if I perceive it to ameliorate an unsafe or unjust condition. I don't believe opening up the Hwy 520 HOV lane to all traffic improves safety. I don't believe the HOV entrance to the Narrows Bridge is a prime example of injustice.

I am willing to support legislation which would turn the HOV lanes into special toll lanes, thus generating revenue for society.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 25, 2000.

"As a voter, I'm going to vote for something if I perceive it to ameliorate an unsafe or unjust condition."

"I don't believe opening up the Hwy 520 HOV lane to all traffic improves safety." I'd even agree on this, if it's inherently unsafe, it's inherently unsafe. It ought to be fixed. But this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If it IS going to be used, it ought to be equitably used.

"I don't believe the HOV entrance to the Narrows Bridge is a prime example of injustice. " How prime does it have to be? At what point do we say that equal rights and equal access really don't have to be equal? What if I only didn't allow you to vote in the primary election, but still allowed you to vote in the general election? Does that little bit of disenfranchisement really matter?

I recognize that you personally benefit from the Bridgeport on-ramp, but doesn't the equity issue bother you just a little? If not, why would you be suggesting that you be charged for the preferential use of it? "I am willing to support legislation which would turn the HOV lanes into special toll lanes, thus generating revenue for society. "

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 25, 2000.

to Craig: The equity issue of the HOV on-ramp to the Narrows Bridge doesn't bother me, because I see no inequity. All citizens are free to carpool, and thus gain access to the on-ramp. On this, we must agree to disagree.

My support of paying a fee is due, in part, to the demographics of trip-chaining. The current HOV policy actually encourages families to perform activities during rush hour, since, after all, they will have access to the HOV lanes. So, rather than reducing congestion, the HOV lanes may be increasing congestion.

However, if people have to pay a stiff annual fee to use the HOV lanes, then society won't have "frivolous" use of the resource. In my opinion, the intent of the HOV lanes is to encourage ridesharing during rush hour, not to encourage family errands during rush hour.

Also, by charging a fee, society will acquire badly needed revenue to either augment the existing HOV system or reduce taxes. Whichever our illustrious representatives decide is the best course. If people were given a choice on voting for I-711 or charging a fee for use of the HOV lanes, I think most people would prefer the latter.

If a network of tolled roads is extensive enough, this will give rise to privately run vanpool and bus services. I would think you find that appealing.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 25, 2000.

Matthew,

Excuse me for butting in, but I disagree with your statement that all citizens are free to carpool. Just because someone has the right to carpool, doesn't mean it is possible for all citizens. How about those who work on call? How about people whose work location changes on a daily basis?

Didn't those people help pay for the current HOV lanes?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 25, 2000.

to Marsha: Our society constantly enacts rules and regulations, benefitting one group at the expense of another.

No one is barred from using the HOV lanes because of their race, creed, color, religious belief, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

So there are people who helped pay for the HOV lanes. There are people who pay property taxes for schools, and they have no kids. I paid into Social Security for years, but I don't get full retirement at age 65.

I just think it's a wimpy argument, invoking the theme of "equity", when a reasonable person could conclude that congestion will worsen, not improve, if you eliminate certain HOV lanes or on-ramps.

When I talk to people at work about the issue, most of them understand that the HOV lanes are intended to reduce the number of cars. And, it seems, that if they perceive it to be working that way, they don't see the point of changing it.

You and Craig will simply have to come up with better argument. The issue of equity doesn't seem particularly relevant. People want results, not theories.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 25, 2000.

Matthew,

Charging a "stiff annual fee" does not gaurentee the results your looking for.

What I see happening is those who could not afford the "stiff annual fee" would be punished by being stuck in congestion. There are plenty who could pay. And you would most likely lose any advantage in ridesharing, just like you would with I-711. All you are doing is adding to the big government wallet.

Let's seperate the classes just a little more huh?

-- Marsha (acorn-nut@hotmail.com), April 25, 2000.

Can't you hear the conversation now? A mom on her way to drop off the kids at daycare must respond to 5 year old Johnny's question, why she must drive in the lane full of cars and not the fast moving lane. She replies because it is the H.I. lane, that's HIGH INCOME lane, and she cannot afford it!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), April 25, 2000.

To Matthew: I agree with most of what you've said. BTW, there have been multiple proposals over the years to build a privately funded toll bridge across Lake WA, but they were blocked by the neighborhoods on either side of the lake.

But I'm puzzled about why you think the merge at the end of 520 is dangerous. It's no more dangerous than any other merge on a highway.

Also, you said, "The real problem with I-711 is that it does not present a list of prioritized road construction projects. For example, I-711 should explicitly state that Hwy 520 is to be expanded. But, it does not say this. Therefore, I have no compelling reason to vote for the initiative."

Are you saying that you *would* vote for the initiative if it did specify which projets to spend money on? Remember, even if I-711 did say that Hwy 520 was to be expanded, there would not be a new lane on 520 by Jan 1st; it would take years. Meanwhile, I-711 would get rid of the HOV lane, thereby increasing congestion, on January 1st.

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

To Craig: Thanks for listing your objections clearly; I read them with great interest and I want to respond to each one. Especially, the sentiment that I think is at the root of your objection to HOV lanes: namely, that some people should not be getting a free ride at others' expense.

Meanwhile, as Matthew pointed out, my post dealt specifically with SR- 520, and your response did not. I notice you didn't find a single thing wrong with my analysis of what would happen on 520. (Except to object to the figure of 46% in factor (6), even though I clearly stated, more than once, that the 46% figure is not the actual increase in vehicles, but the upper bound on the increase in vehicles, and that I will get to a discussion of the actual number later.) Until someone who is familiar with the 520 commute points out something I've missed, I'll assume the analysis has been accepted as correct.

I'll start a separate thread on your points now, under the title, "Are HOV Lanes Unfair?" I would like this thread to stick to issues that deal specifically with the HOV lane on SR-520.

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

to Marsha: You write: "What I see happening is those who could not afford the "stiff annual fee" would be punished by being stuck in congestion."

If I-711 passes, the working poor will be stuck in traffic, too. So, I don't buy your argument as an objection to charging an annual fee to use the HOV lane.

You also write: "There are plenty who could pay. And you would most likely lose any advantage in ridesharing, just like you would with I-711."

If the demand for the special license plates is as high as you suggest, then society can raise the annual fee. If there's no advantage to having the access, then people are not going to shell out the big bucks for the privilege. There will be some type of equilibrium. Let's just try it for a while and see how it works.

You also write: "All you are doing is adding to the big government wallet...Can't you hear the conversation now? A mom on her way to drop off the kids at daycare must respond to 5 year old Johnny's question, why she must drive in the lane full of cars and not the fast moving lane. She replies because it is the H.I. lane, that's HIGH INCOME lane, and she cannot afford it!"

Well, I agree with your concern about adding to the big government wallet. But, perhaps, with the monies, society could offer a tax credit to married couples (earning under a certain income level) with kids under the age of 5. The family could choose to use the money to purchase the special license plate, or, even better, one of the spouses could afford to stay home, thus reducing congestion on our roads during rush hour!!!

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

to Anirudh: You write"But I'm puzzled about why you think the merge at the end of 520 is dangerous. It's no more dangerous than any other merge on a highway."

In general, on and off-ramps during rush hour are a source of great congestion. So, to some degree, they're all dangerous. But on and off-ramps provide some visual clues to the traffic as to what to expect. In fact, when you enter an on-ramp, you pretty much know that you are going to merge in a short amount of time. Likewise, the on-coming traffic knows you're attempting to merge. Also, society can choose to mitigate the negative effects by metering the on-ramp.

But, when you have a X lanes of traffic reducing to X-1, then you have a real nightmare. To deliberately design a roadway like that is criminal, and it is not the same situation as an on-ramp. True, people who drive the route everyday probably know where the extra lane ends, but the back-up on the extra lane varies from day to day, so the pattern of merging will change from day to day.

I commute every day up the Southcenter Hill around 4 PM, and it is the worst part of my commute. Why? Well, I-5 loses a lane. It is the worst congestion I've ever experienced, and it occurs day in and day out. It is not uncommon for the HOV lane to be backed up about 6 miles, all the way to I-405. The area around the Tacoma Dome on I-5 is another dangerous stretch of highway, based on what I've observed. There, you have traffic merging from or exiting to Hwy 16, I-705, and 38th St. The words "merge" and "danger" may very well be synonymous.

Hwy 520 is the worst of all. You not only have three lanes converging to two, but there is no real shoulder and you're over water. How much worse do you need it to be before even you label it as the most dangerous!!!

You also write: "Are you saying that you *would* vote for the initiative if it did specify which projets to spend money on? Remember, even if I-711 did say that Hwy 520 was to be expanded, there would not be a new lane on 520 by Jan 1st; it would take years. Meanwhile, I-711 would get rid of the HOV lane, thereby increasing congestion, on January 1st."

If I-711 promised to "fix" I-5 by the Tacoma Dome; expand Hwy 16 (at least between the Narrows Bridge and I-5 in the eastbound direction) and; build a new Tacoma Narrows bridge; all in that order, then, yes, the Initiative would be relevant to my community, and I would have an economic incentive to vote for it. Right now, I have no incentive to vote for I-711. I-711 simply hands more money to the DOT, which has proven itself incompetent (see I-5 up the Southcenter Hill or I-5 by the Tacoma Dome), arrogant, unresponsive, and corrupt.

Getting rid of the HOV lane on Hwy 520 may result in increased congestion. But, the legislature has the right to "amend" an initiative passed by the people. So, even if I-711 were to pass, it does not necessarily mean soceity has no options. So, we could very well have the best of both worlds: funding for a new bridge and keep the HOV lane intact until the new bridge opens. Of course, the new bridge across Lake Washington would be tolled as long as the Narrows Bridge is tolled. We musn't forget the principle of equity, which is so dear to the heart of Craig!

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

I commute via 520 nearly everyday (4-5 days out of the work week) via bus or carpool.

The issue about the dangerous merging of traffic at the east end of bridge is a little over-stated in my opinion. Drivers are given well enough warning of the merge. In my 5 years of commuting on the bridge, I have not seen any accident that was a result of merging into traffic. There will be frustration on the side of drivers wishing to merge and the drivers in the other lane not willing to let them in.

Yes, 520 does not have a shoulder, but it is wide enough for vehicles to move to the side to let emergency vehicles in to assist disabled vehicles.

Someone had posted that there have been numerous proposals to widen the bridge or build another bridge across the lake, but the poster was right in stating that all of the proposals were shot down by residents on either side of the lake. So unless the government claims something similar to imminent domain or provide ample compensation for the land, I don't see widening the bridge or building a new bridge in the near future.

-- Keiichi Morisato (keiichi@crystaltokyo.com), April 26, 2000.

Matthew M. Warren said: "True, people who drive the route everyday probably know where the extra lane ends, but the back-up on the extra lane varies from day to day, so the pattern of merging will change from day to day."

That is incorrect. Traffic from the HOV lane westbound on 520 merges with the other two lanes of traffic just before the bridge starts. Yes, the length of the backup may change from day to day, but the point of traffic merging does not.

-- Keiichi Morisato (keiichi@crystaltokyo.com), April 26, 2000.

to Keiichi: You write: "That is incorrect. Traffic from the HOV lane westbound on 520 merges with the other two lanes of traffic just before the bridge starts. Yes, the length of the backup may change from day to day, but the point of traffic merging does not."

I stand corrected. I don't drive on Hwy 520, too often, but my memories of driving westbound are filled with shock and dismay. I'm not a big fan of having three lanes converge to two, especially when the traffic in the GP lane is bumper-to-bumper.

What we're trying to deduce is whether or not the situation would be more unsafe if the the HOV lane were open to all. I would expect the issue of merging to be less problematic if the vehicles in the HOV lane are primarily buses and vanpool vans.

Sounds like you would vote to keep the HOV lane on Hwy 520. How do you feel about I-711?

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

" I would expect the issue of merging to be less problematic if the vehicles in the HOV lane are primarily buses and vanpool vans. " Only from the perspective of the traffic being relatively few in number. Generally speaking, larger vehicles have a GREATER problem merging on a per vehicle basis because of acceleration/deceleration, and driver vision and clearance requirements. Bigger isn't better when it comes to speedy merging.

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