I work from home, so I'm spared the hassle of commuting on congested freeways. But two recent experiences convinced me (again) of the perfect idiocy of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes.
Yesterday I took a rare rush hour drive on the freeways returning from an appointment in Renton. I was stuck at a crawl with most everybody else while watching all the very expensive capacity on I-405 and SR 167 go unused. And it was a one-off trip, I wasn't in a position to carpool to where I was going. So carpooling is a false incentive for using the HOV lanes, as I'm sure it is for many if not most other drivers. On Sunday, however, I took a cab home from SeaTac. Because there were two humans in the car, including the driver, but only one passenger, we get to use the HOV lane. No logic there.
Here's an impromptu and highly unscientific public opinion survey --
Who among the readers thinks that HOV lanes are a cost-effective use of transportation dollars?
Who thinks the money spent on HOV lanes could be put to better use for general purpose capacity?
Who would support a state-wide ballot initiative to ban all HOV lanes and turn current HOV lanes into general purpose lanes?
UPDATE: The state DOT has an entire web site dedicated to the idiocy of HOV lanes.
UPDATE 2 From the Wall Street Journal "HOV Lanes Linked to Rise In Car Crashes"
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 28, 2005 12:16 PM | Email ThisAccording to an article I read in the WSJ, HOV lanes cause accidents. Couldn't find WSJ link but above is the same.
Posted by: Golden Lover on July 28, 2005 12:21 PMAnd I am much more skeptical since I read about the study done in Texas that found that HOV lanes cause accidents. Here's my post on the subject, with a links to a summary of the study and the study itself.
Briefly, HOV Lanes cause accidents because they create large differences in speed between adjacent lanes. (You can eliminate that problem by putting a physical barrier between HOV lanes and other lanes.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on July 28, 2005 12:32 PM
James S.
Posted by: James S. on July 28, 2005 12:33 PMOne other idea is to ban all government vehicles from the HOV lanes. Maybe then they'll reconsider the idea. Or a rebate to non-HOV drivers for the gas wasted by the congestion?
Either way they've got to go!
Posted by: Victor on July 28, 2005 12:36 PMOn an off topic, but maybe related somehow, way back in the 90's, Wyoming caved in to the withholding of the highway funds and raised legal drinking age from 19 to 21, although it had nothing to do with the highway. The same deal could happen if initiative banned HOV, and the WA state will repeal the ban in no time under such threat.
Posted by: C. Oh on July 28, 2005 12:36 PMThe transportation industry needs to recognize that most individuals (greater than 90%) prefer to commute and travel by car. Mass transit covers approximately 5% of the individuals who are traveling. This 5% has not changed significantly over the past 20 years.
The most efficient use of our taxes is to increase capacity for all drivers. This means increasing the number of general use lanes on our freeways. Sound Transit and Metro cover less than 20% of their operating costs with revenues and none of their capital costs. Mass transit is a very inefficient use of transportation taxes.
The politicians and transportation “experts” need to deal with reality of individuals’ preference for traveling by car and the true cost of the alternatives.
It sounds like a joke, but the jokes on us
Posted by: KDA on July 28, 2005 12:38 PMIt sounds like a joke, but the jokes on us
Posted by: KDA on July 28, 2005 12:38 PMWhat gets me is the HOV Access lanes to the freeway being used by single occupant cars to avoid the line waiting for the access signal. I sit throug this line at NE 85th in Kirkland on almost a daily basis and count a least a half dozen jerks (mainly in BMW's :) each time.
If I tried that, my luck would have it that there would be a cop sitting at the top of the ramp...
Continued kudos on the blog Stefan! Keeo up the good work
Posted by: Budster on July 28, 2005 12:41 PMThat reminds me of something I read a few years back, but have no idea of the source, who said that doing just that would increase congestion.
Posted by: Brent on July 28, 2005 12:42 PMOne of my issues about that lane that I never understood has to do with people using the car pool lane when the car contains a driver and a non-driver (kid). Why that one-driver vehicle has that right while others do not escapes me. I, along with others pay my taxes so should have the same right to that lane.
As a side note: I would be more in favor of it becoming a commerce lane for trucks than keeping it as-is based on the economic benefit and costs trucks deliver and incur.
Keep up the good fight.
Posted by: Mike Armstrong on July 28, 2005 12:45 PMI would support such an initiatave.
However, the problem with a state law banning HOV lanes is that Federal dollars are and were used in a lot of highway construction. And with $$ comes strings.
So, I would propose that we keep the HOV lanes, and change the law so they can only be enforced
Posted by: Jeremy on July 28, 2005 12:49 PMCarpool lanes in King County probably operate at less than 10% of capacity, and a significant percentage of those cars are transporting a parent and minor children, or vehicles belonging to companies that are simply occupied by 2 or more employees on the road as part of their job.
When jurisdictions add HOV lanes, wouldn't it be interesting if their justification was based on actual commuter capacity being added based on usage studies in similar corridors, instead of the lane's design capacity multiplied by 2.whatever potential passengers per vehicle? I think we'd all see very quickly that like the Sounder Train, we're subsidizing the drivers in the HOV lanes to an incredible level, and artificially worsening an already bad situation in the non-HOV lanes.
Skor is right- it is to force us to carpool.
Shark is dead wrong. Why, because he took one trip does he think carpool lanes should be eliminated?
For the life of me, when I do venture out (yes, I located my house to where I work) and travel to Clone City (Bellevue) and am fortunate to have a rider, I marvel at all the sheeples that are just sitting in their cars and waiting. I, for the life of me, can't figure out why each of these drivers are so important that they can't find someone to carpool with.
One answer I keep coming up with that that the powers that aren't, but should be, don't advertise and provide pooling opportunities. It is ridiculous there aren't that many 8-5 ers that can't find someone in their neighborhood to carpool with.
Is everyone a prima donna? They all aren't one timers like the Shark, are they?
So no, I don't want to eliminate the car pool lanes until someone can prove to me that a little advertising can't make them work.
Posted by: swatter on July 28, 2005 12:50 PMHowever, I think emphasis should be given to traffic engineering studies to determine the value of HOV lanes, not a politician's whim.
Posted by: Greg M on July 28, 2005 12:57 PMWhen I had lunch with Senator Swecker at the end of May to complain about the gas tax, I suggested the public would support sensible taxation provided we get value and not social engineering.
I asked him why doesn't the transportation committee tell the Feds to back off. Afterall they contribute about 5-8% of total transportation dollars. We could gain that with effeciencies instituted after performance audits.
He claims the Feds bundle their funds in total and use the carrot & stick approach. Deny transportation dollars from the Feds and you deny law enforcement & social dollars. The legislature won't go there.
Back to the question, I would support any initiative that could pass legal muster to open HOV lanes.
Posted by: amused by liberal fools on July 28, 2005 01:01 PMyes, a cab using the HOV lane makes sense - it could be transporting an individual who does not own a car - meaning that person uses less resources than your normal car owner.
along with your public opinion survey, your post is very unscientific. citing two instances when the HOV lanes were under-used is not good science.
Posted by: charles on July 28, 2005 01:04 PMWouldn't it be easier to just run the slowpokes off the road? (don't everybody freak out...I'm only kind of sorta joking, a little)
Posted by: Danny on July 28, 2005 01:05 PMHOV lanes are a political folly. Tied to the irrationality of environmentalism and other failed mass transit such as unSound Trransit, sparsely used buses in suburban areas, etc. they are a solution in search of a problem.
One major problem with getting rid of HOV lanes is that they are heavily tied in to federal highway subsidy. So often, if we get rid of HOV, we lose federal funding. Since we've all become so addicted to the federal teats, it's going to be tricky to break us of that habit.
Not only are HOV lanes a waste, but often extra millions will be spent to build expensive flyovers and other freeway extras that are exclusively dedicated to a very small number of cars who use the HOV lanes. Or, consider the new Tacoma Narrows bridge. When completed, there will be three lanes in each direction, but one of those lanes in each direction will be an HOV lane. That brings the effective capacity of the bridge right back to where it is today. So for 849 Million, we get a bike/ pedestrian lane, and a bit wider lanes, and a $3 toll, that progresses to a $6 toll within ten years. What a deal.
The waste of government never ends, and it's always justified for the sake of some small victim class.
I was very vigorous gathering signatures for I-912. I would be ten times more vigorous in any initiative to rid the state of HOV lanes. Let's do it.
Swatter- Your Seattle elitism is showing through.
Because of Fed dollars, I don't think an initiative would work. My sollution is to require all government employees to take mass transit. Give them tax payer subsidized passes and let their buses drive the HOV lanes. Ever notice how quick the traffic moves on government holidays?
Posted by: Jeffro on July 28, 2005 01:16 PM...Enforced between 11:59:59.99 and 12:00:00.00 on Thursday nights. We know that the Feds have allowed time-specific enforcement before. :~)
Posted by: Jeremy on July 28, 2005 01:20 PMI would support a ban on HOV lanes, even if it meant the loss of federal dollars (which I don't think it would).
I'm glad to that many posters think the same thoughts as I do. HOV lanes have not encouraged people to carpool and reduce the number of cars on the road. They are instead a special privilege for people who would have multiple people in the car regardless of the existence of the HOV lanes. This is a very expensive privilege for people who have no particular reason to be awarded such a privilege.
What we need is some common sense when it comes to transportation capacity planning. (Ok, you can quit laughing now :-)
Posted by: PW on July 28, 2005 01:21 PM"Swatter- Your Seattle elitism is showing through." - oh so productive sir. i hope you're not hoping to create a worthwhile discussion.
"Obviously Swatter does not think self employed people exist-I hate to break it to Swatter,we HAVE to travel singly." - Do you work at an office? Or are you a plumber. I can see if you were a plumber (just an example) that it would be difficult to carpool. However, if you just had your own office, which didn't have legs, then I assume you would commute at a regular time (if you worked regular hours). If all of this were true, then carpooling would easily be an option. Some self-employed people do work regular hours at a regular location - therefore some can carpool. Super.
"Because of Fed dollars, I don't think an initiative would work. My sollution is to require all government employees to take mass transit. Give them tax payer subsidized passes and let their buses drive the HOV lanes. Ever notice how quick the traffic moves on government holidays?"
Talk about elitism - you want to force others to take public transportation. That seems a bit heavy-handed. I assume you wouldn't appreciate the opposite.
Yep. Bottom line, HOV lanes can't do what they intend to do, because our society is not setup to the point that even the punishment of waiting in the other lanes, is enough to encourage carpooling.
Many simply can't carpool to their small company jobs, and almost all would see no net reduction in their commute time once one factors in the additional time spent picking up their rider, etc. For all but a very few, they make no economic sense, hence, they don't get used. And if they did get used heavily, then eventually, they would slow down like the other lanes, which would remind us that the fundamental problem is lack of adequate transportation supply for the demand of our growing cities.
Just like the 55 mph speed limits, HOV lanes are a bad idea, that create more dangerous conditions on our roadways, and ultimately don't solve any problems.
Like, 55 mph, I expect them to eventually go away, but it's going to be a while.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 28, 2005 01:34 PMWith all due respect, I must say you are wrong.
The main reasons for the HOV lanes it to waste gas tax money and most importantly increase CONGESTION. The Soviet of Washington and their fellow travelers think that by increasing congestion they can FORCE people out of their cars and onto mass transit.
By wasting gas tax money the Soviet of Washington can cry all day long that they connot fix congestion without tax increases.
Yes, as a result of denying people the FREEDOM to choose how to travel, the environmental extremists can feel like they are doing something to "save Mommy Earth" while driving their environmentally filthy, pre-1980 junker. Of course, they are not smart enough to know that modern cars are MUCH cleaner than their junkers.
Posted by: JC Bob on July 28, 2005 01:34 PMThere's only one prima donna here (lofty intellectuals oughta comprehend the meaning of 'prima'), and that's the self-appointed nob who calls his fellow citizens 'sheeple'.
On the Sharkansky Poll, I vote:
1. HOV lanes are NOT cost-effictive in terms of transportation dollars. They're best at p*ssing people off. Their dollars are inefficiently used where passing traffic is the yardstick, but do create plump salaries for unelected urban planners.
2. HOV lane money is far better spent on general lane capacity. Lanes give individuals maximum freedom of choice of their own routing and scheduling.
3. I'd support such an initiative as a gesture, but someone would have to make peace with the Feds and their PC transportation policies.
Seattle has done it wrong- PDX has it right. The time enforcement of rush hour only is the right way to do it- not 24/7
I wouldn't support an initiative to get rid of them.
Posted by: Andy on July 28, 2005 01:41 PMgood points. one this item, I think I disagree with your central point: HOV lanes are pointless. They are pointless cause there is NOT an effective way to enforce its use. Thus it is mis-used. I bet I could generate thousands of dollars a day (almost a gax tax amount, a day) fining violators of the HOV lanes. I think people who think their business is so much more important than others says more about our entire community then about stupid decision making in Olympia. One this one, government might be lazy, dum and stuppid, but its the PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT WHAT IT IS: pointless.
Posted by: once AT CIty on July 28, 2005 01:53 PMQ). Who among the readers thinks that HOV lanes are a cost-effective use of transportation dollars?
A). I do not like paying for Ron Sims's & Queen Christine's chauffered limousine lanes. They are a mega waste of money that only benefit the elite, filthy rich, & metro busses.
Q). Who thinks the money spent on HOV lanes could be put to better use for general purpose capacity?
A). There are far greater priorities for our road construction money. HOV lanes are a luxury item & should be put off until we fix our more pressing needs. Heck, those discriminatory chauffered limousine lanes should be put off for good.
Q). Who would support a state-wide ballot initiative to ban all HOV lanes and turn current HOV lanes into general purpose lanes?
A). HECK YEAH! Send me the iniative petitions, or an online link where I can print some off myself, & I will gather 100 plus signatures in a snap.
Posted by: AP on July 28, 2005 02:01 PMIf you can get past the “force them into public transportation” notion, the problem is that it's myopic and ill conceived at the very core. If we all actually did live in a village…and worked there…then it might have a chance of working. The problem is that we don’t. For some commuters, there is enough stability or consistency to make a carpool work. For many others, schedule changes, shift changes, incidental meetings, random classes, etc. all work against making carpools a viable alternative. It is debatable whether or not the relative few for whom carpools can work justify the cost.
And that’s just for those with regular jobs…
It’s been a while since I’ve seen a study on this, but a very substantial percentage of people have significant reasons to be on the road that are totally incompatible with a carpool/HOV lanes alternative. Included in this population are contractors, suppliers, outside sales people, delivery people, people going to doctor and other appointments, and many others. Further, how many cars going to the airport have the same number of passengers going in each direction?
Because of these things, the crude numbers cited in earlier posts and in the DOT/social engineering info are completely disingenuous. Numbers that do not take the impossibility of a significant number of vehicles utilizing HOV lanes cannot possibly give accurate conclusions. There are a finite number of vehicles for which the switch to HOV lanes is the least bit possible, thus the maximum and idealized potential for the concept it truncated by reality.
Additionally, (and I apologize to those that have heard me say this before) one of my biggest gripes about the “planners”…a misnomer if I’ve ever heard one…is that when faced with a new project, such as the 405 mess, they’ll expand two lanes in one direction to two regular lanes plus an HOV lane. And be faced with the math in the previous post. I do think that, given a choice, most voters would opt for at least one new regular lane, and if an HOV lane is needed, then so be it. The math would change dramatically in that case. The cost would obviously be higher, but you would also not have an outraged commuting public livid about the DOT choices before the “improvements” are even completed.
Even a child can see the inherent problem of HOV lanes being the first and preferred option proffered by DOT. It’s a case of social engineers kicking and screaming when confronted by reality. They work for those that can utilize them, and represent a major annoyance and financial cost for those that cannot, which goes back to the social engineering problem.
2) The HOV bottleneck I'm most familiar with is where the westbound HOV lane merges back onto the 'regular' lanes on 520 in Medina, just before we go over the bridge. The HOV lane actually SLOWS traffic because of all the HOV users causing a clog when they have to merge back in to the other lanes. I realized that things would flow better in the long run if the HOV lanes weren't there and there was no extra merging. The HOV lanes are a pretender of a solution for traffic, instead making things even worse.
3) Because of federal funds involved, I don't think we could even get those lanes turned into something else. We might be in the position of beind asked to give the funds back!
Posted by: Michele on July 28, 2005 02:05 PMI'd rather go to a "pay to use" system. If you want to get there in a hurry - pay extra (via an electronic toll system).
Posted by: Regret on July 28, 2005 02:09 PMP.S. My answers: NO. YES, YES.
Posted by: Kevin Leo on July 28, 2005 02:11 PMIf the social engineers ever took economics, they’d know this. And if they have, then they obviously don’t care.
Saying “But the ‘haulers’ could use the HOV lanes in a free-market use tax situation” misses the point. They already are paying extra. It’s a double whammy either way.
If it turns out traffic didn't change that much. We all go on with life building HOV lanes.
If the congestion decreases dramatically, a lot of people will jump on the bandwagon to get rid of them.
No cost to this idea either.
Happy reading.
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=3360
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=17208
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=4629
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=10526
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=6192
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=16741
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=13176
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=9826
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=11182
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=11744
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=13233
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=7141
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=5522
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=7666
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=3967
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=10666
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=8948
We can't even make 2-person carpool lanes an attractive incentive. I remember when it was 4 and 5. I haven't seen a 3 in over 10 years.
HOV lanes are nothing more than a politically correct way of configuring a highway. They do nothing to inspire use of carpools. Meanwhile, the capacity goes unused, while traffic could be moving faster if the extra lanes were in general use.
If general traffic could move faster, it would reduce average trip time and therefor reduce air pollution. Importantly, it would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released per trip. Thus, the stubborn fixation our left wing transportation planners and politicians have on HOV lanes actually, at the end of the day, causes more air pollution and release of carbon dioxide than we would otherwise have.
If Mayor Nipples were really serious about his Kyoto initiative, he would be calling for HOV lanes to be removed. Of course, he is just grandstanding and cares about as much about global warmining as he does about reducing his own weight. Unfortunately, the silly "green" and ignorant Seattle voters fall for it every time.
For them, it's not reality that matters, but how we all feel about it.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on July 28, 2005 02:28 PMIt really disgusts me how much money is being spent on this - the new on/off ramps at NE6 in Bellevue just for HOV, 900 in Issaquah between the bus park and ride and I90 lanes just for HOV, plus special bus lanes and lights, in Kirkland they are ripping out stuff to put in a new HOV on ramp, and I'm sure there are a lot more. I would like to see the stats on the increase of HOV traffic relative to non-HOV traffic.
Posted by: fred on July 28, 2005 02:28 PMthere is one spot with a three person HOV lane. It is between I405 and the bridge west bound on 520. Why I don't know, but it does exist.
Posted by: fred on July 28, 2005 02:31 PMSo, yes, I would ardently support such an initiative. But let me say this, I would not be so opposed to HOV lanes if there was adequate capacity on our existing roads. It's the fact that roads like I-405 don't have enough general purpose lanes that's the problem. And it's the drivers who are paying for all these HOV lanes which we cannot use.
Posted by: Palouse on July 28, 2005 02:36 PMPAVE LAKE WASHINGTON!
Posted by: Matt Mullenix on July 28, 2005 02:45 PM"Talk about elitism - you want to force others to take public transportation. That seems a bit heavy-handed. I assume you wouldn't appreciate the opposite."
Elitism? How about the government shoving their lofty BS down our throats while they cruise around in limos and Suburbans.
I have nothing against mass transit, I took it at my last Seattle job and enjoyed it. My curent job allows me one or two days a week to carpool and I do. Most of the time my hours are to eratic to allow carpooling, as are most of the people I know that work in the private sector. The only folks that I know that have completely consistant hours on a daily basis are the government employees. Those folks should lead by example. As mentioned, I'd be more than happy to allow my tax dollars to provide free bus service to anyone that wants to ride. Provided they get rid of all fixed rail mass transit.
I would love to see the HOV lanes go away but the realistic side of me say it will never happen.
That's not to say that I wouldn't sign an initiative to get rid of them.
Posted by: Jeffro on July 28, 2005 02:50 PM
The Narrows bridge is adding a single lane each way which will be HOV. Effectively adding no new capicity, yet we'll get to pay $3 to travel to Tacoma. To top it off the buses will be exiting at Jackson ave. crossing the two GP lanes slowing the normal traffic and creating a greater potential for accidents on the bridge.
Not only should the HOV lanes be trashed. We ought to limit buses to the right lane. We already support the bus riders commute to the tune of ~$8 a trip. Why should the paying public be constantly burden by this small minorty?
You are saying something that I have railed about for years and I know many conservatives agree with.
HOV lanes are idiotic unless you want to pi$$ of commuters (presumably convincing them to take a bus or other mass transit).
As we all know (except brain dead liberals), they don't even accomplish that dubious objective.
Of course that is why liberals want more of them, you know what I mean -LIBERALISM- if it doesn't work, do more of it.
Thanks for raising the issue.
--The real "Amused by liberals"
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 28, 2005 02:56 PMI believe there are fewer Police Officers available to enforce traffic laws. In fact, like many of Washington laws, traffic seems to run on the "honor system," it's kind of scary driving these days and the average speed is often over 80 mph.
Has anyone seen recent numbers on the number of traffic accidents in the Puget Sound? I think it is way up.
Posted by: dl on July 28, 2005 03:15 PMBecareful for what you wish. Check out this link, your desire is being tested NOW in Pugetopolis by the evil Puget Sound Regional Council.
http://www.psrc.org/projects/trafficchoices/background.htm
Sorry, I had to work a little today but I would like to point a couple of things out- to Hank Bradley- yes, those sitting day after day in traffic- are sheeples. If only 25% of them got into a carpool, just think of how free the traffic would become.
Whoever thought I was a Seattle elite needs to cool down a little. I went to the UW, sure, but moved away from King County over 20 years ago. I still do work there, but as a self-employed person, I sure dictate where and when I work. I, for sure, wouldn't work in Seattle or Bellevue without living there. Thankfully, my self-employment (with employees) keep the traffic down because I don't do King County. For the time I was in King County, we carpooled and I rode the bus as much as possible.
And whomever thought that all people could carpool missed the boat. If just a few of the sheeples could carpool, traffic would be better. My question is why don't the powers that aren't make an effort to get more people carpooling because having a carpool lane ain't working right now. And I don't see it happening with unSound Transit.
Whatever happened to the Kemper Freeman and Rob McKenna solution of the third north-south freeway through FallCity and Monroe and NorthBend?
Sheeples? Yes, I stand by that.
Posted by: swatter on July 28, 2005 03:22 PMBecareful for what you wish. Check out this link, your HOT lane idea is being tested NOW in Pugetopolis by the evil Puget Sound Regional Council.
http://www.psrc.org/projects/trafficchoices/background.htm
hmm... well i'd say that the majority of government employees don't drive limos or suburbans. secondly, the majority of them don't have anything to do with HOV lanes. thirdly, most of them probably have very little to do with policy creation.
lofty BS eh... well i don't know if i'd call "HOV lanes" lofty BS. you might consider that spending so much time in your auto so that it causes you to complain about it in a public forum might just make your choice of home/work commute a bit of BS.
peas.
And this nonsense of encouraging folks to tattle on those that don't obey HOV restrictions - disgusting.
Posted by: Cheryl on July 28, 2005 03:41 PMI'm a fan of "consumption" taxes. If I use it, I pay for it, if I don't use it then I get to keep more of my hard earned $.
Posted by: SweetNSassy on July 28, 2005 03:44 PM"If only 25% of them got into a carpool, just think of how free the traffic would become."
Why not think big, since realism needn't disturb your fanasies anyway. Just issue a People's Decree - who needs that asinine democracy stuff? - that even-numbered plates are forbidden use of public rights of way on even-numbered days, and odd plates on odd-numbered days.
It needn't apply to you, of course. The prima donna thinks up the solutions, the sheeple are for implementing them.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on July 28, 2005 03:52 PMIf we are gonna get serious about improving the crappy traffic situation in Puget Sound, then the HOV lanes gotta go. It certainly would be more cost-effective than dumping millions of tax dollars into mass transit projects that most people will not use, no matter how bad the traffic gets.
Posted by: Gary on July 28, 2005 04:05 PMBut, Mr. Hank, other than being called a sheeple (and you really need to look around when you get stuck in traffic before you disagree with me), what is the problem with government pushing carpooling? They won't add the capacity that I want.
And one last thing, I have never been called an elitist before as I am moving further and further from the big city. My choice of living and working is far from the Seattle and King County elitiest crowd.
Posted by: swatter on July 28, 2005 04:24 PMTo my knowledge there are no empirical studies that have been done to show that HOV lanes have the desired effect, which is purportedly to motivate people to carpool instead of drive alone. It's obvious that people who would otherwise carpool will use the lanes, but how many can say that the main reason they carpool or use public transportation is to use the HOV lanes?
Posted by: JB on July 28, 2005 04:26 PMI am the employer. And there hasn't been a bus route or trolley route, or the like, that runs where I need to go, or when I need to go there.
So this sheeple is flying solo, and paying taxes on myself AND all my employees. Like I said before...keep out of my business, you envirofreaks.
Posted by: Danny on July 28, 2005 04:35 PMLet me say that again: Creating more general purpose lanes does not reduce congestion.
I know this seems to go against common sense, but it's the general rule.
While there's certainly an initial decrease, traffic is simply created over time to fill it.
For example, there are X number of people who live in Issaquah and communte on I-90 to Seattle every day. There are some number of people who currently would consider living in Issaquah, but choose not to because the commute is too long for them.
If you add an all-purpose lane to I-90, commute times drop initially and some of those people decide it is no worth it to them to move out to Issaquah and make the commute.
So, what happens? That new lane simply fills back up until the congestion reasserts itself and people decide once again that it's not worth it to live in Issaquah and make the commute. (Meanwhile, of course, people complain that it takes longer to commute than when they first moved out, and they call for yet another all-purpose lane to be added to the freeway.)
I agree with others above -- if you want to use the HOV lanes, find someone to carpool with!
Posted by: Michael on July 28, 2005 04:38 PMOf course, I am not a resident of Seattle (or even Washington). But, given the last election, that shouldn't be a problem, right?
alaric
Posted by: alaric on July 28, 2005 04:48 PMBe practical and don't fool around, open all traffic lanes to motor vehicles so they can be used as designed.
Then we can talk about road projects and supplemental transportation systems.
JB,
Using common sense alone one can easily support everything that you are saying as practical solutions.
I would not believe any study that says otherwise because no matter how well intentioned(not), it is too damned obvious that the coercive effect (motivate people to carpool instead of drive alone) has failed.
Who are we to believe, someone who has EVERY reason to mislead us (WSDOT under continuous liberal administrations), or our own eyes?
The studies they have performed in this regard don't actually lie, they just sandbag us by designing a study criteria that allows them to assume a desired result first and then acquire the data to support it. Unless we want unwarranted congestion for no good reason, carpool lanes don't work.
Good work.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 28, 2005 04:49 PMYou all can declare victory in the debate when I resort to name calling as a rebutal to logic and reason (see choktai's final response in the Spot the Mistake thread).
1- When used- per person thru put increases, per person emissions decrease.
2- The lane would not exist w/out the extra fed cash for this social engineering
3- the social engineering in this case is good- because the more lemmings that get shoved into a single shiny metal box in the daily commute- the less local tax dollars get extracted from us outside of KC.
4- The PDX use- I'll defend too- rush hour is predictable and the most likely time when people who CAN pool WILL- where as prohibiting the use during off hours when the congestion is more than likely due to a bender up the line is really just punishing people for being out and about. Give us the lane back outside of rush hour.
A more effective use of the cash would be in technology to help businesses support telecommuting- a few years back when they were doing work on the bridge between vancouver and Jantsen beach- it was publisized that there would be only one lane available- and businesses were encouraged to car pool or telecommute- well for that week the single lane was barely used...so it is in theory something that might be more effective than the HOV lane and would foster investment in technology instead of asphalt.
Posted by: Andy on July 28, 2005 04:57 PMMichael,
It goes against common sense because it is wrong. Some things that are counterintuitive are correct and therefore brilliant, but most things that are counterintiutive are simply wrong.
You give an example of more GP lanes, followed by more cars using them, i.e. more actual TRANSPORTATION taking place. That is the WHOLE F***ING POINT.
By your logic -- and I use the term loosely -- fewer GP lanes are always better, and we would have the exact same amount of congestion if we took I-5, I-405 and SR-520 all down to one lane each, or maybe just closed them down altogether. Rubbish.
Instead of people paying their taxes and wishing, oh gosh, that they could live in Issaquah, except that you just can't bl**dy get there, wouldn't be nice if the Department of (*ahem*) TRANSPORTATION, humble public servants sucking up our tax money, might actually try to facilitate the process of TRANSPORTATION???
What a concept.
I'll sign any initiative to blowtorch those little white diamonds, and any initiative to have Doug McDonald tarred, feathered and banished from the state.
Posted by: TB on July 28, 2005 05:03 PMWe (justifiably) get ticked at the Liberals for their tax and spend attitude ... steal from us so that they can spend it on their pet "feel good" projects. But how is your demand for more lanes any different?
Yes tax dollars may have already paid for those HOV lanes but face some facts here ... we cannot keep adding more lanes to slake the insatiable, lust to drive when, where and as fast as you like. There just isn't enough available land or tax dollars to do what you demand. We *must* do what we can to encourage higher density usage of our transportation corridors or we'll choke on the exhaust and taxes.
At the very least the HOV lane is used by the buses to give them the fighting chance of keeping to a schedule. Drop them and everybody that takes the bus would be in their cars parked along side you guys. Gosh, good solution.
Posted by: lee egg on July 28, 2005 05:13 PMof course egg is right, it would probably cost 6-7 million to paint over the diamonds and take down the signs..............ahhhhh, scrap that idea.
Posted by: Scotty on July 28, 2005 05:17 PMYou say:"fortunate to have a rider, I marvel at all the sheeples that are just sitting in their cars and waiting. I, for the life of me, can't figure out why each of these drivers are so important that they can't find someone to carpool with.
Interesting that you recognize the manifestations of a relevant dilemma, glibly pay tribute to your hapless immunity from it, and then act as if it is hard to figure out people (those silly sheeples) who are not so LUCKY, all in one single breathtakingly arrogant statement.
I hope for your sake that you don't try that hard to make the rest of your life fit into little insular compartments so easily. Very few things in life work that way, and transportation in a thriving economy is one that certainly does not. Alas, my hopes are probably for naught.
No matter how you slice it, most people (in your parlance sheeples) including you are motivated by self interest.
The truth is, if it was easier and less expensive to use some alternative to achieve the necessary results, most people will do so.
It ain't, so they don't.
Although I personally perfer driving (and think most people do) we do face a physical constraint on the size of highways, and the number of cars you can fit on them. Mass transit is a sensible solution... that is, if you didn't have politically controlled burecrats deciding how to run the mass transit system without any reference to market forces.
Posted by: madmartagan on July 28, 2005 05:27 PMSo someone asked about why there is a 3 person carpool lane on 520, instead of two. It's for a historical reason. The lane was established with state money before the federal HOV program really kicked in and the DOT chose 3 people as thier limit, feds mandate 2. So why is it still that way? Back when I commuted that way on 520 and I was bothering the DOT about it I found a they did a study (actually fairly detailed) and they realized that by lowering it to two people they would nearly double the amount of people trying to merge in at the end of the lane causing 520 to backup even more. Which actually sounds pretty logical to me given that we know most people can't merge worth a damn, especially in the blinding sunlight you get on that rise and on thier cellphone. I suggested to the DOT to remove it or make it 'bus only' because it's currently only purpose as far as I can tell is to keep the busses on a bit more on time. It's pointless until you get a lane ON the bridge all the way to I-5. At the very least removing it would give disabled cars a place to go, which they currently do not have there.
Also there are a few people asking for dedicated truck lanes. A while back a bill was introduced in congress to establish dedicated truck lanes on the interstate system nationwide. It died when a congressman got up and said: "We already have them. They are called railroads." I love that story, always have. Of course that is nationally, it may work somewhat in metro areas but I suspect the cost/benefit would be even worse than the HOV lane given the nature of trucking in the metro area. First we need to establish a limit where it's congested alot. Over 10K pounds and not a bus? You gotta stay in the right lane, no exceptions. This means I'm not sitting behind you while you are stopped to try to create a 100ft gap you can merge into cause you just HAD to pass that other truck.
Posted by: chokai on July 28, 2005 05:33 PMIf you choose to live far away from your job, fine. But it is not my responsibility to subsidize you with my tax dollars so you can get home to Duvall in 20 minutes. If you choose to drive alone, fine. But we need HOV lanes to move transit alternatives like buses and carpools around quickly.
I have two kids in separate schools and my wife and I both work. We have one car. She buses in while I drop the kids off and drive in. I bus out while she drives out to pick them up. I realize this doesn't work for everyone. But if you really look at your life you can find ways to carpool, use transit, or work from home.
If you want me to pay with my tax dollars for your desire to drive alone at a rapid speed, well then, that is where I get off the bus(pun intended)
Posted by: bfree2think on July 28, 2005 05:39 PMThe anti-HOV arguement I see here is a very Liberal/Socialist one ...
"Yes, I know they're making more money (going faster) than I am, and yes, they *worked* and or sacrified to get that money (use the HOV lanes or bus) but damn, it I *deserve* what they have. gimme gimme gimme."
Jeez people when it comes to public transportation you sound like spoiled children ... "well a limo doesn't pull up to my door every morning right when I want it to, so this whole public transit is just a waste of money. Oh, by the way, can I have more money to buy more lanes so I can drive?"
Don't get me wrong boondoggles like the monorail need certain death, but we've gotta do a better job of moving more people faster and adding more lanes is not the answer.
Posted by: lee egg on July 28, 2005 05:40 PMI have to say, three lanes crawling and one moving at the speed of the slowest octegenarian carpooler is sub-optimal. I really prefer the Chicago option. 3-5 lanes (depending where you are) each way, plus a two lane express lane that feeds into the city in the mornings and out of it in the evenings. So your 8 lane highway morning commute is now 5 lanes in to town, 3 local, 2 express, and 3 lanes out of town. This means you can get on the express lane and cruise into town away from all the trucks, and if somebody insists on doing 45 in a 90 (umm, I mean, 65) zone, you can pass them.
But other than the traffic, the pizza, and the hurricanes, Chicago has nothing on NY. Seriously. No sarcasm intended. What?
Posted by: Dr_Mike on July 28, 2005 05:42 PMIt doesn't work here where it is unlikely anyone around you works anywhere around where you do.
'Tis more socialist bullshit, bluntly.
Only *ONCE* in my working career did someone I work with live close enough to me to carpool (and it was far enough to loose the time on the clogged surface streets here to pick up the other that it was debatible as to whether it really did us any good or not).
Every time I have ever been out on the express ways (hahahaha) the carpool lanes are virtually empty with rare exceptions. Those in the carpool lanes are dangerous getting into and out of them. They are also moving at an incredible speed differential of the rest of the road, a real invitation to disaster ( The police tell me not to exceed the speed of surrounding traffic and we have this?).
Road capacity is cut between 25% to 33 1/3% all over the place, could this possibly make congestion of an already saturated area worse?
More corruption and incompetence in the WA / Scabattle governments (as well as the federal socialist bureaucraps).
They can tell me how well it works all day long and I know they wish I was stupid enough to believe my "betters".
/disgusted with WA and leaving soon.
Posted by: Fox3 on July 28, 2005 06:04 PM"what is the problem with government pushing carpooling?"
Not much, except it's antidemocratic. The gummint is supposed to LISTEN to the people, not exhort or harangue or bully them. And carpooling is impractical in general, which is why individuals don't freely choose to do it despite the sanctimonious preaching of their betters.
Those who think their neighbors are 'sheeple' may think it's proper to impose unwelcome behavior on them, but then it is equally proper for every one of those sheeple to impose some unwelcome behavior on you - all for the public good, of course. And don't complain if their exhortations are too loud or smell of chewing tobacco or disturb your communion with the Holy Spirit - the right of the sheeple to preach at you is no less than yours to harangue them.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on July 28, 2005 06:33 PMFirst, I'd love to see where a free market economist endorses HOV lanes.
Second, free market economists do like incentives, but HOV lanes are not an incentive, they are a punishment. If you can't drive with a carpool for whatever reason on any given day, then HOV lanes penalize you with being squeezed into a smaller number of lanes. In this sense, HOT lanes are more fair, but HOT lanes are more about revenue than they are about increasing traffic, or simply giving the same throughput to everyone by eliminating HOV lanes altogether.
My prediction is that over time, as accident rates increase, congestion increases and through vocal lobbying, etc. HOV lanes will eventually give way to HOT lanes. Once the diamonds are in place, they're not going away without a huge fight, the only thing the government will see is the $$$$$ of more revenue, that HOT lanes will provide while still being able to point to the environmentalist / feel good sham of higher occupancy vehicles.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 28, 2005 06:35 PMSo, they do NOT cause people to change their habits. Since they do not change the percentage of people car-pooling, the fact that they cost more than a general-use lane makes them a waste of money.
That said, on circumferential highways like I-405, HOV makes less sense, because of the dispersed nature of the suburban job market.
WSDOT is planning to implement HOT lanes on SR-167 through the Kent Valley, and it should be interesting.
The biggest thing (and relatively cheap) the state could do to fix traffic is to restripe and modify I-5 through downtown Seattle with its incredibly confusing lane drops and exit only lanes. Starting at the Ship Canal bridge maybe only one or two lanes get to south Seattle without requiring a lane change.
But due to geography (and cash money), the prospects for a wholesale expansion of the region's highways is bleak at best.
Posted by: DaveJ on July 28, 2005 06:44 PMThat's a nice pipe dream, but it's a long ways from today's reality in the Puget Sound. I've yet to see one workable, sensible long range mass transit plan, or even any sensible plan for increasing capacity on the only viable current means of transit which is our roads.
It's nice to dream about becoming more efficient, but that's not really a luxury we have until we deal with the basic congestion problems.
As long as it's more economically sensible for the vast majority of people to get into their cars each morning to get from A to B, that's the option they will choose. We could try to dream up a lot of elaborate taxation, carpool and other disincentives like HOV lanes to stop people from getting into their cards, but do most people really have a choice without moving, or changing jobs as to how they would commute?
Nope.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 28, 2005 06:47 PMWell said. I actually agree that for a few very high use choke points like the Bay Bridge in CA, or I-90 across the lake, there might be some sense to the throughput argument, and you are right, that's exactly how traffic engineers view success.
To a traffic engineer, nirvana is a very slow moving set of general purpose lanes with traffic at bumper to bumper density, coupled with 50 - 75 percent utilization of the HOV lane. A lot of throughput, but huge latency.
Lame. Punish every one else for the benefit of a utopian privledged class.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 28, 2005 06:58 PMI work for Boeing near Boeing Field and live in Federal Way. My hours are from 6:00 am to 2:30 pm. I am never in conjestion.
Regards,
Paul
Posted by: Paul Stone on July 28, 2005 07:18 PMHistorically we approached road & infrastructure building based on a straight-forward test: Did we need it and could we afford it. Until the Feds got involved it was generally a good thing.
HOV lanes exist for two reasons:
1. Pinheaded social engineers impose them on us in their efforts to jam us into their preconceived image of reality.
2. Revenue enhancement.
HOV lanes, car-pooling, "mass transit" - their "success" leads to their own failure. A successful HOV lane can only operate at 10 - 15% capacity. Any more and it bogs down to the same pace as its GP neighbors. So most of the time you can look at any HOV lane and it will either be: ribbons of empty concrete, or jammed up like the rest of the highway.
A quick review of the comments reveals that:
* Almost everybody hates HOV lanes and would do away with them if they could.
* We all would take advantage of them if we could.
* "Everybody hates a cheater", but apparently not everybody because there are so many cheaters (personally, I lol every time I witness an HOV "violator")
* People who can't use the lane view people who do as a benefit to having a child in the car as cheaters.
* Limited (Read special) use lanes create and perpetuate the sort of class warfare that is detrimental to living in cramped quarters.
Lefties, in their perpetual pessimism have declared "adding more lanes is not the answer" when it is precisely the answer. Their "logic" dictates that "If we succumb to the temptation of continual road building as a response to greater need, soon all we will have is concrete". Absolute nonsense, of course, but that doesn't stop them from preaching it.
Many will criticize Metro and Sound transit, but it isn't because we don't value mass transit, it is because we abhor wasteful spending and abysmal mismanagement.
Every time I see an empty bus on the highway (seems like about 80% of the time!) who can blame me for thinking, "What idiot plans that route!"
We are suffering the effects of almost 30 years of ignorant and divisive transportation "planning". We are paying the price for failing to address our needs. In some respects we have "painted ourselves into a corner" with dimwitted decisions like the convention center and HOV lanes. The social planners made certain that we would have to go along with their model by making any alternative impossibly difficult (expensive). Thank you liberals.
My votes:
1. No!
2. Yes!
3. YES!
Hmm. No doubt carpool lanes are a control mechanism of the Matrix and are simply designed to grant us the illusion of choice. (I couldn't resist)
Posted by: chokai on July 28, 2005 07:39 PMMegadittos on everything you said, except one.
You think we've painted ourselves into a corner with the Convention Center? I think not. When is the last time you used the Convention Center? And when is the last time you used I-5?
Honestly, I haven't really figured out the 3D space requirements for putting a couple more lanes in each direction. I don't know if we're talking about losing a couple of meeting rooms or taking out the whole thing, but if that's the main obstacle standing between us and more capacity on I-5, I say we lose it.
Heck, we blew up the Kingdome, which was much bigger, and that wasn't even blocking anything, just not as pretty as everyone wanted.
Posted by: TB on July 28, 2005 07:55 PMWhere there is a will.....
Of course we're not yet finished paying for that Kingdome we flattened (just another illustration of poor planning), but if we could convince the all-powerful WSDOT and city planners to sacrifice the convention center for a bit of transportation relief, I'd light off the fuse myself!
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 28, 2005 08:05 PMIn fact...when my husband and I carpooled together for a while we often commented about how unfair it was that we were sailing thought traffic and the poor people with no carpool...who pay as much in taxes as we do...were being penalized because they for whatever reason were not able to take advantage of the HOV lane. Carpoolling only works if you have consistant hours and you are able to be without your vehicle all day...taxpayers should not be penalized if they don't have these abilities.
Posted by: Lisa on July 28, 2005 08:08 PMI hate to be a party pooper here, but I use the HOV lanes everyday and could not keep my job if they were not available. I commute from Puyallup to Bellvue everyday - I drive a Pierce Transit vanpool. I can't afford to live in King County and have been with my company for 15 years, so I don't really want to look for a new job.
My problem is that if there were actually a bus from Pierce County that went to the eastside (including Sound Transit) it would be a lifesaver. However, the nearest bus for me that does this is 15 miles away. Unless I want to spend 2 hours going to Seattle first and then transferring and taking another across the lake to Bellevue.
If this state wanted to raise some money, they would patrol the HOV lanes more for "cheaters." I see it everyday. And the worst thing is, its usually the folks that are riding by themselves that get frustrated and pull out into the HOV lanes without looking that cause the accidents. I've seen this happen many times. I've been driving this commute for seven years and have never been in an accident.
If you live in and around the Seattle area, you have many alternative commute options. If you don't, like me, the HOV lanes are a must.
Posted by: Thebergs3 on July 28, 2005 08:20 PMTake the HOV lanes and those others.
How many times have we who drive fastly but safely been glad to have a passenger or two to get into the HOV lane and really get moving? And to find someone up ahead who is old, or female, or stupid in the HOV lane chugging along at a safe sane 5 or 10 miles below the speed limit.
If we had people who know how to drive they would know that the object of the freeway is to move traffic.
They would also know that buses, trucks, recreational vehicles, and slow thinking, acting, and reacting old people should stay in the right hand slow lane. Trucks could only use the middle lane to pass.
The middle lane should be used for faster traffic. How often have you driven on the freeway and seen completely unconcious slowpokes jam the traffic flow up in a most hazardous, road rage inciting manner, and refuse to move over to let others pass them, refuse to speed up, and refuse to have a clue?
In an ideal situalion where we can really move traffic we'd have the slower heavy vehicles and elderly drivers, (I'm 73) keep their cars in the slow lane. The faster drivers could easily pass the slow lane folks. And if the slowpokes would get over so the faster people could make progress that too would reduce road rage and speed up traffic.
And finally, the HOV lane could be set aside for fast traffic. Folks passing through and on their way to somewhere else could do it. This would mean of course that the laws will have to be changed to allow this common sense solution come to pass.
Like another poster said, the law isn't about justice--nor is it about common sense. It is what the politicians and legislature says it is.
Posted by: Steve E. Weevil on July 28, 2005 08:40 PMThe HOV lanes as they are set up around Puget Sound are pointless. As a kid, it troubled me that I could drive with my mom in the HOV lane. We weren't saving the environment by carpooling, I was 8 and that was the only arrangement that would work.
It troubles me that when illegally driving in the HOV lane, the biggest worry is getting ratted on by angry left-wing Geo Metro drivers. I dont' like the idea of citizens policing traffic, but if they can rat on you for driving alone in the HOV lane, people should also be able to rat on eachother for speeding and running red lights and failing to yield.
Busses often slow the HOV down to nearly the speed of the rest of traffic.
My solution is radical, but it is this:
Make half the lanes of all congested roads "HOV" during rush hour, and make all lanes normal usuage for the remainder of the day. It will be painful at first, but I think that is the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, since the left is mortified of nuclear energy and producing any other type of alternative fuel consumes more energyduring the production process than it yields later on when consumed.
I hate the idea of the government telling you how to drive, and if that does not include this idea, it is awfully close. But if we insist on having HOV lanes, there should be more. The incentive has to be greater. And I think almost regardless, all HOV lanes now should be designated as general usage during non-peak times.
Posted by: ARS on July 28, 2005 08:46 PMThose of us who pay the bills around here need to get where we're going. We can afford to pay to be in fast moving traffic.
The single mother in a mini-van full of screaming kids blabbing on her cell phone... her time is worthless. Let her sit there. It doesn't matter when she arrives.
Free market economics is the answer. Those of us who can afford to pay to move around quickly should be given the opportunity to do so. Lexus Lane pricing should be dynamic based on real time congestion conditions such that if the lanes slow down, the price goes up. That drives out some people who can't afford it, or whose time isn't worth so much.
Posted by: Mark on July 28, 2005 08:54 PMCongratulations. You are one of the relative few who are able to accommodate yourself to the system in order to work within its constraints.
Come on now. You could and likely would find a way to keep your job if your circumstances were to change. Right now the HOV lanes work to your advantage and I can't fault you for taking that advantage. They are not however, a "must".
What if everybody were to do as the leftist enviro-whackos implore us to do and gave up their cars in favor of the bus (or, in your case, a carpool)? Can you see everyone trying to cram themselves into the HOV lane? (a bit preposterous, I know, but bear with me). If we gain much more than a percentage point or two, the grand mass transit scheme is going to collapse of its own weight.
It only works because a small percentage avail themselves of it.
My job takes me on the road approximately 85 miles per day. I witness accidents almost daily, and they are caused by:
* Failure to yield
* Poor roadway engineering
* Overcrowding
* Ignorant drivers
For every one of your "frustrated drivers" causing an accident, I have seen three "multiple use" cars or busses cause accidents for the same reason (jamming themselves into or out of the HOV lane).
I believe that the worst element of the HOV phenomena is the resentment that it inspires. You yourself deplore the "cheaters". Most drivers stuck in the GP lanes despise the carpoolers. It is all so needless.
Thank you liberals.
I have a better solution to this mess: make the HOV lanes a toll lane. If you want to avoid the hassle, pay a little extra per trip. You'd need some method of flagging cars that had paid for the trip, but that could be worked out quite simply.
Posted by: ben on July 28, 2005 09:06 PMSeeing how you don't know me, you certainly seem to assume quite a bit about me.
I'll be the first to admit that vanpooling is not easy and takes commitment. I would love to know what solution you have in mind when you say that you're sure I could find another commute option. I could drive by myself - that would help the current traffic problems in the Puget Sound area.
You also seem to assume I'm a liberal. Hello...
I'm not. I'm trying to find the most efficient, cost effective method to get to work. My employer goes out of its way to encourage alternative forms of transportation and asks all employees to do their part.
I agree that there should be limitations on what size vehicles should be able to travel in the HOV lanes. This just adds to the problem. In many places like 167 and 405 there are time limits on when (5am - 7pm) when the lanes are restricted. Maybe these should be adjusted even more.
But please don't pretend to think that you have all of the answers for my situation or anyone else's. Or that because I'm an HOV advocate, I'm automatically a liberal. I'm the exact opposite. I appreciate the HOV lanes because they are a vital part of my ability to keep my job and to be able to afford a house - not in King County!
Posted by: Thebergs3 on July 28, 2005 09:18 PMSpeed reducing pollution is a relative thing though. My car gets better mileage at 55 than it does at 65, I know many other cars are similar if they are a little older.
Posted by: chokai on July 28, 2005 09:23 PMAs these lanes are implemented - our traffic problems grow! When our traffic problems grow - the liberals in our local government- hire an expensive *task force* to come up with yet another excuse to raise our taxes! They will have to raise our taxes to implement a *toll* system for the HOV lanes! Doh!
So the liberal government *creates* the traffic problem by changing to HOV lanes - then they spend millions more on a *Blue Ribbon* task force to come up with the idea to charge a toll to drive in the HOV lanes! This not only increases the danger but puts a strain on our traffic enforcement officers!
While they salivate over the prospect of revenue from the tolls...they decide to also increase our gas taxes! The Liberal Democrats have caused these problems. They have been enjoying some sick revenue orgy with insane projects that are guaranteed to keep us paying through the nose for decades!
Our Washington State Democrat Governor and Democrat run Legislature are completely out of control...
Posted by: Deborah on July 28, 2005 09:27 PMI have few pretenses about specific solutions - look again at my post. I said that I don't begrudge you for being in a position to take advantage of a good deal. You have yourself a nice house out in the suburbs - bully for you. As for the larger perspective - HOV lanes are counter-productive on the whole and should be eliminated.
You "appreciate" the HOV lanes because they (currently) work for you. Don't get too complacent about that. As long as leftists are in positions of authority this will remain another aspect of their grand "social experiment". There are two things liberals are notorious for: Spending other people's money and creating solutions in search of a problem.
They will find a way to make further encroachments on your situation, just as they do everyone else's. Enjoy it while it lasts....
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 28, 2005 09:52 PMThese anti-HOV arguments boil down to:
1) the typical Liberal Moral Rationalizations "I don't agree with the HOV law so I'll drive in the lane and get mad when I'm caught"
2) the Democrat "take from the people who have worked for it 'cause I deserve it and they're just 'lucky'"
3) The Socialist attitude of "the government should support my lifestyle"
4) another typical Liberal argument (better known as insanity) "well, I know we've poured a lot of money into this road building program and the fact that we're seeing no progress just means we just have to pour more money in" (insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result each time).
You're acting like the people who buy homes next to the airport then complain about the noise.
Come on people. You all made choices. Don't be a Liberal/Socialist/Communist. Be a conservative, responsible adult and accept the consequences of your choices.
Posted by: lee egg on July 28, 2005 10:05 PMThe HOV lane has problems (it needs to always be on the right) but ...
Take out the HOV lane and the buses become ridiculously unusable. The very next day all those people that you presently despise will be right alongside you as you all "park to work".
Your whining will have solved nothing except to reduce everyone to the slowest common denominator.
How very Socialist of you.
Posted by: lee egg on July 28, 2005 10:13 PMI'm looking for the logic or coherency in your last posting and coming up empty.
Your summary of the anti-HOV arguments seems lacking in factual basis:
1) "the typical Liberal Moral Rationalizations 'I don't agree with the HOV law so I'll drive in the lane and get mad when I'm caught'"
-- This is not the Gestalt I get out of this thread. Would you be so kind as to provide a few examples of people who have said this?
2) "the Democrat 'take from the people who have worked for it 'cause I deserve it and they're just 'lucky''
-- From which I infer that you are implying that carpoolers and bus riders are enjoying the fruits of their labor? Hmmm. They seem to be using asphalt that was 95% paid for by SOV taxpayers... not sure how that amounts to enjoying the fruits of their labor.
3) "The Socialist attitude of 'the government should support my lifestyle'"
-- No. The government should build the same, simple roads for everyone to drive on equally. Segregating motorists and letting a select few drive in a special lane with diamonds painted in it sounds more like the government supporting a specific lifestyle.
4) "another typical Liberal argument (better known as insanity) 'well, I know we've poured a lot of money into this road building program and the fact that we're seeing no progress just means we just have to pour more money in'"
-- What we have here is a failure to communicate. What we are recommending is not pouring more money into HOV lanes; we want to stop pouring good money after bad (i.e. stop building special HOV onramps, etc.) and do a remarkably low-cost fix for the whole system (i.e. fix a blowtorch to the bottom of a WSDOT stripe-painting truck, burn away the diamond lanes, and repaint. Bada-boom, bada-bing.
You were paying attention to all of the previous posts, weren't you?
Posted by: TB on July 28, 2005 10:36 PMI heard a national radio host say (a few years ago) that the PEOPLE have voted for mass transit - and the number one mass transit method they selected was the single occupancy vehicle.
Foes of SOV (sounds close to SUV doesn't it?) are really for the government dictating how, when, and where you can move around. Freedom of movement is one of the biggest liberties we have.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 28, 2005 10:36 PMHOV lanes are unsafe as already stated, and they cause problems because the reduction of general purpose lanes creates a false 'traffic jam' for which the HOV lanes are touted as a solution.
Ramp meters are useful only when there's an accident nearby, but unless you put the light before the entrance to the ramp, you're too late to do any good. Also since they were added after the fact, they make the ramp too short to get up to speed in order to merge effectively, creating more traffic problems.
Both come from the mindset of the arson starting a fire in order to take credit for putting it out...
Posted by: NewtotheSound on July 28, 2005 11:12 PMThe reason these people (5%-10% of population)will continue to ride the bus is the value of the ride. Reduced gas cost, no parking cost, no stress, car takes less abuse. That works for some people, just not me unless it's to a seahawk or husky game from a park-and-ride.
Hey, I'd ride the bus if it went from my house to my work, then was available to take me to my fast food place of choice at lunchtime, then return home when my workday is done. Nevermind, there is no way I'd ride the bus. I need my freedom.
Public Transit (5%-10%) = cheap ride, who cares how long it takes, I sure don't.
General Population in other vehicles (90-95%) = faster commute, we all care how long it takes.
Even by the WSDOT figures you would sadly lose your bet. They assume full buses on all runs and the buses are RARELY EVEN CLOSE to full even during the prime commutes. I find it hilarious that people are so easily conned by this stupid rationale.
This is a liberal socialist justificatory approach to traffic, unless you want to live in a radical socialist country. In some ways, that we are and liberals want more. Fu*k em.
If that is what you want, move to France. Then tell me that when you lack resources, good policy is to fit people (and production)to manufactured perceptions of limitations rather than the opposite.
People who are able to carpool already have a built in advantage. The rationale to punish those who cannot, in order to coerce them into it is fascist, counterproductive, and self defeating. It is characteristically liberal though.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 28, 2005 11:20 PMThere is NO SUCH THING as a RIGHT to drive on publicly funded road ways. "Freedom of movement" simply means that you can choose where to go. It does not mean that the taxpayer has to pay for a road for you to drive on at the speed you wish.
Why then do Governments spend money building roads? Because there are a lot of positive externalities connected to building them. (In other words it "promotes the general welfare") Might I also point out that the Interstates were not built for transportation at all. They were built for the Army so that if the Soviets started WWIII the Army would be able to move troops across the United States.
If HOV lanes "promote the general welfare" by increasing the number of people who can use the current road space then it is a good thing and a legitimate regulation by government of publicly owned recources. Personally I am skeptical that current HOV lanes are actually an efficent use of the public road space. But if was more efficent it would be a legitimate regulation. I still feel that it would be best to move the HOV lanes over to right lane. Or maybe close it off from the rest of the highway and make it bus only. Of course our bus routes would have to be better managed... I wonder, if the government provided license to private busing companies to use these theoretical bus only lanes, could we privatize the bus system? That would result in greater efficencies in the bus system... and maybe the bus system would improve in atracting more riders...
Hmm... the difficulty would be in providing sufficent "in city" transportation during the day... maybe that would have to remain subsidized... I wish there was a mass transit expert free market economist around to analyze the possibilities.
Posted by: madmartagan on July 28, 2005 11:29 PMDo you really *think* IMAGINE that opening up the HOV lanes wouldn't help (decrease traffic congestion)?
You get real. This is not a difficult concept to deal with. Without any possible doubt it would.
If you actually believe the HOV lanes mitigate traffic congestion in any meaningful way, please explain the basis for your belief.
Let me guess, "it's a real neat idea so it must work," or "I read a study that says HOV lanes reduce traffic congestion."
This is pure partisan politics (liberal social engineering) not practical traffic engineering. No one, WSDOT or other has ever released raw statistics upon which an authoritative analysis can be made to determine if HOV lanes actually relieve congestion. I suspect it is because it would prove they don't.
All studies released in the past by WSDOT use conditional limitations as criteria based on broad assumptions rather than hard data to form their conclusions including radically false assumptions of mass transit ridership. Its only common sense to recognize that very few people who use HOV lanes would change their arrangements if it didn't exist, and if the lanes were open to all traffic, ALL traffic would move faster. There is no rational way to argue with that unless you actually believe that people in significant numbers carpool, they do it because of the HOV lanes, and more lanes allowing more vehicles does not mean faster flowing traffic. If you believe that, say hi to the tooth fairy for me.
Thanks anyway.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 28, 2005 11:58 PMo.k. let's bring some points up... finally - since they should have been here right away.
a. all you expressway commuters - you're using way more resources than you should - oil -> war -> true. george bush will quote this directly. look it up. we need the oil. it's a security issue. dead men and women are dying for you.
b. all you expressway commuters - killing your children - destroying the environment for future generations - do you really hate your kids that much?
c. all you expressway commuters - the more lanes -> the more commuters -> more people will live farther away -> more time in cars -> more bitching -> more people thinking work really includes a two hour commute
d. driving around in a two-ton or more car is your right? get a clue -> you're use of resources is ridiculously excessive.
e. public transport doesn't work for you? duh. you live in the f'in suburbs -> you commute to seattle every day -> you and your suburbanite friends don't have the cajones to decide collectively to take public transport -> so of course it doesn't work -> so you're sitting here bitching about waiting in line in traffic when you choice of transportation takes up 20x or more of the space your person takes up. -> duh you're going to be stuck in traffic.
f. it's your choice. it's our collective choice. if we all want to drive auto's around we're going to deal with traffic. stop bitching. it's your fault. either ride a bike, ride a bus, or walk to work. don't live close enough to make this practical? either lose some weight or move. think it's too expensive to live in seattle? then don't work here.
g. stop bitching about HOV lanes. HOV lanes aren't the problem and removing them won't solve the problem of traffic congestion. the problem is the area taken up by a single driver (the area of a car) and this compounded by every other person who commutes in a car.
h. there's more to life than economics. hence there's more to life than money. long-term thinking is way out of range of most people - but realistically you must admit it's a worthwhile process.
i. incase you didn't catch it yet - the density of people moved per square foot of traffic space is not good enough. you're too blame. we're all to blame - unless you carpool, better yet ride a bus, or better yet cycle or walk to work. otherwise - your 'problem' is self-created. deal with it.
If you enlightened ones who believe that HOV lanes are a good thing are so convinced, why not move to restrict traffic lanes more?
All lanes should have at least three riders, and the badly congested ones four. Place standards on cars that make it prohibitive to drive them at all (of course unless they're rich) or have a permit fining them $10,000 if they are cought without the correct number of riders. Force us out of our cars onto busses by spending huge sums building new lanes on the major routes but only allowing buses to use them. Build forced community centers for buses in each major area and reduce parking in these areas so that using an automobile is almost totally impractical.
Increase fees until only the rich can afford RV's, hot rods, petroleum powered boats, small aircraft. Tax gasoline at a rate that is prohibitive and give dominion of the money over to government bureaucrats to manage as they see fit.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 29, 2005 12:14 AMBack to the HOV lanes. I have used the HOV lanes on 405 between Bellevue and Tukwila many times. Every time I'm in that lane, I think how wonderful it is to pass everybody up and get home. Then I look in the mirror and see my precious grandbabies in the vehicle, and I realize these lanes are death traps. You have to keep your eyes trained every second for the people in the regular lanes who suddenly get the idea that they've had enough and their agenda is too important for them to sit in traffic. They whip out into the HOV lanes without even looking. It happens all day long. No matter how much I like that "advantage" on the rare occasions when I get to use those lanes, I must honestly admit that the lanes are truly dangerous, and it is ridiculous to waste that expensive strip of highway when it could be used to clear up congestion.
Posted by: lksimstrailgrammy on July 29, 2005 12:24 AMYes I agree about the backup in the normal lanes... however, a huge portion of it is caused by those stupid stop lights on the onramps to block people from getting onto the freeway! When those are turned off on occasion there are generally not the huge pileups.
Posted by: Sue on July 29, 2005 05:17 AMbut I am changing my thoughts; now, i'm about 50-50 for them; i initially thought the emission and capacity-per-unit arguments were good, (i still llike buses) but realized in practice that everyone does not work a clean, consistent 9-5 day near each other; my job can have busy seasons and OT, much less attending to kids; some people smoke & wont carpool; others like me are just crabby in the am and dont want to chitter chatter with anyone; how does one commute, tote kids, tote kid's stuff and other passengers all at once? even in a bus? thus my car; the speed differential and collisions are a concern, too with many close calls;
do i like the faster commute? selfishly, yes. should it be 24 hr restricted? no; like it or not, people like to drive and work different ways; planners will never admit that as a given;
i liked the lanes for my selfish interest, but if it helps everyone's flow to open them up or elim. then, ok--that was the goal, right? sitting in traffic certainly creates more fumes and is harder on one's car; bus it or carpool it if it works for you, but drivers are a reality the planning folks keep denying; also, if we had a great commuter system like the BART or Chicago's trains or like other transit cities, i'm sure many would use that mode; I agreee with Sue--taking 3 busses and transferring for hours does not cut it even IF they have your route serviced; add kids to that mix and your'e back in your car!
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 29, 2005 06:48 AMI do know one thing, I don't have the patience of sheeples today. I would have found a way to carpool or I would have moved to where I work.
People on this thread haven't figured out that we need another north-south freeway through the Metropolitan area. We also need to convince employers that they need to relocate to where their employees are and not to be in Seattle-Bellevue. We need another regional airport.
We need to get rid of Sound Transit and use that money to build the Seattle bypass freeway.
And, we need to spend money to get people into carpools by hook or by crook. But not by law.
Posted by: swatter on July 29, 2005 07:40 AMThose "stupid stop lights" somewhat solve the problem of the total and complete inability of people to merge. They create an artificial gap so that grandma has a chance to get into traffic before the next car pulls up behind her. This avoids backing up the mainline. They keep the majority of traffic already on the freeway moving by keeping the merge rate into the highway regular, rather than coming in clumps as the light at the nearest intersection changes and grinding to a halt at the bottom of the ramp because there are to many cars at once. They actually do work, not perfect but better than most things and certainly better than nothing, and my experiences with the ones on I-5 over the last 5 years was enough to prove it to me.
Posted by: chokai on July 29, 2005 08:04 AMThanks for being the only forward thinker posting here. I believe that we all care about our kids and the world we leave them. But many of us just can't afford to live close enough to work to walk or bike. As I posted previously, I took Metro for many years and loved it (just for the record, I'm a conservative). I also carpool 1-2 days per week at my current job, love that too. Fact is, our regional economy is still slow and Seattle happens to be the largest employment center in the area. Therefore, many of us have to go where the work is and live where we can afford housing and raise a family. I care dearly for everything that I leave for my children. But scarcely used HOV lanes aren't going to save the world.
Swatter - sorry I called you a Seattle elitist. You make some good points- but I still don't feel wooly.
Posted by: Jeffro on July 29, 2005 08:36 AM
I would definitely put the HOV lane on the right side of the freeway, if we have them at all. And I would support a HOT lane 24/7 for anybody who wants to pay to use.
Posted by: Rae on July 29, 2005 09:00 AMSwatter,
Your petulant sheep-like liberal arrogance is showing.
Sue,
Why not carpool with Swatter. One day you can ride to where he works and wait for him,
the next he can wait all day for you.
That way you can both make reality fit your brand of *sense* out of the HOV mentality.
Well, let me clue you in, Seattle and the rest of Washington have had their population doubled in the past few years and the people keep coming. We are not the area I grew up in where I used to commute and if there was a car within 20 feet of mine (in any line) or I had to slow down for 1/2 a mile (Northgate) to 25 mph, I would complain about the traffic mess.
If you don't build another north-south, your traffic will get worse. unSound Transit won't solve the problem and the proposed north-south Seattle bypass won't either.
So, Mr. Western Elite, what is your solution? If you refuse car pooling, are you willing to continue to be a sheeple.
Posted by: swatter on July 29, 2005 09:38 AMIt does take a sheeple to know a sheeple.
Slow commutes are not wholly bad. With a cassette or CD player in the car, one can learn Turkish within a year's commuting time, and get a high-paying job overseas amongst the oh-so-sophisticated non-Americans.
I emphatically agree that the ethically despicable and reality-challenged Sound Transit should be scrapped immediately, and its funds diverted to roadbuilding.
However, YOU are welcome to spend all the resources you can muster to bluster about carpooling. Heck, you can even set up a soapbox in the park like the English do, and harangue 24/7. Just don't waste taxpayer funds to preach mother-knows best on one side of a legitimate debate.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on July 29, 2005 09:52 AMMost folks are like me and if government is trying to impose something on me, I increase my resistance. It's the American way.
HOT 24/7- promote the hell out of it. Increases revenues and gives some commuters added mobility. It also takes some traffic out of the GP lanes. I don't know how to get people to carpool but to increase Metro ridership, start a "take the Metro challenge". Free first month pass to see if Metro can work for you. Also reduce monthly pass costs and increase incentives for businesses to provide free passes to employees.
I don't ave any dillusions that this will take thousands of drivers off the road, but maybe hundreds. The reduced fairs can be subsidized by some of the HOT lane revenues.
I still stand by government employees being strongly encouraged to take mass transit.
"-- From which I infer that you are implying that carpoolers and bus riders are enjoying the fruits of their labor? Hmmm. They seem to be using asphalt that was 95% paid for by SOV taxpayers... not sure how that amounts to enjoying the fruits of their labor."
You must be joking. Surely you know that the roads are paid for by taxes that we *all* pay. Perhaps you believe that SOV'ers are somehow magically taxed to pay for the road that "everybody" uses? Perhaps you think that the $30 car tabs pays for all the damage done by all the SOV's? Perhaps you think the paltry amount from the gas tax will pay dividends enough to pay for astronomically expensive lanes?
From your statements you seem to believe that the taxes paid by the people who are taking the busses and carpooling are less important than the contribution you're making. You're also saying that the effort they've expended to find a route that works for them, walking to the bus stops and keeping to a schedule is somehow unworthy? "It sounds hard, inconvenient at the least. I don't want to do all that 'work' stuff, take it away from them waaaaaa"
"-- No. The government should build the same, simple roads for everyone to drive on equally. Segregating motorists and letting a select few drive in a special lane with diamonds painted in it sounds more like the government supporting a specific lifestyle."
Funny, that sure sounds like you're demanding that the government support YOUR lifestyle. "I want to drive and you can't stop me ... scr3w the people that don't do it like I do it".
They're government roads, the government has the right to do that. If you don't like it, take surface streets. More importantly, the government is searching for a way to solve the problem of many people in a small space all trying to go to the same places (unlike you).
Most conservatives are trying to say "no" to taxes, not you it would seem.
Lastly, your statements about bus usage show that you (and probably most here) have never taken a bus during commute times. They're usually standing room only, crammed full of other workers. Without the HOV lane to ensure the busses can keep to a schedule, those people would be right there next to you ... parked. Just take a second to compare the numbers on all those busses, now imagine them all strung out single file in their cars. Do you *really* think getting rid of the HOV lane would help?
Posted by: lee egg on July 29, 2005 10:01 AMYep, make them *all* HOV lanes. ;-)
Posted by: amused bystander on July 29, 2005 10:27 AMI just don't happen to think that HOV lanes are the ONLY additional lane response to congested highways. For the last 20-25 years, this is what we have seen.
Our roads are clogged for a variety of reasons:
1. More people live here.
2. Postage stamp size houses around Seattle are so expensive, people have to move farther out just for affordable housing.
3. Roads themselves. Northgate ramp. I-5 convention center. Mercer street. HOV lanes on the left, all exits and entrances on the right.
4. Inattentive drivers. Small inclines result in speed dropping 20 mph. Entering a freeway at 45mph. Running out of gas. Failure to use mirrors, etc.
5. Poor government. Want ONLY mass transit options and are willing to do nothing for decades in order to frustrate the people enough so that they capitulate.
There are more reasons, but the point I'm trying to make is that HOV and mass transit are not the ONLY answers to our traffic problems and they will not benefit most of the people in the region.
Spending BILLIONS to make it easier for 10% or less is not the best use of our tax dollars.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 29, 2005 10:48 AMYou call me a Western elitist and base it on the following:
"You keep saying that no matter what carpooling is for the masses in NewYork, SanFrancisco and other places, except yours."
Since your comment makes no rational sense whatsoever, I will assume that “Western elitist” means something bad to you but you are not sure what, and I must be one (whatever the hell that means).
O.K., there Swatter, for the sake of discourse, I will attempt to tease some meaning out of your comment and to provide you an answer.
I have not commented about “NewYork, SanFrancisco and other places,” and if you are concerned about those areas you might consider that when engaging in a discussion here at PS about HOV lanes in Washington state, I am discussing HOV lanes in Washington state. Nevertheless, we do not live in NewYork, SanFrancisco and other places (thanks God), and as I have visited those places, I recognize (as you should) that the transportation problems in those regions are unique to those regions and thus the solutions are distinctive as well. They do not necessarily apply to ours.
I know precisely “what’s at stake” in our region, and I don’t “refuse carpooling,” those are your ideas and comments not mine. You admitted that you were “fortunate” to be able to carpool implicitly indicating that you are in the same boat as those of us you look down upon as being “sheeples.” There are many REAL solutions to our traffic problems in the Puget Sound area, and none of them include theoretic but destructive HOV lane schemes that (clearly) don’t solve anything. Despite the sarcastic authority with which you deride those who disagree, you inadvertently admit this fact in you own statements. If you wish to disagree fine, but unless you want to continue to show yourself as an arrogant irrelevant a$$hole, get serious, straighten up your rhetorical and writing skills, and discuss the issues like a real man with a real point.
You speak contemptuously about those who would deign to disagree with your simplicity, but you prove unable to reason for your own positions. Try again, and next time, if you believe that you have a real point, and wish to step up to the plate, why not make it?
Otherwise quit dropping the bat before you swing.
Why can't you acknowledge that there should be more carpooling? My answer, "see paragraph above".
Posted by: swatter on August 1, 2005 10:58 AMThe other reason I’m for it is because countless times I’ve had to get from Seattle or Bellevue to Sea-Tac catch a flight, the HOV lane makes predicting the time of that trip much more consistent.
Finally I’m not sure that one extra lane would help much, I think it’s more likely to make things worse. In most cases the congestion isn’t the result of not enough lanes, it’s the result of people breaking to change from lane to lane or people slowing to look at an accident or the incredible scenery we have in this state. Opening up a lane is just going to make the lane changing problem worse, and is just going to give the gawkers one more lane to block while they try to get a better look.
You say "And so, Mr. Amused, you have drifted into the realm of the liberal mantra, "I want it and I want it now."
Who cares? Your point?
Then you say, "Why can't you acknowledge that there should be more carpooling?" I never said anything to the contrary.
O.K. Swatter, here you go, there should be more carpooling, more ice cream, more happy days, bigger fish in the streams, no liberal Democrat morons, and universal peace and freedom in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Happy now?
You might do well to swing at something besides the thin air knucklehead.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on August 1, 2005 12:34 PMSo, it appears you will vote against the 912 Initiative since you crave the big roads.
Posted by: swatter on August 1, 2005 01:07 PMLook at your comments.
You say, "Okay, you agreed, but just not for yourself. You want Big Daddy to take care of you by spending more money and building you these huge, big roads. As I said, you have entered the realm of "It Take A Village". What foolish crappola.
Apparently you are not able to discern how silly your own claims really are, so I am not going to dignify them except to respond in your weird parlance that to say such a thing, "it take a village idiot."
Start making sense or give it up. Given this product, you’re definitely a better squatter than a swatter.
Build you new roads?
Is it any wonder you liberals get such confusing messages? You want them to do something but don't want to pay for it. I have talked to one county executive who said the people keep asking for all these rules and regulations, so I give them to them.
How can the elected liberals legislate and govern when you give such confusing messages? I know, I know, you have already said you are confused.
Posted by: swatter on August 1, 2005 02:50 PMThis is a bit tangential, but it strikes me that the anti-HOV argument most resonant to me (i.e. that it is pointless and immoral to coerce a free population into behaviors that not only are incompatible with majority will, but because of this cannot be demonstrated to practically lead to any public good) is nearly identical to my basic disagreement with the war on drugs.
HOV opponents say that you aren't going to get people out of their cars without spending more resources than you could ever save. Changing the single-commuter mindset and value system requires far too much finagling with the real market reward system to ever be worthwhile. I drive by myself because: I don't want to wait for a bus or vanpool; I don't want to sit next to a randomly smelly or obese person or I need space because I'm smelly and obese; I like my own stereo system and don't want to go deaf using earphones; occasionally, I'll play with myself while listening to Al Franken; the list is endless, and is worth more to most than is saving ten minutes of commute time or feeling greener.
By the same token, there is a segment of the population which has always, always, turned to intoxication as a coping mechanism. The means of delivery, and therefore the effects on the individual and society, have varied, as have the resources and forces brought to bear on them to make them change, but the pharmophilic among us have scarcely wavered in their practice and zeal.
As any honest person must conclude from the evidence, the war on drugs is a far more quixotic and futile example of social reengineering than traffic abatement could ever be.
Thanks for reading, and I welcome comments, particularly from those who are in favor of continuing the war on drugs but who espouse hatred and enmity for the HOV-lane boondoggle.
Posted by: Barnstable on August 1, 2005 04:09 PMA remarkably odd and incoherent conflation; drugs and traffic. For all of our sakes, I would suggest that you forgo any combination of the two more liberal conceptual realities in your own activities. Nevertheless, your bucolic brand and your interest in Al Franken suggest a natural affinity for Swatter.
You and Swatter are both quite amusingly preoccupied with irrelevancies, flights of fancy, and a peculiar kind of simple-minded quixotic futility. It’s nice for both of you that you have some suitably demented way to keep yourselves entertained.
Thanks for the comments.
You have a happy talent for nimble rhetoric; would that you had trained it toward the substance of my arguments. I would have been interested to read something of weight and deliberation from you, as you have previously so often graced us. Setting your craft to the task of mere empty insult makes you common and boring. Pity.
Posted by: Barnstable on August 2, 2005 11:16 AMYes, I also think the war on drugs is worthless. If we legalize them, then binLadens Afghanistan poppy crops will be less valuable. Ergo, less money for bombs to blow up US citizens.
And amused has it right. You ain't going to get him out of his car and you ain't going to get him to support legalizing drugs.
Posted by: swatter on August 2, 2005 12:08 PMGood response.
It appears that I may have committed my own unfortunate conflation of sorts, by comparing your comments to those of Swatter. Apologies.
In fairness, while I am certainly interested in weighty and deliberative discussions of both traffic and drug policy issues, I am not interested in obscuring the topic with extraneous issues. Substantively, I will grant that aspects of coercive public policy exist in both instances, but the justifications are considerably different, and in my opinion one requires a different analysis superfluous to traffic issues.
My point is unwittingly showcased by Swatter, who hastens to turn a discussion about HOV lanes into a referendum on the prudence of founding public policy on the basis of farcical links to Osama Bi Laden.
Thanks for the comments.