Yesterday's post on HOV lanes generated one of the largest numbers of comments for any post on this blog ever. It's an issue that affects people's daily lives and people feel passionately about it. Only a tiny minority supports HOV lanes, most commenters feel that HOV lanes are a foolish waste of expensive road capacity. Here's an email I received from a source in Olympia on the prospects for softening the draconian enforcement of HOV lanes without risking federal sanctions:
A WSDOT study in 2002 concluded that opening the HOV lanes during non-peak hours would not result in federal sanctions (although that's open to interpretation, especially by HOV lane proponents). And remember that the state currently has an ongoing study on opening the HOV lanes at night (except on I-5) and that has not resulted in any federal sanctions, but a noticeable improvement in traffic. The lanes on I-405, SR 167, and I-90 are open to all traffic from 7pm - 5am. It's probably made the most difference on I-405 and SR 167.The state's big government grandees who are fretting over the likely victory of I-912 might want to consider that HOV lanes are one of the reasons for the public's refusal to pay for yet another gas tax. I'd bet that the public would be more willing to pay for new projects if they got more benefits in return. Eliminating HOV lanes, or at least relaxing the restrictions on their use would be a good place to start. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 29, 2005 10:56 AM | Email This
As for lowering the fines to a minimal amount, that would require a legislative change and a rule change by the State Supreme Court (which sets traffic fines). Currently, an HOV lane violation is $101. There have also been bills in the past couple of years to tack on an additional $100, but support is not there. The legislature would have to make an exception to the statutory assessments on traffic tickets to get them down to the minimum $37.
Well said. You nailed the sentiment. Why should I pay more, when I'm not even getting full use of the roads I am paying for now.
As for reducing the time constraints on HOV lanes on I-5. There would be no Federal Sanctions for doing so. As you probably remember from your time in the Bay Area, almost all of the freeways in the Bay Area that have HOV lanes, which is most of them, have no enforcement of those lanes outside of commute hours. It works well for the even larger Bay Area, so there's no reason why it would not also work well here in the Sound.
This is the bare minimum, give us back our lanes outside of commute hours, and then we'll work on getting them back altogether.
The frustration level with HOV lanes is the same across all major cities in the US. The key to getting rid of them will be to start a national grass roots campaign. If we got the voices of all commuters in all 50 states working together to lobby their congress persons, it would not be long at all before HOV lanes were gone.
This is a worthy cause because it is something we all have to deal with every day. If I didn't have to work for a living, this would be my magnum opus. Anyone want to pay me to dedicate a year of my life to this? I'd be more than happy to put together a national campaign. Imagine all of the John Carlsons and Kirby Wilburs across the land promoting this each day on their radio shows. It would work.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 29, 2005 11:16 AM1) They don't like the wasteful spending our state government engages in on consistent basis.
2) Nobody in Spokane or anywhere else besides Seattle could give a rat's @#$ about Seattle's viaduct and whatever else they may need.
3) Taxes like this NEVER go away even when the reason for their institution is long gone and taken care of. Politicians keep it and spend it on whatever pet project. Later on of course they'll want another increase for some other important project.
I want FAIR taxation. I don't want to pay taxes forever for roads I do not use. You want fair? Put tolls on the new roads/projects. They have no problem sticking tolls on the new Tacoma bridge so why not elsewhere? Besides, it's a hell of a lot easier to get rid of the toll booths once something is paid for than it is to roll back a gas or sales tax.
Posted by: Jim on July 29, 2005 11:21 AM1 Take your money to build road lanes you can't use
2 No one cared for the idea and didn't move
3 To get more use of all this pavement, charge people (again) to be able to use them
Social engineers will do anything to force the public into their ways. Now it is turning out to have roadways built for the rich/elite - the only people that can afford to pay the toll. Does that remind anyone of the special lanes built in Moscow for the elite party members in the USSR?
Posted by: fred on July 29, 2005 11:46 AMSecond, I am not with the crowd that states to get rid of HOV lanes. I feel they are necessary and a better alternatives for ST Buses and movement of people than the silly light rail. What has been a problem however, is they have never been fully completed (at least on the south end). Only now are they finally being extended through Federal Way and in Tacoma. Without HOV lanes through Tacoma and the reduction of lanes in Federal Way, bottlenecks are created which then back up to SouthCenter.
I-405's problem is not just HOV, it is the simple fact that there are not enough lanes. The freeway should be at least three lanes plus HOV and ideally four lanes plus HOV, like I-90. Heck, I-90 is three-four lanes all the way to Snoqualmie Pass. There is too many people that have to commute I-405. This is a poor planning problem, not an HOV problem. Taking away the HOV lane and making it a regular lane won't help, you will end up with three lanes of gridlock. I-405 needs, ideally, two more lanes. This should be first priority over 520 floating bridge and especially the Viaduct.
If I was coordinating transportation, I would do the following: (1) Widen I-405 to four lanes plus part time HOV, (2) Step up finishing HOV lanes through Tacoma and SR-16, plus the Nalley Valley Viaduct project planned, (3) Increase SR-167 from Pullyallup through Tukwila to three lanes plus HOV, (4) I-90 must have at least four full lanes through downtown (two is riduculous), (5) Increase I-90 from North of downtown through Everertt to four lanes plus HOV, and (6) Increase I-90 from Everett North to the border to be three lanes all the way and also to three lanes for the remaining section through Centralia/Chehalis area. I would also require cities when approving new developments to require developers improve the city and county roads to meet the load. If they can not, then the development doesn't go it and we don't have the situations we have in North KC, South Snoh, and South Hill area in Puyallup. You have to build the roads first to handle the developments before they go in, not after the fact.
Just my two cents.
Posted by: tc on July 29, 2005 11:57 AMIf you want to see HOV lane insanity, just drive on the 520 east of the 405. The HOV lane is completely useless even during rush hour. It's on the right (as opposed to the left) side of the freeway. Duhhhh? Who engineered that?
Although opening it to all traffic all the time would make little difference. Going eastbound that 3-mile stretch of freeway has four lanes entering, and narrows to one lane going over 202. DOH! How did that happen? But, there is a carpool lane for 2 miles in there.
Posted by: mikeki on July 29, 2005 12:04 PMI bought a new F-150 in October of 2003 and it just went past 13,000 miles. I rarely drive in work traffic and I think buses are a good solution (not light rail).
Still, I think that HOV lanes are a massive failure. Let's open these lanes back up so that we're not longer discriminating against some of our taxpayers.
Posted by: Snake on July 29, 2005 12:24 PMThis HOV one is a big one. I think they are silly. But over enforcement is NOT the problem. And the fines should be higher if anything. Stef I love your commentary and takes on just about all the issues in the area, but this one: we have to part. I am know tree-hugger or wacko envinro, but the HOV lanes would work for their purpose, if ENFORCEMENT WAS HIGHER AND STRICTER. These cheaters are selfish. Thats it. We ALL HAVE FREAKING LIVES THAT ARE HURRIED! Some people need to stop thinking their business is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THEN OTHERS. State patrol is worthless, but lets not totally blame pol-trickians for this one. The pols make themselves look bad one their own. STEF let not give pass to SELFISH SUV-CELL PHONE CHATTING-THINKING ABOUT ABOUT SELF CHUMPS-in SINGLE OCCUPANY VECHs. please..............some conservatives need to be consistent on this freaking blog. love yeah shark!
Posted by: Once AT City on July 29, 2005 01:29 PMThen you big city folk push a department of ecology that has the audacity to fine a small farmer $50,000 for a half cup of pollutant getting into surface water, while the city of Seattle gets fined $25,000 for illegally dumping 3 million gallons of raw sewage into Puget Sound.
And now, when there's a chance for you city folk to do something good about the ecology in your area through mass transit or pushing for ride sharing, you scoff at it.
Believe me, if you had to follow the same laws your representatives passed onto us every time you wanted to build a building you'd get the point. Outside of Puget Sound, even our conservatives think you get what you deserve and there ought to be two lanes of HOV only - of course the idea of a toll to allow you to use it would also work, maybe you could afford to make a couple more lanes.
Posted by: Doug on July 29, 2005 02:18 PMNice job trying to feign rural populist outrage. You almost had me there.
We scoff at ride sharing, mass transit and HOV lanes because they don't work and often times are somewhat expensive.
Having lived in Eatonville (and North Bend) I get to see first hand vast stretches of the state's highway system.
If you really lived in the "hinterlands" you'd know that it's rural motorists who have the longest commutes in to work in Bellevue, Seattle and Tacoma. We don't just sit around on the homestead, playing dominoes while watching the corn grow anymore.
In fact, it's not "city folk" who are the cause of traffic congestion. A person commuting from Fremont to Belltown is less of a strain than someone driving from Lynnwood to Renton. People who live and work in Seattle can practically walk or bike anywhere if it comes down to it.
So in short, build the highway wide and build them straight.
I go there one your point that HOV may be a waste. But not because the intent of HOV is to move people quickly. Its intent is to move more people quickly. This does not work cause of POOR ENFORCEMENT. I am general supporter of mass transit, however am NOT BLIND that single rides need to occur. I am hopeful we can agree that traffic is bad and public policy ought to focus on moving the most people more quickly.
Are the HOV lanes a waste. Perhaps. I am ok saying they are worthless tool. But thats not cause of bad or poor intent. It does not work cause of selfish culture we live in. IS NOT MY FREAKING FAULT BILL WE LIVE IN A SELFISH CULTURE. AS a matter of fact, It wouldn't be so bad if it did just SHOW ITSELF SO OFTEN ON FREEWAY.
Posted by: Once AT City on July 29, 2005 04:50 PMOther times open to anybody.
No study is needed!!!
Posted by: Norm on July 29, 2005 07:48 PMThen they want to ban outdoor burning throughout the state because it pollutes the air (I suppose as much as hundreds of thousands of cars stuck in rush hour traffic). Then they want to build more highways and freeways, pour more concrete, and at the same time make up for it by denying me the right to do the same.
Then they want people in my county to fork up countless millions of dollars to make it so commuters have an easier time on an INTERSTATE in their county. Commuting is a county problem, pay to make your county roads better and bigger and relieve congestion that way if you don't want to use mass transit like the Japanese so successfully have.
Posted by: Doug on July 29, 2005 08:12 PMAren't you asking the wrong question? Shouldn't the discussion be why don't people use the HOV lanes or how can we get more people using the HOV lanes?
Putting more cars on the road isn't going to solve any problems. It leads to massive traffic congestion, slower commuting time, incredible waste of gasoline. None of these things improve our quality of life.
Not only that, but we have kids dying in the Middle East (at least partially) over oil and the money we spend at the pump is funnelled via Saudi Arabia into terrorist operations against us or our allies and into madrassas that teach hatred of America and democracy.
I love cars too, but my freedom comes at a cost. Isn't it time we had a real discussion of those costs?
Posted by: Expat Teacher on July 30, 2005 01:51 AMThis liberal democrat design is as anti-democratic as it gets!!
The only thing more perplexing is how bone jarringly stupid many people are about HOV lanes. They will readily follow the "yellow brick road" painted by environmental freako communists as if there is simply no question that their imaginary phonomena is real. Making policy based on global warming is tantamount to living by astrology or tea leaves.
Grow up liberals! (fat chance)
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 30, 2005 11:04 AMThe "hammer" that the feds held regarding highway dollars was substantial during the bulk of the interstate building period (when massive subsidization was needed in order to construct the sort of infrastructure consistent with the federal program).
That period petered out in the 1980's, but the threat remains.
Remember the "Drive 55, stay alive" scheme? The feds wielded the gig stick and told us that we had to submit to this idiotic rule or risk the "wrath of the gods". Montana told them to stuff it. The feds (in the guise of busybody bureaucrats) huffed & puffed, and eventually the rule went the way of all good Dodo's.
As recent developments show, it isn't as much a demonstration of need, or a reward for subservience that gets us federal dollar subsidies as much as good old fashioned advocacy (See "Viaduct money pledged; it may hinge on gas tax": http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002408636_viaduct29.html)
We could pass laws that say that only carfulls of Shriners can use the HOV lanes and the Feds can't do much more than whine & wheedle (how would that be different than any other day!). They could withhold the federal gas tax funds, but whose money would they be withholding? Ours! What would happen if, in response, we withheld our tax money from them!
But, like you say, too many folks here have been trained to the yoke good & proper. They sit & fume (and a few of them boil over and hurt somebody), but won't do anything to fix it.
My comment to the poster who flinched when I suggested that he would, by necessity, do whatever he had to perpetuate and ensure his circumstances, was meant to affirm his choices, not box him in. Yet he bristled at the thought that he should have to change. When I suggested that he think about the "what-ifs" that inevitably occur, he stopped posting (and I daresay, considering).
"You get the government you pay for". This region has made some incredibly dim choices, and is now paying the price.
Where is Diogenes when you need him?
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 30, 2005 01:00 PMYour comment, Shouldn't the discussion be why don't people use the HOV lanes or how can we get more people using the HOV lanes? is typical obdurate liberalism.
GOD HELP US, WHO DO YOU TEACH?
You propose that we should ignore the obvious, and ask ourselves questions that assume HOV lanes ar viable solutions? Your blind acceptance of HOV lanes is no substitute for a logical foundation upon which any useful model for future transportation solutions can be fashioned. HOV lanes are not used because they are a practical failure and we shouldn’t try to get (coerce) more people to use them because to do so would be to continue at great cost on a fools errand. Doing more of that which has utterly failed for a very long time is quite simply . . . stupid. All the while we sit in traffic while some few whiz by at high speed because they are fortunate, not good citizens.
You say, Putting more cars on the road isn't going to solve any problems.
[Putting] more cars on the road, certainly solves individual transportation problems for individual people just as you continually [put] another car on the road to solve yours. Appropriate solutions for the foreseeable future are not fascist ones, but practical free society approaches. You wish to limit future options rather than enhancing them. Fix problems, don't compound them.
Single occupancy traffic mixed with so-called mass transportation are only mutually exclusive concepts based on artificially limited thinking. The simple concept of opening all traffic lanes to single occupancy traffic mixed with so-called mass transportation alternatives makes perfect sense unless you want artificial superiority of mass transit for public policy reasons. Very few people are inclined to oppose mass transit so long as it is not shoved down our throats by fascist liberal Democrat morons. Either we are able to use them or we are not. The rewards of using mass transit, carpooling and other solutions are self evident, and do not require highway lane seizure to be viable or effective. Be a sensible intelligent adult and support viable solutions.
You say, Not only that, but we have kids dying in the Middle East (at least partially) over oil . . . Been listening to Ted Kennedy again eh?
Those of our citizens (military and civilian personnel) who are in Iraq are not “kids,” they are certainly not “dying for oil,” and this comment only serves to distort dissimilar issues as an emotional appeal. Are you saying that if we all carpool, “kids” will stop “dying in Iraq?” Preposterous bullshit.
Your lines of reasoning are appalling. You say, I love cars too, but my freedom comes at a cost. Isn't it time we had a real discussion of those costs?
SELL YOUR FREEDOM TO WHOMEVER YOU LIKE BUT DAMNED WELL LEAVE MINE ALONE. This issue is not about the love of cars any more than it is about the war in Iraq, Hershey bars or sunspots. To an important degree however, it is about freedom.
Individual freedom should only be limited by public policy that observes the legitimate interests of the public at large. A public policy implementation that is solely based on a central coercive factor that limits individual freedom should only be implemented if it achieves justifiable policy objectives. The coercive aspect of HOV lanes was to force drivers to carpool and/or ride busses. Its justification was and is environmental concerns. Malthusian “moral restraint” based on the inevitability of resource depletion economics are as anachronistic as mercantilism, and fear of the future is no basis upon which to promulgate useful public policy. After three decades of trials, it is clear to competent observers that HOV lanes do not achieve any useful public policy objective.
“Insanity” has been described as doing the same things over and over despite negative outcomes. The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance especially when people of obvious reasoning limitations come to the table. You are happy to speculate about authorizing a continuation of insane liberal policies to restrict my freedom to drive as I wish on the basis of fairy tales, so that you can feel good about stepping up to a discussion of “the cost of freedom?”
If you want to support the types of policy objectives that HOV lanes were created to achieve only to ignore the FACT that they have failed, that’s your silly business.
Sell your freedom to liberalism or whatever you like, but damned well leave mine alone.
HOV lanes and liberals. Indomitable will towards ignorance indeed.
I agree that it is probably a waste of breath to bother reasoning to liberals, but I can't help it.
Forgive me for my wordiness, but people like this Expat teacher clown make me furious because they pretend to be intelligent but show absolutely no evidence of intellect, just blind insipid blockheaded prejudice. If he/she is a teacher, no wonder children are running around everywhere with tattoos and rings in their nose.
It used to be said that being conservative meant being stodgy and immovable, and progressive liberals seek practical forward thinking solutions to problems. What a joke! D Meyers cites a reality in Arizona showing that the Federal Government is not entirely implacable regarding HOV lanes. Nevertheless an insistent liberal stodgy immovability acts consciously to foreclose all options except liberal insanity. I'm not a Michael Savage fan but, he is totally correct about one thing.
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.
Nevertheless, thanks for the advice.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 31, 2005 12:19 PMOpening up the HOV lanes during rush hour is not a solution to the traffic problem. It won't improve traffic and it just forces Socialism by making everyone suffer equally. Be Pro-Choice. Choose to ride a motorcycle.
Posted by: Mike on August 1, 2005 01:50 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 03:30 PMWe were here when they were proposed. They were having one of their endless campaigns to get people to ride the bus. The biggest complaint the people had was that they did not keep their schedule because the busses sat in traffic along with everyone else. They couldn't guarantee people that they would get them to their destination on time. At least in a car, you could take an alternate route and might not be so late, if at all.
The HOV lane's function is to allow the busses to keep moving when traffic is stopped because of a wreck or whatever. They called them carpool lanes to get the environ-wacos on board. If we ever have enough car-poolers to slow down the busses, they will raise the number of people needed in the cars to use the lanes as fast as they can change the signs.
If you think I am wrong, look at the road projects in your travels. How many of them include HOV lanes and why. They just finished a project in Issaquah. It is a couple of miles of SR 900. The work involved widening the road from I-90 to the park and ride. It has a bus only lane with a traffic light controlled by the bus driver. The light stops traffic in both directions so the bus can cross 4 lanes to enter the park and ride.
After all the BS on the design of the new bridge over the Narrows, what did we get? Two new HOV/bus lanes and a toll for everyone to pay for getting no more general purpose lanes. It will be interesting to see the toll structure for cars and busses. Will the bus fair include a fee for the bridge or will our gas tax subsidize it like it does all bus fairs?
People have talked about the lack of HOV lanes on 167. The busses use surface streets for the most part in that area. If they use 167, it is probably where they have the lanes. People mentioned the lane stopping at 320th on I-5. How many busses go further south than that?
We live between Renton and Issaquah. We only travel in that area so I don't have more examples. If you look around in other areas you will see what I am talking about.
Posted by: Rupert P on August 1, 2005 11:09 PM