(Or, as most call them, car pool lanes.) When I drive on our freeways, I almost always see fewer vehicles in the low occupancy lanes than in the other lanes. An example: When I last drove down to Mt. Rainier, I saw only a single vehicle in the low occupancy lane on 405, all the way between south Kirkland and Bellevue. And that vehicle was a motorcycle, with a rider and no passenger. Though that example is extreme, it is also true that there were fewer vehicles (and people) in those lanes on both 405 and 167 during the rest of my trip, too. (I left around 9:30 in the morning, if you are wondering about the time.)
But my experiences are atypical. Intentionally. I try to drive at times when there are fewer cars on the road. And I seldom drive to and from downtown Seattle since the bus is about as quick for me, and cheaper, allowing for the costs of parking.
So I have been wondering whether others, who can't choose their times and places to drive as easily as I can, see the same pattern. When you drive, are there typically fewer vehicles (and fewer people) in the car pool lanes than in the other lanes? Or, even better, since it is easier to observe such things as a passenger, do you see fewer vehicles in those lanes when you ride? (If you choose to share your experiences with us, you will want to add the times when you saw few (or many) vehicles in those lanes, for obvious reasons.)
(The car pool lanes are usually reserved for buses, so one often sees claims that they carry more people during rush hour. But this would be true of any lane that was reserved for buses, so it doesn't mean much by itself.
There is another objection to the low occupancy lanes. Research in at least two states, Maryland and Texas, has found that they make highways more dangerous, unless the lanes are physically separated from the other lanes. My own limited experience on our highways makes me think that's correct, think that the lanes do make accidents more likely.
Earlier SP posts on this subject here and here.)
Posted by Jim Miller at April 29, 2008 07:45 AM | Email ThisResistance by DOT to opening the congestion lanes up to all traffic on weekends is just more evidence that the purpose of those lanes is to reduce traffic flow and increase congestion.
But letting apparatchiks make our lives miserable when traveling is just the way it is here in Washington. Our masters know so much better.....
Posted by: iconoclast on April 29, 2008 08:21 AMTake 167 North. Most people take that to get on 405 East or West.
There's the HOV (now ROV -- Rich Owned Vehicle) lane on the far left. Well, instead of merging into the proper lane to exit onto 405, they ride all the way to the last foot of HOV, and then cut into whichever exit lane they want -- even if it means cutting across the westbound exit traffic to get to the eastbound exit lane!!
This is the thing that makes 167 back up to 180th -- not the lack of square footage for cars. Puget Sound compared to other cities has more than the average amount of roadway per car (I heard this on a Seattle Times podcast from a city planner).
Same with I-5. I-5 does great until it gets to the 90 interchange and then it speeds up -- until -- it gets to the Seneca street exit mess!
As far as buses ... yeah, it's great how they built a separate bus street into the tunnel...and how buses can use HOV -- EXCEPT -- the buses all get off on that same exit and get stuck in traffic for half an hour trying to go 500 yards from I-5 to the bus tunnel lane!
All of our problems as you point out are not basic roadway issues -- but "last mile" problems which the general ignorance of design -- or the malicious application of it -- create 90% of the delay...
I always like to be in one of the outer lanes (you only have to worry about crazy drivers on one side of you as my Dad taught me) and I like to move (read: keep up with the traffic).
There are indeed fewer cars, but once in a while (off-peak) you get a sightseer in the HOV lane (read: speed limit).
The one disadvantage is that when they widened, it seems all the catchbasins, manholes, electrical vaults and other 'bumps' are in the far left lane.
Sometimes, it is scary and twice last winter and during the global drought, many of the catch basins were plugged during the deluge. Imagine the thought of driving on the road and all of a sudden you're on a boat washing towards the guardrail. Moving to a middle lane was my option then.
Posted by: swatter on April 29, 2008 08:50 AMHowever- they aren't sufficient. A lot of times we are driving the same speed as normal lanes (both on 405 and I-5).
What you are really griping about is the fact that Gregoire has failed to reduce congestion and her only strategy to reduce it is to make it prohibitively expensive to drive anywhere.
I'm really down on rail as it will totally go from where I don't live to where I don't work - but I'm really big on van pool and more flexible alternatives. You know the kind of stuff we don't pay for when no one is using.
Posted by: Andy on April 29, 2008 09:01 AMPer vehicle- generally yes
However,during peak hours/HOV lanes deliver more people per mile per minute.
That all goes to hell when all lanes move at 5-15 MPH...which it does WAY too often.
Posted by: Andy on April 29, 2008 10:09 AMI switched jobs a few years ago because I was tired of the commute to Bellevue, and now I don't get on a highway to get to work. I think it added years to my life.
Posted by: Palouse on April 29, 2008 10:20 AMSo in other words, the laws are for everybody else.
Got it.
To the subject at hand, of course they are less traveled. At all times. That's why they're WOS Lanes - Waste of Space.
However, you'll also find the far right lane is less traveled as well. Because everybody is in the left land - aka, the passing lane - thinking they should be going faster than everybody else.
Honestly, I travel the freeways in this region only when there's no other choice. I avoid them like the plague.
Posted by: jimg on April 29, 2008 11:34 AMIf they would just drop the HOV lane (and the required merge) flow would be improved, and safety would be greatly enhanced by regaining the road shoulder (currently there is zero shoulder on that stretch). In fact I avoid using that HOV when on my motorcycle because I consider it unsafe.
I contacted the DOT once about it but did not get much of a response, as I recall.
Posted by: russell garrard on April 29, 2008 11:40 AMHere is one example: At 6PM a while back, I had to navigate South through the Renton S curves on I-405. The two non-carpool lanes were so jammed that it took 10 minutes to drive 1 mile! Meanwhile, I COUNTED how many vehicles passed in the carpool lane in 10 minutes: 50. That is 5 per minute while the rest of us were stuck in the mess.
#11, It would not jam up the same, because:
a) No everyone is getting off at the next exit; and,
b) Everyone one could go faster, thus getting both the traffic on and off the freeway faster AND cutting Waaaaaay down on air pollution from the diesel spewing trucks. They could start their engines, drive, and turn them off quicker, thus cutting the pollution.
I-405 jams up between Renton and I-90 all day long, while multitudes of diesel trucks spew the pollution.
Gregoire and Simms, get a CLUE!!!!! YOU and the D controlled legislature, and the D controlled King County Council are CAUSING massive pollution!
Ruth Gibbs
Now, if there are three lanes, being reduced to two, as is the case on 520, that's a classic chokepoint. You're saying that by opening up that carpool lane to everyone, that'll reduce congestion how? You have to realize that the extra capacity will be filled up by single occupancy cars from the other lanes, who will all wait until the last minute to merge in, causing the exact same slowdown as before. Except, with more people merging over at the last minute, and more vehicles in the third lane, you'll have three lanes of stop and go traffic, rather than two, and those who carpool will be no better off than those who don't.
Carpool lanes, if used properly, reduce traffic and congestion for everyone. If even half of the people on the road who currently drive by themselves to work started to carpool, or take the bus, that reduces traffic the number of the cars on the road by half. If you have the same road capacity, but less cars using it, you get less congestion. And, by having less cars on the road, you get less pollution.
This is not a political issue at all, so blaming Gregoire and Simms is counterproductive. Also, if you go out and look at the WSDOT website, you will see a plethora of road projects which are designed to increase road capacity and cut down on traffic.
Cheers!
Posted by: Troy on April 29, 2008 12:17 PMGregoire has promised so many things for transportation and the entire system has eroded further into total gridlock during her watch (and her predecessor)
She's raised and collected taxes, but done nothing- except reneg'ed on her promises while at the same time asking for more taxes.
This is nothing if not a political issue. Where the hell are Cantwell and Paticakes who are now part of the political majority in DC- they have done NOTHING to help transportation.
Not everyone on this thread will agree on whether car pool lanes are a better use of the real estate than GP lanes- but one thing is for sure- Gregoire has totally failed the state of wa.
This transportation system is what Wa gets for electing a bunch of do nothing-big government- tax collectors.
Posted by: Andy on April 29, 2008 12:29 PMOK, now I get it. When 'things speed up' it equates to greater congestion. That I did not know.
Posted by: russell garrard on April 29, 2008 12:34 PM
Sorry but time for a funny. (-:
If you think it's bad here, try commuting to work in LA. Or driving into or out of New York City during rush hour (which is about midnight to 11:45pm). Or even Boston, Chicago, Miami, Denver, or anywhere else where there's a large population. You can throw billions of dollars at the problem, but money or political leaders will never solve congestion problems. It's a simple matter of having too many vehicles on roads which can't handle the volume. I can tell you this with utmost certainty: To make it so we don't have to face any congestion problems in the Seattle area (barring accidents), we'd need to have 16+ lanes on I-5, 12+ lanes on 405, 10+ lanes on 167, and HUNDREDS upon HUNDREDS of Billions of dollars (that's Billions, with a 72-point bolded B) to pay for it all. But even if we had the money for it, we don't have the physical space for that kind of roadway system here in King County.
So what's a viable solution? Telecommuting, for starters. Carpooling works well too. Getting rid of carpool lanes will only compound the problems.
Posted by: Troy on April 29, 2008 12:45 PMI'd guess that the ability for traffic to spread out across an additional lane would reduce accidents. You never know though. In an area where drivers can't seem to understand the simple concept of a merge, it might just confuse people further.
There is actually a petition going around (at least there was a few months ago when I signed it) that was for just that; opening up the carpool lanes during non-peak hours. It's worked rather well on 405, so they're hoping to repeat the success on I-5.
Posted by: Troy on April 29, 2008 12:49 PMAlong the idea of getting rid of the 520 HOV lane, if that lane extended all the way across the bridge then there wouldn't be a choke point there and traffic would be fine across the water.
I think there are 2 fundamental issues at hand.
1) Every wants better transit options so that other people can use them and get off the road and out of their way.
2) No one wants to pay for it. We do not want to pay for new sports arenas, we do not want to pay for new bridges, we do not want to pay for anything. In short the best option is to either pony up on more taxes or embrace tolls. The projects need to be done and the money has to come from somewhere.
I think that as far as this being political, yea go back to the people who built the free way system, they did not plan properly for the expansion of population we have had. Now we are land locked. Expand 405! (pay for those $800,000 homes in the way) Expand 520 (Those Clyde Hill and Hunts Points homes in the way are cheap I am sure).
To the original question. I notice far more carpool cars driving when I'm sitting in traffic than I do when I'm in the lane with a car load.
Posted by: Martin on April 29, 2008 01:06 PMby your logic- we should reduce the number of lanes- because obviously- more lanes is not going to solve congestion.
by my logic you don't get to hold office, raise taxes and then do nothing on any serious project for 20 years.
A lot of us telecommute on Fridays- how's that Friday afternoon commute between Tacoma and Bellevue? Much better?
Posted by: Andy on April 29, 2008 01:43 PMIt's going to hit $4.00 a gallon.
Glad to know Cantwell is "looking into it." Nice job.
Posted by: Andy on April 29, 2008 01:46 PMOh, and I call the 1-877-764-HERO number on a regular basis to report pompus asses that think they have a right to break the law.
Posted by: Splinter on April 29, 2008 02:15 PMIn regards to Jim's question:
Northbound I-5 from Tacoma to Seattle (@ approximately 6:10 leaving Tacoma)
No HOV lanes from Tacoma to King County Lines - Traffic heavy but spread across all lanes after Puyallup River. Prior to Puyallup River, there is often a big mess with the merge from 16 through the exit to Puyallup.
King County Line to Federal Way 320th (Center FW exit -- main downtown) - Traffic heavy but spread out among all lanes. Good capacity now that they have finished the HOV construction work in this area.
Federal Way 320th to Kent Des Moines - Even at this time of morning, most all the lanes, except HOV are stop-N-go or stopped. HOV lane periodic stop and go, especially from 272nd to Kent-Des Moines road. Too much traffic for capacity, even slows HOV lane down. BRT would not work through this stretch.
Kent-Des Moines to SouthCenter/405 exit - Some days this section is open flowing (45-60 mph) on all lanes, but heavy. Other days, the non-HOV lanes are crawling. HOV lanes are periodic stop-N-go if other lanes are crawling, otherwise HOV are free-flowing. Non-HOV lanes can get backed up at South Center in the right two lanes if 405 is backed up, but left lanes are usually flowing.
South Center to end of Boeing Field (approx. Michigan) - All lanes typically free-flowing.
Boeing Field/Michigan to downtown - Backup city. All lanes stop and go. Absolute mess. You have Michigan traffic coming on and forced into an exit only lane. You have Buses crossing four lanes to exit at Spokane. You have West Seattle Freeway merging onto I-5 at the same point I-5 traffic is trying to get off to I-90 and Madison/James downtown traffic trying to get off. The HOV lane ends into closed express lane. The next left lane ends into the exit only Seneca street, and only two lanes go through.
Southbound I-5 Spokane St to Tacoma (Evenings, 4:30-5:30 timeframe)
Spokane to SouthCenter - One or two nights, typically backup around Boeing Access Road around corner that can tie up all lanes, including HOV, otherwise, all lanes flowing at regular speed.
SouthCenter to past 200th exit - Exit lane to 405 always backed up. If 405 is backed up, this also effects HOV lane, which is shared between 405 HOV lane exit and HOV headed to Tacoma. Southcenter hill heavy two-three evenings a week, all lanes, including HOV affected. Note: Lanes drop off at 188th and 200th.
200th to Federal Way 320th - HOV lanes typically free flowing, moderate traffic. Non-HOV lanes heavy traffic, occasional stop-n-go. Backups in right to exit lanes at 320th can form due to poor street lights/overcapacity on 320th.
FW 320th to Hwy 18 - Normal flow. HOV moderately light. Backups start occurring in all non-HOV lanes about a one-half to mile before 18 exit.
Hwy 18 to KC Line - HOV lanes flowing until Wild Waves. Other lanes typically stopped or slow moving.
KC Line to Port of Tacoma Road in Fife - HOV lane drops at KC line. Right lane drops at Weigh Station just prior to KC line. All six lanes are jammed into four lanes. Add to this Port of Tacoma traffic entering at both Fife entrances, makes this section of I-5 a parking lot almost every night.
Port of Tacoma to Hwy 16 - Traffic opens up until downtown 705/Pacific Ave/Hwy 7 merge on and Hwy 16 exit. Traffic also backs up around corner to 38th street where I-5 loses lane.
Posted by: tc on April 29, 2008 02:16 PMI fail to see how you interpreted my post to indicate that we need LESS lanes rather than more, especially since I said that adding more lanes would help the situation. Also, many of the projects that are underway now have been planned and started over five years ago. These things take time. As for some of the planned projects on 405, the environmental assessments finished back in March of 2005, and those things can often take around six months to complete. So it's not like they've just been raising taxes and doing NOTHING. You can't expect to see a project of this scale be completed within a couple of years. It doesn't matter who is in office, we'd be having the exact same problems we're having today.
As for gas prices being a political issue, I agree, but I don't agree that Pelosi and gang are the ones that made it an issue. If you look at the prices of oil over the past 10 years, it didn't really start to rise at an alarming rate until after just before the Iraq war started. However, that's just a smaller side issue, the real culprit behind the high oil and gas prices has been the falling US dollar. So if you want point blame at anyone for the current high oil prices, you can't really look for a better target than Alan Greenspan. But don't forget Ben Bernanke, he's not helping the situation either. There's nothing that Cantwell or Bush or anyone else can do about rising oil prices. The person who ultimately can help bring those prices back down now is Ben Bernanke, but if the Fed keeps cutting rates, we'll probably see $150/barrel oil this year.
Anyway, back on topic. I never responded to Jim's original question. Yes, there are fewer vehicles in the carpool lane than the other lanes, which is sort of the way it's supposed to be. I carpool each day. I'm the driver in the morning, and I'm the passenger in the afternoon. I go from Renton to Redmond each day, and generally congestion in the carpool lane has been increasing, which I guess is a good thing since a vast majority of those vehicles actually are carpoolers, which means they're not filling up the other lanes as much.
Posted by: Troy on April 29, 2008 02:59 PMCarpool lanes were designed to create congestion so people would refrain from using cars. They are NOT an efficient form of transportion and if eliminated would help relieve congestion!!!
Boy do you have that right. Specially when they decided that the car pool lane should be in the far left lane. So you enter the freeway from the right and have to make your way across 2 lanes of parked cars to get to the car pool lane. Now you can zip along fine for a few miles till your exit is coming up on the right. There are now 2 lanes of parked cars between you and your exit. What do you do? Continue past your exit or slow to a stop in the car pool lane with your turn signal on while trying to make your way to the exit? Thus becoming a road block to the car pool lane.
Posted by: RBW on April 29, 2008 03:15 PMIt is time for Gregoire out and Rossi In!
We need hope and chnage in this state! Hope and change!
Posted by: GS on April 29, 2008 03:55 PMSome find a way to take the bus, train, bike, van or carpool. But, there is a large percentage who will not consider these options, by choice or logistics. Some commuters cannot or will not make public transportation work for them. They will move or change jobs before the jolly green giant pries their hands from their carbon spewing status symbol.
NW geography, poor road planning decisions and current land costs make it difficult and expensive to add roads, lanes or trains. Bus routes are generally poor from the suburbs.
Think of this as a positive. Some people get tired of long rainy commutes and move back to California.
Posted by: Mike J on April 29, 2008 04:37 PMYes! When the revolution succeeds and only the nomenklatura are allowed the use of internal combustion engines, we may bow in salute to the passage of His Bus.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on April 29, 2008 05:54 PMWatch for LOTS of accidents and headaches on SR167 when the HOT lanes open next week. Per my Public Blog, I predict that these new lanes will provide a marginal benefit to those lemmings willing to pay a toll on a road that they are already paying for. Current HOV commuters, however, will be very displeased and will see their commute times rise.
Posted by: Seabecker on April 29, 2008 09:39 PMBut now they want to RAISE the toll....
Posted by: Seabecker on April 29, 2008 09:44 PMBut what REALLY jams up 405 in the mornings is not only the trucks going up Kennydale, but the days the WSP decides to monitor and pull over "carpool" violators. That makes traffic WORSE, not better. Which only goes to prove that if you just let everyone use the lanes you've paid for there would be less congestion.
Posted by: Dave on April 29, 2008 10:26 PMThe high speed lanes would only be around 10 mph faster. It would significantly reduce congestion and improve travel time. Drivers would be very aware of the increase of speed in those lanes and would make the necessary adjustments. Everytime, you come up against any below speed driver you have to make the necessary adjustments, speed lane or not. Since, you always have that slow driver on the freeways and there are not any accidents above the norm because of it, the same will be even more true merging in and out of a known speed lane. That being said, your concerns are over heighten and a barrier to progress in improving travel time between two points. I also, seriously doubt your claim of witnessing several freeway accidents because of merging in and out of the HOV lanes. I see no more of a problem than that which is common merging in and out of any of the freeway lanes.
HOV lanes on I-5 are another matter. During standard commute hours they are quite full, especially with buses headed southbound in the morning and northbound at night. It's to the point that while there is a benefit to being in a carpool or a bus, there might be some merit to returning those HOV lanes to the 3 person carpool rule. The idea of adding more buses on this corridor for "bus rapid transit" based on the current situation is quite laughable.
I read somewhere that the volume of people taking the bus to commute from Snohomish County would fill two lanes of general purpose traffic if they all were to theoretically drive instead.
Thus, in my experience, I can certainly see the need for differentiated policies in how available, or not, HOV lanes are made to be.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 30, 2008 07:09 AMUsing children as a disqualification for HOV use is Orwellian at best. We could adopt China's birth policy. Get a grip. Juggling the development of the next generation of contributors to our tax base is a challenge and costly. I think it's far better than creating the next generation of welfare recipients and prison tenates.
Posted by: Mike J on April 30, 2008 08:00 AMHmm. So if the GP lane is stop/go, you would limit the HOV lane to 10mph????? I don't think so.
Posted by: Seabecker on April 30, 2008 12:10 PMThen you have little experience or have your head in the sand. I recall seeing 6 accidents in the last dozenish years.
1. Stop&Go traffic in GP lane. HOV lane moving 40+MPH. Car needing to exit HOV lane slows to near stop to merge. Car behind slows too. Next car doesn't. Wham. I have witnessed variations of this on three occasions, whether you choose to believe it or not.
2. Stop&Go traffic in GP lane. HOV lane moving 40+MPH. Car needing to enter HOV lane does so from near stop. Merging car begins to move over, looking to make sure he doesn't get hammered from the rear. Car in front stops abruptly just as merging car hits gas. Wham. Witnessed twice.
3. Stop&Go traffic in GP lane. HOV lane moving 40+MPH. Car needing to enter HOV lane does so from near stop. Merging car moves into HOV lane with car fast approaching. Wham. Also witnessed once.
Posted by: Seabecker on April 30, 2008 12:25 PMHmm. So if the GP lane is stop/go, you would limit the HOV lane to 10mph????? I don't think so.
Get REAL!.....The statement of the high speed lanes would only be around 10 mph faster obviously meant, 10 mph faster than the posted GP lanes.
Posted by: Daniel on April 30, 2008 12:34 PMPosted by Seabecker at April 30, 2008 12:25 PM
These things will happen. The case you mention is not peculiar to the HOV lanes. It can happen to any lanes, HOV or not. HOV lanes are a proved more rapid transit and should be not only be open to all but, should be desinated as a high speed lane providing a 10 mph advantage over the GP lanes. Get the Big Government over management Boot out of our faces.
Posted by: Daniel on April 30, 2008 12:52 PMI am all for HOV being all purpose during non-commute times though.
Posted by: Mr. Rcguy on April 30, 2008 02:04 PMAs for kids in the HOV lane, if a 1 month old baby gets you into the HOV lane, why not a 10 year old dog or cat? Why not a pregnant female (human)?
Posted by: russell garrard on April 30, 2008 11:52 PMThere are different purposes to HOV Lanes depending on what's in your best interest. I think the broad purpose of HOV lanes is to try to give a benefit to those transporting more people. I can move 4-5 people from here to there, saving more on per person travel costs than the single driver - even if he carpools. Less carbon footprint, etc.
There are more draconian ways to get cars off the road if that's the goal - try higher gas prices, higher gax taxes, higher car sales and use taxes, emission testing. Oh ... these are things our state is already doing. Does it work? It seems the purpose of HOV in our state is to raise revenue to fund a more bloated and mis-managed government. Maybe we need another "task farce".
HOV lanes on 167 were under utilized (read clogged), so our government spends millions to install HOT Lanes for the single driver to pay for the privilege to fill them up. Does this take a car off the road? No. But it is another way to get money. If getting cars off the road was the only purpose of HOV, we would not have HOT.
I think we need to follow the money when we talk about HOV, HOT, bus tunnels, Sound Transit, etc. Government can doing nothing about or mis-manage transportation investments till it's entirely broken. Then billions are needed to fix it.
Posted by: Mike J on May 2, 2008 01:36 PM