Just Say NO to Carpool Lanes

Hot off the Register's website this morning: Transit agency seeks input on 22 Freeway car-pool lanes.  Transportation reporter Radcliffe writes in part,

Motorists are being asked if they want the new-style car-pool lanes proposed for the Garden Grove (22) Freeway.  The Orange County Transportation Authority has recommended that drivers with at least one passenger be allowed to enter and leave the freeway’s car-pool lanes at any point.

If the proposal wins final approval by various agencies as expected, the special car-pool lanes, one in each direction, would be monitored by transportation officials for a couple of years.  If successful, the new-style car-pool lanes could lead to other Southern California freeways' converting their car-pool lanes to this style, used in Northern California.

Public feedback is being sought now by the OCTA via the agency’s Web site at www.octa.net/sr22, or via the OCTA's phone number, (714) 560-5086.

First, we're impressed the OCTA's even asking.  So now's the opportunity to really tell them that social engineering ISN'T the OCTA business and concrete is -- concrete we're ALL paying for that we ALL ought to be able to use.  This whole notion is ridiculous.

Said in here before, the old and worn out idea of carpool lanes on the "New" 22:

• Are the only complete end-to-end lanes being laid which run the full length of the freeway from the 405 to the Crush to the 55 -- a complete waste of money for critically needed resource.
• Despite the increase in costs for the 22 project (about $46M I recall), the money still isn't there to build the carpool connector lanes from the 22 to the carpool lanes on the 405, 5, 57 or 55 -- thus the HOV traffic will be DUMPED back onto the 22 and the other freeways right at the chokepoints.
• If the OCTA tells us that the receipt of federal money depends on carpool lanes being built, they need to be reminded that New Jersey successfully fought this via a lawsuit, eliminated their worthless and underutilized HOV lanes and got the money anyway.

In actually taking a look at the survey, we'll give the OCTA the clap for Question #8:

8. Carpool-lanes are not necessary.

Well, hot spit.  Unlike their Measure M survey a few months ago, this time they had the cojones to ask the basic question (which should have been at the top of the list).  Let's all vote "Strongly Agree". UPDATE: And another thing... The whole idea behind this survey (and again, I applaud the OCTA for doing it -- really) is to determine if we, the unwashed unskilled motorists we are, should be allowed to enter/exit the carpool lanes at any point along their miserably useless length.  Despite the idea that this procedure has worked in northern California for years, Caltrans is afraid the new concept will be hard to understand and confusing since it won't also be tested on the other miserably useless HOV lanes on our other freeways.  Caltrans also ignores the potential, again as done in northern California, of opening the lanes up during "non-peak" hours. How about this: Let the new carpool lanes operate on the 22 for, say, six months.  THEN, eliminate them for six months and allow general use.  And THEN take the survey to see how many of us (the ultimate funders of the resource) want them back.  Let the AQMD, the other treehuggers, the Prius lovers and the liberal 'we just know better than you' elitists monitor the air quality during both periods along the 22 and tell us if pollution increased or decreased.  Let the real carpoolers and soccer moms organize and defend their use of the resource -- hell, we'll even give them their own Blog like the one we do for Measure M which I'll personally pay for if necessary.  Let the OCTA and Caltrans and AQMD do some REAL measurements on average speed, throughput, actual number of vehicles not used for commuting due to sharing, bodies moved, etc. etc. and let's have a REAL analysis.  Let's develop REAL data and make an informed, adult decision of the value of this social engineering. Anyone have the cojones for THAT?

Comments

[Chris Prevatt]

I wrote this a while ago, but it seems to be still appropriate.

While sitting in the gridlock of the 22 freeway the other day, my roommate and I began discussing the long overdue planned improvements to the 22 freeway. That inevitably led to a discussion of the value and wisdom of carpool (HOV) lanes being planned for the 22 freeway.

We both agreed that it would be better to make those lanes available to everyone since all taxpayers pay for their construction. We just couldn’t see why it is productive to allow a parent with an infant in the back seat to use the HOV lane and not someone driving alone. If the HOV lanes are designed to reduce traffic then how does an infant riding with a parent reduce traffic?

Then of course there is the proposal to allow hybrid vehicles to use the HOV lanes regardless of the number of passengers in the vehicle. Would this mean that we should change the name of the HOV lanes to Special Vehicle Lanes? And what about those of us who cannot afford to purchase a new hybrid vehicle? Is that really fair?
Then we reached a critical dilemma. If driving with an infant is ok in a HOV lane, why not open it up to pregnant women? Since we can charge someone with murder of an unborn child if the mother is murdered, then shouldn’t we start counting the unborn child as a person when driving in an HOV lane? Of course this raises the inevitable question of when does an unborn infant become a person? Is it the third trimester? If the third, then why not the second trimester, or even the first month of pregnancy? Where do we draw the line?
Now if we were to make theses changes to the HOV lane regulations, then we would of course have legal claims of discrimination on the basis of gender, since men cannot become pregnant. But since men are half of the equation, shouldn’t they also be allowed to freely use the HOV lanes. After all, men carry around the potential to create life too.

We finally reached the conclusion that HOV lanes where inherently unconstitutional and should be banned altogether as discriminatory. This is much easier and ultimately more intelligent than making the necessary changes to make them fair which would end up with the same result.

Check out more Liberal musings at TheLiberalOC.com

Chris Prevatt

[Claudia is against carpools unless they give her $$$]

Claudia Alvarez is the only candidate fighting carpool lanes.

She was unable to get any of the contractors to give her $$$ so she wants them stopped now.

[tylerh]

I am not a traffic engineer, but I'll play one on OCblog until a real on comes along...

The sad fact is that adding a lane to an already bogged multi-laned freeway does little increase traffic flow: it merely makes the parking lot wider. The reason for this is a simple: once a single lane slows down (for whatever reason), the adjacent lanes slows as well. Moreve, there are now more lanes for something to cause a slowdown, so in some cases adding lanes can actually slow down a freeway!

Moreover, there is an optimum freeway speed for getting the most number of cars past a given point: 45 mp if memory serves. Load up a freeway past the point where the drivers can go 45 mph in every lane and the number of cars whizzing past a given point plummets.

Ideally, one would have parallel segreated freeways of about three lanes each. Imagine splitting the 405 so that one could only enter or egress the fastest two lanes every five miles or so (this is done one the I-10 through the San Gabriel valley). When traffic slowed on one portion of the freeway, the other portion would keep whizzing along (but for rubbernecking -- but that's a different problem).

Segreated car pool lanes are a step towards this. A partial move, to be sure, but a step. Simply turning the carpool lane over to general traffic would only help a little bit. One has to have some way to control the number of cars allowed into that lane so that they can maintain closer-to-optimal speeds.

For whatever reason, CA has decided "carpool" is the way to go. It's not a bad idea, as most S Cal types are resisant to carpooling, and thus the lanes don't get clogged.

However, there is an even better way: tolls.

[Steve Smith]

No more HOV lanes, but not for the reason you think. It has nothing to do with some being cheated out of tax dollars, with traffic flow or any of those old issues.

No more HOV lanes because the whole idea of commuting to work is antiquated. Millions of people in Southern California are driving to offices when they could be doing the same work from home. And when they do, reliable studies have shown that they are more productive, happier and willing to work for less.

Telecommuting takes cars off the road, increases productivity, reduces pollution, saves billions in taxes and gives parents more time with their families because they are home when they used to be sitting in traffic.

Unfortunately, the concept of telecommuting, of using existing, easy technology to produce more for less, meets resistance from managers who need to see people working, from big construction companies who are feeding at the public trough (and making big campaign donations) and from political bureaucracies who are too myopic to solve any problem with anything other than a solution that only justifies their existence.

How much more does gas have to cost before we finally get around to testing the best possible solution to clogged freeways? I say that price has arrived. I say no tunnel, no more HOV lanes and no more freways.

Steve Smith

[calwatch]

I agree with tylerh (as a registered Professional Engineer (Civil)). Carpool lanes can act as virtual ramp meters much like those that dot our onramps. In addition, carpool lanes have been proven to carry more people and often more traffic than regular lanes. Carpool lanes are not underutilized in Orange County, as the most recent HOV Lane Study concludes. The jury is still out on allowing entrances and exits at all points. It's a plus for transit, because they can go in and out of the carpool lane at will. But it could cause problems when a carpool traveling 20 mph decides to switch over to the carpool lane and takes its sweet time accelerating. It also causes significant enforcement problems when someone in their SOV SUV spots a cop in their rear view mirror and attempts to slow down from 60 mph to 15 or 20 mph and hop in the regular lane to avoid the cop.

The fact is, though, that the anti-carpool lane faction never organizes well. The vanguard of the anti-carpool lane movement is Tom McClintock, and he has never been able to get traction for his crusade, even when the Republicans weren't as outnumbered as they are now. (McClintock has been railing against carpool lanes for years.) The Drivers for Highway Safety crowd gets a lot of ink in the paper but never went beyond their lawsuit in the 80's when the 55 carpool lane was built. I would love to see the anti-carpool side organize and come up with some arguments in the popular media, if only so us engineers, academics, environmentalists, bus riders, and yes, soccer moms can bury them with our arguments.