From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: HOV and why it should be!
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 19:37:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.165214.17773@linus.mitre.org> woycke@smiley.mitre.org (Daniel Woycke) writes:
>The lane should never have been added in the first place. It had
>always been intended as an HOV lane and should have remained as such.
>No one would have complained except they got a long time with three
>lanes and grew to like it. The problem is not the lack of a third
>lane, it is sane transit policies in Northern VA. If the only regular
>bus that runs from Herndon didn't take an hour to get to Tyson's more
>people would use mass transit.

Dan, I'm having a hard time following your logic.  Dulles Toll
Road has 2 lanes.  There exists heavy traffic congestion.  Dulles
Toll Road is widened to 3 lanes (causing massive delays.) Traffic
flows smoothly.  Dulles takes away one lane and is made into a
lane which no one uses or will use in the forseeable future (Even
Dulles's own estimate is 7% will go HOV, which means that 93% if
the traffic will remain in the other two lanes).  Now the
congestion is back, only worse.  Even if the third lane had been
HOV only from the start, its obvious to anyone that there is a
problem which is getting worse and which the HOV lane isn't
addressing.  But the fact that they did use the third lane for a
while showed beyond any skepticism that this lanes was at least a
temporary solution which worked now.  Yes, someone should address
the future by proposing a workable solution.  But any such
solution should be long range and not heavily penalize the present
situation.  That means that it will take a while for it to work.
I believe the differential tolls are a step in the right
direction.  Of course, there will reach a point when all the
people who could be coerced into carpooling have already done so.
Then new solutions have to be thought of.  (There was an article in
the Post the other day about comparing car-pooling in Europe with
it here.  It seems like they've had heavy incentives for years,
yet recently the number of cars have dramatically increased.  In
the US by contrast, without any incentives, the number of cars
nationwide appears to have flattened.  Needless to say, the author
didn't think to highly of such incentives). 

BTW, you say with a straight face that the problem is too many
cars!  This sounds like someone espousing the idea that the
solution to Washington's high murder problem is to reduce the
population.  After all, there must be an overabundance of victims,
right? :)  I guess it all depends on your point of view...

>>>
>>>The reason the carpool lane was put in was to reduce polution. Yes,
>>
>>Surely you jest!  Show me how pollution is being reduced by this fiasco.
>>A car taking 2-3 times as long to make a commute is surely going to
>>pollute 2-3 times as much if not more.
>>
>
>I didn't say that the car pool lane will reduce polution, I said that
>the reason it was put in was to reduce polution.

And I said it was a silly idea to reduce pollution.  You agree?

> 
>>>Virginia did it for money, but the money was given to reduce polution.
>>>I personally think that the implementation of the HOV lanes on the
>>>toll road stinks (there should be physical separation), but I think it
>>>is a good idea. I think the bus system should be upgraded as well as
>>>the train ideas accelerated. I would also like one lane on Rt. 7
>>>reserved for bicyclists, but thats dreaming.
>>
>>If people want to reasonably encourage car pooling, how about charging
>>reduced tolls for car poolers?  They now have in some cases toll booths
>>reserved for HOV only.  This would encourage car poolers, while not
>>penalizing those who cannot carpool.  It would also be enforceable.
>>
>I agree, except that people who do not carpool already pay three times
>as much for gas, and this has not changed anything. I guess I have
>always felt that punishment is more convincing than rewards. How about
>raising gas taxes too?

Perhaps we should punish people by making it a crime to drive a
car anywhere without 3 people in it.  That would certainly solve
the problem, but as a practical workable solution it doesn't cut
it.  I maintain that the HOV lane idea is not practical or
workable to fulfil its goal of encouraging car-pooling and should
be abolished.

>
>Daniel W. Woycke             |"I went out drinking with Thomas 
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729