County closer to HOT lanes

The other thing I would like to comment on is the argument that things are getting so bad that doing anything would be better than the current situation. To this I say, Wait a minute! Yes, traffic is horrible on the beltway and 95, but the HOV system on 95 is one of the only things in the region that works fine so DONT ruin the best thing we have going just because of problems on the regular lanes. The fundamental decision, relating to the HOT on the 95/395 corredor is whether we are going to give up on HOV and go over to toll. There are other options that could be explored including a regular toll lane system south of Woodbridge.

TDAR20 and Gateway: You need to read the proposals. They clearly and unequivocally state that carpools and HOVer's will need to be controlled to reserve space for paying customers. This isn't my opinion, it is the opinion of the companies that are trying to build the lanes. They said it publicly in the Washington Post. The HOT system is a misnomer: it is a Toll Road, and will not contain a provision for high occupancy once it is up and running. It can't.

Second, it is my opinion that HOT will clog the HOV lanes. It is my opinion, and the opinion of almost everyone else posting on this board or who has read anything about the matter. It is the obvious outcome of adding more cars to the HOV lanes. How can adding more vehicles NOT add to the congestion? You'll have everybody paying to get into those lanes -- at least until they become as clogged up as the rest of the grid.

Finally, it should be obvious that it doesn't matter how many lanes you have on I-395: the determining factor in the traffic flow equation is the carrying capacity of the outflow streets. Making it possible for more CARS to get to the border of DC is a waste of time: the goal should be to get more PEOPLE to the border of DC. And that means HOV-4. And that will require more parking lots and more buses. Not more SOV's.

Counterpoint, SpongeBob. I stick to my interpretation of HOV-4 because is said 3 passengers, not three occupants. Here is the sentence from the first post - "Instead of requiring two passengers, the new lanes would require three or more passengers per vehicle to avoid a toll charge." I95 HOV-3 currently requires two passengers (plus the driver) and the statement says it will go to three passengers. Now, granted they may be talking specifically about the new third land they want to add, but unless it is physically separated it will be as hard to control as I66 HOV-2 two is currently. Almost sounds like they want to make free slugging as difficult as possible so people will be forced to pay them to use the lanes.

Im sure that the Omnilink Bus system is licking their chops over this toll thing, and the elimination of hov, which would ultimatly destroy one of their major compeditors.....slugs.

TDAR20, Please go back up and read what I wrote two posts ago. The HOT lanes mean the elimination of HOV. It is essential to their operation that they be restricted to only those who pay, otherwise they become too crowded. Fluor has stated as much in public meetings and been quoted to this effect in the Post. HOT is dependent upon a corresponding decrease in HOV traffic.

If you think the backup heading south is bad, wait until HOT comes! And going north in the morning: imagine an extra lane of traffic merging down to the Pentagon and 14th St. exits. Ha!

Plus, the HOT proposal by Fluor contains almost two dozen more exit/entrances: what's the first rule of maintaining high traffic speeds and traffic flow? Limited access points. HOT breaks that rule. We're going to be stuck in backups forever.

So if you want a solution, here's one: buy an old Class C RV for $10,000 and commute in it -- at least you'll have a shower and toilet for the long day of sitting in line.