Carpetbaggers

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   More from a discussion at miscellaneous transportation roads.

	Scott M. Kozel wrote:

	> "Dick Boyd"  wrote:

	> > 

	> > Stan Parris' Juliette Lowe bill which eliminated the decision power of

	> > the people that actually rode and drove on the reversible lanes of

	> > Shirley Highway. Prior to Juliette Lowe, the HOV requirements were FOUR

	> > and the intent was to keep ALL lanes flowing smoothly. With Juliette

	> > Lowe, occupancy was dropped to THREE and the emphasis was switched to

	> > moving cars. Congestion ensued.

	> 

	> Scott says: Nonsense.  A governmental policy decision set the original HOV-4

	> threshold, and a subsequent governmental policy decision set the HOV-3

	> threshold, so each decision was essentially commensurate.  In January

	> 1989, HOV-3 went into effect on I-395/I-95, because many citizens and

	> elected officials had for some time been pointing out that at HOV-4

	> during the peak hours, the reversible lanes were underutilized, and that

	> if changed to HOV-3 the lanes would still be congestion-free, and they

	> were indeed essentially congestion-free until the last couple years when

	> more and more motorists have been taking advantage of the SOV hybrid

	> exemption.  If the SOV hybrid exemption is eliminated like many people

	> want, the lanes should again become essentially congestion-free.  If

	> future traffic growth necessitates setting the threshold to HOV-4, then

	> a governmental policy decision can decide that as well.

	> 

	> -- 

	> Scott M. Kozel    Highway and Transportation History Websites

	> Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com

	> Philadelphia and Delaware Valley   http://www.pennways.com

	Are we looking at the doughnut or are we looking at the hole? The intent of HOV 4 was to keep the REGULAR lanes free flowing by attracting enough passengers to the reversible lanes. Those passengers would be drivers from the drive alones in the regular lanes.

	The greatest commodity in rush hour is empty seats in the cars of the drive alones. What was underutilized was not the reversible lanes, but the empty seats in the cars on the regular lanes. The people that drove or rode on the reversible lanes were willing to recruit drivers and find park and ride spaces for ad hoc car pools. "Many citizens" and "elected officials" decided that the people living in the corridor did not have common sense and pre empted their effort by reducing HOV to THREE, eliminating park and ride locations and harassing people that were using bus stops to catch a car pool. Ad hoc or scheduled.

	Agreed, a government policy decision can decide the occupancy requirements or the use by hybrids or law enforcement. We don't have to wait for the future for the demand. The situation existed in 1969. The policy then was to get enough passengers to have ALL lanes free flow.

	In my opinion, the government that makes the decisions should be representative of the people actually riding and driving on both the reversible lanes and the regular lanes. The carpetbaggers from Reston and Richmond should not have a say in operating policy. The carpetbaggers that "improve" performance by attracting more drive alones and more empty seats.

	dickboyd@aol.com

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
dickboyd Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote dickboyd Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: Carpetbaggers Posted: 19 Feb 2006 at 1:40am
	More from a discussion at miscellaneous transportation roads. Scott M. Kozel wrote: > "Dick Boyd" wrote: > > > > Stan Parris' Juliette Lowe bill which eliminated the decision power of > > the people that actually rode and drove on the reversible lanes of > > Shirley Highway. Prior to Juliette Lowe, the HOV requirements were FOUR > > and the intent was to keep ALL lanes flowing smoothly. With Juliette > > Lowe, occupancy was dropped to THREE and the emphasis was switched to > > moving cars. Congestion ensued. > > Scott says: Nonsense. A governmental policy decision set the original HOV-4 > threshold, and a subsequent governmental policy decision set the HOV-3 > threshold, so each decision was essentially commensurate. In January > 1989, HOV-3 went into effect on I-395/I-95, because many citizens and > elected officials had for some time been pointing out that at HOV-4 > during the peak hours, the reversible lanes were underutilized, and that > if changed to HOV-3 the lanes would still be congestion-free, and they > were indeed essentially congestion-free until the last couple years when > more and more motorists have been taking advantage of the SOV hybrid > exemption. If the SOV hybrid exemption is eliminated like many people > want, the lanes should again become essentially congestion-free. If > future traffic growth necessitates setting the threshold to HOV-4, then > a governmental policy decision can decide that as well. > > -- > Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites > Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com > Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com Are we looking at the doughnut or are we looking at the hole? The intent of HOV 4 was to keep the REGULAR lanes free flowing by attracting enough passengers to the reversible lanes. Those passengers would be drivers from the drive alones in the regular lanes. The greatest commodity in rush hour is empty seats in the cars of the drive alones. What was underutilized was not the reversible lanes, but the empty seats in the cars on the regular lanes. The people that drove or rode on the reversible lanes were willing to recruit drivers and find park and ride spaces for ad hoc car pools. "Many citizens" and "elected officials" decided that the people living in the corridor did not have common sense and pre empted their effort by reducing HOV to THREE, eliminating park and ride locations and harassing people that were using bus stops to catch a car pool. Ad hoc or scheduled. Agreed, a government policy decision can decide the occupancy requirements or the use by hybrids or law enforcement. We don't have to wait for the future for the demand. The situation existed in 1969. The policy then was to get enough passengers to have ALL lanes free flow. In my opinion, the government that makes the decisions should be representative of the people actually riding and driving on both the reversible lanes and the regular lanes. The carpetbaggers from Reston and Richmond should not have a say in operating policy. The carpetbaggers that "improve" performance by attracting more drive alones and more empty seats. dickboyd@aol.com