smooth saler wrote on Jul 28, 2007 6:18 AM:Why do highway planners continue to promote HOV lanes? If people actually chose where they live based upon whether they could use a car pool lane, then usage would rise to the point that is still would not work, but simply trap commuters into HOV lanes. Alas, the truth is that in all the years of opperation in California, the usage has stayed relatively the same. This is because people do not choose where they live and work based upon trivial matters like sharing car pool lanes. It is more evident in Western "horizontally dense" cities built upon a model of single occupancy vehicle useage. Wake up, you political slackards! Use your brain for something other than to hold your ears apart!

Skip wrote on Jul 28, 2007 6:28 AM:Carpool lanes are a waste of time and resources. Get rid of them and just add more lanes. Too many people driving? Then just deport the Illegal Aliens and enforce the rules. No legal residence, the no driver;s license. They can take the bus or the Sprinter.

wigernaught wrote on Jul 28, 2007 7:11 AM:A major issue is that Transnet dictates much of this and the transnet ordinance voted in by the people prescribes more HOV lanes. SANDAG wrote the ballot measure. You will have to put a new measure on the county ballot to change that. The bigger issue is that even if the new lanes are for SOV they will fill up very fast and improvements will be negligible in a very short time, if north county continues to add population at a rate faster than we can build lanes. It is very very expensive to build lanes and very politically easy to upzone north county cities.

Josh wrote on Jul 28, 2007 7:58 AM:More lanes will allow more people to drive, thus increasing traffic. Public transit and higher density smart growth are the solutions to congestion, not wide roads. Skip: Illegal immigrants aren't the cause of every problem.

Planning wrote on Jul 28, 2007 8:19 AM:It's all poor planning. When they widened 78 to 3 lanes, it would have been better back then to make it at least 4. Not everyone can determine where they will work at in a year and then jobs change because they let all the work go to India, so you have to change jobs and can't just up and move closer to the job. Make the freeways wider, put in car pool lanes too. And think ahead planners.

smooth saler wrote on Jul 28, 2007 8:27 AM:"Transnet"... now THERE'S an oxymoron! The problem that really remains is that we do not manage or coordinate transportation methods and plan for they inevitable. No one wants to pay for it... we would rather subcontract our way out through privatization. That has been working really well, hasn't it? Whether we build it or not... they (the people) will come. So let's just put it off until it is even more expensive and and we are forced into reaction.

coast watcher wrote on Jul 28, 2007 8:37 AM:The Highway 78 is where the Sprinter should have been built in the first place,not Oceanside Boulevard! Save the money on freeway widening and put a multi-car train elevated above 78 and you've got a better solution.

George wrote on Jul 28, 2007 9:58 AM:At the meeting, the presenter was asked about expanding the I-5. The answer was an implied 'no' because 'it would cost TWO BILLION dollars' to accomplish. While he was answering, the slide show was revealing that the TransNet tax will bring in $42 billion. Divided three ways (cities, transit, freeways) means there is $14 billion available for freeway construction. That's PLENTY to add needed regular lanes to the 5, 15, 76, and 78 and still have money left over.

What? wrote on Jul 28, 2007 10:25 AM:They like to put in HOV lanes because a year after they open them and they are only running at 10% of capacity they can turn them into toll roads for single occupancy drivers. Just like they did on the 15. We all pay for them and then they make us pay to use them. The 78 needed a 4th lane when they put in the 3rd. The 78 is a total goat rope now. I can only imagine what it will be like in thirteen years when they plan to add the HOV lane. I like the idea of being able to shift the number of lanes in each direction like they do on the Coronado bridge.

anotherview wrote on Jul 28, 2007 11:43 AM:The state has no master plan for growth. Hence, population growth occurs across the state regardless of the resources and the infrastructure necessary to support additional population. With no statewide planning, the resulting uncontrolled growth harms all concerned now and in the future. Local government makes land planning decisions with a view to increased sales tax revenue from more consumers, resulting in more houses and population, along with more traffic congestion and other negative impacts. Big land developers fight every effort to bring the costs of their housing projects in line with the external impacts of these projects, crying that the houses would become unaffordable. Now, a given community facing new land development shares the burden from it via tax and fee increases to accommodate this growth. But part of the answer to uncontrolled growth lies in a state requirement that factors the overall external cost of a housing project into the price of each new house. Such a requirement would mean that adequate roads, traffic lights, schools, police, fire stations, assured water supply, and so on, would occur before and during any housing project. Some put the formula this way: Roads before rooftops. Then the price of a house would reflect its true cost, involving a higher price than now. Growth would slow in areas where a land developer had to price a house higher to pay for its true cost. This market mechanism would control growth by diverting it to locales where consumers could afford the house with its true costs factored in. The woes of growth will continue so long as growth remains uncontrolled statewide.

Chief wrote on Jul 28, 2007 12:12 PM:They should spend this money on 76. This will take traffic from 78.

George wrote on Jul 28, 2007 12:25 PM:It's not more lanes that cause traffic and congestion, Josh, it's the failure by the professional planners to provide sufficient capacity for ongoing population growth. After decades of neglecting our freeways, we now have considerable gridlock and spillover onto the surface streets. Adding regular lanes to the freeways is vital to meet our transportation needs now and in the future.

The Solution wrote on Jul 28, 2007 12:35 PM:doesn't take a rocket scientist, city planner or SANDAG to figure out. Plain and simple: Widen the 76 between the 15 and the 5! This will take traffic off of the 78. Put light rail in the I15 corridor to downtown San Diego with 2 or 3 stops from Escondido along the way. Do these people making decisions not drive in these areas? Come on folks, wake up and see what's really happening in North County! A band-aid does NOT fix a broken leg!

Jimmy the III wrote on Jul 28, 2007 1:09 PM:We have to start to realize we will have to change our social and business mindsets and the way things have been done to solve this traffic problem, otherwize it's nothing buit bandaids. Like relocate our businesses and social centers first, creating neo-company type towns and bringing the services to the people. This would cut the traffic by more than 10 percent for domestic traffic. If we limit truck traffic to certain hours of the day and encorage the use of rail for transporting what commodities trucks would carry that would eliminate about another 10 percent of the traffic load. If we could have DR. and other professional visitations being conducted over the internet with the professionals getting credit for these visitations another 10 percent of the traffic load could be eliminated. If our bus services really was a "bus service" and not a people mover system where you could call at your home be picked up and dropped off at will all hours day and night, then you could load up your items in a loading area and not be limited to two bags that had to be stuffed that could be comfortable and conducted at cost say subsidized by the markets you shopped at this could reduce the traffic by another 10 percent. The rest will take place no matter what. But to achieve this permanent 40 percent reduction would require a change in mental attitude and social norms. Is this a reality in our time? Not without a severe economic squeeze, however in So cal? I doubt it it would take 3 generations at minimum to effectuate these changes by then we will be like a third world nation before 'we get it' as we have been socialized by the "cowboy mentality" epitomized by the neoconservative ideology anything else will be labelled as liberal government mind control no matter how sane it is.

Skip: wrote on Jul 28, 2007 1:19 PM:Yes they are: Remember the Illegal Alien Day of May 1, 2006. The freeways worked that day, just as they were designed for. Most people just have no comprehnsion on just how many illegal aliens we have here these days. There are a lot, as 20 million Illegals are enough to add to all 50 states.

wigernaught wrote on Jul 28, 2007 1:26 PM:Josh drank the coolaid. How many examples can he cite of cities that fixed their transportation problems with "smart growth"? San Diego is the least likely place for "smart" growth to even help a bit. San Diego is spread out. Transit is not going to be viable for most people no matter how much Josh doesn't want people to drive. Josh should also google "capsweb"to see what the honest with themselves environmentalists are saying.

wigernaught wrote on Jul 28, 2007 1:31 PM:Jimmy wrote of a "permanent 40 percent reduction". That is only temporary once the population catches back up in about a half generation. Google "capsweb"

George wrote on Jul 28, 2007 2:34 PM:There is no uncontrolled growth anywhere in California. You've always needed a government building permit! Before the permit is issued plans for the project must be submitted, reviewed, and approved. Since you can't build without a permit, all growth is controlled.

Useless wrote on Jul 28, 2007 2:45 PM:Carpool lanes are totally useless, get this through your thick skulls. They don't help traffic problems whatsoever. You need more lanes and a light rail system in the middle. Look at how the Trex project did their improvements in Denver. They did a great job, with plenty of room for further expansion. Caltrans take note, call Trex and ask for ideas.

Dane wrote on Jul 28, 2007 3:15 PM:The train idea was a boondoggle waste of money and won't have that much effect on reducing traffic. Adding car pool lanes is just yet another inefficient social engineering attempt and also won't help much. Just add more general lanes.

Ed wrote on Jul 28, 2007 4:55 PM:I am so glad I am retired. I pity the poor folks who have to commute from a bedroom community to their work. All the hundreds of millions of dollars poured into the Sprinter project could have been better spent making one or more commuter lanes. The Sprinter will only service the needs of the lay abouts, elderly who are out on a lark, and school kids trying to get from, say, Escondido to Palomar College and Cal State San Marcos. Even at Cal State they will have to hike into the campus or take a shuttle.

Skip wrote on Jul 28, 2007 7:39 PM:The real problem with the 78 is that it was never built as a real freeway. Real freeways have at least 4 lanes in each direction. For the price of the Sprinter, Caltrans could have fixed the 78.

TO : George wrote on Jul 28, 2007 7:42 PM:RE: There is no uncontrolled growth anywhere in California. >>>> Sorry but you have to count 8 or more Illegal Alien families living in a single family residence as uncontrolled growth. I hear they are even putting bedrooms in the attics now. When a single house has 8 or more cars parked around it or an apartment building has a hundred more cars then the number of units, then I would classify that as uncontrolled growth. R/ Skip

Sane wrote on Jul 28, 2007 8:41 PM:Gas costs between now and 2030 will more than double in real dollars due to increasing Chinese demand. This, by itself, will cause people to rethink their commutes and pressure cities to provide work, home, and recreation modes in the same location. Not to say freeways will go the way of the dinosaur, but it will not be the travel mode of choice in this millenium.

Jake wrote on Jul 28, 2007 8:42 PM:I strongly support more HOV lanes and an increase in the gasoline tax. The horribly inefficient use of resources by solo drivers is completely unsustainable, way too expensive, and a failed experiment in anti-social engineering.

Jeff wrote on Jul 28, 2007 8:54 PM:Car pool lanes are a waste. Add the lanes as reqular lanes and do it soon. The Sprinter is just a waste and won't help. If we didn't waste the money in bond issues and sales tax increase on public transportation but instead used all the money for roads - which people actual use - we could stay ahead of these problems. The road decisions are made as political decisions - no engineering ones.

Beto H wrote on Jul 28, 2007 10:37 PM:When I moved to Escondido in January of 1971 the population was approximately 36,792, in 2003 it was estimated that Escondido had somewhere in the neighborhood of 136,193 residents, according to my numbers this means that the population grew by approximately 270%. Back in January of 1971 State Route 78 was a four-lane highway that was constructed in the mid 60’s, we now see that Route 78 has matured to a six-lane highway, which is a 50% of the original four-lane highway. Now I am no mathematician genius but the highway has not been keeping up with the growth of our city not to mention the neighboring cities as Oceanside Vista and San Marcos. How Caltrans expects to move the amount of vehicles in a highway that was designed for half the number of cars? Skip: Get a life and place the blame were it belongs…

To Beto H wrote on Jul 28, 2007 10:55 PM:What do you think? That they all live in the shadows? Illegal Immigration is the largest factor today driving our out of control population explosion. When I was growing up in Southern California the national population was 200 million, now it has surpassed 300 million and is headed for 400 million in my lifetime. What is driving this explosion you may ask? Yup you guessed it Illegal Immigration. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States, projected to 07/29/07 at 05:54 GMT (EST+5) is 302,464,618. http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

Build up wrote on Jul 30, 2007 12:28 PM:Why not put a second layer on 78? Maybe the direct traffic between the 5 and the 15 could be on one level, and the stop and go stuff on another level. Just a thought. North county is getting the short end of the stick on TransNet, IMHO:(

Bob wrote on Jul 30, 2007 2:10 PM:I know a way to solve the problem. Deport all the illegals! 12 million fewer cars on the road would make a significant difference.

Beto H wrote on Jul 31, 2007 8:02 AM:I never mentioned anything about this great country not having an immigration problem, what I said is that the problem that we are facing with route 78 is that it has not been keeping with the growth of North County. If we take the numbers as “To Beto H 07/28 10:55pm) indicated in his comment we have a resident population in the US of approximately 302,484,740 and approximately 12,000,000 of those residents are undocumented, that gives me a 4% of undocumented people. And let’s be hones not all 12 million people are driving out in the road. But for sake of argument we will use your total numbers. If Escondido has a population of 136,193 and 4% (5,403) of those numbers are illegal, and if we were to get rid of them that would still leave the population of Escondido with 130,000 (+/-) residents. This proves my point that State Route 78 has not kept up with the growth of North County, when the highway was built in the mid to late sixties it was a four lane highway for 37,000 residents we need a highway that is at least 8 lanes for regular traffic and one lane for carpool. If anyone wants to bring up the immigration topic lets discuss it in a different post, in a place where it belongs and not in a discussion with traffic congestion.

Beto H wrote on Jul 31, 2007 8:33 AM:NC Times…. What happened with my comment that I posted at 8:03am, was there something offensive in the content of the text? Are you not playing fair and your newspaper is only posting what you want to see in print?