George wrote on Nov 30, 2008 2:37 AM:As a follow-up, the hearing was held in the downtown offices of SANDAG. Only mass transportation officials were invited to state their case to the panel. Although there was no provision for public input at the hearing, we are invited to email our comments to Sen. Boxer's office using the address in the column. There are more details about the hearing in "Local officials lobby for federal dollars" (NCT, November 14th).

Local officials sometimes claim they are constrained by Federal mandates when it comes to transportation planning. Here is a chance to express the need for freeway congestion relief and the accompanying reduction in emissions to an appropriate Congressional panel. Please take a few moments to send your comments before the December 1st deadline.

Derek wrote on Nov 30, 2008 1:55 PM:"Stop-and-go driving generates 10 times more pollution than driving at freeway speeds."

Not in a hybrid or electric vehicle (including personal rapid transit).

"To paraphase the ballot language, the tax was to relieve traffic congestion, improve safety and match state/federal funds by: expanding Interstates 5, 8, 15 and 805..."

Adding highway lanes to deal with traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity. If voters were promised that expanding these freeways was going to relieve congestion, they've been taken for a ride.

Anyway, there's plenty of available capacity on the freeways before and after rush hour. Overbuilding the freeways like we've been doing only makes room for more congestion.

"The reversible lanes in the center of I-15 were recently opened but the vast majority of commuters are prohibited from the lanes because a varying toll is charged for access."

That doesn't make sense at all. That's like saying people are prohibited from eating because food costs money.

Dave wrote on Nov 30, 2008 2:23 PM:How are you prohibited by using the HOT lanes? Do they refuse to take your money, for example?

George wrote on Nov 30, 2008 3:06 PM:Hi, Derek! Hybrids use gasoline too, and when they do they generate 10 times more emissions during stop-and-go driving than they do when operating at freeway speeds.

Your comparison of regional growth to obesity doesn't work since regional size is not static. Families have children, people move to the area, the population expands. The transportation system must expand to meet the needs of growth, but the planners have failed to add the necessary capacity to the freeways.

The freeways aren't overbuilt. If they were, there would be no congestion at any time for any reason. At this point, the freeways aren't even adequate during periods of peak demand.

According to SANDAG, the whole idea of the sliding-scale toll on the reversible lanes is to minimize the number of people who can use it. That's a prohibition to the vast majority of commuters who have already paid for the construction of those lanes by paying various state and federal taxes. Eliminating the toll would significantly increase utilization and reduce congestion.

George wrote on Nov 30, 2008 3:12 PM:Hi, Dave! SANDAG uses the toll to control the number of cars in the reversible lanes. Charging a toll to keep drivers out of the lanes is a prohibition.

Derek wrote on Nov 30, 2008 6:26 PM:"Hybrids use gasoline too, and when they do they generate 10 times more emissions during stop-and-go driving than they do when operating at freeway speeds."

I don't think you understand how hybrids work. They store energy during breaking and apply it to the wheels emission-free during acceleration. The Prius was made for stop-and-go driving. In fact, the Prius gets better fuel economy in the city (48 mpg) than on the highway (45 mpg).

"...commuters who have already paid for the construction of those lanes by paying various state and federal taxes."

It's either pay again for lanes that are already paid for, or pay for new ones. In either case, someone must pay. Why not make only the users pay? Making everyone pay indiscriminately through a sales tax is not just socialism, it's a regressive tax, because according to the SpringerLink article "Just pricing: the distributional effects of congestion pricing and sales taxes", low income earners on average would pay more in sales taxes for a freeway than they would pay in tolls. How is that fair to them?

"SANDAG uses the toll to control the number of cars in the reversible lanes. Charging a toll to keep drivers out of the lanes is a prohibition."

No, it's a way of distributing a finite resource, freeway lane-miles, by applying market rate pricing.

George wrote on Nov 30, 2008 11:17 PM:Hi, Derek! Okay, so I did some research on the Prius. You are right, the Prius was designed for congested freeways where the speed never exceeds 20 miles per hour. As long as the battery holds out, emissions are lower. Above 20 MPH, it runs on gasoline and gets about 30 miles per gallon according to user reports. That's less than a lot of other economy cars on the market that offer 32 to 35 MPG.

Of some concern is the massive spike in hydrocarbons when the engine starts and stops -- a lot of stop and go driving around 20 MPH will minimize the emissions benefit of the Prius.

As for the fairness in taxation, the TransNet sales tax was approved by 2/3rds of the voters. That means congestion relief has widespread support among the low income earners as well as the rest of us. And there's no need to "pay again" when all you have to do is use the existing five taxes for congestion relief as promised.

"Distributing a finite resource" is another way of saying you're prohibiting some drivers from using the lanes they paid for. And since it's averaging 1,000 vehicles per hour per lane, it is only running at half of capacity of a regular lane. Eliminating the tolls and carpool requirements would signficantly reduce congestion during peak demand at very little cost.

That would signficantly reduce auto emissions without the need to buy a new car.

Walt wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:04 AM:Happy to see Derek joining the believers in Personl Rapid Transit to reduce pollution, (and congestion). The more road capacity breed congestion myth is factually dispelled by Texas Transportation Institute data for large metro communities. LA has the least, (not a typo!), miles of freeways per capita, Buffalo NY the most. LA has most congestion and pollution, Buffalo the least. The misconception is commuities like San Diego have a long way to go before improvement is noticed. Yes even so, LA makes about 20% better use of its freeways by spreading traffic over more hours. Exacerbating congestion are HOV and HOT lanes. Overall in So. Califoenia Caltrans data shows their restrictions reduce total rider throughput because of congestion they produce in the regular lanes. Not proven, but probably there is a net increase in pollution because most lanes are stop and go, and HOV/HOT lane cars run at higher than optimum speed. Hybrids are a net improvement mostly because of light weight,engines run near full throttle with no idle, reused braking energy, etc. The stop and go advantage EPA tests show is because the battery is being drained, and recharge later by the gas engine is not fully counted. SANDAG Staff analysis in April 2007 showed higher congestion relief occured if additional funds used for roads. Wonder if Derek knows why Directors reponsible for TransNet II voted down that allocation?

So George wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:21 PM:What are you doing personally to lower emissions when you commute?

1) How often do you personally use mass transit?

2) Do you own a hybrid or electric car?

3) Are you a regular carpool member?

4) Do you tele-commute?

5) Have you adjusted your commuting habits to non-peak traffic periods?

These are things we should first be asking ourselves, before making demands for "Mother Government" to undo the damage we, ourselves, are responsible for.