WSDOT I-405 HOT Striping

[KEK Inc.]

WSDOT's Flickr Page has some new photos. 

[myosh_tino]

This looks pretty close to how the I-580 Express Lanes through the Livermore valley are going to be striped although a fairly large portion of the express lane will be open-access.

[The Ghostbuster]

Hopefully the HOT Lanes will help ease the burden on I-405. Isn't this road the most congested in Washington State?

[Bruce]

Hopefully the HOT Lanes will help ease the burden on I-405. Isn't this road the most congested in Washington State?

It is, but I-5 isn't close behind.

The most important part (in my opinion) is that there are now two HOT lanes per direction in some sections, which might help speed along bus traffic.

[jakeroot]

The most important part (in my opinion) is that there are now two HOT lanes per direction in some sections, which might help speed along bus traffic.

YES! Exactly my view as well. Buses have places to be and they need an express lane to ensure on-time arrivals. The old HOV lane was too busy and wasn't cutting it.

[Bruce]

And it looks like there's some trouble with the buses on the I-405 ETL. Apparently the limited entrances are hindering buses on ST Express routes 532 and 535, which exit off fairly often to serve flyer stops when in the reverse-peak direction or during non-peak hours.

[jakeroot]

And it looks like there's some trouble with the buses on the I-405 ETL. Apparently the limited entrances are hindering buses on ST Express routes 532 and 535, which exit off fairly often to serve flyer stops when in the reverse-peak direction or during non-peak hours.

Hmm. That is an issue. Maybe there should be an exemption for buses?

[Kacie Jane]

Off the top of my head, the only real issue should be entering from Brickyard P&R (NE 160th/Exit 22) then getting into the ETL to serve the stop at NE 128th Street (also an issue for Metro 237 and 311, possibly among others) (and similar in the opposite direction).  North of there, I believe the 532/535 get on and off the freeway at consecutive exits.  When traffic's absolutely awful, it may have still been worth it to weave to the HOV lane and back (and it's unfortunate that it's no longer an option), but northbound at least, buses should still be able to bypass traffic on the right, since the on-ramp at 195th/Beardslee Blvd becomes the exit only lane at Mill Creek.

But yes, I think a transit exemption might make sense.

[jrouse]

Looks like they're using both 4-inch and 8-inch striping?


iPhone

[myosh_tino]

Looks like they're using both 4-inch and 8-inch striping?


iPhone

It looks like WSDOT is using all 4-inch striping.

The I-580 Express Lane photos I posted looks like they're using either 6-inch or 8-inch striping.

[TEG24601]

The ETL are going to be a huge boondoggle.  They should have set this up like the 167 HOT lanes.  THESE ARE NOT HOT LANES.  HOT lanes, like those on SR 167, don't require a Good-To-Go pass to use if you have the appropriate number of passengers, and seems to actually be useful.  These ETLs, require a GTG account, with at least $20 on the account, and charge far more for use of the roadway than people are willing to pay.


WSDOT needs to correct this system or relegate it to the dustbin of history.

[myosh_tino]

The ETL are going to be a huge boondoggle.  They should have set this up like the 167 HOT lanes.  THESE ARE NOT HOT LANES.  HOT lanes, like those on SR 167, don't require a Good-To-Go pass to use if you have the appropriate number of passengers, and seems to actually be useful.  These ETLs, require a GTG account, with at least $20 on the account, and charge far more for use of the roadway than people are willing to pay.


WSDOT needs to correct this system or relegate it to the dustbin of history.

I agree that not requiring carpoolers to have a transponder is useful however, doing so makes enforcement difficult.

The I-680 express lane is setup like WA-167 and the only way law enforcement (in this case the CHP) can do toll enforcement is to station an officer downstream from a toll point.  When a car with no transponder passes the reader, the officer must immediately determine if that car has the required number of passengers to qualify as an HOV or is a solo driver committing a toll violation.

Express Lanes on I-10 and I-110 in southern California and soon to be on I-580 are going to be setup like I-405.  Toll enforcement is done via cameras at the tolling point.  When a car with no transponder is detected, a photo of the license plate is taken.  If that car is linked to a FasTrak account, the toll is deducted automatically otherwise, a toll violation is sent to the registered owner.

FWIW, there are plans to make the I-680 express lane like the ones on I-10, I-110 and I-580 (i.e. require all users to have a transponder).

[kkt]

Yes, this is not a HOT lane, this is a MT lane.  Millionaires and transit.  Why fix problems for everyone when you can just make sure the rich have a way to avoid them?

[jakeroot]

Yes, this is not a HOT lane, this is a MT lane.  Millionaires and transit.  Why fix problems for everyone when you can just make sure the rich have a way to avoid them?

I'd rather have express lanes than general purpose lanes. It's a well-known fact that more lanes = more cars. Why do you think the new 520 bridge only has an additional HOV lane? More lanes encourage car use. Our only hope in the Seattle area in terms of reducing congestion, is reducing the number of cars on the road. The only reasonable way to do that is to encourage the use of transit. We can't keep infinitely widening our roads. Can you imagine the 405 being 20 lanes wide? No? Of course not, because that's ridiculous.

I'm not saying we shouldn't widen roads -- in places that need it (such as I-5 between Mt Vernon & Canada, and Centralia & Vancouver), the capacity should be there. But in the city, the car just isn't the way to get around. This is the 21st century, and we both live in Seattle. We are, literally, one of the smartest cities in the country. We have to be able to make smarter decisions than just widening anytime congestion gets to a tipping point.

[andy3175]

I agree that not requiring carpoolers to have a transponder is useful however, doing so makes enforcement difficult.

The I-680 express lane is setup like WA-167 and the only way law enforcement (in this case the CHP) can do toll enforcement is to station an officer downstream from a toll point.  When a car with no transponder passes the reader, the officer must immediately determine if that car has the required number of passengers to qualify as an HOV or is a solo driver committing a toll violation.

Express Lanes on I-10 and I-110 in southern California and soon to be on I-580 are going to be setup like I-405.  Toll enforcement is done via cameras at the tolling point.  When a car with no transponder is detected, a photo of the license plate is taken.  If that car is linked to a FasTrak account, the toll is deducted automatically otherwise, a toll violation is sent to the registered owner.

FWIW, there are plans to make the I-680 express lane like the ones on I-10, I-110 and I-580 (i.e. require all users to have a transponder).

I look forward to the day when Fastrak, EZPass, and the rest are all relegated to history, and all electronic tolling and verification of number of passengers are conducted via license plate (perhaps with a radio device in the license plate or standard within all vehicles that acts as a transponder). This notion of having a minimal amount in a Fastrak account is ridiculous, especially when service fees are charged during periods of non-use. This effectively prohibits my use of any of these Fastrak-mandatory lanes unless I have a transponder -- which I'd only need four or five times per year just to access a carpool lane with a legitimate number of people in the car -- since I do not wish to pay the monthly fee.

[Rothman]

I'd rather have express lanes than general purpose lanes. It's a well-known fact that more lanes = more cars.

Huh.  So much for Detroit, where they were able to shut down an entire stretch of I-96 without catastrophic traffic consequences.  You would have thought all the remaining lanes of traffic would have come to a stand still given this "well-known fact."

[jakeroot]

I'd rather have express lanes than general purpose lanes. It's a well-known fact that more lanes = more cars.

Huh.  So much for Detroit, where they were able to shut down an entire stretch of I-96 without catastrophic traffic consequences.  You would have thought all the remaining lanes of traffic would have come to a stand still given this "well-known fact."

Right...Detroit. The only major city with a declining population? That's hardly a worthwhile example of how my point isn't true.

LA and Houston are better examples that you can't build your way out of congestion. Don't get me wrong, you can mitigate traffic in the interim, but things almost always return to normal.

[Rothman]

I'd rather have express lanes than general purpose lanes. It's a well-known fact that more lanes = more cars.

Huh.  So much for Detroit, where they were able to shut down an entire stretch of I-96 without catastrophic traffic consequences.  You would have thought all the remaining lanes of traffic would have come to a stand still given this "well-known fact."

Right...Detroit. The only major city with a declining population? That's hardly a worthwhile example of how my point isn't true.

LA and Houston are better examples that you can't build your way out of congestion.

Either way, just saying that "more lanes = more cars" is simply untrue.  Otherwise, the lanes in Detroit would be full.

[jakeroot]

I'd rather have express lanes than general purpose lanes. It's a well-known fact that more lanes = more cars.

Huh.  So much for Detroit, where they were able to shut down an entire stretch of I-96 without catastrophic traffic consequences.  You would have thought all the remaining lanes of traffic would have come to a stand still given this "well-known fact."

Right...Detroit. The only major city with a declining population? That's hardly a worthwhile example of how my point isn't true.

LA and Houston are better examples that you can't build your way out of congestion.

Either way, just saying that "more lanes = more cars" is simply untrue.  Otherwise, the lanes in Detroit would be full.

My point only applies to cities with a growing population.

[doorknob60]

I'd rather have express lanes than general purpose lanes. It's a well-known fact that more lanes = more cars.

Huh.  So much for Detroit, where they were able to shut down an entire stretch of I-96 without catastrophic traffic consequences.  You would have thought all the remaining lanes of traffic would have come to a stand still given this "well-known fact."

Right...Detroit. The only major city with a declining population? That's hardly a worthwhile example of how my point isn't true.

LA and Houston are better examples that you can't build your way out of congestion.

Either way, just saying that "more lanes = more cars" is simply untrue.  Otherwise, the lanes in Detroit would be full.

My point only applies to cities with a growing population.

Growing population? Sounds more like "more people = more cars".

[jakeroot]

I'd rather have express lanes than general purpose lanes. It's a well-known fact that more lanes = more cars.

Huh.  So much for Detroit, where they were able to shut down an entire stretch of I-96 without catastrophic traffic consequences.  You would have thought all the remaining lanes of traffic would have come to a stand still given this "well-known fact."

Right...Detroit. The only major city with a declining population? That's hardly a worthwhile example of how my point isn't true.

LA and Houston are better examples that you can't build your way out of congestion.

Either way, just saying that "more lanes = more cars" is simply untrue.  Otherwise, the lanes in Detroit would be full.

My point only applies to cities with a growing population.

Growing population? Sounds more like "more people = more cars".

Good point. What I was trying to say was, if freeways are wide and free flowing, people will naturally want to drive. And we don't want to encourage driving within cities -- it's simply not an economical way of moving people around.

[Kacie Jane]

I think the most accurate way to state Jake's point would be "more people + more lanes = more cars".  The demand has to be there, of course, but if the demand is there, then widening freeways ad nauseum doesn't actually solve congestion, because cars will just come to fill the new lanes too.

[jakeroot]

I think the most accurate way to state Jake's point would be "more people + more lanes = more cars".  The demand has to be there, of course, but if the demand is there, then widening freeways ad nauseum doesn't actually solve congestion, because cars will just come to fill the new lanes too.

I think the technical term is "induced demand" (after doing some research).

[Rothman]

I'd rather have express lanes than general purpose lanes. It's a well-known fact that more lanes = more cars.

Huh.  So much for Detroit, where they were able to shut down an entire stretch of I-96 without catastrophic traffic consequences.  You would have thought all the remaining lanes of traffic would have come to a stand still given this "well-known fact."

Right...Detroit. The only major city with a declining population? That's hardly a worthwhile example of how my point isn't true.

LA and Houston are better examples that you can't build your way out of congestion.

Either way, just saying that "more lanes = more cars" is simply untrue.  Otherwise, the lanes in Detroit would be full.

My point only applies to cities with a growing population.

Growing population? Sounds more like "more people = more cars".

Good point. What I was trying to say was, if freeways are wide and free flowing, people will naturally want to drive. And we don't want to encourage driving within cities -- it's simply not an economical way of moving people around.

Who you callin' "we," White Man?

I'd say what really encourages driving are the facts that my car doesn't run on a schedule and it has cargo space.  You may not think of it economical from whatever perspective you have, but from a drivers' perspective -- especially drivers who have families -- the car is very economical indeed when compared to public transit.

[jakeroot]

Who you callin' "we," White Man?

You know what I mean. No need to get snarky.

I'd say what really encourages driving are the facts that my car doesn't run on a schedule and it has cargo space.  You may not think of it economical from whatever perspective you have, but from a drivers' perspective -- especially drivers who have families -- the car is very economical indeed when compared to public transit.

That's not at all what I'm saying. Driving, in and of itself, is a very effective form of transport for you, but when you live in a city with another one or two million people, it's hard to accommodate everyone's desire to drive. I get driving, and I love my car. All I'm saying is, for a city, there are more effective ways of moving people around than using cars.

I'm looking at this from a city planner perspective: What's the most economical way of moving large amounts of people? It's not freeways or roads. It's public transit. And trust me, the math works out. Things are economical when they don't waste resources. Think of it like this: 60 people in a bus is (about) .16 people per square foot. 4 people in a car is .04 people per square foot. As long as my math checks out, that would mean an average city bus is 4 times as efficient as a car, despite having much larger dimensions. Feel free to double check my math (my math skills are not so good) but I think I did those calculations correct (bus: 8.5ft x 40ft, car: 16ft x 6ft).

Again, not looking at this from a person-to-person perspective. That's not how cities work. You have to look at the bigger picture and decide where to invest money. Investing in a system that is mathematically inefficient is silly. And sure, if you throw enough money at the problem, traffic congestion might go away, but it'll come back. It's called induced demand.