The Transportation Commission has requested input regarding the implementation of proposed changes with I-405. I feel compelled to comment on several items.

First, let me describe my typical use of I-405. I personally am not a heavy carpool lane user. I drive from Kirkland to south Everett every morning, and then make the reverse commute in the evening (traveling in the opposite direction of the bulk of traffic). At the times and in the directions that I drive, the carpool lane is highly underutilized. It often seems to me like a better design would be to have reversible lanes, as used in many other locations, such as Seattle.

Points to consider:

1. The definition for what constitutes a “carpool” is now proposed to be changed from two occupants to more than two occupants. I am told that the reason for that proposal is that existing law dictates that the carpool lane or “hot lane” shall maintain a minimum speed of 45 mph. I do not know if a formal “census” study has ever been performed on I-405 carpool lane users, but based on my daily (weekdays) observations, I note that it seems apparent that very roughly 10 cars in 100 use the carpool lanes and of those 10 carpool vehicles, only about 1 contains more than two occupants. If those numbers are true (and I will be the first to admit that my numbers are only a estimate), then it seems that (during work hours on weekdays) only 1 in 100 cars would have three or more occupants. If the carpool definition were to change, then those other nine cars would be expected to be “pushed” into the non-carpool lanes, with potential impacts on the overall traffic flow.

2. The change in carpool definition would also penalize those who currently carpool with two-seat vehicles.

3. The “hot lane” would be used by rare remaining carpool vehicles (3 or more occupants, see above paragraphs) and those individuals able to pay an extra “tax” to use the lane. Although paid for by all citizens, it would basically become a rich person’s lane. Note that this is not my personal issue, as I personally could afford the toll, but it seems unfair to the daily workers whom I see going to work at Boeing every day.

4. Currently (although many are not aware of this fact), the carpool lane is open to everyone after 7 p.m. and before 5 a.m. It is now proposed that the hot lane will operate 24 hours per day, but with different fees tolled based on whether use occurs during “peak” hours and “non-peak” hours. My perception of this particular action is not as one designed to relieve traffic congestion, but rather as an action intended to increase funds received into the coffers of the State’s general fund (or wherever it is that such tolls end up going).

Assuming that reversible lanes are not a feasible idea, here is what I propose:

1. Make the Hot Lane hours of operation only between 5 a.m. and 7 p.m. Outside of those hours, turn off the equipment and make the lane free to anyone who may choose to use it. Other than extracting more money, what would be the point of operation outside of those hours?

2. Maintain the current definition for a carpool as two or more occupants. If the law dictates that “45 mph or above must be maintained,” then change the law.

3. Support the Governor’s proposal to allow electric vehicle use of the lane for free. Even better, formally study California’s experience with allowing hybrid vehicles to use the carpool lanes gratis (California may or may not currently do that, but that state did allow free use of carpool lanes by the new hybrid vehicles back when I was stationed in the military there in the early 1990s). This would encourage the purchase of more energy efficient vehicles with positive environmental and national security impacts.

Thank you for you attention.

Stanley D. Adams, M.D., Kirkland