Do You Like The 2-Person Minimum For Vehicles On I-5 Car-Pool Lanes?

The state Department of Transportation will continue its eased restrictions for the Interstate 5 car-pool lanes for at least one more month. At the end of that time, the DOT will decide whether to make the change permanent or reinstate the three-passenger minimum.

The change went into effect last July to gauge the impact on traffic. Thus far, use of the car-pool lanes by private vehicles has increased. The northbound commute time also has increased. The commute south has remain unchanged. In addition, bus ridership to Seattle has decreased, possibly because the change has affected Community Transit's ability to meet some route schedules.

What do you think?

Here's what readers think:

My husband and I commute together to work because he needs to have a car at work. We do want to continue the two-passenger HOV lane. It has made a considerable difference in our morning commute. And evening commutes, in our opinion, have been somewhat better, but very much like it was last year.

Eunice Neidhold, Everett

I favor reinstituting the three-person minimum for the high-occupancy-vehicle lanes going north on I-5. I believe that long term that represents the best solution to encourage people to use public transportation as opposed to private vehicles. I do not believe that two persons in an automobile is high occupancy of a vehicle. Three or four would be much more reasonable as a long-term strategy for solving some of our traffic problems.

Joe Manion, Mukilteo

I live in Everett and I commute to lower Queen Anne by Seattle Center every day. I work in a 10-man office and there just happens to be two of us in Snohomish County. We have very frequently used the commuter lanes and I really hope they'll continue them. Busing isn't a possibility unless I want to spend an hour and a half on the bus each day because we have to go all the way downtown and then commute back by another bus to lower Queen Anne. I think bus ridership has gone down not because of the car pooling, but because of the lack of the routes.

Penny Doyle, Everett

I'm very much in favor of keeping the HOV lanes to two people. Although I cannot use them every day, I do use them two or three times a week. If they went back to three people I would never be able to use them and I do not and will not have an opportunity to use a bus at all. So I think it would be a mistake for the department to change HOVs back to three (people), and quite frankly think they should move the other HOV lanes to two people.

Jay Grant, Edmonds

I definitely am in favor of the two-person car pool. I feel that it's a waste to have a car-pool lane that has no vehicles to speak of when I've been driving on the freeway when it's been a three-(person minimum).

Darlene Dillan, Edmonds

I'm in favor of the continuation of two people. The few times I do commute, the (HOV) lanes have been moving very smoothly and are not congested at all.

Margene Stuart, Lynnwood

I was afraid the commute time would change and the bus ridership would decrease because of allowing two people in the car-pool lanes. It's been nice. I really think they should have two car-pool lanes, with three riders at least. With just the other lanes with other traffic. I know it will slow them down a lot, but I know it will increase more ridership in cars and more bus service.

Diane Lewis, Everett

I favor continuing the two-person car-pool lane. I think that the car-pool lane going northbound has a fundamental problem not in the car-pool lane, but rather because it stops. The solution would be to extend the car-pool lane up past 220th Street Southwest up to Lynnwood, where you have a large number of people leaving the freeway.

Frank Andrews, Everett

I have commuted alone for 10 years. When the two-occupant HOV plan went into effect in July I stopped at the bus stop near my home and asked if anyone was going near the vicinity I worked. A man said he worked nearby and he and I have been riding together since last December. It saves him over an hour and a half from the bus in the morning and at night. It has made our commute faster. I would be very distressed if they changed it back. It would take the incentive away for having a rider.

Pat Ward, Mukilteo

I think they should keep it a two person car-pool lane because more people are willing to car pool with two people. It's hard to get three.

Martha Bender, Mill Creek

I am very much in favor of the two-occupant minimum in the car-pool lanes as my wife and I car pool together. The commute for us has been decreased by at least 10 minutes both northbound and southbound every day. If bus ridership is down, I don't believe either Community Transit or Metro can blame that on people car pooling instead of riding the bus. If the route schedules on Community Transit have changed, maybe it's because their bus drivers insist on driving 45 mph instead of 55. I noticed a dramatic decrease in their speed whether there's anybody in front of them or not as soon as the two-person limit went into effect. I found this very interesting.

Andy Howard, Shoreline

I'm absolutely opposed to changing back to a three-occupant vehicle commute lane. The commute lane is not for buses only in my estimation. Taxpayers are entitled to use the highways. I'm not interested in Department of Transportation social engineering for the purposes of accomplishing their goals. It appears to me that taxpayers ought to have access to the roads, the roads should be expanded to meet the needs of the taxpayer. To exclusively set it aside for buses seems to me completely out of line with reality.

Paul Elvig, Everett --------------------------------------------------------------- NEXT WEEK'S QUESTION

Was the presidential primary election worthwhile, or a waste of time?

Only 12.5 percent of Snohomish County's 227,914 registered voters bothered to cast ballots in the May 19 presidential primary. Nearly 12,000 of the 28,670 voters wrote in names, ranging from Mickey Mouse to Ross Perot.

Many of those voting felt it was the right way to select a presidential nominee. Many who stayed home felt the caucus system works. From the beginning, a cloud hung over the primary because Democrats announced in advance it would follow the results of its caucus system, not the balloting. Some observers believe the people spoke with their feet by not bothering to vote.

What do you think?

Please phone your responses, by 8 p.m. Monday, to the Community Voices reader call-in line, 464-3337. Include your full name, your city and phone number (comments cannot be published without verification). Selected responses will be published in next Thursday's Snohomish Life.