As I recall (it has been at least 5 years since I was involved), there was not funding available for the HOV lane without the toll addition. So, without the toll portion, there wouldn’t be HOV at this point in time. And, the toll increases as the congestion increases – the more cars the higher the toll. I don’t recall the higher limits, but there is less incentive to get into the toll situation as the cost goes up.

But it is still an experiment. It works in southern California. Will it work here? Time will tell. In the end result, no matter what happens, there is a new lane in each direction on 680 which will at least be an HOV lane.

Consider the prospect of what happens as the other non-HOV lanes become increasingly conggested and more and more pay-per-use drivers migrate to the HOV lane – - – what happens to the original intent and that all important HOV incentive ??

As far as WHO the incremental lane is built for – - – the point is that if you want to IMPROVE the corridor – if that was your numero uno priority – you’d dedicate the lane to all drivers. Now – If you are a bit more forward looking in your management of this resource – you dedicate the resource to HOV occupancy. BUT – if you want to grab some revenue (and simultaneously are willing to reduce effectiveness of the HOV incentive) – you add a “toll” feature to the resource.

That some percentage of tolls collected will be returned to “improving the corridor” is nothing more (in my estimation) than a way to sell constituency on what is NOW little more than a toll lane masquerading as a “green-thinking” HOV.

My hunch is politicos have a slightly different view than constituency of what “green” ultimately means when it comes to this mixed toll/HOV lane concept. . . . . .

The idea of a moveable barrier to add only one lane and then move a barrier depending on which way you want the HOV lane to be going was considered at length, but was not adopted due to operational concerns and ongoing costs, as I recall. This, I believe, is an experiment, the first in Northern California, so we aren’t really sure how successful it will be.

One fact I recall from the process. The conventional wisdom is that the traffic on 680 is coming from San Joaquin County environs. CalTrans did a license plate survey of the cars on 680 and found the majority to be from Contra Costa County.

At that same time, more people from Alameda County commuted into Santa Clara County than commuted into San Francisco, with all of the transit options aimed at serving the SF commuter, except for a few VTA buses. It looks like they are finally going to start serving the SCC commuters, with BART and additonal lanes on the highways.

In Houston their freeway HOV lanes run with the traffic. They split the freeway and only go with the traffic in the morning (into town), and out of town in the afternoon/eventing (out of town). The other good thing is that you can’t exit the lane except at certain times, like SoCal carpool lanes. Cheaters WILL get caught.

Here our I-680 carpool/toll lane is ONLY being planned southbound, not northbound. Seems like it would make MUCH more sense to do what Houston does and have a lane in between northbound and southbound and have this toll/carpool lane only go southbound in the morning, northbound in the afternoon/evening. Too bad nobody has thought about that.

HOV lanes dedicated to vehicles of a specfied head count during commute hours and anybody irrespective of whether you drive a Ford or a Lexus can enjoy the benefit of an HOV lane. This isn’t a “premium” service that allows someone to buy their way to the head of the line. This is an AOK way to encourage folks to carpool – - – - whoever added in the idea that some folks could be given the ability to buy access to the HOV lane was an idiot.

“Toll” express lanes charge folks for the privledge of using them. The idea that a “toll” lane “gives back” as Gus suggests is a back-handed idea. First – you take away a lane from the local “corridor” then you attempt to marginally rationalize this takeaway by using the revenues to “improve the corridor” ???? what kind of backwards thinking is this ??? Keep in mind that this all happens less adminstrative overhead, handling fees, destination charges, dealer prep and anything else that gov. can think of.

The mixing of these two ideas takes a potentially sound idea (HOV incentives) and turns it into a revenue “land grab”.

Anybody that wants to see “express toll” thinking at its finest – take a drive into downtown Chicago sometime during commute hours – and have your wallet ready every 4-5 miles.

The *real* carpoolers must be pissed, having to realize that conservation is reserved for the peons.

Here is the current headline on http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus:

“Classes at Fremont’s James Logan High cancelled due to power outage”

Local newspapers will never disappear because they have a unique connection with, and knowledge of, the local community. I’ll tell you right now The Drudge Report and CNN.com have no clue that Fremont has annexed James Logan High School!