BTW this is often why the bridge deck will often flow pretty well when both approaches are jammed. Most people won’t switch lanes once they are out on the bridge deck. Still it only takes a couple of idiots who decide they are going to switch back and forth the whole way across to slow everything down to a crawl (not to mention the infamous “stalled car mid-span”).

Let’s say you’re right and the HOV lane only contribute 5% of peak traffic. If the HOV lane only accounts for 5% then we should make all lanes GP. Somehow I think that since this is one the biggest bottlenecks in the entire region it would seem to prove otherwise. But, once flow is improved it might well be possible to make this the standard double occupancy instead of three person HOV and further reduce pressure on the GP lanes.

Let’s look at it another way. On days when the HOV lanes are working, like today, the two GP lanes feeding the bridge are currently at 22mph (5PM on a light traffic week) and the HOV lanes are wide open. Once on the bridge deck traffic is back up to the speed limit. Why, because of the HOV lanes merging. So even on light traffic days just eliminating the merge can double speed in the GP lanes. That means there’s a substantial potential to increase capacity of the GP lanes before it’s back to today’s level of congestion.

If you really think the GP lanes will see significant increase in throughput, you can go ahead and think that, but I’m pretty sure the professionals disagree.

And yeah, I have ORCA cards for visitors too. And I could lend them my transponder if they needed it, although they’d probably just skip the hassle of it all and take 522. Which makes me hope that the road construction on 522 is completed before tolling on 520 starts. We talk about traffic shifting from 520 to I-90, but it’s also possible that a lot of the traffic from points north will shift to 522.

a majority of users support tolling existing cross-lake travel on multiple facilities to pay for a new bridge with zero new general purpose capacity.

This isn’t true no matter what percentage you want to apply to it.

Still, it seems like the option of a cash toll booth like they use on the Narrows Bridge would be the way to go. Toll collection there is the responsibility of a private company which keeps the tolls in repayment for putting up much of the construction cost. I’ve got to believe they looked at the economic trade off of different systems.

Part of the problem might be that the State wants to collect tolls in both directions. Maybe $3 each way seems easier to swallow than a $6 toll one direction. There really isn’t room for toll booths on the west side and on the eastside there’s really only going to be enough room for collection in one direction. Other considerations are the merge from people paying manual would seriously impact peak capacity and be dangerous. There’s also the issue that it’s much easier to alter your route crossing Lake Washington than it is for most people using the Narrows Bridge. Also, variable tolling would be a little harder to manage with manual collection and this is seen as a key component to TDM.

One option when grandparents come up to visit is to loan them a transponder. I plan to get a couple ORCA cards so I can give them to friends and relatives when they visit.

FWIW, they likely will do as soon as the post 520 tolling balloons I-90 useage.

Writing a number down on a napkin doesn’t make it true.

Don’t forget to comment on the PSRC Destination 2040 Draft EIS
http://www.psrc.org/projects/trans2040/index.htm

Here is a quick rundown of the alternatives from a 3rd party web site:
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4201

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/images/2008/10/21/73tollroad.jpg

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/LkWaMgt/library.htm

Looks like there weren’t very many comments.