Letters to the editor

Travel bait

One-way ticket: Exclusive resort to privilege of the purse

Editor, The Times:

"Smooth drive for HOT lane debut" [Times, Local News, May 6] was interesting, but when I drove Highway 167 midday on Tuesday for the entire HOT distance, alongside it in the single-vehicle lane I saw not one vehicle at any time. The HOT lane was totally vacant, at peace under the huge toll signs (carrying varying messages on toll charges from $1.25 to $2.50) that made me wonder if they actually scare people off.

Something else is more puzzling: Article I, Section 12 of our state constitution clearly states: No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.

This writer-lawyer thinks our constitution means what it says and says what it means. Any poor taxpayer cited for single-occupancy driving sans transponder in the new HOT "toll lane," aka Lexus Lane, would have their ticket promptly dismissed in my court, should I be judge pro tem.

Buying special privileges is incompatible with our system of justice, much less our constitution.

— Don Guliford, Mercer Island

Double your adventure

The success of the HOT lane modifications really depends on the viewpoint of the actual users.

As I traveled down Highway 167 intending to use the HOV lane, I found that I couldn't get in the HOV lane after getting on the freeway because of the double line, then I found I couldn't get out of the HOV lane when I saw my exit coming up because of the double line. This obviously compounds the problems for use by car-pooling vehicles and results in total confusion and frustration.

It seems the primary purpose of the HOV lane — to encourage car-pooling — has been sacrificed for the sake of sole-occupant-vehicle drivers willing to pay the price and pad the state wallet.

To maintain the primary intended purpose of the HOV lane, all multi-occupant vehicles should be allowed to cross the double line at any point without a $124 traffic fine.

In addition, other vehicles in the regular lanes should yield to multi-occupant vehicles attempting to reach or exit the HOV lane. Why change the long-standing rules for a few deep-pocket individuals?

Abiding by the ridiculous double-line rule for car-pooling vehicles will be even more difficult during winter months when daylight hours and visibility of exits are reduced.

The state has truly goofed on the HOV changes and has severely discouraged multi-occupant-vehicle driving and use of the HOV lane. Let's make the changes necessary to restore the primary intended purpose of the HOV lanes and make it convenient for users willing to car-pool.

Car-pooling in HOV lanes cuts down on the number of vehicles on the road and preserves our fuel resources. "HOT" use does not! Let's put the emphasis where it needs to be!

— Gerald Wooldridge, Renton

Unwind, live a little

Slow down — save fuel!

We think an emergency speed limit for the state (and eventually the country) should be in place right away. A 55 mph limit was imposed in the '70s and it worked. Why not now?

And we don't need a big study committee to evaluate the outcome for several months.

We are aware that the truckers won't like it, but they are always jackknifing because of the speeds they are going now.

— Don and B.J. Craddock, San Juan Island

We got taken at chemin de fer

As I was stuck recently on our underfunded, undercapacitized highway system, I noticed the fancy, sparkly, glittery, decorative trim on the columns of our new light-rail toy train system. Kind of brings a little touch of Vegas to the dreary Northwest. Who says bureaucrats are dull, especially when they have buckets of our money to burn on [trumpery].

— Les Iwamasa, Seattle