15% sounds high wrote on Apr 1, 2007 10:20 PM:I regularily drive the carpool lanes (with my 3 year old!!!) and tath 15% number sounds high. Remember, it is hard to see a 3 year old in a car seat, I know because I have been pulled over because the officer could not see my son.

George wrote on Apr 2, 2007 3:10 AM:You know, if you removed the carpool requirement from the reversible lanes in the center of I-15, you wouldn't have the cost of Fastrak transponders, administrative support, enforcement, or the need to rat on people who are driving to/from work. As a big plus, you'd reclaim the 50% wasted space that could be used to reduce congestion on the freeway. The carpool lanes aren't working, it's time to open them up to everybody.

Anger wrote on Apr 2, 2007 4:57 AM:1) 3 year old passengers are not in the spirit of the law. Carpool lanes are to reduce the number of cars on the road and your 3 year old passenger does not help with that problem. (No, I do not hate children, just their just-righteous parents in their soccor driving SUV) 2) The number of carpool road/miles in San Diego county is pathetic. I-5, what 2 or 3 miles? I-15 is a little bit better with 7 miles.

Gary in Murrieta wrote on Apr 2, 2007 6:51 AM:Carpool lanes are ineffective and a wastes of resources. Why not fix the freeways for everyone. Every time SanDag builds a carpool lane they are saying they cannot fix the problem. I have been vanpooling for 6 years now and I can still say that carpool lanes are ineffective. They just have that “feel good” politically sounding name and no more.

What a waste wrote on Apr 2, 2007 7:03 AM:The carpool lanes are a waste of money and resources, and now is it seems are "elected officials" want us all to report on each other. It's a wonder what they do in Sacramento. What a waste of taxpayers money.

Yo Abe! wrote on Apr 2, 2007 7:09 AM:Build some fricken roads with all that gas tax I pay! Quit trying to modify my behavior, forcing me into things I don't want, build some fricken roads!

Walt wrote on Apr 2, 2007 7:35 AM:Oh what a tangled web we weave! Now we would have Big Brother encouraging J Q Public to snitch in order to enforce operations on an HOV/HOT facility that is a detriment to use of efficient expensive road space in the first place. Will the next step be a reward for successful conviction of violators? On the increasingly promoted HOT lanes, how are these Cop Auxiliary Corps members supposed to distinguish between violators and the SOV's who pay? What a tangled web we weave!

Sue wrote on Apr 2, 2007 7:43 AM:Califronia freeways are horrific. If you have 2 breathing people they you should use the carpool lane. Who cares how old that person is. Let's get these guys that drive solo. If they want to use the carpool lane....then carpool to work/school/play. Easy as that.

Ask wrote on Apr 2, 2007 7:53 AM:What a joke of a reason to spend more money on a program that DOES NOT work!

Bill wrote on Apr 2, 2007 8:00 AM:I think that law should be changed. The idea behind carpool lanes is just that, to carpool. It was an idea to reduce the total number of cars using the roads. I don't think it reduces the traffic when as long as you have your child with you it's okay to use the carpool lane. I believe it should only be used if there are at least two licenced drivers in the car. I will admit that enforcement would be difficult. I would also be fine if they would just eliminate the lanes entirely, I beleive that would have a better effect on traffic.

Alf wrote on Apr 2, 2007 8:04 AM:Whether the "cheats" are 5% or 15%, the idea behind carpool lanes is to reduce the number of cars. A mother and 1 or 2 or even 4 children in one car in the carpool lane, although technically in compliance with the letter of the law (number of passengers), is not in compliance with the spirit of the law (reducing the number of cars) unless she is transporting other children as well as her own.

Gina needs lovin wrote on Apr 2, 2007 8:05 AM:I think Gina's argument is a bit lame. The fact that someone with children being allowed to drive in the carpool lane makes perfect sense. If the parents dont take the kids somewhere then someone else with a drivers license will have to. Dogs are not children by the way they dont look anything like kids.

Get over it Gina wrote on Apr 2, 2007 8:45 AM:Ok people that think animals are more important then people have issues. I love animals but I dont go as far as considering them humans. I as a mother can understand the use for carpool lanes. Wonder if shes ever had to sit hours in traffic with a lil one? I think not or she would be a little more sympathetic to that need. As for the HOV people that is not fair they are single drivers driving to the same area all these other people that are on the same roads as them and are just as able to find someone to commute with as the person doesnt have a HOV. The CHEATS that really get me are the ones I have seen with fake babies or manequins in the front seat. Id like to see the toll lanes ridden of and changed to car pool lanes and the existing carpool lanes opened up. Those are more unfair to the people because most were built with tax payer money. Not only that it goes with the fact that why can people buy the faster way when most can not afford it anyway? I like what Ive seen in Northern California where there is no double solid line but are clearly marked car pool lanes during certain peak times. I think this would eleviate a lot of headches with the car pool problems here. Just my 2 cents worth.

Waste of meney... wrote on Apr 2, 2007 8:47 AM:Sounds like a big waste of money to man the phone lines and send out "warning" letters. While we're at it, why not just pay some company to figure out how to count the nunmber of people in a car and take their picture/video if there are not 2 or more people in the vehicle. Similar to stop light cameras... I bet the system would pay for itself in no time.

Rubbish... wrote on Apr 2, 2007 8:56 AM:I get just as mad as the next guy or gal in traffic, but this is pure rubbish. Does Maldonado even have a diamond lane in his whole district?

Carter: wrote on Apr 2, 2007 8:57 AM: The lady that thinks her dog is more human than some people must fit very closely to the k-9 kind. fifteen percent is not bad when you consider that against the criminal element. And take a look at people who cheat in the supermarket 10-or-less-items lines. Cheats have no respect for anyone including themselves. There are cheats everywhere and as the population grows, more controls will become necessary. The percentage of cheaters will grow, and the penalties will increase.

Peter wrote on Apr 2, 2007 9:13 AM:Car pool lanes are great when you have kids other wise they suck. I'll take my son with me just run some errands when I know it will help me use the Car pool lane.

Joe wrote on Apr 2, 2007 9:42 AM:Just great. The solo driver will now be talking on the cell phone, smoking the cigarette, taking a drink of water and also be juggling the pen, paper and not keeping their eyes on the car in front of them while writing down the license plate of a car in the car pool lane that they think only has one occupant. If I get run into by such a vigilant servant of the public good, can I sue this Maldonado guy?

George wrote on Apr 2, 2007 10:38 AM:Eliminating the requirement for carpools in certain lanes will completely eliminate the cheaters. It will also save on the cost of enforcement and the related administrative overhead (important in these days of tight budgets!). As a bonus, the road will be able to handle more cars per hour, reducing traffic congestion.

Alf wrote on Apr 2, 2007 10:50 AM:Well, "George", the entire idea of a carpool lane is to reduce the number of cars on the road and reward those who contribute to that reduction. Hauling kids and dogs does not reduce the number of cars on the road, does it?

stop bellyaching wrote on Apr 2, 2007 10:54 AM:What whiners. Think of the people who can't drive, have no car, hubby in I rag, etc. You gripe over a car pool lane? The government wants other freeway drivers to take their eyes off where they are going and instead carry a notebook to write down license numbers and then crash into the car in front of them? We pay people to think of these wise and creative new laws? Car pool lanes should be used for emergencies. What about the SINGLE DRIVER trying to reach a dying child in a hospital, who was put there by the stupid whiner trying to write down license numbers of carpool violators? Stop whining and get a real passenger - why isn't there a register of commuters who may need a lift to work? No, no one speaks to anyone else, they just hop in their gas guzzling car and forget about sharing. Hope you miss your next air flight due to gridlock.

On the carpet wrote on Apr 2, 2007 11:09 AM:How can anyone say that carrying children in your car does not constitute a reduction in traffic. If you look at it this way think of everyone as a widget. there are a certain number of widgets that must travel on a particular stretch of highway. If as long as there are more widgets in one vehicle then that alone reduces the number of vehicles traveling on any given highway during any given time. geez this is not rocket science.

on the carpet wrote on Apr 2, 2007 11:14 AM:Oh yes and one other thing... What would happen if they took every car carrying these little widgets and placed them in the same lanes that everyone is already complaining about having to drive in. Wouldnt that just make things worse?

crashd wrote on Apr 2, 2007 11:28 AM:I agree 100% that the car pool lanes should be defined such that there is a reasonable chance a vehicle has not been driven by having two or more in the vehicle. Having a kid in there does not reduce a vehicle on the road. But, the law is not written that way and as long as it is how it is now, I will drive my 7 year old son with me when I can. I have always disagreed with spending tax payer money on these lanes, but if you do so I will continue to use them against the spirit of the thing. Sorry.

Stop bellyaching for president wrote on Apr 2, 2007 11:35 AM:Exactly my thoughts also...a bunch of of spoiled rotten, whiny, bellyaching chumps. Get a life, remember PERSPECTIVE!!!!

Nick wrote on Apr 2, 2007 11:43 AM: We wouldn't have traffic problems if our leaders hadn't pimped our once beautiful county out to every developer with a fat check book, and all those in this Country ILLEGALLY went back to their home country. How many of you have moved here in the last 5-10 years, only to add to the problem you are now whining about. How many people from Temecula and north of there commute every day to San Diego because there are no jobs where you bought your cute little house that you couldn't afford in San Diego? You whiners keep me laughing.....lol.

Dump the HOV Lanes wrote on Apr 2, 2007 11:46 AM:Ditch the carpool lanes. Mommy and her 3 year old are NOT a valid example of saving resources. That three year old was not going to drive solo anway. A vehicle full of commuters all going to the same place is a better example. The car pool lane is nothing more than a Lexus Lane. Dump it, now.

In PQ wrote on Apr 2, 2007 11:48 AM:How do you tell the offenders from the 'elite' that pay for FasTrack? That aspect of the program angers me the most, since it provides a priority to those that pay - if the roads were privately built, OK, but these are public!

George wrote on Apr 2, 2007 11:50 AM:Just as a point of reference, the carpool lanes aren't working. If they were, you wouldn't have 50% wasted capacity in the reversible lanes in the center of I-15, you wouldn't need to allow toll-payers to drive alone on those lanes to improve your statistics, you wouldn't see articles in the NCT about an overall reduction in carpoolers (see "Carpooling declines sharply in region" http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/01/29/news/californian/21_03_091_28_06.txt), and you wouldn't have gridlock on the surrounding freeway. Micromanaging isn't successful in the workplace and it's not successful on I-15, either. Eliminating the arbitrary requirement of multiple people in a car will reduce congestion at peak hours and eliminate congestion during off-peak hours.

Carpooler wrote on Apr 2, 2007 12:45 PM:Have I missed something? Isn't the point of the carpool lanes to reduce congestion? If that's the case, then won't mothers driving with their kids in the carpool lane help reduce congestion in the other lanes? I may be wrong, but I think the people who are complaining about mothers with kids are just upset they can't use the carpool lane themselves. My husband and I regularly carpool, but there are occasions when I have to drive my 4-year-old step-daughter to school myself and I take the carpool lane because it helps reduce the number of cars in the OTHER lanes.

George wrote on Apr 2, 2007 1:37 PM:Following Carpooler's train of thought to it's logical conclusion, if allowing some vehicles in the reversible lanes reduces some congestion in the other lanes, then eliminating the carpool requirement in the reversible lanes will reduce the congestion in the other lanes even more! Which is exactly my point: eliminating the arbitrary requirement for carpools in the reversible lanes will reduce congestion.

Crooks wrote on Apr 2, 2007 1:44 PM:There is also the nutcase drivers who are not only alone, but they sneak into the carpool lane while stuck in traffic. Oh yeah, you know who you are. I see it every day. The traffic is crawling, they see the carpool open and they cross the double yellow and drive away. One time the cop was in the regular lane and he just happend to not see the driver go into the carpool, the driver totally got lucky. I tell you this hapens every day. I wish I had a video camera, I would tape it and send it to the police. I urge the lame nuts at Caltrans to put up those plastic barriers right on the double yellow lines to stop this sneaking into the car pool lane once and for all.

Concerned-1 wrote on Apr 2, 2007 1:46 PM:Eliminate all car pool lanes, build more rail (it will catch on!). Stop wasting our money on lame ideas that won't work in California.

Ask wrote on Apr 2, 2007 2:42 PM:Carpooling in the spirit is multiple capable drivers sharing a vehicle. Parent and kid while 2 people is not in the spirit. Its not about reducing cars in the other lanes, its about REDUCING cars.

Traffic Accidents Waiting to Happen wrote on Apr 2, 2007 2:54 PM:With this new idea, that Sacramento wants to put in place; Don't you think that it would increase traffic accidents if those oh so helpful citizens are writing down license plate numbers to turn them in? We should be more concerned with driving safely than trying to get someone's plate number while driving. If the car pool lanes were more strictly enforced with police, I think that the solo problem could be put under control. Why should other people have to worry about someone almost hitting them while trying to write down a plate number. I wonder if they have thought about that. Don't get me wrong, it is an interesting idea, but I don't necessarily thing it will go over well.

Alf wrote on Apr 2, 2007 3:00 PM:Let's start out with the original definition of a car pool. A carpool started out being defined as one person driving others so that they all did not have to drive all their cars. (Example: Four people live in Escondido and work in Scripps Ranch or Miramar, they all go there in ONE car instead of FOUR cars. That's ONE car on the road, NOT FOUR CARS. THAT'S a carpool.) Easing congestion is as easy as adding lanes until you have a 66 lane wide road. Carpooling in the example above removes 3 cars from the road. If there are 2 groups that carpool as in the example then there are 6 fewer cars on the road, 3 groups has 9 fewer cars. Fewer cars on the road means less fuel used, less demand for gasoline, possibly lower gas prices, less polution and, you guessed it, LESS TRAFFIC. What a concept!

Walt wrote on Apr 2, 2007 3:42 PM:Perhaps Concerned-1 can explain why rail has not caught on? Since the initial success of the trolley to bring crowds of Mexican workers to downtown SD, $ Billions for 20 years have expanded rail elsewhere. That whole expansion, now part of 48 miles total carries no more than the original 16 miles. Number of rail riders is near meaningless less than one percent in the urban picture. Only special demographics and density SD doesn't have make it "catch on".

Gripe Night In The Morning wrote on Apr 2, 2007 3:45 PM: Don't you hate it when there are slow moving gardening trucks in the carpool lane? Don't you hate it even more when they are pulling a trailer? Also the Stake trucks, and the single driver mail trucks in the morning, are not exactly my definition of carpooling. Mom with kids, that is not carpooling either. And then you have the people who can afford to pay for a fast track to drive alone, that is not carpooling.

Walt wrote on Apr 2, 2007 4:00 PM:Alf's explanation is indeed the original concept, and the one still used unfortunately by many decision makers. But objective traffic engineers realize there is an other process in traffic dynamics that more than counters this shared car positive effect. Under heavy demand, to keep HOV lane traffic moving freely the lane must be used below its capacity.That means more, not fewer, ("Carpooler" note)go to the regular lanes and increase congestion there. Because many more cars and people are in the regular lanes, the TOTAL FREEWAY PEOPLE THROUGHPUT is less than smooth flow in all lanes w/o HOV special lanes. Evidence from the extensive HOV installations in LA and Orange Counties prove this with Caltrans data. Indeed more carpools are attracted, but the congestion induced in the whole freeway more than overcomes this advantage. Ditto on I-15 Fastrak, even when SOV's buy their way on to fill the underused special lanes. Of coures adding an HOV lane to a freeway will increase its capacity. Advocates sometimes stop there to "prove" HOV lanes help. But comparing the same number of lanes, as George has pointed out, HOV designation is a loser.

Alf wrote on Apr 2, 2007 4:38 PM:Several things - 1) poor mass transit design and foresight. The paths taken by cars are not reflected in transit design except the Coaster. 2) Unwillingness to compromise. If you have to leave 15 minutes earlier and return 30 minutes later in order to have a carpool (with or without carpool lanes), you "can't" (will not) be bothered to do so. Put part of the blame where it belongs - On people who choose to drive when there are viable alternatives especially with gasoline over $3 per gallon. Why so high? Part of that is high demand caused by people unwilling to share rides. They would rather complain about fuel prices and traffic. Harrrumph!

Skip wrote on Apr 2, 2007 5:47 PM:.Remember last year on May 1, when all of the Illegals were demonstrating downtown, and the freeways seemed to work as they were originally designed. The solution is simple: mass deportations, secure the borders, and stop the runaway overpopulation that was never planned for nor do we have the resources to support.

blaha, blaha...... wrote on Apr 3, 2007 6:22 AM:carpool blaha, blaha, yap, yap carpool blaha, blaha, yap, yap carpool blaha, blaha, yap, yap carpool blaha, blaha, yap, yap

Walt wrote on Apr 4, 2007 9:07 PM:Laudably lot's of interest. Primarily and commendably about the operation and value or not of HOV lanes.The public indeed needs to know more about leadership's decisions, what are the unintended consequesnse, comparison to other options and why choices have been made. Mass transit use of HOV lanes has been little explained as to cost -effectiveness or discussed in quantity for example. But are San Diegans not concerned about cheater hotlines etc? Do they accept individuals are no longer responsible for their own health and welfare, or obeying laws and regulations that affect themselves as well as society? Random enforcement is not enough? Government has to take over with citizen"spying"? A smog tailpipe smoke hotline has existed many years. Redlight cameas proliferate. Next camera speed control? Ive seen British freeways controlled lane by lane that way. It achieves max performance for the freeway, (George's point), w/o HOV lanes, but at the privacy invasion price. Will San Diego accept that? The SR-94 HOV lane was recently returned to full flow partly because too many were cheating. Benefit to total flow, (again George's point). But decision didn't ome from cheater HOV hotline info.

Jeff wrote on Apr 8, 2007 1:47 AM:The solution to all this is obvious to all but the typical American commuter, and that is to build a reliable *mass-transit* system in the middle of these freeways. That's right, trains and buses, folks - or is no one willing to make even that "sacrifice" to protect our environment? It's hardly a sacrifice, anyway. When I lived in Berkeley and commuted to San Francisco on the bus every day way back in the 70's (before BART), I could relax and read the paper while all around us people in cars were getting angry fighting the traffic. I didn't have to find and pay for parking, either. Will a little bit of political will we could start with a decent bus system in San Diego County (our current one sucks) and gradually add trains to the high-density routes. Think how many cars one bus can keep off the road!

RJ wrote on Apr 8, 2007 7:38 PM:The SANDAG members drive their Lincoln Towncars and Navigators to their meetings where they decide that you and I should get out of our cars and spend an hour taking the bus and the Sprinter from Escondido to Oceanside. Go take a look at SANDAG.org. I couldn't find a single reference to adding a general traffic lane to any freeway in the county over the next 20 years. Carpooling and mass transportation is the future. The Sprinter with it's $440 million dollar (and climbing) pricetag will never be self supporting. The financial shortfall for ongoing operations and repairs will be bridged with the same gasoline tax dollars that we were told would be used to improve the freeway system. BTW, I perform customer service all over San Diego and Imperial Counties so I couldn't use Mass Transit if I wanted to.

Walt wrote on Apr 9, 2007 10:02 AM:For Jeff favoring more mass transit. See previous comment for Concerned-1. There are just not enough riders will ing to put up with mass transit time lost and inconvenience to make it meaningful. Instead of trying to work or read on the bus or during transfer waits, autos give you more time in the quiet of the office or home.

Confused wrote on Apr 24, 2007 6:14 AM:Why does California have 2 sets of CarPool lane rules. Last time I checked,I-80, I-405, !-5 wre all in the same state. In the North, you can enter or leave a carpool lane at anytime, but not in the South. CarPool lanes are hour limited, but not in the South. We need one common set of rules for the entire state or get rid of the damn things. It is also following A Prius in the HOV lane legally carrying 1 passenger going 5MPH below the speedlimit. It has been said here many times before, what a waste forced on us by some left wing tree huggers

jillian... wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:48 PM:i just read this article. it amazes me that a woman or whatever would consider a dog more human than a child or person. ms gina lovin must be quite an animal herself . this individual must require serious counseling if her main complaint is a carpool lane. here is a bit of education she requires. over two hundred thousand people died in a tidal wave. over seventy thousand in a major earthquake. if this is your and your dogs major complaint, you are doing quite good. hope you find counseling soon.
jillian