What carpoolers think of HOT lanes (High Occupancy Toll lanes). 

Responses from carpoolers and vanpoolers to the question:

What do you think about people that are driving alone paying a toll to drive in the carpool lanes? 

Carpool lanes are called HOV lanes (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes. 

I think they should be called HOOT lanes (High Occupancy or Toll).    – Marilyn Bryant, Sacramento TMA

2.   I think HOT lanes are a bad idea socially. They are a symbol of the ever-widening economic disparity in our society. We should not have First Class and Second Class freeway lanes, or any other public infrastructure. However, I am not opposed to charging drivers for freeway use because fees would help encourage car pooling, transit use, and cycling. Larger, less fuel efficient, higher-emission vehicles should be charged higher fees than smaller, fuel efficient, low-emission vehicles. The simplest and most direct way to implement some type of fee scale would be to tax gasoline rather than implement tolls. Those who burn more gasoline would simply have to pay more. As a green-minded person who regular chooses to car pool, bicycle, or use transit, I do not like that my tax dollars are subsidizing an extremely expensive infrastructure (i.e., freeways) for careless individuals who drive all the time. – EDAW, Inc.

3. I commute in two different carpools to get to work, so this certainly hits close to home for me. This is strictly my personal opinion: Allowing single-drivers into the carpool lane for any reason, whether it's a hybrid electric car with appropriate stickers or someone paying a toll, only confuses the situation. I already find that the carpool lane clogs up during certain commute times due to heavy traffic. I think a toll charge for single drivers in the carpool lane is a state-sanctioned way for people to be self-centered, similar to today's problems where single drivers tend to disobey the law and cut into the carpool lanes when traffic is heavy. Further, the lanes are designed for HIGH occupany vehicles, not some "pay to pollute" scheme to allow those flush with funds to make up time. We have to remember, too, that carpool lanes take more cars off the road -- cars that pollute and worsen air quality. Using those lanes for single drivers, paying a fee or not, doesn't cut pollution. So...I hope this doesn't sound like a rant. I have had lots of time to think about this and discuss it within my two carpools, so that's my opinion. Air Resources Board

4. Staying focused on the goals of reducing congestion and improving air quality means there must be some gain in either of those arenas when a vehicle is allowed to travel in the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. Only pooling, transit, or low emission vehicle types should be allowed. I do not think that single drivers should be able to buy their way into the HOV lane without having an approved vehicle type. Even disabled drivers, that perhaps would function more safely driving in the less congested HOV lane, can make choices about what type of vehicle they have specially outfitted to accommodate their disability. Competition with an ostentatious Hummer driver who is rich enough to pay special HOV lane tolls could cause real road rage among us working class folks. Toll roads are another story. There, the users rather than the general taxpayers are paying for the initial construction of the road. Also, provision of a separate Toll lane from the HOV lane, where no direct competition is occurring, could be palatable. Reality however, is that adding the extra lane is what often cannot be done due to environmental constraints. Caltrans Div. of Transportation Planning

5. I do not think that anyone should be allowed to buy their way into a carpool lane. It defeats the purpose of having a carpool lane for cars containing more than one person. Life can not always be fair - but money should not allow people to bend the rules. The integrity of a carpool lane should be kept as an encouragement to people who carpool. FYI - I ride in a vanpool and we are struggling to get enough riders to keep our van on the road. Yet we see countless one person cars on the commute everyday. We need to find more ways of encouraging people to carpool rather then let someone who does not carpool get added privileges! CalPERS

6. I am against it. If you think about it, it is just a way to privatize a public infrastructure. It does not solve the problem (the congestion and the air pollution) but it allows richer people to escape some of the consequences of their behavior. Pretty soon, it would become a standard perk for some, paid by their companies and we would take yet another step toward a society constituted of first class and second class citizens. Logically, it would probably encourage the "first class" citizens to move even further from where they work (to live in the first class gated community near the first class-only school) and eventually generate even more traffic. I cannot see how this would have any effect on traffic congestion or air quality (I also ride my bike to work and air quality is important to me) unless the toll is very high. And even if the toll is high, all it may achieve is moving a few car from the regular lanes to the car pool lanes and ensure that the car pool lanes are carrying a lot of cars too. However, adding toll paying cars to hybrid cars in the car pool lanes will eventually choke these lanes with cars and you will loose the incentive to car pool. A much better idea in my opinion would be to turn an entire section of freeway (say for instance the causeway over the Yolo Bypass) to toll during the periods of time when the traffic is heavy (commuting hours, etc.) and make it free for buses and carpools (who also would not have to stop and pay). This would incite people to carpool and take public transportation, or to drive at a different time. At those times, toll for trucks would be particularly expensive to discourage truck traffic. – State Water Resources Control Board Did you know, commuters from Elk Grove to Sacramento save over 11 minutes using the 12-mile HOV lane on Highway 99?

7. Absolutely not a good idea. Currently, the HOV lanes are open to anyone who wants to share a ride. By sharing rides, anyone can contribute to the greater good of the community, Opening these lanes up allows some to circumvent the common good, if they have extra money to spend. What's next? Can you: Pay to get to the front of the DMV line? Pay to have more police patrols in driving by your house? Pay to give your kids priority time at the local playground? Public infrastructure and services should never be auctioned to the highest bidder. California State Parks

8. I am a periodic carpooler, SOV, have Fastrak, and have spent lots of time thinking about HOV issues. Fundamentally I believe that HOT lanes undermine the HOV concept. HOV lanes allow the freeway to function more efficiently in the short run by increasing capacity without increasing emissions, and encourages longer-term, wider use of ridesharing even in the mainline lanes and surface streets. Toll vehicles decrease the time savings and incentive for carpooling by using up HOV capacity. Also, with the introduction of toll vehicles into HOV lanes, there is discussion of raising the HOV occupancy requirement to free up more space for toll payers. This direct attack on HOVs shouldn't be unexpected, I suppose, because of the lure of easy money. I'm also in favor of eliminating the exemption for hybrids (there's a waiting list to buy these; why are we filling up the HOV with them?), and motorcycles (why should society be encouraging the use of vehicles with such poor safety records?).

9. I hate the idea of single drivers driving in the car pool lane. It is a ridiculous idea that defeats the purpose of carpooling. U S Army Corps of Engineers

10. I think that allowing those who are not carpooling to use the lanes regardless of whether or not they are paying a toll begs the question of why even have the lanes then? It seems to me that the whole idea of the carpool lane is to encourage fewer people to drive to and from work. So it would defeat that encouragement to allow those who wish to pay more money to use the lanes. Also, at the point that we allow people to pay to use the lane, revenue that is lost to the Highway Patrol for tickets given to those illegally using the carpool lane will not equate to the money "made" by selling toll to use the carpool lane. No highway patrol officer will be able to tell if a "single" person driving in the carpool lane has paid the toll or not and therefore will no longer be able to ticket. – City of Sacramento

11. I recently read an article in Newsweek about the (HOT) lanes. I feel that this could be a good way to raise the money we need to improve our roads and highways. Of course, there is no guarantee that it would be used in this way, but one can hope. I think it's a good idea, as long as these (HOT) lanes don't get so overcrowded that it defeats the purpose. Thank you for asking. SMUD

12. I don't think people who are driving alone should be able to pay for the right to use carpool lanes. Carpool lanes should be for vehicles that contain two or more people. California Department of Transportation, Division of Rail

13. I definitely don't think it's a good idea. I carpool because of the distance, price of gas, not having to drive by myself every day, AND because we can use the carpool lane. All the other lanes are backed up with one person in each car -- if they want to use the carpool lane they should find someone to carpool with! Definitely "NO" to the HOT lanes!! CSUS

14. I am opposed to that idea as the purpose of a carpool lane (which is easy access) would be lost. With the payment of the toll there will be a lot more cars on the carpool lanes making the car pool lanes as busy as the regular lanes. CalPERS

15. Right now there are a lot of "cheaters" in the car pool lanes, especially if traffic bogs down a lot in the regular lanes. If there were a "pay" option and that meant that there would be more careful monitoring, it might not be a bad idea, as long as those of us who have 2 or more in our vehicles don't have to pay. How does the monitoring work? Would it allow for even more "cheaters"? Where would the funds from the HOT permits be spent? Would it allow more HOV lanes to be built or extended? I think if there were increased monitoring, and the funds were used to extend or increase the HOV lanes, that this might be a good idea. – City of Sacramento

16. My opinion is that HOT lanes are a GREAT idea - - - but only as long as the revenues are being used for the some of the following items: Promoting alternative transportation on a bigger scale Improving alternative transportation choices / flexibility for more schedules Paying for more or longer HOT lanes Paying for improvements (road repairs) to HOT lanes or other parts of the freeway on which the HOT lanes are located Taking in revenues on these lanes is great for the transportation budget. However, if there is not SPECIFIC legislation as to what these revenues can / can not be used for, then I would say NO to HOT lanes. CalPERS

17. As a long-time (7+ years) carpooler to Placer County, I do not think that solo drivers should be able to pay a fee to drive in the car pool lane. First, I car pool to help the environment. Second, it saves money used for commuting costs. However, I do think that hybrid vehicles should be able to drive in the car pool lane since the hybrid cars do reduce emissions. To me, allowing a fee to be paid depletes the purpose of the car pool lane and it encourages the "cheaters" who drive there and are not ticketed. That's another issue though....I would like to add this is not the "easiest" way to commute. It takes coordination and patience due to overtime or unforeseen circumstances. Thank you for the services that the Commuter Club provides and good luck on your interview. CalPERS

18. I don't like the idea of allowing people to "pay" their way into the HOT lanes. Carpooling is designed to give those folks a faster way of commuting without penalty of being stuck in congested lanes. CalPERS

19. Yuck...I didn't like the idea of letting the hybrids use the HOV lanes. Now they want to let people buy there way in? - Bad idea. - Carpooler and Full electric vehicle owner, State Dept. of Alcohol & Drug Programs

0. I vanpool. Either open the diamond lane to everyone, no charge, or keep it a commuter lane. It’s grossly unfair to ask people to pay once via taxes to build the lane, and then again for the privilege of using it. SMUD

21. I think it discriminates against people who can't afford to purchase a pass or to pay a toll. It also defeats the purpose of "trying" to get people to use carpools, vanpools, or the bus in order to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion. I'd hate to see the carpool lane become clogged!! Dept. of Pesticide Regulation

22. Paying a toll to drive in the carpool lanes is a STUPID idea. It defeats the purpose of the incentive to get polluting, traffic congesting, gas-guzzling cars off of the freeway. I am in a 3 person carpool and find it highly offensive. It should NOT be about some government entity making money for allowing arrogant rich people to drive in the carpool lane. Army Corps of Engineers

23. The idea of carpool lanes has already been diluted by defining a carpool as just 2 occupants. I do not care for the idea of SOVs in the carpool lanes because it dilutes the program even more. First, it would be very hard to know who was legal whether you are a patrolman or just someone in another vehicle. Other drivers would use that person as the spark to drive in the lane because others are doing so and easy control is gone. I frequently see cars in the lane with only one person. Usually they use it to sneak past a slowdown and then jump back to the right, but sometimes they go for miles. If one more ”incentive” of carpooling goes away, how do you get people out of cars and into vans, buses, trains, etc. Dept. of Conservation

24. Absolutely not! We carpool to lessen pollution, the consumption of petroleum products and congestion on our freeways. If you want to use the carpool lane buddy up! State Treasurer’s Office

25. I think paying a toll to be able to drive in the HOV lanes is a bad idea. The purpose of car pool lanes is to encourage people to save our resources by carpooling. Allowing people to pay a toll to avoid that purpose makes a sham of the public policy. If the tolls are somehow earmarked (and actually spent) on projects that continue to promote that public policy (maybe paying for more car pool lanes?), then I might temper my opposition but the toll should be pretty high in that case. Dept. of Justice

26. Bad idea!!!! To allow a single driver to pay a toll to drive in the carpool lane would defeat the whole purpose of the carpool lanes. Carpooling is two or more people per vehicle. This is what the carpool lanes are for. More people per vehicle, less vehicles on the road. Allowing a single driver to use the carpool lane would make the carpool lanes more congested. I do not see it as a solution it would create more problems. EDD

27. I think that the Carpool Lanes should be used by people who are carpooling. If you simply just let anyone pay to use it your just saying if you have the money you can have the privilege without applying the rules. Carpool Lanes should be used for carpools, vanpools, transit. Dept. of Health Services

28. IMHO the HOV lanes are meant for vehicle with multiple passengers. By paying to play, we are indicating that it is okay to 'pay' your way thru everything. Even to pollute.

29. I van pool on the HWY 50 corridor. Not sure that Car pool lane qualifies as a (HOT) lane. But if it did, I believe the Car pool lane would need to be redefined as a "toll lane". Then vanpoolers would have to decide if they would want to pay the toll price or if the definition of the (HOT) lane would stipulate over so many riders the lane is free of a toll.... And I think people will pay the price, look at gas prices, how they have gone UP and do you see anyone NOT driving because of more cost. They will pay the price and be a lone driver; the lane will be just as crowded as a regular lane. Who ever proposed this - maybe government oriented - Seems like the gain is more revenue from the users...no relief of traffic. and some ones pocketbook is getting fatter... Gouging of the pavement isn't the answer. State Controller’s Office  

30. Single drivers in a carpool lane defeat the intended purpose of such lanes to promote carpooling. That is a bad idea, which over time, if implemented, would effectively make the carpool lane like any other fast lane. State Controller’s Office

31. I travel the highway 99 to Elk Grove carpool lane on most days. The carpool lane is already fairly full and at times is as slow as the regular lanes. I think allowing additional people to buy there way into the carpool lane will just slow it down so there will not be any benefit at all to being in a carpool.

32. What do I think of people who are driving alone paying a toll to drive in the carpool lanes? NO!!! This will completely undermine the benefit that those of us who choose to carpool have over those who do not. It will also be a situation where those who have the $$ can reap a benefit over those taxpayers who can't afford to pay the toll. And what about enforcement? This would make it more difficult for the officers to cite the scoff-laws. What happened to the idea of encouraging folks to carpool to cut down on the area's air pollution caused by automobiles? Dept. of Pesticide Regulation

33. This would defeat the entire purpose of having a carpool lane. This lane would soon become as crowded as the other lanes. Carpool lanes need to stay just that, two or more per car. CalPERS

34. I would not want HOT single drivers. CalPERS

35. I am strongly against letting solo drivers pay a toll to allow them into the carpool lane. It is unfortunate, but too many people will trade money for convenience, and while we would perhaps end up with more highway funds I think we would see no improvement in traffic. Carpool lanes are needed to "force" people to carpool by giving them an incentive; a relatively insignificant toll would seriously weaken that incentive. Dept. of Water Resources

36. The car pool lane should be for carpoolers only. If we allow single drivers to be able to pay to drive in car pool lanes, we are minimizing the efforts to encourage car pooling and allowing the "rich" to receive one of the perks of car pooling without car pooling. Car pooling is more than just getting in the "fast lane with no traffic" it is about protecting the environment and reducing traffic. Thank you for allowing me to comment. California State Parks & Recreation

37. I think it’s unfair for people who drive alone and use carpool lanes. It is already crowd enough during rush hours and adding those people who drive alone will make it worst, so what’s the purpose of putting carpool lanes? Dept. of Health Services

38. I would like to commend the state in investing in the construction of a carpool lane, both helping preserve the environment, and reduce the grid lock traffic. However the State has continued to contradict the good intent for the lanes. In the last two years the State of California has withdrawn the use of state vans for commuting purposes leaving 100’s of vanpools with expensive and difficult alternatives. An article in the Sacramento bee quoted the Department of Transportation as vanpool costs only increased by 10-20%. I’d like to be shown 1 van that was only affected by this 10-20% increase. My previous van saw a 70% increase and now having to carpool due to lack of flexibility of working hours, now pay the same amount as my previous van and now with no option of reimbursement so I am at 100% increase.

39. The reimbursement rate for vanpools are lower then those of R/T and have a cap, why? With skyrocketing gas prices and no relief in site now is the time to promote and create incentives for carpool and vanpools, not to put it for sale. State Controller’s Office

40. What would be gained by someone paying to drive in the car pool lane? Would the funds collected be reinvested in car pool promotion and education? Would such a system back fire and give the negative impression car pooling is for the eccentric and [regarding those paying], the rich elite? I'm often dismayed over the number of vehicles on the road, seemingly going to the same general destination, with only one driver. Has there ever been an in depth survey/analysis, concerning why those folks are not interested in car pooling? And what about the younger generation going to work or school - how do you make car pooling cool? Hit on social issues like the environment - or social contact? I would be against people driving alone and paying to use the car pool lane. I would be in favor of a program to allow single drivers, on a limited basis, to use the car pool lanes, and hopefully appreciate the benefits and generate some more car pool converts. SMUD

41. I think this is a terribly unethical idea. This is a blatant example that those who can afford to, can and will, buy their way around laws and rules the rest of us must adhere to. It is clearly a means to allow elitists in their gas guzzling SUV’s preferential treatment on the highways. And it is because of the predominance of these elitists in the 500,000+ new homes in the south county that are clogging the freeways to begin with. Meanwhile, the state finds yet another source of revenue from a once free domain, public roadways. This just opens the door to more “toll” roadways that could pop up anywhere in the state. Thanks for listening,   State Dept. of Health Services

42. Thanks for the opportunity to provide input regarding the issue of persons driving alone paying a toll to drive in carpool lanes. I am generally against solo drivers using car pool lanes. However, if the toll monies collected were used to fund methods for reducing congestion and pollution (e.g. alternative fuel filling stations, car-sharing programs, etc.) I could be supportive. I would hope that data, studies, and experiences from other cities/regions that used HOT lanes would be used so that an informed decision could be made. Dept. of Health Services

43. I think that the carpool lane was originally intended for carpoolers and should stay that way. Letting single drivers pay to ride in this lane goes against what those lanes were originally intended for. They were intended to encourage people to save gas and spare the air of harmful emissions by getting more cars off the streets. If we let single drivers have this option, it will only serve to clog up the carpool lanes and make it difficult for existing carpools to enjoy the lanes that are free from congestion. It gives a mixed message. Spare the air with carpools, but if you have enough money you can ride in the carpool lanes. This could serve as a disincentive for existing carpools and could result in carpools falling apart because they no longer have the one benefit of a congestion free carpool lane. This option is very self-centered and purely revenue for cities and counties. It ignores the basis for the establishment of carpools and I very much disagree with the idea. California Integrated Waste Management Board

44. I think it is wrong to allow people driving alone to drive in the carpool lane at any time. The only exception that I even think might be acceptable is those driving approved energy efficient cars, like the hybrids. It isn’t fair to allow people (driving alone) that are willing to spend extra money (like to pay a toll fee) to drive normal cars in the carpool lane. This will remove the incentive to carpool and will clog the carpool lane, thus defeating the purpose of the carpool lanes (and slowing the traffic for those of us that do carpool. Housing & Community Development

45. I have mixed feelings. As a member of a van pool I like being able to scoot by the traffic most of the time. However, I experienced vary frustrating scenario one day when I had to go to a special training class and needed to drive alone. I was being obedient like most everyone else driving in the non-car pool lane on highway 50 from El Dorado Hills. From about when I got to Folsom to the Sunrise area the 2 lanes for us non-carpoolers were stop and go, while there were literally no cars in the carpool lane. Boy was this very frustrating! I might be willing to pay on those special occasions when I absolutely must drive alone. However, I think the biggest challenge is enforcing it. Who will actually pay?

46. Personally, I don't think it is a good idea because the people who could afford it will pay the money to be able to use these lanes would in a heartbeat. Basically if you are rich, this buys you another privilege. Just like if you can afford to buy a Hybrid cars, you can use the HOV lanes, but at least they are helping to cut down on pollution. These other commuters are adding no benefit except revenue for someone. What will this additional revenue be used for? I think the effect would be that the people who are actually car and van pooling will loose the time benefit that may be realized by participating in van and carpools due to a higher volume of traffic in the HOV lanes. Thanks for asking the car and van poolers for their opinion. Board of Equalization

47. I thought the original idea for carpool lanes was to decrease traffic congestion and improve air quality. People who can afford gas and an additional expense of paying tolls for the "privilege" of using "carpool" lanes probably can also afford large gas-consuming vehicles; this is in opposition to the intended use of the carpool lanes, and I am against it. – Library

48. I am not opposed to allowing a limited number of small hybrid vehicles using carpool lanes, as these have lower gas consumption; providing this privilege is an incentive to purchasing hybrids. (I am not currently an owner of a hybrid, so I don't hold this opinion for selfish reasons.)

49. If people pay a toll (and many people would), then it would just congest the carpool lanes more than they already are, and it would discourage people from carpooling. I see it as a step backward. State Dept. of Education

50. I do not like the idea of single commuters paying a toll to ride in the carpool lane. The carpool lane is to encourage people to ride together, not to raise funds. State Dept. of Education

51. I am opposed to a toll for single drivers to use the carpool lanes. As it is, the carpool lanes are often just as crowded as the other lanes during the peak commute hours - check out southbound 99 at 5:30 on a Wednesday evening. Board of Equalization

52. I think it defeats the original purpose and promotes – he with the most money can buy just about anything…Dept. of Developmental Services

53. I do not think they should be allowed to drive in the "Diamond" lane. Even if only a few paid the toll it would add congestion to "our" commuter lane. Vanpooling is definitely a sacrifice of one's privacy, space and time schedule, but we make that choice for various reasons; the environment, air pollution, shared driving and cost savings. The reason for the Diamond lane is to reduce traffic and pollution, this way everyone benefits. There are no benefits received from those paying a toll other than a small fee which probably wouldn't cover the paperwork and work hours for an employee to process the paperwork. If some can make the effort to do our part, then others should be obligated to match our efforts rather than buy their way in.  SMUD

54. I currently commute in a vanpool and occasionally on public transit. I have a problem with the concept of HOT lanes. It is somewhat elitist; if you can afford the toll you get to travel in a special lane on a highway that was paid for by everyone's taxes. I also believe that the concept of high-occupancy traffic lanes is being degraded. Already you can drive in one if you have an alternative fuel vehicle (another pet peeve) even if you are traveling alone. What is that doing for pollution or cutting back on single-occupancy vehicle trips? State Dept. of Education

55. These lanes were established to encourage and support carpooling due to its many benefits including reduced green house gas emission and emission of other air pollution, and reduced gasoline consumption that’s dependent on foreign oil supplies. Reduction in commute costs is a benefit to the commuter that further encourages carpooling but it isn’t a direct benefit to society as a whole. Allowing those more prosperous members of society to pay to use these lanes does not produce the intended societal benefits and discourages carpooling by potentially filling carpool lanes with many other vehicles. Given the more prosperous nature of those willing and able to pay to use these lanes we could probably also expect them to be the ones still driving the huge SUVs, further exacerbating the potential congestion in these lanes. In short –it’s a bad idea. CalEPA

56. This idea is ridiculous. A lot of people will probably be more than willing to "buy" their way to a faster commute rather than actually trying to reduce traffic and pollution by carpooling. I thought that was the original intent of the HOV lanes. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's just another potential revenue source for government. BOE

57. My wife and I are fortunate enough to work in the same building and we are able to carpool to work together. I realize that the carpool lanes are relatively lightly traveled when compared to the normal lanes, but with the addition of clean air vehicles with decals, and the potential to add toll-paying single commuters; this will not provide the incentive needed to encourage carpooling. I had the experience of driving during a work trip leaving downtown San Francisco at 5:00 PM on our way back to Sacramento a month ago. Luckily, I had two other co-workers in the car, so we were able to utilize the more stringent 3 passenger minimum carpool lane. Unfortunately (or fortunately, it depends how you look at it), the carpool lane was no better than the normal lanes. The good news was there were definitely a lot of carpoolers. The bad news was there was no advantage to being a carpooler. My prediction is that the Sacramento region traffic flow will be similar to the bay area traffic flow if we allow individuals to pay a toll to use the carpool lane. Thanks again for asking for our input! CalPERS

58. Although I am in a vanpool that uses an HOV lane, I do not support adding HOV lanes. Adding more lanes may increase vehicle miles traveled, air pollution, and sprawling suburbs. Converting existing lanes to HOV lanes would be more appropriate. Good land use planning, complete streets that provide safety and convenience for pedestrians and bicyclists, and public transit are a better investment than adding our current HOV lanes for carpools and vanpools. If single occupant vehicles are allowed to use HOV lanes for a fee, the fee should be reviewed and adjusted frequently to insure that volume of single occupant vehicles does not impede traffic flow in the HOV lanes. Revenues from single occupant use of HOV lanes should be used exclusively to support alternative transportation, including complete streets that are safe for bicyclists and have separated sidewalks, bicycle racks and lockers, and public transit. It might also be appropriate to support excellent land use, such as infill, and compact development that decrease the demand for automobile access and parking facilities. CSUS

59. Do you know where the fees (toll) money would end up? If it's to build more lanes/roads with more space, I would be in favor of the toll. However, in my opinion, we are trying to get people to carpool, not only to cut down on the number of cars on the road, but to also cut down on the air pollution. Granted, those using the car pool lanes aren't sitting at idle for long periods of time (except on the home commute on southbound 99), but cutting the number of cars is sure to cut the air pollution. Sutter Health

60. I vote no.... doesn't achieve the purpose of carpooling and vanpooling ... reducing air quality concerns... fewer cars downtown, fewer parking lots. Housing & Community Development

61. The toll in the Sacramento area for driving alone in a carpool lane is and should be $351.00 minimum. The selling point of the carpool lane was reduced congestion, rewarding people who share a ride and reduce the number of cars on the road. It has since been diluted to include cars which produce less smog (Hybrids), which if we had all single occupant hybrids on the road would do nothing to reduce congestion. The only thing people would gain is better fuel mileage while sitting in gridlock. And recently some fool proposed allowing disabled drivers to use the carpool lanes. Now let's add to that rich people. Pretty soon, the carpool lane will be more congested than the normal lanes. Since I have already paid a toll through the many various taxes I pay which have been used to purchase the right-of-way, design, build and maintain the existing public roads, I would be against paying a toll to use roads which have in any way been paid for through public funds. If people want toll roads, let them form a partnership as a private business, purchase the right-of-ways necessary, complete the environmental impact reports, defend against any and all lawsuits, build, maintain and insure the toll roads they build. Then they can charge whatever they want to whoever wants to drive on their roads. And when some idiot teenager dies and kills several other innocent people by street racing down their toll roads because the partnership did not implement any safety devices to totally protect people from themselves, the partnership's insurance company can pay off on the damages. Then of course, the tolls will have to go up to cover the increased insurance costs, people will stop using the toll roads, the partnership will go bankrupt and then the government can step in and purchase the roads for pennies on the dollar and turn them into public roads. Sounds like a good way to get new public roads. Not that I have any really strong feelings on the issue, but I would be disinclined to vote for a measure to allow a toll for use of the carpool lanes. I might vote Yes for a measure to immediately impound the vehicles of drivers who violate the laws pertaining to carpool lane use though....... Let them walk the rest of the way to work..... and pay for the towing and storage charges. Hope this provides a little insight into at least how one carpooler feels... Dept. of Toxic Substance Control

63. I currently carpool with my wife to work each day and we use the diamond lane on I-80 West coming into downtown Sacrament and go home to Roseville. However, my wife plans to retire at the end of the year and I would consider paying an extra fee to use the diamond lane for commuting. This option is preferred to buying a hybrid car that may or may not have the privilege if the legislature does not pass new legislation to extend this right. How much would it cost for this right to use the carpool lane? California State Parks

64. I disagree with this concept wholeheartedly. I made a huge effort to find my carpool buddies so that I could not only reduce my cost of traveling 105 miles every day, but also so I could do my part for the environment. I also purchased a more fuel efficient vehicle. I don't think people should be able to pay a toll and bypass the all the reasons for having an HOV lane. My understanding is the HOV lanes were created to reduce the number of vehicles on the road; the fact that we bypass stalled traffic is the benefit we get from making the effort of finding someone to carpool with. SMUD

65. In my opinion, the carpool lane should be for two people, unless the person owns a "hybrid type" car, in which case, one person should be able to use the carpool lane. State Water Resources Control Board

66. I think that this is ridiculous as it is completely going around the point of the carpool lanes. This is just another way that the government wants to generate more revenue and is overlooking our environment. It will then make the carpool lanes just as crowded as the rest of the lanes and then why even have them other than for people to give more money to Uncle Sam. Mercy Hospitals

67.  I am totally opposed to people paying for "special privileges". This proposal reminds me of the Soviet-Era highway system for the elite. The entire point of having High Occupancy Lanes is to reduce the volume of traffic on our roads and to relieve congestion. By allowing some wealthy person to pay for the right to drive in that lane we are circumventing the goal of reducing vehicle traffic. It is also troubling because we will have no control of where the collected fees will be spent. Once the fees go into the gapping maw of government we have no control over where the monies will be used. Even if the fees are to be earmarked for highway construction or mass-transit promotions, there is absolutely no guarantee as to how and where those monies will be spent. Just recall the recent example of the "borrowing" from selected trust funds that have never been repaid. If you would like to discuss more on the issue, feel free to contact me. Dept. of Pesticide Regulation

68. I think that it defeats the purpose of carpooling -.reducing emissions from cars on the road, and allowing for reduced gas consumption due to fewer vehicles. I can just see the rich guy, driving his high profile Hummer that gets 8 miles to the gallon in the HOT lanes, driving 70 miles an hour pushing on the hybrid in front of him with 3 people in the car....Sorry I don't buy the concept. Money should not buy you the ability to reduce consumption and emissions. SMUD

69. Absolutely not! Many advantages of the car pool lane usage would be lost, incentive to drive with another, reduced pollution and reduced commute time. The only gain would be additional revenue. If the concept of a "toll lane" wants to be explored; do it as a stand alone concept. Set the toll charge at a level that will pay for the lane construction. If this estimated toll charge is too high and commuters are unwilling to pay it, planners then have their answer; commuters are unwilling to support the support the "toll lane" concept. EDD

70.  I do not agree that a lone driver can pay a fee for the privilege of driving in the carpool lanes. The carpool lanes are named carpool because that is what they represent. I think it is sending a wrong message that privileges can be purchased. Dept. of Health Services

71.  No thanks to tolls. I'm very opposed to it! I think it is a gateway to charge all drivers in the future. Also, I think it's not fair to existing carpoolers. It would ultimately fill up the carpool late, thus making it no benefit for those who should be rewarded for carpooling (the benefit being that's it’s a faster lane). Thank you for asking and representing carpoolers of Sacramento. Dept. of Justice

72. To me a carpool means 2 or more people and if it is not 2 or more people then they should not be in the carpool lane. I don't think hybrid cars should be there and I don't think that people should be able to pay to use the carpool lane. Get a carpool or stay out. – Board of Equalization

73. I'm opposed to paying to use HOT lanes. We have too many single occupant drivers, and they need to change their ways (use public transit, carpool, etc.). I've been commuting from Nevada City to Sacramento, since 1984, and have used a non-state subsidized commuter van for 22 years now (140 miles/day, round trip). Our commute group includes private business (Raleys, law firm), state, local, and federal government. I am sickened every day by the single occupant vehicles that clog the I-80- corridor. And they send their pollution up the hill to my mountain retreat--where the higher elevation traps the polluted air from the Bay Area and the Sacramento metropolitan area. We are the receivers of the industrial and auto pollutants, desipite being a low density rural area. Yes to alternative fuel vehicles and carpoolers (Bay area requires 3/vehicle). – California State Parks

74. I think the carpool lanes should be for carpoolers only. I believe the HOT lanes are a way for the city to generate revenue instead of creating other means of compute alternatives. CalPERS

75. I am opposed to allowing people driving alone to use the carpool lane even if they pay a toll. The car/van pool lane is just that, a lane reserved for individuals who car/van-pool. It is an incentive to induce others to get out of their cars and join a car/van pool. Allowing drive alones defeats the purpose, the highways will continue to be congested and eventually lead to eliminating all incentives to car/van pooling. 7

6. I don't think people that drive alone should have access to the car pool lanes at all. If they were allowed to use the car pool lane, it would cause more traffic congestion in the car pool lanes making it less convenient for those of us who reducer. Those of us who do reducer are doing it for the environment, etc. and therefore should be given opportunities (ie. using the car pool lanes) as perks. State Dept. of Education

77. I believe that the carpool lanes work only if there is a benefit to those who use them. They are similar to toll roads... especially the 91 toll road is southern California, built right next to the freeway, where if you price the toll too low, the road is overused and does not create a time savings and people will stop using it. On the other side if you price too high, no one will pay and the capacity is underutilized. Now, with the Hybrids (a $20k prepaid toll on HOV usage for those who can afford/Hybrids get better mileage in traffic than zipping along...but it's a compromise to get more into the market) and single occupants willing to pay to use HOV lanes. My thought is that carpools in Sacramento and other areas will be increased from two to three people to qualify for usage (ie SF Bay Area) and to keep traffic moving. If carpools are overused and not moving along, then there is no benefit to users, thus the requirements need to be increased so a balance can occur. By adding additional users, the requirements will have to be increased and before long it will basically become a toll lane because those who can't or won't add a third person to meet the requirement will just start driving alone or if they can afford it, buy a Hybrid or pay the fee to use the HOV lane... thus making it similar to a toll road. The other thing people forget is that HOV lanes are paid mainly with Federal Funds, so if Californians want to change them into regular lanes or approve fee for use without Federal approval, then California will need to repay the grants for HOV lanes. (probably not repay, but continue to work without reimbursement from FHWA). Dept. of Toxic Substance Control.

78.  I feel that a select few paying a toll (those who can afford it) isn't the answer to congested roads. How would that help air quality & energy conservation? Also, wouldn't it add to the congestion of the carpool lanes for the rest of the legitimate carpoolers possibly negating one of the benefits? Sacramento County

79. I do not approve of any toll roads in California. So called “Lexus Lanes” are a benefit to the well-to-do and not the general tax payer who are paying for the roads. I often use the HOV lanes because I Vanpool and Carpool. I would get very upset to find single occupant cars (toll or no-toll) in those lanes because it goes against the concept of decreasing those single occupant vehicles. We need to clean up the air, use less petroleum and improve traffic flow by cutting down on the quantity of vehicles on the road. HOT lanes would only encourage driving alone and become a status symbol. – State Dept. of General Services

80. I would be against the idea of allowing solo drivers to pay a toll to use the carpool lanes. If the solo drivers are paying a toll each trip it will slow down everyone in the lane while they pay their toll and unless the lanes are physically separated from the non-toll lanes enforcement would be impossible. If the toll was done via some kind of monthly or yearly pass involving stickers on the vehicle it could work but I still believe there would be a lot of non-toll paying drivers illegally using the carpool lane. Carpool lanes should be used only by carpools. – State Dept. of Health Services

81. I think it is the height of arrogance that bloated gas guzzlers be allowed to pay for their entrance to a lane that by its very nature was created to discourage such use. Wealth must no longer be an excuse for a deleterious lifestyle. – State Dept. of Health Services

82. Thank you for asking our input. My feeling that is that if someone is alone in a car they should not be allowed (paying or not) to use the HOT lanes. It would be difficult to monitor and control and I don't feel that the people who can afford to "pay their way" into lane should be allowed to do that. Additionally, I think it would only encourage other persons driving alone to jump into the lane as well. CalPERS

83. I think that the carpool lane rules should stay as they are. It makes the flow of people more efficient as there are more bodies per car moving along. I thought that was the point. Office of State Treasurer

84.  I support High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes for carpoolers only, no exceptions. It gives drivers an added incentive to carpool. Caltrans

85. Thanks for the opportunity to provide comments. I don't like the idea of HOT lanes because they do not decrease the number of cars on the road and would actually defeat the purpose of having carpool lanes. The primary goal of a carpool lane is to incentivize carpoolers so that there are fewer cars on the road, which accomplishes two important things: 1) it eases traffic congestion; and 2) it decreases air emissions. Having an HOT lane would do neither, and if it were in lieu of a carpool lane, it would actually have negative impacts. Air Resources Board

86. As a carpooler I would not support the concept of allowing single occupant vehicles into carpool lanes even if they did pay a toll. This change does not fit into the rationale and purpose for having carpool lanes. It’s always those who can afford to pay more than others that end up spoiling it for all those who cannot (e.g. corporate America). If they want to collect a toll they should use that money to build the Toll payers their own lane to use and share and leave the carpool lane as is. State Dept. of Health Services

 87. Lone drivers PAYING to occupy the hot lanes. The HIGH OCCUPANCY lanes. The lanes that are supposed to encourage car/van pooling. Oh yeah, that makes sense. Those who have money (or are willing to spend money this way) are privileged? No, no, no. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Do like they did in So Cal. Build a new toll freeway - for ALL to pay to drive on.

88. I think it is a bad idea. It is just another form of elitism, where those with money can buy anything. Most of the people I see abusing the carpool lanes are in higher priced vehicles and so indicate that they believe they are better than the "little people" who must obey the rules. A much better idea, and one I would like to see happen, is to have carpools register with DMV and get a bumper sticker. It could have a small fee attached for processing costs. I have been carpooling from Galt since 1989 with 2-3 people. I drive in to Calvine and pick up my car pool buddy after picking up a lady in Galt. When that person is not with me, I cannot use the HOV lane even though I am a committed carpooler. This would continue to encourage ridesharing while rewarding the users for their efforts on behalf of the environment and the traffic congestion.

89. This idea defeats the purpose of a carpool lane! Paying a toll for SOV's does not get all those extra cars off the road or cut down on air pollution like true carpooling and vanpooling does. If they take the money and increase access to more transit options like more buses, light rail routes, and bike lanes only, then it might get a little more support from me. – Mercy Hospitals Paying a toll to ride in the carpool lane will be even less enforcible than is currently achieved for carpool lanes. The level of abuse that currently occurs is very disappointing, especially in the Bay Area. CHP officers are generally nowhere to be found when carpool lane violations occur now....doubt they will have the staff/technology to enforce a "toll" program either. State Dept. of Health Services

90. I oppose this idea. Carpool lanes not only serve to encourage people to commute together. They also represent a value judgment that all things being equal, a car with several occupants should arrive at its destination sooner, since the collective value of the time of its occupants is greater than that of a SOV. Allowing solo commuters to pay to drive in the carpool lanes would send a very different message: that the time of people who can afford to pay a toll on a public highway is worth more than those who can't or won't. State Dept. of Justice

91. I don't think the individual driving alone should be able to pay to drive in the commuter lane. The lanes are too crowded now and sometimes it is not even worth it for the people who are commuting, because the other lanes are moving faster. This is on Hwy 99. State Dept. of Health Services

92. NO WAY, do not want them in the commuter lane. –Caltrans

93. A toll option will also likely increase "unauthorized use" of carpool lanes, as human nature tends to "follow the crowd." A single rider sees increasing numbers of single riders (though these would technically pay a toll) and suddenly, everyone (non-paying) is doing it.

94. I think creating HOT lanes defeats the purpose of carpool lanes. It favors the rich and would be in direct opposition to the whole premise by which carpool lanes were created in the first place…that is, to save fossil fuels and reduce emissions that are harmful to the O-Zone.  As an employee of the Dept. of Conservation, I believe that it would be borderline criminal to allow someone with too much disposable income to use it simply to make their life easier with no regard for the overall good of the environment now and for future generations to come. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my opinion. Dept. of Conservation

95. Driving my commuter van on the I-80 corridor west bound in the morning between 6:00 and 7:00 is usually no hassle. But coming home between 4:00 and 5:00 is another story. On the average it takes us 10 to 15 minutes longer. How come there seems to be twice as many people coming home? I see single car occupancy quite frequently jump into the diamond lane, especially east bound around Antelope. The diamond lane ends right where the bottleneck starts. The Placer County portion of the diamond lane is paved but not open. Why? I’m totally against single car occupancy paying extra for using the commute lane. That totally defeats the purpose of trying to get people out of their cars and into a high occupancy commuter vehicle. Just a few opinions of mine. – Dept. of Water Resources

96. A big, NO. This totally goes against carpool and any attempt to get people out of their cars. The "well to do" will pay for the privilege. - SMUD

97. I don’t believe we should turn our car pool lanes into toll roads. The two main reasons I disagree with this plan are: This action just confirms that the rich and/or powerful do not have to abide by the same rules as the rest of us. Fuel efficient vehicles are already allowed in the high occupancy lanes. Add to this those that pay the toll, and it won’t be long before these lanes become just as congested as single occupancy lanes. I feel that these lanes should be used to reward those that sacrifice time and convenience for the greater good of all commuters. State Dept. of Alcohol & Drug Programs

98. I completely disagree w/the idea of single drivers paying to use the toll lanes. Those lanes were meant to encourage multiple persons/vehicle. This would reduce that incentive. A related point is that this does not produce a savings in heat-trapping gases. The wealthy could get away with this but not the poor; the more expensive the greater the disparity (& resentment). It could be confusing as to who was rightfully in the lane unless they bought a sticker or else cause resentment. It would slow down the carpool lane for the current carpoolers. – Dept. of Health Services

99. I think this idea is ludicrous! The commuter lanes should only be available for people who make the effort to participate in carpooling or buy a low-emission vehicle. Allowing single occupant vehicles to use this lane would mean that wealthier drivers would have the privilege of getting to work more quickly than others. Carpool lanes were designed to reduce emissions by encouraging earth-friendly commuting options! - State Water Resources Control Board.

100. It would be fine if it is like FastTrak and they don't actually have to stop to pay. – SMUD

101. I have no objection, but how would it be enforced? Right now we have a lot of "single drivers" gambling each day that they won't be caught in the commuter lane during the hours specified for carpools. How would the "legal" solo driver be tagged as a "paid driver" on a particular day? Fair Political Practices Commission

102. I wasn't aware they could do that. However, if it's true, I would only approve if the money they are paying (toll) is going into a fund to extend or create additional commuter lanes or publicize/advertise the benefits of carpooling/vanpooling or even offer incentives to do so. Air Resources Board

103. I think it is not a good idea. I use them when I carpool or light rail when I don’t. There are enough times when singletons use the lanes with out being caught that are frustrating enough. Perhaps if it was a really large amount so that some of the bad roads in our area could be fixed but I prefer to keep the lanes car pool lanes. – State Dept. of Health Services

104. I think that it defeats the purpose of the "high occupancy lanes" to have a lone driver in a vehicle, since my interpretation of the goal was to encourage efficiently moving more people with fewer vehicles. I realize that hybrids (for instance) produce drastically fewer emissions, but I still think they're should be more than one rider per vehicle! Also, it annoys me greatly that enforcement of those lanes is so lax! Caltrans 1

05. My opinion is that Carpool lanes are for multi-occupant vehicles only, people shouldn't be able to buy a way in, if people want to get there quickly and are willing to pay for it let's build upwards and add a few more lanes. State Water Resources Control Board

106. I believe that charging low occupant vehicles to use the HOV lanes is a great idea in principle. However, some thoughts. One: Who would get the money and what would it be used for and how does one audit its use. Two: What amount is a correct amount? A token amount would only increase the congestion and gain little. Since the low occupant vehicles currently are willing to use the 'slow' lane then the amount should be substantial. Three: How will these vehicles be identified and will enforcement increase. I currently see all sorts of LOV vehicles riding in the HOV lanes with little enforcement. Have yet to ever see someone pulled over for illegal use of the lane. Four: What kind of beauracracy will be created if this idea is instituted and it's associated costs. Items One and Three are what I consider the most important in order. My feeling is this additional revenue will be squandered on other projects rather than fixing our current road congestion. - CalPERS

107. I like the goal of providing carpool lanes in a, perhaps, long and painful effort to budge people out of SOV commuting. I really don’t like the idea of a fee for drivers to continue the practice of driving alone in the diamond lane. It seems another example of people with sufficient resources being able to buy their way to a bit of privilege. CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD

108. I don’t see a problem with the HOT lane idea only if the cost to the individual (non-carpooler) is high and if having this option will lengthen the carpool lanes. Currently they are few and far between, not to mention short in relation to commuting to downtown. – State Dept. of Health Services

109. I think it would defeat the purpose of carpool lanes as I understand them: to reduce emissions. I won't even go into the politically sensitive issue of who could and couldn't afford to pay the toll......- SMUD

110. While the EPA has taken recent strides to improve air quality with the change in diesel fuel, and the clean diesel engine requirement, we need to be more pro-active in managing our resources and caring for our environment. In response to your specific question about allowing non-carpool commuters to pay a toll to use the carpool lane, I think you would cause more problems than you would solve. For example: 1) many carpool lanes extend through multiple counties. how would you divide the revenue? 2) how would a non-carpool person prove to a highway patrol officer that the toll had been paid; would stickers be issued much like the stickers on clean-air vehicles? 3) if you allow non-carpoolers to use the faster carpool lane, you lose the people who actually carpool. what is the benefit to carpooling if all lanes are congested. In essence, you take away the encouragement for carpoolers if everyone can use the lane. -CalPERS

111. I am against people that are driving alone paying a toll to drive in the carpool lanes. It would be an enforcement nightmare. You see drivers in the carpool lane driving alone all the time and there are not enough policemen to stop them. You may as well open the lanes to everyone and just make the road have more lanes. I can under stand the frustration of a person creeping along just because they opt not be in a carpool and seeing traffic wiz by. Most of our areas ties up are when the highway loses a lane. California Integrated Waste Management Board

112. My husband and I carpool from Placerville to downtown daily. We would not like to see the HOV lanes expanded to include single occupant vehicles. There are a lot of people in the El Dorado Hills area who could afford to pay the fee, but the effectiveness of the HOV lanes would be eliminated by the increase in traffic. As it is, we are disappointed that the expansion of the HOV lanes past Sunrise is not planned for the near future. The increase in housing in Folsom and western El Dorado county is tremendous, and Hwy 50 cannot cope with all the increased traffic. The HOV lane is its only saving grace. People need to be encouraged to carpool for a number of reasons, the environment not being the least of them. Of course, there is also an argument that only the wealthy could afford this, so it is discriminatory, but honestly, our main concern is the increase traffic in the carpool lane. We are able to cut 15-20 minutes off our time, and that make a big difference when added up. The more cars, the slower the ride; more people trying to get into and out of the HOV, and braking in the lanes to find a space in the next lane- it is a real hazard. We wish it were policed more than it is. Dept. of Health Services

113. Car poolers with 2 or more - OK. Hybrid cars with stickers - OK. Paying a toll to drive in carpool lane.....no way Using the car pool lane is supposed to be an incentive to save energy. I don't see the benefit/incentive for toll payers. What would stop anyone/everyone from paying a toll? State Controllers Office

114. I carpool and ride my bike to work. I drive alone only when it can't be avoided. The carpool lane should be JUST that. It somehow defeats the purpose to let a lone driver pay to use it. The pollution doesn't lessen and that is what I thought to be one of the major draws of having carpool lanes (along with less crowded freeways). When I carpool I don't actually use a carpool lane but I still wouldn't appreciate lone riders in it. I would not mind the lane being temporarily opened to all drivers when an accident has traffic backed up for miles.

115. As someone who goes out of her way to carpool, I think it would be an insult to us to have single drivers be able to pay to use our high occupancy vehicle lanes. People don't think twice about paying money for comfort. Yet, those that are trying to do something for the environment would be penalized, because then there would be no advantage to carpooling vehicles. As it is, during times of heavy traffic, the HOV lanes are just as congested as the regular lanes are. If people were allowed to pay to use these lanes, there would be no difference. Thank you for allowing me to express my view. State Dept. of Justice

116. I think it is a bad idea to let single drivers in the carpool lane for any reason whether they are paying a toll or driving a hybrid. The carpool lanes are already crowded enough and I thought the purpose of carpool lanes was to reduce traffic by having fewer vehicles on the road.  How does single occupancy meet that purpose? State Dept. of Housing & Community Development

117. I do not believe in nor support cars without carpool required number of occupants to use the carpool lane by paying for it. That defeats the purpose. State Dept. of Health Services

118. Will allowing drivers to pay for the privilege generate enough funding to make a difference? Will the HOT lane drivers clog up the carpool lanes which mean more auto emissions due to congestion? Is it possible to run the experiment for a few months to get some real data? I think there is a possibility that it may encourage violation: drivers using the carpool lanes without paying.

119. HOT lanes do not deserve to exist in a progressive state like California, or any other state that calls itself progressive. The reason for this is that the very concept of HOT lanes is contrary to the tenets of environmental justice in transportation. In short, it creates sort of a caste system for the driving public, and as such is discriminatory to low income freeway users. HOT lanes are affordable to higher and middle income drivers, but not lower-income drivers.

The argument that lower income drivers should be using mass transportation is invalid because it is inapplicable to low income drivers whose workplaces happen to be out of the way hotels, suburban construction sites, suburban landscaping sites, or higher end residences whose owners pay for housecleaning services. Workers must drive to these sites not only because they are underserved by mass transit, but also because workers must transport their own tools and cleaning supplies to these site by car or truck. To foist HOT lanes upon lower income people is to ignore the principles of environmental justice. Caltrans