READER’S FORUM
Public health is key to terrorism preparation
To the editor: I read with interest the November 2001 article, “Preparing for the worst.” You state the three big players are police, fire and public works.
It is appalling that public health wasn’t even mentioned as a player in the article, especially after the involvement by Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control in the anthrax exposures that occurred in Washington, D.C.; Florida; and New York.
To be successful, a city/county must have a team approach to address terrorism. The team involves police, fire, emergency management, public health, the medical community and public works.
The role of public health involves training of public health personnel, maintenance of a health alert communications network, community education, cooperation with community and state and federal health resources, and technical responsibilities, like diagnosing outbreaks and recommending treatment.
— Don Shields
Director, Grand Forks Public Health Department
Grand Forks, N.D.
Federal money is our money, too
To the editor: In your November viewpoint (“Looking for a piece of Uncle Sam’s pie”), you praised King County Executive Ron Sims for proposing a one-year property tax increase to pay for domestic security issues. An alternative approach I have been advocating to city and county officials is a program I have entitled, “Commit 1 Percent.”
The city or county reallocates 1 percent of its existing budget to security issues. This puts the burden on the government to be frugal, responsible, creative and patriotic.
— David Childs
Dallas County Tax Assessor/Collector
Dallas County, Texas
To the editor: In your November editorial, you analogized the federal government to “our benevolent grandpa.” You insinuated that Gramps was benevolent to us and that we only wanted his help and money when we were in trouble. However, I think we all need to be reminded that Gramps did not come about his money on his own. It came from us taxpayers. Gramps has his power, as well as his money, through the consent of the governed — us.
— Mike Tibbets
Paris, Texas
Facts do not support HOV lanes
To the editor: Your otherwise excellent and balanced article on HOV lanes fails to present the informed opposition’s position, leaving the incorrect impression that the opposition is mostly uninformed.
HOV lane acceptance rests almost entirely on the observation, made [in the article] by Mr. Bayol that “the HOV lane carries more persons in fewer cars faster.” This is almost always the case.
But it is a serious logical error to imply or infer that this fact in any way proves or even suggests HOV lane effectiveness. The object of the lane is not simply to improve the congestion or person-carrying capacity of one lane, but of the freeway or corridor as a whole. And while HOV operation usually causes the preference lane to carry more persons in fewer cars faster with fewer emissions, at the same time, it always causes the other lanes to carry fewer persons in more cars slower with more emissions.
Both effects occur because of the separation of HOV and SOV traffic. If — and only if — the increased congestion and emissions in the other lanes is offset by an even greater reduction in congestion and emissions in the HOV lane are HOV lanes effective in an overall sense. This has never been shown to be the case.
Unfortunately, it appears that the $2.5 million MTA study will provide yet more proof of the same irrelevant “more persons in the lane” finding.
The notion of HOV lane effectiveness rests on an erroneous foundation and ignores sound analysis that indicates that they usually cause more congestion and emissions than unrestricted operation of the lane would.
— Jack Mallinckrodt
Orange County, Calif.
To the editor: Your editorials are always thought-provoking and frequently entertaining. I am much less amused, however, by the factual errors in the story “Mixed reviews for HOV lanes” (October 2001).
The following statements are factually incorrect, and there may be others as well:
-
“The surge in HOV lanes in California really began in the early 1990s when residents voted for a sales tax to help finance their construction.”
-
“Fourteen percent of Los Angeles residents use the county’s 369 miles of HOV lanes every day.”
-
“… vehicle delays on California’s urban freeways more than doubled between 1997 and 1998.”
-
In my opinion, HOV lanes can be a valuable tool when properly applied under the right circumstances. It should be recognized, however, that public relations efforts by agencies that have made enormous investments in this or any other form of mass transportation require thoughtful review and testing for reasonableness.
— Harry Parker
Consulting Traffic Engineer
Venice, Calif.[Mr. Parker is correct, but the fault was ours, not CalTrans’. The article should have said that vehicle delays doubled between 1987 and 1998. Additionally, according to CalTrans, on average, 15 percent — more than 500,000 — of Los Angeles’s commuting residents carpool. The agency notes that support for HOV facilities in California is a response to growing congestion, declining mobility and worsening air quality. — JW]
Letters may be mailed to 6151 Powers Ferry Road, N.W., Atlanta GA 30339; faxed to (770) 618-0349; or e-mailed to [email protected]. Letters may be edited for purposes of style, clarity and length.