Freeway Congestion

* Regarding the 101 and the 405 [freeway] interchange, I know Caltrans is reviewing the problem and will try to come up with a solution. I hope they will look into barriers just north of the Mulholland off-ramp. As I sit on the freeway in the second lane, cars are passing us in the third lane. Just before the first- and second-lane exit, to go to the 101 Freeway, they cut into my lane. They could, and do at times, cause accidents. They also make us stop, and so all the drivers that are obeying the law and getting into the correct lane for the exit from the 405 to the 101 have to stop or slow down for the drivers that feel they are better than the rest of us and do not have to travel with the normal flow of traffic.

If Caltrans would put barriers up on the 405 just north of the Mulholland off-ramp, and any car not in the first or second lane at that time would have to go to Burbank Boulevard, exit and come back to the 101, we would have a smoother flow of traffic. All would move through the interchange at a faster pace.

I know this is a simplistic view, but sometimes the simple ideas are the best. Please try this idea, and perhaps Caltrans could save millions of dollars and needless construction.

GILBERT SMITH

Encino

*

* Re “Diamond Lanes,” Dec. 20, Valley Edition letters.

It’s painful to read letters supporting diamond lanes citing transparent, self-serving arguments, both irrelevant and unsubstantiated. David Kendall Grant compares the issue of congestion on the freeways with smoking, drug-taking, etc. and contends that “car-pool lanes aren’t supposed to make us share rides (!); they are meant to make us change our patterns of living and working.” Grant admits that he gave up commuting. This is reminiscent of the Aesop fable in which an animal, having lost its tail, tries to induce others to likewise remove their’s. Talk about skewed logic.

The letter by Dan Dayton in support of diamond lanes extinguishes his own argument immediately; he rides a motorcycle. “When diamond lanes end, gridlock begins,” he pontificates, as if more (lanes) is actually less. His proposals of a $4-per-gallon surcharge, or rewarding diamond lane users with valuable coupons, are patently ludicrous. I suspect Dayton may be a comedy writer. A number of recent articles and editorials in The Times that deplore the controversial lanes were based on studies and the findings of qualified observers. That’s good enough for me.

LOUIS NEUMARK

Van Nuys