Q: I have been a devout reader of your column for over 20 years and was appalled by the headline for Friday’s column: “Want to add more lanes to the I-5? Not so fast.” The I-5 — really. The only explanation I can think of is that someone other than you wrote the headline. I thought you swore off using “the” in front of road routes.

Dale Schmidt, Burlingame

A: I did.

Q: Does the headline of the 8/27 column really say “the” I-5?

Brian Simmons, Marina

A: It did.

Q: From the title of Friday’s piece, you sound just like you’re from SoCal: “Want to add more lanes to the I-5?” Not so fast.” For shame!

Leslie Waters

A: This was not my evil doing. Headlines in the printed newspaper are written by editors based in Los Angeles, where they foolishly call it “the I-5.”

Q: Your column Friday on widening I-5 was a useful report. Thanks. And if you care to take it a bit further, you might show how much of the third I-5 lanes could have been built with the funds spent so far on the Central Valley’s fast train from/to nowhere.

Here’s another wild idea. If Caltrans built a set of train tracks from Tracy to Wheeler Ridge in the I-5 right-of-way and loaded much of the current traffic onto non-stop trains, that could cut a lot of road traffic, especially truck traffic, use less fuel, and possibly even shorten travel time for the segment. It would almost certainly be at a cost that is much smaller than the money spent so far on the bullet train fiasco!

Al Donner, Moraga

A: Many agree.

Q: I have driven on I-5 to visit relatives in LA and Nevada for years. There should be three lanes each way. The road is straight, there’s plenty of open land for a third lane. It’s flat and level. You could not even ask for better conditions for roadwork.

Forget about high speed rail and put the money where it is beneficial.

Joe Ruk

A: And ….

Q: Use some of the state’s $70 billion budget surplus to widen both I-5 and 99. And throw in converting Highway 152 to a freeway from Gilroy to the 156 merge for good measure. Let’s get something that people can really see and feel out of that surplus.

Yes, I know the anti-car lobby won’t like the idea, but heck, they can drive their Teslas on those improved freeways!

Bill Stock, Emerald Hills

A: Of your suggestions here, 99 is being widened, and improvements to 152 are being studied. As for widening I-5, check back later. That one could be a century from now.

Join Gary Richards for an hourlong chat noon Wednesday at https://ift.tt/27E9ALQ. Look for Gary Richards at Facebook.com/mr.roadshow or contact him at mrroadshow@bayareanewsgroup.com.