In Some areas they are efficient in others they are not...I find them useful in the Atlanta area, during peak traffic times, especially on the Connector and the NE expressway (I-85 North)...
What are everyone's HOV's experiences...?
The one's on 95 in S. Florida are useful as well
And I just found out they Allow single passenger cars in the HOV lanes in the Atlanta Area as long as they are AFV (Alt. Fuel Vehicles) Approved...This has probably started taking on elsewhere (Houston, Dallas, LA, Denver, etc)
Thoughts?
It depends. In Portland, there is an HOV lane that runs from north Portland to Vancouver, WA. It's only seperated by double white lines, so it's not too effective in that numerous people "cheat".
Other cities, like LA our Houston, that have their HOVs blocked off, where you can only enter and exit and certain points, seem much more effective...and income generating as you have cops waiting at the end of an HOV getting those who are riding solo. :-P
I think HOVs need to have full access into general purpose lanes even if that facilitates cheating- but overall I'm for them DURING PEAK TIMES
At 2 in the morning I get ticked off when I can't rally down the HOV lane
They tried doing the double lines in Atlanta, but people cheat all the time, especially during peak hours. The olny way to keep people from cheating is using the Jersey (concrete) barriers...
I adore the HOV lanes on I-64 in Norfolk... :love: There are entrances/exits at I-564/Granby St., I-264, and some point south of that (they're extending them...). Whenever I need to go to Virginia Beach, I just exit into the HOV lanes at 564, and zip down to 264, which even has dedicated HOV exit ramps. The HOV lanes have a speed limit of 60 as opposed to the regular lanes' speed of 55, and there is almost always traffic in the regular lanes but not HOV lanes. Those have saved me so much time... On the contrary, however, the HOV lanes on I-64 here in Hampton and Newport News, which run from US-258 (Mercury Blvd.) to VA-143 (Jefferson Ave.), are completely and totally pointless. Only running for a few miles on the inside of an 8-lane freeway, by the time you cross all of those lanes to get to them, your exit's coming up, so you need to get back across them all. They're also only separated by a double dashed line, so only long-distance travelers who tend to stick to the left anyway use them...
And I believe in Virginia (at least according to my driver's ed teacher I had) you are allowed to drive in an HOV lane with only 1 passenger if you drive a Low Emissions Vehicle or Alternate Fuel Vehicle or hybrid.
They're definitely nice on the weekends on 101. Seems like a lot of the time people ignore them even when they can use them.
Quote from: Tomahawkin on February 14, 2009, 08:22:47 PM
In Some areas they are efficient in others they are not...I find them useful in the Atlanta area, during peak traffic times, especially on the Connector and the NE expressway (I-85 North)...
The only thing about the HOV lanes is, if you want to exit, you have to fight your way over to the right to exit. There are two HOV-2 exits I-75/85 northbound (Memorial Drive & Piedmont Avenue). There's only one southbound on I-75/85 (Williams Street), if memory serves. They're better served for longer trips.
Quote from: Tomahawkin on February 14, 2009, 08:40:33 PM
They tried doing the double lines in Atlanta, but people cheat all the time, especially during peak hours. The olny way to keep people from cheating is using the Jersey (concrete) barriers...
Yeah, I agree, the double white lines don't mean anything to some.
Be well,
Bryant
HOV's are the way to go in Los Angeles. However with that stated, I'm for them if they are an addition to the general travel lanes. I am against them if they are a restriping or a reconfiguration, ala Interstate 95 in South Florida.
According to MTO, one HOV lane has the ability to carry as much traffic as 4 general purpose lanes.
For that, and environmental and congestional reasons, I'm for them. Besides, they are great when there isn't enough room to widen a highway too much.
Do they actually say HOW, Hal? That doesn't make sense to me...
A couple of HOV lanes in Orange County (SR 22 and SR 55) have continuous access, meaning you can use and leave the HOV lane whenever you please.
I have mixed emotions about HOV lanes.
In cities the size of Houston, Atlanta, or L.A. I totally get it and they should install HOV lanes. However, there is an example of how HOV's are installed without good intentions. When widening a freeway, a lot of cities will install HOV's just to get the extra federal funding for the project (HOVs promote carpooling, which leads to less carbon emissions; therefore, the federal government promotes the installation of HOVs with incentives). I guarantee this is why Memphis installed HOV lanes in the 1990s when they widened I-40 on the east side. Memphis does not have the population or the traffic congestion for them to justify installing HOV lanes. As a matter of fact, a few years ago, I heard they stopped enforcing the HOV lane on I-40. Signs are still there as of early last month when I was last there, but they haven't enforced HOV rules in years.
But overall I do agree with HOV lanes, the city just has to have the population to justify them.
Well Nashville is about the same as Memphis on HOV lanes except that I don't think they were ever enforced that well to begin with.
In any case, the HOV lanes are just the leftmost lane of the freeways (I's 24, 40 and 65). They are only active from 7-9am one way inbound and 4-6pm one way outbound.
I agree with KatyFreeway that they make sense only when the traffic is heavy enough. Here, they seem to increase traffic congestion when people obey them.
Plain HOV, maybe. I'd prefer HOT (High Occupancy Toll) lanes, preferably equipped to handle EZpass, so if I find myself traveling alone and running late, I can pay to use them. Of course, all HOV lanes are really HOT lanes, just with a different method of payment.
As for taking a regular lane and converting it to a HOV lane, I'm against that, but an additional lane immediatly adjacent to the regular lanes are okay. Separating it with barriers is a waste of space, you can almost fit two regular lanes there.
There was a test with them in the Netherlands during the late 1990's, but it failed and they've turned it into a tidal lane. I don't remember other places in Europe with HOV lanes, but then again, in most European states, the amount of commuting traffic is relatively low compared to US cities, and traffic volumes are also lower. For instance, there are only a few spots in Germany which have volumes over 150 k.
Quote from: froggie on February 15, 2009, 08:19:56 AM
Katy/Ace: another reason to consider why TDOT went with HOV lanes in Memphis and Nashville is thus: Federal Interstate Maintenance (IM) funds *CANNOT* be used for normal Interstate widening, but they CAN be used for auxiliary lanes and HOV lanes.
Could these funds have been used for the currently unused HOV bridges on I-95 in Nova after the end of the HOV lanes in Dumfries for the possible extension of the HOV lanes as far south as VA 3 in Fredericksburg? By the way, the HOV lanes north of VA 234 are extremely useful in the mornings, however, going south in the afternoon works until the HOV lanes end just past VA 234.
welcome to the world of politics :crazy:
Quote from: haljackey on February 14, 2009, 11:20:06 PM
According to MTO, one HOV lane has the ability to carry as much traffic as 4 general purpose lanes.
For that, and environmental and congestional reasons, I'm for them. Besides, they are great when there isn't enough room to widen a highway too much.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 15, 2009, 12:04:09 AM
Do they actually say HOW, Hal? That doesn't make sense to me...
Yes indeed. I can dig it up for you:
"HOV lanes are a critical part of the Province's transportation strategy because of their ability to increase the efficiency of Ontario's transportation system. HOV lanes have proven to be a successful strategy in many North American cities for moving more people and increasing the efficiency of the transportation network
. An HOV lane has the ability to move as many people as four general-purpose lanes."
Link to source:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/hov/plan2007.htm (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/hov/plan2007.htm)
QuoteAn HOV lane has the ability to move as many people as four general-purpose lanes."
That sentence is a bit biased. Yes, it could be possible if all the cars on it would carry 4.8 people on average, but I don't think that's the reality.
I have yet to drive on the only HOV lanes in Pennsylvania, and they've been around since the first Bush administration. I do like that they are separate from the mainline 279 lanes since they are just another Port Authority busway, which removes buses from the regular lanes, but allows private vehicles.
There were HOV lanes in New Jersey at one time on I-80 and I-287. They were proposed in order to justify the widening done along the two corridors. As it ends up, the I-80 lane was marginally successful and the I-287 lane bombed, so both were removed in the late 1990s. (I was involved in some of the studies.) Too many cheaters, and the lanes looked empty. The public felt like since their tax dollars paid for the construction, they had the right to use the lanes. I suppose the governor finally caved in.
Personally, I am for HOV and HOT lanes. I think HOT lanes would have helped the situation in central New Jersey.
Conversion of existing HOV lanes into HOT lanes is being studied in the San Francisco Bay Area. However, many opponents to HOT lanes have labeled them as "Lexus Lanes," because they feel that only the rich will be able to use them on a regular basis.
Quote from: Chris on February 15, 2009, 08:24:54 AM
As for taking a regular lane and converting it to a HOV lane, I'm against that, but an additional lane immediatly adjacent to the regular lanes are okay. Separating it with barriers is a waste of space, you can almost fit two regular lanes there.
Yes and no. Yes, I don't like reducing capacity to turn it into an HOV lane. In NJ that actually failed on I-287 and I-80, because the same amount of traffic was suddenly crammed into one less lane, and the HOV lane was rescinded. Guess what? When you're commuting from on suburb to another, it's not easy to carpool. And no, I disagree with your separation quote. If you don't separate the lane enough, it becomes far too easy to violate, and you increase the chance of sideswipe accidents because one lane is moving much faster than the others. Now, on the other hand, when you do what Connecticut did and provide 18 feet between HOV and regular lanes, that's wasted pavement.
I used to be against the NJ Turnpike having separated Car and General lanes from 8A to 14 (soon to be 6 to 14), until I learned the Turnpike's philosophy. If there's an incident, they want to be able to route traffic onto the other roadway, or manage traffic between roadways, to keep things flowing as well as possible. I always figured 7 lanes would be better than 3 and 3, but in this era we have to think disaster, and the NJ Turnpike has its own emergency bypass built in.
Quote from: Chris on February 15, 2009, 01:36:18 PM
QuoteAn HOV lane has the ability to move as many people as four general-purpose lanes."
That sentence is a bit biased. Yes, it could be possible if all the cars on it would carry 4.8 people on average, but I don't think that's the reality.
Exactly what I was thinking... no one here even pays attention to the 2+ rule, and even if they did, who is actually able to commute with 4 or more people in the same car!? It just doesn't work! So if they only carried 2 people on average, it would only move as many people as less than 2 general-purpose lanes. Plus fewer cars are using them. So you have 2 people per car but half as many cars using the HOV lanes, equating to about the same amount of traffic moved for a whole lot more trouble.
Quote from: mapman on February 15, 2009, 08:47:03 PM
Conversion of existing HOV lanes into HOT lanes is being studied in the San Francisco Bay Area. However, many opponents to HOT lanes have labeled them as "Lexus Lanes," because they feel that only the rich will be able to use them on a regular basis.
This is what will be done on I-10 (Katy Freeway) west of Houston. Since the widening project finished, they've had the lanes setup as HOV lanes, but the permanent signage designating it as the "Katy Tollway" can be seen flipped over on the opposite side of overheard gantries. I believe the temporary HOV lanes were setup as a trial period to see how much traffic would travel on them. Honestly, I can say that they're pretty empty. Even during peak hours.
Quote from: akotchi on February 15, 2009, 04:59:38 PM
There were HOV lanes in New Jersey at one time on I-80 and I-287. They were proposed in order to justify the widening done along the two corridors. As it ends up, the I-80 lane was marginally successful and the I-287 lane bombed, so both were removed in the late 1990s. (I was involved in some of the studies.) Too many cheaters, and the lanes looked empty. The public felt like since their tax dollars paid for the construction, they had the right to use the lanes. I suppose the governor finally caved in.
Personally, I am for HOV and HOT lanes. I think HOT lanes would have helped the situation in central New Jersey.
And for several years sign bridges sat empty over the left-hand lanes of Interstate 80 and such, from the failed HOV experiment.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 15, 2009, 11:39:56 PM
Quote from: Chris on February 15, 2009, 01:36:18 PM
QuoteAn HOV lane has the ability to move as many people as four general-purpose lanes."
That sentence is a bit biased. Yes, it could be possible if all the cars on it would carry 4.8 people on average, but I don't think that's the reality.
Exactly what I was thinking... no one here even pays attention to the 2+ rule, and even if they did, who is actually able to commute with 4 or more people in the same car!? It just doesn't work! So if they only carried 2 people on average, it would only move as many people as less than 2 general-purpose lanes. Plus fewer cars are using them. So you have 2 people per car but half as many cars using the HOV lanes, equating to about the same amount of traffic moved for a whole lot more trouble.
Well, consider this:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/hov/index.shtml (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/hov/index.shtml)Pretty much its saying that for 57 people to get to work, they could take 57 cars, 26 if they carpooled with someone, or just 1 bus.
HOV lanes aren't just 2+, it can encourage bus transit and increase that number many times over.
Yeah well, a full bus doesn't mean that would've otherwise been all cars with one person. I doubt many bus travellers have an everyday alternative in the car. Except for mass transit subway systems like in New York or Washington, most people travelling transit do that because they don't have a car for everyday commuting. Transit and freeways both have mostly different target audiences.
HOV lanes, I like, if they're implemented in a situation where people end up using them.
HOT lanes on the other hand, I don't like. So far as I'm concerned, that ruins the point. The point is to encourage people to carpool. If you allow people to just pay their way in then you reduce that encouragement and make the lane reserved not just for people who are being efficient but also for rich people in their limousines who don't mind paying a large fee to use the lane. Which is unfair to those with lower incomes who can't or aren't quite as willing to afford it.
Seems to me like allowing people to bribe their way around the high occupancy requirement, essentially.
Of course, DOTs like them because they're an easy source of perpetual income.
Overall I don't really like HOV lanes. They're supposed to encourage carpooling, but carpooling just isn't practical today. This is because most trips these days are not commuting to work (commuting is only 16% of all traffic, down from 40% 50 years ago). Most trips these days are errands where it's impractical to carpool. Who wants to share a ride with someone who is going to day care, picking up laundry, dropping by Blockbuster, etc. Most "carpooling" today is between family members with the kids being ferried from place to place.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 16, 2009, 12:31:10 PM
Of course, DOTs like them because they're an easy source of perpetual income.
Yeah, because with HOT lanes, the incentive to reduce congestion is gone, because then that HOT lane will become unused. I'm not a fan of pricing the poor off the road/into congestion.
Hal: I know that HOV Lanes are designed for that use, but I am saying that practically that is not what ends up happening. They're just not that convenient for commuters and other traffic just disregards the rules in them.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 16, 2009, 05:15:55 PM
Hal: I know that HOV Lanes are designed for that use, but I am saying that practically that is not what ends up happening. They're just not that convenient for commuters and other traffic just disregards the rules in them.
Well, like others have stated, it depends. They seem to work in larger, denser cities opposed to smaller and/or spread out cities. So they'd probably be excellent to use in the 5 big North American cities (Mexico City, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Toronto respectively) and denser ones as well (such as San Francisco, Boston, Vancouver, and other dense North American cities).
I don't know about these HOT lanes everyone is talking about. Does that T stand for Transit or Toll? :crazy:
The T does stand for toll.
And I'm just speaking from what I've noticed around here...
Quote from: aaroads on February 16, 2009, 11:28:05 AM
Quote from: akotchi on February 15, 2009, 04:59:38 PM
There were HOV lanes in New Jersey at one time on I-80 and I-287. They were proposed in order to justify the widening done along the two corridors. As it ends up, the I-80 lane was marginally successful and the I-287 lane bombed, so both were removed in the late 1990s. (I was involved in some of the studies.) Too many cheaters, and the lanes looked empty. The public felt like since their tax dollars paid for the construction, they had the right to use the lanes. I suppose the governor finally caved in.
Personally, I am for HOV and HOT lanes. I think HOT lanes would have helped the situation in central New Jersey.
And for several years sign bridges sat empty over the left-hand lanes of Interstate 80 and such, from the failed HOV experiment.
Too many cheaters because the lanes were striped as regular lanes. And there are STILL sign bridges over I-80 and I-287, and you can STILL make out the diamond markings in the pavement.
Here in Hartford we have HOV lanes but they are a hassle to use you can only enter/exit them at every other exit on I-91/84 and they take up so much space (you can look at the wikipedia article on HOV lanes and see for yourselves). I propose using HOT lanes during peak hours with variable pricing. That way it's a compromise for those who drive. The drivers can either wait in traffic, take public transport or pay. In the off-peak the lanes can be free like in Minneapolis
Quote from: froggie on March 12, 2009, 10:08:04 AM
- Operational experience with I-394 has also shown a noticeable decrease in the number of "cheaters" after the lanes were converted from HOV to HO/T.
I think this decrease in cheaters is as much due to increased enforcement and the flashing transponder-detection indicators than to the simple fact that these are now toll lanes.
I also take issue with Chris's earlier statement that most bus commuters do not have a car alternative. That's just too broad a generalization. I have always had a car, and have always commuted by bus when I had that option. The savings on parking alone make it well worth it.
I'm for them as long as they work. The one's we have here took a while to catch on but they come in handy at peak times (especially with the Huey closed). To be honest we need more, we could use them on almost every stretch of highway in the metro. The only thing I don't like about the ones here is the fact that it is a HOT lane when inbound and when they reverse it for outbound it becomes HOV.
I could understand if they charged the same 1.00 cash/0.40 toll tag, but the price is always higher.
Quote from: FreewayDan on February 15, 2009, 12:34:01 AM
A couple of HOV lanes in Orange County (SR 22 and SR 55) have continuous access, meaning you can use and leave the HOV lane whenever you please.
They did the same thing on I-215 in Riverside between SR 91 to I-215 SR 60 interchange in MoValley.
Larry
That's how the ones on I-64 on the Peninsula and I-264 on the Southside are here. Just separated from the travel lanes with a double dashed white line.
The reasons why have been mentioned before in detail. (In summary, it was a way to wangle federal tax $$$ for road widening.)
In Nashville, the HOV lanes have no pavement markings differentiating them from the non-HOV lanes. There are just the signs on the concrete median.
I like the idea of HOV/HOT lanes, but I still maintain the only way to prevent "cheating" is to block off the lane from mainlane traffic, save a few controlled access points. Even "soft" barriers like plastic poles would do this better than a double white line, IMO.
QuoteThat's how the ones on I-64 on the Peninsula and I-264 on the Southside are here. Just separated from the travel lanes with a double dashed white line.
However, one feature the HOV lanes on I-64 on the Peninsula have that most other "concurrent HOV lanes" don't is a 4-ft buffer between the HOV lane and the adjacent regular lane.
Which is theoretically wide enough to install a jersey barrier with 1ft on each side of the Jersey barrier.
Quote from: DrZoidberg on March 13, 2009, 07:05:54 PM
I like the idea of HOV/HOT lanes, but I still maintain the only way to prevent "cheating" is to block off the lane from mainlane traffic, save a few controlled access points. Even "soft" barriers like plastic poles would do this better than a double white line, IMO.
+1 I agree about plastic poles or a jersey barrier.
btw, Wikipedia have the entries about HOT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-occupancy_toll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-occupancy_toll) and ETL (Express Toll Lanes) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Express_toll_lane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Express_toll_lane)
Quote from: froggie on March 14, 2009, 07:42:07 AM
QuoteThat's how the ones on I-64 on the Peninsula and I-264 on the Southside are here. Just separated from the travel lanes with a double dashed white line.
However, one feature the HOV lanes on I-64 on the Peninsula have that most other "concurrent HOV lanes" don't is a 4-ft buffer between the HOV lane and the adjacent regular lane.
Which is theoretically wide enough to install a jersey barrier with 1ft on each side of the Jersey barrier.
They do? Didn't look like it when I drove to the mall on Thursday. Just the regular lane, a double dashed line, and the HOV lane. Unless 4 feet are taken up by that additional line...
Yeah, you're right. There is a nice gap there.
I like em', just last year they extended them about 3 miles to Everett...soon onto Marysville and then...me! :biggrin:
Personally I love the ones in Marin County. It's so odd because on weekends nobody ever uses them even though they're designed only for weekdays and they're just normal lanes, so I pretty much usually get a lane to myself when traffic is backed up everywhere else.
WA wants some HOT lanes, they're currently on WA-167 from Renton to Auburn.
Speaking of HOV/HOT lanes...
The Katy Freeway Managed Lanes open this Saturday the 18th. Temporary signage for the HOV Lanes is being removed all week during the night hours.
GDOT was supposed to make some changes to the Northside Drive (US 41/SR 3) exit ramp, as another bus almost plummeted onto I-75. This time, thank God, the bus driver was able to stop.
Here's a video of the exit. Cue the video to 4:54, or watch the video in its entirety. Your choice. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsoA5ngrGW4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsoA5ngrGW4)
Be well,
Bryant