Honestly, I really don't have any issues with the current HOV setup, and I wish they'd keep building out that goal. But over the past couple of years, there has been this sudden push to have HO/T lanes encompassing the entire region, and all of the long-proposed expansions, like the HRB and HRBT that are now getting underway, have been switched over the past few years from 3 GP + 1 HOV to 2 GP + 2 HO/T, essentially adding only HO/T capacity, no general purpose capacity.
I'm not fully against the HO/T lanes either, but I'm against the whole conversion to them now eliminating what would have been a GP lane addition, alongside -one- HOV lane.
I've expressed my skepticism before about whether any H.R. highway will actually be painted for 2 HOT lanes each way.
Again, unlike a number of other regions in the country, the H.R. HOV lanes carried traffic far below lane capacity, and thus the initiative to allow sub-HOV to purchase access. A lot of people complained about lanes that were being underutilized. And that was only HOV-2 to boot.
That is all that a HOT lane is, an HOV lane that allow sub-HOV to purchase access up to a limit that keeps things free-flowing.
That's really my biggest thing - having 2 HO/T lanes each way, and only 2 general purpose lanes. Generally, it doesn't bother me having 3 GP + 1 HO/T, as that's the current setup of majority of the other facilities, just HOV instead. And I've said it before - I disagree with the currently 2 + 1 that's being built in the Phase #1 HRB project - should be 3 GP lanes from implementation, then Phase #2 can add -one- HO/T lane. A lot of highways in this area have had similar treatment - built to 3 GP lanes each way initially, then 1 HOV lane each way added later.
Another thing, and this may seem minor, but it's a nice feature - being able to freely enter & leave the HOV lane. It's currently striped as a regular lane, simply with a diamond and restricted only during peak hours and open to all traffic at other times. The HO/T implementation would put barriers up and restrict traffic to either the HO/T lane or general purpose lane and only be able to exit/enter at the major junctions. It'd be nice if they could provide egress / ingress locations in areas between, or at least egress locations. And if they're doing the HO/T lanes, they ought to build some direct connectors at the major junctions such as Bowers Hill and Oak Grove, along with the general purpose interchange expansions. The current proposal is to simply allow traffic to dump into the left lane and make their way all the way to the right fighting GP traffic to exit. If you're paying a toll, you ought to have a seamless connection bypassing the interchange backups. A connection from VA-168 / US-17 to the I-64 HO/T lanes in both directions, and vice versa, plus from the I-64 HO/T lanes
(heading south/west) to I-264 East, and vice versa.
I say if they do these they ought to at least post a 65 mph speed limit on the restricted lane, similar to how the I-495 HO/T lanes are posted at 65 mph
(only difference is it's 2 lanes instead of 1). From ~Indian River westward, they ought to post at 65 mph speed limit on all the lanes, and maybe even 70 mph on the HO/T lane. The design speed for the I-64 project from VA-168 Business to Bowers Hill is 70 mph, so it reasonable could work. From Indian River to VA-168 Business, it's a straight shot and most people already do at least 70 mph.