http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/06/carpool_lanes_night_open_freeways_gatto.php
QuoteAB 405 by Mike Gatto of Burbank would allow "single-occupancy vehicles to access the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes during non-peak hours," according to a statement from his office. Yes, you'd be able to use those lanes your tax dollars pay for -- lanes meant to alleviate traffic and encourage carpooling during rush hour, not after-hours -- later at night.
QuoteWhile carpool or HOV lanes are open to commuters after-hours in the Bay Area, it's not the case in L.A. You're punished because you don't drive a Prius. And that's not right. Gatto [stated]: "Carpool lanes are supposed to provide an incentive for carpooling during peak travel hours, and be good for the environment. I support these goals. But when motorists are stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic at midnight while carpool lanes sit empty, those goals are not met."
The bill says no new carpool lanes will be established after July 1, 2014, unless they're open to all after-hours. It also specifies that stretches of the 134, 170, 5, 210 and 57 be open to single motorists during non-rush hours. Gatto [stated]: "There is no reason for drivers to be stuck in traffic when a late-night accident or mysterious slowing clogs the rightmost freeway lanes, while the carpool lane sits empty."
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/09/carpool_lanes_open_night_los_angeles.php
QuoteThe idea of opening up L.A. freeway carpool lanes to everyone seemed like a pipe dream to us. After, the laws in California -- texting while behind the wheel, stoned while driving -- only seem to get more restrictive. But L.A. area Assemblyman Mike Gatto's bill that would allow us to drive after-hours on those needlessly wide-open lanes that we paid for is actually a success. Now all we need is for Gov. Jerry Brown to sign it: The bill, AB 405, passed the assembly this week 69-1, according to Gatto's office. That was its final legislative hurdle before Brown gets to sign it or rejected it.
QuoteGatto's bill would prohibit new carpool lanes on freeways selected by the Department of Transportation from operating 24 hours starting July 1. On May 1, 2015 the Department of Transportation would have to start opening up select carpool lanes to solo drivers during non-rush hours, too.
Regards,
Andy
Depending on the highway, I think it's a great idea. If carpool and transit is only popular during rush hours, then open the lanes to others at other times. This seems to work best on the roads that don't go to Downtown LA, since the radial routes will probably have significant bus usage.
So, if they weren't already HOT lanes, I would not convert 110 or 10 to peak-only HOV because of the heavy bus usage on those corridors. 105 would be a good candidate for conversion because transit customers can use the green line.
I've never liked the HOV setup on 134. If I'm driving on Eastbound 134 in the leftmost general lane just before I-5, I end up in the rightmost general lane east of I-5. A carpool lane doesn't fit here, we need more general lanes. At least the part time conversion is a start.
Quote from: mrsman on September 17, 2013, 12:03:04 AM
Depending on the highway, I think it's a great idea. If carpool and transit is only popular during rush hours, then open the lanes to others at other times. This seems to work best on the roads that don't go to Downtown LA, since the radial routes will probably have significant bus usage.
So, if they weren't already HOT lanes, I would not convert 110 or 10 to peak-only HOV because of the heavy bus usage on those corridors. 105 would be a good candidate for conversion because transit customers can use the green line.
I've never liked the HOV setup on 134. If I'm driving on Eastbound 134 in the leftmost general lane just before I-5, I end up in the rightmost general lane east of I-5. A carpool lane doesn't fit here, we need more general lanes. At least the part time conversion is a start.
Definitely true, more mixed use lanes are needed all over socal. and even on nor-cal roads like the uber-clogged SR-99 south of downtown Sac.
Honestly if California sees the value in reopening the 24Hr HOV lanes to all drivers outside of peak commute hours to reduce congestion what does that say for removing them altogether. Besides the speed differential between carpool and mixed use lanes during back-ups could be a safety concern.
Fortunately here in Indy we do not have HOV lanes (yet)... I am sure some progressive (smirk) may eventually come along and try to get them here, but are they really as helpful to traffic flow as they believe they are or have HOV lanes been a way to get the sierra club and earth first to not complain so much about adding a lane to a freeway.
That also lends to the question, does ramp metering make all that much of a difference? But I suppose that is for a different thread in traffic control. Hey, maybe I'll start one over there.
To clarify, I'm in favor of HOV lanes during peak hours on most corridors to encourage transit and carpooling.
Off-peak, the lanes should be open to all. Generally speaking, this will mean an additional travel lane at times that are less congested. It would also encourage time shifting for those who cannot carpool.
For proven transit corridors, that maintain good headways, there may be justification for wider windows of HOV time (5am-9pm 7 days per week). In LA, those corridors are the Harbor and San Bernardino (which are HOT lanes, so the point is moot), and possibly the under-construction 405 corridor between the SF Valley and West L.A.
Carpool lanes are just a way to get around the ban on adding "real" lanes for air quality purposes. I'm not sure opening or closing them during off peak hours does much other than in the rare event of a major accident. During off peak hours and on weekends, many people are already "carpooling" (carrying two or more people in the car) and so the restricted nature of the lane often traps people in them (which has happened to me on the 210 many times). Having continuous access carpool lanes, like they do in Orange County, strikes me as more important than peak or off peak restrictions.
Quote from: fungus on September 23, 2013, 02:02:11 AM
Carpool lanes are just a way to get around the ban on adding "real" lanes for air quality purposes. I'm not sure opening or closing them during off peak hours does much other than in the rare event of a major accident. During off peak hours and on weekends, many people are already "carpooling" (carrying two or more people in the car) and so the restricted nature of the lane often traps people in them (which has happened to me on the 210 many times). Having continuous access carpool lanes, like they do in Orange County, strikes me as more important than peak or off peak restrictions.
.
I know that new freeways and widening projects in "Eco-fornia" face steep envoronmental hurdles and even opposition by nearly every environmental and nimby group you can think of (like the infamous sierra club) but i didn't know there was a ban in place. The Cal ARB and environmental regulations are far to intrusive and overbearing nationwide adding billions to the cost of road improvements annually. the Cal EPA laws and the national environmental EPA laws need to be reformed to make them less obstriuctive and reduce environmental inspection and mitigation costs.
Anybody notice the bill is called AB-405?
I don't think it's going to help much. if five lanes of traffic are at a dead stop at midnight, then I'll bet the problem is severe enough that six lanes would be stopped as well.
Governor Brown has vetoed this Bill. His message below and the link to AB405 is here http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml)
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 405 without my signature.
This bill limits the 24/7 carpool lane controls on about 13 miles of the 134 freeway in Los Angeles to the hours of heavy commuter traffic.
Carpool lanes are especially important in Los Angeles County to reduce pollution and maximize use of freeways. We should retain the current 24/7 carpool lane control.
Sincerely,
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on September 30, 2013, 11:25:12 PM
Governor Brown has vetoed this Bill. His message below and the link to AB405 is here http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml)
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 405 without my signature.
This bill limits the 24/7 carpool lane controls on about 13 miles of the 134 freeway in Los Angeles to the hours of heavy commuter traffic.
Carpool lanes are especially important in Los Angeles County to reduce pollution and maximize use of freeways. We should retain the current 24/7 carpool lane control.
Sincerely,
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Given the traffic that plagues CA's cities, it actually makes sense to run carpool lanes at all times. Think of this - if it's heavy enough traffic to clog the regular lanes, it's heavy enough for HOV. If the regular lanes aren't clogged, you don't need the extra lane. (This is a terrible rationale.) Okay, fine. But once the lanes are actually there, may as well run them.
If the bill were to make the proposal into changing them into HOT lanes I'd agree with it. Trouble with that is that the existing lanes aren't barrier separated (even the 110 and 10 express lanes) and there is no room for separation. Transponder tolling is easier to enforce as well. Someone doesn't have the transponder? Fine their ass. That being said, too much traffic in LA and SD. Jake also has a point, won't help ease congestion.
Quote from: SSOWorld on October 01, 2013, 08:43:29 PM
If the bill were to make the proposal into changing them into HOT lanes I'd agree with it. Trouble with that is that the existing lanes aren't barrier separated (even the 110 and 10 express lanes) and there is no room for separation. Transponder tolling is easier to enforce as well. Someone doesn't have the transponder? Fine their ass. That being said, too much traffic in LA and SD. Jake also has a point, won't help ease congestion.
They could just use the same type of lane separations that they do on the SR-91 Express Toll lanes
Quote from: SSOWorld on October 01, 2013, 08:43:29 PM
Transponder tolling is easier to enforce as well. Someone doesn't have the transponder? Fine their ass.
It would be easier to enforce if cameras are used like on the S.F. Bay Area toll bridges but cameras aren't used on the I-680 Express Lane because carpools get to use the lane for free and aren't required to have a transponder. The only enforcement is done by the CHP where the officer has to witness a solo driver with no transponder pass through a tolling point.
Note: I believe the setup is a little different on the new I-110 and I-10 Express Lanes in Los Angeles.
Quote from: Indyroads on October 02, 2013, 12:35:33 PM
They could just use the same type of lane separations that they do on the SR-91 Express Toll lanes
Like SSOWorld says, there isn't enough room to install plastic pylons (like on CA-91) or a concrete barrier because many of the HOV lanes in southern California were shoe-horned in by reducing the width of the lanes and/or eliminating the left shoulder. The I-680 Express Lane is separated from the general purpose lanes only by a double-white line (a new standard in California that follows the 2009 MUTCD).