AARoads Forum

I'd like to hear about types of HOV lanes, and the opinions on the advantages and disadvantages of each.
From what I know, there are three main types of HOV lanes:

• Divided, where the lane is divided from the mainlanes by a concrete or median barrier and entry is extremely limited, and flow is generally reversed for each peak period. Houston uses these.
• Separated, where the lane is separated by a large stripe and/or rumble strips. Most of the LA area uses these.
• General, where the lane is separated by a double-white or single-white line, with entry only at designated places. It usually functions as a general lane outside of peak periods. Most of the Bay Area uses these.

I'm interested in opinions on use hours, particularly. In Houston, the HOV lanes are only open during peak periods. In the LA area, most HOV lanes are restricted to at least 2+ for 24 hours. In the Bay Area, the lanes are open to all outside of peak periods.

Any opinions?

How about removed?

Quote from: coatimundi on September 11, 2016, 12:49:54 AM
I'd like to hear about types of HOV lanes, and the opinions on the advantages and disadvantages of each.
From what I know, there are three main types of HOV lanes:

• Divided, where the lane is divided from the mainlanes by a concrete or median barrier and entry is extremely limited, and flow is generally reversed for each peak period. Houston uses these.
• Separated, where the lane is separated by a large stripe and/or rumble strips. Most of the LA area uses these.
• General, where the lane is separated by a double-white or single-white line, with entry only at designated places. It usually functions as a general lane outside of peak periods. Most of the Bay Area uses these.

• Barrier-separated.  Perhaps the oldest example is in the I-95/I-395 (Shirley Highway) corridor in Northern Virginia, which separates the managed lanes from adjacent  conventional lanes with  "hard" barriers made of steel or concrete or sometimes both.  There are also managed lanes with "soft" barriers (often fiberglass poles attached to the pavement, which will not stop a vehicle from crossing the barrier but is extremely noisy (and illegal to cross) such as those along Ca. 91 (Riverside Freeway) in Orange County and I-495 in Fairfax County, Virginia.  The managed lanes along Shirley Highway  were once HOV lanes, a long section has been  converted to HOV/Toll lanes, and most of the rest that is still HOV will become HOV/Toll lanes in the future
• Concurrent-flow with limited egress and access points, yes, especially common in Southern California.
• Also concurrent-flow with unlimited egress and access points.  These can fail if there is a lot of traffic shifting in and out of the managed lanes.
• There are also buffer-separated  lanes, where the managed lane is separated from adjacent conventional lanes by a  reasonably wide buffer area.

Quote from: SSOWorld on September 11, 2016, 08:03:52 AM
How about removed?

How about conversion from HOV to HOV/toll lanes?

A point I'd add to cp's comment regarding "concurrent-flow" lanes with unlimited access points is that those lanes can often not work well even if you don't have a lot of lane-changing, simply because of the problem that you could easily encounter lane-changing. That is, suppose three lanes are stopped but the HOV lane, which has no barrier-separation or buffer, is wide open. I doubt I'd do a full 55 mph in that HOV lane simply because of the risk that someone might abruptly pull out with no warning, causing an accident. (In practice, the only concurrent-flow HOV lanes I use regularly never get up to a high enough speed for this to be an issue–one is on northbound US-1 through Old Town Alexandria and it's a city street with a 25-mph speed limit, and the other is on westbound I-66 outside the Beltway and there's so much traffic and sun glare combined that it's hard to reach even 40 mph in the HOV lane.)

This isn't an issue in the ones with the pylons, even though theoretically an aggressive idiot could drive over the barrier. At least on the Beltway, they don't. (Whereas in DC I used to see flattened pylons near the Sousa Bridge all the time due to people not wanting to wait their turn to exit. DC put up pylons to prevent line-cutting and the cutters just drove over them anyway.)

Around here in the Seattle area, HOV/HOT lanes are separated from the GP lanes by a single solid white line. Express Lanes (toll pass required--different from HOT) are in the LA-style, accessible only via designated points. Express Lanes are separated by either two white lines or four white lines. The 5 and 16 freeway HOV lanes are 24-hour, but most others operate from 0500 to 1900. The 405 freeway express lanes operate 0500 to 1900 but only during weekdays.

In British Columbia, HOV lanes are similarly separated by a single white line, but because solid white lines cannot be crossed in Canada, access is limited to specific entry points. Hwy 1's HOV operates 24 hrs, but most surface street HOVs have TOD restrictions.

My personal preference is for a two or three foot buffer between the HOV and #1 lane, with access limited to designated points (LA style). Here in Seattle, there's lots of lane switching whenever the GP or HOV lanes slow down, and to not risk getting whacked into, you have to ride right up on the person in front of you. I also prefer separated HOV lanes because they create a space for motorcycles to slice through, without too much of a fear of being hit. Granted, only California permits this, but it makes it easier to pass lane-sharing legislation if one so desires.

I prefer the Washington/Oregon mention of a solid white line.


However, having just driven in Hawaii, their, don't re-invent the wheel approach (it is just a normal lane with diamonds painted, from time to time), seems the most logical.


I also wouldn't consider it an HOV lane, unless you can hop in and out whenever you wish.  If you are stuck in the lane, it is an express lane, regardless of the rules around occupancy.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 10:29:41 AMI also prefer separated HOV lanes because they create a space for motorcycles to slice through, without too much of a fear of being hit. Granted, only California permits this, but it makes it easier to pass lane-sharing legislation if one so desires.

No, California only permits lane sharing/splitting, NOT riding through or on the painted barrier. That is, and always has been, illegal. It is highly dangerous to ride there, regardless of legality. Motorcycles don't get to cross those stripes any more than cars.

I like the way they do it in Hartford, somewhat seperated with its own exits, and the white signs so you can tell its a HOV exit vs the main signs.

My least favorite one is the Staten Island one which is HOV 3 and in effect 24/7 and the HOV/Toll ones.

Ideally I just would prefer more general purpose lanes.

Quote from: coatimundi on September 11, 2016, 12:49:54 AM
I'd like to hear about types of HOV lanes, and the opinions on the advantages and disadvantages of each.
From what I know, there are three main types of HOV lanes:

• Divided, where the lane is divided from the mainlanes by a concrete or median barrier and entry is extremely limited, and flow is generally reversed for each peak period. Houston uses these.
• Separated, where the lane is separated by a large stripe and/or rumble strips. Most of the LA area uses these.
• General, where the lane is separated by a double-white or single-white line, with entry only at designated places. It usually functions as a general lane outside of peak periods. Most of the Bay Area uses these.

The first sentence of your "General" definition is incorrect.  The S.F. Bay Area HOV lanes can be entered or exited at any time.  Here's the terms I use to describe HOV lanes in California...

Buffer-separated or Limited Access
The HOV lane is separated from the general purpose lanes by double white lines with designated entry and exit points.  This is how the S.F. Bay Area express lanes are striped when the operator wants to limit access to the lane.  The double-yellow lines plus a white line to the left was the standard way to stripe buffer-separated HOV lanes in SoCal but those lane markings will slowly be replaced with double white lines.  In the case of SoCal, the HOV lanes operate 24/7 while express lanes in the S.F. Bay Area striped in this manner operate either from 5 AM to 8 PM Mon-Fri or during commute hours.  AFAIK, there are NO NorCal HOV lanes striped in this manner with the exception of approaches to toll plazas.

Open Access
The HOV lane is striped like a general purpose lane with dashed white lines.  All S.F. Bay Area HOV lanes are striped in this manner and allows access to the HOV lane at any time.  The I-580 Express Lanes also have lengthy open-access segments and are striped with a 6-inch wide dashed white line.  Normal lane lines on California freeways use a 4-inch wide dashed line.  All HOV lanes striped in this manner only operate during commute hours.

Quote from: sdmichael on September 11, 2016, 02:15:41 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 10:29:41 AMI also prefer separated HOV lanes because they create a space for motorcycles to slice through, without too much of a fear of being hit. Granted, only California permits this, but it makes it easier to pass lane-sharing legislation if one so desires.

No, California only permits lane sharing/splitting, NOT riding through or on the painted barrier. That is, and always has been, illegal. It is highly dangerous to ride there, regardless of legality. Motorcycles don't get to Cross those stripes any more than cars.

Well, I just got back from LA (five day vacation) and all of the motorcyclists were riding in that buffer zone. Even the cops. How is it highly dangerous? Lane changing isn't permitted along those stretches, so that eliminates a lot of the potential impacts.

And while it's not necessarily legal to cross the double yellow, but we both know it's tolerated.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 02:55:56 PM

Quote from: sdmichael on September 11, 2016, 02:15:41 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 10:29:41 AMI also prefer separated HOV lanes because they create a space for motorcycles to slice through, without too much of a fear of being hit. Granted, only California permits this, but it makes it easier to pass lane-sharing legislation if one so desires.

No, California only permits lane sharing/splitting, NOT riding through or on the painted barrier. That is, and always has been, illegal. It is highly dangerous to ride there, regardless of legality. Motorcycles don't get to Cross those stripes any more than cars.

Well, I just got back from LA (five day vacation) and all of the motorcyclists were riding in that buffer zone. Even the cops. How is it highly dangerous? Lane changing isn't permitted along those stretches, so that eliminates a lot of the potential impacts.

And while it's not necessarily legal to cross the double yellow, but we both know it's tolerated.

We BOTH know it is tolerated? Don't assume. Highly dangerous - riding where you're not supposed to and bordered by raised markers which greatly reduce traction. I'm sure that you saw "all motorcyclists" doing it, doesn't mean it was legal or tolerated. Cop did it so it must be ok? BS excuse. It isn't a "motorcycle lane". I've also heard even more idiotic excuses to ride there - since you can't cross the barrier, you're only crossing half... so its ok... STILL BS and WRONG.

"Not necessarily legal to cross"? How about illegal - no exceptions. Motorcycles don't get to cross a double yellow line any more than cars do.

Quote from: 1995hoo on September 11, 2016, 09:38:54 AM
This isn't an issue in the ones with the pylons, even though theoretically an aggressive idiot could drive over the barrier. At least on the Beltway, they don't.

I was told by someone (might have been a VDOT staff person) that crossing those pylons on I-495 (unless the vehicle is an emergency vehicle responding to an emergency call) will result in a reckless driving ticket if observed by a Virginia State Police trooper or a Fairfax County Police officer.

Quote from: sdmichael on September 11, 2016, 03:11:47 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 02:55:56 PM

Quote from: sdmichael on September 11, 2016, 02:15:41 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 10:29:41 AMI also prefer separated HOV lanes because they create a space for motorcycles to slice through, without too much of a fear of being hit. Granted, only California permits this, but it makes it easier to pass lane-sharing legislation if one so desires.

No, California only permits lane sharing/splitting, NOT riding through or on the painted barrier. That is, and always has been, illegal. It is highly dangerous to ride there, regardless of legality. Motorcycles don't get to Cross those stripes any more than cars.

Well, I just got back from LA (five day vacation) and all of the motorcyclists were riding in that buffer zone. Even the cops. How is it highly dangerous? Lane changing isn't permitted along those stretches, so that eliminates a lot of the potential impacts.

And while it's not necessarily legal to cross the double yellow, but we both know it's tolerated.

We BOTH know it is tolerated? Don't assume. Highly dangerous - riding where you're not supposed to and bordered by raised markers which greatly reduce traction. I'm sure that you saw "all motorcyclists" doing it, doesn't mean it was legal or tolerated. Cop did it so it must be ok? BS excuse. It isn't a "motorcycle lane". I've also heard even more idiotic excuses to ride there - since you can't cross the barrier, you're only crossing half... so its ok... STILL BS and WRONG.

"Not necessarily legal to cross"? How about illegal - no exceptions. Motorcycles don't get to cross a double yellow line any more than cars do.

??? It is tolerated. I don't know what the HOV lanes are like in San Diego, but the LA-area HOV lane buffers provide a safe place for motorcyclists to ride. Is it legal? No, it's not legal to cross the double yellow. But, lane sharing is legal, and riding in the buffer is an accepted part of that. Not to mention, if they're going to lane share, wouldn't you rather they do it where lane changing isn't permitted?

Also, if you're concern is reduced traction, how is better than riding along a dashed white line? It's the same material.

I also saw a CHP motorcycle SB on the 5 Fwy near the 55 interchange riding in the shoulder of the barrier-separated HOV lane. He was behind several other motorcycles. If it wasn't tolerated, wouldn't they have been pulled over?

Note to mods: this discussion on lane sharing stemmed from my comment up thread about the safety benefits of a painted buffer between HOV and GP lanes (which provide a sort of narrow lane for motorcyclists).

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 03:47:58 PM

Quote from: sdmichael on September 11, 2016, 03:11:47 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 02:55:56 PM

Quote from: sdmichael on September 11, 2016, 02:15:41 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 10:29:41 AMI also prefer separated HOV lanes because they create a space for motorcycles to slice through, without too much of a fear of being hit. Granted, only California permits this, but it makes it easier to pass lane-sharing legislation if one so desires.

No, California only permits lane sharing/splitting, NOT riding through or on the painted barrier. That is, and always has been, illegal. It is highly dangerous to ride there, regardless of legality. Motorcycles don't get to Cross those stripes any more than cars.

Well, I just got back from LA (five day vacation) and all of the motorcyclists were riding in that buffer zone. Even the cops. How is it highly dangerous? Lane changing isn't permitted along those stretches, so that eliminates a lot of the potential impacts.

And while it's not necessarily legal to cross the double yellow, but we both know it's tolerated.

We BOTH know it is tolerated? Don't assume. Highly dangerous - riding where you're not supposed to and bordered by raised markers which greatly reduce traction. I'm sure that you saw "all motorcyclists" doing it, doesn't mean it was legal or tolerated. Cop did it so it must be ok? BS excuse. It isn't a "motorcycle lane". I've also heard even more idiotic excuses to ride there - since you can't cross the barrier, you're only crossing half... so its ok... STILL BS and WRONG.

"Not necessarily legal to cross"? How about illegal - no exceptions. Motorcycles don't get to cross a double yellow line any more than cars do.

??? It is tolerated. I don't know what the HOV lanes are like in San Diego, but the LA-area HOV lane buffers provide a safe place for motorcyclists to ride. Is it legal? No, it's not legal to cross the double yellow. But, lane sharing is legal, and riding in the buffer is an accepted part of that. Not to mention, if they're going to lane share, wouldn't you rather they do it where lane changing isn't permitted?

Also, if you're concern is reduced traction, how is better than riding along a dashed white line? It's the same material.

I also saw a CHP motorcycle SB on the 5 Fwy near the 55 interchange riding in the shoulder of the barrier-separated HOV lane. He was behind several other motorcycles. If it wasn't tolerated, wouldn't they have been pulled over?

Note to mods: this discussion on lane sharing stemmed from my comment up thread about the safety benefits of a painted buffer between HOV and GP lanes (which provide a sort of narrow lane for motorcyclists).

Do you ride a motorcycle in California? Or a motorcycle at all? If the answer is no, then you're only going by assumptions - incorrect ones at that. I've known police to cite motorcycles for riding in that barrier. It is illegal, period. It definitely isn't a "narrow lane for motorcycles" nor does it provide such. But fine, assume something is tolerated from your brief observations coming from another state.

I've ridden throughout Southern California and it isn't "all motorcyclists" nor is it "tolerated". I've seen plenty of motorcyclists going too fast while splitting as well. Doesn't make that "tolerated" nor does it make "all".

How would riding where NO ONE is supposed to be somehow be "safer"? No, I'd rather they NOT be riding there. Doing so only promotes bad/dangerous practices, as seemingly shown by your belief that it is "tolerated".

It doesn't even makes sense that CHP or any other law enforcement agency would be promoting illegal behavior. Doing so would set a bad precedent, not something they generally do.

Another type would be the full bus lane/busway.

Also, around Seattle there are quite a few direct access ramps from the HOV lanes to access transit centers and park-and-rides, for buses and carpools. Some ramps are bus-only (Ash Way, Mountlake Terrace) and others are open to carpools (Lynnwood, Bellevue, Eastgate, Federal Way).

The Seattle area is also experiencing a bit of HOV lane congestion. There's been talks from the transit community over here about raising the minimum to 3 cars. I prefer the extreme solution of banning all non-transit from the lanes (even the Microsoft/Amazon shuttles who think they can use bus-only lanes) until light rail to Lynnwood opens in 2023.

Quote from: sdmichael on September 11, 2016, 03:56:27 PM
---

Can we just agree to disagree? Neither of us is providing any evidence to support our personal observations. Also, we are getting way off topic, and I'd rather not invite any moderation-intervention.

Quote from: Bruce on September 11, 2016, 04:07:38 PM
I prefer the extreme solution of banning all non-transit from the lanes (even the Microsoft/Amazon shuttles who think they can use bus-only lanes) until light rail to Lynnwood opens in 2023.

Why exactly should they not be allowed to use the HOV lanes? Microsoft and Amazon both employ thousands in Seattle...on time arrival of their buses is monumental to the success of a non-car-dependent workforce.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 05:47:51 PM

Quote from: sdmichael on September 11, 2016, 03:56:27 PM
---

Can we just agree to disagree? Neither of us is providing any evidence to support our personal observations. Also, we are getting way off topic, and I'd rather not invite any moderation-intervention.

Whatever dude. I'm not on here promoting nor accepting illegal behavior, particularly based on a brief observation of a few. You don't ride a motorcycle nor ever have split lanes in California, so you would have no basis of understanding nor knowledge of proper procedures. Going by what others do, especially illegal behavior, is a poor method of understanding or learning.

Quote from: sdmichael on September 11, 2016, 06:13:53 PM
---

Can we just agree to disagree? Neither of us is providing any evidence to support our personal observations. Also, we are getting way off topic, and I'd rather not invite any moderation-intervention.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 05:52:37 PM

Quote from: Bruce on September 11, 2016, 04:07:38 PM
I prefer the extreme solution of banning all non-transit from the lanes (even the Microsoft/Amazon shuttles who think they can use bus-only lanes) until light rail to Lynnwood opens in 2023.

Why exactly should they not be allowed to use the HOV lanes? Microsoft and Amazon both employ thousands in Seattle...on time arrival of their buses is monumental to the success of a non-car-dependent workforce.

The additional vehicles clog the lane and prevent buses from reaching their stops. Most of the city's bus lanes are merely short queue jumps that help a bus merge into traffic or leave it safely to access a bus stop.

And once access to one entity is given, all private operators and vehicles will want access. Restricting it to transit operators is the best way to preserve the lanes for their original intended purpose.

And given that many Microsofites and Amazonians are riding the bus, which carries far more of the workforce than the private shuttle network, I think the needs of the many outweigh the few here.

Quote from: Bruce on September 11, 2016, 07:03:09 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 05:52:37 PM

Quote from: Bruce on September 11, 2016, 04:07:38 PM
I prefer the extreme solution of banning all non-transit from the lanes (even the Microsoft/Amazon shuttles who think they can use bus-only lanes) until light rail to Lynnwood opens in 2023.

Why exactly should they not be allowed to use the HOV lanes? Microsoft and Amazon both employ thousands in Seattle...on time arrival of their buses is monumental to the success of a non-car-dependent workforce.

The additional vehicles clog the lane and prevent buses from reaching their stops. Most of the city's bus lanes are merely short queue jumps that help a bus merge into traffic or leave it safely to access a bus stop.

And once access to one entity is given, all private operators and vehicles will want access. Restricting it to transit operators is the best way to preserve the lanes for their original intended purpose.

And given that many Microsofites and Amazonians are riding the bus, which carries far more of the workforce than the private shuttle network, I think the needs of the many outweigh the few here.

Makes pretty good sense to me.

What if they converted the bus lanes to HOV 6+ or 8+?

Quote from: Bruce on September 11, 2016, 07:03:09 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 05:52:37 PM

Quote from: Bruce on September 11, 2016, 04:07:38 PM
I prefer the extreme solution of banning all non-transit from the lanes (even the Microsoft/Amazon shuttles who think they can use bus-only lanes) until light rail to Lynnwood opens in 2023.

Why exactly should they not be allowed to use the HOV lanes? Microsoft and Amazon both employ thousands in Seattle...on time arrival of their buses is monumental to the success of a non-car-dependent workforce.

The additional vehicles clog the lane and prevent buses from reaching their stops. Most of the city's bus lanes are merely short queue jumps that help a bus merge into traffic or leave it safely to access a bus stop.

I actually totally agree with you on this. The most annoying thing is to be on a bus and it having to stop because traffic is stalled in the HOV lane. It kind of undermines the purpose of transit, since it's then going to get knocked off its schedule. Personally, I think they could weed a lot of this out by simply making it 3+ on more HOV lanes... And actually enforcing it.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 08:06:16 PM
What if they converted the bus lanes to HOV 6+ or 8+?

And enforce that number for city buses as well..  :sombrero:

Quote from: kalvado on September 11, 2016, 08:58:18 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 08:06:16 PM
What if they converted the bus lanes to HOV 6+ or 8+?

And enforce that number for city buses as well..  :sombrero:

And enforce that number for motorcycles as well...

Quote from: coatimundi on September 11, 2016, 09:46:55 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 11, 2016, 08:58:18 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 08:06:16 PM
What if they converted the bus lanes to HOV 6+ or 8+?

And enforce that number for city buses as well..  :sombrero:

And enforce that number for motorcycles as well...

On a per-wheel basis...

Quote from: sdmichael on September 11, 2016, 03:56:27 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 03:47:58 PM

Quote from: sdmichael on September 11, 2016, 03:11:47 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 02:55:56 PM

Quote from: sdmichael on September 11, 2016, 02:15:41 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 10:29:41 AMI also prefer separated HOV lanes because they create a space for motorcycles to slice through, without too much of a fear of being hit. Granted, only California permits this, but it makes it easier to pass lane-sharing legislation if one so desires.

No, California only permits lane sharing/splitting, NOT riding through or on the painted barrier. That is, and always has been, illegal. It is highly dangerous to ride there, regardless of legality. Motorcycles don't get to Cross those stripes any more than cars.

Well, I just got back from LA (five day vacation) and all of the motorcyclists were riding in that buffer zone. Even the cops. How is it highly dangerous? Lane changing isn't permitted along those stretches, so that eliminates a lot of the potential impacts.

And while it's not necessarily legal to cross the double yellow, but we both know it's tolerated.

We BOTH know it is tolerated? Don't assume. Highly dangerous - riding where you're not supposed to and bordered by raised markers which greatly reduce traction. I'm sure that you saw "all motorcyclists" doing it, doesn't mean it was legal or tolerated. Cop did it so it must be ok? BS excuse. It isn't a "motorcycle lane". I've also heard even more idiotic excuses to ride there - since you can't cross the barrier, you're only crossing half... so its ok... STILL BS and WRONG.

"Not necessarily legal to cross"? How about illegal - no exceptions. Motorcycles don't get to cross a double yellow line any more than cars do.

??? It is tolerated. I don't know what the HOV lanes are like in San Diego, but the LA-area HOV lane buffers provide a safe place for motorcyclists to ride. Is it legal? No, it's not legal to cross the double yellow. But, lane sharing is legal, and riding in the buffer is an accepted part of that. Not to mention, if they're going to lane share, wouldn't you rather they do it where lane changing isn't permitted?

Also, if you're concern is reduced traction, how is better than riding along a dashed white line? It's the same material.

I also saw a CHP motorcycle SB on the 5 Fwy near the 55 interchange riding in the shoulder of the barrier-separated HOV lane. He was behind several other motorcycles. If it wasn't tolerated, wouldn't they have been pulled over?

Note to mods: this discussion on lane sharing stemmed from my comment up thread about the safety benefits of a painted buffer between HOV and GP lanes (which provide a sort of narrow lane for motorcyclists).

Do you ride a motorcycle in California? Or a motorcycle at all? If the answer is no, then you're only going by assumptions - incorrect ones at that. I've known police to cite motorcycles for riding in that barrier. It is illegal, period. It definitely isn't a "narrow lane for motorcycles" nor does it provide such. But fine, assume something is tolerated from your brief observations coming from another state.

I've ridden throughout Southern California and it isn't "all motorcyclists" nor is it "tolerated". I've seen plenty of motorcyclists going too fast while splitting as well. Doesn't make that "tolerated" nor does it make "all".

How would riding where NO ONE is supposed to be somehow be "safer"? No, I'd rather they NOT be riding there. Doing so only promotes bad/dangerous practices, as seemingly shown by your belief that it is "tolerated".

It doesn't even makes sense that CHP or any other law enforcement agency would be promoting illegal behavior. Doing so would set a bad precedent, not something they generally do.

Sometime back we were in discussions with CHP regarding some proposed changes to HOV lane striping.  Specifically, we were proposing to use double broken stripe.  CHP killed it because they were concerned that motorcyclists would think the gap between the stripes would have been a space for them to ride in.  Now, our proposal was to have a 4-inch or 8-inch gap between the stripes.  The drawing we showed them, though, was from the MUTCD, which shows a pretty big gap, similar to a buffer zone.  Based on that, they nixed the idea.  Regardless of the discrepancy in what we were planning, the fact of the matter is, they did not want motorcyclists driving in a buffer zone.

Crossing the buffer in California carries the same fine as an HOV lane violation and it's also a moving violation. 


iPhone

Quote from: coatimundi on September 11, 2016, 12:49:54 AM

• Divided, where the lane is divided from the mainlanes by a concrete or median barrier and entry is extremely limited, and flow is generally reversed for each peak period. Houston uses these.
• Separated, where the lane is separated by a large stripe and/or rumble strips. Most of the LA area uses these.
• General, where the lane is separated by a double-white or single-white line, with entry only at designated places. It usually functions as a general lane outside of peak periods. Most of the Bay Area uses these.

Not sure if my comment got lost in the mini-flame war you had with jakeroot about lane-splitting but I want you  to know #3 is incorrect.  ALL northern California HOV lanes are striped like a general purpose lane with 4-inch wide dashed lines.  There are NO NorCal HOV lanes that are striped with single or double solid white lines with the exception of on approaches to a toll plaza.

Quote from: kalvado on September 11, 2016, 08:58:18 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 08:06:16 PM
What if they converted the bus lanes to HOV 6+ or 8+?

And enforce that number for city buses as well..  :sombrero:

That would actually worsen things a lot. Empty buses are usually deadheading (returning) back to start another run, so if it's stuck then it will just cause a cascade of delays.

HOV 6+ or 8+ would be ideal for I-5 or any of the freeways, but not the existing and planned bus lane network. They need to be kept 100% pure.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2016, 09:25:54 AM

Quote from: coatimundi on September 11, 2016, 12:49:54 AM
I'd like to hear about types of HOV lanes, and the opinions on the advantages and disadvantages of each.
From what I know, there are three main types of HOV lanes:

• Divided, where the lane is divided from the mainlanes by a concrete or median barrier and entry is extremely limited, and flow is generally reversed for each peak period. Houston uses these.
• Separated, where the lane is separated by a large stripe and/or rumble strips. Most of the LA area uses these.
• General, where the lane is separated by a double-white or single-white line, with entry only at designated places. It usually functions as a general lane outside of peak periods. Most of the Bay Area uses these.

• Barrier-separated.  Perhaps the oldest example is in the I-95/I-395 (Shirley Highway) corridor in Northern Virginia, which separates the managed lanes from adjacent  conventional lanes with  "hard" barriers made of steel or concrete or sometimes both.  There are also managed lanes with "soft" barriers (often fiberglass poles attached to the pavement, which will not stop a vehicle from crossing the barrier but is extremely noisy (and illegal to cross) such as those along Ca. 91 (Riverside Freeway) in Orange County and I-495 in Fairfax County, Virginia.  The managed lanes along Shirley Highway  were once HOV lanes, a long section has been  converted to HOV/Toll lanes, and most of the rest that is still HOV will become HOV/Toll lanes in the future
• Concurrent-flow with limited egress and access points, yes, especially common in Southern California.
• Also concurrent-flow with unlimited egress and access points.  These can fail if there is a lot of traffic shifting in and out of the managed lanes.
• There are also buffer-separated  lanes, where the managed lane is separated from adjacent conventional lanes by a  reasonably wide buffer area.

From 1979 to 1984, Houston had an early HOV lane on the North Fwy. (I-45) between Downtown and N. Shepherd Dr. called the contraflow lane, which as the name suggests had HOV traffic (vanpools and buses only) flowing concurrent with the mainlanes in the off-peak direction. The contraflow lane was separated from the mainlanes by removable pylons which were removed and inserted before and after rushhour. In the mornings, a lane was taken from the NB side and used for SB peak traffic heading inbound. In the afternoons and evenings, a lane was taken from the SB side and used for NB peak traffic heading outbound. I don't think this type of HOV lane setup is used anymore, anywhere. It's probably not a good idea to have 45 foot coach buses barreling at 70mph just feet away from opposing traffic separated by flimsy pylons, though it's not much more different than a busy 2 lane highway. The current barrier separated setup replaced the contraflow around 1984-85 when the North Fwy. was reconstructed/widened and now operates as a HOT lane in addition to being an HOV lane.

Here's some videos about the old I-45 contraflow.
Part I:


Part II:

I would agree - removed is my favorite kind of HOV lane.

They work very well in Chicago!

Quote from: jlwm on September 13, 2016, 01:44:08 AM
...I don't think this type of HOV lane setup is used anymore, anywhere. It's probably not a good idea to have 45 foot coach buses barreling at 70mph just feet away from opposing traffic separated by flimsy pylons, though it's not much more different than a busy 2 lane highway. The current barrier separated setup replaced the contraflow around 1984-85 when the North Fwy. was reconstructed/widened and now operates as a HOT lane in addition to being an HOV lane.

The XBL HOV lane on 495 between the NJ Turnpike and Lincoln Tunnel going into NYC still runs inbound in the morning using a contraflow lane, separated by nothing more than lines, overhead lane symbols and pylons (do they still even use pylons?).

Quote from: jlwm on September 13, 2016, 01:44:08 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2016, 09:25:54 AM

Quote from: coatimundi on September 11, 2016, 12:49:54 AM
I'd like to hear about types of HOV lanes, and the opinions on the advantages and disadvantages of each.
From what I know, there are three main types of HOV lanes:

• Divided, where the lane is divided from the mainlanes by a concrete or median barrier and entry is extremely limited, and flow is generally reversed for each peak period. Houston uses these.
• Separated, where the lane is separated by a large stripe and/or rumble strips. Most of the LA area uses these.
• General, where the lane is separated by a double-white or single-white line, with entry only at designated places. It usually functions as a general lane outside of peak periods. Most of the Bay Area uses these.

• Barrier-separated.  Perhaps the oldest example is in the I-95/I-395 (Shirley Highway) corridor in Northern Virginia, which separates the managed lanes from adjacent  conventional lanes with  "hard" barriers made of steel or concrete or sometimes both.  There are also managed lanes with "soft" barriers (often fiberglass poles attached to the pavement, which will not stop a vehicle from crossing the barrier but is extremely noisy (and illegal to cross) such as those along Ca. 91 (Riverside Freeway) in Orange County and I-495 in Fairfax County, Virginia.  The managed lanes along Shirley Highway  were once HOV lanes, a long section has been  converted to HOV/Toll lanes, and most of the rest that is still HOV will become HOV/Toll lanes in the future
• Concurrent-flow with limited egress and access points, yes, especially common in Southern California.
• Also concurrent-flow with unlimited egress and access points.  These can fail if there is a lot of traffic shifting in and out of the managed lanes.
• There are also buffer-separated  lanes, where the managed lane is separated from adjacent conventional lanes by a  reasonably wide buffer area.

From 1979 to 1984, Houston had an early HOV lane on the North Fwy. (I-45) between Downtown and N. Shepherd Dr. called the contraflow lane, which as the name suggests had HOV traffic (vanpools and buses only) flowing concurrent with the mainlanes in the off-peak direction. The contraflow lane was separated from the mainlanes by removable pylons which were removed and inserted before and after rushhour. In the mornings, a lane was taken from the NB side and used for SB peak traffic heading inbound. In the afternoons and evenings, a lane was taken from the SB side and used for NB peak traffic heading outbound. I don't think this type of HOV lane setup is used anymore, anywhere. It's probably not a good idea to have 45 foot coach buses barreling at 70mph just feet away from opposing traffic separated by flimsy pylons, though it's not much more different than a busy 2 lane highway. The current barrier separated setup replaced the contraflow around 1984-85 when the North Fwy. was reconstructed/widened and now operates as a HOT lane in addition to being an HOV lane.

Here's some videos about the old I-45 contraflow.
Part I:

Part II:

MassDOT has a contraflow lane on the Southeast Expressway between the Braintree split and Savin Hill Avenue in Boston.  It was constructed in 1994-1995 as part of the Big Dig mitigation.  The lane operates from 6 to 10 am northbound, and from 3 to 7 pm southbound, and uses a moveable barrier system to create an HOV lane in the off-peak direction.  The AM HOV lane is so popular that people actually wait in line to enter it .

Quote from: Bruce on September 13, 2016, 01:13:46 AM

Quote from: kalvado on September 11, 2016, 08:58:18 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 08:06:16 PM
What if they converted the bus lanes to HOV 6+ or 8+?

And enforce that number for city buses as well..  :sombrero:

That would actually worsen things a lot. Empty buses are usually deadheading (returning) back to start another run, so if it's stuck then it will just cause a cascade of delays.

HOV 6+ or 8+ would be ideal for I-5 or any of the freeways, but not the existing and planned bus lane network. They need to be kept 100% pure.

Well, deadheading bus argument is very difficult to buy for me. Why operational needs of a government-run business are above peoples?  Why full MS or Amazon or Greyhound bus should have less priority than empty government-owned bus?

What is the ultimate goal of those lanes? Just run city buses? Those become too expensive. I know, Kings county bus system is almost profitable being only about 50% subsidized - but if HOV lanes become dedicated to buses, number must be re-evaluated.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2016, 06:19:50 AM

Quote from: jlwm on September 13, 2016, 01:44:08 AM
...I don't think this type of HOV lane setup is used anymore, anywhere. It's probably not a good idea to have 45 foot coach buses barreling at 70mph just feet away from opposing traffic separated by flimsy pylons, though it's not much more different than a busy 2 lane highway. The current barrier separated setup replaced the contraflow around 1984-85 when the North Fwy. was reconstructed/widened and now operates as a HOT lane in addition to being an HOV lane.

The XBL HOV lane on 495 between the NJ Turnpike and Lincoln Tunnel going into NYC still runs inbound in the morning using a contraflow lane, separated by nothing more than lines, overhead lane symbols and pylons (do they still even use pylons?).

I think a contraflow lane in Kauai is still marked using cones as well.  In this case it's a local street (not a highway), 1 lane one direction, 2 lanes the other way, with occasional left turn channels.  Everything is 'shifted' over a lane, so even the turn lanes are marked using cones and small signs affixed to the cones where needed.

Edited to say...lost track of the topic.  This isn't a HOV example; just a contra-flow lane example!  :pan:

Quote from: jlwm on September 13, 2016, 01:44:08 AM
Here's some videos about the old I-45 contraflow.
Part I:

That video gave me an afro...

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 10:19:07 AM

Quote from: Bruce on September 13, 2016, 01:13:46 AM

Quote from: kalvado on September 11, 2016, 08:58:18 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 08:06:16 PM
What if they converted the bus lanes to HOV 6+ or 8+?

And enforce that number for city buses as well..  :sombrero:

That would actually worsen things a lot. Empty buses are usually deadheading (returning) back to start another run, so if it's stuck then it will just cause a cascade of delays.

HOV 6+ or 8+ would be ideal for I-5 or any of the freeways, but not the existing and planned bus lane network. They need to be kept 100% pure.

Well, deadheading bus argument is very difficult to buy for me. Why operational needs of a government-run business are above peoples?  Why full MS or Amazon or Greyhound bus should have less priority than empty government-owned bus?

What is the ultimate goal of those lanes? Just run city buses? Those become too expensive. I know, Kings county bus system is almost profitable being only about 50% subsidized - but if HOV lanes become dedicated to buses, number must be re-evaluated.

Reliability alone is why public transit is a good investment, and why it's becoming more and more popular. If the bus that you're counting on cannot arrive on time, because it cannot use the bus lane to reach your stop, reliability is reduced, and people start driving again. Public transit users should be able to count on their bus or train arriving within 2 to 3 minutes of the posted time. The only way to ensure this, is to allow buses, be them full or empty, to use dedicated ROW.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 13, 2016, 01:35:47 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 10:19:07 AM

Quote from: Bruce on September 13, 2016, 01:13:46 AM

Quote from: kalvado on September 11, 2016, 08:58:18 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 08:06:16 PM
What if they converted the bus lanes to HOV 6+ or 8+?

And enforce that number for city buses as well..  :sombrero:

That would actually worsen things a lot. Empty buses are usually deadheading (returning) back to start another run, so if it's stuck then it will just cause a cascade of delays.

HOV 6+ or 8+ would be ideal for I-5 or any of the freeways, but not the existing and planned bus lane network. They need to be kept 100% pure.

Well, deadheading bus argument is very difficult to buy for me. Why operational needs of a government-run business are above peoples?  Why full MS or Amazon or Greyhound bus should have less priority than empty government-owned bus?

What is the ultimate goal of those lanes? Just run city buses? Those become too expensive. I know, Kings county bus system is almost profitable being only about 50% subsidized - but if HOV lanes become dedicated to buses, number must be re-evaluated.

Reliability alone is why public transit is a good investment, and why it's becoming more and more popular. If the bus that you're counting on cannot arrive on time, because it cannot use the bus lane to reach your stop, reliability is reduced, and people start driving again. Public transit users should be able to count on their bus or train arriving within 2 to 3 minutes of the posted time. The only way to ensure this, is to allow buses, be them full or empty, to use dedicated ROW.

Well, I - and many other people - count on FedEx and UPS for this and that. Should they be allowed to use HOV lanes as well? At least when delivering time critical early morning parcels?  Or should they just cope with congestion by increase in number of vehicles?

I can understand the idea of HOV lanes being used to reduce time in transit - but getting operational needs, like fleet positioning, via those lanes seem an overkill. Or should bus drivers commuting to work in their personal vehicles be allowed to use HOV lanes because all those reasons you said above? .
Not a critical point, since positioning empty bus most likely means there isn't too much traffic in that direction anyway..

OK, I hope this isn't a dumb question, but: Is the traffic flow so unilateral that buses would/should be dead-heading back for another run? I would think that with all the varieties of shift work and second jobs that mass transit would have a certain "contraflow' population that still needs to be served.

Quote from: US 81 on September 13, 2016, 02:54:28 PM
OK, I hope this isn't a dumb question, but: Is the traffic flow so unilateral that buses would/should be dead-heading back for another run? I would think that with all the varieties of shift work and second jobs that mass transit would have a certain "contraflow' population that still needs to be served.

I don't know that it's a dumb question, but it's a question regarding transit ridership patterns, so it's somewhat off-topic for an HOV discussion.
But I like that subject, so...

Most of the larger transit systems operate their express buses in both directions all day, they just do so less frequently at off-peak times. It's not just different shifts but moreso the multiple employment centers that large urban areas tend to have. A lot of people live in the city and work in the suburbs, especially now.

Regarding HOV lanes though, the intention is to allow the bus to bypass traffic, and traffic is normally heavy and disruptive in one direction at one particular time of day. I mean, LA is certainly the exception to that. Most of the area's freeways are randomly jammed up at all times of the day, so it's probably better that they don't have contraflow bus lanes. And I think that's a reason why people never really got onto transit in that region until the rail lines expanded.

Quote from: US 81 on September 13, 2016, 02:54:28 PM
OK, I hope this isn't a dumb question, but: Is the traffic flow so unilateral that buses would/should be dead-heading back for another run? I would think that with all the varieties of shift work and second jobs that mass transit would have a certain "contraflow' population that still needs to be served.

The market for the corridor I'm talking about (Everett/Lynnwood to Seattle) is very uni-directional.

However, there are buses that run reverse-peak (route 512, every 15 minutes). The problem is that it is a Sound Transit route, rather than Community Transit (whose buses are deadheading for commuter trips). While ST buses are technically staffed by CT drivers, swapping buses is detrimental to the whole bus-branding thing we have in the region, where seeing a white bus instinctively means a regional express route. As both have differing fare structures as well, riders would be confused by what to pay to enter the bus.

Other agencies like King County Metro (Seattle and King County) theoretically shouldn't have this problem, as they can use most of their fleet interchangeably. But they restrict buses by various bases/garages, so they deadhead anyway.

Moreover, cramming extra buses onto a route would cause bus bunching and whole load of additional issues that I don't have time to address here.

Quote from: Bruce on September 13, 2016, 03:42:10 PM

Moreover, cramming extra buses onto a route would cause bus bunching and whole load of additional issues that I don't have time to address here.

These are operational problems of bus operator. They do not affect passenger's time in transit.
SO why should bus operator - and bus operator only - allowed to solve those problems by using HOV lanes?
I will not buy "it benefits everyone" argument - ridership in Seattle is high, 18% of commuters - but if presented in front of voters along with tax cost of bus operations, I wouldn't bet on public transit surviving public vote.

I am basically trying to find some logic in your position regarding "purity" of HOV lanes... So far it looks like "transit for the sake of transit"..

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 04:10:40 PM

Quote from: Bruce on September 13, 2016, 03:42:10 PM

Moreover, cramming extra buses onto a route would cause bus bunching and whole load of additional issues that I don't have time to address here.

These are operational problems of bus operator. They do not affect passenger's time in transit.
SO why should bus operator - and bus operator only - allowed to solve those problems by using HOV lanes?
I will not buy "it benefits everyone" argument - ridership in Seattle is high, 18% of commuters - but if presented in front of voters along with tax cost of bus operations, I wouldn't bet on public transit surviving public vote.

I am basically trying to find some logic in your position regarding "purity" of HOV lanes... So far it looks like "transit for the sake of transit"..

Public transit has survived many public votes, as of late. The operator in question, Community Transit, won a 0.3 percent sales tax increase to fund new service last year, an off-cycle election in a suburban and rural electorate without the help of the county's only urban area (Everett). Sound Transit has a huge $54 billion ballot measure coming up in November for light rail and it seems to be polling well.

The bus operator should be given priority as they are the single largest entity using those HOV lanes already. 40 percent of Snohomish County commuters to King County (not just Seattle) go by bus, which accounts for only 10 percent of vehicles on the road.

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 02:02:02 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 13, 2016, 01:35:47 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 10:19:07 AM

Quote from: Bruce on September 13, 2016, 01:13:46 AM

Quote from: kalvado on September 11, 2016, 08:58:18 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 08:06:16 PM
What if they converted the bus lanes to HOV 6+ or 8+?

And enforce that number for city buses as well..  :sombrero:

That would actually worsen things a lot. Empty buses are usually deadheading (returning) back to start another run, so if it's stuck then it will just cause a cascade of delays.

HOV 6+ or 8+ would be ideal for I-5 or any of the freeways, but not the existing and planned bus lane network. They need to be kept 100% pure.

Well, deadheading bus argument is very difficult to buy for me. Why operational needs of a government-run business are above peoples?  Why full MS or Amazon or Greyhound bus should have less priority than empty government-owned bus?

What is the ultimate goal of those lanes? Just run city buses? Those become too expensive. I know, Kings county bus system is almost profitable being only about 50% subsidized - but if HOV lanes become dedicated to buses, number must be re-evaluated.

Reliability alone is why public transit is a good investment, and why it's becoming more and more popular. If the bus that you're counting on cannot arrive on time, because it cannot use the bus lane to reach your stop, reliability is reduced, and people start driving again. Public transit users should be able to count on their bus or train arriving within 2 to 3 minutes of the posted time. The only way to ensure this, is to allow buses, be them full or empty, to use dedicated ROW.

Well, I - and many other people - count on FedEx and UPS for this and that. Should they be allowed to use HOV lanes as well? At least when delivering time critical early morning parcels?  Or should they just cope with congestion by increase in number of vehicles?

I can understand the idea of HOV lanes being used to reduce time in transit - but getting operational needs, like fleet positioning, via those lanes seem an overkill. Or should bus drivers commuting to work in their personal vehicles be allowed to use HOV lanes because all those reasons you said above? .
Not a critical point, since positioning empty bus most likely means there isn't too much traffic in that direction anyway..

Packages can be trucked in overnight. Daily commuters cannot.

The reverse commute in Seattle is always clogged, due to our peak-oriented reversible express lanes that run towards Seattle in the morning and away in the evening. The existence of Boeing and Microsoft in the suburbs certainly don't help our commuting patterns. Those deadheading buses end up in traffic jams like this every afternoon (headed south to Seattle):

(https://c8.staticflickr.com/4/3834/18345262103_bb637ef97d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/tX7ght)
Deadheading buses in I-5 traffic (https://flic.kr/p/tX7ght) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr

(https://c5.staticflickr.com/1/306/19757314596_b6c82e4e81_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/w6Tpi7)
I-5 looking north from NE 92nd Street (https://flic.kr/p/w6Tpi7) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr

Quote from: Bruce on September 13, 2016, 04:38:21 PM
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/1/306/19757314596_b6c82e4e81_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/w6Tpi7)
I-5 looking north from NE 92nd Street (https://flic.kr/p/w6Tpi7) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr

I'm not trying to also give you crap, but check out the destination of the first bus in that pic...

Fare differences isn't really an argument for transit agency cohesion, necessarily. Locally, where I live, buses on the same system run anywhere from $1.50 to $12. And you know how much it is because the fare is on the sign board. But most people ride the same bus every day, so they know the fare, and they only get confused or question it when fares are changed on that one bus.

And I'm just going to take the opportunity in this side-track discussion to bitch about the Bay Area: there are something like fifteen different agencies operating the bus and rail lines in the region and, while a multi-agency fare card was introduced a few years ago, transfers are awful. On VTA for example, you get a discount if you come from most any other agency, such as BART, but you do not get a discount if you come from any other VTA route. I have an Orca card because I'm up there enough to want to transfer, but why even have a multi-agency fare card if inner-agency transfers aren't even possible?

Quote from: coatimundi on September 13, 2016, 04:51:48 PM

Quote from: Bruce on September 13, 2016, 04:38:21 PM
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/1/306/19757314596_b6c82e4e81_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/w6Tpi7)
I-5 looking north from NE 92nd Street (https://flic.kr/p/w6Tpi7) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr

I'm not trying to also give you crap, but check out the destination of the first bus in that pic...

Fare differences isn't really an argument for transit agency cohesion, necessarily. Locally, where I live, buses on the same system run anywhere from $1.50 to $12. And you know how much it is because the fare is on the sign board. But most people ride the same bus every day, so they know the fare, and they only get confused or question it when fares are changed on that one bus.

And I'm just going to take the opportunity in this side-track discussion to bitch about the Bay Area: there are something like fifteen different agencies operating the bus and rail lines in the region and, while a multi-agency fare card was introduced a few years ago, transfers are awful. On VTA for example, you get a discount if you come from most any other agency, such as BART, but you do not get a discount if you come from any other VTA route. I have an Orca card because I'm up there enough to want to transfer, but why even have a multi-agency fare card if inner-agency transfers aren't even possible?

The Bay Area is a textbook example of bad Balkanized transit. At least the agencies (except the monorail) agree enough to have universal transfers and even a regional day pass for all systems (except the ferry) that costs $8 (a bit expensive). Only a few bus fares don't get covered by the $3.50 maximum (the expresses to Snohomish County), so it's a pretty good deal.

---

Back on topic: those buses are all deadheading into downtown to begin their northbound PM trips. I don't quite get your point.

Here's a picture taken a few minutes later with an in-service bus leading a line of deadheaders:

(https://c8.staticflickr.com/1/391/19596916799_eaba2236a9_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vRHjBR)
Line of buses on I-5 southbound (https://flic.kr/p/vRHjBR) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr

And a bonus map of I-5 traffic taken 30 seconds ago, at the start of the PM commute. SB is all backed up, and that's where the lack of HOV lanes hurt deadheading buses the most.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOGx5PBZ.png&hash=f020d1ecb71bdb4b58bf15dc7576cd9aa97fb6cc)

Quote from: Bruce on September 13, 2016, 04:38:21 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 02:02:02 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 13, 2016, 01:35:47 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 10:19:07 AM

Quote from: Bruce on September 13, 2016, 01:13:46 AM

Quote from: kalvado on September 11, 2016, 08:58:18 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 08:06:16 PM
What if they converted the bus lanes to HOV 6+ or 8+?

And enforce that number for city buses as well..  :sombrero:

That would actually worsen things a lot. Empty buses are usually deadheading (returning) back to start another run, so if it's stuck then it will just cause a cascade of delays.

HOV 6+ or 8+ would be ideal for I-5 or any of the freeways, but not the existing and planned bus lane network. They need to be kept 100% pure.

Well, deadheading bus argument is very difficult to buy for me. Why operational needs of a government-run business are above peoples?  Why full MS or Amazon or Greyhound bus should have less priority than empty government-owned bus?

What is the ultimate goal of those lanes? Just run city buses? Those become too expensive. I know, Kings county bus system is almost profitable being only about 50% subsidized - but if HOV lanes become dedicated to buses, number must be re-evaluated.

Reliability alone is why public transit is a good investment, and why it's becoming more and more popular. If the bus that you're counting on cannot arrive on time, because it cannot use the bus lane to reach your stop, reliability is reduced, and people start driving again. Public transit users should be able to count on their bus or train arriving within 2 to 3 minutes of the posted time. The only way to ensure this, is to allow buses, be them full or empty, to use dedicated ROW.

Well, I - and many other people - count on FedEx and UPS for this and that. Should they be allowed to use HOV lanes as well? At least when delivering time critical early morning parcels?  Or should they just cope with congestion by increase in number of vehicles?

I can understand the idea of HOV lanes being used to reduce time in transit - but getting operational needs, like fleet positioning, via those lanes seem an overkill. Or should bus drivers commuting to work in their personal vehicles be allowed to use HOV lanes because all those reasons you said above? .
Not a critical point, since positioning empty bus most likely means there isn't too much traffic in that direction anyway..

Packages can be trucked in overnight. Daily commuters cannot.

Next day packages are trucked/flown overnight and delivered locally during daytime. Many of them are time critical. So.. HOV for FedEx?

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 05:19:14 PM
Next day packages are trucked/flown overnight and delivered locally during daytime. Many of them are time critical. So.. HOV for FedEx?

Dude. Strawman. We're not talking about god damn deliveries here.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 13, 2016, 06:03:24 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 05:19:14 PM
Next day packages are trucked/flown overnight and delivered locally during daytime. Many of them are time critical. So.. HOV for FedEx?

Dude. Strawman. We're not talking about god damn deliveries here.

We started with banning of non-transit buses - such as company shuttles - from HOV lanes, and allowing out of service transit buses in.
So far I see no good reason for either.  Mumbling about operational difficulties for transit agencies is hard to buy... I am still looking for a simple answer: what is the ultimate goal of HOV/transit lanes? What are we trying to achieve in the grand scheme of things? Why empty bus is more important than full truck?

There is virtual zero enforcement of the HOV lanes in the Middle Tennessee region.  The whole HOV lane thing is a joke with no enforcement.

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 06:09:09 PM
I am still looking for a simple answer: what is the ultimate goal of HOV/transit lanes? What are we trying to achieve in the grand scheme of things?

I already mentioned the goal on the previous page: reliability. Tens of thousands of people rely on public transit to get to work on time every single day. The only way to ensure prompt on time delivery of passengers is to dedicate ROW specifically for that mode of travel. Dedicating ROW for a mode of travel is not new: bike lanes and sidewalks are perfect examples. We've been building roads dedicated solely to the personal vehicle for 80+ years, to make it easier for them to get around. Light rail, generally, runs along grade-separated track not only for safety, but so riders know that, when the sign says the train will arrive in 8 minutes, they know the train will arrive in 8 minutes.

There's also the point that Bruce brought up on the last page, which I believe to be most important of all: Buses carry far more people than a car; they use their given space far better than any other vehicle that's dedicated to moving people. A single bus lane can easily exceed the capacity of three general purpose lanes, so long as each bus is relatively full -- and that's kind of the point. The only way we can get people out of cars, and onto public transit, is to make it, first and foremost, cheap and easy to access, but also reliable. The more reliable public transit is, the more likely people are to adopt it.

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 06:09:09 PM
Why empty bus is more important than full truck?

Delivery vehicles have delivery windows, not exact schedules like a bus route. An empty bus still has an exact schedule to meet. If they're returning to the depot at the end of the day, sure, they might not need to use the bus lane, but they may as well: the lanes have already been dedicated to their use. Would you rather they cram into the stop-and-go traffic in the other lanes, leaving the bus lane completely unused?

Quote from: jakeroot on September 13, 2016, 06:45:31 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 06:09:09 PM
I am still looking for a simple answer: what is the ultimate goal of HOV/transit lanes? What are we trying to achieve in the grand scheme of things?

I already mentioned the goal on the previous page: reliability. Tens of thousands of people rely on public transit to get to work on time every single day. The only way to ensure prompt on time delivery of passengers is to dedicate ROW specifically for that mode of travel. Dedicating ROW for a mode of travel is not new: bike lanes and sidewalks are perfect examples. We've been building roads dedicated solely to the personal vehicle for 80+ years, to make it easier for them to get around.

There are very few roads dedicated to personal vehicles I can think of. Most of those are shared between personal vehicles, cargo/delivery traffic, buses, emergency vehicles and what not.
With that - why getting a bus commuter on time is more important than getting a car commuter to their destination on time? Than critical parcel (say early morning delivery by 10 AM available from both FedEx and UPS - sometimes that is VERY important)? That concrete truck also needs to be on time for construction to continue.

A somewhat reasonable argument would be that HOV traffic reduces number of vehicles on the road to ease traffic and benefit environment. That way HOV lane is a way to reward those who sacrifice their convenience etc etc.. But then corporate shuttles should definitely be allowed in bus lanes as well - unlike FedEx trucks and empty buses.
Or maybe you have some other ideas?

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 06:56:19 PM
A somewhat reasonable argument would be that HOV traffic reduces number of vehicles on the road to ease traffic and benefit environment. That way HOV lane is a way to reward those who sacrifice their convenience etc etc.. But then corporate shuttles should definitely be allowed in bus lanes as well

You've basically answered your own qualm here. Reliability of transit spurs additional use of transit, which is the ultimate goal here.

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 06:56:19 PM
...and empty buses.

Allow me to retort: [bus] lanes have already been dedicated to their use. Would you rather they cram into the stop-and-go traffic in the other lanes, leaving the bus lane completely unused?

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 06:56:19 PM
But then corporate shuttles should definitely be allowed in bus lanes as well.

It's a point of contention, sure. I'm not sure where I stand on the matter, as of this moment.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 13, 2016, 07:07:34 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 06:56:19 PM
A somewhat reasonable argument would be that HOV traffic reduces number of vehicles on the road to ease traffic and benefit environment. That way HOV lane is a way to reward those who sacrifice their convenience etc etc.. But then corporate shuttles should definitely be allowed in bus lanes as well

You've basically answered your own qualm here. Reliability of transit spurs additional use of transit, which is the ultimate goal here.

I would say that US is neither communist enough nor rich enough to pursue such goals.
people need to be either very society-oriented and willing to work for food or costs of transit would be enormous.

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 07:35:29 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 13, 2016, 07:07:34 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 06:56:19 PM
A somewhat reasonable argument would be that HOV traffic reduces number of vehicles on the road to ease traffic and benefit environment. That way HOV lane is a way to reward those who sacrifice their convenience etc etc.. But then corporate shuttles should definitely be allowed in bus lanes as well

You've basically answered your own qualm here. Reliability of transit spurs additional use of transit, which is the ultimate goal here.

I would say that US is neither communist enough nor rich enough to pursue such goals.
people need to be either very society-oriented and willing to work for food or costs of transit would be enormous.

What? Your previous replies made perfect sense ... and then this; communist? Willing to work? What the f**k are you talking about?

Quote from: jakeroot on September 13, 2016, 08:02:40 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 07:35:29 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 13, 2016, 07:07:34 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 06:56:19 PM
A somewhat reasonable argument would be that HOV traffic reduces number of vehicles on the road to ease traffic and benefit environment. That way HOV lane is a way to reward those who sacrifice their convenience etc etc.. But then corporate shuttles should definitely be allowed in bus lanes as well

You've basically answered your own qualm here. Reliability of transit spurs additional use of transit, which is the ultimate goal here.

I would say that US is neither communist enough nor rich enough to pursue such goals.
people need to be either very society-oriented and willing to work for food or costs of transit would be enormous.

What? Your previous replies made perfect sense ... and then this; communist? Willing to work? What the f**k are you talking about?

You realize how much transit costs compared to driving, and why?
Simple answer is - transit is more expensive than cars on pax-mile basis, and until you pack people into 10-15 story buildings to reduce mileage, car driving is actually cheaper and burns less fuel.
Prime reason for that is labor cost. When I drive to work, my time is free. When I am in a bus, driver is a CDL holder with passenger endorsement, works strange hours (transit runs early and late, on weekends and holidays) - and should be compensated accordingly. With management and support personnel, like cleaners  - that adds up. Either all those folks work for cheap- and then packed bus is per-ride cheaper than car due to equipment ending up cheaper; or you end up with fares not covering payroll. 

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 08:23:15 PM
Simple answer is - transit is more expensive than cars on pax-mile basis

Can you cite a source on this? Because I've only seen information that says exactly the opposite.

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 08:23:15 PM
You realize how much transit costs compared to driving, and why?
Simple answer is - transit is more expensive than cars on pax-mile basis, and until you pack people into 10-15 story buildings to reduce mileage, car driving is actually cheaper and burns less fuel.
Prime reason for that is labor cost. When I drive to work, my time is free. When I am in a bus, driver is a CDL holder with passenger endorsement, works strange hours (transit runs early and late, on weekends and holidays) - and should be compensated accordingly. With management and support personnel, like cleaners  - that adds up. Either all those folks work for cheap- and then packed bus is per-ride cheaper than car due to equipment ending up cheaper; or you end up with fares not covering payroll.

The cost of public transit is not universally cheaper, nor more expensive than driving. It's a highly variable amount that depends on dozens of different factors.

Consider several different things, in no particular order (I've bolded some of the more important points):

1) Many rapid transit systems are entirely automated. There are still people who are employed to watch over and maintain the systems, but there are no drivers like a bus
2) Some roads have a toll, which buses often do not have to pay -- if the toll, plus fuel costs, are added together, public transit can be cheaper
3) Without knowing for sure, I'd reckon that the vast majority of people are willing to pay for a more reliable commute time (hence things like express toll lanes)
4) People are able to work on a bus or train; generally, you can't work and drive. As with above, it is likely that people would be willing to pay for a mode of transport that allows them to multi-task
5) Some vehicles get abysmal fuel economy; if you drive 30 miles to work at 15 mpg, and gas costs 2.80/gal, driving to work would cost $5.60, or a total of $11.20 round trip

Quote from: coatimundi on September 13, 2016, 08:57:42 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 08:23:15 PM
Simple answer is - transit is more expensive than cars on pax-mile basis

Can you cite a source on this? Because I've only seen information that says exactly the opposite.

It actually is pretty expensive to run suburban bus transit. Farebox recovery is quite poor.

Here's our subject matter, Community Transit, once again. It's a bit skewed because of the amount of expensive commuter service (which has $4 to $5.50 fares) is operated daily:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYOXrx3s.png&hash=17410976336a3b10328b04f10227a42abf848f8a)

Cost per rider is about $7.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlJ4hHmP.png&hash=2512164825ee3b7644890d655d1578c8da78f410)

Not sure how much cars cost after factoring in highway subsidies, but it's probably in the same ballpark.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 13, 2016, 06:45:31 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 06:09:09 PM
I am still looking for a simple answer: what is the ultimate goal of HOV/transit lanes? What are we trying to achieve in the grand scheme of things?

I already mentioned the goal on the previous page: reliability. Tens of thousands of people rely on public transit to get to work on time every single day. The only way to ensure prompt on time delivery of passengers is to dedicate ROW specifically for that mode of travel. Dedicating ROW for a mode of travel is not new: bike lanes and sidewalks are perfect examples. We've been building roads dedicated solely to the personal vehicle for 80+ years, to make it easier for them to get around. Light rail, generally, runs along grade-separated track not only for safety, but so riders know that, when the sign says the train will arrive in 8 minutes, they know the train will arrive in 8 minutes.

There's also the point that Bruce brought up on the last page, which I believe to be most important of all: Buses carry far more people than a car; they use their given space far better than any other vehicle that's dedicated to moving people. A single bus lane can easily exceed the capacity of three general purpose lanes, so long as each bus is relatively full -- and that's kind of the point. The only way we can get people out of cars, and onto public transit, is to make it, first and foremost, cheap and easy to access, but also reliable. The more reliable public transit is, the more likely people are to adopt it.

In cities where mass transit is essential, such as NYC, Philly, Boston, DC, etc, mass transit riders are willing to put up with delays.  They aren't happy with it; they will grumble about it, but they will continue to use it.  In Washington DC, it literally took the Metro the ability to consistently have their trains catch on fire and kill people before people stopped using it.

Do motorists occasionally block the lanes on occasion?  All the time.  The delay is no longer than the time it takes for a traffic light to turn from red to green. 

Quote from: coatimundi on September 13, 2016, 08:57:42 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 08:23:15 PM
Simple answer is - transit is more expensive than cars on pax-mile basis

Can you cite a source on this? Because I've only seen information that says exactly the opposite.

Big problem here is that things are volatile. You may doctor result either way if you try.
You drive more - you pay less per mile. You live in NYC - and insurance sends numbers through the roof. You have higher ridership on a bus - pax-mile cost goes down. Assume full bus during commute and disregard empty nighttime rides - you're golden. Driving with spouse and kids? Your per-pax cost drops like a rock.
 
Trying to make sense of all that:  looking  at same King county WA.
pax boardings - 30-35 pax per revenue hour, or about 2.7-2.8 per revenue mile, for 12 mile average trip. Bus operating cost per boarding $4.27 , about 35 cents per pax-mile with tax free gas.
Our local transit agency ends up with just below 25 pax per revenue hour and comparable cost structure. They would go north of 45 cents/mile - again with tax free gas.
APTA gives national total of $31B for 24.5B pax-miles "for all roadway modes", but their data looks a bit strange with average trip length of only 4.4 miles. I suspect short NYC trips screw up data quite a bit. But average is north of $1 per pax-mile.   for "all rail modes" it s 80 cents/pax mile.
With cars:
AAA gives you about 60 cents per mile for sedan, IRS a bit less. But then there  are taxes (I pay about 2 cents a mile in gas tax, and I also pay sales tax for car and maintenance/parts - and many transit agencies are tax exempt).  AAA uses about 4x insurance cost compared to what I pay and effectively $50-70k car price (including financing). And of course you need to take into account passengers in a car, if any.
At the end of the day, for me as single person in a car, mileage is cheaper than pax-mileage for local transit agency. Driving shiny new Mercedes in Seattle you pay multifold of their bus cost. And since I mentioned MTA - think parking within Manhattan, which you may also consider as cost of driving...

Quote from: jakeroot on September 13, 2016, 09:26:29 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 13, 2016, 08:23:15 PM
You realize how much transit costs compared to driving, and why?
Simple answer is - transit is more expensive than cars on pax-mile basis, and until you pack people into 10-15 story buildings to reduce mileage, car driving is actually cheaper and burns less fuel.
Prime reason for that is labor cost. When I drive to work, my time is free. When I am in a bus, driver is a CDL holder with passenger endorsement, works strange hours (transit runs early and late, on weekends and holidays) - and should be compensated accordingly. With management and support personnel, like cleaners  - that adds up. Either all those folks work for cheap- and then packed bus is per-ride cheaper than car due to equipment ending up cheaper; or you end up with fares not covering payroll.

The cost of public transit is not universally cheaper, nor more expensive than driving. It's a highly variable amount that depends on dozens of different factors.

Consider several different things, in no particular order (I've bolded some of the more important points):

1) Many rapid transit systems are entirely automated. There are still people who are employed to watch over and maintain the systems, but there are no drivers like a bus
2) Some roads have a toll, which buses often do not have to pay -- if the toll, plus fuel costs, are added together, public transit can be cheaper
3) Without knowing for sure, I'd reckon that the vast majority of people are willing to pay for a more reliable commute time (hence things like express toll lanes)
4) People are able to work on a bus or train; generally, you can't work and drive. As with above, it is likely that people would be willing to pay for a mode of transport that allows them to multi-task
5) Some vehicles get abysmal fuel economy; if you drive 30 miles to work at 15 mpg, and gas costs 2.80/gal, driving to work would cost $5.60, or a total of $11.20 round trip

1. APTA presents data on almost 8000 roadway public transit systems in US, and less than 100 rail systems. While rail systems are larger, I have hard time thinking about fully automated one - other than within-airport rail in Atlanta.
2. And fuel taxes!
3. Depends on what ends up "more reliable". Did you ever had bus passing by without stopping?
4. Highly depends on type of work. You need to be seated to work (not always the case), need to have all data on computer (many cases things are in the network), and your employer have to be OK with data exposure in public (did you ask your IT about policies? Ever heard about confidential and proprietary information?). Dealing with hardcopy paperwork is equally problematic.
And good luck working on a bus if  your job title is "cashier", "plumber", "janitor" etc..

You'd be surprised what could be done on a bus or train. If people know they'll be taking public transit with a chance to get work done, they'll save the "safe" stuff (reading reports, for example) for the train. My grandfather was an officer of the New York Fed and he was able to do work on the LIRR. Most people don't have work that could be nearly that sensitive.

Actually, I am with Jakeroot, cl94 and others on this one. Which is surprising seeing that I am a car first kinda guy, but let me explain.

My data is 30 years old so the numbers don't necessarily match up with today's reality, but I think the principles still apply. I'm sure I mentioned before that I lived in the NW suburbs of Chicago (Schaumburg) back in the 80's, and that I attended Quigley North during my high school years which was located at the corner of Rush and Chestnut in downtown Chicago.


My junior and senior years I commuted in from home everyday (they closed the residence hall that was in Rogers Park on Devon Ave after my sophomore year). Most of the time I took public transportation. With my student pass it cost $1.25 one way total, and that was with 2 transfers; I took an RTA (I guess its now PACE?) bus from Woodfield Mall to what is now the Blue line CTA train at Cumberland, transferred to the Red Line downtown and came back north to the Chicago/State subway station. So the total cost for the day round trip was $2.50.


Every once in a while I would have things to do after school that made public transportation too much of a PITA (or even not an option) so then I would take my car (a 1978 Ford Granada) all the way to school. Those days would cost me roughly $7.00 in gas (round trip) and $10.00 to park my car at a lot near my school (only staff or students with a Dr's note could use the schools limited parking area). So that was $17.00 per day. It was very much cheaper for me to take public transportation versus driving all the way in. Oh, shoot, I almost forgot about the tolls on the NW-oops I mean Adams Tollway-If I remember correctly it was $0.30 at the big plaza and another $0.15 at the I-290/IL-53 exit back then so $0.90 round trip. That would make the total $17.90 per day


The added bonus was the ride home/ride back to school the next day allowed me to almost never have homework to do at home.


As for the main topic, my experience with HOV (really just Express lanes back then) was with barrier-divided reversables on the Kennedy, and I didn't use them very often. I liked having the options to jump off the Kennedy at any number of exits if things got to be brutal, traffic wise.

$7 in gas just to go back and forth to school?  I suppose it was an older car, but $7 in gas nowadays gets me about 85 miles.

Quote from: Rothman on September 30, 2016, 08:21:31 AM
$7 in gas just to go back and forth to school?  I suppose it was an older car, but $7 in gas nowadays gets me about 85 miles.

Since model (Ford Granada) was mentioned, I looked up the specs - depending on engine being 4.1 or 5.0 liters, specs range from 21/28 MPG to 15/23 MPG....

While transit might be more expensive than driving if you're going to have a car anyways, that's not necessarily a good assumption to make.  Many people in urban areas forgo having a car entirely, and comparing "costs of owning a car" (not just "cost to drive car I already own to work") to "cost of using transit" can tip the balance in favor of transit.  Around here, bus fares are $1.50 per ride.  Commuting to/from work would be about $65/month.  Add in groceries and weekends etc. and it's a little more, but car insurance alone costs me about $90/month, and then add in car payments, maintenance, gas, etc. and it quickly adds up.  I'd guess that even the occasional zip car or car rental, Amtrak, etc. on top of regular transit usage is probably still cheaper than owning or leasing a car.  So, if you live in an urban area with your residence, workplace, grocery store, etc. located such that transit isn't too inconvenient and are not a roadgeek, transit instead of driving is a no-brainer from a pure costs perspective.

Quote from: vdeane on September 30, 2016, 01:00:26 PM
While transit might be more expensive than driving if you're going to have a car anyways, that's not necessarily a good assumption to make.  Many people in urban areas forgo having a car entirely, and comparing "costs of owning a car" (not just "cost to drive car I already own to work") to "cost of using transit" can tip the balance in favor of transit.  Around here, bus fares are $1.50 per ride.  Commuting to/from work would be about $65/month.  Add in groceries and weekends etc. and it's a little more, but car insurance alone costs me about $90/month, and then add in car payments, maintenance, gas, etc. and it quickly adds up.  I'd guess that even the occasional zip car or car rental, Amtrak, etc. on top of regular transit usage is probably still cheaper than owning or leasing a car.  So, if you live in an urban area with your residence, workplace, grocery store, etc. located such that transit isn't too inconvenient and are not a roadgeek, transit instead of driving is a no-brainer from a pure costs perspective.

The occasional Zipcar rental is a hell of a lot cheaper than owning a car. When I was in undergrad at UB, I got by without a car because I could use a Zipcar whenever I wanted to go shopping. I don't even want to think about how much owning my car costs and I drive something that should be low-maintenance. Of course, that only works in places that have Zipcars, but most areas with over a million people have them scattered around.

Quote from: vdeane on September 30, 2016, 01:00:26 PM
While transit might be more expensive than driving if you're going to have a car anyways, that's not necessarily a good assumption to make.  Many people in urban areas forgo having a car entirely, and comparing "costs of owning a car" (not just "cost to drive car I already own to work") to "cost of using transit" can tip the balance in favor of transit.  Around here, bus fares are $1.50 per ride.  Commuting to/from work would be about $65/month.  Add in groceries and weekends etc. and it's a little more, but car insurance alone costs me about $90/month, and then add in car payments, maintenance, gas, etc. and it quickly adds up.  I'd guess that even the occasional zip car or car rental, Amtrak, etc. on top of regular transit usage is probably still cheaper than owning or leasing a car.  So, if you live in an urban area with your residence, workplace, grocery store, etc. located such that transit isn't too inconvenient and are not a roadgeek, transit instead of driving is a no-brainer from a pure costs perspective.

It's all the "ifs" that lower transit's attractiveness.  You have to be on the line, or be able to walk there (and take the time to do so, rain or shine).  If you have a family, grocery stores had better deliver or you have to somehow carry a family's worth of groceries on the bus.  You have to put up with the increased commuter times in some cities.  In Albany, NY, the "bus rapid transit" line (the "BusPlus" 905) takes at least an hour to get from the Schenectady city line to downtown Albany during rush hour, a trip that takes half of that by car.  Again, when children are concerned, getting to where you need to be to take care of them could be a disaster if you have to rely upon public transit to get around here (e.g., school districts now require parents to be present for kindergarten bus pick-ups and whatnot).

Finally, on CDTA buses, you have to be willing to be crammed next to someone that may reek of urine or whatever else.

My wife used to take the bus.  Got her into a car as soon as we could afford it because she felt far too restricted in her movement -- she couldn't do all the things she wanted to do in a timely manner (can you imagine bus transfers in the CDTA?).

My point is that, yes, public transit can be wonderful under the right circumstances, but those circumstances are so narrow given how our country is already established that the broad brushes that urban planners use when talking about shifting people to transit can be ridiculously out of touch.

Quote from: vdeane on September 30, 2016, 01:00:26 PM
but car insurance alone costs me about $90/month, and then add in car payments, maintenance, gas, etc. and it quickly adds up.  I'd guess that even the occasional zip car or car rental, Amtrak, etc. on top of regular transit usage is probably still cheaper than owning or leasing a car.

If I may ask.. What kind of car and driving history we're talking about?
I am paying $980/year for 2 cars/2 drivers, or $41/month per car in the same general area...

Quote from: kalvado on September 30, 2016, 05:16:10 PM

Quote from: vdeane on September 30, 2016, 01:00:26 PM
but car insurance alone costs me about $90/month, and then add in car payments, maintenance, gas, etc. and it quickly adds up.  I'd guess that even the occasional zip car or car rental, Amtrak, etc. on top of regular transit usage is probably still cheaper than owning or leasing a car.

If I may ask.. What kind of car and driving history we're talking about?
I am paying $980/year for 2 cars/2 drivers, or $41/month per car in the same general area...

Ditto that. I'm paying $58/month and as an under-25 male I get charged "high risk" rates. It's not like USAA is the cheapest insurance out there, either.

2014 Honda Civic (lease, if that makes a difference), never had a ticket, never made a claim (though my parents did use the insurance to repair a cracked windshield on the previous car I drove, back when I was on their plan).  Always have been with State Farm, insurance coverage at whatever it was set up for when my plan was split off from my parents 3 years ago.  Previous car was a 1997 Honda Accord.  This is after factoring in my discounts (Multiple Line, Antilock Brakes, Antitheft, Running Light, Vehicle Safety, and Accident-Free).

State Farm would be why. They're ridiculously expensive. They would be at least 3 times what I'm paying now for worse coverage.

As long as we're on this topic now...

Through USAA, I pay $791/6 months for "full" coverage @ 10k miles a year. Fuck if I know what discounts I have (though I know I have at least a new car discount), but I've been pulled over three times, had a speeding ticket that is no longer on my record, and I've been involved in one collision that was I was found not-at-fault.

So, are you guys saying that I'm getting fucked?

Quote from: cl94 on October 01, 2016, 12:37:04 AM
State Farm would be why. They're ridiculously expensive. They would be at least 3 times what I'm paying now for worse coverage.

Not sure if I am of any example.. Geico increased my rate last year from ~1100 to ~1250/year. Probably their assumed that after 10 years with them I don't know any better. (tickets all purged, last 5+years ago; deer collision for $7k, 3 years before that - and Geico actually did foot the bill)
I am not sure what they expected, but next day I got 3 quotes, all at least 20% cheaper...

Quote from: Rothman on September 30, 2016, 08:21:31 AM
$7 in gas just to go back and forth to school?  I suppose it was an older car, but $7 in gas nowadays gets me about 85 miles.

Gets me a bit less, but I also have 14 miles of dirt road and a mountain to cross...

Quote from: jakeroot on October 01, 2016, 01:54:05 AM
As long as we're on this topic now...

Through USAA, I pay $791/6 months for "full" coverage @ 10k miles a year. Fuck if I know what discounts I have (though I know I have at least a new car discount), but I've been pulled over three times, had a speeding ticket that is no longer on my record, and I've been involved in one collision that was I was found not-at-fault.

So, are you guys saying that I'm getting fucked?

Depends on the kind of car you have. USAA doesn't raise rates for speeding tickets or collisions unless they are major and your fault. Also depends on requirements for the state you're in. Mine is $691/6 months, but I have a relatively high deductible.

Quote from: kalvado on October 01, 2016, 07:21:36 AM

Quote from: cl94 on October 01, 2016, 12:37:04 AM
State Farm would be why. They're ridiculously expensive. They would be at least 3 times what I'm paying now for worse coverage.

Not sure if I am of any example.. Geico increased my rate last year from ~1100 to ~1250/year. Probably their assumed that after 10 years with them I don't know any better. (tickets all purged, last 5+years ago; deer collision for $7k, 3 years before that - and Geico actually did foot the bill)
I am not sure what they expected, but next day I got 3 quotes, all at least 20% cheaper...

Geico is known for doing that. Either they hike your rates or drop you after your first incident, even if it isn't your fault.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 01, 2016, 01:54:05 AM
As long as we're on this topic now...

Through USAA, I pay $791/6 months for "full" coverage @ 10k miles a year. Fuck if I know what discounts I have (though I know I have at least a new car discount), but I've been pulled over three times, had a speeding ticket that is no longer on my record, and I've been involved in one collision that was I was found not-at-fault.

So, are you guys saying that I'm getting fucked?

You would need to provide more details.

Full coverage means that you have collision and comprehensive.  But, you could have the minimum (25k or whatever your state allows), which will provide very little coverage, or you could have a million dollar policy, which is probably more than what most people need.

Because of what other people pay in other states, we're not going to be able to provide a true apples-apples comparison.  If someone in Nebraska says they only pay $400/6 months, that may be a rate simply unattainable in your state.

If you've been pulled over but not ticketed in those instances, don't worry about them.

Feel free to provide the info on the dec page which lists your coverages and limit amounts if you want.

Quote from: cl94 on October 01, 2016, 12:37:04 AM
State Farm would be why. They're ridiculously expensive. They would be at least 3 times what I'm paying now for worse coverage.

I don't find State Farm to be expensive at all, but then I'm also a bit older than you and vdeane, I'm married (that does affect premiums), and I live in a different part of the country. Even if I might save a bit with GEICO (and it wouldn't be much because my rates are already pretty low), I doubt I'd do it because I've heard lots of negative comments from people about GEICO's service and their tendency to drop people who make claims. Essentially my impression is that the old saying "you get what you pay for" applies to car insurance as much as it does to anything else.

Regarding vdeane's comment about the cracked windshield–normally that sort of claim under the comprehensive coverage doesn't affect your premium because from an actuarial standpoint, normally a cracked windshield does not have anything to do with what sort of financial risk the individual represents to the insurance carrier. That is, the fact that a rock flew up on the Interstate and hit your windshield is an "act of God" that can happen to anyone, whereas if you're in an accident because you blew a red light going 75 in a 35-mph zone it's a very different story.

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 01, 2016, 12:04:00 PM

Quote from: cl94 on October 01, 2016, 12:37:04 AM
State Farm would be why. They're ridiculously expensive. They would be at least 3 times what I'm paying now for worse coverage.

I don't find State Farm to be expensive at all, but then I'm also a bit older than you and vdeane, I'm married (that does affect premiums), and I live in a different part of the country. Even if I might save a bit with GEICO (and it wouldn't be much because my rates are already pretty low), I doubt I'd do it because I've heard lots of negative comments from people about GEICO's service and their tendency to drop people who make claims. Essentially my impression is that the old saying "you get what you pay for" applies to car insurance as much as it does to anything else.

Regarding vdeane's comment about the cracked windshield—normally that sort of claim under the comprehensive coverage doesn't affect your premium because from an actuarial standpoint, normally a cracked windshield does not have anything to do with what sort of financial risk the individual represents to the insurance carrier. That is, the fact that a rock flew up on the Interstate and hit your windshield is an "act of God" that can happen to anyone, whereas if you're in an accident because you blew a red light going 75 in a 35-mph zone it's a very different story.

And depending on your windshield, it's probably not worth the effort of contacting the insurance company.  They tend to be very reasonably priced.  I've had to get a few replaced on Honda CRVs and Pilots, and I've paid under $200.  Very low priced, considering they'll come out to you, wherever you have the car parked.

Someone breathes on your bumper, and it's a $700 repair job.

Depends on both what the damage is and whether you have a comprehensive deductible (and, if so, how much it is). I think it's still not a terrible idea to call your carrier even if you aren't going to make a claim because they can refer you to glass repair outfits. Some of the conspiracy theorists will say they'll steer you to their preferred vendors. They might, but I've gotten good results with the glass repair places State Farm recommended (they were paying both times and I have no deductible).

If your state allows it, it's never a bad idea to get full glass coverage. Ohio doesn't allow it, but most states do.

Someone probably mentioned Northern Virginia already, but I want to mention it too.

I-95 in Northern Virginia contains a divided HOV section. I think the reversal of the lanes is based on rush hour. I-95's HOV lanes now extend into Stafford County. They used to end at Dumfries which was my father's parents' old exit. They also go a few miles up I-395 in Alexandria.

I also want to point out that I-95's express toll lanes north of Baltimore are not HOV lanes. The express toll lanes are for E-ZPass users only, whereas HOV lanes are for cars containing a specified minimum amount of occupants - it can be as few as two, but I-95 in NoVA has a minimum of four.

Quote from: epzik8but I-95 in NoVA has a minimum of four three.

FTFY.

Quote from: cl94 on October 01, 2016, 06:20:41 PM
If your state allows it, it's never a bad idea to get full glass coverage. Ohio doesn't allow it, but most states do.

Let's get back on-topic, please.

Quote from: froggie on October 01, 2016, 10:25:28 PM

Quote from: epzik8but I-95 in NoVA has a minimum of four three.

FTFY.

For now, I-66 and Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road) remain HOV-2. 

Quote from: kalvado on September 30, 2016, 08:36:41 AM

Quote from: Rothman on September 30, 2016, 08:21:31 AM
$7 in gas just to go back and forth to school?  I suppose it was an older car, but $7 in gas nowadays gets me about 85 miles.

Since model (Ford Granada) was mentioned, I looked up the specs - depending on engine being 4.1 or 5.0 liters, specs range from 21/28 MPG to 15/23 MPG....

1978 4.1L inline-6, 1bbl Carter YFA Carb, and a whopping 97 HP/250 Ft-Lbs of torque. I averaged 14-17 MPG depending on traffic and my right foot. Round trip was approximately 64 miles give or take from my driveway to the parking lot down the street from school and back.

Back then my car expense was limited to just gas and my portion of the insurance surcharge over what the insurance (liability only) would have cost my parents had I not been driving. The Granada was the 3rd car, and my job working weekends as a stock clerk in a grocery store (Dominick's) more than paid for what I had to spend for vehicle expenses in a month. The money I made full time during the summer covered the rest. So even with that, public transportation was cheaper in the long run than driving, but driving was more convenient/shortened my "day" by quite a bit.

I shutter to think what these 2 Mustangs are costing me now every year (I really don't want to know, my wife and I enjoy them too much). :spin:

in greater Phoenix, the HOV lane is separated in one of three ways:
Single white line
Double white line
Double white line with Chevrons

The various markings don't mean anything; entry/exit is permitted at any point.

I like the way Utah and California do theirs, it gives some order to the whole mess and gives traffic in other lanes a heads-up of when they can expect HOV traffic to make its way over to the exit.

Quote from: roadiejay on October 27, 2016, 08:11:33 PM
in greater Phoenix, the HOV lane is separated in one of three ways:
Single white line
Double white line
Double white line with Chevrons

The various markings don't mean anything; entry/exit is permitted at any point.

I like the way Utah and California do theirs, it gives some order to the whole mess and gives traffic in other lanes a heads-up of when they can expect HOV traffic to make its way over to the exit.

I agree regarding California. 

I dislike the  way that Virginia and Maryland mark concurrent-flow HOV lanes, allowing exit and entry anywhere.  It means that the  HOV lanes work no better than adjacent conventional lanes in places where the conventional lanes are severely congested.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 28, 2016, 11:55:42 AM

Quote from: roadiejay on October 27, 2016, 08:11:33 PM
in greater Phoenix, the HOV lane is separated in one of three ways:
Single white line
Double white line
Double white line with Chevrons

The various markings don't mean anything; entry/exit is permitted at any point.

I like the way Utah and California do theirs, it gives some order to the whole mess and gives traffic in other lanes a heads-up of when they can expect HOV traffic to make its way over to the exit.

I agree regarding California. 

I dislike the  way that Virginia and Maryland mark concurrent-flow HOV lanes, allowing exit and entry anywhere.  It means that the  HOV lanes work no better than adjacent conventional lanes in places where the conventional lanes are severely congested.

Just to clarify the above two posts...

* Most southern California HOV lanes have restricted entry/exit points because they operate 24/7/365.

* All northern California HOV lanes are open-access meaning you can enter/exit the HOV lane at any point.  The HOV restriction is only in effect during the morning and evening commutes.  Outside of these times, the lane operates as a general purpose lane.

Quote from: myosh_tino on October 28, 2016, 12:52:48 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 28, 2016, 11:55:42 AM

Quote from: roadiejay on October 27, 2016, 08:11:33 PM
in greater Phoenix, the HOV lane is separated in one of three ways:
Single white line
Double white line
Double white line with Chevrons

The various markings don't mean anything; entry/exit is permitted at any point.

I like the way Utah and California do theirs, it gives some order to the whole mess and gives traffic in other lanes a heads-up of when they can expect HOV traffic to make its way over to the exit.

I agree regarding California. 

I dislike the  way that Virginia and Maryland mark concurrent-flow HOV lanes, allowing exit and entry anywhere.  It means that the  HOV lanes work no better than adjacent conventional lanes in places where the conventional lanes are severely congested.

Just to clarify the above two posts...

* Most southern California HOV lanes have restricted entry/exit points because they operate 24/7/365.

* All northern California HOV lanes are open-access meaning you can enter/exit the HOV lane at any point.  The HOV restriction is only in effect during the morning and evening commutes.  Outside of these times, the lane operates as a general purpose lane.

Good to know. So Northern California HOV lanes operate the same way as Phoenix.

I believe Utah's are High Occupancy/Toll, with the fee waved for HOV vehicles, and they operate 24/7 as well, at least along the I-15 corridor.

Quote from: roadiejay on October 28, 2016, 11:02:23 PM
Good to know. So Northern California HOV lanes operate the same way as Phoenix.

I believe Utah's are High Occupancy/Toll, with the fee waved for HOV vehicles, and they operate 24/7 as well, at least along the I-15 corridor.

Not sure if this has been mentioned upthread, but the HOT lane on WA 167 southeast of Seattle used to have double white lines separating the HOT lane from the general purpose lanes, but this was converted to a single white line which can be legally crossed, unlike a double white. It does make it more convenient for traffic just getting on not having to wait for a lane entrance, and for cars to be able to exit at anytime in advance of an upcoming freeway exit; however, there is a higher chance cars could cross the line at any time, so I'm a bit wary of going too fast if the adjacent lane(s) are slow or stopped.

The HOV lanes on I-405, on the southern section, operate the same way, but the new express toll lanes on the northern section of I-405 are separated by double whites, and in some places, two sets of double whites, and plenty of signs remind motorists that crossing those lines is illegal. I feel a little safer zooming by slow or stopped traffic here, and it's really nice that most, if not all, of the ETL section has two lanes in each direction, so you're never stuck behind one car going slow in the lane, like what can happen in other places with HOV lanes.

I just got back from a trip to southern California a couple weeks ago and got to use the HOV lanes on CA 91 and I-405. It seems to be true in those places that you can only enter and exit the HOV lane at certain points; though I didn't see any white regulatory signs stating such, there were a few small green signs notifying users of the lane that an exit from the HOV lane was coming up, and listed the exit destinations. However, traffic was really heavy in places such that I couldn't exit the lane when I needed to and had to cross the 'painted median', presumably illegally, in order to make my exit. I noticed lots of other drivers not paying attention to the lines and just moving in and out at will.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 28, 2016, 11:55:42 AM
....

I dislike the  way that Virginia and Maryland mark concurrent-flow HOV lanes, allowing exit and entry anywhere.  It means that the  HOV lanes work no better than adjacent conventional lanes in places where the conventional lanes are severely congested.

Even where Virginia doesn't allow exit and entry anywhere, most notably in I-66's left-lane HOV facility as you pass through the Nutley Street and Route 123 interchanges (double white line marking coupled with dinky signs saying not to cross the line), people almost universally ignore the prohibition whenever it suits them to do so. I'm not sure there's a pavement-marking solution that would be effective. Of course on I-66 it doesn't help that those lanes are not HOV lanes at all times, such that restricting movement into or out of them at non-HOV hours doesn't serve much practical purpose.

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 30, 2016, 09:23:14 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 28, 2016, 11:55:42 AM
....

I dislike the  way that Virginia and Maryland mark concurrent-flow HOV lanes, allowing exit and entry anywhere.  It means that the  HOV lanes work no better than adjacent conventional lanes in places where the conventional lanes are severely congested.

Even where Virginia doesn't allow exit and entry anywhere, most notably in I-66's left-lane HOV facility as you pass through the Nutley Street and Route 123 interchanges (double white line marking coupled with dinky signs saying not to cross the line), people almost universally ignore the prohibition whenever it suits them to do so. I'm not sure there's a pavement-marking solution that would be effective. Of course on I-66 it doesn't help that those lanes are not HOV lanes at all times, such that restricting movement into or out of them at non-HOV hours doesn't serve much practical purpose.

The double white solid lines on I-66 west of I-495 do seem to be ignored, during HOV-restricted times and at all other times as well.  At least in the Commonwealth, doing that can get a driver a summons if it is observed by the VSP.

I-270 southbound approaching the "lane divide" in North Bethesda at I-270 and I-270Y (I-270 Spur) has had solid double white lines since the HOV lane was opened, also mostly ignored. 

U.S. 50 ("secret" I-595) in Prince George's County between I-95/I-495 and U.S. 301/MD-3 has the only 24/7 HOV lanes in Maryland and in the Washington area.  There's one section between the underpass at (unmarked) Enterprise Road and the Church Road overpass (near Freeway Airport) that has double white lines both ways.  I think that is a remnant of what was to be an HOV/Toll lane project that got shut-down late in the process by Gov. Landslide (not!) Parris Nelson Glendening, and so the lane has always operated as HOV-2.

Unfortunately crossing the double white lines in Maryland does not seem to be enforced at least as it relates to HOV lanes (the I-95 and I-895 tunnels in Baltimore are a different story, and the MDTA Police will gladly stop and cite drivers that they catch changing lanes in one of the tubes).