(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.sfgate.com%2Fc%2Fpictures%2F2012%2F03%2F26%2Fba-express27_PH1_SFC0108483163.jpg&hash=b48005ab8191a3c583fd5b4206aa6fee0352bf14)
Source (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2012%2F03%2F26%2FBAR41NQAP1.DTL)
Here's a mock-up of the sign I whipped up in a little bit. I support HOT lanes, since it's an HOV lane with an option for single-occupants to use if they're running late to work and don't mind paying for it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fltu0u.png&hash=f5de49df82ef10685ab4421e76637a623955d7ec)
So these lanes are exactly like the carpool lanes on SB 680 on the Sunol Grade?
(BTW, the first picture looks very nice in my opinion. Did you take it?)
I like that sign, because it has the critical word or.
here in San Diego, on the HOT lanes on I-15, one cannot tell if you need both two occupants and a toll tag, or if either of those is sufficient for legal operation. I have avoided those lanes when driving with a passenger, when I very much legally could have used them, because idiot Caltrans, instead of putting up unambiguous signage, instead warns about the $400+ (!) fine for HOV lane misuse.
(the fines for violations which actually could potentially endanger others are about the same or less... good priorities there, Caltrans.)
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on March 30, 2012, 10:02:11 AM
So these lanes are exactly like the carpool lanes on SB 680 on the Sunol Grade?
(BTW, the first picture looks very nice in my opinion. Did you take it?)
Almost. The 680 express lane operates from like 5 AM to 8 PM Monday thru Friday. The 237-880 express lane operates during normal commute hours (5-10am and 3-7pm). All other times, anyone can use the lane for free. I'm guessing that the reason for the difference is solo drivers are only being tolled to use the 237-880 HOV flyover ramp. The HOV lanes on 880 north of 237 and on 237 west of 880 operate as normal HOV lanes.
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on March 30, 2012, 10:02:11 AM
So these lanes are exactly like the carpool lanes on SB 680 on the Sunol Grade?
(BTW, the first picture looks very nice in my opinion. Did you take it?)
myosh hit the nail on the coffin. Here's a sign (mock-ups I made a while ago) that shows the I-680 HOT lanes:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi205.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb153%2FKEK_INC%2FRoad%2520signs%2FI-680HOT3.png&hash=920f69398bc3b95c667117715ed038d2115030af)
The photograph was from the source linked in the OP. My camera isn't that nice to create a blur like that without Photoshop.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 30, 2012, 11:19:23 AM
I like that sign, because it has the critical word or.
here in San Diego, on the HOT lanes on I-15, one cannot tell if you need both two occupants and a toll tag, or if either of those is sufficient for legal operation. I have avoided those lanes when driving with a passenger, when I very much legally could have used them, because idiot Caltrans, instead of putting up unambiguous signage, instead warns about the $400+ (!) fine for HOV lane misuse.
(the fines for violations which actually could potentially endanger others are about the same or less... good priorities there, Caltrans.)
The signs for the I-680 and SR-237 HOT lanes were developed in accordance with the 2009 MUTCD. When the I-15 HOT lanes were developed, there was no such guidance available at the time, and since the project was nearly completed when the 2009 MUTCD was issued, it was decided that Caltrans would not require compliance with it, as it would add substantial costs to the project. The I-15 HOT lane signs are not as clear as the signs for the other HOT lanes, and I agree that this is a concern. Eventually those signs will get upgraded. Additional signs were added along I-15 that indicate that carpools do not pay a toll. Future HOT lane projects in the San Diego region will be signed in accordance with the MUTCD.
Caltrans is not responsible for establishing the fines for a carpool violation, so it is not fair to blame the department for the fact that the fine is more than or equivalent to fines for other traffic violations. The Legislature sets the base fine (which for a carpool lane violation - and many others - is $100) and then subsequent fees are added as necessary which bring the total fine to its current amount of $490 (as of July 1). Those fees are established by the courts. You can learn about that here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/July_2012_JCBAIL.pdf.
Caltrans receives none of the fines, and neither does the California Highway Patrol, for that matter.
Quote from: jrouse on July 18, 2012, 10:30:10 AMThe Legislature sets the base fine (which for a carpool lane violation - and many others - is $100) and then subsequent fees are added as necessary which bring the total fine to its current amount of $490 (as of July 1).
that is astonishing. why not just call a spade a spade, and a $490 fine a $490 fine?
They're doing the same thing on I-110 in LA and if 2+ passenger vehicles can still use the lanes for free then what incentive would it be for a solo driver to pay to use the lane? During rush hour (at least here in LA), the carpool lane is just as congested as any other lane. Why would someone pay to be stuck in traffic? :confused:
Quote from: Bigmikelakers on July 18, 2012, 11:37:03 PM
They're doing the same thing on I-110 in LA and if 2+ passenger vehicles can still use the lanes for free then what incentive would it be for a solo driver to pay to use the lane? During rush hour (at least here in LA), the carpool lane is just as congested as any other lane. Why would someone pay to be stuck in traffic? :confused:
Not so the case on the Eastbound 210 or both sides of the fence on the 134 at rush hour. The carpool lane whizzes past for the most part, I've observed.
Quote from: blawp on July 18, 2012, 11:52:39 PM
Quote from: Bigmikelakers on July 18, 2012, 11:37:03 PM
They're doing the same thing on I-110 in LA and if 2+ passenger vehicles can still use the lanes for free then what incentive would it be for a solo driver to pay to use the lane? During rush hour (at least here in LA), the carpool lane is just as congested as any other lane. Why would someone pay to be stuck in traffic? :confused:
Not so the case on the Eastbound 210 or both sides of the fence on the 134 at rush hour. The carpool lane whizzes past for the most part, I've observed.
I've not driven it for quite a few years, but the HOV-3 lanes on I-10 (San Bernardino Freeway) between downtown L.A. and El Monte appeared to provide
significant savings in travel time as compared to the adjacent general-purpose lanes.
I do support the HOT lanes concept and I think they do help the problems of single Occpant cars using carpool lanes. An excellent observation of this Concept was the I-680 Hot lanes from the Sunol grade down to the CA-237 interchange, and VTA doesn't charge motorcyles or HOV+2 for using the HOT lanes on I-680 or CA-237. Maybe San Francisco should experiment the Fastrak flex to make easier payments on the HOT lanes.
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on October 02, 2012, 10:37:42 PM
I do support the HOT lanes concept and I think they do help the problems of single Occpant cars using carpool lanes. An excellent observation of this Concept was the I-680 Hot lanes from the Sunol grade down to the CA-237 interchange, and VTA doesn't charge motorcyles or HOV+2 for using the HOT lanes on I-680 or CA-237. Maybe San Francisco should experiment the Fastrak flex to make easier payments on the HOT lanes.
Caltrans, Santa Clara and Alameda counties just began a study to build the northbound I-680 HOT lane. While this doesn't mean construction is imminent, it's certainly a good sign. I-680 northbound from the south Mission Blvd exit over the Sunol Grade is one of the worst evening commute corridors.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 02, 2012, 10:51:21 PM
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on October 02, 2012, 10:37:42 PM
I do support the HOT lanes concept and I think they do help the problems of single Occpant cars using carpool lanes. An excellent observation of this Concept was the I-680 Hot lanes from the Sunol grade down to the CA-237 interchange, and VTA doesn't charge motorcyles or HOV+2 for using the HOT lanes on I-680 or CA-237. Maybe San Francisco should experiment the Fastrak flex to make easier payments on the HOT lanes.
Caltrans, Santa Clara and Alameda counties just began a study to build the northbound I-680 HOT lane. While this doesn't mean construction is imminent, it's certainly a good sign. I-680 northbound from the south Mission Blvd exit over the Sunol Grade is one of the worst evening commute corridors.
Well you are right about the Sinclair Freeway Northbound HOT lanes, and in April I was going on I-680 from San Jose up to Pleasanton around 7:20pm there was a slight conjestion over the Sunol Grade and building the HOT lanes in the Northbound direction will help aliviate the 5:00-8:00 PM Evening rush hour out of the San Jose metro area
Interstatefan78, please do not use unnecessary text modifiers like color, font, and size in every post. Only use them when appropriate. Thank you.