HOV Lane Types, Examples and Preferences

[kalvado]

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

And enforce that number for city buses as well.. 

And enforce that number for motorcycles as well...

On a per-wheel basis...

[jrouse]

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.

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

[myosh_tino]

• 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.

[Bruce]

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

And enforce that number for city buses as well.. 

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.

[jlwm]

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:

[DevalDragon]

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

They work very well in Chicago!

[jeffandnicole]

...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?).

[roadman]

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 .

[kalvado]

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

And enforce that number for city buses as well.. 

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.

[jeffandnicole]

...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! 

[coatimundi]

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

That video gave me an afro...

[jakeroot]

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

And enforce that number for city buses as well.. 

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.

[kalvado]

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

And enforce that number for city buses as well.. 

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..

[US 81]

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.

[coatimundi]

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.

[Bruce]

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.

[kalvado]

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"..

[Bruce]

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.

[Bruce]

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

And enforce that number for city buses as well.. 

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):


Deadheading buses in I-5 traffic by SounderBruce, on Flickr


I-5 looking north from NE 92nd Street by SounderBruce, on Flickr

[coatimundi]

I-5 looking north from NE 92nd Street by 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?

[Bruce]

I-5 looking north from NE 92nd Street by 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:


Line of buses on I-5 southbound by 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.

[kalvado]

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

And enforce that number for city buses as well.. 

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?

[jakeroot]

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.

[kalvado]

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?

[Avalanchez71]

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.