HOV Lane Types, Examples and Preferences

[jakeroot]

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.

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?

[kalvado]

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?

[jakeroot]

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.

...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?

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.

[kalvado]

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.

[jakeroot]

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?

[kalvado]

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. 

[coatimundi]

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.

[jakeroot]

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

[Bruce]

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:



Cost per rider is about $7.



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

[jeffandnicole]

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. 

[kalvado]

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...

[kalvado]

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..

[cl94]

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.

[slorydn1]

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.

[Rothman]

$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.

[kalvado]

$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....

[vdeane]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[kalvado]

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...

[cl94]

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.

[vdeane]

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).

[cl94]

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

[jakeroot]

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?

[kalvado]

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...