George wrote on Jun 20, 2007 3:03 AM:We need to add capacity to our freeways as well as to our carpool lanes and reversible toll lanes.

George wrote on Jun 20, 2007 3:09 AM:Does anyone remember "Census Survey: More Commuters Driving Alone" at http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/06/18/news/top_stories/61707181813.txt? Does this congestion mean we need additional regular lanes more desperately than carpool lanes? Yup!

OHS Graduate wrote on Jun 20, 2007 7:24 AM:What this story doesn't talk about is the crux of the problem: the jobs/housing imbalance. California in general has affordable housing farther and farther away from the areas that job creators site their jobs. It's what the market currently may bear, with agonizingly long commutes for many which takes away from nurturing our children and enhancing community building. We're all paying a hidden price for this approach which far outweighs the costs of building more freeway lanes. Allow for more flexible work scheduling and work from home or local workcenter offices, as well as provide incentives for employers to site their businesses closer to their employees, and the problem will dissapate. . . and California will have a more Golden Hue to offer all.

Duh wrote on Jun 20, 2007 7:49 AM:Our population has been growing fast for years. Even a grade school child could have predicted we needed more lanes on the freeway. We need double decker freeways. PLUS we need the car industry to deliver more cars with mpg greater than 30.

Walt wrote on Jun 20, 2007 7:57 AM:Oh what a tangled web we weave! HOV lane access hours,hybrid access by the hour restrictions and on and on and on.The trees are in the way for seeing the forest. Filling HOV lanes as demand increases HELPS reduce congestion. The freeway is beginning to operate the way it should in the first place---- all lanes operating uniformly without Mickey Mouse attempts to "manage" traffic. Look at I-15 alongside the HOV Fastrak lanes about 5 pm. Stop and go in the regular lanes while the HOV lanes are sailing along at half capacity.SANDAG's "stratigic pricing of tolls at work"! Free flow for a couple of lanes, but misery, time and energy wasting travel for the vast majority.Too bad even the Feds don't get the Big Picture; HOV lanes INCREASE congestion on freeways.

Bob wrote on Jun 20, 2007 10:32 AM:Walt, you are a dope. The big picture is not the number of cars; it’s the number of people. Also the free flow of the HOV lanes is the incentive to move to a multi-passenger commute thus reducing energy consumption per person. To paraphrase you "Too bad even you don't get the Big Picture" Turning HOV to SOV lanes would only provide a minimal level of service improvement and only for a very short time. This isn't my opinion, contact your MPO and they’ll show you the traffic planning numbers.

AResident wrote on Jun 20, 2007 12:13 PM:What slows the traffic down by 80% is slow drivers in the number 1 and 2 lanes as well as those constantly changing lanes. One should try this: Find your lane early, stay there, push the gas, stay off the phone and or all other distractions. After all you're out there to drive. Pass this along to everyone you know that travels the 15. move to the right SLOW DRIVERS.

I am Arthur, King of the Britons.... wrote on Jun 20, 2007 1:08 PM:HOV lanes are inefficient, insofar as an additional General Purpose (GP) lane transports more people and does more to reduce overall traffic congestion. A freeway with one HOV lane and three GP lanes does not carry the same number of persons per hour as a freeway with four GP lanes. To the extent, therefore, that the difference in congestion (and traffic volume) between HOV lanes and GP lanes approaches zero, the HOV lane is being utilized more efficiently. In other words, congestion in HOV lanes is good, because it means that HOV lanes are not being underutilized.

Bob wrote on Jun 20, 2007 4:03 PM:The HOV Lanes on the 91 "Sailing along at half capacity" is an example of the fallacy of that lanes "congested" lanes are carrying more vechicles past a given point--they aren't. The HOV lanes where that traffic is sailing past are actually "moving" twice as many cars, as the mixed flow lanes that are stop and go. As a traffic operations planner, I know that I can achieve maximum density when all the cars are parked, but I'm "moving" zero cars???

Neufusion wrote on Jun 20, 2007 5:06 PM:AMEN to AResident - People need to learn how to drive. If someomone comes up behind you and there is room in the lane to the right of you - GET OUT OF THE WAY. If the traffic in the lane to your right is moving faster than you and there is a huge gap in front of you in your lane, MOVE TO THE RIGHT. It blows me away how coming north on 15 around rancho bernardo, I can get in the slowest lane and do 65mph for miles while the #1 and #2 lanes are bumper to bumper. The other problem is when slow people use the carpool lanes. They've got a mile of gap in front of them and 20 cars bumper to bumper behind them. If you are going to same speed or slower than the normal lanes, STAY OUT OF THE CARPOOL lane.

I ride the rail to work! wrote on Jun 20, 2007 9:51 PM:When will we ever figure out that you can't build the freeway that we in local government won't fill up with cars by zoning the houses so far from the worksite. We also like to create huge job centers, such that you could never build sufficient housing nearby. So, some of us in local government zone to accomodate the demands of those building our cities and ride commuter rail to work.

Walt the Dope. wrote on Jun 20, 2007 10:10 PM:Bob,As a traffic operations planner I hope you have access to Caltrans traffic measurements on freeways. Look at I-15 most any afternoon and see the HOV lanes operating at about 1/2 VEHICLE capacity. Ave about 1.9 people in the vehicles to be sure helps the PEOPLE count, and other HOV lanes in LA etc do much better. But you are ignoring the waste capacity of the HOV lanes is increasing congestion in the regular lanes, and reducing PEOPLE flow in the regular lanes enough to result in a net loss for HOV equipped freeways.King Arthur the Smart above has got it right. When HOV lanes operate near capacity, freeway PEOPLE throughput increases. So why have HOV lanes?

Bob wrote on Jun 21, 2007 4:56 AM:Walt you still don't see the big picture. Without the incentive of the HOV your hypothesis can never come true. You are making the assumption that people always act rationally and in the best interest of everyone. I know you don’t actually believe they do but you’ve used it as the basis for your argument. As a note, I’m not the Bob that is a transportation planner, I’m the one that called you a dope (my opinion wasn’t changed, but I do feel bad about doing it). One last thing, these lanes were allowed only (via the environmental process) because they were HOVs. They never would have been built as SOV lanes. So again your argument falls flat since they only exist to facilitate and/or entice more rational (ie non-selfish) commuting patterns.

BOB wrote on Jun 21, 2007 5:01 AM:Walt you still don't see the big picture. Without the incentive of the HOV your hypothesis can never come true. You are making the assumption that people always act rationally and in the best interest of everyone. I know you don’t actually believe they do but you’ve used it as the basis for your argument. As a note, I’m not the Bob that is a transportation planner, I’m the one that called you a dope (my opinion wasn’t changed, but I do feel bad about doing it). One last thing the HOV lanes where allowed only because they where HOVs. They never would have been built as SOV lanes. So again your argument falls flat since they only exist to facilitate and/or entice more rational (ie non-selfish) commuting patterns.

Walt the Dope wrote on Jun 21, 2007 9:49 PM:Whatever Bob. This is not about social engineering. It's how to move the most people for regional productivity and social preferences. Indeed LA HOV lanes attract 10% more riders. But the waste flow in the HOV lanes transferred to the regular lanes more than compensates. Back to Mr. Downey's subject; filling the HOV lanes, even at lower speeds increases flow. SANDAG's strategic pricing will simply revert them to fewer PEOPLE throughput FOR THE WHOLE FREEWAY.Numbers please not ideology.

BOB wrote on Jun 25, 2007 4:20 AM:Walt it IS about social engineering user behaviour and also it IS about moving people, not cars. Lastly I don't agree with the HOT lane concept since it is counter to the HOV premise.

John wrote on Jun 30, 2007 5:56 PM:Enough talk of new technologies such as hybrids, fuel-cells, and ethanol. We are spiraling down the inevitable slide that will result in more WAR, more energy expense, more global warming, more divide between the rich and poor. Four basic steps need to occur to change the face of our growing energy needs, so much of which is centered on our PERSONAL transportation needs. We need to change our transportation paradigm. Technology is finally available to make it happen (think if we had started this back in 1975!): 1. Focus on electric-only vehicles using newly evolving battery and motor technology. 2. Public recharging stations as well as employer and retailer promotion of on-site charging. 3. Development of alternative electricity-generating stations on a national scale devoted solely to personal transportation (wind, solar, water - for consumer and industrial applications). 4. Development of ultra-light personal transportation vehicles, sized and weighted for effective and efficient transportation of one soul and his/her gear (most of our travel is for one - this item makes each and all the aforementioned viable. Commuter vehicles have no need to weigh more the 2 times their total payload weight!). THREE KW/hrs., NOT 150, is all that is needed for a 25 mi. commute. Industry and societal conversions to this scenario will benefit all: 1. Oil companies can convert to power generation and grid supply. Consumer-based power generation will give them added supply capacity through "net-metering." 2. Auto companies can develop smaller, simpler vehicles that are MUCH cheaper to produce, offering higher sales and a higher rate of return. Global sales will boom, considering the rest of the world is much better positioned with respect to accepted societal behavior using ultra-light personal vehicles. 3. Retail organizations and employers have new ways to attract customers and employees. 4. Consumers will spend MUCH less on transport. and through personal power generation will have less need to rely on outside power sources. Poorer families will be less constrained with vehicle expense that is much less than what it available today. Speed and power-hungry individuals will be well served with vehicle performance like they have never imagined, much less seriously considered. 5. With more smaller vehicles on the road, our highway and surface street footprint will be greatly reduced, boosting quality of life in the form of progressively less traffic congestion, fewer accidents and lower insurance rates. The grand scheme of things benefits most: 1. No more reliance on foreign oil, with all that entails (price gouging, trade sanctions, WAR). 2. The Earth actually has a realistic chance to recover from this horrible disaster of global warming, in a viable time frame, before irreversible doom end it for all of us. 3. United States will again be a front-runner in transportation technology, selling to the entire world the "democracy" and products we will have become accustomed to. A collective reworking of our infrastructure, behavior and attitudes can be done, once we shed our current big business lobbying arrangement, set aside our arrogance, and open our eyes to what really makes the wheels spin in this country. This IS our only hope in surviving the next one hundred years. To continue down our present path, rolling over to what big business and its associated consumerism dictates to us, will be our inevitable end. Consider what we need to do to reverse this, and act accordingly.