Thread View: la.transportation
12 messages
12 total messages
Started by Tlittle
Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:54
FWD: Legislator Is Driven to Lift Limits on Carpool Lanes
Author: Tlittle
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:54
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:54
148 lines
8036 bytes
8036 bytes
(URL for article: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-000098389dec11.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dcalifornia) LEGISLATOR IS DRIVEN TO LIFT LIMITS ON CARPOOL LANES In the Bay Area, solo motorists can use them during non-peak hours. Lancaster assemblyman wants Southland drivers to be able to do so too. Hug Martin, Los Angelese Times You don't have to drive for long in Southern California to encounter this frustrating scenario: You are stuck in snail-paced traffic that seems to stretch on forever. Suddenly, your bleary eyes spot a free-flowing lane, with motorists happily zipping past. It is not a roadway mirage. It is a carpool lane, and in Southern California, single-occupant vehicles--or 80% of the motoring public--are prohibited. That ban extends 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And don't try sneaking in on Christmas, or you'll find a $271 citation in your stocking. Assemblyman George Runner (R-Lancaster) has seen this scenario played out hundreds of times on Southern California freeways, and he wants to change it. Last year, he pushed a bill through the state Legislature to measure the effects of expanding access to the lanes. The law has temporarily opened the carpool lanes on a 17-mile stretch of the Antelope Valley Freeway between Santa Clarita and Palmdale to all vehicles during non-commuting hours. "It does not make a lot of sense to have a lane of the freeway closed off to a lot of people," Runner said. Under the 18-month pilot project, which ends in June, the lanes are restricted to vehicles with two or more passengers during the peak weekday commute times: 5 to 9 a.m. in the southbound direction and 3 to 7 p.m. in the northbound direction. At other times, the lanes are open to all vehicles, regardless of the number of passengers. This marks the first time in Southern California that single-occupant vehicles have been able to cruise the carpool lanes without starting a high-speed police pursuit. Runner's hope is to convince the California Department of Transportation that such a change improves overall traffic flow. Then he'd like to see the carpool lanes opened on other Southland freeways. He shouldn't hold his breath, however. Runner's idea has been hotly debated for years, but Caltrans officials have refused to consider it for Southern California's 688 miles of carpool lanes. Never mind that Caltrans itself has for three decades opened up carpool lanes to all traffic during off-peak hours in the Bay Area. Never mind that many motorists and some top traffic experts have repeatedly urged Caltrans to consider doing the same on Southland freeways. Last year, the state's legislative analyst issued a 24-page document that endorsed the concept of lifting the carpool restrictions on some Southern California freeways during off-peak hours. Arthur Manask, a Studio City consultant, is one of the frustrated L.A. commuters who thinks the restrictions make no sense. Temporarily opening carpool lanes to all traffic, he believes, would improve traffic flow and benefit everyone. "L.A. has gridlock at all times on most all of our freeways, and this would obviously ease congestion," he said, "especially if there was a stalled car, minor accident or freeway repairs during non-rush hours." Another Southern California motorist, Keith Gadbury, said he has driven in the Bay Area's high-occupancy vehicle lanes when they are open to all traffic and doesn't understand why it can't work here. "I have numerous times been stuck in a traffic jam where it's the middle of the day and the HOV lanes are being used by only a few motorists," he said. California is a national leader in carpool lane use, and nearly 70% of its high-occupancy vehicle lanes are in the Southland. Carpool lanes typically transport 1 1/2 times more people per hour than regular traffic lanes. But the analyst's report said most carpool lanes operate at only two-thirds of their intended capacity. The idea behind the lanes is simple: Commuters who share a ride--which reduces vehicle emissions and takes cars off the road-- are rewarded with their own lanes to zip past the gridlock. Jill Smolinski, a spokeswoman for Southern California Rideshare, said her group wants to preserve that incentive. The organization isn't sure if that goal would be jeopardized by opening carpool lanes to all motorists during off-peak periods. "We just don't know," she said. Caltrans has several reasons for opposing the idea of easing the restrictions, and they have nothing to do with preserving the carpool incentive. Tom Choe, Caltrans' chief of traffic operations in Los Angeles and Ventura counties, said that Southern California's peak commute hours are growing longer and longer and that therefore the department would be able to open up the lanes to all traffic only for a brief period. Secondly, Choe said, rush hours vary from freeway to freeway, so the times when single-occupant vehicles could use carpool lanes would have to vary as well. That would create confusion and make it difficult for police to enforce the carpool restrictions, he said. High-occupancy vehicle lanes can be opened in the Bay Area, Choe said, because commute hours there are shorter and more consistent. The idea of easing the restrictions has been the topic of heated debate among officials in the Southern California Assn. of Governments, a six-county planning group. Director Mark Pisano said the group has long opposed the idea and would consider lifting the restrictions only on a very limited basis. But Hasan Ikhrata, the group's transportation planning manager, supports such changes and thinks Caltrans is simply too rigid to consider new ideas. Ikhrata said Bay Area commuters have proved that lifting the limits at some times is not confusing and does not pose enforcement problems. "Why aren't we doing it?" he asked. "There really is no good reason." For now, the temporary changes to the carpool lane rules on the Antelope Valley Freeway seem to be working fine, said California Highway Patrol Capt. Brian Smith, who patrols sections of that freeway. He said that there has been no problem enforcing the new rules and that they don't seem to confuse motorists. Not only that, Smith said, traffic seems to flow better too. "I like the idea of using it on the off-peak hours," he said. "It allows one more lane for people to use."
Re: FWD: Legislator Is Driven to Lift Limits on Carpool Lanes
Author: Rick Damiani
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 21:59
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 21:59
26 lines
2165 bytes
2165 bytes
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:54:38 GMT, Tlittle <mail@mail.net> wrote: This: >"L.A. has gridlock at all times on most all of our freeways, and this >would obviously ease congestion," he said, "especially if there >was a stalled car, minor accident or freeway repairs during non-rush >hours." and this: >"I have numerous times been stuck in a traffic jam where it's the middle >of the day and the HOV lanes are being used by only a few >motorists," he said. are why such a change is unlikely. Identifying peak traffic times in L.A. is pointless, as most of the freeways are in a near-perpetual state of congestion. -- A host is a host from coast to coast ..................... Rick Damiani and no one will talk to a host that's close .... rickd@nospam.paton.com Unless the host (that isn't close) ......... rickd@nospam.earthlink.net is busy, hung or dead ..............................NGI# T695 DoD #2659 '99 Triumph Sprint ST (Guppy) ....... '86 Yamaha Radian (Fire Breather)
Re: FWD: Legislator Is Driven to Lift Limits on Carpool Lanes
Author: David Masterson
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 01:56
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 01:56
27 lines
2067 bytes
2067 bytes
>>>>> Rick Damiani writes: > On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:54:38 GMT, Tlittle <mail@mail.net> wrote: > This: >> "L.A. has gridlock at all times on most all of our freeways, and >> this would obviously ease congestion," he said, "especially if >> there was a stalled car, minor accident or freeway repairs during >> non-rush hours." > and this: >> "I have numerous times been stuck in a traffic jam where it's the >> middle of the day and the HOV lanes are being used by only a few >> motorists," he said. > are why such a change is unlikely. Identifying peak traffic times > in L.A. is pointless, as most of the freeways are in a > near-perpetual state of congestion. How close is this to also being true for the San Francisco Bay Area? -- David Masterson dmaster AT synopsys DOT com Sr. R&D Engineer Synopsys, Inc. Software Engineering Sunnyvale, CA
Re: FWD: Legislator Is Driven to Lift Limits on Carpool Lanes
Author: Tony Lima
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 05:39
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 05:39
35 lines
2817 bytes
2817 bytes
On 11 Dec 2001 17:56:29 -0800, David Masterson
<dmaster@synopsys.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Rick Damiani writes:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:54:38 GMT, Tlittle <mail@mail.net> wrote:
>
>> This:
>
>>> "L.A. has gridlock at all times on most all of our freeways, and
>>> this would obviously ease congestion," he said, "especially if
>>> there was a stalled car, minor accident or freeway repairs during
>>> non-rush hours."
>
>> and this:
>
>>> "I have numerous times been stuck in a traffic jam where it's the
>>> middle of the day and the HOV lanes are being used by only a few
>>> motorists," he said.
>
>> are why such a change is unlikely. Identifying peak traffic times
>> in L.A. is pointless, as most of the freeways are in a
>> near-perpetual state of congestion.
>
>How close is this to also being true for the San Francisco Bay Area?
Things have gotten much better since the dot-com collapse
persuaded many of the yuppie marketroids to leave the area.
Heck, it's even possible to use highway 101 between San Jose
and San Francisco during the middle of the day. - Tony Lima
--
Tony Lima /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail
X and postings
/ \
Re: FWD: Legislator Is Driven to Lift Limits on Carpool Lanes
Author: Baxter
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:49
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:49
16 lines
1976 bytes
1976 bytes
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free software - Baxter Codeworks http:// www.baxcode.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Tony Lima" <TonyLima2@att.net> wrote in message news:u5rd1us51gd330q8cre5jd2t3herg9jjn1@4ax.com... > > Things have gotten much better since the dot-com collapse > persuaded many of the yuppie marketroids to leave the area. > Heck, it's even possible to use highway 101 between San Jose > and San Francisco during the middle of the day. - Tony Lima Yep. Recessions nearly always cure traffic problems. 'Course they also kill funding for transportation projects too.
Re: FWD: Legislator Is Driven to Lift Limits on Carpool Lanes
Author: Dave Simpson
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:18
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:18
9 lines
1721 bytes
1721 bytes
It's time for Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, or some other liberal senator to demand that congestion problems be better addressed by mandating a minimum of two, not one, carpool lane in each direction of all metropolitan area freeways. Dave Simpson
Re: FWD: Legislator Is Driven to Lift Limits on Carpool Lanes
Author: John David Galt
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:55
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:55
57 lines
4042 bytes
4042 bytes
David Masterson wrote: > > >>>>> Rick Damiani writes: > > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:54:38 GMT, Tlittle <mail@mail.net> wrote: > > > This: > > >> "L.A. has gridlock at all times on most all of our freeways, and > >> this would obviously ease congestion," he said, "especially if > >> there was a stalled car, minor accident or freeway repairs during > >> non-rush hours." > > > and this: > > >> "I have numerous times been stuck in a traffic jam where it's the > >> middle of the day and the HOV lanes are being used by only a few > >> motorists," he said. > > > are why such a change is unlikely. Identifying peak traffic times > > in L.A. is pointless, as most of the freeways are in a > > near-perpetual state of congestion. > > How close is this to also being true for the San Francisco Bay Area? That depends what you define as the Bay Area. I've seen substantial "extended rush-hours" (weekday morning and night) in two kinds of places: 1) Highways that go out to exurbs, especially where there is only one good route to the area (examples: 101 from Novato to Santa Rosa, 80 near the Carquinez Bridge and beyond it, 580-205 from Dublin to Tracy, 101 south of San Jose, and 152 east of Gilroy where it's only two lanes). These get crowded as early as 5 AM and can stay that way until 9 or 10 PM. 2) Bottlenecks within the Bay Area where there is a lot of traffic from people going shopping or to evening entertainment, as well as the commuters. 880 and 680 between Fremont and San Jose have this pattern, as do 237 and Montague Expwy. going across to connect to 880 and 680. The freeways in the Walnut Creek area also have it, because they all run together (onto 680 through WC, and also onto 4 out toward Antioch). Highway 101 in Marin and Sonoma counties, and 17 south of San Jose, fit both categories because each is a major bottleneck that needed widening years ago and no good alternative route exists for either. Many of the roads listed in 1) jam up on weekends also (outbound on Saturday morning and, especially badly, inbound Sunday night), as Bay Area residents head for parks and recreation outside the Bay Area. Only a few of these (mostly category 2) are as bad as the average freeway I've encountered in southern California, but they will certainly get there if nothing is done. And because each of these routes tends to be used as only one middle section of a long trip, with a wide variety of origins and destinations, it's very unlikely that any form of public transit will help, unless it carries your car along with you.
Re: FWD: Legislator Is Driven to Lift Limits on Carpool Lanes
Author: Rick Damiani
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 05:46
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 05:46
19 lines
2067 bytes
2067 bytes
David Masterson <dmaster@synopsys.com> wrote: >>>>>> Rick Damiani writes: > >> are why such a change is unlikely. Identifying peak traffic times >> in L.A. is pointless, as most of the freeways are in a >> near-perpetual state of congestion. > >How close is this to also being true for the San Francisco Bay Area? According to my friends in the Bay area any my own experiences driving through there, not very close at all. -- A host is a host from coast to coast ..................... Rick Damiani and no one will talk to a host that's close .... rickd@nospam.paton.com Unless the host (that isn't close) ......... rickd@nospam.earthlink.net is busy, hung or dead ..............................NGI# T695 DoD #2659 '99 Triumph Sprint ST (Guppy) ....... '86 Yamaha Radian (Fire Breather)
> LEGISLATOR try to lift car pool limits- wasnt this just tried on the El Monte busway?
Author: Mark Panitz
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:30
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:30
10 lines
1362 bytes
1362 bytes
Tlittle <mail@mail.net> wrote in message news:<3C1656A3.8B2CCCC@mail.net>... > (URL for article: > http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-000098389dec11.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dcalifornia) > LEGISLATORIS DRIVEN TO LIFT LIMITS ON CARPOOL LANES Question; in regards to this legislator whos try to lift limits on carpool lanes, was this just tried on El Monte busway and it was a faliure?
Re: FWD: Legislator Is Driven to Lift Limits on Carpool Lanes
Author: Dave Close
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 06:42
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 06:42
69 lines
5317 bytes
5317 bytes
Rick Damiani <rdamiani@newsguy.com> writes: >Identifying peak traffic times in >L.A. is pointless, as most of the freeways are in a near-perpetual >state of congestion. I can personally attest that this is not true. Driving from Glendale to Costa Mesa starting about 2030 last Friday evening, the 50-mile trip took almost exactly 50 minutes. I can't complain about that. And the route passed through the East LA Interchange, so it certainly should have met congestion if there were any. However, had I departed earlier, I am certain the congestion would have been severe. It is also true that, with much construction being done at night, the lower traffic volume at night does not necessarily mean less congestion. HOV lanes are a favorite of those who think driving for any reason should be avoided. Many of their advocates also advocate bus riding and rail construction of various kinds. I'm hard pressed to see how any public transportation could have served me any where near as well last Friday. I could have taken a train from Glendale to Union Station, then another one to somewhere in Santa Ana or Irvine, then a bus to Costa Mesa. I doubt the travel time, including waiting at each transfer point, would have been less than three times my actual 50 minutes. If the trains even run at that hour. That is not a reasonable alternative. Still, there is something contradictory about allowing use of the HOV lanes by anyone at off-peak times. Those are, by definition, the times when you really don't need the extra capacity. And if you justify the opening by saying that unexpected congestion can happen at any time and deserves to be allieviated, then why shouldn't expected congestion during rush hour also deserve to be allieviated by opening the HOV lanes to all traffic? The fact remains that HOV lanes are inherently inefficient. They do not carry as many vehicles as normal lanes, and not even as many people as normal lanes. They create an incentive to allow congestion to worsen on the normal lanes to maintain the HOV advantage. If they succeed in attracting heavy use, they lose their advantage because of their own congestion. To avoid that outcome, there is talk of increasing the minimum ridership to qualify for HOV status. If implemented, that is certainly a good way to reward those who have sacrificed to join a two-person carpool: we appreciate your effort so much, you must now go back to those normal lanes which are even more congested than before. In Orange County, there is considerable controversy about the non-compete clauses in the toll road contracts. Apparently, Caltrans is not permitted to improve certain freeways which could provide a better and free alternative to paying tolls. But even without a contract clause, Caltrans already tries to avoid competition with the HOV lanes by avoiding improvements which could reduce their advantage. Rather than building new lanes, we get ramp meters. If we had enough freeway lanes, there would be no point in having HOV lanes. Someone is sure to respond with the tired mantra, "You can't build your way out of congestion." Heard it, it fails the logic test. Of course, you can reduce congestion by building more and better roads. Does anyone think that airport congestion would get worse if we built new and better airports? Would freeway congestion stay the same if we hadn't rebuilt the Santa Monica Freeway after the Northridge earthquake? At this time, with the failure to build responsibly for the last thirty years, it will take a lot of building to solve the problems. And the building will have to be faster than the rate of traffic growth. If you build a tiny fraction of what's needed, you won't solve anything. -- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke
Re: FWD: Legislator Is Driven to Lift Limits on Carpool Lanes
Author: David desJardins
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 06:56
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 06:56
21 lines
2520 bytes
2520 bytes
Dave Close <dave@compata.com> writes:
> Still, there is something contradictory about allowing use of the HOV
> lanes by anyone at off-peak times. Those are, by definition, the times
> when you really don't need the extra capacity. And if you justify the
> opening by saying that unexpected congestion can happen at any time
> and deserves to be allieviated, then why shouldn't expected congestion
> during rush hour also deserve to be allieviated by opening the HOV
> lanes to all traffic?
The idea of the HOV lane is to create an incentive for people to
carpool. This is inherently more successful at rush hour than at other
times, because (1) that's when people go to and from work, and so have
the greatest opportunity to carpool, and (2) that's when congestion is
worst, and so the incentive is greatest.
Since "unexpected congestion" is unexpected, people can't be expected to
plan ahead for it and carpool. HOV restrictions at 3 am, with the idea
that people will join together in carpools at 3 am in case they hit some
"unexpected congestion", don't make sense, and can't work.
David desJardins
Re: > LEGISLATOR try to lift car pool limits- wasnt this just tried on the El Monte busway?
Author: Otha Stubblefield
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:06
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:06
21 lines
1975 bytes
1975 bytes
Mark Panitz wrote in message <7a66fa60.0112131830.b8638da@posting.google.com>... >Tlittle <mail@mail.net> wrote in message news:<3C1656A3.8B2CCCC@mail.net>... >> (URL for article: >> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-000098389dec11.story?coll=la%2Dheadline s%2Dcalifornia) >> > LEGISLATORIS DRIVEN TO LIFT LIMITS ON CARPOOL LANES > >Question; in regards to this legislator whos try to >lift limits on carpool lanes, >was this just tried on El Monte busway and it >was a faliure? Of course it was. That is probably why that issue never appears in the article. During the experiment, MTA and Foothill reported that travel times between DLA and El Monte increased by 20 minutes. Commuters complained so heavily that many of the adjacent city councils complained as well.
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads