HOV Times

quote:

---

Originally posted by NoSUV
[br]It STILL isn't the hybrids - it's the overall build up of traffic caused by increased development without the requisite improvements in infrastructure. Just look at the differences in population growth over the past 10 years vs. the road/public transportation improvements. Look to your right - is it better or worse over there?

---

OK, forget about the hybrids even though they are a problem. Lets stick with the idea of expanding HOV hours that will hopefully prevent huge back-ups caused by non-HOV vehicles who got on prior to 0600 and make no attempt to get off. Expanding the HOV hours and asking for increased enforcement will allow car-poolers and slugers to get to work on time. Right now it's getting more difficult every month. With the exception of more enforcement, does anyone have a better idea that would have a more immediate impact on commuting? Lets hear them if there are any. Could the VASP post a car at the entrance to the HOV with it's blue lights flashing? That would have an impact on violators but I fear it would also have a negative impact on revenues for the VASP.



wmcg

Yeah, I've been late for work three times already this month. Once because someone wasn't supposed to be in the HOV lane and got pulled over. Well there goes that morning. The cop is blocking the lane and we had a difficult time getting over so we could go around them.
I wish we had the far right lane, it would make getting on and off alot easier.

NoSUV,

That's probably not a good date to use as an example. Much of that traffic was folks trying to leave for their 3 day weekend, whether to get home to leave on it or already packed up with less than 3 so not HOV-3 qualified.

Acquiescing and accommodating the SINGLE-minded person who believes it is some fundamental Constitutional right to travel solo in America isn't going to help the problem. It's time to face that. You know it to be the truth yet continue to deny. I'm not certain your motives. You're obviously an educated person, yet you choose to continue with a one note trumpet that's not making any music (e.g. sense).

When moving into concentrated population centers, there are benefits that abound for those who realize there are individual preferences and desires that will have to be sacrificed.

A more balanced stance in what you'd like to see happen would probably make it easier to effect change in the minds of people here. I'll admit there are folks on the slug/HOV side of the argument who are just as stuck with their own personal preferences. The benefits of their preferences to the populace as a whole though outweigh what you desire to see become "standard".

Now, if these same people who slug/HOV would only get engaged in trying to effect change at all levels (the closest being the most effective), we'd all see the power of the vote in a people.

The highway counters will have new stats out shortly speaking to which options carry more people in a balanced sense (IF monetary incentives aren't used to suppress that data). Numbers will tell the tale. Those who could carry more than just themselves in their vehicle or ride in another commuting means and CHOOSE to stay at 5 mph in the mainlanes have the option to HOV.

All choices in life have either a benefit or downside. Why try to mask that? (of course, I ask this of you, but I already know your general response. Were you genuinely interested in improvements that would benefit the somewhat sacrificing majority, you'd have adopted reason and at least acknowledged that HOV is better than SOV in ALL cases.).

Back to you sir. I'll not engage in further dialogue with you on this matter until you've adopted a more reasonable approach.

NoSb

SOV because you can, HOV because you care!

I agree that the BEST solution would be mass transit ONLY. I would give up picking up slugs if the Metro was extended to PWC. I would take the OmniBus IF the fares were cheaper. How I would love to sit back and read a book during my commute.

As Americans we are too prone to look for a "silver bullet" solution to any challenge we face. It usually boils down to an all-or-nothing proposition in our minds since we don't want to give it too much thought (it's like thinking hurts our brains or something).

Yeah, sure, go all mass transit. You've now established a single point of failure in a system just like DB just pointed out.

A balanced approach to any system is to build in some redundant capability. The current solution needs tweaking and any REASONABLE person can see that decreasing vehicles should be a high priority to restore the flow rate. Any solution that goes in the opposite direction is downright foolish and unreasonable...except to anyone who has an outright equity in promoting that (faulty) solution.

Flow will increase with fewer vehicles in the HOV. Maybe someday the need will be there to eliminate all vehicles that carry less than 15 people. For the time being, the system appears to be able to handle vehicles carrying less than 15. Now comes the part where you need to incentivize people to get out of their single occupant vehicles and into something carrying more than 1. HOV-3 is a reasonable element in this regards. HOV-4 makes even more sense since most vehicles are engineered with seating for at least four.

Single occupant vehicles, regardless of the rationale, don't contribute to optimizing the system. They only serve to reduce the overall efficiency for all concerned---except those who are SOV in the HOV. Most see that.

Any call for an excessive response to a suboptimized system is unreasonable and unnecessary.

Dick makes the case many times elsewhere: recruit a slug. Who have you talked to about becoming a slug? Try it today and see if folks are interested in saving time, money, resources, the environment, and others I've not thought of yet.


NoSb

SOV because you can, HOV because you care!