Tractor Trailers on the HOV Lanes
Printed From: Slug-Lines.com
Category: General Slugging Questions and Comments
Forum Name: General Slugging Topics
Forum Description: This is the area for all general slugging comments. To add a comment simply create a new topic or see FAQ for detailed information on how to post comments.
URL: http://www.slug-lines.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1800
Printed Date: 20 May 2024 at 12:07am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Tractor Trailers on the HOV Lanes
Posted By: SHIPM8S
Subject: Tractor Trailers on the HOV Lanes
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 7:15am
After this morning's miserable commute [:(!], isn't it about time VDOT reconsider their policy of allowing tractor trailers to use the HOV lanes completely (at any time)? Especially given the construction in the mixing-bowl which has the lanes narrowed considerably, these vehicles pose a hazard not only to commuters, but apparently to themselves as well.
Last traffic report I heard said even though the lanes have now reopened, travel time between Rt. 234 and the Beltway is approximately 178 minutes...[}:)]
ShipM8s
|
Replies:
Posted By: 122582
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 8:16am
HOV should not be for commercial vehicles of any kind (other than public/mass transit carriers) no matter what the time.
|
Posted By: SHIPM8S
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 9:23am
Let's play Devil's Advocate for a few minutes...[}:)]
If the HOV lanes were actually HOT Lanes, and the tractor trailer involved in this morning's accident (from everything I've read, this was a single vehicle accident) was a bonafide paying HOT-user, what would Fluor have done to clean the mess up and get the lanes moving sooner that VDOT didn't or couldn't do this morning[?] My guess is NOTHING!
Rumor has it, the truck has been moved to the side, but is still there. They intend to close the HOV lanes between 11:00 and 2:00 to tow it out. If it takes longer, it will no doubt have a negative impact on this afternoon's commute home [:(!].
And, until the rules regarding these types of vehicles change, it WILL happen again...the only question is when?
ShipM8s
|
Posted By: VA4ver
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 9:47am
You know speed was the reason for this accident -- that curve is bad in a regular sized car.
After the driver recovered (because he was critical) they should charge him for reckless driving. Tractor trailer in general on a good day scare me to death on the beltway. Too big and going too fast.
|
Posted By: 122582
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 9:49am
And of course, the root cause of this morning's accident will be either distracted driver (cell phone) or going too fast for conditions.
|
Posted By: Subaru
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 10:38am
I VRE'd it this morning. If it wasnt so expensive I would think about VRE'ing everyday.
|
Posted By: SHIPM8S
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 10:40am
If I'm not misinformed, it was a CVS tractor trailer.
I'm still looking for anyone that can tell me how Fluor (if the lanes were HOT instead of HOV) could have prevented this morning's mishap, or done a better job of reducing it's impact to the rest of the commuting public.
They would have already collected the tolls from points further south (sir, may I have a refund?), and no doubt would have continued to collect tolls from vehicles entering north of the accident. I fail to understand what resources they would have available to them (that are not currently available to VDOT) that would have allowed them to clean this up under the timeframes contained in their proposal.
HOT will NEVER work, and HOV will only get better when they change the rules to get rid of non-HOV vehicles, including tractor trailers and hybrids with less than the required 3 passengers.
ShipM8s
|
Posted By: Baz
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 10:51am
|
As much as the big trucks annoy me in the HOV lanes, they should be allowed to use the lanes just like everyone else. Theyre definately not any worse drivers than car/auto drivers thats for sure. So thats not a reason to keep them out. Everyone has a tendancy to speed, be careless, distracted, ect. Im sure there has been more car accidents in the HOV than semi accidents. They are definately harder to see around and are slower in their takeoffs in congested lanes, but we should have to suck it up and deal with it. They want to get where theyre going as fast as possible too.
|
Posted By: 122582
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 11:10am
So maybe stiffer penalties for inattentive/careless/wreckless driving?
|
Posted By: Wagonman
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 11:24am
quote:
Originally posted by Baz
[br]As much as the big trucks annoy me in the HOV lanes, they should be allowed to use the lanes just like everyone else. Theyre definately not any worse drivers than car/auto drivers thats for sure.
I don't agree. They wear down the road surface much faster and increase the cost of maintaining the HOVs. They also all rush to the HOVs after they open to everyone and merge less easily and get up to speed much slower. I also don't like them going 65 mph in such a congested area. There is also the issue of them ignoring the "no commercial vehicles except buses in left lane" law to get into the HOVs at most of the entrances. Most of them are already using the HOVs illegally if you consider that.
On another note. I heard rail traffic in Lorton has been stopped due to the 8 inch high pressure pipeline that runs next to the CSX line being punctured by a road crew. It is a windy day and but there is so much gas it wasn't getting dissapated and I could smell it from pretty far away. If this isn't fixed quickly, the VRE Fredricksburg line could be shut down tonight. If the HOVs and the VRE are both closed this could be a real nightmare commute.
|
Posted By: shelbybrynn
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 12:32pm
|
Actually this particular tractor trailer was in the main lanes and it flipped over into the HOV Lanes. Just wanted to clarify that. As far as tractor trailers being in the HOV lanes, I don't think it is a good idea and I wish we could get our elected officials to do something about it.
|
Posted By: Baz
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 1:02pm
|
what? I didnt know that...
|
Posted By: ronin718
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 1:45pm
|
Of course, on the flip side (no pun intended), even if the truck had been/stayed in the main lanes, they probably would've rescinded the HOV restriction this morning in the interests of traffic flow, so it probably would've been ugly either way.
|
Posted By: SHIPM8S
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 2:23pm
From WMAL this afternoon:
'Driver Inattention' Looks to be the Cause of Semi Crash in Springfield
SPRINGFIELD, Va. (AP) - The driver of a CVS pharmacy truck that flipped over on its side this morning in Springfield is in critical condition.
A Virginia State police spokesman says at this point it looks like ``driver inattention'' is to blame for the accident. The truck overturned around 4:40 am in the northbound HOV lanes of I-95 just before I-495.
The HOV lanes were shut for hours while authorities worked to move the 18-wheeler out of the way. Witnesses say the driver wasn't speeding but just went out of control, striking a concrete wall before flipping over.
I guess we should just all thank our lucky stars that none of us happened to be travelling in a vehicle beside him at the time.
ShipM8s
|
Posted By: Bob
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 3:23pm
1) Trucks should not be allowed in the HOV. That includes trucks that just happen to have 3 people. That is not a carpool.
2) There needs to be a crackdown on speeding and aggresive driving during the period from 4:30 to 6 am.
|
Posted By: SHIPM8S
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 3:36pm
Surely you aren't referring to NON-commerical pickup trucks?
ShipM8s
|
Posted By: 122582
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 3:43pm
I'd be interested to know if he was on his cell phone at the time of the accident.
|
Posted By: Wagonman
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 5:51pm
|
I doubt he means regular pickups. But the larger pickups that fall under the category of commercial vehicles because of their weight should be included in the ban. Any smaller vehicle(SUV, car, pickup) with a trailer attached should not be allowed either.
|
Posted By: adjguy
Date Posted: 23 May 2005 at 9:43pm
You couldn't pay me enough to get on a VRE Sardine Can. What a waste. Packem in, raise the rates, jack up the price of houses anywhere near a station. Wonder when there going to make you pay for parking.
|
Posted By: dickboyd
Date Posted: 24 May 2005 at 12:44am
quote:
Originally posted by RobertLangDirect
[br]quote:
Originally posted by Subaru
[br]I VRE'd it this morning. If it wasnt so expensive I would think about VRE'ing everyday.
Good news for those who use VRE!
http://www.vre.org/feedback/fare_changes_2005/Fare_changes_Implemented_FY2006/fare_change_Implementation.htm
How magnanamous! Split the cost increase between passengers and taxpayers.
Where does it say anything in VRE's strategy about getting more passengers? Steve Roberts needs to get passnegers on his own and stop poaching slugs.
Please note, spell check is working and White-Out has been removed from screen. Be prepared to find yourself snoozing off in the middle of a long tirade.
dickboyd@aol.com
|
Posted By: dickboyd
Date Posted: 24 May 2005 at 12:49am
quote:
Originally posted by SHIPM8S
[br]Surely you aren't referring to NON-commerical pickup trucks?
ShipM8s
You know why cowboy hats curl up?
So they can sit three abreast in the pickup.
dickboyd@aol.com
|
Posted By: dickboyd
Date Posted: 24 May 2005 at 1:07am
quote:
Originally posted by 122582
[br]And of course, the root cause of this morning's accident will be either distracted driver (cell phone) or going too fast for conditions.
Maybe, but there have also been crashes where the driver had physical problems. Remember the gasoline truck near the Pentagon? Last February? the driver died of a heart attack.
If the cause was physical, maybe there should be stricter physical requirements for truckers and tighter control on driving time.
Pay me now or pay me later. Get quality drivers or pass the cost on to the motoring public.
CVS and Giant have some of the safest drivers on the road. Their driving programs are unmatched in the industry. Except maybe for the moving van company in Springfield. Name escapes me. But the owner is Arthur Morisette (??)
dickboyd@aol.com
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 24 May 2005 at 8:03am
quote:
Originally posted by SHIPM8S
[br]If I'm not misinformed, it was a CVS tractor trailer.
I'm still looking for anyone that can tell me how Fluor (if the lanes were HOT instead of HOV) could have prevented this morning's mishap, or done a better job of reducing it's impact to the rest of the commuting public.
They would have already collected the tolls from points further south (sir, may I have a refund?), and no doubt would have continued to collect tolls from vehicles entering north of the accident. I fail to understand what resources they would have available to them (that are not currently available to VDOT) that would have allowed them to clean this up under the timeframes contained in their proposal.
HOT will NEVER work, and HOV will only get better when they change the rules to get rid of non-HOV vehicles, including tractor trailers and hybrids with less than the required 3 passengers.
ShipM8s
Interesting how ShipM8s comments vary from Ronin "Of course, on the flip side (no pun intended), even if the truck had been/stayed in the main lanes, they probably would've rescinded the HOV restriction this morning in the interests of traffic flow, so it probably would've been ugly either way"
Please, let's get rid of the hybrid exemption to hasten the tolls!!! Regular lanes don't move, HOV does, even with hybrids. More in regular lanes = more pressing need to balance the flow = tolls! Thanks, ShipM8s.
|
Posted By: wdossel
Date Posted: 24 May 2005 at 8:22am
FWIW, in Hampton Roads (site of the other extensive deployment of HOV lanes) NO commercial trucks are allowed and signage explicitely says so. I've always wondered why they were allowed up here -- especially after almost being run off the road twice by one drifting into my lane on 395...
- Will
|
Posted By: SHIPM8S
Date Posted: 24 May 2005 at 9:10am
Don't thank me No SUV - I didn't say anything to bolster your argument. But I did notice that you avoided answering my original question.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SHIPM8S
[br]If I'm not misinformed, it was a CVS tractor trailer.
I'm still looking for anyone that can tell me how Fluor (if the lanes were HOT instead of HOV) could have prevented this morning's mishap, or done a better job of reducing it's impact to the rest of the commuting public.
They would have already collected the tolls from points further south (sir, may I have a refund?), and no doubt would have continued to collect tolls from vehicles entering north of the accident. I fail to understand what resources they would have available to them (that are not currently available to VDOT) that would have allowed them to clean this up under the timeframes contained in their proposal.
HOT will NEVER work, and HOV will only get better when they change the rules to get rid of non-HOV vehicles, including tractor trailers and hybrids with less than the required 3 passengers.
ShipM8s
I think you're avoiding the question because you know the answer won't support your position. Or perhaps you find the question confusing[?] It's clear you'd rather pay a toll and ride alone. You're part of the problem, not the solution. I wonder how often you'll visit when the hybrid exemption is gone and HOT doesn't materialize? I stand my original statement.
ShipM8s
|
Posted By: SpongeBob
Date Posted: 24 May 2005 at 10:08am
Oh, don't hold your breath, Shipm8s. The Toll Roads are going to materialize, right before your very eyes. They are coming. That sound you hear is the marshaling of the arguments against HOV.
Consider that the dean of traffic engineering in Virginia is a UVA professor by the name of Hoel. Lester Hoel, to be exact. (http://cts.virginia.edu/Hoel.htm if you're curious)
And consider this statement from the precis of Professor Hoel's 2002 study of the HOV lanes on I-64:
"it is found that the HOV lane of I-64 in Hampton Roads area provides some travel timesavings and a more reliable trip time to the HOV lane travelers. But the time saving is small, and the HOV lane is not efficient for the whole freeway facility. There is the HOV lane underutilization problem."
Ah, the old "unused capacity" canard again. The solution they offer for this is always the same: let rich people buy the unused portion of the public pie. The solution should be: let's make it easier for people to ride-share.
Anyway, on with Dr. Hoel's paper:
"Two improvement alternatives are considered: change the current HOV lane to another general-purpose lane, which can reduce the vehicles in queue per lane by twelve percent, or to the HOT 2+ lane, which can eliminate the vehicles in queue per lane by applying real time value pricing strategy."
Here, folks, is the twisted root of the whole blasted Toll Road fiasco. When the smartest traffic engineer at your best state university says HOV doesn't work and we need to consider a "value pricing strategy," well, who's gonna argue with him?
The problem is, his engineering-based bean-counting methodologies don't accept the awkward variables of human behavior. What price the loss of our public spaces? What price for taking our roads from the poorest citizens and reserving them for the well-off? How does this make us a better Commonwealth?
|
Posted By: wdossel
Date Posted: 24 May 2005 at 10:37am
Selecting HOV on I-64 in Hampton Roads was the wrong way to go for an overall evaluation of usage/capacity (unless, of course, you are setting up an argument against free HOV...). The traffic patterns down there are such that by my estimate (after spending the better part of 16 yrs there and using them), the limited access lanes (which are present only in Southside and primarily serve to direct traffic to the Norfolk Naval Base) are in fact, underutilized as nearly 2/3 of the traffic in Southside is headed either into downtown Norfolk our out to Va. Beach -- neither of which is served by HOV lanes. Up on the penninsula (Newport News, etc) it is the I-66 model. Both end in that traffic nightmare called the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel. To give folks here a sense of overall utilization of the limited access lanes in Southside -- anytime there is a "major accident" during rush hour (1 or more lanes blocked) or a significant backup, they open the HOV lanes to all traffic. Imagine the mess here if they did that...
- Will
|
Posted By: khaller
Date Posted: 26 May 2005 at 8:23pm
|
An update to the tractor trailers in HOV lanes: I spoke with Delegate Scott Lingamfelter (R-31) at work after the accident and he said that he'd put in a bill to keep trucks and tractor trailers off the HOV lanes. The VA House Cmte on Transportation tabled a similar measure back in January 2005 (HB 1528), but who knows, maybe after this accident, we can resurrect it and get it passed. Use the internet to find your delegate (http://legis.state.va.us/) and send them an email!
|
Posted By: SpongeBob
Date Posted: 27 May 2005 at 10:46am
Tens of thousands of semis have used the HOV lanes for decades. This is the first time I've heard of an accident, and it is directly related to the sharp turns under the Mixing Bowl. Those turns are temporary only -- the road is going to be straightened out.
Did you know that the toll road builders also propose to ban all "large truck" traffic on their lanes? I almost never see semis on the HOV during restricted hours, except for the occasional moving van -- few semis carry three passengers.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 2:39pm
|
It's simple: If HOV restricts vehicles to a minimum of three occupants, then ALL vehicles, including commercial trucks and hybrids, should be required to carry 3 people while in HOV lanes.
|
Posted By: SpongeBob
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 2:54pm
|
Keep it Simple, Stupid. If the vehicle has two wheels, it's OK. If it is carrying three living humans or more, it's OK. If it is carrying two humans and a yellow invertebrate, it's probably my car.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 2:58pm
|
Who are you callin' stupid? You're a sponge, Bob!
|
Posted By: SpongeBob
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 4:54pm
|
The Sponge was agreeing with you! Keeping it Simple and Stupid is another way I've seen it written. And Keep it Simple, (you over-complicating) Stupid (person.) HOV works best when there are very few exemptions to the rules. The regular lanes people don't feel like they are getting cheated if every vehicle in HOV is filled with bodies.
|
Posted By: wdossel
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2005 at 10:33am
quote:
Originally posted by SpongeBob
[br]The Sponge was agreeing with you! Keeping it Simple and Stupid is another way I've seen it written. And Keep it Simple, (you over-complicating) Stupid (person.) HOV works best when there are very few exemptions to the rules. The regular lanes people don't feel like they are getting cheated if every vehicle in HOV is filled with bodies.
....assuming that vehicle is on *4* wheels vice *2* (three occupants on a motorcycle could be dicey) [;)]
- Will
(believe you meant two axles vice wheels in your previous post)
|
Posted By: Baz
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2005 at 11:36am
|
Umm 2 wheeled vehicles (motorcycles) are allowed in HOV
|
Posted By: Baz
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2005 at 1:03pm
|
Oh? 4-wheeled motorcycles in HOV?? What is a 4-wheeled motorcycle..
|
Posted By: N_or_S_bound
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2005 at 2:21pm
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2005 at 1:21pm
If HOV lanes are restricted to three occupants per vehicle, all vehicles, including motorcycles, should be required to have three riders. That's right, they'll need a side-car. That should cut down on the weaving between traffic that only adds to the dangerous and frustrating congestion problems!
Why is it so difficult for people to understand? All vehicles should be required to have at least three occupants including: hybrids, motorcycles, tractor trailors, trykes, utility trucks, taxicabs, limos, busses (how many near empty busses clog the HOVs).
|
|