Have you ever been stuck in traffic only to look over and see the HOV lane with only a few cars whipping by? I bet you wondered what a shame it was that those lanes were just sitting there going unused. For those of you in the Seattle area, you won’t have to be frustrated any longer.
Beginning this weekend, Washington State joins the leading edge of transportation innovation by starting a test of HOV-HOT (high occupancy toll) lanes on State Road 167 between Renton and Auburn in King County.
These HOT lanes mean that in addition to the buses and carpools that already have access to the HOV lane, vehicles with only a driver and no additional passengers can choose to pay a toll to avoid being stuck in traffic. To make sure the additional traffic does not slow down vehicles in the HOV-HOT lane, the price of tolls will vary throughout the day depending on time and the demand that correlates with those times. And the tolls are electronically collected – no stopping for tollbooths – so no waiting in lines or searching for that extra quarter.
Innovative HOT lanes are proving successful at moving people and vehicles through congested corridors, but they are not yet widespread. Before SR 167 in Washington State, HOT lanes were operating in just four states, California, Texas, Minnesota and Colorado. Make no mistake, over time we will see more HOT lanes. States like Florida and Virginia already have aggressive plans in place to institute HOT lanes to give drivers a new option to get home to their families and to work on time.
Congratulations to the State of Washington for embracing a solution that I know will keep America moving!
-Acting FHWA Administrator Jim Ray
Allowing the rich to pay for capacity that should be reserved so we can move a higher volume of PEOPLE, not cars, is simply wrong.
"HOT lanes...give drivers a new option to get home to their families and to work on time."
I really wish the federal government would take a more progressive stance and not enact programs that essentially allow our unsustainable land use pattern of sprawl to continue. The federal government should give states, cities, and MPOs the tools needed to help fight sprawl rather than simply fuel the status-quo.
There is much talk about the price of oil in the world, but people are going to continue to pay high prices for oil if they know the federal government is going to step in anytime an interstate is congested and add more lanes. Even if we find alternative fuels, we will still have many Americans wasting BILLIONS of hours in traffic on interstates commuting from the suburbs to their jobs in the city. Please help fund TRANSIT programs that would use these HOV lanes in a better way. How about increased bus service to fill in the gaps, or starting up a ride-share program?
Posted by: Kyle | May 04, 2008 at 08:41 AM
I am amazed by how fast a good, not great, idea can be warped into a terrible practice. I live in S. Florida and commute to Miami daily.
The HOV hot lanes are being implemented by taking away the break down lanes.
Now you may say no big deal. However when you factor in that Miami is one of the poorest metropolitan areas-translation :a fair number of people drive junkers, and call their neighbors and family when they break down NOT a tow truck.Now, there's multiple vehicles obstructing travel lanes.) Its going to be downright dangerous.
Madame Secretary, we have roads less traveled that people pay to drive on...they're turnpikes!!!!!
Maybe more thought at higher levels is what is truly needed.
Posted by: John Anderson | May 05, 2008 at 10:31 AM
HOV lanes help here in the DC metro area but do not begin to touch the capacity issue, we simply have more cars/trucks than roadway will allow.
When are we going to take a serious look at rapid rail transit utilizing a HUB or other comparable system that serves a broader base than would point to point systems? Yes, it is costly but so is having 50% of your workforce sitting in traffic for an hour or more each day.
Posted by: Mark C | May 05, 2008 at 10:37 AM
My only problem is that you could be tolling ALL the lanes. It is insane to say that the solution to moving people through the corridor is pricing one or two lanes, and then leaving the majority of lanes stuck. We could be tolling EVERY car. Then EVERY car would be moving.
So why not price congestion? If you have a scarce amount of road space, it is only sensible to charge to use the space. And this space isn't free, it has upkeep charges. The more someone drives on it, the slower everyone else driving on it can go. Charge everyone a toll, like what happens on a lot of roads in this country, and watch as congestion decreases. Charge people more during rush hours, because there is a higher demand there. This is the only efficient and sane thing to do.
Also, provide express bus service and trains. Because that's what would keep America moving. Why does America only provide 3rd-world transportation solutions, and then suggest that we are on the leading edge of transportation?
We're getting there, I guess.
Posted by: Louis Haywood | May 05, 2008 at 12:43 PM
I have to agree with another comment. Charge tolls on all lanes and start working on mass transit.
Posted by: Janet H | May 05, 2008 at 01:34 PM
In my personal and professional opinion, there should be truck lanes. Allowing truck lanes will help the congestion a little more by getting the trucks out of the way from your daily commuters.
The truck lanes should reside to the left of a 3 or 4 lane interstate/highway. This would allow trucks traveling through the metropolitan areas the access to stay away from the on/off commuters. When you restrict the trucks to the right lane all you are doing is bottlenecking the roads.
Trucks cannot stop and go as efficient as other automobiles. I believe there are more emissions coming out of the stacks of exhaust systems on big trucks due to the stop and go process.
When the states add tolls all they are doing is lining the pockets of some politician or government entity. I don’t think tolls reduce the congestion a bit, take a look at Chicago. Chicago’s congestion has not decreased due to tolls; in fact it has increased the bottlenecks and accidents at the toll booths.
Posted by: Jeana | May 05, 2008 at 02:05 PM
The trucks should be allow to use the HOV lanes. Over 90% are not stopping in the seattle area. Removing the trucks from the other lanes would make it easier for cars to get on and off the interstate. With the cost of fuel today, keeping a truck moving will help them get better fuel milage.
Posted by: Terry | May 05, 2008 at 02:19 PM
Great!!! More pandering to the wealthy while Mr Midlife crises in his corvette gets to use the HOT lane the working class is forced to stay in the slow lanes. You want to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and make our streets and roads safer, try building in some bicycle infrastructure!!!! It’s far cheaper then pandering to the car crowd!! Although I know some in this dept don’t think of the lowly bicycle as a means of transportation, but it is and its one of the most efficient means around. Seattle is pretty progressive bike wise; just think of all the bike accommodations you could get with the price of one HOV/HOT lane. Its time the cyclist get the representation we are supposed to be getting.
Posted by: Kamov | May 06, 2008 at 03:15 PM
Regarding the comment made about having separate truck lanes, that would only create a more serious problem for those who must cross them. Cars and trucks don't mix well in commute hour(s) traffic. Why not restrict truck traffic to hours of 8pm to 5:30am. Certain cities already do that and it seems to help.
As for HOT lanes, we as tax payers have already contributed to the road system and should not allow only the affluent to benefit from them. A new HOV lane was just established in my city and while the other four lanes of traffic are stop and go, this HOV lane is empty; with the exception of a few cars with two occupants or more. To add insult to injury, a driver with a baby qualifies for this priveledged lane. I ask how that policy helps reduce traffic? I also notice that a large majority of those using it have only one occupant but nobody enforces the law on this. With tinted windows, how can police monitor and ticket those disobeying this HOV criteria? I say open these lanes to the majority of people who do not have mass transit systems in place and are forced to sit in traffic and burn our high priced gas going nowhere.
Posted by: Bob | May 07, 2008 at 05:04 PM
HOT Lanes (or toll lanes) have been in use in Orange County, CA, running along Hwy 91.
The moneys collected from those lanes are paying for road improvements.
That's the whole idea behind HOT lanes. Taxing the rich, to pay for infrastructure.
Posted by: Steve Johnson | May 08, 2008 at 02:41 AM
HOT/HOV combinations are a great idea. If people want to pay more for faster travel they can. If not, they can stay in in the regular lanes.
The only people that could complain about an idea like this are the ones who look around for someone else to pay for their free ride.
In our area, Lane Transit District http://www.ourmoneyourtransit.com/ has had the opposite approach. Instead of the people that use the service paying for it, we have a system of taking resources from everyone so a very few (less than 3% of the population)can ride for almost free.
The HOT/HOV approach to transportation sounds much more fair than our current system here.
Posted by: Nolan Scheid | July 19, 2011 at 05:34 PM