HOT and HOV Lanes

GuyInLenexa · Post by **GuyInLenexa** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 2:40 pm

Has there ever been discussion or a feasability study of putting a bi-state HOT or HOV lane project in Greater Kansas City?
I have seen them in many other cities, usually as a prelude to mass transit and an express route for existing transit.
I have not seen or heard of any project like this since I moved here from Dallas.

LG

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 2:43 pm

I think HOV lanes are a huge waste of money.....I'm not basing that on anything or have any facts, just my thoughts.

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 2:57 pm

MoDot is considering carpool, bus, and/or reversible lanes for I-70 in Jackson County. They are in several of the options in the current I-70 study (http://www.i70mis.org). Missouri has some experience with reversible lanes on I-70 in the St. Louis area.

My opinion is that HOV lanes are only useful for buses, because not many people are going to carpool, even with the incentive of quicker commutes. And unless there is a good public transit system on both ends of the commute, then HOV isn't going to attract many bus riders either. Reverse lanes might be good in KC though.

GuyInLenexa · Post by **GuyInLenexa** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 2:58 pm

I agree in many cases they are. I was just wondering if a plan was ever studied. I think in KC it would be a gigantic cost. Most cities that have them already have eight lane freeways, many of ours are still six lane, to close off that much of the lanes off would back traffic on I35 all the way to Gardner. It would take a major reconstruction. Houston seemed did it in a successful manner, but it took over twenty years to evolve to from a “contra-flow” lanes to what they have today. The lanes, as they exist today are quite impressive, especially for the bus transit lines and car pool.
I wish we had Park and Ride lots throughout the city also. The JO is almost impossible to use, and it is very confusing.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:09 pm

very rarely are my assumptions proven correct

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mallinc/hoveff99.pdf

granted this is just one study.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 10:26 pm

HOV would be good to give express buses a place to go and they are cheaper and easier to build than reversable lanes. But they would only work in a few places in KC and the highway, I-70 for example would still have to be 8 lanes wide or you would create a bigger mess than what's there now.

I say, if you widen I-70 to eight lanes, which is waht MoDot wants to do, than include some HOV options, most of the time the HOV lanes would be open to everyone.

Post by **mean** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 11:05 pm

I think HOV lanes are a huge waste of money....

But think of the revenue potential in pulling suckers over for driving solo in them...bwahahahaha!

Post by **bahua** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 8:00 am

They have been very successful in Dallas.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 8:06 am

bahua....how do you mean successful? As in people use them?

GuyInLenexa · Post by **GuyInLenexa** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 9:01 am

As a person that commuted into the city from Denton County on Stemmons Freeway for over ten years, there was a remarkable change in the general flow of traffic. As well as LBJ Frwy.
I lived in Houston for five years and noticed a big difference, especially with commute time for the busses.
However, I would not be certain if KC has the immense traffic flow to justify the cost of implementing this.
The HOT (High Occupancy Toll) lanes may work on specific freeways in KC, the cost can be justified.
Now there may not be a need, but something needs to be planned. The city seems to be sprawling further and further out. KC's low traffic is one of our great assets, I noticed yesterday that it ranked 12th in the nation for large cities.
I just hope we have planning that will keep that asset viable.
I 35 has become worse just in the last two years I lived in Lenexa.

Post by **dangerboy** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 9:17 am

Charging people to use the high occupancy lane seems counterintuitive. A more logical approach would be to charge for the regular lanes and make the carpool lanes free. Otherwise there is little incentive to carpool or ride the bus.

GuyInLenexa · Post by **GuyInLenexa** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 9:30 am

Actually, that makes sense, Dangerboy

Post by **mean** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 8:16 pm

Regarding Texas (from Texas A&M):

http://tti.tamu.edu/researcher/v38n2/dallas_hov.stm

Post by **bahua** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 9:40 pm

In whatever case, they need to be charging people to use the highways, and stop depending on tax dollars to maintain them. I recall that on the Golden Gate Bridge, if you have three or more people in your car, the $3 toll for using the bridge is waived. That kind of strategy would be great here.