Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just don’t think that the express lanes are going to be that beneficial. In ATL and northern VA, the express lanes are not crowded and the general purpose lanes are backed up for miles. I think this will be a huge mistake. I think converting I 77 north to a freeway similar to I94 on Chicago’s south side and I 80 in NJ outside NYC would be much better. Those freeways have four express lanes with no toll. They also have four local lanes for exiting traffic. There is a barrier between the local and express lanes. Houston and Dallas also have feeder lanes that operate very similar. This type of road seems much more efficient. But I would like to know what others think that used either of these two roads on a daily basis.
YESSSSSS.......You are the first person to mention this in a while. Having lived in Chicago myself for a few years and visiting Toronto on numerous occasions the system that seems to work the best is to have local and express lanes on interstates separated from each other by a concrete jersey barrier. This prevents two things: first it's stops impatient drivers from bolting, which you see happening all the time on the I-77 and I-485. These are the people that refuse to wait their turn on on-ramps and merges cutting off drivers in front of them who are attempting to merge by bolting out into the main traffic lanes and then flooring it before the people in front have a chance to go. These are the jerks that cause many of the accidents and fatalities during rush hour. The second benefit is that separating local traffic from express traffic keeps everything moving more smoothly due to the fact that on and off ramps merge onto local lanes which then offer points to merge into the express lanes which are thru traffic. This becomes increasingly important as a city swells in size and number of motorists.
For example NCDOT and CDOT would be better served to abandon the toll lane project and convert that toll lane to an express lane meanwhile adding one more lane on the I-485 around Charlotte so that we have 3 express lanes and two local lanes, so five lanes each direction. Traffic would flow so much better. When they eventually do rebuild the I-77 through uptown (supposedly going to happen in 7-10 years) that should also be the direction they go.
Toll lanes are an option especially if your state has no money, but NC has money it's just not being spent wisely. I'm not opposed to toll roads like some folks are around here. It does definitely alleviate congestion. I've personally seen it work (and work well) in Chicago, DC and other locations in the USA. Some of the I-77 anti-toll folks are just irrational babbling idiots. Tolls are not ideal, but they DO WORK!
Y'all discussing how to best help 77 make me chuckle.....
Toll lanes were never meant to help drivers. Toll lanes are a way to monetize traffic. A problem exists and a method has been found to make money off of it.
In fact, there is now a monetary incentive to make sure the free lanes are as congested as possible as frequently as possible and there are no alternatives.
Y'all discussing how to best help 77 make me chuckle.....
Toll lanes were never meant to help drivers. Toll lanes are a way to monetize traffic. A problem exists and a method has been found to make money off of it.
In fact, there is now a monetary incentive to make sure the free lanes are as congested as possible as frequently as possible and there are no alternatives.
But what exactly can they (Cintra) do to "ensure the free lanes are as congested as possible and there are no alternatives"?
Answer: nothing (edit: I'm aware of the 50 year non-compete on 77 itself but they can't stop NCDOT from improving alternate routes, and they also are not controlling traffic on the free lanes. Yes, traffic on the free lanes will be impacted by how much the tolls cost, but the market will determine how much people are willing to pay for the tolls. In fact the only way to make the free lanes as congested as possible via toll pricing would be to make the toll prices so high that no one uses them. Which of course doesn't align with the whole "monetary incentive" idea.)
But what exactly can they (Cintra) do to "ensure the free lanes are as congested as possible and there are no alternatives"?
Answer: nothing
Oh plenty of things....
- Ensure no more free lanes or other alternatives will be built (done already)
- Design entry and exit areas to increase congestion in free lanes (sure looks that way)
- Take their sweet time with construction / repairs of free lanes and do it during peak hours (as far as I know, they're responsible for that on the free lanes, and though its just something they "could do"... they have already caused lots of backups during non-peak hours, showing they're more than willing and capable)
- .... who knows what else?
No to mention, the DOT makes money when the free lanes are backed up too.
- Ensure no more free lanes or other alternatives will be built (done already)
- Design entry and exit areas to increase congestion in free lanes (sure looks that way)
- Take their sweet time with construction / repairs of free lanes and do it during peak hours (as far as I know, they're responsible for that on the free lanes, and though its just something they "could do"... they have already caused lots of backups during non-peak hours, showing they're more than willing and capable)
- .... who knows what else?
No to mention, the DOT makes money when the free lanes are backed up too.
See my edit above.
The non-compete is only for 77 itself, not other alternatives correct?
The entry and exiting remains to be seen. But the harder it is for people to exit the toll lanes, the less likely people will be to use them and thus the less money Cintra will make.
I find it hard to believe Cintra would be responsible for repairs on the free lanes but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
How exactly have the backups that have been caused by construction benefiting Cintra??? The tolls don't even exist yet. Heck they should've had "incentive" to open them earlier than planned so that they could start making money.
How is DOT making money when the free lanes are backed up?
So there is a clear trend across the US in building HOT lanes. I'm outsider here and I don't really have skin in this game. I don't care what y'all decide to do with I-77.
However, I think there is one layer of information missing from this thread discussing HOT lanes and I will do my best address it.
We are building HOT lanes left and right in Atlanta with a very expansive long-range plan and I can at least tell you what metrics I will be looking for in the future to see how well they really work. The only problem is no one publishes the metrics :/
The real issue involved is about efficiency, not necessarily profit (alone; funding for construction always matters) or about the basic consumer sales pitches made about it being an option.
What happens in most corridors is you really only need 2, 3, or 4 lanes going one way throughout most of the day, depending on where. We really only build lanes 3, 4, or 5-8, respectively, because of traffic at peak times, most notably rush hour.
So since the purpose of building the last few lanes is primarily only about peak-traffic loads, I'm only going going to discuss efficiency during peak times.
So pretend you draw a line across the road. What is important is the amount of cars can cross that line at a given time. There is a maximum efficiency for how many cars are using the lane in a given period of time. If cars move too slowly from traffic, then fewer cars pass the lane in a given minute. If cars are traveling too fast, fewer cars are using the lane per hour too. It's because they are spaced out so far a part that they are able to travel so fast, safely.
That efficient point is usually somewhere between 30mph and 50mph. So a large purpose of the HOT lanes design is to ensure the lanes that are only built for peak periods, are efficient as possible in peak periods and maintain the maximum flow rate and there is an added benefit to letting buses (private and public) use the lanes, so more people can move faster.
If general purpose lanes were added instead, over time, traffic will eventually back up and then during peak periods traffic becomes stop and go, the efficiency for how many cars can use the lanes in the peak periods actually drops. (ie. stop and go traffic makes fewer people pass the line in a 5 minute period).
Now here is where the help to the general purpose lanes comes in, so long as the HOT lanes maintain the maximum possible flow rate (the maximum number of cars use the lane in a 5 minute period), there are at least a few cars using the HOT lanes that would be in the adjacent general purpose lanes if the efficiency of the HOT lane wasn't protected. That doesn't mean the general purpose lane won't experience traffic back ups, however.
It is also less important if the lanes go underused during off-peak periods. They were lanes primarily built to meet the needs of peak-period capacity.
It also doesn't speak to general fairness for how people are selected into the lanes and none of this is discussing what the proper methods should be for DOTs to contract with other companies or not.
What I don't like so far is simply I don't have access to proper data. Every state DOT is quick to post overall usage numbers, but they intentionally go underused in off-peak periods. The best way to test is to look at traffic counts over a small fixed period, like 5 minutes throughout peak periods. Then we can compare HOT vs. General purpose efficiency on the same alignment.
Just an FYI the maximum number of cars using a lane in a one hour time on a straight, flat alignment with no merging is going to be just under 2,000 cars/hour. Often times around 1700-1800 cars/hour in actual circumstance. Traffic backs up too much... closer to 1100-1200 cars/hour. If traffic is spread out and is moving very fast there is a lack of demand it the number also drops.
So long as a HOT lane can maintain that 1700-1800 efficiency they do more good than harm. Even if it seems unfair, it certainly isn't harming traffic in general purpose lanes as the maximum number of cars are still using the added lanes.
Now there will be start-up issues. The I-85 HOT lane conversion in Atlanta took several years for people to really use them at their max. People had to get toll accounts, learn to use them, and the DOT had to figure out how to price them effectively. Also, if you're adding capacity, you might have to wait for traffic demand to grow back.
So there is a clear trend across the US in building HOT lanes. I'm outsider here and I don't really have skin in this game. I don't care what y'all decide to do with I-77.
However, I think there is one layer of information missing from this thread discussing HOT lanes and I will do my best address it.
We are building HOT lanes left and right in Atlanta with a very expansive long-range plan and I can at least tell you what metrics I will be looking for in the future to see how well they really work. The only problem is no one publishes the metrics :/
The real issue involved is about efficiency, not necessarily profit (alone; funding for construction always matters) or about the basic consumer sales pitches made about it being an option.
What happens in most corridors is you really only need 2, 3, or 4 lanes going one way throughout most of the day, depending on where. We really only build lanes 3, 4, or 5-8, respectively, because of traffic at peak times, most notably rush hour.
So since the purpose of building the last few lanes is primarily only about peak-traffic loads, I'm only going going to discuss efficiency during peak times.
So pretend you draw a line across the road. What is important is the amount of cars can cross that line at a given time. There is a maximum efficiency for how many cars are using the lane in a given period of time. If cars move too slowly from traffic, then fewer cars pass the lane in a given minute. If cars are traveling too fast, fewer cars are using the lane per hour too. It's because they are spaced out so far a part that they are able to travel so fast, safely.
That efficient point is usually somewhere between 30mph and 50mph. So a large purpose of the HOT lanes design is to ensure the lanes that are only built for peak periods, are efficient as possible in peak periods and maintain the maximum flow rate and there is an added benefit to letting buses (private and public) use the lanes, so more people can move faster.
If general purpose lanes were added instead, over time, traffic will eventually back up and then during peak periods traffic becomes stop and go, the efficiency for how many cars can use the lanes in the peak periods actually drops. (ie. stop and go traffic makes fewer people pass the line in a 5 minute period).
Now here is where the help to the general purpose lanes comes in, so long as the HOT lanes maintain the maximum possible flow rate (the maximum number of cars use the lane in a 5 minute period), there are at least a few cars using the HOT lanes that would be in the adjacent general purpose lanes if the efficiency of the HOT lane wasn't protected. That doesn't mean the general purpose lane won't experience traffic back ups, however.
It is also less important if the lanes go underused during off-peak periods. They were lanes primarily built to meet the needs of peak-period capacity.
It also doesn't speak to general fairness for how people are selected into the lanes and none of this is discussing what the proper methods should be for DOTs to contract with other companies or not.
What I don't like so far is simply I don't have access to proper data. Every state DOT is quick to post overall usage numbers, but they intentionally go underused in off-peak periods. The best way to test is to look at traffic counts over a small fixed period, like 5 minutes throughout peak periods. Then we can compare HOT vs. General purpose efficiency on the same alignment.
Just an FYI the maximum number of cars using a lane in a one hour time on a straight, flat alignment with no merging is going to be just under 2,000 cars/hour. Often times around 1700-1800 cars/hour in actual circumstance. Traffic backs up too much... closer to 1100-1200 cars/hour. If traffic is spread out and is moving very fast there is a lack of demand it the number also drops.
So long as a HOT lane can maintain that 1700-1800 efficiency they do more good than harm. Even if it seems unfair, it certainly isn't harming traffic in general purpose lanes as the maximum number of cars are still using the added lanes.
Now there will be start-up issues. The I-85 HOT lane conversion in Atlanta took several years for people to really use them at their max. People had to get toll accounts, learn to use them, and the DOT had to figure out how to price them effectively. Also, if you're adding capacity, you might have to wait for traffic demand to grow back.
Good point. I lived in Washington DC for years and they have been building hot lanes like crazy up there as well and they WORK. Hot lanes switch directions each day from morning rush hour in to evening rush hour out. It instantly increases the capacity of the Interstate by 25-30% in each direction. This is very valuable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
