Are "Hot lanes" a scam? (Houston, Rosenberg: house, transfer to)

[TallGreengrass]

I agree I10 runs much better than before. And 290 is also much better than it was. I have low expectations for 610 and 59. 45 north and south is a lost cause. My favorite to drive is 99 except in Katy.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by HookTheBrotherUp

I don't think they are expanding it, I have not heard that. However, it could use some improvement perhaps because maybe it is just me, but traffic is worse now than it was pre-expansion. It never made sense to me back then how a city so large could have just three main lanes in and outbound, but even though the freeway was expanded, so was development, and so the freeways are now even more congested than before the expansion.

I-10 now carries more than twice the number of cars it did before expansion.

Anyone who thinks the I-10 widening caused more development wasn't paying attention. Those big MPC's out West were going to be built expansion or no expansion.

[gwarnecke]

I've never understood why congestion is considered a hallmark of a "failed" highway. If a highway is jammed with cars, it means that it offers utility to a tremendous number of people who deem it to be more-convenient than other alternatives, congested as it may be. Even if I-10 traffic speeds were lower than before than expansion, it would be moving far more passengers than it did previously.

As for the HOT lanes - my understanding is that Houston was one of the first cities in the US to implement HOV lanes (not on I-10 - I believe it was on I-45 but could be wrong). Originally, the lanes were open only to P+R buses. Commuters were rightly furious that the lanes sat virtually empty while the mainlanes were clogged with traffic. Then 4+ occupant vehicles were allowed in, then 3+, then 2+ (during certain hours), then paying drivers, with a target speed of 45 mph during rush hour being used as the criteria for whether the lanes are appropriately utilized. I don't see anything "scammy" about this approach - it's all about offering drivers alternatives and keeping the lanes moving quickly enough to justify their existence. If they were cheap enough that they were barely any faster than the main lanes, then we'd be better off scrapping them and using the resulting extra shoulder space to add an additional lane or two.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by gwarnecke

I've never understood why congestion is considered a hallmark of a "failed" highway. If a highway is jammed with cars, it means that it offers utility to a tremendous number of people who deem it to be more-convenient than other alternatives, congested as it may be. Even if I-10 traffic speeds were lower than before than expansion, it would be moving far more passengers than it did previously.

As for the HOT lanes - my understanding is that Houston was one of the first cities in the US to implement HOV lanes (not on I-10 - I believe it was on I-45 but could be wrong). Originally, the lanes were open only to P+R buses. Commuters were rightly furious that the lanes sat virtually empty while the mainlanes were clogged with traffic. Then 4+ occupant vehicles were allowed in, then 3+, then 2+ (during certain hours), then paying drivers, with a target speed of 45 mph during rush hour being used as the criteria for whether the lanes are appropriately utilized. I don't see anything "scammy" about this approach - it's all about offering drivers alternatives and keeping the lanes moving quickly enough to justify their existence. If they were cheap enough that they were barely any faster than the main lanes, then we'd be better off scrapping them and using the resulting extra shoulder space to add an additional lane or two.

The original "HOV" lanes were the contraflow lanes on I-45N in the 80's. The lanes were marked by rubber/plastic poles, and took away a lane from the other side of the freeway. There were holes in the pavement, and prior to opening, a truck with a platform with a couple of workers on it drove along and put the poles in the holes, as traffic whizzed by at 60 mph. After the lane closed, the truck went back and picked up the poles. There's a picture on this page https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/docs/Houston/chapter2.htm

[astrohip]

Originally Posted by TallGreengrass

I agree I10 runs much better than before. And 290 is also much better than it was.

I have the pleasure of driving 290 several times a week, but mostly at non-peak times. It is unbelievably better. It used to be a thrill ride (and not in a good way). Torn up pavement, narrow lanes, not enough lanes, too many cars on too few lanes. Ingress & egress were heart attack inducing experiences. Now it's a joy, from 610 to the county line. Every aspect, from lanes to ramps to merges etc etc, all work much better.

Having said that, it is the most poorly constructed freeway in Houston. The concrete has already started deteriorating, there are patches all over the place (patches! in a new fwy!), they had to re-level it around Rooms-To-Go (huge dip), and worst of all, the concrete pavement doesn't match the lanes.

Still... it's new and better.

[NTexas2010]

Originally Posted by WRM20

I-10 now carries more than twice the number of cars it did before expansion.

Anyone who thinks the I-10 widening caused more development wasn't paying attention. Those big MPC's out West were going to be built expansion or no expansion.

Agreed. Induced demand theory diehards love to point at I-10 as the de facto champion of induced demand while turning a blind eye just a few miles south toward Fulshear. FM 1093 expansion more or less stalled for 10 years, especially west of the GP, but that didn't stop the population of NW Fort Bend County from booming post-2000. I think there is certainly something to be said about expanding a freeway that does give additional capacity to carry commuters farther out at higher rates of speed, but there is certainly a degree of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy at play here.

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by NTexas2010

Agreed. Induced demand theory diehards love to point at I-10 as the de facto champion of induced demand while turning a blind eye just a few miles south toward Fulshear. FM 1093 expansion more or less stalled for 10 years, especially west of the GP, but that didn't stop the population of NW Fort Bend County from booming post-2000. I think there is certainly something to be said about expanding a freeway that does give additional capacity to carry commuters farther out at higher rates of speed, but there is certainly a degree of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy at play here.

If making the commute a bit easier induces demand for growth, wouldn't a rail line do the same?

[fnh]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

I can tell you from our experience here east of Seattle, on highway 405, that it was a complete boondoggle. The purpose given was to free up traffic by providing lanes where people could pay as much as $10 to drive at the speed limit. The cost varied from 0 to $1.00 to $10 based on the traffic at the time. Prior to Covid, there were times when people were charged $10 only to find the "hot lanes" gridlocked. Now with people working from home the state is whining about the funds not being there to pay for the darned things.

All this anecdote from Seattle's Eastside tells me is that the cap on dynamic pricing is far too low.

Originally Posted by astrohip

I have the pleasure of driving 290 several times a week, but mostly at non-peak times. It is unbelievably better. It used to be a thrill ride (and not in a good way). Torn up pavement, narrow lanes, not enough lanes, too many cars on too few lanes. Ingress & egress were heart attack inducing experiences. Now it's a joy, from 610 to the county line. Every aspect, from lanes to ramps to merges etc etc, all work much better.

Having said that, it is the most poorly constructed freeway in Houston. The concrete has already started deteriorating, there are patches all over the place (patches! in a new fwy!), they had to re-level it around Rooms-To-Go (huge dip), and worst of all, the concrete pavement doesn't match the lanes.

Still... it's new and better.

DH now commutes only 2-3 days per week into downtown Houston but what a difference. Door to door in under 25 minutes now vs ~45 min average in the mid to late 2000s. Oh to think how much time I spent on that stretch of 290 when the kids were younger and attending Awty. For several years now the kids and I have been living full-time in Seattle where we can walk or transit almost everywhere we need to be, and I miss freeways not one bit!

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by oceangaia

If making the commute a bit easier induces demand for growth, wouldn't a rail line do the same?

In theory, yes, for sure. Depends on the quality of service though, and how well it serves the commuting destination.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by WRM20

I-10 now carries more than twice the number of cars it did before expansion.

Anyone who thinks the I-10 widening caused more development wasn't paying attention. Those big MPC's out West were going to be built expansion or no expansion.

Yeah, in Houston, residential development occurs whether there's improved freeways or not, just because demand is there, especially in "preferred" school areas. I do think expansions like the Katy Freeway and 290 induce more dense commercial and higher-end development than might otherwise have occurred, however.