Jump to content

Talk:High-occupancy vehicle lane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Effectiveness

[edit]

This section seems to be a mess. Some of the data seems to suggest they aren't effective, some data is vague, for example what does it matter to "effectiveness" (of reducing overall traffic and encouraging more drivers to carpool) that the carpool lane moves more people? If it doesn't move enough people to reduce overall traffic, then it isn't effective. But that information isn't there. Further there's one entirely nonsensical line "HOV lanes are also an effective way to manage traffic after natural disasters" to which the example is a blanket banning of vehicles driving into New York with fewer than 3 occupants. It doesn't explain how having a permanent HOV lane is in any way relevant to mandating all lanes and all roads and bridges are off limits to cars with fewer than 3 people, in fact it would seem the HOV lane would be entirely irrelevant at that point, meaning the HOV lane does nothing in a disaster. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


First Comments

[edit]

I like how the article outlines the pros and cons of HOV lanes, but a great refutation to the "HOV lanes arent encouraging more carpooling, just advantaging those who would have had multiple occupants anyway" can be found in the "slugging" phenomenon of the washington DC metro area where "sluggers" line up at arranged points and wait for drivers to pick them up. The driver gets to use the HOV lane and the sluggers get a ride. I think I'll add that to the article.

I don't have enough information, but I know a couple of years ago a judge ruled that a mother with her baby constitued carpooling after she got a ticket for using the lane and fought it. This probably should be included, but I don't know enough so I'll put it here. If somebody knows more about it, maybe it should be included. - Rt66lt 04:21, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think another problem might be that they look under-utilized even though they are moving equal or more people than a lane of single-occ vehicles. After all, it takes at most half the vehicles to move the same amount of people. Increased speed can mean more "empty space" even though the same amount of vehicles or being moved. I could be wrong, but assuming same following distances it seems that a lane going twice as fast and with twice the persons/vehicle can move the same amount of people in only 1/4th the lane use--Jason McHuff 21:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's look at what is actually happening here. We'll start with some basic facts.
1) An HOV lane is advantageous when traffic is slower in the non-HOV lanes, otherwise there is no benefit to using it preferentially over the regular non-HOV lanes. The HOV lane only provides benefit when its traffic moves faster than the other lanes, so when the total number of vehicles in the HOV lane is equal to the number of vehicles as any other lane then its traffic will not move any faster than the non-HOV lanes. So maybe you argue that this still provides a benefit since these vehicles will have multiple occupants, but that would kill the encouragement to actually carpool, since the benefit (getting there faster) is then lost.
2) By taking 100% of the traffic less the carpool vehicles and squeezing it onto fewer non-HOV lanes, it actually causes traffic in the non-HOV lanes to move slower. Let's say we have a 5-lane freeway, that has just had one lane converted to an HOV lane. Now we have some portion of the original traffic minus the carpool vehicles (which are now using the HOV lane) in the four remaining lanes. Common sense tells us that the number of vehicles in the HOV lane is between 0 and 20% of the original traffic (it would not be greater, as then drivers would choose a non-HOV lane), so each of the remaining non-HOV lanes has between 100 and 125% of the traffic that the original 5 non-HOV lanes were carrying. Therefore, traffic goes slower in the "regular" lanes.
Since the addition of the HOV lane causes the remaining traffic of between 80-100% of the original traffic to move slower, the vehicles are on the freeway longer, and are thereby burning fossil fuels for a longer time. A possible conclusion would be that the HOV lane causes more CO2 pollution then, unless it is more than half-full (at which point we reach the original number of drivers/vehicles that would have been on the freeway without the HOV lane). Since that means that half of the time (when less than half-full) it causes additional air pollution, and half of the time (when greater than half-full) it reduces air pollution, the net effect of the HOV lane is zero. Well, not exactly zero, becuase of the lost time and frustration of the remaining non-HOV-lane drivers.
--David 08:59 03 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember the details, but a man was recently caught using a dummy to drive in the HOV lane PrometheusX303 14:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research

[edit]

It is my impression that valid research in the transportation research community isn't always "published" with the same frequency and rigor as other research communities. That is not a criticism of the transportation research but an acknowledgement of differences in methodolgy. Therefore, there is no need to denegrate valid research from reputable academic institutions just because it hasn't made it into a journal (yet).

In that light, I altered Softgrow's pejorative statement "unpublished research" to a less POV statement of "recent research".

Further, Texas A&M University's Texas Transportation Institute is a highly respected outfit, and I'd argue that serious research from it is presumed to be valid. Therefore, I have reintroduced the HOV criticism based on TTI research, and per Softgrow's edit comment request, I have cited the original document (which was prominently linked at the end of the originally referenced article, BTW).

Nova SS 14:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As somebody who has worked in transport research since 1994 I resent that comment. Transport research is a historic and well-respected engineering discipline and there are a number of quality peer reviewed publications (Transportation Research series for example). If research has not made it into a journal then there may well be very good reasons for this. In general peer reviewed research is better to cite but almost anything is prefereable to simple web sources claiming to be research. www.thenewspaper.com is a particularly dubious source to cite in my humble opinion. --Richard Clegg 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I mistated. It has been my experience that there is a substantial body of valid transportation research that hasn't been formally published, moreso than in other fields. Is that not correct? My own background is in a particular applied science, and in that field, anything that isn't formally published is highly frowned upon in an almost snobbish way.
Another way of putting it: there exists a robust body of published research, but there also exists a body of valid research that falls outside published research, which is a phenomenon that wouldn't happen with the elitist mindset of other fields. Is this a mistaken view?
By the way, www.thenewspaper.com linked to the source papers in both cases.
Nova SS 16:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps I am biased but if the research is quality research it would go through peer review and be published just as in any other discipline. --Richard Clegg 21:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When editing Wikipedia we have to work within the rules and guidelines for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Five_pillars:five pillars. One of these is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There are two other content guiding polices Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. NovaSouce please read this material particularly Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#A_vital_component:_good_research and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources. I consider www.thenewspaper.com as an unreliable source as it is a personal website. (Who runs it, nobody knows). Yes it's a good source of material that supports your POV but that doesn't make it a good source for Wikipedia.
I have rearranged the paragraphs so the repetition of material in criticism is more obvious. The material about barrier seperation should probably be moved out of criticism and into the separate systems part. The San Francisco HOV study should removed for the moment on two grounds (1) is unpublished (2) is cited by anonymous critics. Softgrow 00:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I removed this item from the External links:

This is a letter to a newspaper, and as such is just the opinion of one person and hardly encyclopedic. It also contains a potentially misleading statement: "A typical diamond lane carries only 7 percent of the traffic, yet the lanes take up 25 percent of the capacity on a four-lane freeway." Surely the correct comparison is not the percentage of traffic but the percentage of travelers carried.

Wrong! The function of a highway is to move vehicles - not travelers. How those vehicles are used by their owners is immaterial to the purpose of the highway. --Virgil H. Soule (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on your POV surely. The highway is an inaminate object and doesn't have an opinion, ultimately the government or taxpayer or whoever funded it's view on the purpose of the highway would seem to be what matters. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, all of the external links except the last are anti-HOV-lane opinion pieces. Shouldn't there be more balance? Fionah 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all except the last link. They are unreliable sources. See discussion in section above about verifiability etc. Softgrow 21:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOV = bus lanes?

[edit]

A friend of mine pointed out to me that HOV lanes make much more sense if you think of them as being built primarily for buses. Without HOV lanes it would be much more difficult to have reliably timely rush-hour express bus service to and from the suburbs, which would make riding the bus impractical for many potential transit users, which would make bus service to the suburbs more difficult to justify. Once the lanes have been built, of course, the buses hardly need the whole lane to themselves, so the lanes are made available to other multi-passenger vehicles. I'd be interested to hear if there's anything in the literature about this approach or perspective, as in my mind it just explains too many otherwise puzzling things about the diamond lanes. If so, I'd think it would merit a mention. Jerry Kindall 07:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about in the US, but in NZ many transit lanes are indeed bus lanes that were changed to transit lanes when it was claimed they were underutilised usually with some controversy. From what I've read Australia, there is similar controversy about whether lanes should be bus lanes or some variety of transit lanes. Figures are often quoted of the high percentage of passengers transported by buses in those lanes despite their low percentage of vehicles as well as other stuff like time saved and how they encourage public transport usage, particularly by public transport proponents. However here in NZ and also I believe often in Australia, transit lanes aren't found in motorways only on other roads and motorway onramps. Only bus lanes or in one case a busway are found in motorways which I believe is not the case in the US. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

High-occupancy vehicle → High-occupancy vehicle lane — Rationale:Article is about a lane type not the vehicle that occupies it. Was changed from this High-occupancy vehicle lane → High-occupancy vehicle in 2003 and should be changed back. Softgrow 07:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey and discussion

[edit]
Add * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, or add * followed by a comment, then sign your opinion with "~~~~"

Can hearses use the HOV lanes too?

[edit]

Many ponder whether a hearse can use a HOV lane when one or more of the passengers it carries are not alive. I searched the article, but it mentions nothing about a whether hearses can use HOVs in this situation. --68.102.193.78 02:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It depends upon the law of your state. I doubt dead people count, though. Allowing hearses to use the HOV lane would not further the underlying public policy, which is to encourage rational thinking people who are alive to make conscious choices about work, play, and housing so that they can carpool with others to and from various activities. Dead people don't make conscious decisions. --Coolcaesar 07:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the situation. In some countries, it is common practice to allow business traffic (like cargo trucks and delivery vans, fire engines, ambulances, cabs and whatnot) to use HOV lanes. Hearse might count as such a vehicle for its purpose if not body count (no pun intended). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.100.33.36 (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
According to Snopes, the answer is no http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/carpool.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fehringer (talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not in NSW, Australia either [1]. I thought I heard of a story hear in NZ too but can't find it at the moment. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Requested Move

[edit]

Per WP:COMMONNAME, HOV lane (312,000 Ghits) would be preferable to high-occupancy vehicle lane (51,300 Ghits). Let's have a survey below. --JianLi 01:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, or add * followed by a comment, then sign your opinion with "~~~~"

HOV lanes in Australia, Canada and USA only?

[edit]

The article talks extensively about USA and Canada, has a link to Australian transit lanes; but otherwise only mentions an abandoned experiment in the Netherlands, and a camera trail on the on the Forth Road Bridge in the UK, which if you read the reference was for variable-tolls for multiple-occupancy vehicles, not separate lanes [2]. Do HOV lanes exist anywhere else in the world? TiffaF 11:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too Ontario-centric

[edit]

California was building HOVs long before Ontario and has far more HOVs and direct HOV-to-HOV ramps. I could list all those freeways in this article and put in a bit of history as well but then that would make this article way too long.

The material about Ontario is interesting but should be shortened or transferred to another article. This article should maintain a worldwide view. --Coolcaesar 17:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear I

[edit]

What does this mean:
"In emergency situations, an HOV "cordon" is sometimes placed prohibiting all vehicles from crossing the cordon during specified times. The cordon is enforced through the use of police checkpoints. For example, Midtown and Lower Manhattan were placed under cordons during the morning peak hours in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks and during the 2005 New York City transit strike." --87.178.53.197 (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear II

[edit]

There is mo mention of this in the article on Interstate H-1. What is it supposed to mean?
"Honolulu uses a "zipper" barrier to create an additional HOV lane on the westbound side of Interstate H-1,..." --87.178.53.197 (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it means a movable barrier using a Barrier transfer machine on a reversible lane (both articles mention the 'zipper' is sometimes used). Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
CREATING REDIRECT FROM THE TRANSIT LANE ARTICLE
Consensus is merge.-Mariordo (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merging Transit lane into HOV Lane would improve both subjects, Australian transit lanes and Northern hemisphere HOV lanes, by encouraging comparison and contrast of common issues, such as similar goals and criticisms.--Dbratland (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better merge bus lane into transit lane and leave HOV lane as is. gidonb (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.--Dbratland (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should put a summary and a "Main Article" link on the HOV lane article (which is getting rather large) Instead of merging.Cedarboy (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can go ahead and merge. This is straightforward! gidonb (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As defined in the article, a Transit lane and a HOV lane are the same thing, so it makes sense to merge transit lane into HOV lane, and open country sections to show differences and list existing HOVs. However, it does not make sense (and from the point of view of transportation engineering it will be a huge mistake) to merge bus lane into transit lane. Even though in American English transit means public transportation, the Australian lanes are for high occupancy vehicles. On the other hand bus lanes, as used in several countries in the world, are exclusive for buses and sometimes for other modes of public transportation (vans or even taxis), but never for private cars regardless of the number of passengers.Mariordo (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Actually, when comparing the content of Transit lane and HOV Lane versus the content of Bus Lane, it appears that Transit Lane and HOV lane are synonymous, and should be merged, sooner rather than later. TEG (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with proposed merge. I've been to Australia. The problem with Australian transit lanes is that they are predominantly on city streets, not motorways, which is incredibly bizarre from the U.S. point of view, while HOV lanes in the U.S. are predominantly on freeways and are very rarely seen on city streets. We sometimes have lanes reserved for ONLY buses and taxis in the U.S., such as in downtown San Francisco, but they are not HOV lanes in that they are not open to all vehicles with 2 or more passengers. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ones on city streets are called reserved lanes by most jurisdictions, but these are still High-Occupancy Vehicle lanes; lone-occupant vehicles are forbidden on them under certain circumstances. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fyi, the Transit lane article is in a very poor and undeveloped state compared to this article. I have added any revelant content from that article to this one where I feel is notable. I have added a section of the talk page of 'Transit lane' suggesting that it is deleted. I have not gone as far as formally recommending its deletion because there is some locally relevant content that may be notable to a Wikipedia article about Australian HOV lanes. PeterEastern (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, I also support the merge, but deletion is not an option here, as "Transit lane" would need to become a redirect to this page. The only missing piece of information missing is a short clarification regarding the use of the term in Australia/New Zealand (as it seems those are the only two countries that use that term - here in the US will be confusing as transit = public transportation). I will be expanding the HOV during the following days, so I will bring this little piece of information. After that, the merge discussion can be closed, there is consensus for the merge, and the other article can become a redirect.--Mariordo (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV Problem

[edit]

I have a major POV problem with the Theory and Practice segment, which seems heavily weighted in favor of the HOV lane concept. The function of a highway is to move vehicles - not passengers. How those vehicles are used by their owners is immaterial to the purpose of the highway.

The contention that 7% of vehicles having two or more occupants are more productive than the remaining 93% is simply wrong. If the comparison is based on HOV traffic moving 65 mph and SOV traffic moving 5 mph, the entire highway model is flawed. If productivity (in terms of passenger-miles per dollar or ton-miles per dollar) is the criterion for favoring segments of highway users, we should instead be setting aside separate lanes for big trucks, which are far more productive than automobiles. --Virgil H. Soule (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your Aristotelean attempts to define reality is in itself at odds with it. You have arbitrarily decided what the purpose of a highway is based on your personal biases, and are then distorting the argument to be framed in terms of this distortion. The function of a highway is whatever we as a society determines it to be, and sometimes we decide that we want to de-emphasize environmentally terrible single-car uses and to make it relatively more attractive to take higher capacity modes of transport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.12.110 (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Children qualifying people to drive in HOV lane

[edit]

I am surprised there is nothing about children qualifying people to drive in HOV lanes. Allowing a vehicle containing one adult and one or more children into the HOV lane does nothing to encourage fewer cars on the road. I wonder if this is allowed to encourage public support of the HOV lane concept, to capitalize on parents' self interest who would not otherwise qualify to use the lane, and that the lanes would seem wastefully empty without parent "carpoolers" in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danregan (talk • contribs) 19:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In some sense this is a fair point as one adult+one child in a HOV lane arguably complete their journey faster than if no HOV lane existed, and thus in this case, the rules are perverse (backwards). I suspect in practice it is allowed simply because of the technical impossibility of determining which occupant(s) are children rather than any concerted political conspiracy. Your point about "wastefully empty" misses the point. Just like any store must dangle goods before a potential purchaser, the "wastefully empty" car pool lanes must exist to draw drivers into consideration of modes by which they might be enticed to use them and/or to attract businesses (such as bus companies) who might economically benefit from this opportunity. If carpool lanes were not, relative to other lanes, "wastefully empty", they'd lose their power to accomplish broader community goals of movnig people away from grossly-inefficiency single-car automobile use for long commutes. 86.26.12.110 (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is missing a major point of contention.

[edit]

This article has been manipulated to suggest that the purpose of HOV lanes is essentially to make overall journey times FASTER. This is a nonsense strawman argument that would just as soon be forwarded by a pro-car special interest as it would be by a misguided HOV supporter. The reality is that HOV lanes are intended to be traffic calming devices also - that is, to make (short-term) journey times SLOWER, and in so doing, to push people to alternate means of transport over the longer term. That this key aspect of HOV lanes is COMPLETELY missing from this article is nothing short of emabrassing. I have added a bit of theory about this, but surely this needs to beexpanded upon. I find it almost tragic how space has been given to the legalistic strawmen "rights" arguments (my tax money paid for aircraft carrier runways too - doesnt mean i get to drive my car on them) while completely ignoring THE main argument for HOV lanes which is to over time make single car driving less appealing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.12.110 (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

[edit]

There are a number of comments above about the creation of HOV/HOT lanes being politically. Of course there is loads of politics involved, but it will always be political where the allocation of money raised by taxation is concerned and there is nothing 'non-political' about providing road space and parking for free at the point-of-use whilst requiring bus and train users to buy tickets every time.

If the aim of HOV lanes is to slow down single-occupancy vehicles, and there are reliable references for that, then we should say so. If not them we shouldn't. The job of any Wikipedia article however is, after all, only to reflect the notable, reliable views in a balanced way. We need to express the political arguments as played out by the media, advocacy groups and policy makers in a fair, reasoned balanced way and relate it to the wider political social and environmental changes.

I am reworking the article at present and will aim to bring more of that out, but it will take a few weeks. In particular I am looking to explore in the history section why HOV lanes were created (I think it was the 1970s oil-shock), and also the academic theory behind them and the evolution in HOT tolling. There also seems to be a story to tell in relation to bus lanes. The Harbor Transitway seems a good example of where a bus only system was used by only a very small number of vehicles and is currently in the process of being converted to a HOT system. Not an expert on this, but reading about it at the moment. The M4 bus lane in the UK was very efficient at moving buses, but was perceived as a wasted resource by motorists and was removed recently.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

It's great that this article is getting some love and attention at present.

Regarding the recent changes to images, I have a few observations:

  • The first image, on the I-95 is indistinguishable to me from any picture of any random highway; what is there in that scene presented which relates it to a HOV? Can we not find a notable image which is more meaningful as image? Personally I find the I-91 much more visually relevant with a clear diamond and white line between it and other lanes.
Can we put this one on hold for a few days. I will be expanding the article in next couple of days (I hope to begin today), and besides the fact that I-395 was the first HOV in the world (which I think is significant enough to illustrate the history section), it is also the one with most passenger throughput in the US, according to FHWA. There are plenty of pics for this HOV, see here - I chose that one because is one with a good resolution, good lighting, not blurred (most were taking from cars in movement) and shows the congested lane together with the HOV, so if you like other better, please go ahead and change it (notice this is not your regular HOV lane, this one is a two-lane central separated with elevated on/off ramps and automatic barriers to avoid entering the wrong way). Otherwise, please wait until I am finished, but please, copyedit my edits (English is my second language as you probable already notice) and make suggestions or ask major clarifications here (to me the edit summary is enough except with controversial issues). I will appreciate if we leave any controversial content until the expansion is finished. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some questions about this image. Is the picture taken from a conventional 3 lane roadway? Is the HOV facility the two lane roadway in the middle and the conventional roadway the one on the far left of the frame? If so then I think we need to make that clearer. PeterEastern (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope Peter. In this section the freeway has in total 9 lanes, 3 inbound toward Washington DC (low traffic from where the picture was taken - right side of the image); the two-lane reversible HOV lanes in the median, operating outbound toward the suburbs, enclosed by the rail barriers; and four general traffic lanes, outbound toward the Virginia suburbs, and quite congested (left side of the pic). If it helps, the following pictures near this area present another perspective of this two-lane HOV:
  • Non-panoramic version of the pic in the article (taken inbound)
    Non-panoramic version of the pic in the article (taken inbound)
  • Shows the layout clearer but the resolution is low (taken outbound)
    Shows the layout clearer but the resolution is low (taken outbound)
  • Clear layout but again low res (taken outbound)
    Clear layout but again low res (taken outbound)
  • My favorite, taken from the two-lane HOV, but low res (taken inbound)
    My favorite, taken from the two-lane HOV, but low res (taken inbound)
  • Better res, but the interchange ramps crowd the image (taken inbound
    Better res, but the interchange ramps crowd the image (taken inbound
  • This is a good alternative, good res but doesn't show traffic congestion (taken inbound)
    This is a good alternative, good res but doesn't show traffic congestion (taken inbound)

You can take a look a more images here.--Mariordo (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Nissan Leaf image comes across initially as just an image of the rear-end of a car to me, only when one looks very carefully or clicks to see the image full size does the HOV badge become obvious. Again, I don't feel this image is really adding much to the article.
Done
  • Finally. Can we avoid images on the left, particularly in the middle of a section. The slugging image now breaks the flow of the text and, to my mind, is confusing and makes the article harder to read.
Done, though there is nothing wrong with images in the left. Actually in all GA reviews I have been involved, it is recommended not to have all pics in the right, as they look like a wall of pictures. See Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt as examples. I moved it because in this case there is little text and it is indeed breaking the flow as you stated.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History section

[edit]

Great progress on the history section! A couple of observations/suggestions:

  • The history section states that two of the original schemes were opened as bus lanes but provides no information about when they were converted to HOV lanes. We have the same question for the Harbor Transitway which apparently opened as a busway and has become a HOV lane. There is however more detail in the El Monte Busway article about how it was converted from a busway into a HOV lane roadway during a strike of bus workers in 1974. Probably worth linking to these two articles actually. PeterEastern (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we consider moving the detailed information about the effectiveness of the lanes from the history section to the 'effectiveness' section unless it is relevant to the history of the facilities (is, if one of the first HOV lanes was shown to have very good usage early on which prompted the development of more)? I think that would help the history section read better.
Good suggestions Peter. But as you probably have noticed, I bring info from a source and then shuffle the content around. Since this is work in progress (I have around 20+ sources already identified) I will indeed move some of the info to other sections later on. My intention is to improve all sections to raise the article quality at least to B (actually is GA, but it takes to much work to pass the review process). As for history, I have content about Barcelona, Norway, UK and Australia (my next edits probably). Also I intend to google some more, but some materials are not available in the web to fill the holes in the story, particularly about the conversions from bus lanes to normal HOV lanes. This one in particularI suspect has them, but I cannot find it on the web nor in Amazon for sale. Also I would like to explain more about the evolution in California, but I have came up empty handed so far. Thanks for the suggestions. This is going to take longer than I thought so please be patient.--Mariordo (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No rush, and happy to sit on the sidelines and watch :) A couple more references. The '1960s to present' section of the General Motors streetcar conspiracy articles gives an indication of the change in mood in the USA at the time in relation to the car and mass transit and hence possible interest in bus lanes/HOV. Also, this 2005 UK report has got some good information in it about UK HOV lanes (not many) and information from schemes in other countries.PeterEastern (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic Counts

[edit]

Regarding the traffic counts for the HOV lanes in New York, it says " with 23,500 persons in the morning peak,[6] and 62,000 passengers during the 4-hour morning peak.[12]". What is the difference between the two numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.31.70 (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The source talks about 23,500 vehicles in the AM peak, not people in the AM peak. To quote : "Of the HOV facilities with utilization data provided, the one with the highest number of peak hour persons in the HOV lanes is the Route 495 Lincoln Tunnel Bus Lane in New Jersey, with 23,500 vehicles in the AM peak". The second quote also appears to contradict the claim in WP and talks about 62,000 passengers a day, not passengers in the AM peak. It reads: "In New York City, the Lincoln Tunnel exclusive bus lanes accommodate 1,700 buses and 62,000 passengers a day, saving passengers 15-20 minutes in the morning rush hour compared with regular traffic". As such this bit needs a rewrite and the whole article could do with a careful review. PeterEastern (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation?

[edit]

i have always known this as "H-O-V lane"; nicki minaj reading it as "hove" is the first i'd ever heard it that way.

urbandict does not back her up on this. is she just playing with the term? or are the lanes, in fact, being called "hove" in slang already?

are utes likewise reading SUV as "soove" these days? 209.172.25.134 (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on High-occupancy vehicle lane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on High-occupancy vehicle lane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on High-occupancy vehicle lane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on High-occupancy vehicle lane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on High-occupancy vehicle lane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycles on HOV

[edit]

The link [50] points out that motorcycles in Ontario have no restrictions on using any HOV lanes in Ontario, however the article states the opposite, I rekkon the info on article is outdated. Игорь Ивашев (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Incidents" section?

[edit]

I think we should just delete this. No information to it and, regardless, it seems kind of silly to have a section just listing all the accidents that happened on/as-a-result-of carpool lanes. Agree? Test123Bug (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fully concur. The only incident listed involves reversible lanes, but that is an issue unique to reversible lanes. The overwhelming majority of HOV lanes are not reversible lanes. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and suggestions

[edit]

1. "A high-occupancy vehicle lane (also known as an HOV lane, carpool lane, diamond lane, 2+ lane, and transit lane or T2 or T3 lanes) is a restricted traffic lane reserved for the exclusive use of vehicles with a driver and one or more passengers, including carpools, vanpools, and transit buses."

I think the introduction should be expanded to say "A high-occupancy vehicle lane (also known as an HOV lane, carpool lane, diamond lane, 2+ lane, and transit lane or T2 or T3 lanes) is a restricted traffic lane originally intended and reserved for the exclusive use of vehicles with a driver and one or more passengers, including carpools, vanpools, and transit buses."

The definition is certainly more accurate and appropriate, especially in the U.S.A. where now carpool lanes are used by people on motorcycles, electric vehicles and people who routinely break the rules by driving alone in the lane.

2. "As of 2012, there are some 126 HOV facilities on freeways in 27 metropolitan areas in the United States, which includes over 1,000 corridor miles (1,600 km)."

This is old data from 8 years ago that needs to be updated.

3. "Temporary HOV lanes were added to selections of 400-series highways in the Greater Toronto Area for the 2015 Pan American Games and 2015 Parapan American Games."

"400-series" certainly does not make a lot of sense to me since I do not live in Canada. An clarification would be appropriate.

4. "As of 2012, there are a few HOV lanes in operation in Europe."

This is also old data from 8 years ago that needs to be updated.

5. "A fine of CNY100 (about USD15) will be enforced for first violators."

This statement is useless information if not in context with an average monthly pay or something similar. I'm sure $15 have different meanings in U.S.A. and China.

6. The "Qualifying vehicles" section includes 7 bullets/categories. The original intention of carpool lanes was never to allow categories 2, 3, 4 and 7. This should be clear and noted. Category 7 is preposterous. I have not seen a single highway around the world that allowed bicycle which, at the same time, I find it a recklessly stupid and dangerous idea.

7. "In 2009 and 2010 it was found that non-compliance rates on HOV lanes in Brisbane, Australia, were approaching 90%."

The "non-compliance rate" mentioned above is meaningless to me - it could make sense to somebody from Brisbane, Australia but certainly not to someone from Brisbane, California, U.S.A.

8. "For the same reason, further criticism was made during the 2009 recession in the decision to build an HOV flyover exit to and from Summerlin Parkway, a freeway that lacked HOV lanes until 2017."

I have no clue what an "HOV flyover exit" is. It certainly is not jargon from the U.S.A. This should be clarified.

9. "The situations have caused social problems in Indonesia, where some people become "car jockey", people who make their living by offering drivers to fill their car in order to meet the occupancy limit. Reportedly, the situation caused people stay in unemployment for doing so, increased congestion and let parents profit from their babies."

Please rephrase this so it's clearer.

10. "California HOV sticker for hybrid electric vehicles (the benefit for non-plug-in hybrids expired on 1 July 2011)."

What is the meaning and connotation of the word "benefit" in this context? Is it aimed at saying "right/ability to drive"?

11. The "Criticism" section of this article should also include the argument around bikes and electric vehicles in carpool lanes, especially for California. HOV lanes were never intended for less than 2 people, whether you drive a bike or an electric vehicle. Those modes of transportation should not define your ability to drive in a carpool lane. It's the number of people per vehicle that matters and that was and should be the point of inventing HOV lanes: reduce the number of vehicles on highways and reduce pollution.

12. I will conclude by saying that accidents are caused by poor/distracted driving, lack of signaling, disregard of basic rules and reduced safety distance. I think this article lacks an analysis around this fact. Anybody who has been in a carpool lane, particularly in California, knows that HOV lanes are safe as long as people using them drive safely. Sights of people driving with cellphones, suddenly merging into the carpool lane without signaling, crossing over solid lines and staying too close to people at high speed are common sights. This article had a small and useless section called "Incidents" that was fairly pointless in the form I saw it. I think it should be brought back and used for the purpose of talking about carpool lanes and accidents with related reasons.

ICE77 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High-occupancy_vehicle_lane&oldid=1211454551"