For! First. It's nice to be first. That's why it's better to carpool.

I hate them. They are an expensive waste of highway lanes.

Fun fact: A "carpool lane OK" sticker, which California briefly issued to encourage sales of hybrids, adds $4000 to the book value of a used Prius. Just a data point.

For them, absolutely. Waste of highway lanes? They reduce traffic and allow all the lanes to move more efficiently.

But they should be restricted to cars carrying two or more licensed drivers--not just a parent driving a car with a kid in the back seat.

For!

I accidentally drove onto a carpool lane while visiting Houston one day and it was so fine. I was the only one in the lane, by the by. So, For.

For, I guess, but where I grew up they're often too short to be effective. I'd rather see higher fuel taxes and/or congestion charges, with the money going to expanding and subsidizing commuters' transit options.

P.S. I'd heard of the California hybrid car carpool stickers, and much as I love the Prius I think giving these privileges to single-occupancy hybrids is an outrage. The carpool lane is meant to limit congestion and ease the lives of commuters who act to reduce congestion, not (mainly) to limit emissions. Ironically, it's better for the environment for as many as possible of the cars stuck in tough traffic to be hybrids, as standard cars emit terribly in stop-and-go traffic. That said, a $4000 market value does suggest that in parts of California the ability to use carpool lanes transforms your commuting experience, which would mean they're working there - although I'd still rather see them mainly used by convenient, safe, clean, subsidized busses.

P.P.S. Anyone with even a passing interest in the public policy of road building should read Caro's magisterial book "The Power Broker".

For - but only for cars with two or more occupants. Hybrids, as nice as they are for the environment, do nothing to relieve traffic congestion. A guy driving to work by himself in his Prius is clogging up the freeway just as much as a guy driving by himself in a gas guzzler. Neither should be allowed in the car pool lane.

As long as motorcycles are okay to travel in the carpool lane (they are not always) than I am for them. Along with motorcycles though, I think any two seater car carrying two people should be allowed in the carpool lane.

I am much more offended by the fast pass lanes.

I haven't driven in Southern California in fifteen years. Is there a casual commute set up down there?

I appreciate them where they work well. If they aren't flexible or aren't monitored by traffic engineers they can fail miserably.

The goal should be more people per unit time.

A hybrid lane is silly when a lot of standard cars get similar mileage. A prius gets better mileage when it's stuck in traffic than when it's going 70mph anyway.

Warren, the carpool lane is meant to save gas as well as ease congestion. I'm OK with them going in. I do agree with the idea that the "two occupant" rule ought to be for adults only.

The last time I pulled on an open thread I lost my favorite sweater.

And, oh yeah, I'm in favor of a carpool lane, but only for bicycles.

Carpool lanes: For
HOT lanes (Lexus Lanes): Against

For. It's really appalling when it makes you realize that 90% of cars are being driven by a single person (each, that is). I think it will be viewed as yet another of the insanities of our age that everyone to get anywhere has to haul a two-ton pile of metal with four or more seats, by themselves, often for hours a day. Madness, I tell you.

I am often stuck behind a car containing multiple people in the left lane driving 50 mph while the car pool lane they should be in is empty.

For. Even more so for bicycle lanes.

They should have TWO carpool lanes, not one, and open them up to 1) cars with two or more licensed drivers; or 2) cars that get over 35 miles to the gallon (or other hybrid, natural gas, PZEV cars). Give it a couple of years - it will catch on.

They should also mandate that cars/SUVs that get less than 20MPG can drive ONLY in the slow lane.

Large SUVs should be prohibited from driving on freeways altogether. They're a menace to the planet, to other drivers, and to their occupants.

I'm for them but in practice they suffer. There's always some idiot that can't read. Instead of 12 items or less they have a full cart. Then they want to pay with rolled pennies, Euros or a written check needing 2 managers to OK. Of course just as you think they're done they send lil' Teddy back to the dairy aisle for the forgotten milk. Now it needs rung up seperately. Arghh! Get these idiots off the goddamned road!

I live in Tucson, a city that bemoans its lack of freeways and prides itself for not being Phoenix. Needless to say, this issue isn't a problem here. But I've seen carpool lanes and they are vastly underused, so I like the idea of efficiency lanes someone mentioned upthread (35mpg to get on.) I'm not so fond of sticking all the gas-guzzlers in the slow lane, however. To do that would make all those people in SUVs and minivans and all those good drivers in 18 wheelers into people who will make it difficult to get on and off the freeway. If you think SUV people (and drivers of other inefficient cars, such as my wife, who thoughtlessly drives our three children in an 18mpg minivan) are jerks, just restrict them like that and they will be. Your little Hondas and my midsized Toyota will get crushed trying to get on the freeways.

For. But I'm for keeping the Priuses out: the purpose of carpool lanes, AFAIAC, is to reduce congestion, not gas consumption. There are other tools at government's disposal to do something about our petroleum habit, but there's a pretty limited set of tools for local governments to get the maximum use out of its pavement.

For. I will join the chorus that they should be restricted to two or more ADULTS. I also would go a step further and ban any vehicle over 6000lbs no matter how many people are in it. Those large trucks block driver visibility and create a hazard.

I don't mind Hybrids - I think of it as an incentive to get people to buy more efficient vehicles that offsets their higher price.

The last time I drove on California freeways was from San Jose to San Mateo during morning rush hour. I thought, "This will take hours." But I was with a friend, and because in California "HOV" means "a car with more than one person in it" (which in itself demonstrates part of the problem), we made good time in the carpool lane. The other two or three lanes of traffic were pretty much a parking lot the whole way.

I think the real question isn't whether carpool lanes help or hurt traffic overall, given a fixed mix of carpoolers and non-carpoolers; it's whether their existence is encouraging more people to carpool. I have no idea whether that's the case. I kinda doubt it, though.

Why should the government spend taxpayer dollars to build special lanes just for environmentalists? If the government DOES build restricted-access lanes, it should be for people who pay for a permit to drive in them. Such a scheme would raise extra revenue and allow for across-the-board tax cuts. But naturally liberals would oppose such a measure. It's too much like common sense.

My wife and I visit California and the metro-Atlanta area a once or twice each year. We can usually make use of the carpool lanes, so I think they rock.

I have lived in small-town Alaska for over twenty years and it now strikes me as odd, the amount of time that Americans spend in their cars. That we spend that time alone seems remarkable as well. When we are in the lower forty-eight, we joke that we are always forty minutes from anywhere.

"Why should the government spend taxpayer dollars to build special lanes just for environmentalists?"

Uh, 'cuz we're all in this together? The natural exstension of Al's thinking would mean that government services would be available only to those that can pay. Or superior services would be available to the well off while the rabble suffer along with inferior public services. The bad effects of this sort of policy are dizzying to contmeplate. The lack of civic-mindedness is apalling.

Has somebody actually done a study showing that cars with single drivers are reduced after a decent interval with a car pool lane? I'm skeptical that it would be so. It would have to be a very noticeable effect in order to mitigate the congestion that the car pool lane is causing for the rest of the road... maybe around 20%, depending on the number of lanes. I don't think that many people would change their behavior.

The car pool lane can't just be there to encourage virtue... it actually has to do some good.

Carpool lanes rock. They really do work in DC -- a whole slug culture of folks meeting up to form carpools in commuter lots sprung up about 30 years ago in Northern VA in the I-95 corridor. The lanes work best when they are physically separate from the regular lanes as they are on I-95 and I-66 inside the beltway.

HOT lanes OTOH are a boondoggle that will destroy what good the HOV lanes fostered. It will breed gridlock and pick the pockets of the average taxpayer to line the pockets of the private companies who bribed the politicians to allow them in the first place. The blog Unbossed has written alot about the shady deals in the Denver area.

It's a form of discrimination on those that must drive alone.

Well, carpool lanes in DC may, indeed, rock, but what is really needed is a Tumbrel Lane - Leading from 1600 Wilhelmstrasse to a new Citizen's Bastille.

it's whether their existence is encouraging more people to carpool. I have no idea whether that's the case. I kinda doubt it, though.

Has somebody actually done a study showing that cars with single drivers are reduced after a decent interval with a car pool lane? I'm skeptical that it would be so. It would have to be a very noticeable effect in order to mitigate the congestion that the car pool lane is causing for the rest of the road... maybe around 20%, depending on the number of lanes. I don't think that many people would change their behavior.

This whole discussion is sort of pointless without some input from traffic engineers, but I can state from anecdotal evidence that people who have to drive across Bay Area bridges definitely make decisions based on car pool lanes. If one exists for a good portion of their route (and it's easy to get in and out of) you frequently see people make decisions to carpool. I know people who have purchased cars specifically because there is a lot of leg room in the back. The only other realistic option these people have is driving at 5AM or 10AM.

Of course the whole thing would be moot if the tax implications of moving residences in California was not so huge. No one wants to sell their house and move residences when they change jobs. I know folks with 4 hour commutes who are unable or unwilling to move closer to work.

I had to do a double take on this post.

I though maybe it was an Atrios guest post, squeezed in between games of Missile Command, pub night, and academic duties.

This whole discussion is sort of pointless without some input from traffic engineers, but I can state from anecdotal evidence that people who have to drive across Bay Area bridges definitely make decisions based on car pool lanes. If one exists for a good portion of their route (and it's easy to get in and out of) you frequently see people make decisions to carpool. I know people who have purchased cars specifically because there is a lot of leg room in the back. The only other realistic option these people have is driving at 5AM or 10AM.

I think it's far more than anecdotal evidence. The Bay Area Bridges and their congestion have definitely fostered the casual commute in which complete strangers meet at various parks, street corners, and BART stops and hop into cars going in their general direction.

It helps that after getting to San Francisco, or wherever the destination is, there is decent public transportation, bus, BART, train, trolley, nice walks to take the folks the rest of the way.

That in this day and age, lots of people will climb into cars with strangers to beat congestion is far more than anecdotal information that carpool lanes change behavior.

Al: my guess is that even republican fucktards global warming deniers use carpool lanes and casual commute and enjoy it, because increasing occupancy on the roads means less of a hit to the taxpayer.

For them - but not ahead of investing in light rail, bus systems and incentivizing buying hybrid and other ULEVs (ultra low emission vehicles).

I own a Honda Civic hybrid myself.

If it wasn't for the potential damage to the landscape I would mandate that a Hummer or Land Rover with one occupant not be allowed in any lane. F*cking morons.

Against. Carpool lanes are a waste of space and does nothing for the real problem.

Local government can't solve the problem of congestion unless they become serious about urban planning and create pedestrian/commuter friendly public transportation.

Ultimately, until Americans care more about spending time with their family than living in 4,000 sq ft houses in the sticks where they can hide from the rest of the family, suburban congestion will get worse.

When I am driving my daughter's Prius all alone, or hauling other passengers I am definitely for car-pool lanes.

Otherwise, I am not so sure.

I all for "family" lanes when I'm driving my kids around to their various activities.

I'm for them. But they add to the annoyance factor driving here in Seattle where people drive 50 miles an hour on the Freeway.

I have never seen so many slow drivers just SITTING in the passing lane. That would be the lane just before the HOV lane. I think they need that nice solid line immediately to their left at all times. Reassuring.

So I end up cheating. That is, I'll drop into the HOV lane for three seconds to get around the Sunday Drivers.

Er, a real "Open Thread" is supposed to mean you comment about the subject you want, versus a picked topic like carpool lanes. I was going to ask, what kind of bullets were in Pat Tillman's head? I mean, some conspiriologists taking note of closely spaced forehead shots say he was killed by some of our own troops who resented him. That's not credible to me, but comparing .224 to .308 rounds ought not to be hard.

We should eliminate all HOV lanes, shrink all the highways leading into cities to one-lane each way, and pump an extra $100 billion a year into public transportation projects, with a particular focus on double-decker buses.

I honk at Amur -- well actually I don't unless he jumps out right in front of me (I try not to get angry at stupid people while driving). There's no obvious stopping point for cheaters, 3 seconds, 1 minute, 5 miles. I'll bet most of them find it difficult to get back into regular traffic and just go till the carpool lane ends.

If traffic gets heavy in an area with few on-ramps the left "passing lane" is almost always the slowest. It's packed bumper to bumper with all the people who wish they were going faster. If you see a slow down ahead on rural interstate 80 move right. After four or five miles of slow down the lanes all equalize and knowing about upcoming merging or blocked lanes is the only advantage you can have. Of course it's probably better for safety purposes to be in the lane with the most space between cars (usually in the middle or right).

Another piece of knowledge that seems to elude people is that large trucks have no problem going down hill and they have no trouble maintaining speeds below 50mph. The fact that you are in a lane with large trucks does not mean you are in the slowest lane in a traffic jam.

Against.

"It helps that after getting to San Francisco, or wherever the destination is, there is decent public transportation, bus, BART, train, trolley, nice walks to take the folks the rest of the way."

It not only "helps". Public transportation is the critical factor in whether or not people will willingly go without a car.

Carpool lanes are expensive bromides. And can I just say that people who actively dislike driving should really not participate in these debates, because to most of America they're the equivalent of vegans and thus worthy of sympathy at best, contempt most of the rest of the time.

Warren Terra: as I love the Prius I think giving these privileges to single-occupancy hybrids is an outrage. The carpool lane is meant to limit congestion and ease the lives of commuters who act to reduce congestion, not (mainly) to limit emissions.

And if it were meant to reduce emissions, it would make more sense to let SUVs use the carpool lanes instead of hybrids, because stop and go is where hybrids are most efficient and SUVs least efficient, but steady driving at speed is where hybrids are least efficient and SUVs most efficient.

Here in Southern California the two people in my office that used to carpool together each bought a hybrid, taking advantage of the incentives and tax breaks. Now they drive alone. Any questions about what really works?

Carpool lanes for work only, multiple driving-age adults in each car, between the hours of 6:30-9:30 am and 4 to 7 pm. All vehicles over 6,000 lbs get a commercial plate and stay in the right 2 lanes. If you get a "farm equipment" tax break for your Hummer, you get commercial plates. The rest makes no sense.

if we really want people to take transportation we have to run the trains and buses frequently and around the clock. If I know I'm going to leave work at 8 pm, do I want a half-hour on the freeway or an hour and a half bus ride? The hybrid car pool stickers are worth $4000 to the price of a used car because the sticker is a time machine, adding an hour a day or more to your family life. It's all about the time you sit in traffic.

against. they're nothing more than a band-aid. i live in south florida. in about 20 years or so, i-95 is going to have to be wider than the state itself in order to accommodate the traffic. what we need really are policies that encourage flexible working hours (the idea that we all have to work at 9 and come home at 5, or some variation of that theme, five days a week, is silly and archaic). telecommuting also should be encouraged. keep people off the roads at peak times who don't have to be there.

In Madison, Wisconsin we don't need them. HAH-ha!

Is this a workable idea? Increase the number of carpool lanes. Have at least half of the lanes in Southern California be car pool lanes. Then give incentives to companies that can figure out how to cheaply pick people up and take them where they need to go on time. Make non-carpooling a bigger pain in the ass than carpooling, then encourage companies to meet the demand you've created.

I will abstain because I do not have a car.

Please let me defend my honor!

I am not a lane-jumper, nor an HOV cheater. Well, OK, I do occasionally use it as a passing lane. But really, for 3 seconds. I guess that makes me a stupid person, but thanks for not honking!

I was really just using this thread to complain about Seattle drivers. Actually, they are overall among the most civil and courteous in the world. Their only annoying habit is the frequency of slow drivers who sit in the passing lane. Stupid people!

After all, I should know.

We gave them up in NJ where two people hardly ever go to jobs in the same area at the same time. From most places, public transportation goes only to New York or Newark. For everyone else, forget it.

Kevin,

Have you tried driving with a Google map enabled cellphone in an area in which traffic is available?

It's amazingly better than listening to the radio for the traffic reports.

Every morning, as I get in the car, I get the traffic from Google, and decide which of two routes to take to work, and determine exactly which on ramp I will use to avoid any bottlenecks or traffic jams.

As I drive, I get periodic updates that allow me to decide if I get off before known bottlenecks, or before I enter a traffic jam.

I would love to see a movement that:
a) gets rid of intersection traffic cameras, AND
b) wires up streets with googlable traffic information.

I find Google Traffic to be much better in terms of efficient use of freeways, environment, and safety, than our typical technology.

Better will be when I get google traffic city streets, and perhaps even when I can reserve my route on the city streets and freeway as I start the engine.

What's the feeling on using HOV lanes during off hours?

I drive a van hauling hospital patients from Tucson to Phoenix, getting to Phoenix around 11:00 AM. The HOV lane isn't active between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM, but I still think of it as one. I'm sure this is because of the extra spacing and solid white line separating it from the other lanes - it makes me feel it's still somehow a "protected" lane, a calm oasis just to the left of the frenzied commotion in the regular lanes.

I've noticed that most other drivers continue to treat it as an HOV lane during off hours - there are never too many cars in it, they're almost always carring two or more people, and heavy trucks (mostly) stay out of it.

But some drivers regard the off-hours HOV lane as just another passing lane and get really impatient with HOV traffic, flashing lights, riding rear bumpers, abruptly passing and pulling back in front.

Legally and logically, of course, the HOV lane's just another lane during off hours, but in Phoenix at least most drivers still treat it as an HOV lane. Is it that way everywhere?

What about gasoline rationing? Look at all the benefits:

1) Cuts C02 emissions directly.
2) Cuts traffic congestion -resulting in even lower emissions.
3) Encourages people to live closer to work.
4) Encourages people to live in "saner" sized metro areas.
5) Reduces foreign dependence on oil.
6) Encourages development of public transit.
7) Encourages development of private transit alternatives.
8) You already would have a rationing system in place in the event of a major energy supply disruption.

How to do it:
a) All licensed drivers use debit cards that are "refilled" every month with a fixed number of gallons based on your zip code (avg. commute distance).
b) You use the debit cards at the filling station and pay the typical price per gallon.
c) Set up a "trading" system where people that don't own cars or have fuel efficient ones can sell their excess gallons to others (at much higher prices).

Every time I chop 1/2 off my trip into San Francisco b/c I don't have to wait in line to pay the toll over the Bay Bridge... oh... it gives me goosbumps. For!

I own a Prius, and I agree that, since a hybrid's motor simply stops when stuck in traffic, it's not the best allocation for emissions, except insofar as it induces people to buy hybrids. There's something to that, of course.

I also have believed ever since they started to show up that, if SUV's benefit from the federeal emissions exemption for trucks, that they are legally trucks, and should not be allowed in the leftmost lane, go through the Passenger Cars Only toll lanes, or be allowed on boulevards and parkways. Less crankily, I think their registration fees should be at the truck level, and require a higher level of license to drive one.

In the Seattle to Bellevue/Redmond commute (i.e., the Microsoft/Nintendo commute) they absolutely make the difference. Over my time in the mines, I knew literally hundreds of people who vanpooled because of the HOV lane, because it was the difference between a 20 minute commute and an hour commute.

"Carpool lanes" are great. I have no sympathy for the commuting travails of those drivers who are the sole occupant of their vehicles -- myself included whenever I have to drive to meet a client for work. 80% of the time, or perhaps more, you're alone by choice.

If you want to use what we in Honolulu rightfully call high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, then either double up or take the express bus, as I try to do on those days I don't need my car.

Here in Seattle it is common for business people to take a low level staff person along on day trips so they can use the cap pool lanes. A HOT lane would achieve the same thing, allow the government to collect some money, and allow the staffer to stay in the office and get some work done.

At a minimum, you should have to have another driver in the car. It shouldn't count when I drive with my 3 children.

However, toll lanes are the way to go. Tolls should go up at rush hour and be virtually free at other times.

fafner1, a HOT lane encourages more driving, not less. Everybody pays for the construction of highways in Washington through gas taxes and license tab fees, but only the more affluent can afford the HOT lane toll and drive on the lanes others paid for. Not fair. HOT lanes also increase the number of cars on the highway, exactly what we should avoid. Finally, most carpool lane users are commuters, not business people going to meetings. Why create a business-class lane for their convenience?

I want to concur with DevilDog. Not just for Hot lanes, but HOV lanes also. All the drivers pay equally for road construction, so it is a punishment on most of them to restrict use of lanes they paid for. The enforcement on HOV lanes is terrible, but the worst part about them is the three to four lane changes their users have to make when they want to exit, slowing traffic down in the other lanes more than the offset of having some traffic in the HOV lanes.

I've traveled the car pool lanes between San Diego and LA and find them not all that more convenient and in some instances much less convenient. In many places, the car pool lane used to be the shoulder. Also, in many areas you are not only driving on the old shoulder, but mere inches from concrete retainers. If you should have a breakdown in the car pool lane, there's nowhere to pull over and get out of traffic. The alternative is crossing anywhere from four to six lanes of busy traffic to reach the shoulder on the other side.