Why Doesn’t the St. Louis Region have HOV Lanes?
HOV Lanes, short for High Occupancy Vehicle lanes, are used in most regions larger than St. Louis as well as a number that are smaller than our region. The concept is simple — designate the center lane on the interstate for buses, vehicles with 2+ people, motorcycles and in some cases, hybrids.
On my recent trip to Seattle we used the the HOV lane on I-5 when traveling North to visit a weekend cabin as well as traveling South to the Airport. Seattle’s I-5 HOV lane requires at least two persons per vehicle. Their floating bridge requires 3 or more persons to use the HOV lane.
These lanes do a couple of things. One they remind the people in single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) they could be moving at a better rate if they had carpooled with someone. It also rewards those people that do carpool or take mass transit.
This would seem like a reasonable step for the St. Louis region to consider. We have issues of congestion on our interstate highways throughout the region as well as air quality concerns.
HOV lanes should be tried throughout our region before we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new lanes and bridges to ease congestion.
UPDATED 11/5 9AM CST:
I found an interesting review of HOV lanes from Canada. They look at HOV lanes in North America — what worked and what didn’t. This review is now eight years old so it may not be very applicable.
HOV lanes are created one of two ways – adding a new lane to the existing system or taking a lane from the current roadway. Both approaches have some drawbacks. By adding a new lane to the system you encourage more driving. By taking an existing lane you have protests from people that think highway lanes are a God-given right. Seattle’s I-5 HOV lane was originally for 3+ vehicles and showed good results from carpooling and transit ridership but due to political pressure the requirement was dropped to 2+. Carpooling dropped as did transit use.
We are already planning to add a new lane to I-64/40 from Spoede to I-170. Why not mark this as a 3+ HOV lane to try it out to see how it goes?
Committee on High Occupancy Vehicle Systems seems to be an excellent resource for information but they are clearly biased in favor of HOV lanes.
Does anyone have any arguments in favor or against HOV lanes? Speak up in the comments below.
– Steve
Actually, there is no HOV lane on the bridge that you’re thinking of, SR-520. The only 3 person HOV lane in the state is westbound 520 between 108th and the beginning of the bridge. Unfortunately the bridge only has 2 lanes of traffic each way. This causes a 12 minute trip to become a 90 minute trip during rush hour.
Seattle has some of the worst traffic in the country. I believe that most of it is intentionally caused by the ignorant people who designed the roadways here.
HOV lanes may help out in STL, but they really don’t help congestion that much here. If you try to get from east to west during rush hour you’re screwed whether you’re in the HOV lane or not.
[REPLY – Thanks for the clarification on the 520 HOV lane situation. I agree your road system has issues but I do think the HOV lanes help – I saw quite a few vehicles with multiple people. Your congestion might be worse if you had more single occupancy vehicles. – SLP]
HOV lanes or an even more controversal idea High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes aka Lexus Lanes would not work in Missouri until there is a law to enforce them.
While making the new HOV lane on I-64 between I-170 and I-270 seems like a good idea, I worry it wouldn’t help much since it would be too short like the reversable lanes on I-70 to really work properly. It’d be better if the HOV lane could extend to the Chesterfield Valley. We’d never hear the end of it if it was suggested to take a lane away from I-64 from I-270 west to the Chesterfield Valley, although it wouldn’t matter to me.
Maybe they could test it with the reversible lanes by having those be carpool only- especially when they wind up closing I-64 for construction. Throw up some signs (at the beginning only since there is no exit or on ramps- sorry steve) and post some cops- good source of revenue to keep these lanes operating! maybe the extra lanes they are adding to 40 should do the same thing. I know its not in the cards, but it sounds interesting.
Another item for consideration might be combining an HOV lane with a toll lane. I myself was initially opposed to it when it was proposed here in Minneapolis, but there seems to have only been benefits once the system was tweaked. Of course, ideally the revenue would be earmarked for transit projects. After all, the only successful transportation system is one that balances all forms of transportation and is combined with extensive walkability, which has never been achieved in this country.
The bus system in Seattle does more to ease congestion than the HOV lanes. I don’t work for the WSDOT so I don’t have proof, although I’m sure the information is out there. I agree though, every little bit does help.
I was recently in STL for some rush hour traffic on 270 from Dorsett to Manchester and I didn’t think it was too bad (compared to Seattle). It’s been a long time since I sat on 40 during rush hour, so I can’t comment on that. STL has a love affair with the automobile. Since most people drive anyway, just make the extra lane without putting an HOV designation. That way you’ll have a freer flow of traffic, ala 270. More lanes, better flow.
The Toll lane sounds like a good idea. People can pay to not sit in traffic. Many will pay, and the revenue can go to some other transportation projects or maintenance.
Having lived in Minnesota and New Jersey, I have had fequent enough contact with HOV lanes, and when it is all said and done I still don’t like them. Why? Mostly because of the added congestion/ lane switching they seem to cause, which slows down traffic. Drivers generaly use the left most lane for fast drivers/ drivers who will not be exiting soon. Yet, with HOV lanes in place, it seems as though all drivers who meet the guidelines move over into the HOV lanes, thereby slowing traffic in the left most lane, forcing other drivers to make dangerous right side passes to get around drivers. Moreover, drivers in the left lane often stay in the HOV lane longer before merging right when attempting to exit the highway.
In both cases, stop and go traffic increases and really makes you wonder if the HOV lanes really help at all. The idea is fine in theory, but sadly does not jive with how drivers actualy use the road.
As mentioned above, HOV lanes aren’t an option because it’s supposedly unenforceable in this state. I think this is copout.
I wrote my state rep a few months ago to look into it. The first step we need to do is make it enforceable. It should be possible (politically) to pass a law to make them possible because the law would not actually mandate them. Of course, that assumes MoDOT won’t lobby against it.
Write your state reps and senators, people.
Not only does state law limit HOV or HOT lanes, but federal law limits tolling, including HOT lanes, in that you can’t toll existing lanes of Interstates.
Express lanes are an exception to existing lanes, but as mentioned before this is a very small piece of I-70. New I-64 could have incorporated HOT lanes, but that project already has a Record of Decision, a major federal green light for major projects with significant impacts.
Of course, MODOT is now pushing for tolling of the new Mississippi River bridge, which federal law (SAFETEA-LU) would permit. But Missouri’s own laws still lack means for enforcement. The Lake of the Ozarks Community Bridge is a Missouri tolled facility, but not a public highway.
I suggested the HOV conversion of the I-70 express lanes on my blog a while ago. I still think it’s doable, but not likely.
At one point, all the Mississippi River bridges except the MacArthur Bridge (built 1917 as the “Municipal Free Bridge”) owned by the City of St. Louis, charged tolls.
Eads Bridge was owned by Terminal Railroad, who charged tolls.
Veterans Bridge, later Martin Luther King Bridge, was owned by the City of East St. Louis, who charged tolls.
McKinley Bridge was owned by City of Venice IL, who charged tolls.
Old Chain of Rocks Bridge was owned by City of Madison, IL, who charged tolls.
Toll bridges are certainly not unprecedented here.
[REPLY – Good info Frank! A toll bridge seems reasonable to me. We’d never build MetroLink and not charge a fee for using it. Why should we all subsidize the bridge for those that use it. – SLP]