EDITORIAL: HOV lanes - Opinion

SAVE THIS

EMAIL THIS Print

PRINT THIS Popular

POST A COMMENT

Apr. 23, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: HOV lanes

The widening of U.S. Highway 95 between downtown Las Vegas and the Rainbow Curve was a major boost to the valley's economy and quality of life. But in terms of improved capacity, the half-billion-dollar project has offered less bang for the buck than area commuters would like.

The reason: two of four new travel lanes -- one in each direction -- were designated high-occupancy vehicle lanes. In exchange for accepting some federal funds for the project, the Nevada Department of Transportation restricted the use of the far-left lanes to vehicles carrying two or more people and motorcyclists -- 24 hours per day, seven days per week.

Most Popular Stories

EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror

LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well

LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Barefooted, gun-toting hayseeds?

LETTERS: Senator just trying to kiss up to Harry Reid

LETTERS: A giant octopus threatens rural Nevada

EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'

EDITORIAL: The time is right

EDITORIAL: Religious freedom

LETTERS: America should try terrorists in open court

So after enduring a decade of maddening construction and inconvenience, most valley drivers realized a net gain of only one new travel lane. And the HOV lane is routinely empty for miles at a time, even during peak driving hours.

HOV lanes are another federal experiment in behavior modification. Bureaucrats decide that motorists should be punished for driving alone and rewarded for carrying additional passengers. But in city after city, motorists who lack the flexibility to have their schedule dictated by a car-pool buddy reject the carrot and endure the stick -- traffic delays in general-use lanes.

After a few months of witnessing this exercise in futility, NDOT has finally, wisely decided to reduce the hours of enforcement for the HOV lanes on U.S. 95. By the end of this week -- as soon as NDOT can get new signs installed -- restrictions will be in place only between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays. At all other times, the HOV lanes will revert to general use.

This decision will have little impact on traffic flow during non-peak hours -- most lanes are clear enough that cars carrying two or more people don't need to take the trouble to merge all the way left, then all the way right to exit -- but it's appropriate recognition that under HOV restrictions these lanes might as well be closed off on weekends, mid-afternoons and evenings. It's far better to put them to productive use and give motorists the space they paid for.

It's encouraging that NDOT took the time to re-evaluate its HOV policy. NDOT officials should re-examine their enforcement policy in another six months and, if HOV lanes still serve as nothing more than passing lanes for speeders during rush hour, further expand their hours for general use.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	10 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. Chuck wrote on April 23, 2008 10:54 PM: John F/David...Leave the newspaper editing to the pros. This article conforms to AP Style. You don’t put the acronym in parenthesis following the formal name in news articles. High-occupancy vehicle was spelled out first in the article and HOV was used in follow-on references. The same goes for the use of The Nevada Department of Transportation and NDOT in subsequent references. David--If you missed the detailed explanation of HOV (i.e. the entire second paragraph), don’t blame the writer and I’m sure he or she won’t blame you for your lack of reading comprehension skills. The Q wrote on April 23, 2008 08:11 PM: You people down there don't know how to drive anyhow--maniacs! Anything to slow you down should be hailed as a traffic safety triumph! I don't even know why you have speed limits--no one observes them. David Johann wrote on April 23, 2008 07:32 PM: Too often, R-J editorials and R-J editing are L-A-Z-Y, hence my and John F's comments below. C'mon, R-J. This isn't anything goes AM radio. John F wrote on April 23, 2008 12:52 PM: B-Rock, Actually, this is just another instance of the editors not knowing how to edit. The word edit is defined as both to prepare (as literary material) for publication or public presentation and to direct the publication of something. The RJ editors do a good job on the second part; the paper shows up in my driveway each morning almost without fail. Preparing literary material properly for publication, however, doesn't seem to be their strong suit. This use of an abbreviation is a case in point. The use of the abbreviation may seem ubiquitous, but one can't assume that everyone knows what it means. Certainly nespaper editors shouldn't. The proper technique is to use the full term the first time it appears in the article and then place the abbreviation within parentheses immdiately afterwards. You may then use the abbreviation for the rest of the piece. Had the editors done this properly in this case, it would have appeared thus: High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are another federal experiment in behavior modification. EMT wrote on April 23, 2008 10:39 AM: My perspective as someone who rides around in an ambulance all day, the HOV lanes make it easier for us and law enforcement to get around during rush hour. Also there is little to no enforcement of the laws regarding their use which is disappointing. Slow drivers are annoying but they are not the cause of most accidents on the roadways. Impaired, speeding, reckless, smoking, cell phone use and other distractions are the actual reasons. Steve wrote on April 23, 2008 09:30 AM: Great. Now my tax dollars can go for paying for new signs. Another example of government waste. Also, all this will do is give the valley morons 2 more lanes to congest. The highway patrol should be pulling over anyone who does even 1 mph below the posted maximum in the left lane, revoking their license, and impounding/selling their vehicle. Also do that for anyone who is driving the same speed as the vehicle in the next lane to the right thereby blocking all travel lanes. They need to devise something that disables brakes on the highway. Slowness causes 99.99999999999% of all traffic accidents. B-Rock wrote on April 23, 2008 07:40 AM: David, I knew what it stood for. So do a lot of other people. Don't blame the R-J for your ignorance. As far as the article, this is great news!! David Johann wrote on April 23, 2008 07:21 AM: HOV lanes. Does anybody know what HOV stands for? The article did not define it. I Googled it. It stands for high occupancy vehicle. Brilliant editing, brilliant R-J editorials. Jon H. wrote on April 23, 2008 06:18 AM: Brian wrote: "I finally agree with RJ. Those HOV lanes should be restricted only during certain hours." Even better, eliminate them. This is not what I pay my taxes for. a.n. wrote on April 23, 2008 05:51 AM: That's Nevaduh for you...