Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: Carpool Lanes Pitched for Edmonton-Leduc Corridor

  1. #1
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,446

    Default Carpool Lanes Pitched for Edmonton-Leduc Corridor

    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  2. #2
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Current congestion levels mean the new lanes will only have a minor to moderate positive impact overall. But if high-occupancy vehicle lanes aren’t implemented now, says the AECOM report, “one more generation enters the commuting world with an assumption that driving alone is the default.”


    Well that reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In any event, the next upgrades to QE2 between Edmonton at Leduc should be focused on the interchanges, which are at capacity, as opposed to bringing carpoolers to the congested interchanges sooner.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acey View Post
    Current congestion levels mean the new lanes will only have a minor to moderate positive impact overall. But if high-occupancy vehicle lanes aren’t implemented now, says the AECOM report, “one more generation enters the commuting world with an assumption that driving alone is the default.”


    Well that reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In any event, the next upgrades to QE2 between Edmonton at Leduc should be focused on the interchanges, which are at capacity, as opposed to bringing carpoolers to the congested interchanges sooner.
    I honestly believe the greater region needs to start helping fund LRT, and that LRT needs to be built properly in that it does not interfere with roadways. Expand total movement.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  4. #4
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Windermere
    Posts
    2,091

    Default

    Highway 16
    Inside the city, convert median lanes between 66 and 149 streets to HOV lanes, leaving two lanes for general traffic.
    So move the majority of traffic from three lanes to two lanes? That will ease congestion

  5. #5
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,438

    Default

    ^would incentivize car pooling though and hopefully reduce traffic in those other two lanes.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mla View Post
    ^would incentivize car pooling though and hopefully reduce traffic in those other two lanes.
    So, make the way we do it now so sh-tty that the new alternative is appealing? Genius!
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  7. #7

    Default

    There is obviously no room for additional capacity on the Yellowhead without spending bazillions replacing existing underpasses. So the way to keep it flowing (once it's getting congested, I don't think it's a problem outside of the remaining intersections) is to do whatever you can to encourage more people to travel in fewer vehicles. You can do that with tolls, or you can do that with HOV lanes. Which can kinda work, if non-HOV traffic is really bad to start with.

    I prefer tolls, but when you can't expand a highway and it's congested you have only 2 choices: make people pay with money, or let them keep on paying with time.
    There can only be one.

  8. #8

    Default

    ^You can also do this with an acceptable transit system. Encouraging people to ditch their cars is a lot easier when an actual viable alternative is present. I am all for car pooling and so forth, but like Chmilz says, if these things come at the expense of how things are currently flowing, then they are approaching it wrong. Further, this is the final stretch of the Calgary-Edmonton route, and it has a lot of general traffic flowing in from the south, not just leduc.

  9. #9

    Default

    For the most part transit-on-freeways isn't a great idea, but in a case where a significant number of people could take transit it wouldn't necessarily make the other lanes worse.

    If there's a bus using the freeway that's unattractive because it's stuck in the same delays as everyone else, dedicating one lane to transit plus HOV (and ideally anyone willing to pay whatever is the toll rate that would keep the lane flowing perfectly) suddenly you could have a transit options that's attractive enough that the loss of that one lane doesn't actually impact general traffic at all.
    There can only be one.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    There is obviously no room for additional capacity on the Yellowhead without spending bazillions replacing existing underpasses. So the way to keep it flowing (once it's getting congested, I don't think it's a problem outside of the remaining intersections) is to do whatever you can to encourage more people to travel in fewer vehicles. You can do that with tolls, or you can do that with HOV lanes. Which can kinda work, if non-HOV traffic is really bad to start with.

    I prefer tolls, but when you can't expand a highway and it's congested you have only 2 choices: make people pay with money, or let them keep on paying with time.
    Yellowhead will be good for a LONG time when they remove the lights. The bottleneck today is stop and go truck traffic. Which heavily reinforces my constant reminder that LRT impeding roadways hurts us, as commercial traffic will only grow, so we need to keep it flowing.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  11. #11

    Default

    I have to agree on Yellowhead.

    And, while I'm not a fan of at-grade LRT Crossings there aren't any that have even a fraction of yellowhead's truck traffic. Cars, sure. Trucks? Thankfully, the grade separation over Argyle Road to 75st means that at most there will be a cube van or two per light cycle.
    There can only be one.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acey View Post
    Current congestion levels mean the new lanes will only have a minor to moderate positive impact overall. But if high-occupancy vehicle lanes aren’t implemented now, says the AECOM report, “one more generation enters the commuting world with an assumption that driving alone is the default.”


    Well that reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In any event, the next upgrades to QE2 between Edmonton at Leduc should be focused on the interchanges, which are at capacity, as opposed to bringing carpoolers to the congested interchanges sooner.
    I'm not sure how car pool lanes on the QEII are going to work? Like people from Leduc for example aren't heading to one central plant in Edmonton to work. It's scattered about. Leduc itself isn't some tiny little village where everybody lives next to each other either. So, the chance that you have people in Leduc who live close enough to each other whom also work at the same place in Edmonton is very small. What's going to happen is you'll have the same amount of traffic on the regular lanes on QEII and then one empty lane where you occasionally see a car drive by and eventually regular motorists will use that lane as well thus needing more cops for enforcement thus more cost.

    One of those, pat yourself on the back ideas but in practicality I don't see it working.

  13. #13
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,470

    Default

    Exactly Doc , unless they are strictly enforced, regular motorists will use them. I don't know what this major or this council are thinking sometimes. Wasting money is their forte..

    I see many complaints from this, I hope they are ready.

  14. #14

    Default

    This crop of councillors and mayor seem to come up with the most cockamamie ideas of all. Car pools. A complete waste of good road space. Do car pools really work that well, a lot of studies say they don't. If the majority of people though car pooling was the way to go the majority of people would be doing it by now without the C of E intervention. HOV lanes exist to p people off. If the C of E wants to experiment with them do it during rush hours. Dedicate a carpooling lane during rush hours only. If it does not work and traffic is still the same ditch the idea. Or better yet, don't implement it in the first place.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  15. #15
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    This crop of councillors and mayor seem to come up with the most cockamamie ideas of all. Car pools. A complete waste of good road space. Do car pools really work that well, a lot of studies say they don't.
    I was in LA this summer for a while and I would say that they work... but Edmonton is not Los Angeles and will not ever be Los Angeles.

  16. #16
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    8,140

    Default

    I only notice that they are mostly empty and the other lanes are crammed to a standstill. Even just crossing down into Seattle gives evidence of that.

  17. #17

    Default

    We have a mayor and admin that likes to think we are a big time city like New York or London. They have other departments of the city like EPS starting to believe the same B.S. Hence why EPS are asking/opening a 'Terrorist Bureau' in Edmonton. This crop of city admins have too much cash to spare for vanity projects. Meanwhile the actual day to day upkeep of the city (infrastructure/grass cutting etc) is sorely lacking. When Don goes out of town he likes to kick back and talk about his city having bike lanes, HOV's and a Terrorist Bureau. When he comes back to town most of us think it's B.S.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  18. #18
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    We have a mayor and admin that likes to think we are a big time city like New York or London. They have other departments of the city like EPS starting to believe the same B.S. Hence why EPS are asking/opening a 'Terrorist Bureau' in Edmonton. This crop of city admins have too much cash to spare for vanity projects. Meanwhile the actual day to day upkeep of the city (infrastructure/grass cutting etc) is sorely lacking. When Don goes out of town he likes to kick back and talk about his city having bike lanes, HOV's and a Terrorist Bureau. When he comes back to town most of us think it's B.S.
    When is the next election? Don won't get my vote!

  19. #19

    Default

    He's not getting mine either. He's too wrapped up in 'fringe' ideas to get on with the real nuts and bolts of running a city. Pie in the sky ideas that please a fraction of the cities population and tick the rest of the populance off. His blatant overuse of speeding entrapments and his willingness to put a tax on anything he can to raise more cash for, you've got it, more pie in the sky ideas.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  20. #20
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,691

    Default

    You guys are ragging on about the Mayor of Edmonton and Edmonton city council in response to a story about a study done by an independent engineering firm commissioned by the Capital Region Board. That's rich!

  21. #21
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,446

    Default

    I think a couple of things that have helped Nisku traffic is the spine road connecting with 91 Street and Parsons Road, and the 41 Avenue interchange. I don't know if the carpool lane is urgent, but I think that having a concept study would be useful.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    You guys are ragging on about the Mayor of Edmonton and Edmonton city council in response to a story about a study done by an independent engineering firm commissioned by the Capital Region Board. That's rich!
    When Iveson's biggest regret as Mayor is not being able to score more bike lanes you just have to believe he will try to push these carpool lanes through. If Edmonton and Leduc for that matter had any real vision they would come up with something more palatable than carpool lanes. It's not like we are a great metropolis like Los Angeles where there are interchanges and miles of roads and thousands of cars going into the city all day. By all intents and purposes it still does not seem to alleviate the problem there either. You cannot force people to stop driving their vehicles which is what Iveson seems to be aiming for. If they want the comfort and convenience of driving alone that's their business not his.

    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/08/0...e-lane-fantasy
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  23. #23
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    You guys are ragging on about the Mayor of Edmonton and Edmonton city council in response to a story about a study done by an independent engineering firm commissioned by the Capital Region Board. That's rich!
    Except its not rich, and most people aren't! He is pandering to a few, this will cost him the next election, and he can take McKeen with him!

  24. #24
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    There is obviously no room for additional capacity on the Yellowhead without spending bazillions replacing existing underpasses. So the way to keep it flowing (once it's getting congested, I don't think it's a problem outside of the remaining intersections) is to do whatever you can to encourage more people to travel in fewer vehicles. You can do that with tolls, or you can do that with HOV lanes. Which can kinda work, if non-HOV traffic is really bad to start with.

    I prefer tolls, but when you can't expand a highway and it's congested you have only 2 choices: make people pay with money, or let them keep on paying with time.
    Yellowhead will be good for a LONG time when they remove the lights. The bottleneck today is stop and go truck traffic. Which heavily reinforces my constant reminder that LRT impeding roadways hurts us, as commercial traffic will only grow, so we need to keep it flowing.
    It will be a long time before they remove all the lights on the Yellowhead, but if they had started it when they decided to add the Metro Line, it would be done by now. And it would have made a world of difference. And a very good difference as compared to the Metro line which is a 700 million dollar piece of garbage.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    You guys are ragging on about the Mayor of Edmonton and Edmonton city council in response to a story about a study done by an independent engineering firm commissioned by the Capital Region Board. That's rich!
    Typical c2e, reads headlines, part of story, no further reserarch, acts like they know it all, and starts the usual hate-filled postings

  26. #26
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,446

    Default

    I think a wise investment would be more bus priority signals at various parts of Whyte Avenue:

    Westbound: 99 Street, 103 Street/Gateway Boulevard, 109 Street and a right turn signal at 112 Street.
    Eastbound: 109 Street, 104 Street/Calgary Trail, 99 Street and 91 Street.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  27. #27
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mla View Post
    ^would incentivize car pooling though and hopefully reduce traffic in those other two lanes.
    So, make the way we do it now so sh-tty that the new alternative is appealing? Genius!
    Isn't this already how Edmonton does everything? I mean, look at 111 street, make driving downtown in a car so painful the people with be happy to ride the train. Even Edmonton's park-n-rides are so terrible it forces people to take the community transit buses to the train station as you can never find a parking spot.

  28. #28
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    For the most part transit-on-freeways isn't a great idea, but in a case where a significant number of people could take transit it wouldn't necessarily make the other lanes worse.

    If there's a bus using the freeway that's unattractive because it's stuck in the same delays as everyone else, dedicating one lane to transit plus HOV (and ideally anyone willing to pay whatever is the toll rate that would keep the lane flowing perfectly) suddenly you could have a transit options that's attractive enough that the loss of that one lane doesn't actually impact general traffic at all.
    Copy how Houston TX does the HOV lanes and Im sure more people would get behind and support the HOV lane idea.

  29. #29
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Copy how Houston TX does the HOV lanes and Im sure more people would get behind and support the HOV lane idea.
    Yup. Everyone would surely be on board.



    ...or would they?

  30. #30

    Default

    ^C of E would not do that for vehicles, mention it as a bike lane and some would be salivating to actually ram it down taxpayers throats.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  31. #31
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Yeah my point is that C of E would NEVER do that abomination. I don't understand GranaryMan's post suggesting that would even be on the drawing board for Edmonton.

  32. #32
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acey View Post
    Yeah my point is that C of E would NEVER do that abomination. I don't understand GranaryMan's post suggesting that would even be on the drawing board for Edmonton.
    No, C of E would never propose such HOV lanes as it would actually make using them helpful, and wouldnt screw up the rest of the traffic. Cant have that can we.

    HOWEVER, IF
    they did propose such lanes and build them, myself and many others who dont care about bike lanes or streetcars but do care about freeways and commuter rail would support their construction.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •