Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Not Temporary Transit-only Lanes?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why Not Temporary Transit-only Lanes?

    When construction reduces an arterial route it can create major delays that affect all trips. In most cases it's not the number of people trying to get somewhere that's the issue, it's the number of cars.

    I saw this on 101st this morning as I crossed it: Traffic was at a standstill as two lanes merged to one. There were 7 or 8 full buses stuck in the jam, 75% of which was made up of cars with one or two people in them. I'd be willing to bet that many or most of those drive-alone commuters could carpool or take transit, and if all who could do so did traffic would be great, but they don't, because there's no incentive.

    So why doesn't the city do something about it?

    There's an easy solution: Make it a temporary bus-only route, rush direction only.
    Alternatively, let buses and car-pools bypass the queue with a HOV lane that gets priority to/at the merge point. There was a mostly vacant parking lane that could easily have been cleared for the purpose in this case.

    Either way provides an incentive for commuters to do what's good for everyone, the way it's done now is good for no one.
    Last edited by highlander; 19-04-2016, 11:02 AM.

  • #2
    And here's what the City's website has to say about it:

    Details101 St, North of 103 Av to South of 105 Av will be reduced to one lane in each direction for waterline rehabilitation starting Monday, April 18 @ 9am. No left turn from 101 St SBD to 103A Av EBD. Detour using 97 St or 109 St to avoid major delays
    Great advice on how to spread the disruption to a wider area, and nothing about the things that could actually help. I've never seen a report like this or the similar report repeated on the radio give any other advice.

    Never "take transit", except for advice to take transit to some event that's closing streets to motor traffic and causing the backups in the first place.
    Never "Car Pool"
    Never "Walk or bike if you can"

    Comment


    • #3
      Or... make it a requirement to yield to buses like in Vancouver.


      Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

      Comment


      • #4
        That could work in a lot of situations, but not when there's a long, slow-moving queue leading up to the merge point.

        Comment


        • #5
          Getting traffic at the pinch point to get moving past and stop rubber necking or lasily accelerating is the biggest hindrance.
          Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

          Comment


          • #6
            I agree in freeway situations, but in this case traffic signals on the 1-lane section resulted in zero movement at the merge point for extended periods.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by IanO View Post
              Or... make it a requirement to yield to buses like in Vancouver.

              http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...ase-yield.aspx


              Sounds like they've tried to approach to province to make yielding to buses a law back in 2012... http://www.metronews.ca/news/edmonto...cial-says.html
              Last edited by Medwards; 19-04-2016, 04:14 PM.
              A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

              Comment


              • #8
                Or eliminate cars from the downtown core altogether?
                Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by highlander View Post
                  There's an easy solution: Make it a temporary bus-only route, rush direction only.
                  Alternatively, let buses and car-pools bypass the queue with a HOV lane that gets priority to/at the merge point. There was a mostly vacant parking lane that could easily have been cleared for the purpose in this case.
                  It sounds so easy and I would be very much in favour if I thought it would work. However, the implementation would be more trouble than it would be worth. There's the signage, the confusion, the education, the enforcement, the sense of entitlement, etc, etc. For a temporary restriction all or none allowed through a bottleneck is still the best reasonable implementation.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X