Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Why Not Temporary Transit-only Lanes?

  1. #1
    highlander
    Guest

    Default 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 at 11:02 AM.

  2. #2
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    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"

  3. #3
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Or... make it a requirement to yield to buses like in Vancouver.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  4. #4
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

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

  5. #5

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote 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 at 04:14 PM.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  8. #8
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,824

    Default

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

  9. #9
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote 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.

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
  •