And your answer to that is what? Force people to sell their cars and buy motorcycles instead? Hello, this is Ontario, land of winter snow sports, cold rainy springs and cold rainy falls.
|
|
|
Bikes in the HOV lanes
- Thread starter jolomatic
- Start date
The baseline for comparison is single-occupant vehicles, not double occupant vehicles. The whole point of this exercise is to get them out if their cars into more space-efficient vehicles. By that standard, single occupant bikes are an improvement.
What, are we forcing people to carpool by allowing them on the HOV lane? No. I'm not forcing anything either I'm just trying to have bikes recognised for the traffic reduction benefit they offer.
SO lets put HOV lanes on the 403 and 404, but completely forget about using them on the QEW, DVP and the 401. Bah just a crappy band aid solution, lol take the HOV lanes so you can get to the centre of the traffic bottleneck faster.
Dayao12
Well-known member
The signs on the median that accompany the signs overhead on the 404 HOV lanes say "2 or more persons". Does riding with a passenger allow you to use the HOV lane?
Example:
http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&hq=&...cw-Y-LewaLyZkeap1JrHFw&cbp=12,327.25,,1,-2.29
Example:
http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&hq=&...cw-Y-LewaLyZkeap1JrHFw&cbp=12,327.25,,1,-2.29
That's not the stated goal of HOV lanes. The goal is to relieve congestion by moving MORE people in FEWER vehicles. Single occupant vehicles simply cannot compete.
The way I read it, that's not the goal. The goal is "to help move more people through congested areas". What you are referring to is the means to acheive that goal, but my point is that method is flawed and actually hurts their stated goal.
bombshelter13
Well-known member
What's wrong with assessing the quantity of vehicles by something other than the number of individual vehicles? Counting the quantity of vehicles based on something like the aggregate volume, weight or fuel consumption of vehicles on the roads seems equally valid, in which case single occupant vehicles certainly can compete.
joeboo
Well-known member
there shouldn't be an HOV lane. Should be a commercial vehicle lane. But anyways. Purpose of HOV lane was encouragement to carpool. Adding motorcycles to the sign would imply encouragement to ride motorcycles. Police forces and PR people probably didn't want to government suggesting that people run out and buy bikes.
To sum up, the purpose of HOV lanes is to improve throughput of people in traffic. The problem is the multitude of single-occupant vehicles that take up road space.
My argument is that even in the worst possible comparison, single-occupant bikes are an improvement over single-occupant cars, and in the best case scenario single-occupant bikes are an improvement over DOUBLE-occupant cars.
Therefore single-occupant bikes should be allowed to use the HOV lanes.
I think you'll find HOV lanes implemented on all the major thoroughfares in time.
Your argument is kind of pointless. If single-occupant cars and trucks were permitted to use the HOV lanes, only then would this argument carry any weight. However, they are not. The whole idea is to provide incentive to reduce the number of single occupant vehicles regardless of number of wheels.
Last edited:
Because the issue that government is trying to address is congestion. The only way to reduce congestion on overcrowded roads is to reduce the number of vehicles on that road. One effective way to do that is to encourage more people to share rides. The other way is to impose hefty tolls. Which would you prefer?
You're selectively truncating MTO's goal and approach to meet that goal. The full quote from MTO was:
How does encouraging car-pooling hurt that goal? How does putting more people on sole-occupant motorcycles make any significant reduction in highway congestion when a motorcycle running at highway speeds uses essentially the same running lane space as any other light vehicle? You have not answered that.
Yes, whether in car, truck, or on bike.
How much space does a single occupant bike save versus a single occupant car? According to Turbo's math, which seems reasonable, it's about 2m. How much space does a double occupant car save versus a single occupant car? 25+m.
1m versus 25m. You genuinely believe that the space savings of the motorcycle option is comperable enough to the double occupant car option that it warrants motorcycles being allowed in the HOV lane? You really believe that?
As i already responded to your point several times... the space savings of a car versus bike is negligibile and didn't actually remove any vehicles from the road. If we're talking specifically about road space now.. how on earth would a single occupant bike ever be better than a double occupant car?
jolomatic
Well-known member
If the point of the HOV lanes is only to reduce congestion, why do they allow 'green' vehicles?
If a hybrid SUV is allowed with one occupant, then so should a bike.
I think a big part of the reason we want to reduce congestion is because congestion causes pollution.
I also agree completely that most of the HOV lanes lead to the urban core where bikes DO take up less space, so even if in the HOV lane itself you have no benefit from a bike, you are still encouraging a reduction in congestion over the total commute.
Also, even if only 2m is saved over 30m (rounded), that is still somewhere around a 5% improvement in congestion - is that not enough to justify the use of HOV lanes?
If a hybrid SUV is allowed with one occupant, then so should a bike.
I think a big part of the reason we want to reduce congestion is because congestion causes pollution.
I also agree completely that most of the HOV lanes lead to the urban core where bikes DO take up less space, so even if in the HOV lane itself you have no benefit from a bike, you are still encouraging a reduction in congestion over the total commute.
Also, even if only 2m is saved over 30m (rounded), that is still somewhere around a 5% improvement in congestion - is that not enough to justify the use of HOV lanes?
Last edited:
Talk about deja vu. We had this discussion a few months ago. Except this time, turbo won't talk about the benefits of hybrid-electric vehicles that get their energy from NUCLEAR POWER.
Just like I pointed out pre-Fukushima.
Yes lets reward the most inefficient use of hybrid electrics by letting them run on the highway with a single occupant. Brilliant.
So you’re saying encouraging someone to ride a bicycle is stupid because it’s a more dangerous transportation option?
Damn I guess the cities in North America should stop building bike lanes – that would be encouraging people to take a “significantly more danger transportation option.”
Can’t tell if you’re playing devil’s advocate or if you really believe what you typing. Hoping for the former.
bombshelter13
Well-known member
Congestion means 'how full the roads are', right? If you took every vehicle on the road and hit it with a shrinking ray reducing it to half size, there would be a lot more empty room on the roads, so I'd call that reduction in congestion.
|
|
|
|
|