HOV Lanes - any way to petition for use?

[Sunspark]

Maybe a good compromise would be to raise limits but change the gas dial to a larger digital money gauge. The faster you go the more fuel is burnt, so the gauge would indicate the current burn-through speed of one's money. Travel slower, burn slower. Truckers are aware of this already but they have to be.

I think it would make a difference after about 10 years.

 

[fastar1]

yes, banked curve and crown are factors. but still the speed outcome is above 120kmh.

last time i actually looked at the designs of 401, 400, and 404 was around 2010. i was doing a thesis about the HOV lanes being better suited for faster traffic flow (120).

You seem like the guy who could answer a question of mine regarding HOV: it appears to me that they only work if there's a bottleneck at the end that all lanes must flow through. Is this correct?

 

[Apollo95]

Maybe a good compromise would be to raise limits but change the gas dial to a larger digital money gauge. The faster you go the more fuel is burnt, so the gauge would indicate the current burn-through speed of one's money. Travel slower, burn slower. Truckers are aware of this already but they have to be.

I think it would make a difference after about 10 years.

True, but there are multiple lanes. right now there are drivers doing 80kmh in the right lane. so anyone who chooses to do the limit (whatever it may be) can do so in the passing lane, and others will adjust accordingly in other lanes as to allow safe flow of traffic. Good point tho, the world as a whole is changing it's viewpoint on gas consumption and moving toward building more efficient cars. side note, The new Maclaren D1 is a work of art.

You seem like the guy who could answer a question of mine regarding HOV: it appears to me that they only work if there's a bottleneck at the end that all lanes must flow through. Is this correct?

yes, they only work if there is a bottleneck at the end, lol joke. but seriously tho, if that was the basis of speed limits then limits should be lowered as 100kmh is too fast for the bottleneck waiting at dvp/eglinton. studies tho are showing lower accident rates, better traffic flow and safer driving with increased speed limits.

truly tho, none of this matters as nothing will change. just fun on GTAM waiting for riding season.

 

[fastar1]

:/ was a serious question. Don't have much experience with HOVs but I thought they all congested at the end and I thought it was by design.

 

[Apollo95]

sorry, thought you were joking.

no bottlenecks aren't incorporated into the design. sometimes it is traffic and it happens, congestion, too much volume.
but most of the time it is flow that is the problem, as such is the case with HOV at DVP. the traffic slows as drivers are merging, which is why is opens up again a km down the road past eglinton. there is no single solution this one.
but encouraging traffic to move, maintain speed as design intended would solve the problem in an ideal world. however, tough to get in there for police to ticket drivers who have difficulty maintaing speed at turn in the road at 100kmh with other lanes merging on to the highway, so they slow down causing congestion.

but no, the bottleneck is not part of the design. it is an outcome of human behaviour which mathematics and calculations can't always make adjustments for.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

sorry, thought you were joking.

no bottlenecks aren't incorporated into the design. sometimes it is traffic and it happens, congestion, too much volume.
but most of the time it is flow that is the problem, as such is the case with HOV at DVP. the traffic slows as drivers are merging, which is why is opens up again a km down the road past eglinton. there is no single solution this one.
but encouraging traffic to move, maintain speed as design intended would solve the problem in an ideal world. however, tough to get in there for police to ticket drivers who have difficulty maintaing speed at turn in the road at 100kmh with other lanes merging on to the highway, so they slow down causing congestion.

but no, the bottleneck is not part of the design. it is an outcome of human behaviour which mathematics and calculations can't always make adjustments for.

Such as how after the work on the ramp from The Gardiner westbound to 427 north was finally completed drivers took the ramp more slowly and now slow when entering 427, despite the obvious fact that the design is mean to facilitate safer merging at higher speeds. Similarly traffic on the 427 northbound now also slows at Burnhamthorp, after many improvements, when previously only a backup on 401 would result in slow traffic through this area. People are unpredictable.

The only real way to change the fact that motorcycles are not permitted in HOV lanes is to find a patron in the ruling party, then have him submit a private member's bill. Such things from the opposition are generally ignored, unless they serve the ruling party's political agenda.

 

[drumstyx]

Im going to protest our low speed limits by speeding a lot! That'll show em!

That's exactly what has happened. How much thought do you give to driving/riding 110 on the 401? Probably not much. 60 in a 50? No problem. Most traffic moves at 120+ on the 400's, but we all know, you stay under 115 you're guaranteed to not get a ticket. Why is that? Because we're ALL doing it.

 

[cbcanada]

That's exactly what has happened. How much thought do you give to driving/riding 110 on the 401? Probably not much. 60 in a 50? No problem. Most traffic moves at 120+ on the 400's, but we all know, you stay under 115 you're guaranteed to not get a ticket. Why is that? Because we're ALL doing it.

Finally some one that sees what i mean! You are exactly right!

 

[Rob MacLennan]

That's exactly what has happened. How much thought do you give to driving/riding 110 on the 401? Probably not much. 60 in a 50? No problem. Most traffic moves at 120+ on the 400's, but we all know, you stay under 115 you're guaranteed to not get a ticket. Why is that? Because we're ALL doing it.

When it's literally every vehicle on the road, you can get away with it. When it's a motorcycle or two, you get singled out.

Here's an example for you. A few years back there was a serious collision on Guelph Line. A minivan pulled out from a sideroad, as a motorcycle was passing a slower moving car. For months afterwards cars could do 10 or 15 over the limit through that area, but motorcycles were being pulled over for as little as 5 Kmh over the limit. The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

 

[Emefef]

Finally some one that sees what i mean! You are exactly right!

Moving with traffic at the prevailing rate of speed is not at all like driving where prohibited. If you don't like the fact that turns are prohibited at certain intersections, or during certain times of day, do you think ignoring the signs "en masse" would result in a change in the law? No, it results in a "blitz".

Rob's right - the only way, or at least what seems to be the only reasonable way, to effect change is to get a champion that will be heard. I'll admit, I've been part of a petition that I ended up losing interest in. Why? Because I ride on those parts of the highway infrequently during rush hour. There are no HOV lanes on my commute. Rob's other point is that we need a new and convincing argument - we can't claim to be greener than green cars, or take up less space than cars - because both of those is debatable.
My argument was for safety. Riders are safer when they don't have traffic on both sides. Riding in the right lane doesn't really provide that because of the turbulence of entering/exiting vehicles. Riders planted in the left lane are technically not using the lane properly, because it's a passing lane. Where an HOV lane already exists, however (I'm not advocating building lanes for bikes), riders could use it. Although it's on the left and some motorists treat it as an "even faster" lane, it's not. It's a dedicated lane, a priority lane for vehicles that meet certain criteria (which is why we should be calling them HOV), so traffic speed is traffic speed. There is a shoulder of some description on the left with no traffic, and a buffer zone with limited entry on the right. Sure, the lines don't prevent everyone from crossing, but the point is there is a law to reduce movement between lanes. That makes the lane a safer spot for motorcyclists - and one of the primary directives of the MTO is the safety of all road users. This can be done at no cost, and with only 3% of the registered vehicles being motorcycles, low impact to other road users.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Bingo.

 

[Apollo95]

Moving with traffic at the prevailing rate of speed is not at all like driving where prohibited. If you don't like the fact that turns are prohibited at certain intersections, or during certain times of day, do you think ignoring the signs "en masse" would result in a change in the law? No, it results in a "blitz".

Rob's right - the only way, or at least what seems to be the only reasonable way, to effect change is to get a champion that will be heard. I'll admit, I've been part of a petition that I ended up losing interest in. Why? Because I ride on those parts of the highway infrequently during rush hour. There are no HOV lanes on my commute. Rob's other point is that we need a new and convincing argument - we can't claim to be greener than green cars, or take up less space than cars - because both of those is debatable.
My argument was for safety. Riders are safer when they don't have traffic on both sides. Riding in the right lane doesn't really provide that because of the turbulence of entering/exiting vehicles. Riders planted in the left lane are technically not using the lane properly, because it's a passing lane. Where an HOV lane already exists, however (I'm not advocating building lanes for bikes), riders could use it. Although it's on the left and some motorists treat it as an "even faster" lane, it's not. It's a dedicated lane, a priority lane for vehicles that meet certain criteria (which is why we should be calling them HOV), so traffic speed is traffic speed. There is a shoulder of some description on the left with no traffic, and a buffer zone with limited entry on the right. Sure, the lines don't prevent everyone from crossing, but the point is there is a law to reduce movement between lanes. That makes the lane a safer spot for motorcyclists - and one of the primary directives of the MTO is the safety of all road users. This can be done at no cost, and with only 3% of the registered vehicles being motorcycles, low impact to other road users.

Logic + Good point. ;-)