RE: Carpool lanes on the increase
Wednesday 30th March 2005
Carpooling in the USTransport Secretary Alastair Darling has confirmed that he's considering a new congestion-busting carpool lane on the M25. This follows yesterday's PistonHeads story on the government's road spending plans.
Carpool lanes on the increase
M25 to get 'congestion-busting' lane?
Carpooling in the US
Darling has asked the Highways Agency to look at whether such a lane could be installed on the M25 between junctions 12 - 15 (M3 - M4), to encourage drivers to share cars, reduce congestion, and help the environment.
The section of motorway under consideration is already being widened to provide either five or six lanes in each direction and the carpool lane could help make the best possible use of this additional capacity. Widening is expected to be completed by December 2005.
Mr. Darling said, "I am determined to make the best possible use of the road network. Carpool lanes have an important role to play in making best use of road space, as well as helping the environment and reducing congestion. They work in the US and there is no reason they can't work here. The Highways Agency will undertake further consultation and detailed investigation and design work before any final decisions are made."
The UK's first trial motorway car pool lane is already planned for the M1 between junctions 7 and 10 St Albans to Luton.
Previous story: www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=10114
Discussion
Having spent 9 months on the freeways of LA last year I can confirm that while in principle carpool lanes are a GREAT idea it will take some VERY strict enforcement if they are to work over here, something like the 'bus only' lane on the run-up to Heathrow Airport (you know, the one when you come off the M4) might just work if it were monitored properly...
I'm not sure I understand how these work. I can see that in peak times when everyone is going at a snail's pace all lanes are equal, but is this lane on the inside or outside? What happens for the rest of the time? Surely this sort of thing only works in the USA where traffic can "undertake" legally?
And so it begins...
First it was carpool lanes being created as additional lanes, the way they're done in the US.
Now they're being retrofitted to existing widening works, so the 5 / 6 lane sections will only be 4 / 5 real lanes...
Next they'll be taking the M4 bus lane approach and just consuming the roadspace that's already there.
Then they tell everyone it makes the best possible use of the roads.
Off, how can 1 vehicle in 10 / 100 / 1000 being able to use a particular lane be 'efficient'. It's just another excuse for congestion generation, scrap them, scrap bus lanes and get on with building some proper roads.
First it was carpool lanes being created as additional lanes, the way they're done in the US.
Now they're being retrofitted to existing widening works, so the 5 / 6 lane sections will only be 4 / 5 real lanes...
Next they'll be taking the M4 bus lane approach and just consuming the roadspace that's already there.
Then they tell everyone it makes the best possible use of the roads.
Off, how can 1 vehicle in 10 / 100 / 1000 being able to use a particular lane be 'efficient'. It's just another excuse for congestion generation, scrap them, scrap bus lanes and get on with building some proper roads.kevinday said:
I totally fail to see how restricting the use of a lane can do anyhting other than increase congestion?
Well they assume that we'll all just travel together giving each other lifts rather than getting in our own car to get places.
What we really need is a government willing to tackle transport head on by building some more roads, rather than trying to stretch over taxed resources even further with hairbrained schemes.
kevinday said:
I totally fail to see how restricting the use of a lane can do anyhting other than increase congestion?
This is the core point.
The argument goes that they work in the States and they do, really really well. However they are along side another FIVE lanes.
Also cities in the US are comparatively small with few people moving around. Atlanta has a population of 3 million and has traffic issues. London is 15 million and has massive issues because the motorways serving it are so thin. Its taking a principal and trying to apply it to something completely different.
It is in fact comparing apples with oranges.
Not entirely.
A carpool lane is supposed to encourage sharing a vehicle through reduced journey times.
As a result 1 car in a car-pool lane will actually replace 2, 3, possibly (unlikely) 4 cars without the carpool lane.
So a carpool lane SHOULD reduce overall congestion, even if it is moving faster than the other lanes.
That is the theory, but in order to be sufficient incentive it does need to be enforced.
A carpool lane is supposed to encourage sharing a vehicle through reduced journey times.
As a result 1 car in a car-pool lane will actually replace 2, 3, possibly (unlikely) 4 cars without the carpool lane.
So a carpool lane SHOULD reduce overall congestion, even if it is moving faster than the other lanes.
That is the theory, but in order to be sufficient incentive it does need to be enforced.
Its all very well talking about car sharing on the motorway, but since its illegal to pick people up on motorway sliproads, the availability of lift sharing is seriously limited. Pull-ins should be provided on slip roads for hitch hikers to use - these could be backed up by CCTV to deter the Rutger Hauers of the hitchhiking world!
From what I've experienced of car pool lanes in the states is that they kind of work.
But bare in mind that they average speed on a US highway is probably 55mph anyway - yank cars aren't capable of going above 70mph safely and even the ones that can, yank drivers aren't capable of driving at those speeds !
So the car pool lane moves along at 55mph whilst the rest of the traffic goes at 45mph (if yr lucky)
And that's with 5 or 6 lanes of traffic.
It's a different world and I doubt it will work here.
Done here about 3 years ago , the result - the same traffic in fewer lanes , everyone gets upset and we have 1 lane with little or no traffic . This might sound stupid but an efective an cheap public transport
system might help (but that is a silly idea , isn't it!)
Oh then onece a week we get the cops in that lane pulling everyone over to count the number of people in the cars - surprise - it causes a traffic jam!!!!
My suggestion - get rid of the people who come up with these ideas ,it gets some of these idiots off the road.
system might help (but that is a silly idea , isn't it!)
Oh then onece a week we get the cops in that lane pulling everyone over to count the number of people in the cars - surprise - it causes a traffic jam!!!!
My suggestion - get rid of the people who come up with these ideas ,it gets some of these idiots off the road.
Brilliant.
Turn the M25 into effectively a dual carriageway plus one. I used to regularly drive the M25 from the M1 to the M4. Not a lot of the other cars had more than one person in; maybe one in 10.
So, ~90% of the M25 traffic will now have to use 2 lanes not three.
They are wildly intelligent these people aren't they?
As Friends of the Earth put it, 'We want to frustrate passengers out of using vehicles and take all of teh glamour out of motoring.
Well they're doing that alright!
Surely having massive traffic jams going nowhere is more polluting than building more lanes??
Turn the M25 into effectively a dual carriageway plus one. I used to regularly drive the M25 from the M1 to the M4. Not a lot of the other cars had more than one person in; maybe one in 10.
So, ~90% of the M25 traffic will now have to use 2 lanes not three.
They are wildly intelligent these people aren't they?
As Friends of the Earth put it, 'We want to frustrate passengers out of using vehicles and take all of teh glamour out of motoring.
Well they're doing that alright!
Surely having massive traffic jams going nowhere is more polluting than building more lanes??
ed22 said:
As Friends of the Earth put it, 'We want to frustrate passengers out of using vehicles and take all of the glamour out of motoring."
All you will get is frustrated motorists in the same numbers as before, because we all know motorists will suffer anything in the way of taxes, speed restrictions etc,. simply because of the convenience that a car provides - and why is it wrong to have this convenience? We pay (dearly) for it.
Politicians want FoE to believe they are doing something positive (good for the image - much like 'listening' to Jamie Oliver over school dinners), but they (the Government) know that to significantly reduce car usage will be detrimental to the Exchequer and cost millions of jobs.
Let's face it, Government (of any party) will screw the motorist for ever - we're a soft touch.
I use my car for business at totally unpredictable times - sometime 11am, sometimes 3pm...often 2am and to differing destinations - tell me where I'm likely to find someone to share my car at zero notice at these hours!
Rant over!
Can't say I disagree with car pool lanes in theory, but putting them on a motorway seems odd. What happens when people want to get off? There will be people diving about all over the place. Granted, that's what happens anyway, but why further encourage it? Also, surely car pooling would be a far better idea on roads going into cities, not orbital routes around them?
If Mr Darling wants to make the best use of available road space, designate existing bus lanes "High Occupancy" lanes and let cars with 2+ occupants use them. No building work required, just a few signs and a bit of paint. Try encouraging business to compile car pool databases rather than hitting them over the head with a big anti-car stick all the time.
If Mr Darling wants to make the best use of available road space, designate existing bus lanes "High Occupancy" lanes and let cars with 2+ occupants use them. No building work required, just a few signs and a bit of paint. Try encouraging business to compile car pool databases rather than hitting them over the head with a big anti-car stick all the time.
The demographics/space available in North America makes this type of proposal totally different compared to the UK. I live within 2 miles of M25/A1M/M1 near St. Albans and can safely say this in practical terms is an absolute joke - IT WON'T WORK. There is too much pressure on land/infrastructure in the 20 miles north of London for anything to move properly - period. The way forward for this part of England is to stop encouraging people to live here (in a small physical area, not the UK as a whole- don't want to be accused of anything) but hey build along the A1M corridor at Stevenage all over the green belt that will make things better!
summit7 said:
The demographics/space available in North America makes this type of proposal totally different compared to the UK. I live within 2 miles of M25/A1M/M1 near St. Albans and can safely say this in practical terms is an absolute joke - IT WON'T WORK. There is too much pressure on land/infrastructure in the 20 miles north of London for anything to move properly - period. The way forward for this part of England is to stop encouraging people to live here (in a small physical area, not the UK as a whole- don't want to be accused of anything) but hey build along the A1M corridor at Stevenage all over the green belt that will make things better!
I think Tony and chums are doing their very best to stop people from wanting to live here. At least those who work and pay taxes anyway.
Speed Matters | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff