The first step to carrying out such a lane closure when it comes to educating commuters would be establishing signs to tell commuters it was going to occur. Such a sign would result in commuters seeking other routes before the closure would begin. It would also result in complaints to prevent the lane closure.
The sign above, which is electronic, can result in immediate changes in understanding the traffic flow by people traveling those roads. Whether or not that technology was available at Fort Lee is unknown to me.
The other question is; would previous notice inhibit the study or alter the information? That dynamic would have to prove not to cause a public safety issue before it would be carried out.
If a sign like the one above had been established, or one that was printed and properly placed; (proper placement is a study unto itself to be sure the sign would not cause dangers to the visual field of commuters - it seems silly, expense and superfluous until the unintended consequences actually happen and there are consequences that occur that might result in accidents, injuries and possibly death) there would be an enhanced understanding in that cooperation by commuters to find different routes. It could be the Fort Lee entrance at the toll plaza is a preferred route, but, may be somewhat unnecessary.
In closing two lanes instead of one at a time is also very short sighted. This actually is a big deal because these lanes are onto a major highway and exactly at the toll plaza. If one seriously looks at the three lane entrance, I am confident the toll plaza accommodating those lanes probably have some traffic back up every week day. I don't know that, but, it seems logical when vehicles have to stop to pay tolls. In reality, there are many reasons to conduct such a study including what traffic back up, because of the toll plaza, might cause a public safety issue in Fort Lee. But, there is no doubt it was inappropriately done and almost as though complaints by the public and/or the Port Authority would prohibit it from happening. It appears, if this is a legitimate traffic study, it was conducted somewhat ruthlessly and treating others as enemies rather than allies. The way it was conducted is really unfortunate.
If public notice results in no study, then the pubic spoke. Live with it. Private industry aspirations cannot simply assault the public interest and objections for the sake of wealth. This is a country based in democracy and respect of citizens, not one bowing to the Plutocrats. I am afraid, at this point, the method used for this study has created more opposition by the public and not greater acceptance.
And be ready for the hubris by the public. That public hubris might be based in sincere problems and concerns. The skills of political figures come into play to bring in public opinion and resolve problems. If the problems can't be resolved then the public is correct. Just that simple. Don't treat the public as an enemy, they are not.
This type of imposition on the public may be common in some states with large land and/or water geographical borders, however, that is not the case with New Jersey. Every change in such a state is magnified. Changes in these states are incremental and not abrupt. In no way should 'the state' ever assume it is okay to cause harm to citizens to achieve an end.
