Regional Boards > Central States
Missouri
Revive 755:
--- Quote from: Sykotyk ---Well, Missouri has already shrunk the lanes of I-70 and I-44 in St. Louis to squeeze in another lane making it harder for trucks to avoid cars. They should do what Atlanta and Birmingham does and restrict trucks from entering inside the loop.
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure that would work well given the capacity crunch on I-270. The NB I-270 to WB I-44 loop ramps already seems ready for a flyover replacement, NB I-270 can stay slow between at least MO 21 and I-44 a decent amount of time after the morning rush hour, SB I-270 gets lousy between I-64 and I-44 between 14:30 and at least 17:30, and I have to wonder about I-270 east of MO 370.
--- Quote from: njroadhorse ---Sykotyk, I've only seen something like this on the NJ Turnpike. They have cars only lanes, which seem to run efficiently enough for the NJ Turnpike. Maybe it's not the most cost-effective way, but there is the probability that it would work.
--- End quote ---
The Missouri plan is much different, with trucks getting their own lanes in the median, and maybe only being able to exit directly from these lanes on I-70 initially at US 54, US 63, and US 65 - some of the alternatives for the 'direct connections' pretty much looked like the standard slip ramp. There may be additional direct ramps added later at MO 47, MO 13, and Oak Grove(?) (Exit 28). For any other exit or a rest area or a weight station, trucks must exit on a 60 mph slip ramp, enter the "general purpose lanes" on the left side, and proceed to weave across. It is specifically noted in the SEIS that there will be no direct ramps at the US 61 interchange. There's no guarantee trucks will even enter the lanes built specially for them - if the truck lanes are tolled, I expect a decent number not to use them.
I also wonder how many will use them during inclement winter weather - or since MoDOT flip-flopped on the criteria for the truck lanes compared to the original parallel freeway alternative, are they only going to give priority to the truck lanes and clear the general purpose lanes less? I think it would be much easier to get a lane or two cleared for everyone on a six lane highway, plus not having to clear the extra ramps.
Sykotyk:
And that's the New York City suburbs, essentially, where that's taking place. We're talking about the middle of Missouri. HUGE difference.
I've been on the NJTP before, nice road. Only issue, is cars are still allowed in the truck lanes. Which I find unfathomable. But, I guess they need that to maximize capacity for cars during rush hour.
To me, the simplest, cheapest, and quickest solution is to add a third lane and restrict trucks from the left lane. But make it a law that slow moving vehicles must use the right lane. No 60mph car riding the middle lane just because they don't want to be around the big trucks. Just causes problems, passing situations, and aggravation.
Sykotyk
Sykotyk:
--- Quote ---I'm not sure that would work well given the capacity crunch on I-270. The NB I-270 to WB I-44 loop ramps already seems ready for a flyover replacement, NB I-270 can stay slow between at least MO 21 and I-44 a decent amount of time after the morning rush hour, SB I-270 gets lousy between I-64 and I-44 between 14:30 and at least 17:30, and I have to wonder about I-270 east of MO 370.
--- End quote ---
True, but this would only be for trucks. I-70 and I-44 are getting dangerously narrow lanes (similar to Atlanta, and to an extent, Birmingham's I-20). An 8'6 wide vehicle in a 10' lane is not really safe. But, to cram in another lane of travel, that's what they have now. And no traffic control measure can justify the safety issue, to me.
--- Quote ---The Missouri plan is much different, with trucks getting their own lanes in the median, and maybe only being able to exit directly from these lanes on I-70 initially at US 54, US 63, and US 65 - some of the alternatives for the 'direct connections' pretty much looked like the standard slip ramp. There may be additional direct ramps added later at MO 47, MO 13, and Oak Grove(?) (Exit 28). For any other exit or a rest area or a weight station, trucks must exit on a 60 mph slip ramp, enter the "general purpose lanes" on the left side, and proceed to weave across.
--- End quote ---
Do you have any idea how dangerous it is for trucks to 'weave' across multiple lanes of traffic? The other problem is slow trucks (some governed as slow as 60mph) must attempt to enter the left-most car-only lane in order to advance to the cross-over. Not safe. Either the car will have to slow down, or impatiently pass on the right, which again, is not safe.
--- Quote ---It is specifically noted in the SEIS that there will be no direct ramps at the US 61 interchange. There's no guarantee trucks will even enter the lanes built specially for them - if the truck lanes are tolled, I expect a decent number not to use them.
--- End quote ---
I think 0% would use them if tolled. A trucker won't get paid any more for his load to take those tolled lanes, so it's a pay cut to entertain the thought. Probably put up with the hassle of staying to the right and save $20.
--- Quote ---I also wonder how many will use them during inclement winter weather - or since MoDOT flip-flopped on the criteria for the truck lanes compared to the original parallel freeway alternative, are they only going to give priority to the truck lanes and clear the general purpose lanes less? I think it would be much easier to get a lane or two cleared for everyone on a six lane highway, plus not having to clear the extra ramps.
--- End quote ---
Another great safety point. In really bad weather, a three-lane road might only have two lanes cleared, but they're running concurrently. Would they simply 'sacrifice' the truck lanes to keep the other two lanes clear?
As for the idea that these lanes would run in the median negates the valid point of where the roads have no median, including bridges and through narrow urban areas (Columbia, Pacific, etc). The truck lanes would also need their own completely usable WIDE shoulder to accommodate breakdowns (which due happen for vehicles that average 300-500mi a day). Then, you get the added wammy of a 40-ton tow truck trying to pull a disabled truck into the fast lane of the car side to try and get them to exit the highway.
Here's a tip: merging traffic into the fast lane is never safe. That's why no new freeway will ever have an onramp enter on left (or for that matter, exit on the left). And to think that it will only be the biggest and slowest of vehicles to use our roadways that will have to navigate unsafe merging is a recipe for disaster.
Truck-only lanes are a fantasy that aren't practical in reality. The law-makers and organizers have good intentions, but as always, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Sykotyk
Revive 755:
Here are a couple truck lane studies I've found online:
http://www.reason.org/files/cce62e3a8ed97d31be8e1094f658968a.pdf
http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/mtc/papers/2005/burke.pdf
Sykotyk:
Wow, the second study has so many inconsistencies with reality, I'm baffled.
First, the second study is more to accommodate LCVs, not tractor-trailers. LCVs are doubles and triples in excess of the current statutory limitation of roughly 73'. Basically saying if there were truck only lanes, there'd be more opportunity for LCVs to operate, thereby eliminating the need for more trucks (these LCVs are also called Turnpike Doubles). I would greatly believe they'd need their own entrance exits if they were to drive in the median.
The other two points I want to point out in this guys study:
He suggests one lane each way. With passing lanes every few miles. As I've said, MANY trucks are governed as slow as 60mph. Just depends on the carrier. Passing lanes just aren't feasible. Especially in a state where the speed limit is 70mph (Missouri and Iowa, the state of the study). They will slow down the shipment of goods, no speed them up or make it more efficient.
Secondly, please note he feels 6 feet (next to a jersey barrier) is enough room for a breakdown lane in each direction. A standard tractor-trailer is 8'6 wide. So, they're suggesting the truck driver should bring his truck to a stop alongside a jersey barrier and have his truck stick 18" into traffic. As mentioned about oversize loads, will they be allowed through here? What about a 14' wide load that comes across a disabled truck? Just stop and let hundreds of trucks backlog? Or, would oversizes still only access the car lanes?
Secondly, if a truck does break down, road service would need to access the vehicle in a 6' wide breakdown lane. If a truck needs to be towed, the tow-truck operator would then need to get out of his truck INTO TRAFFIC in order to access the truck, secure it, hoist it, and start driving.
Either that, or you suggest backlogging trucks up to the previous cross-over in order to facilitate breakdowns.
Also, another point in the study is he states the New Jersey Turnpike has truck-only lanes. That's false. Cars are still allowed in truck-only lanes. Even the 'truck only' lanes on I-5 north of Los Angeles through the mountains allow cars.
And, the crux of the matter, it comes down to tolling. And as pointed out, would require a transponder. This is about LCVs, not trucks. LCVs should never have to get outside the rightmost lane. True, the federal government would have to allow them again on all interstates (or even some specific interstates) that won't affect what trucks do.
A trucker will not, I repeat, will NOT pay for a toll road if their is a free alternative. So, unless they pass a law that they MUST enter the toll lanes (which would require a lot of changes to already existing laws and rules), they will not be used.
As for the first study you posited, it's the one the second study is based on. Again, it regarding LCVs, not tractor-trailers. LCVs are much more dangerous. As for LCVs that are heavier (as mentioned in the study) they still would need to get that truck on and off the road and to a terminal of some kind. The current limit is 34,000 pounds on a dual axle. If these truckways (as they're called) allowed heavier weights, they'd still be doing a lot of wear and tear on other roads. Unless, of course, they went immediately to a terminal where they were offloaded onto smaller trucks. But, as with railroads, they'd need more trucks to still make the shorter trip.
And short-haul drivers make a LOT more than long-haul drivers. In fact, any savings in fuel (minus the toll) for overweight LCVs that get offloaded into small (standard 80,000 pound tractor-trailers), would mean you'd be paying a lot more local and regional drivers to continue with the freight onto its final destination. And that would cost a LOT more.
Anyways, if this is only for LCVs, this is fraught with incompetence. If this is for all trucks, you'll have to dig a little deeper for any research that backs up the need for truck-only lanes.
Sykotyk
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version