Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SectorZ]

^^ Kentucky doesn't have the acute and persistent drifting problems that those other states do.

You mean Kentucky isn't geographically or meteorologically representative of the entire country, let alone Wyoming?  Imagine that.

The point is, Kentucky's attitude is "throw the resources at it to keep the road open." In the past few years, we've even developed an "emergency route" plan that creates a "superpriority" system. Interstates and parkways are already Priority A routes, but the emergency system would basically move all resources to them (or to the emergency routes designated in each county.)

The plains and upper midwest states would rather just close the roads than do what it takes to keep them open. And the citizenry is OK with that. It's not the case here. We certainly haven't spoiled drivers with a "black pavement" policy but there's an expectation that main roads will remain open unless they're physically blocked.

The bigger problem is wind, not snow, and that's what causes the shutdowns. Even with perfectly clear roads, 75 MPH wind gusts will tip over many tractor trailers. Most everywhere in the nation has higher winds in the winter so the winds coincide with the snow.

[Zonie]

Indeed.  This was a truck driver that ignored a closure on this stretch of I-80 (near Elk Mountain).

[hbelkins]

Indeed.  This was a truck driver that ignored a closure on this stretch of I-80 (near Elk Mountain).

Was the road closed only to trucks? Because there are a whole lot of other vehicles on the road.

[kwellada]

Indeed.  This was a truck driver that ignored a closure on this stretch of I-80 (near Elk Mountain).

Well, that one is going to be hard to 'splain away to the insurance company and police.

In January 2006 I moved from Denver to Seattle and took the Uhaul on I-80 in Wyoming rather than deal with I-70's mountains. While the weather was "fine", the normal winds resulted in at least an hour of white knuckle driving at slow speeds. I do not want to experience it in an actual storm.

[brad2971]

^^ Kentucky doesn't have the acute and persistent drifting problems that those other states do.

You mean Kentucky isn't geographically or meteorologically representative of the entire country, let alone Wyoming?  Imagine that.

The point is, Kentucky's attitude is "throw the resources at it to keep the road open." In the past few years, we've even developed an "emergency route" plan that creates a "superpriority" system. Interstates and parkways are already Priority A routes, but the emergency system would basically move all resources to them (or to the emergency routes designated in each county.)

The plains and upper midwest states would rather just close the roads than do what it takes to keep them open. And the citizenry is OK with that. It's not the case here. We certainly haven't spoiled drivers with a "black pavement" policy but there's an expectation that main roads will remain open unless they're physically blocked.

Having grown up out "on the prairie", there is only so much you can do before you have to just give up because it is not safe for the plow operators to keep going or emergency personnel to constantly respond to defiant motorists.  Roads will fill up with blowing snow faster than the plows can take it off.  So yes, it makes a lot of sense to close the road instead of "doing whatever it takes"...

Here in Colorado, CDOT's crews do everything they can 24/7 to keep I-70 and I-25, even US40 and SH82 west of Aspen open.

On the eastern plains, not so much: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2713562,-103.6774484,3a,37.5y,26.44h,86.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9-gCOg1cKlnc_S0ow0l65w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192   And usually, I-70 east from E-470 to the Kansas line is closed before one even reaches that place I linked.

[MCRoads]

These might be even more impractical than rerouting the interstate, but…

Ok, so if wind is the problem, the Netherlands has a sol!



Or, you could build a snow shed over the problematic areas. It works for railroads, so why can’t it work for regular roads?

[Plutonic Panda]

I was thinking that as well. Would building a permanent structure over the road be cheaper than moving it?

[SD Mapman]

I was thinking that as well. Would building a permanent structure over the road be cheaper than moving it?

That would be an incredibly long permanent structure...

Indeed.  This was a truck driver that ignored a closure on this stretch of I-80 (near Elk Mountain).

Was the road closed only to trucks? Because there are a whole lot of other vehicles on the road.

They do have "Closed to light and high-profile vehicles" on I-80 a good bit of the winter, even when it's open to regular traffic. As to how well that's enforced... I went from Cheyenne to Laramie when one of those was on and only about 20% of the trucks turned back.

[Plutonic Panda]

I was thinking that as well. Would building a permanent structure over the road be cheaper than moving it?

That would be an incredibly long permanent structure...

Would it be needed the entire length?

[silverback1065]

These might be even more impractical than rerouting the interstate, but…

Ok, so if wind is the problem, the Netherlands has a sol!



Or, you could build a snow shed over the problematic areas. It works for railroads, so why can’t it work for regular roads?

potentially a good idea. since planting trees would take too long, the trees would need to grow large and that takes time.

[JayhawkCO]

These might be even more impractical than rerouting the interstate, but…

Ok, so if wind is the problem, the Netherlands has a sol!



Or, you could build a snow shed over the problematic areas. It works for railroads, so why can’t it work for regular roads?

potentially a good idea. since planting trees would take too long, the trees would need to grow large and that takes time.

If trees could grow there with all that wind, there would already be trees in the area.  It's desolate out there.

[silverback1065]

These might be even more impractical than rerouting the interstate, but…

Ok, so if wind is the problem, the Netherlands has a sol!



Or, you could build a snow shed over the problematic areas. It works for railroads, so why can’t it work for regular roads?

potentially a good idea. since planting trees would take too long, the trees would need to grow large and that takes time.

If trees could grow there with all that wind, there would already be trees in the area.  It's desolate out there.

good point, they'd just blow away 

[seicer]

So we are now proposing to construct snowsheds used in avalanche areas all across Wyoming?

[Plutonic Panda]

So we are now proposing to construct snowsheds used in avalanche areas all across Wyoming?

I didn’t realize I-80 in “all of Wyoming” was only 100 miles across.

[US 89]

So we are now proposing to construct snowsheds used in avalanche areas all across Wyoming?

I didn’t realize I-80 in “all of Wyoming” was only 100 miles across.

The point still stands...

[Plutonic Panda]

So we are now proposing to construct snowsheds used in avalanche areas all across Wyoming?

I didn’t realize I-80 in “all of Wyoming” was only 100 miles across.

The point still stands...

It would be expensive but would it be more than building a new interstate for 100 miles? If the cover option went forward would it be needed for the entire 100 miles of the road?

[triplemultiplex]

Trees can grow just fine in wind.  There's not enough precipitation in the area in question to sustain them. That's the limiting factor.  It's an arid environment. So one would need to irrigate a living windbreak of trees.

[JayhawkCO]

Trees can grow just fine in wind.  There's not enough precipitation in the area in question to sustain them. That's the limiting factor.  It's an arid environment. So one would need to irrigate a living windbreak of trees.

From the University of Wyoming, "In many places, winds blow from the west, southwest, or northwest most of the time. A tree planted in an open area on the west or northwest side of a lot or a structure will be exposed to harsh, drying, and potentially damaging winds."  Not saying water isn't also a big culprit, but again, there is a reason that there are no native trees around there.

[DenverBrian]

Or, you could build a snow shed over the problematic areas. It works for railroads, so why can’t it work for regular roads?

Railroads are about 20 feet wide for single track, 40 feet for double track. Probably no more than 20 feet high. Usually used for spot situations where the snow shed is perhaps 1,000 feet long.

I-80 is probably 150 feet wide in that area. 75 feet wide if you "shed" the travel lanes individually. In many areas, the travel lanes are separated by hundreds of feet, so you'd definitely have to build two sheds.

All this, not for a few 1,000 foot chunks, but perhaps 100 miles continuous. The ENTIRE LENGTH is a "problematic area." It might be cheaper to actually just dig down 25 feet and roof the result. So, $20B instead of $50B.

Short answer: Not practical.

[kkt]

I remember lots of double-stacked containers on trains in Wyoming.  Maybe allow 21' high.

[DenverBrian]

I remember lots of double-stacked containers on trains in Wyoming.  Maybe allow 21' high.

Good catch. Post edited. Doesn't change the gist of it.

[roadfro]

If you've got 11 minutes, here's a WYDOT video from about 5 years ago that'll tell you everything you ever wanted to know about Wyoming's high winds and their effect on highways.

Around the 2:00 mark, it mentions the wind criteria WYDOT uses to prompt advisories and closures. At about 3:30-4:00, there's a map that shows all the major locations of high winds and a slide covering the most common blow-over locations, most of which being in the area discussed about a reroute. Later on, it mentions some of the winter maintenance concerns related to winds.

[JayhawkCO]

Super cool video.  And for our Eastern brethren, an explanation of Wyoming is quite a bit different than your states and winds.

[MCRoads]

Or, you could build a snow shed over the problematic areas. It works for railroads, so why can’t it work for regular roads?

Railroads are about 20 feet wide for single track, 40 feet for double track. Probably no more than 20 feet high. Usually used for spot situations where the snow shed is perhaps 1,000 feet long.

I-80 is probably 150 feet wide in that area. 75 feet wide if you "shed" the travel lanes individually. In many areas, the travel lanes are separated by hundreds of feet, so you'd definitely have to build two sheds.

All this, not for a few 1,000 foot chunks, but perhaps 100 miles continuous. The ENTIRE LENGTH is a "problematic area." It might be cheaper to actually just dig down 25 feet and roof the result. So, $20B instead of $50B.

Short answer: Not practical.

I think you didn’t read this part:

These might be even more impractical than rerouting the interstate, but…

[DenverBrian]

Or, you could build a snow shed over the problematic areas. It works for railroads, so why can’t it work for regular roads?

Railroads are about 20 feet wide for single track, 40 feet for double track. Probably no more than 20 feet high. Usually used for spot situations where the snow shed is perhaps 1,000 feet long.

I-80 is probably 150 feet wide in that area. 75 feet wide if you "shed" the travel lanes individually. In many areas, the travel lanes are separated by hundreds of feet, so you'd definitely have to build two sheds.

All this, not for a few 1,000 foot chunks, but perhaps 100 miles continuous. The ENTIRE LENGTH is a "problematic area." It might be cheaper to actually just dig down 25 feet and roof the result. So, $20B instead of $50B.

Short answer: Not practical.

I think you didn’t read this part:

These might be even more impractical than rerouting the interstate, but…

Oh, I read it. "Might be even more impractical?" Honestly?