So, here is the question.... would you be in favor of a complete closure (with detours) of a major route for a period of a month if it meant that the work would be completed faster verses a partial lane closure that is taking place over several months? The reason I mention this is because, this upcoming May/June, US-50 in Sacramento, CA is doing a complete closure of one side of the highway (http://markholtz.info/fix50) to rehabilitate the highway. A few years ago, they did the same thing with the so-called "boat section" of I-5, again in Sacramento.
They're about to close the very busy Palm Bay Road (CR-516) for two months here in Palm Bay. This is one of the busiest stretches of road in the county and there are few alternate routes. They decided on the full closure instead of partial closure that lasts longer because they said it will lead to a traffic nightmare regardless so we may as well just get it over with, and by closing it fully they can finish the work on this key evacuation route before hurricane season starts.
Depends on location. Some cities have better alternative routes than others, so a complete closure would be easier in, say, Detroit than, say, Chicago.
From a pure design/constructability standpoint, I prefer a full closure, especially if an intersection is involved. Mainline construction isn't as bad to plan for, but when a major intersection is included, staged construction is a huge PITA as well as source of increased cost. For example, one of the projects I am currently involved with is an intersection reconstruct in addition to about a 0.25 mile length of mainline reconstruct. Keeping the intersection open results in an estimated $1.5 million in extra cost (close to doubling the project cost) and 3 months more in project duration.
Outside of that, I support whatever method causes the least disruption without jacking up the price of the project. If there's good parallel routing/alt. access available, shut it down. It also depends on where the project is/what type of facility. It's kinda hard to do a complete closure of a highway out in the middle of nowhere.
Another example is closure of very busy US-31 near Carmel, IN this summer, to speed up the conversion to freeway standards. The nearby Keystone Parkway will serve as the detour, but that road is also very busy already. INDOT made a judgment on this. I'm sure there will be much criticism when the monumental traffic jams set in. It's a no-win situation really.
I'm with the depends on location crowd.
In a rural area, detours might get rather long sometimes, but low traffic counts mean TPTB aren't going to spend anymore than necessary.
In Council Bluffs, they are currently rebuilding the I-80/I-29 interchange at the east end of the Spring Street Bridge. They aren't going to close that down, and if they did, the resulting grid lock would get whomever decided closing it was a good idea up in front of a firing squad.
A few years ago Indianapolis performed a "Hyperfix" for downtown I-65/70 and more recently for an couple of clearance improvement projects. It seemed to be generally well received since 465 was available for the through traffic.
I do agree that staged construction at major intersections causes too much congestion for too long.
We are all used to construction taking forever, but, believe it or not, a major intersection could be reconstructed very quickly.
I used to work on a construction crew that was very fast.
I'd say a major intersection with asphalt roads could be done in a week, and that's with base mixing.
We're looking at something similar to that in Birmingham. By 2016, I-20/59 through downtown Birmingham will be shut down for roughly 12-18 months while the overpasses extending east from I-65 are torn down and rebuilt. For downtown traffic, it will be a nightmare, but it will be absolutely necessary, since the I-20/59 viaducts are held together with bailing wire and Bondo. For through traffic, it won't be bad, since they can simply take I-459 around the southern part of the metro and connect with I-20 at Leeds or I-59 at Trussville. For traffic heading towards I-65 north or I-22 west, it will require a ten mile detour along 459, then to I-65 through Homewood, Vestavia and Hoover. I-65, which has three lanes in either direction from Birmingham's southside to Hoover, is going to become a virtual parking lot. As bad as it will be, it's absolutely necessary.
Knoxville's closure of I-40 for an overhaul a few years ago worked well. I-640 was the detour and I think it worked out OK.
We've adjusted pretty well to full closures here in Indiana. The big one in my area was about six years ago, when I-65 was shut down for most of the year for reconstruction. INDOT said it best. Full closures are best when necessary because it reduces the amount of construction cycles for work and increases worker safety. When done right, the only obstacle is weather. The announcement of the closure was made six weeks in advance, and detours were put in place.
When planned correctly, I am all for complete closures. I know enough about the area to make my own unofficial detours.
As a SD native, the only experience with construction I've had has been with partial closures. This has made me more partial to them than the alternative. At least with a partial closure, you can still use the same road to get places... it just takes longer.
I-5 through southern Los Angeles County is being replaced effectively while you're driving it. Caltrans has done a good job with this on many projects, at least in Southern California.
Quote from: Charles2 on March 16, 2014, 09:31:11 PM
We're looking at something similar to that in Birmingham. By 2016, I-20/59 through downtown Birmingham will be shut down for roughly 12-18 months while the overpasses extending east from I-65 are torn down and rebuilt. For downtown traffic, it will be a nightmare, but it will be absolutely necessary, since the I-20/59 viaducts are held together with bailing wire and Bondo. For through traffic, it won't be bad, since they can simply take I-459 around the southern part of the metro and connect with I-20 at Leeds or I-59 at Trussville. For traffic heading towards I-65 north or I-22 west, it will require a ten mile detour along 459, then to I-65 through Homewood, Vestavia and Hoover. I-65, which has three lanes in either direction from Birmingham's southside to Hoover, is going to become a virtual parking lot. As bad as it will be, it's absolutely necessary.
Wasn't 20/59 west/southbound shut down and re-routed a couple of years ago?
QuoteAs a SD native, the only experience with construction I've had has been with partial closures. This has made me more partial to them than the alternative. At least with a partial closure, you can still use the same road to get places... it just takes longer.
Haven't popped into MN at all?
MnDOT's preference, especially in the rural areas, is for full closure (aside from local resident access where needed), and posting detours...often on county state aid routes. For rural Interstate reconstruction (and a few similar projects on the rural 4-lane highways), they'll shift all traffic to 2-lane/2-way on one side while they rebuild the other side.
MnDOT typically doesn't do full closures in the Twin Cities metro, although they did a few years back when they redid MN 36 through North St. Paul. But that route also had a ready (and relatively congestion-light) alternative route in I-694 to I-35E. Also, in recent years, MnDOT has developed a habit for doing occasional short-term weekend closures on various freeway segments in the Twin Cities, depending on the work being done.
There's always the old Connecticut strategy — leave it open and put up signs reading "Road Legally Closed."
Quote from: froggie on March 20, 2014, 06:29:05 AM
QuoteAs a SD native, the only experience with construction I've had has been with partial closures. This has made me more partial to them than the alternative. At least with a partial closure, you can still use the same road to get places... it just takes longer.
Haven't popped into MN at all?
MnDOT's preference, especially in the rural areas, is for full closure (aside from local resident access where needed), and posting detours...often on county state aid routes. For rural Interstate reconstruction (and a few similar projects on the rural 4-lane highways), they'll shift all traffic to 2-lane/2-way on one side while they rebuild the other side.
MnDOT typically doesn't do full closures in the Twin Cities metro, although they did a few years back when they redid MN 36 through North St. Paul. But that route also had a ready (and relatively congestion-light) alternative route in I-694 to I-35E. Also, in recent years, MnDOT has developed a habit for doing occasional short-term weekend closures on various freeway segments in the Twin Cities, depending on the work being done.
I went through Minnesota last year. It made me mad.
NYSDOT usually does partial closures, though total closures seem to be popping up more and more, particularly with bridge replacements.
Count me among the "Full closure if there's at least two good options to get around" crowd. Why do I say 2?
Simple: I-75 in northern Kentucky from I-275 to where it splits with I-71 in Walton, Kentucky.
If there's a major accident that shuts down I-75/71 south of I-275, you might as well plan on spending the rest of your day sitting in traffic. Sure, US 25 is an available north-south alternative. But guess what? Most people know it's there as an available option...and in a situation like that, they take it. That creates, inevitably, significant delays on US 25. I'd want to see at least one, and ideally two more available bypass routes through this stretch before even considering doing a total shutdown of I-75 for a rebuild.
Early next year, FDOT is going to start rebuilding and widening 21 miles of I-4 through metro Orlando. It's expected to take seven years to do the entire 21 miles.
I think a full closure for 8-12 months might be workable if...
+ FL429 were complete on the northwest corner to provide a full western bypass
+ FL417 had a full interchange with Florida's Turnpike
+ Tolls were waived during the closure on I-4 to encourage drivers to use the bypasses.
Yes, traffic would be horrendous for 8-12 months, but then it would be over, instead of dragging the pain out for 7 years. Sort of like ripping off a band-aid.
Noticed that the northbound lanes of I-81 between Christiansburg and Salem are going to be closed for a pavement rehab project in the next few days.
Quote from: golden eagle on March 19, 2014, 09:00:30 PM
Quote from: Charles2 on March 16, 2014, 09:31:11 PM
We're looking at something similar to that in Birmingham. By 2016, I-20/59 through downtown Birmingham will be shut down for roughly 12-18 months while the overpasses extending east from I-65 are torn down and rebuilt. For downtown traffic, it will be a nightmare, but it will be absolutely necessary, since the I-20/59 viaducts are held together with bailing wire and Bondo. For through traffic, it won't be bad, since they can simply take I-459 around the southern part of the metro and connect with I-20 at Leeds or I-59 at Trussville. For traffic heading towards I-65 north or I-22 west, it will require a ten mile detour along 459, then to I-65 through Homewood, Vestavia and Hoover. I-65, which has three lanes in either direction from Birmingham's southside to Hoover, is going to become a virtual parking lot. As bad as it will be, it's absolutely necessary.
Wasn't 20/59 west/southbound shut down and re-routed a couple of years ago?
I-20 was shut down last year between I-59 and I-459 (Woodlawn to Leeds). The entire project took about five months. First, they shut down I-20 WB, did the work on it and then shut down I-20 EB. During the time that I-20 was shut down I-459 and I-59 were used as detours. There were no major traffic issues except for added congestion along I-59, which is only two lanes in each direction between 1st Avenue North (US 11/Exit 133) and I-459 (Exit 137).
About two years ago, I-20/59 was shut down in Bessemer between Academy Drive (Exit 108) and 18th & 19th Streets (Exit 112). Again, work was done in one direction and then the other. Detours for this project were more problematic, since it there were no interstate routes to divert the detoured traffic to. Instead, traffic was diverted onto Academy Drive, 9th Avenue (US 11), and the one-way couplet of 18th and 19th Streets. Congestion along the detour was epic. By my count there are least nine traffic lights along the detour route, maybe more.
For me, it depends on the situation. NJDOT has gotten pretty good at the contra-flow lane model. For a 3 lane (per direction) highway, move the left lane to the other side of the highway, keep 2 lanes open on the proper direction, and they can work on 2 lanes at a time. This also allows enough room to access the ramps.
In some cases, when traffic volumes are low enough, they will divert all traffic to one roadbed, and close an entire side of roadway. They try to limit this to the summertime when traffic volumes are lower overall, especially during rush hours.
The DRPA bridges generally close only one lane at a time for a mass-reconstruction. I wish they would close 2 lanes at a time. While it would dramatically reduce the amount of traffic that can utilize the bridge, there are enough other crossings in the area that it shouldn't be a huge burden.
The Pulaski Skyway in North Jersey is going to close 2 lanes inbound to NYC for the next 2 years. Outbound traffic will still be able to utilize the bridge, regardless of the side of the bridge that is open. This is making many people very unhappy. But then again, no matter who you talk with, they all want something different anyway, so a large group of people would remain unhappy no matter what option was chosen.
My take in rural areas:
If you are rebuilding or widening an interstate from 2 lanes to 3 or more in each direction, then close the entire carriageway and have two-way traffic sharing the remaining carriageway (with the appropriate barriers between the two-way traffic).
As long as you have 3 lanes with good shoulders in each direction, there is no need to have traffic crossing over anymore, so long as you have ample space for two-lanes of traffic in each direction. I'd much rather see both carriageways being worked on one-half at a time for two seasons than to have both directions of traffic sharing a single carriageway.
My take is a little different for urban highways, if viable alternative routes are in place, like in Detroit:
If there is a reasonable all-freeway alternative around a construction/rebuilding zone, even if in just one direction per season, then shut it down and get r done! With the current I-96 closure in West Detroit (Livonia), there are two alternates, albeit both take people a round-a-bout way to return to I-96 (I-696 to M-39 and I-275 to I-94 to M-39). Much of the Detroit-bound traffic from the outer counties can use the alternates with little or no extra mileage. It's those who live along the I-275 corridor near the Jeffries that would be affected the most.
Quote from: RG407 on April 06, 2014, 09:42:22 PM
Early next year, FDOT is going to start rebuilding and widening 21 miles of I-4 through metro Orlando. It's expected to take seven years to do the entire 21 miles.
I think a full closure for 8-12 months might be workable if...
+ FL429 were complete on the northwest corner to provide a full western bypass
+ FL417 had a full interchange with Florida's Turnpike
+ Tolls were waived during the closure on I-4 to encourage drivers to use the bypasses.
Yes, traffic would be horrendous for 8-12 months, but then it would be over, instead of dragging the pain out for 7 years. Sort of like ripping off a band-aid.
FDOT usually does a good job maintaining traffic flow during major projects though.
If they're going to close an entire direction of freeway and it's not wide enough to accommodate two-way traffic on one side, why don't they route peak traffic onto the open side during rush hour?
Quote from: bzakharin on April 07, 2014, 03:23:57 PM
If they're going to close an entire direction of freeway and it's not wide enough to accommodate two-way traffic on one side, why don't they route peak traffic onto the open side during rush hour?
I know it was discussed as an idea, but I don't think I read why the idea was nixed completely.
The traffic volumes are probably fairly high going in both directions during rush hours. And the road would need to be closed entirely during the switchovers, so you lose 100% of capacity during that time. One of the detour routes involves the NJ Turnpike Hudson Bay extension, and they are utilizing the shoulder EB (towards NYC) during both rush hours, which stands to reason that traffic flow towards NYC is still heavy enough in the afternoon that the shoulder reconstruction would have needed to be done anyway.
From a cost standpoint, the detours only needed to be done with one direction in mind, not 2, so it made that a bit cheaper.
Quote from: Charles2About two years ago, I-20/59 was shut down in Bessemer between Academy Drive (Exit 108) and 18th & 19th Streets (Exit 112). Again, work was done in one direction and then the other. Detours for this project were more problematic, since it there were no interstate routes to divert the detoured traffic to. Instead, traffic was diverted onto Academy Drive, 9th Avenue (US 11), and the one-way couplet of 18th and 19th Streets. Congestion along the detour was epic. By my count there are least nine traffic lights along the detour route, maybe more.
I wouldn't say there were "no interstate routes to divert detoured traffic". Perhaps no direct or semi-direct routes, but there was still I-459. As I recall, traffic was highly encouraged to use I-459 as an alternative during that roadwork.
Quote from: thenetworkAs long as you have 3 lanes with good shoulders in each direction, there is no need to have traffic crossing over anymore, so long as you have ample space for two-lanes of traffic in each direction. I'd much rather see both carriageways being worked on one-half at a time for two seasons than to have both directions of traffic sharing a single carriageway.
Although the latter works much better for contractors...fewer requirements for traffic control so they have more space to work with. And the result for taxpayers is a project completed faster and for less cost.