What annoys you the MOST about road work? I can personally say if road work starts on a local street I usually have to drive on I get VERY ANNOYED. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
A) Closing lanes/streets down during rush hours. Especially with no notice. I could save plenty of time by taking a different exit or using different city streets if I had known.
B) Being told to watch VMSs, websites, 511, etc for information, only to have that information come at such a late time or point to where it's unusable.
So, I guess, based on what were two independent thoughts...lack of communication is what annoys me the most!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 18, 2016, 10:06:30 AM
A) Closing lanes/streets down during rush hours. Especially with no notice. I could save plenty of time by taking a different exit or using different city streets if I had known.
We had a local breakthrough, when roadwork on commute-heavy road is done 9-6 in one direction, and 7-3 in the other. It really helps!
In the Milwaukee area, they are using orange lane markers as an experiment with the Zoo Interchange project. They're difficult to see, especially on asphalt and they should go back to the white. With all of the curves and shifts, the lane markers are more important than usual and the orange paint makes a difficult situation even worse. You can see what it looks like below:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.027045,-88.0405956,3a,75y,279.27h,91.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMZ0nNsbcS8MOirxxcVxkOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Contractors who can't read a damn drawing.
Putting on my John T. Bagger hat for a second, having a work zone set up that's affecting traffic and either seeing no workers present on site or +/- 5 workers standing around for every worker doing work.
I remember seeing a work zone that was set up with no workers in sight but a policeman running radar. Obviously just looking for tickets there (actually, I don't think I've been across the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge without there being a work zone since middle school).
You do need some people to stand around a watch, though. Those people are there to warn the others if a car is going to plow into them. You never know what can happen in a work zone; my boss recalls one time where a car went past and then drifted out of the lane and off the bridge; turns out, the driver had a heart attack and died a mile back, and the only thing keeping them in the lane was the slight wheel ruts that develop in asphalt over time; even so much as a pebble knocked the car out. Someone else recalls a time on the Taconic where someone actually drove around the cones into the closed lane and honked at him for being in her way.
(oddly enough, it's Work Zone Safety Week here...)
Quote from: cbeach40 on April 18, 2016, 11:37:46 AM
Contractors who can't read a damn drawing.
This.
Also, the draconian 24/7 speed limits that Illinois puts into effect in a construction zone. They are very unnecessary, and could be done better (as in some other states). I personally prefer Michigan's where the lower speed limit applies when the following two conditions must be met at the same time: 1. workers present & 2. separated by cones or barrels only, not a concrete barrier.
Quote from: Brandon on April 18, 2016, 01:18:06 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on April 18, 2016, 11:37:46 AM
Contractors who can't read a damn drawing.
This.
Also, the draconian 24/7 speed limits that Illinois puts into effect in a construction zone. They are very unnecessary, and could be done better (as in some other states). I personally prefer Michigan's where the lower speed limit applies when the following two conditions must be met at the same time: 1. workers present & 2. separated by cones or barrels only, not a concrete barrier.
I find it annoying when speed fines are doubled (or tripled in Saskatchewan) when there's no workers present and the low speed limit is unnecessary. The traffic may not even be bad, but when you're forced to go residential speed on a highway when there's workers, it gets annoying.
Usually here it's not that bad though, when there's no workers working, construction speed limit signs are pointed away from the roadway.
Reduction to one lane on urban freeway (normally three or four lanes) without any notice on approaching VMS. Had that happen after a concert one evening in center city Philly. I-95 north was reduced to one lane -- not sure what the work was, but involved concrete sawcutting (probably interior lane joint repair). Took almost an hour (at 10:30 or so in evening) to get past the lane drop areas.
The funny part about this particular instance was the genius who decided to ride up the work side of the cones/drums, thinking he would make some time. About 20 minutes after that we got up to the point where he was singled out for special attention by the law enforcement contingent for his approach to congestion management. Many people were honking and catcalling him as they went by . . .
I think what I hate in Virginia is that when they shift the lanes and pull up the old lane markings, it leaves behind really annoying ruts in the road that can make your car pull one way or the other.
Driving in the UK I hate the "average speed check" system used in work zones–they set up multiple speed cameras that read your number plate and it calculates how long it took you to travel the distance between them. It's intended to counter people's habit of slowing down to pass a camera and then speeding back up. I think part of the reason I dislike it so much is that every time I've encountered it on the motorway, it accompanies a 20-mph drop in the speed limit.
Pennsylvania's practice of leaving up work zone speed limits even when there is no evident work zone (i.e., either before cones are put up or after they are put down). Ticks me off to no end. There's a section on Washington Avenue Extension here in Albany that suffers from the same injustice (45 mph work zone signs have been up for weeks without a work zone on it).
I do like those states where they have the work zone speed limits only pertain during activity and signal this to drivers through signs highlighted with flashers.
When it goes massively overbudget and misses every possible deadline.
And when no appropriate pedestrian/bike/transit alternative is presented. The demolition of a local overpass here was expertly handled by the local Indian reservation, who set up a shuttle bus (with bike racks) to get people across the not-yet-finished bridge. The state DOT, meanwhile, did fuck all in trying to at least clear a bit of shoulder space for people who use the bridge to walk between bus stops.
West Virginia has a great way to indicate "active" work zones. They install work zone speed limit signs with flashing lights. Light on = active work zone = lower speed in effect. Light off = normal speed limit applies. Should be adopted nationwide where normal speed limits are deemed safe thru non-active zones.
SM-N910V
When construction zones are set up merely for the process of social engineering (or discouraging driving).
I kid you not, in 2009, after a Toronto Marlies game, when I got onto Lakeshore, they for no reason whatsoever closed the right two lanes (leaving only the left lane open) just for the purpose of creating a funnel. SERIOUSLY, right when the road went down to one lane, as it went from 3 to 1 instantly, it opened right back up 5 feet later.
I have never seen anything like that again in recent years, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was a nefarious action just to punish drivers, and this was on the weekend on top of that.
Quote from: thenetwork on April 18, 2016, 03:06:11 PM
West Virginia has a great way to indicate "active" work zones. They install work zone speed limit signs with flashing lights. Light on = active work zone = lower speed in effect. Light off = normal speed limit applies. Should be adopted nationwide where normal speed limits are deemed safe thru non-active zones.
SM-N910V
Yeah, that's what I was talking about. Love those suckers.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on April 18, 2016, 03:07:15 PM
When construction zones are set up merely for the process of social engineering (or discouraging driving).
*
perceived process...there are a handful of cities around the globe which publicly experiment with anti-car legislation. Toronto is not one of those cities.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 18, 2016, 03:34:36 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on April 18, 2016, 03:07:15 PM
When construction zones are set up merely for the process of social engineering (or discouraging driving).
*perceived process...there are a handful of cities around the globe which publicly experiment with anti-car legislation. Toronto is not one of those cities.
Well why else would they do it, think about what they have done:
1) Close down 2 lanes instantly creating a funnel to one lane
2) The area of the road that was closed did not appear to have anything wrong with it, no potholes nothing
3) Not a soul at this mysterious construction zone
4) The lane closures ended 3 feet after the road came down to 1 lane....
Now tell me exactly the purpose of that would be, when you see the kind of actions made at the city and provincial level in Toronto and Ontario respectively regarding transportation issues, it makes sense.
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2016, 02:45:21 PM
Pennsylvania's practice of leaving up work zone speed limits even when there is no evident work zone (i.e., either before cones are put up or after they are put down). Ticks me off to no end. There's a section on Washington Avenue Extension here in Albany that suffers from the same injustice (45 mph work zone signs have been up for weeks without a work zone on it).
I do like those states where they have the work zone speed limits only pertain during activity and signal this to drivers through signs highlighted with flashers.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 18, 2016, 10:06:30 AM
A) Closing lanes/streets down during rush hours. Especially with no notice. I could save plenty of time by taking a different exit or using different city streets if I had known.
So, I guess, based on what were two independent thoughts...lack of communication is what annoys me the most!
The utilities in PA seem to be much worse as they apparently can even get away with practically anything. While in maintenance, the guy I was riding with and I noticed that instead of putting a flagger on a two-lane road with one lane closed for road work, they kept one lane northbound and detoured the southbound lane onto a local neighborhood street nearby. (definitely not a part of Pub 213 (Temporary Traffic Control Guidelines), PennDOT (and other DOTs would get heat for doing that).
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2016, 02:45:21 PM
Pennsylvania's practice of leaving up work zone speed limits even when there is no evident work zone (i.e., either before cones are put up or after they are put down). Ticks me off to no end. There's a section on Washington Avenue Extension here in Albany that suffers from the same injustice (45 mph work zone signs have been up for weeks without a work zone on it).
I do like those states where they have the work zone speed limits only pertain during activity and signal this to drivers through signs highlighted with flashers.
I'm surprised to hear this because the only place I've actually seen this (speed limit X when flashing) is PA, mostly the PA Turnpike, but I think other places too. I wish NJ did that. That said, when the NJ Turnpike widening between exits 6 and 9 was in progress, I believe that entire stretch was sign "Speed Limit 55" with long stretches of 45 or worse, and everyone ignored it without being stopped by police.
As for what I most dislike in my area, it's the way short term construction on the Atlantic City Expressway is handled. There are no VMSs, no advanced signage until 2 miles from the construction zone, which is usually after the last exit you could take to bypass it. Even if it's not, the 2-mile advance signs don't mention the nature of the road work with "two right lanes closed" 1/2 mile before the closure. Also, the timing. News Flash: the morning commute does not end at 8:30.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on April 18, 2016, 03:47:44 PM
Now tell me exactly the purpose of that would be, when you see the kind of actions made at the city and provincial level in Toronto and Ontario respectively regarding transportation issues, it makes sense.
What exactly are these actions? As far as I can tell from way over here on the west coast, Ontario just builds freeways all over the place. They appear to be
exceptionally pro-car.
People merging last minute.
Quote from: ET21 on April 18, 2016, 06:44:03 PM
People merging last minute.
some call that "zipper driving"...
A zipper merge is actually better for traffic congestion. By not forcing an earlier merge, you have more space and time to merge safely.
Quote from: ET21 on April 18, 2016, 06:44:03 PM
People merging last minute.
Agreed.
Quote from: Bruce on April 18, 2016, 06:56:27 PM
A zipper merge is actually better for traffic congestion. By not forcing an earlier merge, you have more space and time to merge safely.
Obviously, you've never tried it around Chicago. Here, they don't like to yield to anyone. They'd rather just bull their way in and everyone else be damned.
Areas closed off for ages and ages and no actual work is evident...
Quote from: Brandon on April 18, 2016, 07:01:57 PM
Obviously, you've never tried it around Chicago. Here, they don't like to yield to anyone. They'd rather just bull their way in and everyone else be damned.
I can confirm this to be true. Also, if there is an available shoulder on the road, there is a 50/50 chance it will turn into a driving lane, whether striped for it or not.
And yes, the IL work zone limits apply regardless of the actual conditions present. What bugs me most is what IL defines as a work zone. In my opinion, a work zone needs to have at least one of the following present: workers, construction vehicles, horses, barrels, extra barriers, lane closures, etc. In some cases, the reduced limit is placed on roads that are clearly not under construction at the time. There are no lane closures, no cones or horses set up, no workers there, nothing. Then they wonder why everyone ignores the speed limits, to the point where IL put commercials on tv to "Embrace the Orange." (http://embracetheorange.com)
Horses?
Quote from: bzakharin on April 18, 2016, 03:56:56 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2016, 02:45:21 PM
Pennsylvania's practice of leaving up work zone speed limits even when there is no evident work zone (i.e., either before cones are put up or after they are put down). Ticks me off to no end. There's a section on Washington Avenue Extension here in Albany that suffers from the same injustice (45 mph work zone signs have been up for weeks without a work zone on it).
I do like those states where they have the work zone speed limits only pertain during activity and signal this to drivers through signs highlighted with flashers.
I'm surprised to hear this because the only place I've actually seen this (speed limit X when flashing) is PA, mostly the PA Turnpike, but I think other places too. I wish NJ did that. That said, when the NJ Turnpike widening between exits 6 and 9 was in progress, I believe that entire stretch was sign "Speed Limit 55" with long stretches of 45 or worse, and everyone ignored it without being stopped by police.
Perfect example of the speeding issue, IMO, is the US 422 freeway in Pottstown that has been reduced to a speed limit of 40 mph due to practically no shoulders and a section reduced to one lane in each direction, as a result of the replacement of the Schuylkill River Bridges there. Basically, when I drove it, I had to go 50 mph as I felt that I could get turned into the inside concrete barrier.
I notice here in CT, for big projects like widening of repaving, they are not allowed to close a lane during the day, only after 9pm or so.
But then, they do tree clearing or rail repair and they close a lane during the day.
It doesn't matter for what reason the lane is closed, if it's closed it'll back up period. But the powers that be don't seem to get that.
I-95 in Greenwhich was backed up for 6 miles b/c of tree clearing. Get spotlights and do it at night
How about in the city I live in (will not say) they decided to put off all and any road work until 2 months ago which caused every road in the city to either:
A. Have a lane shift
B. The road is converted to a one-way as they do the work
C. Closed completely, even to people who LIVE on the street
It's really annoying!
The worst is when they take a two direction street and make it one way and detour the other direction. Another is speed reductions in minor road work zones that nobody is going to follow. ADOT is infamous for cranking Interstates from 75 MPH down to 45 MPH while the surrounding states will maintain at least 65 MPH if it isn't too heavy. Right now the 101 in the East Valley is posted at 55 MPH for a widening but you'll get run over if you try to go anywhere near that speed because the road is unobstructed due to the construction mostly being on the inside median.
Michigan's practice of grinding the pavement to remove lane striping for lane closures or traffic shifts. Then laying down temporary lane markings in paint, which gets ground away later, instead of marking tape. By the time a project is finished the pavement looks like a war zone. And all that grinding shows up great in dim light in the rain. Sometimes you can't tell where are the current lane markers.
Multiple projects along a road with no coordination of signage. Leads to stupidity like an "End Road Work" sign in the middle of a progression of signs for the next project a mile away, or conflicting detour signage.
Contractors who don't cover up or remove lane closure and detour signs when in fact all lanes are open and there's no detour. I don't care if it's a daily or nightly closure and so you have to send a crew around to put up the signs and then take them back down every day, do it!
How long it takes!! They built the entire Ohio Turnpike in just over three years, but it takes MDOT two years to rebuild a five-mile stretch of I-75 near Monroe??
Quote from: Brandon on April 18, 2016, 01:18:06 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on April 18, 2016, 11:37:46 AM
Contractors who can't read a damn drawing.
This.
Also, the draconian 24/7 speed limits that Illinois puts into effect in a construction zone. They are very unnecessary, and could be done better (as in some other states). I personally prefer Michigan's where the lower speed limit applies when the following two conditions must be met at the same time: 1. workers present & 2. separated by cones or barrels only, not a concrete barrier.
at least they have some 55 MPH work zones.
I must live in the only state without any sort of work zone speed limit. I can't say I've ever encountered one.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 18, 2016, 09:49:13 PM
Michigan's practice of grinding the pavement to remove lane striping for lane closures or traffic shifts. Then laying down temporary lane markings in paint, which gets ground away later, instead of marking tape. By the time a project is finished the pavement looks like a war zone. And all that grinding shows up great in dim light in the rain. Sometimes you can't tell where are the current lane markers.
Tape has a life expectancy of about half an hour (or so it seems sometimes). ;) That being said, a pavement marking subcontractor with half an ounce of competency can soda blast a marking off with minimal scarring.
Of course, asking for (or in the case of a lot of DOTs, paying for) competency is a big qualifier.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 18, 2016, 09:49:13 PM
Multiple projects along a road with no coordination of signage. Leads to stupidity like an "End Road Work" sign in the middle of a progression of signs for the next project a mile away, or conflicting detour signage.
Conflicting detour signage is a problem the DOT should have caught. In terms of having something like the "End Road Work" sign in the midst of the next contractor's pre-advance signs, that really gets into a case of demarcating liability. Clearly defining where one work zone ends and the other begins is extremely critical.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 18, 2016, 09:49:13 PM
How long it takes!! They built the entire Ohio Turnpike in just over three years, but it takes MDOT two years to rebuild a five-mile stretch of I-75 near Monroe??
Greenfield construction is incredibly cheap and easy compared to staging active traffic. MDOT's rather bold in terms of impact to traffic for doing things like closing I-96 in Detroit a couple of years ago, but there's no question that it probably cut the duration of work down to a fraction of what staging it would be.
Quote from: Bruce on April 18, 2016, 06:56:27 PM
A zipper merge is actually better for traffic congestion. By not forcing an earlier merge, you have more space and time to merge safely.
Thank you for reminding people. I get really annoyed when most people merge early, creating a slow line of traffic in one lane while leaving an adjacent lane mostly empty. To make matters worse, in recent years, I've seen construction zones in my home state with "DO NOT PASS" signs well in advance of the merge point. This practice can make it extremely difficult to advance to the merge point at a reasonable, moderate speed when one of the lanes is crawling. Have people not read the literature on why the zipper merge is better than early merging? It's embarrassing. The only place I've seen a construction zone merge handled intelligently is Pennsylvania.
Road work that results in uneven pavement on sections of the roadway are my pet peeve, especially when it's a simple resurfacing job that takes 3 weeks to complete. I had to contend with one on the road that leads to my office building and there were some pretty large variances in the road height while they ripped up the old one.
Quote from: Bruce on April 18, 2016, 06:56:27 PM
A zipper merge is actually better for traffic congestion. By not forcing an earlier merge, you have more space and time to merge safely.
I'm not so sure about this. Assuming enough traffic that it even matters (if there are no cars to merge with it doesn't matter which lane you're in), travel time is not impacted, only the location of the bottleneck. As for safety, if you see a safe window to merge early, how do you know there will be another one later on? It's likely to be more and more packed the closer to the merge you get. If you're not looking for a safe window until your lane has already ended you are creating a hazard for yourself and others, especially if you are zipping along while the other lane is backed up. Personally, I try to stay away from the merging lanes whenever possible (e.g. if there are 3 lanes and the right lane ends, I tend to be in the left lane). Of course, if everybody did that, it would create a worse backup, but they don't.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 18, 2016, 09:49:13 PM
How long it takes!! They built the entire Ohio Turnpike in just over three years, but it takes MDOT two years to rebuild a five-mile stretch of I-75 near Monroe??
Conditions were way different back when roads were built. OSHA didn't exist. Fair work practices didn't exist. If they wanted you to work 14 hours a day 7 days a week, you either worked it, or gave up your job to someone that would. If someone died, it was just part of the job.
They weren't also worried about building a roadway while trying to safely get thousands of other cars thru the same area at the same time.
in the "uneven pavement" category others have mentioned, one of my biggest pet peeves is when they do trenching for utility work and then "restore" the surface with a cheap patch. It's especially annoying when the trench runs along the road instead of across it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 19, 2016, 11:38:54 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 18, 2016, 09:49:13 PM
How long it takes!! They built the entire Ohio Turnpike in just over three years, but it takes MDOT two years to rebuild a five-mile stretch of I-75 near Monroe??
Conditions were way different back when roads were built. OSHA didn't exist. Fair work practices didn't exist. If they wanted you to work 14 hours a day 7 days a week, you either worked it, or gave up your job to someone that would. If someone died, it was just part of the job.
In 1952-55? I doubt the unions would've allowed for that, 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. Remember, Ohio was a very unionized state, even in the 1950s.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 19, 2016, 10:56:56 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 18, 2016, 06:56:27 PM
A zipper merge is actually better for traffic congestion. By not forcing an earlier merge, you have more space and time to merge safely.
I'm not so sure about this. Assuming enough traffic that it even matters (if there are no cars to merge with it doesn't matter which lane you're in), travel time is not impacted, only the location of the bottleneck. As for safety, if you see a safe window to merge early, how do you know there will be another one later on? It's likely to be more and more packed the closer to the merge you get. If you're not looking for a safe window until your lane has already ended you are creating a hazard for yourself and others, especially if you are zipping along while the other lane is backed up. Personally, I try to stay away from the merging lanes whenever possible (e.g. if there are 3 lanes and the right lane ends, I tend to be in the left lane). Of course, if everybody did that, it would create a worse backup, but they don't.
Exactly. People should merge wherever they can do so without affecting traffic behind them. If the road is backing up due to the merge, where the merge is starts to matter much less than having
only one merge, so in that situation, people should do a zipper merge wherever traffic has decided to do it, not blow by everyone and then force people to stop (right after they had finally started accelerating from the backup to boot!) to let you in. It's an asshole move and all the talk of "late merging" does in practice, no matter what the intent, is give these people an excuse to act this way.
While late zipper merging might be able to help in preventing these backups from forming, it just makes them worse once they do, so the late merging advocates would do well to shut up to the public and confine their arguments to DOT employees who do work zone traffic control.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 19, 2016, 11:38:54 AM
Conditions were way different back when roads were built. OSHA didn't exist. Fair work practices didn't exist. If they wanted you to work 14 hours a day 7 days a week, you either worked it, or gave up your job to someone that would. If someone died, it was just part of the job.
They weren't also worried about building a roadway while trying to safely get thousands of other cars thru the same area at the same time.
I don't think the work week you estimate is accurate for the 1949-1955 time period when (according to Wikipedia) the Ohio Turnpike was being built. Or the attitude about safety. Unionization was very strong then. The 40 hour work week became a national law in 1940, and many states and businesses had it before then, especially unionized ones.
http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-the-40-hour-workweek-2015-10
In the 1950s workplaces weren't as safe as they became later, but the era of treating workers as disposable was long over. By the 1920s, almost all states had workers' comp laws, so if a worker got injured or killed it cost the employer money.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/history-of-workplace-safety-in-the-united-states-1880-1970/
Quote from: vdeane on April 19, 2016, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 19, 2016, 10:56:56 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 18, 2016, 06:56:27 PM
A zipper merge is actually better for traffic congestion. By not forcing an earlier merge, you have more space and time to merge safely.
I'm not so sure about this. Assuming enough traffic that it even matters (if there are no cars to merge with it doesn't matter which lane you're in), travel time is not impacted, only the location of the bottleneck. As for safety, if you see a safe window to merge early, how do you know there will be another one later on? It's likely to be more and more packed the closer to the merge you get. If you're not looking for a safe window until your lane has already ended you are creating a hazard for yourself and others, especially if you are zipping along while the other lane is backed up. Personally, I try to stay away from the merging lanes whenever possible (e.g. if there are 3 lanes and the right lane ends, I tend to be in the left lane). Of course, if everybody did that, it would create a worse backup, but they don't.
Exactly. People should merge wherever they can do so without affecting traffic behind them. If the road is backing up due to the merge, where the merge is starts to matter much less than having only one merge, so in that situation, people should do a zipper merge wherever traffic has decided to do it, not blow by everyone and then force people to stop (right after they had finally started accelerating from the backup to boot!) to let you in. It's an asshole move and all the talk of "late merging" does in practice, no matter what the intent, is give these people an excuse to act this way.
While late zipper merging might be able to help in preventing these backups from forming, it just makes them worse once they do, so the late merging advocates would do well to shut up to the public and confine their arguments to DOT employees who do work zone traffic control.
Phooey. Utilize the full capacity of the road. Merge at the lane closure.
Rediculous speed limit drops. When they do work on I-84 in Oregon (like between La Grande and Pendleton as a somewhat recent example), they lower the Speed Limit of the entire section (pretty long, maybe 10 miles or so at times) to 45 MPH. Yes, it dropped to one lane in each direction for the most part, but there is still a concrete barrier in between lanes, and even a few passing lanes! If normal 2 lane highways can have speed limits as high as 55 in the past, and since March, now as high as 70, why does it need to be lowered to 45? I fully admit to hitting 80 MPH in that particular work zone to pass a truck before the end of a passing lane. In Idaho, when they closed down I-84 between Caldwell and Ontario to 1 lane each direction, they kept a reasonable 65 MPH (though traffic was often too heavy to maintain that speed...), so at least some states have common sense.
Quote from: Rothman on April 19, 2016, 02:50:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 19, 2016, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 19, 2016, 10:56:56 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 18, 2016, 06:56:27 PM
A zipper merge is actually better for traffic congestion. By not forcing an earlier merge, you have more space and time to merge safely.
I'm not so sure about this. Assuming enough traffic that it even matters (if there are no cars to merge with it doesn't matter which lane you're in), travel time is not impacted, only the location of the bottleneck. As for safety, if you see a safe window to merge early, how do you know there will be another one later on? It's likely to be more and more packed the closer to the merge you get. If you're not looking for a safe window until your lane has already ended you are creating a hazard for yourself and others, especially if you are zipping along while the other lane is backed up. Personally, I try to stay away from the merging lanes whenever possible (e.g. if there are 3 lanes and the right lane ends, I tend to be in the left lane). Of course, if everybody did that, it would create a worse backup, but they don't.
Exactly. People should merge wherever they can do so without affecting traffic behind them. If the road is backing up due to the merge, where the merge is starts to matter much less than having only one merge, so in that situation, people should do a zipper merge wherever traffic has decided to do it, not blow by everyone and then force people to stop (right after they had finally started accelerating from the backup to boot!) to let you in. It's an asshole move and all the talk of "late merging" does in practice, no matter what the intent, is give these people an excuse to act this way.
While late zipper merging might be able to help in preventing these backups from forming, it just makes them worse once they do, so the late merging advocates would do well to shut up to the public and confine their arguments to DOT employees who do work zone traffic control.
Phooey. Utilize the full capacity of the road. Merge at the lane closure.
Yep. Assuming traffic is congested: Wherever the merge point is, whether it be at the lane closure point or a mile away, it involves a zipper merge. When the zipper merge occurs prior to the merge point, it creates aggression issues down the road because of those that don't merge at that artificial point.
Another example: On NJ 55, it merges from 2 lanes to 1 lane about a 1/2 mile prior to Rt. 42. The standard for a few decades now is use both lanes to the end and zipper merge. 55 is used both as a commuting route and a shore route, especially with those living in PA.
When there's issues, it's bound to be a PA driver coming back from a rare trip to the Jersey Shore that sees the "Lane Ends 1/2 Mile Ahead" and tries to use their 6' wide car to straddle 2, 12' wide lanes, thinking that they will control traffic. Or, a slower vehicle will merge over to the left way before they needed to, and people zoom by on the right.
Because of this, the lane reduction almost always functions better during weekdays (which it's nearly 100% regular drivers on their normal commutes) than weekends.
What's frustrating is that the overpass to merge onto Rt. 42 was built to allow 55 mph driving. Probably because there's so many overpasses with sharp turns, many motorists have a habit of slowing down more than they need to, which at minimum causes, and generally exacerbates, the traffic congestion.
Quote from: Rothman on April 19, 2016, 02:50:02 PM
Phooey. Utilize the full capacity of the road. Merge at the lane closure.
You know, capacity of the road is not the same as capacity of the parking lot. It is determined mostly by the throughput of the bottleneck, not by the total area of the pavement. And 1 foot of single lane bottleneck is not much better than half a mile in terms of traffic capacity
Actually "only one merge, wherever that is located" sounds more than reasonable. Zipper
will fail once incoming traffic approaches bottleneck capacity - even if that happens as a very short spike. Think about early merge as about "zipper merge" with adjustable storage area for traffic fluctuations - and you may understand why merging late is actually against the entire "zipper" concept.
Exactly. People flying by the stopped traffic and butting in at the last second while everyone else decided to merge earlier is essentially the OPPOSITE of a zipper merge because you're artificially increasing the number of merge points. Plus, now everyone has to wait while someone else slams on their brakes to let you in, when they could have been accelerating up to speed. Now, for the Church of the Late Mergers, this might be OK, akin to God punishing the sinners for merging at the wrong point, but I find it to be quite rude.
Here's how I do it:
-If no traffic: merge close to end of lane
-If traffic: merge when I get a gap in the other lane big enough that I do not affect the other drivers there
-If a parking lot: merge wherever the zipper merge by consensus happens to be
Quote from: vdeane on April 19, 2016, 05:16:42 PM
Plus, now everyone has to wait while someone else slams on their brakes to let you in, when they could have been accelerating up to speed.
You mean like when you squeeze into a gap before the merge point, and the car behind you has to "slam on their brakes" to give you some room? There is rarely a merge which doesn't require some sort of braking action by the car being merged in front of.
QuoteZipper will fail once incoming traffic approaches bottleneck capacity
Actually, quite the opposite. Prior to reaching capacity, traffic will free flow into the reduced lane. After it reaches capacity (or artifically created by a slowdown) is when zipper merges are effective.
If there is one, and only one, zipper merge, then it works well. The problem is if that zipper merge isn't at the end, then it varies, and multiple zipper points occur. Some people move over the second they are a sign saying lane closed. Some move over when they see traffic congesting. Some move over at some random point...and finally, some move up to the very end. Whenever someone merges in, they are going to feel that everyone should do what they did at the exact point they did it.
The way I see it: If you see a stop ahead sign, that tells you to stop at the stop sign. Not at the stop ahead sign. Not at a random point between the signs. If there's a curve ahead sign, you turn at the curve. Not at the sign. Not at a random point between the sign and the curve. Thus, when a lane ends, merge at the end of the lane. The only difference in my example is of traffic isn't congested, I'll move over earlier.
Pet peeve #1: that sign that says "EXPECT DELAYS" just as you enter a work zone. Unless you drive by that site every day (and they're often on long stretches of interstate far from home), by the time you see that message, it's too late to "expect a delay". It just comes off as a bit arrogant as in, "we're doing this, we don't care how much traffic you're stuck in, and if you don't like it: piss off!"
A second one is the work zone that closes a lane for miles where there is work only on a 0.1 mile stretch involving 2 guys in a pickup truck.
And, lastly: the artificially low work zone speed limits accompanied by Officer Friendly hiding behind a Jersey barrier waiting to give you a massive ticket. Whether anyone is actually working there or not.
"Expect Delays" is the agency motto of WashDOT.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 19, 2016, 11:38:54 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 18, 2016, 09:49:13 PM
How long it takes!! They built the entire Ohio Turnpike in just over three years, but it takes MDOT two years to rebuild a five-mile stretch of I-75 near Monroe??
Conditions were way different back when roads were built. OSHA didn't exist. Fair work practices didn't exist. If they wanted you to work 14 hours a day 7 days a week, you either worked it, or gave up your job to someone that would. If someone died, it was just part of the job.
They weren't also worried about building a roadway while trying to safely get thousands of other cars thru the same area at the same time.
Fair point, taken, about work conditions. Maintaining existing traffic, dubious depending on the project. On the Monroe project, all traffic is on one side of the freeway separated from the other (work) side by a concrete Jersey barrier, and no temporary crossover exit/entrance ramps. Taking a full construction season to do a five-mile stretch on one side is ridiculous.
Quote from: kkt on April 19, 2016, 06:59:54 PM
"Expect Delays" is the agency motto of WashDOT.
Reminds me of probably the worst road work related traffic I've been in. One summer (this was probably like 5 years ago), driving from Bend to the Mt. Vernon, WA area (North of Seattle). Instead of going through Portland, we decided to take US-97 up through Yakima and take I-90. This would have worked great...until we hit road work. I-90 reduced to 1 lane each way approaching Snoqualmie Pass (don't remember exactly where it was, but in that general area). Brought traffic to a standstill probably a mile or more before the merge. I estimate it probably added about an hour to the trip.
We took I-5 back.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 19, 2016, 11:38:54 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 18, 2016, 09:49:13 PM
How long it takes!! They built the entire Ohio Turnpike in just over three years, but it takes MDOT two years to rebuild a five-mile stretch of I-75 near Monroe??
Conditions were way different back when roads were built. OSHA didn't exist. Fair work practices didn't exist. If they wanted you to work 14 hours a day 7 days a week, you either worked it, or gave up your job to someone that would. If someone died, it was just part of the job.
They weren't also worried about building a roadway while trying to safely get thousands of other cars thru the same area at the same time.
More importantly, road construction is a lot harder to do when there's already ambient traffic ON that road :D
Saw these signs in South Carolina a couple times the past 5 years. I just find them preachy as all hell....guess they do the job getting your attention.
(https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M3818c1931942cbb74a3ced32ca2c4b2eo0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300)
Quote from: vdeane on April 19, 2016, 05:16:42 PM
Exactly. People flying by the stopped traffic and butting in at the last second while everyone else decided to merge earlier is essentially the OPPOSITE of a zipper merge because you're artificially increasing the number of merge points. Plus, now everyone has to wait while someone else slams on their brakes to let you in, when they could have been accelerating up to speed. Now, for the Church of the Late Mergers, this might be OK, akin to God punishing the sinners for merging at the wrong point, but I find it to be quite rude.
Here's how I do it:
-If no traffic: merge close to end of lane
-If traffic: merge when I get a gap in the other lane big enough that I do not affect the other drivers there
-If a parking lot: merge wherever the zipper merge by consensus happens to be
The problem with the "merge early" concept is that there is never a "merge by consensus" point. Everyone will have his own idea of what the correct spot is. That doesn't work.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 19, 2016, 08:13:52 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 19, 2016, 11:38:54 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 18, 2016, 09:49:13 PM
How long it takes!! They built the entire Ohio Turnpike in just over three years, but it takes MDOT two years to rebuild a five-mile stretch of I-75 near Monroe??
Conditions were way different back when roads were built. OSHA didn't exist. Fair work practices didn't exist. If they wanted you to work 14 hours a day 7 days a week, you either worked it, or gave up your job to someone that would. If someone died, it was just part of the job.
They weren't also worried about building a roadway while trying to safely get thousands of other cars thru the same area at the same time.
Fair point, taken, about work conditions. Maintaining existing traffic, dubious depending on the project. On the Monroe project, all traffic is on one side of the freeway separated from the other (work) side by a concrete Jersey barrier, and no temporary crossover exit/entrance ramps. Taking a full construction season to do a five-mile stretch on one side is ridiculous.
re: the I-75 work...Where on I-75 are they "rebuilding" the freeway. I remember when they practically rebuilt all of I-75 in Southern Monroe County in the late 80s. I thought the rebuilt pavement would easily last 30-40+ years.
stupid closures that make no sense :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Freeway work in big cities. Not only is it visually unappealing, but it's really complicated to drive on. Even on local roads, the neighborhood I lived in for the last 5 months had road work on my street, and the entire neighborhood, THE WHOLE TIME. Some roads were completely one-way while road work was being done
on pipes. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: I realize this stuff needs maintenance, but why go to this extent for stupid pipes? You could have just moved the pipes on only the outsides of major roads so you didn't have to dig right into the road next time!
Quote from: authenticroadgeek on April 20, 2016, 09:35:52 AM
Freeway work in big cities. Not only is it visually unappealing, but it's really complicated to drive on. Even on local roads, the neighborhood I lived in for the last 5 months had road work on my street, and the entire neighborhood, THE WHOLE TIME. Some roads were completely one-way while road work was being done
on pipes. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: I realize this stuff needs maintenance, but why go to this extent for stupid pipes? You could have just moved the pipes on only the outsides of major roads so you didn't have to dig right into the road next time!
Because you don't know what already exists under the road or ground in that area. And depending on the city or town, if it's under the sidewalk, they have to make a pedestrian walkway available, which often times means closing a lane in the street anyway.
Quote from: kkt on April 19, 2016, 06:59:54 PM
"Expect Delays" is the agency motto of WashDOT.
And the orange "Road Work Ahead" sign is the state flower of Oklahoma.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 19, 2016, 05:56:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 19, 2016, 05:16:42 PM
Plus, now everyone has to wait while someone else slams on their brakes to let you in, when they could have been accelerating up to speed.
You mean like when you squeeze into a gap before the merge point, and the car behind you has to "slam on their brakes" to give you some room? There is rarely a merge which doesn't require some sort of braking action by the car being merged in front of.
I won't ever take a gap that small for a merge unless I have no other choice. It's also rude. Basically, if someone has to let you in, it's rude.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 19, 2016, 09:19:06 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 19, 2016, 05:16:42 PM
Exactly. People flying by the stopped traffic and butting in at the last second while everyone else decided to merge earlier is essentially the OPPOSITE of a zipper merge because you're artificially increasing the number of merge points. Plus, now everyone has to wait while someone else slams on their brakes to let you in, when they could have been accelerating up to speed. Now, for the Church of the Late Mergers, this might be OK, akin to God punishing the sinners for merging at the wrong point, but I find it to be quite rude.
Here's how I do it:
-If no traffic: merge close to end of lane
-If traffic: merge when I get a gap in the other lane big enough that I do not affect the other drivers there
-If a parking lot: merge wherever the zipper merge by consensus happens to be
The problem with the "merge early" concept is that there is never a "merge by consensus" point. Everyone will have his own idea of what the correct spot is. That doesn't work.
Drive on the Northway in rush hour. Happens all the time with acceleration lanes: 90% of the traffic merges at the same spot right where the ramp makes contact with the travel lane, the remaining 10% interrupts everyone's accelerating away from the merge-caused backup to butt in at the end. Sure, it's an acceleration lane and not a work zone lane closure, but it's the same principle.
I'm not an "early merger" but neither am I a "late merger". I am a "'merge wherever is least disruptive for traffic flow'-er". Judging by the comments, I guess I'm the only one.
Quote from: vdeane on April 20, 2016, 12:58:29 PM
Drive on the Northway in rush hour. Happens all the time with acceleration lanes: 90% of the traffic merges at the same spot right where the ramp makes contact with the travel lane, the remaining 10% interrupts everyone's accelerating away from the merge-caused backup to butt in at the end. Sure, it's an acceleration lane and not a work zone lane closure, but it's the same principle.
Even worse...the person that wants to merge over before the ramp even makes contact with the travel lane, crossing the solid line.
When it's backed up enough, that happens too, though when it does it's because someone didn't want to wait for traffic to creep forward the one car length needed so that he could merge into the same spot as the guy in front.
Driving over steel plates covering up a trench across the road. Or in insane cases, plywood.
Quote from: bmorrill on April 20, 2016, 11:09:26 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 19, 2016, 06:59:54 PM
"Expect Delays" is the agency motto of WashDOT.
And the orange "Road Work Ahead" sign is the state flower of Oklahoma.
:rofl:
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 19, 2016, 09:19:06 PM
The problem with the "merge early" concept is that there is never a "merge by consensus" point. Everyone will have his own idea of what the correct spot is. That doesn't work.
That's one of the things PennDOT has been doing pretty well in most construction zones where 2 lanes reduce to 1... They'll have an advance (if not more than one) sign stating "Use Both Lanes Until Merge Point", then at the merge point a sign that will say "Merge Here. Take Your Turn".
I don't know that I've seen signs like this in general (not in a construction zone), but in heavy traffic areas, I wouldn't mind.
In cases where two lanes merge into one, what if both lanes had arrows pointing towards the other, indicating an equal merge? That way, cars wouldn't feel like they're cutting in at the last second.
I think PennDOT's approach is a step in the right direction but not enough.
In another thread some time ago, I suggested the zipper merge might work better if the merge point was very clearly indicated (both with a sign and a transverse pavement marking) and a flashing signal indicating when zipper merge enforcement was in effect.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1522/26455971302_323cfd6ae9_b.jpg)
What drives me nuts is when there's concrete barriers up right up against the travel lanes. Going through a concrete chute at speed feels very unsafe, and this is usually combined with narrow lanes, uneven pavement and shitty pavement markings. I know it's to protect highway workers, but it always feels like if one car drifts too far in one direction or the other it could lead to a very bad chain reaction very quickly because there's no place to dodge to in order to avoid a collision.
This is often combined with inadequate merging sites.
Quote from: briantroutman on April 20, 2016, 06:08:50 PM
I think PennDOT's approach is a step in the right direction but not enough.
In another thread some time ago, I suggested the zipper merge might work better if the merge point was very clearly indicated (both with a sign and a transverse pavement marking) and a flashing signal indicating when zipper merge enforcement was in effect.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1522/26455971302_323cfd6ae9_b.jpg)
At that point, it would be beneficial to install a ramp meter signal. We have plenty of 2-lane ramp meters here in Seattle and they work pretty well to control traffic flow. Some are even 3 lanes, with the extra as a HOV bypass.
Quote from: thenetwork on April 20, 2016, 12:56:44 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 19, 2016, 08:13:52 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 19, 2016, 11:38:54 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 18, 2016, 09:49:13 PM
How long it takes!! They built the entire Ohio Turnpike in just over three years, but it takes MDOT two years to rebuild a five-mile stretch of I-75 near Monroe??
Conditions were way different back when roads were built. OSHA didn't exist. Fair work practices didn't exist. If they wanted you to work 14 hours a day 7 days a week, you either worked it, or gave up your job to someone that would. If someone died, it was just part of the job.
They weren't also worried about building a roadway while trying to safely get thousands of other cars thru the same area at the same time.
Fair point, taken, about work conditions. Maintaining existing traffic, dubious depending on the project. On the Monroe project, all traffic is on one side of the freeway separated from the other (work) side by a concrete Jersey barrier, and no temporary crossover exit/entrance ramps. Taking a full construction season to do a five-mile stretch on one side is ridiculous.
re: the I-75 work...Where on I-75 are they "rebuilding" the freeway. I remember when they practically rebuilt all of I-75 in Southern Monroe County in the late 80s. I thought the rebuilt pavement would easily last 30-40+ years.
:rofl: Nothing done in Michigan lasts 30-40+ years!
Remember, we are the state where someone thought it would be a good idea to build a thirty-mile long freeway with zero expansion joints. I-275 was nearly pulverized into gravel within ten years, and it took them nearly ten more years to repair it. Now, the headache has shifted to the northern end of I-275, last rebuilt fifteen years ago, but they expect to completely rebuild the entire five-mile stretch this year.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2016, 06:56:04 PM
What drives me nuts is when there's concrete barriers up right up against the travel lanes. Going through a concrete chute at speed feels very unsafe, and this is usually combined with narrow lanes, uneven pavement and shitty pavement markings. I know it's to protect highway workers, but it always feels like if one car drifts too far in one direction or the other it could lead to a very bad chain reaction very quickly because there's no place to dodge to in order to avoid a collision.
I've always found said stretches to be rather exhilarating. Safe? Probably not. But fun? If you like the feel of driving way faster than you are, definitely.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 20, 2016, 07:16:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2016, 06:56:04 PM
What drives me nuts is when there's concrete barriers up right up against the travel lanes. Going through a concrete chute at speed feels very unsafe, and this is usually combined with narrow lanes, uneven pavement and shitty pavement markings. I know it's to protect highway workers, but it always feels like if one car drifts too far in one direction or the other it could lead to a very bad chain reaction very quickly because there's no place to dodge to in order to avoid a collision.
I've always found said stretches to be rather exhilarating. Safe? Probably not. But fun? If you like the feel of driving way faster than you are, definitely.
Your view on them changes when you have to go through them every day to get to work, and the poorly designed merge causes you to get into two crashes.
Quote from: Bruce on April 20, 2016, 07:14:00 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on April 20, 2016, 06:08:50 PM
I think PennDOT's approach is a step in the right direction but not enough.
In another thread some time ago, I suggested the zipper merge might work better if the merge point was very clearly indicated (both with a sign and a transverse pavement marking) and a flashing signal indicating when zipper merge enforcement was in effect.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1522/26455971302_323cfd6ae9_b.jpg)
At that point, it would be beneficial to install a ramp meter signal. We have plenty of 2-lane ramp meters here in Seattle and they work pretty well to control traffic flow. Some are even 3 lanes, with the extra as a HOV bypass.
So instead of people moving slowly, you'd rather they come to a complete stop?
Quote from: vdeane on April 21, 2016, 12:55:45 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 20, 2016, 07:14:00 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on April 20, 2016, 06:08:50 PM
I think PennDOT's approach is a step in the right direction but not enough.
In another thread some time ago, I suggested the zipper merge might work better if the merge point was very clearly indicated (both with a sign and a transverse pavement marking) and a flashing signal indicating when zipper merge enforcement was in effect.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1522/26455971302_323cfd6ae9_b.jpg)
At that point, it would be beneficial to install a ramp meter signal. We have plenty of 2-lane ramp meters here in Seattle and they work pretty well to control traffic flow. Some are even 3 lanes, with the extra as a HOV bypass.
So instead of people moving slowly, you'd rather they come to a complete stop?
One can't trust drivers to merge properly. If they're slow moving anyway, then a stop is no big deal (a loss of maybe half a minute of time?).
Quote from: Bruce on April 21, 2016, 03:45:24 PM
One can't trust drivers to merge properly. If they're slow moving anyway, then a stop is no big deal (a loss of maybe half a minute of time?).
Sure, there are always idiots who would try to jump the line.
Quote from: Bruce on April 21, 2016, 03:45:24 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 21, 2016, 12:55:45 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 20, 2016, 07:14:00 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on April 20, 2016, 06:08:50 PM
I think PennDOT's approach is a step in the right direction but not enough.
In another thread some time ago, I suggested the zipper merge might work better if the merge point was very clearly indicated (both with a sign and a transverse pavement marking) and a flashing signal indicating when zipper merge enforcement was in effect.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1522/26455971302_323cfd6ae9_b.jpg)
At that point, it would be beneficial to install a ramp meter signal. We have plenty of 2-lane ramp meters here in Seattle and they work pretty well to control traffic flow. Some are even 3 lanes, with the extra as a HOV bypass.
So instead of people moving slowly, you'd rather they come to a complete stop?
One can't trust drivers to merge properly. If they're slow moving anyway, then a stop is no big deal (a loss of maybe half a minute of time?).
QuoteMr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I can't say anything more.
Here's a sign I photographed in Augusta, Maine, last October (that I've posted other places). This seems to reflect the idea that jakeroot brought up; traffic control devices that specifically suggest zipper merging. I love this idea--it's downright revolutionary imo. Perhaps Maine also applies similar sign facings in construction orange?
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1506/25962908843_23afe23dfe_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FyfGgn)
Quote from: Brandon on April 21, 2016, 04:11:48 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 21, 2016, 03:45:24 PM
One can't trust drivers to merge properly. If they're slow moving anyway, then a stop is no big deal (a loss of maybe half a minute of time?).
QuoteMr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I can't say anything more.
He's not suggesting a ramp meter wherever a lane ends (although I know it appears that way). He's suggesting ramp meters where ramps merge onto the freeway, where multiple lanes merge before the actual, final freeway merge. Ramp meters do not stand to benefit the merging roadway. But they do speed up the flow of traffic on the mainline, and once you're past the traffic meter, you tend to fly up to the merge. The busy on-ramps near me without ramp meters are a very slow roll onto the freeway, which is also rolling slow, but the busy on-ramps with ramp meters are much faster
once you're past the meter, because traffic on the mainline is moving much faster.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 21, 2016, 04:13:54 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 20, 2016, 07:16:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2016, 06:56:04 PM
What drives me nuts is when there's concrete barriers up right up against the travel lanes. Going through a concrete chute at speed feels very unsafe, and this is usually combined with narrow lanes, uneven pavement and shitty pavement markings. I know it's to protect highway workers, but it always feels like if one car drifts too far in one direction or the other it could lead to a very bad chain reaction very quickly because there's no place to dodge to in order to avoid a collision.
I've always found said stretches to be rather exhilarating. Safe? Probably not. But fun? If you like the feel of driving way faster than you are, definitely.
Your view on them changes when you have to go through them every day to get to work, and the poorly designed merge causes you to get into two crashes.
Well, you got me there. I haven't crashed. But I do go through a narrow stretch every day on my way home from work:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLklabY2.png&hash=bbb4f3d750ec7c2ba309303e38814fe095fa55ee)
45 MPH speed limits that last for dozens of miles.
I agree with major construction projects that don't list nor acknowledge alternative routes in advance of where bottlenecks may regularly occur. If more of the major or longer-term construction areas would make the effort to sign these zones (or use VMSs) to alert traffic of potential delays and alternate routes 5-10+ miles (or several exits) in advance, some thru traffic will exit early to avoid the construction, which means:
1) Less congestion at merge points
2) Not as much traffic in work zones = slightly safer areas for workers.
3) Those who freak out about driving in construction zones also have a chance to bail out before it's too late.
As a footnote, if you install a big sign saying that height, length and/or width is restricted in a construction zone, then list the alternate route(s) those vehicles can take. I have seen far too many zones in my travels that will restrict certain-sized vehicles, but will also leave them in the dark as to what their options are.
Quote from: thenetwork on April 22, 2016, 01:01:55 AM
I agree with major construction projects that don't list nor acknowledge alternative routes in advance of where bottlenecks may regularly occur. If more of the major or longer-term construction areas would make the effort to sign these zones (or use VMSs) to alert traffic of potential delays and alternate routes 5-10+ miles (or several exits) in advance, some thru traffic will exit early to avoid the construction, which means:
As far as I understand, detours are not free - if a state-maintained road sends detour on a county road going through the town, payments to both county and town would be made. Besides, town may be unhappy with that detour, because it overloads already old road / endangers kids / traffic noise keeps mayor's wife awake at night. I heard a story of police enforcing a few miles detour so that traffic doesn't go along a 100 yard stretch of town street for whatever reason they had in mind
All that assumes that a convenient detour even exists to begin with.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 21, 2016, 06:46:57 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 21, 2016, 04:11:48 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 21, 2016, 03:45:24 PM
One can't trust drivers to merge properly. If they're slow moving anyway, then a stop is no big deal (a loss of maybe half a minute of time?).
QuoteMr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I can't say anything more.
He's not suggesting a ramp meter wherever a lane ends (although I know it appears that way). He's suggesting ramp meters where ramps merge onto the freeway, where multiple lanes merge before the actual, final freeway merge. Ramp meters do not stand to benefit the merging roadway. But they do speed up the flow of traffic on the mainline, and once you're past the traffic meter, you tend to fly up to the merge. The busy on-ramps near me without ramp meters are a very slow roll onto the freeway, which is also rolling slow, but the busy on-ramps with ramp meters are much faster once you're past the meter, because traffic on the mainline is moving much faster.
Of course, that's assuming that the people getting on know how to use acceleration lanes (and that such lanes exist). Capital District drivers, if they saw a ramp meter, would likely start merging onto the freeway at 5 mph even when everyone else is driving 65-75 mph.
In any case, the graphic looked more like a lane drop on the freeway.
Quote from: vdeane on April 22, 2016, 12:48:40 PM
Of course, that's assuming that the people getting on know how to use acceleration lanes (and that such lanes exist). Capital District drivers, if they saw a ramp meter, would likely start merging onto the freeway at 5 mph even when everyone else is driving 65-75 mph.
I think that's the definition of "beside the point". :-D
Quote from: vdeane on April 22, 2016, 12:48:40 PM
In any case, the graphic looked more like a lane drop on the freeway.
I think it is. But I'm pretty sure, just from knowing how Bruce thinks, he's talking about ramp meters, not meters on the freeways themselves. That's simply idiotic. Freeways exist to avoid signals.
I'll repeat the aforementioned early mergers... merge at the merge point. When you merge early and that area of road isn't getting used, you're blocking that much more o the turn lanes and exits towards the back of the line, plus the removal of all of those cars that would be exiting if you would just merge at the end.
I'll also add the "Slow Down... My MOMMY works here" signs... there invariably is not a single mommy working on the work zone when that sign is present.
Quote from: UCFKnights on April 24, 2016, 12:51:15 PM
I'll repeat the aforementioned early mergers... merge at the merge point. When you merge early and that area of road isn't getting used, you're blocking that much more o the turn lanes and exits towards the back of the line, plus the removal of all of those cars that would be exiting if you would just merge at the end.
What if traffic needs to merge towards inner (US left) lane?
Quote from: UCFKnights on April 24, 2016, 12:51:15 PM
I'll repeat the aforementioned early mergers... merge at the merge point. When you merge early and that area of road isn't getting used, you're blocking that much more o the turn lanes and exits towards the back of the line, plus the removal of all of those cars that would be exiting if you would just merge at the end.
I'll also add the "Slow Down... My MOMMY works here" signs... there invariably is not a single mommy working on the work zone when that sign is present.
The other day, the digital billboard along the lower deck of I-93 at the Somerville/Boston (MA) line was displaying "Slow Down My Mommy Works Here", but with the additional line "Speed Limit 15 MPH". Pure idiocy if you ask me.
Quote from: UCFKnights on April 24, 2016, 12:51:15 PM
I'll also add the "Slow Down... My MOMMY works here" signs... there invariably is not a single mommy working on the work zone when that sign is present.
I'm starting to feel like "Slow Down... My MOMMY works here" is becoming a meme in the construction field.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 20, 2016, 07:16:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2016, 06:56:04 PM
What drives me nuts is when there's concrete barriers up right up against the travel lanes. Going through a concrete chute at speed feels very unsafe, and this is usually combined with narrow lanes, uneven pavement and shitty pavement markings. I know it's to protect highway workers, but it always feels like if one car drifts too far in one direction or the other it could lead to a very bad chain reaction very quickly because there's no place to dodge to in order to avoid a collision.
I've always found said stretches to be rather exhilarating. Safe? Probably not. But fun? If you like the feel of driving way faster than you are, definitely.
Yes, which in turn causes drivers to slow down even more, thus increasing congestion and collisions.
Unless you have at least 60 cm between the EP and the barrier, those things create way too many problems.
Quote from: cbeach40 on April 27, 2016, 10:35:19 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 20, 2016, 07:16:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2016, 06:56:04 PM
What drives me nuts is when there's concrete barriers up right up against the travel lanes. Going through a concrete chute at speed feels very unsafe, and this is usually combined with narrow lanes, uneven pavement and shitty pavement markings. I know it's to protect highway workers, but it always feels like if one car drifts too far in one direction or the other it could lead to a very bad chain reaction very quickly because there's no place to dodge to in order to avoid a collision.
I've always found said stretches to be rather exhilarating. Safe? Probably not. But fun? If you like the feel of driving way faster than you are, definitely.
Yes, which in turn causes drivers to slow down even more, thus increasing congestion and collisions.
Unless you have at least 60 cm between the EP and the barrier, those things create way too many problems.
In construction zones, narrow stretches are inevitable. If it's concrete barriers versus orange barrels, I think it's safe to say that concrete barriers have by far the best safety record.
As well, I don't think slowing down in construction zones is a bad thing.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 27, 2016, 04:46:50 PM
In construction zones, narrow stretches are inevitable. If it's concrete barriers versus orange barrels, I think it's safe to say that concrete barriers have by the far the best safety record.
As well, I don't think slowing down in construction zones is a bad thing.
Concrete barriers with impact attenuators or sand barrels placed at the ends are best. For side impacts, concrete barriers are superior as well because they're anchored to the ground. Barrels don't help resist anything physically; they're nothing more than big fat guide markers.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 27, 2016, 04:46:50 PM
In construction zones, narrow stretches are inevitable.
Not if the workzone is designed to avoid it. Shoulders can be paved/extended in order to provide full-width lanes, work can be phased to avoid having to unduly narrow the carriageways, etc. In some instances, rather than narrowing and shifting both carriageways you can go contraflow on one while you work on the other all at once.
Quote
As well, I don't think slowing down in construction zones is a bad thing.
I have no issue with slowing down. I have issue with the fact that nobody else does. That and you have to drive alongside wide vehicles like semis in these work areas.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 27, 2016, 04:46:50 PM
In construction zones, narrow stretches are inevitable.
No, they're not. Sometimes unavoidable, but if designed and constructed properly, usually they can be avoided.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 27, 2016, 04:46:50 PM
If it's concrete barriers versus orange barrels, I think it's safe to say that concrete barriers have by far the best safety record.
Construction barrels function as delineators, not as barriers. Comparing the two makes no sense.
Far an away the best protection is a clear zone. If an adequate clear zone cannot be achieved, then a barrier should be installed. But don't do a poor job of it - ie, putting close enough to the travel lane that it creates a hazard in itself and reduces safety.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 27, 2016, 04:46:50 PM
As well, I don't think slowing down in construction zones is a bad thing.
Slowing down in a predicable and consistent manner is a good thing. Sudden reactionary movements caused by a roadside hazard (such as a barrier placed too close) are not safe. It's a recipe for collisions.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on April 18, 2016, 12:36:23 PM
Putting on my John T. Bagger hat for a second, having a work zone set up that's affecting traffic and either seeing no workers present on site or +/- 5 workers standing around for every worker doing work.
Hey, it's hard work standing around holding a shovel and watching your fellow workers! :-D
Quote from: bmorrill on April 20, 2016, 11:09:26 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 19, 2016, 06:59:54 PM
"Expect Delays" is the agency motto of WashDOT.
And the orange "Road Work Ahead" sign is the state flower of Oklahoma.
:-D
Quote from: cbeach40 on April 28, 2016, 10:49:46 AM
No, they're not. Sometimes unavoidable, but if designed and constructed properly, usually they can be avoided.
...
Far an away the best protection is a clear zone. If an adequate clear zone cannot be achieved, then a barrier should be installed. But don't do a poor job of it - ie, putting close enough to the travel lane that it creates a hazard in itself and reduces safety.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 28, 2016, 12:24:32 AM
Not if the workzone is designed to avoid it. Shoulders can be paved/extended in order to provide full-width lanes, work can be phased to avoid having to unduly narrow the carriageways, etc. In some instances, rather than narrowing and shifting both carriageways you can go contraflow on one while you work on the other all at once.
Maybe it's just something I've been experiencing lately with all the resurfacing projects in my area. Lots of work zones have no shoulder whatsoever. Plenty of them do, but a lot don't.
It has a lot to do with available ROW as well. If there isn't enough to adequately perform the work at hand, sometimes, you have no choice but to reduce the shoulder to near zero.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 28, 2016, 12:24:32 AM
I have no issue with slowing down. I have issue with the fact that nobody else does. That and you have to drive alongside wide vehicles like semis in these work areas.
If no one else slows down, than neither should you. If the concrete barriers slow traffic, great. But if not, what's the loss? ......
Quote from: cbeach40 on April 28, 2016, 10:49:46 AM
Slowing down in a predicable and consistent manner is a good thing. Sudden reactionary movements caused by a roadside hazard (such as a barrier placed too close) are not safe. It's a recipe for collisions.
Is there really an increase in collisions? Or is that just rhetoric, spurred by the perceived danger of a narrow carriageway? If anything, they keep you on your toes and off your phone.
Also, a sudden reaction to a barrier placed too close? Barriers don't exactly sneak up on you. If the fear is over-correcting because of the barrier, just as many people over-correct when they drift into a shoulder. I'd be surprised if over-correcting is unique to narrow stretches.
Quote from: hm insulators on April 28, 2016, 02:16:35 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on April 18, 2016, 12:36:23 PM
Putting on my John T. Bagger hat for a second, having a work zone set up that's affecting traffic and either seeing no workers present on site or +/- 5 workers standing around for every worker doing work.
Hey, it's hard work standing around holding a shovel and watching your fellow workers! :-D
I've never minded hard work - I can sit and watch it all day long.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 28, 2016, 06:14:45 PM
Is there really an increase in collisions? Or is that just rhetoric, spurred by the perceived danger of a narrow carriageway?
Reduction in shoulder width is actually measurable in how much it will impact traffic flow. A very simple summary, a reduction in lane width to 3.3-3.5 m and shoulder width to 0 on a freeway will result in a FFS reduction of about 8-10 km/h. Which isn't even taking into account the other factors of a construction zone that will further reduce speeds in the area.
But it should be noted that's a blanket number capturing all traffic. In practice, different people react differently to irregular conditions. Which leads to greater speed differential, which as is noted in pretty well every discussion of speed limits, is not a desirable condition.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 28, 2016, 06:14:45 PM
If anything, they keep you on your toes and off your phone.
The problems aren't caused by those who do that. They're caused by those who don't.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 28, 2016, 06:14:45 PM
Also, a sudden reaction to a barrier placed too close? Barriers don't exactly sneak up on you. If the fear is over-correcting because of the barrier, just as many people over-correct when they drift into a shoulder. I'd be surprised if over-correcting is unique to narrow stretches.
The thing is it does sneak up on you. A barrier on the right side that's 1.8 m off of the edge of the lane plays no factor in reducing operating speed. But if the TCB is angled in at a proper ratio, then in just 18 linear metres its on top of you. At 100 km/h, that's 0.648 seconds from "This is fine" to "oh holy shit!". And on the left side, as 0.6 m is your okay spot, it just takes 0.216 seconds to get from calm to panic mode.
And that's with a proper taper. If you're in a jurisdiction that half asses their work zone design and stupidly just drops barriers right next to lanes (*cough* Illinois *cough* Michigan *cough*) then there isn't even that fraction of a second warning.
And finally, using just one example, I'm actually right in the midst of a collision history review for a rural freeway segment. In 2008, it was under construction, with both lanes of traffic shifted over to one carriageway. Regular shoulder and lane widths were maintained in one direction, while the other had a reduced width to both (not zero, just reduced).
But with this, even this slight messing up of the norm resulted in the collision rate more than tripling as compared to a typical year. It was that bad.
Point is, placing concrete barriers right up next to a lane is never desirable. Yes, it can be done, and often has to be done. But it is far, far from an ideal set up.
People do the same thing, day in, day out. They are used to certain setups. Nothing changes. Then one day, regardless of the number of notices, alerts, signs, etc that are posted, suddenly there's a new traffic pattern. Motorists are caught by surprise. They are not in their normal zone.
Using NJ for an example again, they discovered, kinda accidently, how long a cattleshute can last. When they're only about 2 miles or so, traffic can handle them pretty well. But there was one about 4 1/2 miles long, and they noticed a big increase in accidents. People start to zone out, they have to deal with endless stop and go traffic, and eventually they bump into each other or the barrier. Then...everyone behind them is stuck, and a tow truck has to reverse down the wrong way for upwards of several miles to reach the disabled vehicle.
I think a lot of people here are blowing this out of perspective. You know why we have road work? Answer: TAXES! Your taxes and my taxes pay for road work! There is a construction company out in front of my apartment putting new overhead lamps from S.W. Higgins Ave & Stephens Ave to S.W. Higgins Ave & Bancroft St in Missoula. Why are they out installing the lights? Taxes. Specifically taxes that go towards roadway infrastructure improvements, which does include installing overhead lamps and these things aren't cheap. One overhead lamp can cost anywhere between $75,000 to $150,000 approximately. There are four being installed, so if I use the example of $150,000, times 4, we're looking at $600,000 total, and that includes the time, the labor, and the materials the company needs like conduit, timers that turn the lights off during the day and turns them on at night, etc.
Okay, I get it that sometimes this road work tends to be an inconvenience to some of you, but has it ever dawned on you that you pay these construction companies with your tax dollars to do such work? They can't do road work unless the funds are there from the various agencies to approve such work. All of these negative sentiments I'm starting to sense about this topic is really starting to irk the fuck out of me.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on April 29, 2016, 01:13:46 PM
Okay, I get it that sometimes this road work tends to be an inconvenience to some of you, but has it ever dawned on you that you pay these construction companies with your tax dollars to do such work?
When I hire a contractor to do something, I do have a say in what is to be done and how it is to be done. If I wake up, and suddenly find my bathroom ruined ("Oh, I didn't tell you... But you can take shower at work!") - such contractor would get awful feedback and get out of business quite soon after feedback accumulates.
For road work, my convenience is often a non-existing factor for contractor. Minimizing impact may add some cost (or maybe not, or may be plainly impossible) - but I have little, if any, say in those questions. Never mind that convoluted financing loops makes contractor accountable to anyone, except taxpayer.
And taxes (more like debt at this point) are not the
reason for any road work.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 28, 2016, 06:14:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 28, 2016, 12:24:32 AM
I have no issue with slowing down. I have issue with the fact that nobody else does. That and you have to drive alongside wide vehicles like semis in these work areas.
If no one else slows down, than neither should you. If the concrete barriers slow traffic, great. But if not, what's the loss? ......
I don't think that doing 70 mph while having a concrete wall three inches from my right mirror and a semi truck a foot behind my right bumper is terribly safe.