I'm traveling in Texas at the moment, and I notice this odd lane configuration on Austin freeways: at many exits, just after the ramp diverges, there's a sort of extra semi-lane or turnout on the right-hand side immediately beyond the gore. It looks like some kind of second-chance area for those who have changed their minds about whether to exit or not, or maybe a queueing area for entering traffic that didn't make it into the through lanes before the next exit diverges.
Sorry if this has been covered before, but I wasn't sure how to search for it. What is the real purpose of these mini-lanes? Here's an example: http://goo.gl/maps/1dxM2
I don't have an answer to this question, but I have noticed a similar striping pattern on I-27 in Lubbock. It is not a statewide standard treatment since the TxDOT traffic engineering standard sheets that address striping at exit gores all follow the standard MUTCD pattern with unbroken stripes on either side of the theoretical gore point.
Google Maps satellite imagery showing the unusual striping pattern at I-27 Exit 2 in Lubbock, Texas (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lubbock,+TX&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Lubbock,+Texas&ll=33.557616,-101.844482&spn=0.00159,0.002411&t=h&z=19&vpsrc=6)
I also have no answer for you, and I don't recall having seen it before. :-/
Just thinking aloud here . . . I have never seen this situation striped this way, but this appears to be the extension of a ramp acceleration lane beyond the downstream off-ramp in a weaving area. This might be used where there are heavy weaving movements both onto or off the freeway, with the entering movements heavier.
I cannot think of where I have seen this elsewhere (somewhere in the East, as that is where I spend most of my time), but I know the situation was not striped like this, nor was the lane extension as long.
Could it have been somehow planned for shoulder bus use? Austin was trying to get that legalized: http://capmetroblog.com/2009/06/23/no-buses-on-shoulders-for-you/
Quote from: empirestate on March 25, 2013, 12:31:37 AM
I'm traveling in Texas at the moment, and I notice this odd lane configuration on Austin freeways: at many exits, just after the ramp diverges, there's a sort of extra semi-lane or turnout on the right-hand side immediately beyond the gore. It looks like some kind of second-chance area for those who have changed their minds about whether to exit or not, or maybe a queueing area for entering traffic that didn't make it into the through lanes before the next exit diverges.
Sorry if this has been covered before, but I wasn't sure how to search for it. What is the real purpose of these mini-lanes? Here's an example: http://goo.gl/maps/1dxM2
this is right by where i live. what are you talking about? First exit is 360, second is Mopac (loop 1)
Quote from: akotchi on March 25, 2013, 01:17:09 PM
Just thinking aloud here . . . I have never seen this situation striped this way, but this appears to be the extension of a ramp acceleration lane beyond the downstream off-ramp in a weaving area. This might be used where there are heavy weaving movements both onto or off the freeway, with the entering movements heavier.
This is the exact reason, as the distance in this example between the on-ramp from Braker and off-ramp to Loop 360/CapOfTx is a little over 700 feet.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 25, 2013, 02:36:41 PM
Quote from: empirestate on March 25, 2013, 12:31:37 AM
Sorry if this has been covered before, but I wasn't sure how to search for it. What is the real purpose of these mini-lanes? Here's an example: http://goo.gl/maps/1dxM2
this is right by where i live. what are you talking about? First exit is 360, second is Mopac (loop 1)
I am talking about the short lane separated by a dotted line that should appear in the foreground of the Street View image that link should take you to. Swivel 180 degrees to see the beginning taper of the lane, between the exit ramp and the right-hand through lane.
Quote from: InterstateNG on March 25, 2013, 07:22:38 PM
Quote from: akotchi on March 25, 2013, 01:17:09 PM
Just thinking aloud here . . . I have never seen this situation striped this way, but this appears to be the extension of a ramp acceleration lane beyond the downstream off-ramp in a weaving area. This might be used where there are heavy weaving movements both onto or off the freeway, with the entering movements heavier.
This is the exact reason, as the distance in this example between the on-ramp from Braker and off-ramp to Loop 360/CapOfTx is a little over 700 feet.
Aha, so my second thought, which as I now recall was actually my first guess, was correct. What raised doubt for me was the fact that, according to striping, the mini-lane isn't really accessible from the acceleration/entrance lane, only from the right-hand through lane, unless Texas has different laws about solid pavement markings. It does make sense, as many of the exits I passed had poor weaving conditions (due more to traffic volume than distance).
As an aside, in practice if not in law, Austinites certainly do exhibit a different interpretation of solid lines; it was an immediate and consistent observation of mine that local custom is to cross into the through lane immediately, prior to the dashed line appearing (sometimes across the gore itself, but usually across the single solid line). In fact, the priority seems to be to get into whatever lane you'll eventually need at the earliest possible opportunity, even at the expense of your speed (since the result tends be a more crowded, slower-moving center lane).
Of course, I'm used to similar techniques being used in Pittsburgh and elsewhere, but in Austin they seem to be more uniformly regarded and adhered to, which surprised me in a city known for its non-conformity. Also surprisingly, driving habits are noticeably different in nearby San Antonio, which is more reminiscent to me of Dallas, but perhaps at a faster pace.
Quote from: empirestate on March 25, 2013, 09:17:52 PM
unless Texas has different laws about solid pavement markings.
MUTCD says single solid line discourages but doesn't prohibit crossing. State laws may be more restrictive. And sometimes the state DMV lies (Florida).
TxDOT seems to use double solid white lines at slip ramps often along with signs saying "DO NOT CROSS DOUBLE WHITE LINE"
Mopac (Loop 1) is a major road. If you want to get on it you have to get over right away after 360 so we use it pretty frequently. Most Austin roads aren't planned that well, you really have to pay attention to where you are at.
Quote from: NE2 on March 25, 2013, 10:01:16 PM
MUTCD says single solid line discourages but doesn't prohibit crossing. State laws may be more restrictive.
Exactly, "discourages". It seemed odd to me that they'd build an area expressly for the purpose of last-minute merging from the acceleration lane, then "discourage" that very movement through striping.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 26, 2013, 10:27:52 AM
Mopac (Loop 1) is a major road. If you want to get on it you have to get over right away after 360 so we use it pretty frequently.
No doubt about that, although this merging treatment is definitely not limited to the one example I cited.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 26, 2013, 10:27:52 AM
Most Austin roads aren't planned that well, you really have to pay attention to where you are at.
I overheard a local resident on the plane talking about the city's traffic woes due to unprecedented recent growth combined with the lag inherent in getting any highway project built. (That combined with the fact that planned highway improvements can backfire, as they increase the price of surrounding land, leading developers to look elsewhere.)
In 1985 the liberal city council said don't build and they wont come and now were stuck with backups and toll roads. thanks guys.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 26, 2013, 07:38:02 PM
In 1985 the liberal city council said don't build and they wont come and now were stuck with backups and toll roads. thanks guys.
Take that shit to the Statesman comments page where it belongs. Williamson and Hays Counties aren't exactly known for their liberal politics, and they are suffering from the exact same problems.
New freeways aren't going to fix the issues that plague the area on their own. And where would you put them, genius? What's your grand plan for getting traffic from points north and west to and from downtown. I'd love to see that post in the Fictional Ghetto.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 26, 2013, 07:38:02 PM
In 1985 the liberal city council said don't build and they wont come and now were stuck with backups and toll roads. thanks guys.
What's the resolution you're referring to?
Quote from: InterstateNG on March 26, 2013, 09:37:10 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 26, 2013, 07:38:02 PM
In 1985 the liberal city council said don't build and they wont come and now were stuck with backups and toll roads. thanks guys.
Take that shit to the Statesman comments page where it belongs. Williamson and Hays Counties aren't exactly known for their liberal politics, and they are suffering from the exact same problems.
New freeways aren't going to fix the issues that plague the area on their own. And where would you put them, genius? What's your grand plan for getting traffic from points north and west to and from downtown. I'd love to see that post in the Fictional Ghetto.
So full of anger today, aren't we? WTF is your problem?
There is nowhere near the traffic in those counties as Austin. Maybe if they made 130 free that would get the trucks off them.
In 1985 there was a plan to build 130 closer in and non-tolled, also to connect 2222 over to Mopac and build a freeway from there into downtown between mopac & 35
Quote from: texaskdog on March 27, 2013, 08:40:43 AM
So full of anger today, aren't we? WTF is your problem?
There is nowhere near the traffic in those counties as Austin. Maybe if they made 130 free that would get the trucks off them.
My problem is your unnecessary, not factual and ignorant introduction of politics into the discussion. But go ahead, ignore the news reports about how bad traffic is in Round Rock and Kyle, or the study that just came out that, what, 100k commuters go from WillCo to Travis every day for work because that doesn't fit your narrative.
And those toll roads? You know, the ones where you can't figure out how to pay the toll? Championed by that noted bleeding heart "lieberal" Rick Perry.
QuoteIn 1985 there was a plan to build 130 closer in and non-tolled, also to connect 2222 over to Mopac and build a freeway from there into downtown between mopac & 35
The 1985 plan you refer to is here: http://www.texasfreeway.com/Austin/historic/freeway_planning_maps/images/austin_1985.jpg
Some rebuttals:
-this plan was nixed in the 90's, not 1985
-the funding was never there for such an ambitious plan. We're lucky Research Blvd and Ben White are free, those were ungodly expensive in the ROW costs alone.
-this plan doesn't address the rehabilitation costs that are needed for 35 and Mopac. I sit in Mopac traffic every day. It's not only the lack of capacity that causes the delay, it's the 6 substandard interchanges within a little over 3 miles from 45th down to the river. For the downtown/UT workers, how are they supposed to not use the antiquated 35 or Mopac?
-the notion that a closer, free bypass of 35 would magically remove all trucks and therefore decongest the road is fallacy. Mopac sees a small fraction of truck traffic, and congestion is just as bad.
When you are ready to have an intelligent, reasoned discussion with facts, talk to me. Instead, stick to Rants and Raves. I'm sure you're involved in an imbroglio over the bag ban there as we speak.
And apologies for the off-topic detour.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 27, 2013, 08:40:43 AM
In 1985 there was a plan to build 130 closer in and non-tolled, also to connect 2222 over to Mopac and build a freeway from there into downtown between mopac & 35
OK, I did find that. I was just wondering what city council had done in '85 that said "don't build", since this 1985 plan seems to suggest "do build".
I meant it was the 1985 plan, granted it got killed later.
There is rarely funding for everything, thus they look to the Spaniards. Keep in mind politicians don't know how to live within any budget.
I take back roads and am stumped to how poorly traffic lights are timed. Saint Paul didn't have any of these light problems we have here. North Lamar is pretty good, if they could time lights on most roads for improved traffic flow it would help a lot. I can rant and rave about that all day.
As NG said it wasn't scrapped until the 90s.
Which part of North Lamar? It's terrible at peak times from 51st to downtown, mainly because its the only surface road north out of downtown and is missing a center turn lane.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 27, 2013, 10:28:18 AM
I meant it was the 1985 plan, granted it got killed later....As NG said it wasn't scrapped until the 90s.
I see; scrapped by an act of city council then, as you said?
The reason I'm curious is because I wanted to see whether the reasoning was "don't build and they won't come", or if in fact it was more like "don't build; they'll come anyway, and it will suck so much for them that they'll eventually have second thoughts and go away", or to put it a less cynical way, "create an environment that is hostile to the type of growth we want to discourage, in hopes that it will encourage the other kind".
More likely, of course, it was a combination of lack of funds, environmental infeasibility, and all the other usual issues surrounding transportation plans. But a specific planning objective may well have played into it and I wondered if that was mentioned in the city resolution you're referring to.
Between the time the plan was drafted and subsequently killed off, elections took place and greener politicians were elected. What draws people to Austin, among other qualities, is the natural beauty of the area. Residents quite rightly don't want to see it paved over, but that comes with the trade off of very congested, channelized traffic patterns. I think most people here are understanding and accepting of that trade off.
To illustrate the high costs and lack of feasibility, the proposed limited access portion of 2222 between Mopac and 360 would run on a winding bluff above the Colorado River and Bull Creek. Good luck with that.
Quote from: InterstateNG on March 27, 2013, 10:57:41 AM
Which part of North Lamar? It's terrible at peak times from 51st to downtown, mainly because its the only surface road north out of downtown and is missing a center turn lane.
I used to drive in from Wells Branch to Airport Blvd. Generally the parts north of 183, while extremely busy, flow well because of well-timed stoplights. However Austin never built turnouts for buses which backs up it's right lane.
Quote from: InterstateNG on Today at 12:21:45 PM
Between the time the plan was drafted and subsequently killed off, elections took place and greener politicians were elected. What draws people to Austin, among other qualities, is the natural beauty of the area. Residents quite rightly don't want to see it paved over, but that comes with the trade off of very congested, channelized traffic patterns. I think most people here are understanding and accepting of that trade off.
To illustrate the high costs and lack of feasibility, the proposed limited access portion of 2222 between Mopac and 360 would run on a winding bluff above the Colorado River and Bull Creek. Good luck with that.
My fiancee tried to ride her bike to work that way once. And only once.
Just drove it now I see what you mean. Yes those stupid "idiot lanes". Austin has a plethora of idiot drivers who wait til the last second to get over, we also have a lot of idiots who drive in the far left lane until the last second when they need to exit, made worse by the knuckleheads who let anyone in.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 27, 2013, 09:09:10 PM
Just drove it now I see what you mean. Yes those stupid "idiot lanes". Austin has a plethora of idiot drivers who wait til the last second to get over, we also have a lot of idiots who drive in the far left lane until the last second when they need to exit, made worse by the knuckleheads who let anyone in.
Well, we have those in NYC as well, of course. The difference I noticed, though, is that in Austin these behaviors seem to applied as if they were the unspoken rule of the road, whereas in NYC, it's more like, yeah, people do crazy stuff that goes against everything, and we kind of go along with it.
I'll reiterate, though, that in my brief and limited experience, I was struck by the fact that San Antonio drivers did the same things in a much more disorganized fashion than Austinites, where it seemed part of a regimented system.
Nothing like encouraging the bad behavior!
Drivers all over Texas are a bit shit. Especially at night, they seem to be afraid of the dark.
I'm OK with whatever intended use that weird lane (remember the OP?) has. But that's definitely not the right way to stripe anything.
(I originally typed this post without the word not, which made it mildly funny.)
Quote from: InterstateNG on March 28, 2013, 10:06:32 AM
Drivers all over Texas are a bit shit. Especially at night, they seem to be afraid of the dark.
and if you see ONE RAINDROP you'd think it was a blizzard.
Once I crossed the OK/TX border moving down here the use of turn signals reduced by 90%
Rained after work Tuesday and took 25 minutes to go 2.2 miles, and it was WORSE up ahead (same stretch as the picture but heading north). We gave up and went home on the back way. No traffic on the back way but Austin is notorious for avoiding building "back ways"
Quote from: kphoger on March 28, 2013, 10:23:03 AM
I'm OK with whatever intended use that weird lane (remember the OP?) has. But that's definitely not the right way to stripe anything.
Oh right, yes, my question. :-)
Is there any other place that uses this type of lane, for last-chance merging of entering traffic, perhaps striped a little more appropriately? I'm quite sure I've seen it somewhere, just can't remember where. (Long Island, maybe?)
I-35W & I-494 in Minnesota come to mind.
Northbound to westbound: http://binged.it/16klzxr (http://binged.it/16klzxr)
Southbound to eastbound: http://binged.it/10l49Np (http://binged.it/10l49Np)
Eastbound to northbound: http://binged.it/16kl2vr (http://binged.it/16kl2vr)
The last one serves a dual purpose, the second purpose being a sort of oops-I-didn't-really-want-this-exit acceleration lane for northbound through traffic.
Quote from: kphoger on March 28, 2013, 12:40:41 PM
I-35W & I-494 in Minnesota come to mind.
Northbound to westbound: http://binged.it/16klzxr (http://binged.it/16klzxr)
Southbound to eastbound: http://binged.it/10l49Np (http://binged.it/10l49Np)
Eastbound to northbound: http://binged.it/16kl2vr (http://binged.it/16kl2vr)
The last one serves a dual purpose, the second purpose being a sort of oops-I-didn't-really-want-this-exit acceleration lane for northbound through traffic.
Similar: I-280 (NJ) WB at Exit 4A, signed as Exit Only but the lane actually drops after the ramp to allow 4B traffic the chance to merge - and to allow me to gain space by passing everyone on the right. (People drive abnormally slowly on this part of I-280 for some reason)
I'm of two minds about these. I hate drivers who know that these lanes are exit only, but drive in them anyway to pass a few vehicles. Then they try to merge back into the through lanes and end up blocking the exit-only lane for drivers who are actually trying to exit as well as disrupting flow in the rightmost through lane. Since this behavior occurs frequently, I guess striping it in this way provides some guidance and at least helps minimize the exit lane block.
Side rant: When did this become acceptable behavior? When I learned to drive, if you found yourself in an exit only lane and couldn't merge back into a through lane, you took the exit and then figured out how to get back to where you wanted to go.
Quote from: US81 on April 04, 2013, 10:38:41 AM
Side rant: When did this become acceptable behavior? When I learned to drive, if you found yourself in an exit only lane and couldn't merge back into a through lane, you took the exit and then figured out how to get back to where you wanted to go.
alternately - if you found yourself missing the exit, do not cut across at the last second.
a few weeks ago, someone missed the 805 exit off 52... 805 slows to a crawl during morning rush hour while 52 keeps going at a quick pace, but he came to a complete stop, just before the gore sign, completely disrupting 52's traffic. when no one would let him in (why should we?) he merged across quickly, nearly hit the gore sign, and
clipped a UPS truck.
since they have cameras... yeah that guy's about to get what's coming.
I have no idea where these people have learned to be such shafts, but I generally blame the "give me Kardashian or give me death!" entitlement-industrial complex.
Quote from: US81 on April 04, 2013, 10:38:41 AM
I'm of two minds about these. I hate drivers who know that these lanes are exit only, but drive in them anyway to pass a few vehicles. Then they try to merge back into the through lanes and end up blocking the exit-only lane for drivers who are actually trying to exit as well as disrupting flow in the rightmost through lane. Since this behavior occurs frequently, I guess striping it in this way provides some guidance and at least helps minimize the exit lane block.
Side rant: When did this become acceptable behavior? When I learned to drive, if you found yourself in an exit only lane and couldn't merge back into a through lane, you took the exit and then figured out how to get back to where you wanted to go.
Hey, I agree, and a little police enforcement against this would go a long way. That said, I do duck into these lanes, but I also duck out before the gore area, finding the last acceptable gap before I become a problem/impedance to flow. Most people will just stop either at the gore or up to 500 feet in advance and slowly wedge their way into the tightest possible gap - it's these people that you should hate most of all.
But if an "EXIT ONLY" lane continues beyond the gore before ending, you're damn right I'm using it up until that point if it's moving the fastest.