Poor traffic control setup in work zones

[hbelkins]

As I mentioned in my post on my trip to New York state last weekend, I ran across what I consider to be some abysmal traffic control lane closures for some bridge deck rehab projects on I-79 in Lewis County, West Virginia.

Two bridges are being repaired in the Weston area, at the exit for CR 30 (South Weston) and for US 33/119 (what will also be US 48/Corridor H). There is a distance of about three miles between the bridges, and a work zone speed limit of 55 mph is in effect 24/7.

In addition, two more bridges are being repaired north of this area, near the Jane Lew exit. Again, there is a distance of a few miles between the two bridges and there is a 24/7 work zone speed limit of 55 mph. This work is taking place in both the north and southbound lanes.

In both instances, there is a lane closure between both bridges. This causes traffic to stack up behind slow-moving trucks, many of which can't travel at the reduced 55 mph speed on some of the grades.

I don't know why both lanes can't be opened between the bridges, allowing faster traffic to pass the slower-moving traffic. It makes no sense to me to continue the lane closure between the two work points.

Anybody here want to take a stab at why this asinine traffic control setup is being used?

[Brian556]

Quote from HBELKINS:

I don't know why both lanes can't be opened between the bridges, allowing faster traffic to pass the slower-moving traffic. It makes no sense to me to continue the lane closure between the two work points.

If there are two work locations close to each other, the engineers probably feel that it is better to do one longer lane closure than two seperate ones.
The reasons would be that the area of merging into one lane is often congested, but one the traffic gets into one lane, it moves well. It might actually cause more congestion and accident potential to have the lane open up after the first bridge, allowing traffic to speed up and return to normal, only to slow to a crawl or stop at a second choke point a short distance later.

Nobody told me this, but it just seems logical. We has a similar permanant situation like this here in Texas on I-35E in Corinth. A little over a mile north of where the freeway narrowed from 3 lanes each direction to two, there was an approximatly 1.5-2 mile section that was reconstructed in 1988 for the purpose of adding underpasses. It was built with a third lane in each direction. Even though this section became very congested, the third lane was not made available for use until 2006, when TxDOT widened the short two-lane-in-each-direction section south of it.

[hbelkins]

The issue here is terrain. It's hilly, and trucks have trouble maintaining even the reduced 55 mph speed limit. This really bogs down traffic for several miles.

[MASTERNC]

I recall back in 2006 that Maryland was resurfacing bridges on I-68 in the mountains west of Cumberland, some of which weren't that far apart.  They did not maintain one continuous lane closure but rather treated each separately (likely due to the same issues you see).

[Revive 755]

Anybody here want to take a stab at why this asinine traffic control setup is being used?

Designer constrained by standards set by higher-ups in the WVDOT central office that never get out into the field and don't travel?

[Alps]

Actually, there are standards for minimum distance between work zones. A good rule of thumb is 3 miles on a freeway - you have 1 mile past the "end work zone" sign before you start seeing traffic control for the next work zone. Same would go for a lane closure. The lane has to open up before you can warn about the lane closing again. Still, as long as you have at least a mile and a half, preferably two miles, to the point where you would have to close the lane again, you can probably open them up again. That point, though, is not at the work zone itself, but wherever you have sufficient sight distance to see that point for 1,000 feet and the entire taper after it (750 to 1200 feet).

[vtk]

What bugs me is when temporary traffic control devices are insufficient or useless.  In Chillicothe, Ohio, US 23 and 35 are each two lanes each way, and the overlap is 3 lanes each way.  The highways come together with an "inside lanes merge", and split apart with the center lane as an option to go either way.  An ongoing project has required lane closures in the area.  The permanent yellow "inside lanes merge" signs were both replaced with temporary orange ones with the exact same message.  Most of the time, however, there's no merging required, as both highways are already reduced to one lane before they meet.  Guide signage still indicates the center lane as an option for either highway at the split, but sometimes that lane has been closed for one highway at the split, making it no longer an option lane, with no advanced warning of this deviation from the permanent lane configuration.

Oh yeah, and when the right lane was closed, they put temporary orange exit gore signs... directly in front of the permanent green exit gore signs.  It took them a few days to figure out the temporary gore signs need to be placed in the temporary gore (what's normally the right lane) a bit upstream from the permanent signs.

[kphoger]

My reaction to lane closure messages on orange construction signs is always "I'll believe it when I see it".

[hbelkins]

Got this non-reply "reply" from WVDOH:

Dear Mr. Elkins:

            Thank you for your e-mail to Secretary Paul A. Mattox, Jr. regarding your concerns with construction zone on I-79 in Lewis County.  Your request has been forwarded to this office for investigation and reply.

            Traffic control operations for the Bridge Overlay Projects on I-79 was established by the Traffic Engineering Division in Charleston.  The reduced speed throughout the project is for the safety of the workers and the traveling public.  The single lane closure through the project creates a uniform pattern and reduces the possibility of accidents.  By reducing the accidents it increases the possibility that our workers and the traveling public will be able to return home to their families when the day is done.  We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you and trust that you will be patient while our work force creates a safer road for all to travel.

            Again, thank you for e-mailing and sharing your concerns.  Should you require additional information and/or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Ron Hooton, District Manager, Post Office Box 1228, Weston, West Virginia 26452 or by telephone (304) 269-0400.

Given that I write these sort of replies as part of my job, I have the right to call BS when I see it. And this is BS. Nowhere in this reply is the long lane closure explained. And I didn't ask about the reduced speed limit, but that's what the bulk of the reply seems to be addressing.

[jeffandnicole]

Given that I write these sort of replies as part of my job, I have the right to call BS when I see it. And this is BS. Nowhere in this reply is the long lane closure explained. And I didn't ask about the reduced speed limit, but that's what the bulk of the reply seems to be addressing.

The single lane closure through the project creates a uniform pattern and reduces the possibility of accidents.  By reducing the accidents it increases the possibility that our workers and the traveling public will be able to return home to their families when the day is done. 

It seems like it was explained in a general nature; you just didn't like the answer.  I'm sure you can file an open public records request to get all the paperwork, emails, discussions, etc on why they set up the lane closures the way they did. 

And I'm sure you'll still disagree with the reasoning.