The ANNOYANCES of road work

[Scott5114]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

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?

[Bruce]

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.

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?).

[kalvado]

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.

[Brandon]

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.

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?).

Mr. 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.

[paulthemapguy]

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?

[jakeroot]

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?).

Mr. 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.

[jakeroot]

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:

[Buffaboy]

45 MPH speed limits that last for dozens of miles.

[thenetwork]

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.

[kalvado]

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.

[vdeane]

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?).

Mr. 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.

[jakeroot]

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".

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.

[UCFKnights]

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.

[kalvado]

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?

[roadman]

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.

[authenticroadgeek]

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.

[cbeach40]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[paulthemapguy]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

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.

[cbeach40]

In construction zones, narrow stretches are inevitable.

No, they're not. Sometimes unavoidable, but if designed and constructed properly, usually they can be avoided.

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.

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.

[hm insulators]

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!

[hm insulators]

"Expect Delays" is the agency motto of WashDOT.

And the orange "Road Work Ahead" sign is the state flower of Oklahoma.

[jakeroot]

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.

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.

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? ......

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.