|
General » rec.autos.driving » Construction Zone BS
| Construction Zone BS [message #794315] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 03:37 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794333 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 05:29 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794350 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 07:08 |
|
On Feb 14, 9:37 pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/construction-z one-ticke...
>
> Construction Zone Tickets: What They Don't Want You To Know
> February 11th, 2008 Posted in Traffic Tickets
>
> By Jim Baxter, NMA President
>
> Highway work zone accidents and fatalities have been a hot topic over
> the past decade. Like most hot topics dealing with highway safety
> issues the misinformation, distortions, and propaganda are dominant in
> the headlines.
Lol. Which headlines...?
> For example, the political elite would have us believe that highway
> workers are the primary victims of callus, reckless, and impaired
> drivers who take their pleasure by careening amongst orange plastic
> barrels. You might find in a footnote that eight out of nine work zone
> fatalities are motorists and not workers.
Uh huh...
I "might* find in a footnote...?! In English, that means I also might
not.
Your implied conclusion is that drivers involved in fatal crashes in
construction zones pose no hazard to construction workers.
This ought to be good....
> Another even more remote footnote might mention that most of the
> highway workers that are injured or die in work zone accidents are the
> victims of direct work related accidents that do not involve passing
> cars and trucks.
It... *might*... mention that....?!
By now, Occam's Razor suggests it doesn't, or you would have cited it.
> However, not to be dissuaded by facts or reality, state legislators
> have pumped out numerous laws that increase traffic fines in work
> zones, assess more fines for harming highway workers, and promote
> enforcement campaigns aimed at applying these new penalties.
>
> So what are the results of all this legislative flogging?
>
> A recent University of Kansas Study that explored the causes of work
> zone accidents referenced a telling national statistic:
>
> * In 1999 work zone fatalities totaled 872.
> * By 2003 the number of work zone fatalities had increased 18
> percent (1028 fatalities).
>
> While it wouldn't be fair to lay the blame for these deaths on the
> legislative disinformation campaigns and doubling and tripling of
> fines, it's clear they haven't improved the situation.
No, it's not clear. You haven't compared the number of construction
zones to the increase of VMT.
> To the degree that this political hucksterism displaced and
> sidetracked programs and policies that could have reduced work zone
> accidents it IS partially responsible for the end result; more
> accidents, more injuries and more deaths.
ISTM getting people to slow down so they don't crash, or their crashes
are less severe would make the most sense.
Please, tell me what little more you have to say that wouldn't fit in
Scott's post, for some reason...
"Work zones can be managed to move traffic safely. Better signage,
better lane management, better timing of active work projects,
relevant speed regulation, and giving first priority to traffic
movement during peak travel periods, such as holidays, are all
constructive objectives."
Depends on how you look at it, I guess. Like a complete idiot doesn't
seem to be the best way to me.
Highway construction companies need enough work and profit to remain
in business so there's competitive bidding.
I suppose it would be nice to optimize construction for the
convenience of drivers, it just isn't realistic, because it increases
costs.
"These measures, and others, require the recognition that work zone
safety is primarily about drivers, not highway workers, and in fact it
is the highway project managers that should be held responsible for
improving work zone safety."
Drivers can operate so that they don't crash at no additional
expense. Rubber baby buggy bumpers for morons doesn't make sense.
You are advocating nanny state measures you vehemently oppose, if you
don't mind my pointing that out.
"Certainly, drivers need to exercise caution in construction zones,
but they are not in control of the traffic environment, the project
managers are. Ladling on more fines and penalties may work, as long as
the recipients are the people responsible for managing construction
and work zones."
Aren't you the president of an idiot organization that lobbies for
higher speed limits for all those ultra-competent drivers that you
imagine, and here it seems you think construction project managers are
responsible for their crashes in construction zones where speed limits
are lowest.
Drivers may not control the construction environment, but they are in
sole control of their vehicles.
Might I suggest finishing grade school before placing fingers to
keyboard in the future...?
-----
- gpsman
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794360 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 10:19 |
|
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/construction-z one-tickets-what-they-dont-want-you-to-know/
>
>Construction Zone Tickets: What They Don’t Want You To Know
>February 11th, 2008 Posted in Traffic Tickets
>
>By Jim Baxter, NMA President
>
>Highway work zone accidents and fatalities have been a hot topic over
>the past decade. Like most hot topics dealing with highway safety
>issues the misinformation, distortions, and propaganda are dominant in
>the headlines.
>
>For example, the political elite would have us believe that highway
>workers are the primary victims of callus, reckless, and impaired
>drivers who take their pleasure by careening amongst orange plastic
>barrels. You might find in a footnote that eight out of nine work zone
>fatalities are motorists and not workers.
>
>Another even more remote footnote might mention that most of the
>highway workers that are injured or die in work zone accidents are the
>victims of direct work related accidents that do not involve passing
>cars and trucks.
>
>However, not to be dissuaded by facts or reality, state legislators
>have pumped out numerous laws that increase traffic fines in work
>zones, assess more fines for harming highway workers, and promote
>enforcement campaigns aimed at applying these new penalties.
>
>So what are the results of all this legislative flogging?
>
>A recent University of Kansas Study that explored the causes of work
>zone accidents referenced a telling national statistic:
>
> * In 1999 work zone fatalities totaled 872.
> * By 2003 the number of work zone fatalities had increased 18
>percent (1028 fatalities).
>
>While it wouldn’t be fair to lay the blame for these deaths on the
>legislative disinformation campaigns and doubling and tripling of
>fines, it’s clear they haven’t improved the situation.
>
>To the degree that this political hucksterism displaced and
>sidetracked programs and policies that could have reduced work zone
>accidents it IS partially responsible for the end result; more
>accidents, more injuries and more deaths.
>
>[...]
This crap is exactly why I have zero respect for any attempt by NMA to
change rules they don't like. Highway construction deaths by motor
vehicle are somehow the fault of lower speed limits, and that motorist
safety, not the workers, are the ones that should be protected?
GMAFB. It's crap like this that gives the NMA a bad name and is
generally laughed at whenever they show up whining about highway speed
limits.
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794363 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 11:16 |
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:19:53 -0500, John Lansford <jlnsford [at] bellsouth.net>
wrote:
>Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/construction-z one-tickets-what-they-dont-want-you-to-know/
>>
>>Construction Zone Tickets: What They Don’t Want You To Know
>>February 11th, 2008 Posted in Traffic Tickets
>>
>>By Jim Baxter, NMA President
>>
>>Highway work zone accidents and fatalities have been a hot topic over
>>the past decade. Like most hot topics dealing with highway safety
>>issues the misinformation, distortions, and propaganda are dominant in
>>the headlines.
>>
>>For example, the political elite would have us believe that highway
>>workers are the primary victims of callus, reckless, and impaired
>>drivers who take their pleasure by careening amongst orange plastic
>>barrels. You might find in a footnote that eight out of nine work zone
>>fatalities are motorists and not workers.
>>
>>Another even more remote footnote might mention that most of the
>>highway workers that are injured or die in work zone accidents are the
>>victims of direct work related accidents that do not involve passing
>>cars and trucks.
>>
>>However, not to be dissuaded by facts or reality, state legislators
>>have pumped out numerous laws that increase traffic fines in work
>>zones, assess more fines for harming highway workers, and promote
>>enforcement campaigns aimed at applying these new penalties.
>>
>>So what are the results of all this legislative flogging?
>>
>>A recent University of Kansas Study that explored the causes of work
>>zone accidents referenced a telling national statistic:
>>
>> * In 1999 work zone fatalities totaled 872.
>> * By 2003 the number of work zone fatalities had increased 18
>>percent (1028 fatalities).
>>
>>While it wouldn’t be fair to lay the blame for these deaths on the
>>legislative disinformation campaigns and doubling and tripling of
>>fines, it’s clear they haven’t improved the situation.
>>
>>To the degree that this political hucksterism displaced and
>>sidetracked programs and policies that could have reduced work zone
>>accidents it IS partially responsible for the end result; more
>>accidents, more injuries and more deaths.
>>
>>[...]
>
>This crap is exactly why I have zero respect for any attempt by NMA to
>change rules they don't like. Highway construction deaths by motor
>vehicle are somehow the fault of lower speed limits, and that motorist
>safety, not the workers, are the ones that should be protected?
>
>GMAFB. It's crap like this that gives the NMA a bad name and is
>generally laughed at whenever they show up whining about highway speed
>limits.
>
>John Lansford, PE
I think that the best way to reduce work zone accidents would be not to have so
many work zones.
I noted before leaving Indiana over 10 years ago that the state would open
many, many work zones on its interstate highways, keep them open pretty much
until the snow was in the air, and then do it all over again the next year.
Driving thru these work zones, one could observe that work was actually in
progress in only a very small section of each work zone.
How about opening just 1 or 2 work zones at a time, taking everybody and all
their equipment from those other work zones that would otherwise have also been
opened, and putting them to work on close to 100% of the length of the 1 or 2
open work zones in the state, 24/7, and get those jobs done in a few weeks or
months rather than all year? Most of the nasty stuff that happens in work
zones seems to mostly occur at the beginning of the work zone where traffic is
transitioning from highway speeds to work zone speeds, so having only 1 or 2 of
these transitions in operation in the state of Indiana would seem to be pretty
much guaranteed to reduce the number of such accidents in Indiana. Do the same
thing nationwide, and I think there would be fewer workzone accidents.
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794376 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 14:13 |
|
On Feb 15, 1:08=A0am, gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
(a bunch of crap as usual)
STFU you moron. Your idiocy isn't welcome here.
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794378 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 14:15 |
|
On Feb 15, 4:19 am, John Lansford <jlnsf... [at] bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Scott in SoCal <scottenazt... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/construction-z one-ticke...
>
> >Construction Zone Tickets: What They Don't Want You To Know
> >February 11th, 2008 Posted in Traffic Tickets
>
> >By Jim Baxter, NMA President
>
> >Highway work zone accidents and fatalities have been a hot topic over
> >the past decade. Like most hot topics dealing with highway safety
> >issues the misinformation, distortions, and propaganda are dominant in
> >the headlines.
>
> >For example, the political elite would have us believe that highway
> >workers are the primary victims of callus, reckless, and impaired
> >drivers who take their pleasure by careening amongst orange plastic
> >barrels. You might find in a footnote that eight out of nine work zone
> >fatalities are motorists and not workers.
>
> >Another even more remote footnote might mention that most of the
> >highway workers that are injured or die in work zone accidents are the
> >victims of direct work related accidents that do not involve passing
> >cars and trucks.
>
> >However, not to be dissuaded by facts or reality, state legislators
> >have pumped out numerous laws that increase traffic fines in work
> >zones, assess more fines for harming highway workers, and promote
> >enforcement campaigns aimed at applying these new penalties.
>
> >So what are the results of all this legislative flogging?
>
> >A recent University of Kansas Study that explored the causes of work
> >zone accidents referenced a telling national statistic:
>
> > * In 1999 work zone fatalities totaled 872.
> > * By 2003 the number of work zone fatalities had increased 18
> >percent (1028 fatalities).
>
> >While it wouldn't be fair to lay the blame for these deaths on the
> >legislative disinformation campaigns and doubling and tripling of
> >fines, it's clear they haven't improved the situation.
>
> >To the degree that this political hucksterism displaced and
> >sidetracked programs and policies that could have reduced work zone
> >accidents it IS partially responsible for the end result; more
> >accidents, more injuries and more deaths.
>
> >[...]
>
> This crap is exactly why I have zero respect for any attempt by NMA to
> change rules they don't like. Highway construction deaths by motor
> vehicle are somehow the fault of lower speed limits, and that motorist
> safety, not the workers, are the ones that should be protected?
>
> GMAFB. It's crap like this that gives the NMA a bad name and is
> generally laughed at whenever they show up whining about highway speed
> limits.
>
> John Lansford, PE
WTF? Go back to MTR, you idiot, until you can start making sense.
Did you have an intelligent response to the point raised, which was
that these laws did NOT result in an increase in safety, as promised?
I didn't think so.
(now HERE is an example of the effect I was referring to the other
day. Notice how Mr. Lansford proudly displays his credentials in
his .sig?)
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794387 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 14:46 |
|
In article <04mar3t9gdgbfd2b5ueu8eosgan4p38jcb [at] 4ax.com>, John Lansford wrote:
> This crap is exactly why I have zero respect for any attempt by NMA to
> change rules they don't like. Highway construction deaths by motor
> vehicle are somehow the fault of lower speed limits, and that motorist
> safety, not the workers, are the ones that should be protected?
>
> GMAFB. It's crap like this that gives the NMA a bad name and is
> generally laughed at whenever they show up whining about highway speed
> limits.
I suggest you drive a chicago area expressway that has no reduction in
the number of lanes at the posted 45mph work zone limit on a weekend when
there is no work going on but the work zone speed limit is in force. A
semi a few feet off your rear bumper at anything above a speed of zero
just doesn't seem safe to me.
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794392 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 15:46 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794393 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 15:51 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794442 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 20:46 |
|
On Feb 15, 8:15 am, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 4:19 am, John Lansford <jlnsf... [at] bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Scott in SoCal <scottenazt... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/construction-z one-ticke...
>
> > >Construction Zone Tickets: What They Don't Want You To Know
> > >February 11th, 2008 Posted in Traffic Tickets
>
> > >By Jim Baxter, NMA President
>
> > >Highway work zone accidents and fatalities have been a hot topic over
> > >the past decade. Like most hot topics dealing with highway safety
> > >issues the misinformation, distortions, and propaganda are dominant in
> > >the headlines.
>
> > >For example, the political elite would have us believe that highway
> > >workers are the primary victims of callus, reckless, and impaired
> > >drivers who take their pleasure by careening amongst orange plastic
> > >barrels. You might find in a footnote that eight out of nine work zone
> > >fatalities are motorists and not workers.
>
> > >Another even more remote footnote might mention that most of the
> > >highway workers that are injured or die in work zone accidents are the
> > >victims of direct work related accidents that do not involve passing
> > >cars and trucks.
>
> > >However, not to be dissuaded by facts or reality, state legislators
> > >have pumped out numerous laws that increase traffic fines in work
> > >zones, assess more fines for harming highway workers, and promote
> > >enforcement campaigns aimed at applying these new penalties.
>
> > >So what are the results of all this legislative flogging?
>
> > >A recent University of Kansas Study that explored the causes of work
> > >zone accidents referenced a telling national statistic:
>
> > > * In 1999 work zone fatalities totaled 872.
> > > * By 2003 the number of work zone fatalities had increased 18
> > >percent (1028 fatalities).
>
> > >While it wouldn't be fair to lay the blame for these deaths on the
> > >legislative disinformation campaigns and doubling and tripling of
> > >fines, it's clear they haven't improved the situation.
>
> > >To the degree that this political hucksterism displaced and
> > >sidetracked programs and policies that could have reduced work zone
> > >accidents it IS partially responsible for the end result; more
> > >accidents, more injuries and more deaths.
>
> > >[...]
>
> > This crap is exactly why I have zero respect for any attempt by NMA to
> > change rules they don't like. Highway construction deaths by motor
> > vehicle are somehow the fault of lower speed limits, and that motorist
> > safety, not the workers, are the ones that should be protected?
>
> > GMAFB. It's crap like this that gives the NMA a bad name and is
> > generally laughed at whenever they show up whining about highway speed
> > limits.
>
> > John Lansford, PE
>
> WTF? Go back to MTR, you idiot, until you can start making sense.
> Did you have an intelligent response to the point raised, which was
> that these laws did NOT result in an increase in safety, as promised?
Unfortunately for you and your simplistic POV toward statistics, no
evidence was presented that "these laws" did not result in an
"increase in safety".
If construction zones increased in number 15%, and total US VMT
increased 7%, an 18% increase in motorist fatalities would suggest a
lower ratio of construction zone fatalities over the specified period.
One statistic, alone, with no relevant qualifying data, doesn't reveal
much of anything, except that those who swallow them hook, line and
sinker, without embarrassment and/or with all the insolence of a child
of such tender years that they still know everything, really ain't all
that bright.
> I didn't think so.
Whatever it is that you do, few would refer to it as "thinking".
-----
- gpsman
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794445 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 21:05 |
|
On Feb 15, 2:46=A0pm, gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 8:15 am, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 4:19 am, John Lansford <jlnsf... [at] bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Scott in SoCal <scottenazt... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/construction-z one-ticke=
....
>
> > > >Construction Zone Tickets: What They Don't Want You To Know
> > > >February 11th, 2008 Posted in Traffic Tickets
>
> > > >By Jim Baxter, NMA President
>
> > > >Highway work zone accidents and fatalities have been a hot topic over=
> > > >the past decade. Like most hot topics dealing with highway safety
> > > >issues the misinformation, distortions, and propaganda are dominant i=
n
> > > >the headlines.
>
> > > >For example, the political elite would have us believe that highway
> > > >workers are the primary victims of callus, reckless, and impaired
> > > >drivers who take their pleasure by careening amongst orange plastic
> > > >barrels. You might find in a footnote that eight out of nine work zon=
e
> > > >fatalities are motorists and not workers.
>
> > > >Another even more remote footnote might mention that most of the
> > > >highway workers that are injured or die in work zone accidents are th=
e
> > > >victims of direct work related accidents that do not involve passing
> > > >cars and trucks.
>
> > > >However, not to be dissuaded by facts or reality, state legislators
> > > >have pumped out numerous laws that increase traffic fines in work
> > > >zones, assess more fines for harming highway workers, and promote
> > > >enforcement campaigns aimed at applying these new penalties.
>
> > > >So what are the results of all this legislative flogging?
>
> > > >A recent University of Kansas Study that explored the causes of work
> > > >zone accidents referenced a telling national statistic:
>
> > > > =A0 =A0* In 1999 work zone fatalities totaled 872.
> > > > =A0 =A0* By 2003 the number of work zone fatalities had increased 18=
> > > >percent (1028 fatalities).
>
> > > >While it wouldn't be fair to lay the blame for these deaths on the
> > > >legislative disinformation campaigns and doubling and tripling of
> > > >fines, it's clear they haven't improved the situation.
>
> > > >To the degree that this political hucksterism displaced and
> > > >sidetracked programs and policies that could have reduced work zone
> > > >accidents it IS partially responsible for the end result; more
> > > >accidents, more injuries and more deaths.
>
> > > >[...]
>
> > > This crap is exactly why I have zero respect for any attempt by NMA to=
> > > change rules they don't like. =A0Highway construction deaths by motor
> > > vehicle are somehow the fault of lower speed limits, and that motorist=
> > > safety, not the workers, are the ones that should be protected?
>
> > > GMAFB. =A0It's crap like this that gives the NMA a bad name and is
> > > generally laughed at whenever they show up whining about highway speed=
> > > limits.
>
> > > John Lansford, PE
>
> > WTF? =A0Go back to MTR, you idiot, until you can start making sense.
> > Did you have an intelligent response to the point raised, which was
> > that these laws did NOT result in an increase in safety, as promised?
>
> Unfortunately for you and your simplistic POV toward statistics, no
> evidence was presented that "these laws" did not result in an
> "increase in safety".
It would certainly appear to suggest that. Nobody has provided
information to the contrary.
>
> If construction zones increased in number 15%, and total US VMT
> increased 7%, an 18% increase in motorist fatalities would suggest a
> lower ratio of construction zone fatalities over the specified period.
Do you have cites to that effect?
>
> One statistic, alone, with no relevant qualifying data, doesn't reveal
> much of anything, except that those who swallow them hook, line and
> sinker, without embarrassment and/or with all the insolence of a child
> of such tender years that they still know everything, really ain't all
> that bright.
Yes, that is exactly how we see you, despite the fact that you're old
enough you should have matured by now.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794480 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 00:08 |
|
N8N <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If construction zones increased in number 15%, and total US VMT
> > increased 7%, an 18% increase in motorist fatalities would suggest a
> > lower ratio of construction zone fatalities over the specified period.
>
> Do you have cites to that effect?
Did you see the lead word "if"? He posted what could be a reasonable
possibility, in that the total miles of highway construction zones may
have increased, and the traffic volumes within the highway construction
zones may have increased (actually that would have happened).
What is needed, is an analysis that includes the amount of VMT that
passed through highway construction zones over the study period.
Simply posting the number of work zone fatalities in one year, and the
number of work zone fatalities in the year 4 years later, and using that
simplistic comparison to say that the number of work zone fatalities had
increased XX percent, is a meaningless comparison by the "researcher".
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794493 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 02:38 |
|
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> N8N <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If construction zones increased in number 15%, and total US VMT
>>>increased 7%, an 18% increase in motorist fatalities would suggest a
>>>lower ratio of construction zone fatalities over the specified period.
>>
>>Do you have cites to that effect?
>
>
> Did you see the lead word "if"? He posted what could be a reasonable
> possibility, in that the total miles of highway construction zones may
> have increased, and the traffic volumes within the highway construction
> zones may have increased (actually that would have happened).
>
> What is needed, is an analysis that includes the amount of VMT that
> passed through highway construction zones over the study period.
>
> Simply posting the number of work zone fatalities in one year, and the
> number of work zone fatalities in the year 4 years later, and using that
> simplistic comparison to say that the number of work zone fatalities had
> increased XX percent, is a meaningless comparison by the "researcher".
>
First of all, gpsman is a known troll and idiot.
That said, I tend to agree with his criticism of the article and yet at
the same time tend to believe that its conclusions are valid, for no
other reason than in my experience there is more often than not no work
and no construction workers present in any given construction zone. It
seems to me to just be a new kind of speed trap.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794494 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 02:53 |
|
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > Did you see the lead word "if"? He posted what could be a reasonable
> > possibility, in that the total miles of highway construction zones may
> > have increased, and the traffic volumes within the highway construction
> > zones may have increased (actually that would have happened).
> >
> > What is needed, is an analysis that includes the amount of VMT that
> > passed through highway construction zones over the study period.
> >
> > Simply posting the number of work zone fatalities in one year, and the
> > number of work zone fatalities in the year 4 years later, and using that
> > simplistic comparison to say that the number of work zone fatalities had
> > increased XX percent, is a meaningless comparison by the "researcher".
>
> First of all, gpsman is a known troll and idiot.
>
> That said, I tend to agree with his criticism of the article and yet at
> the same time tend to believe that its conclusions are valid, for no
> other reason than in my experience there is more often than not no work
> and no construction workers present in any given construction zone. It
> seems to me to just be a new kind of speed trap.
Based on the limited data presented, the article was useless for any
determination of highway construction zone safety.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794495 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 02:56 |
|
Dave Head:
> I think that the best way to reduce work zone accidents would be not to have so
> many work zones.
Amen to that!
> I noted before leaving Indiana over 10 years ago that the state would open
> many, many work zones on its interstate highways, keep them open pretty much
> until the snow was in the air, and then do it all over again the next year.
> Driving thru these work zones, one could observe that work was actually in
> progress in only a very small section of each work zone.
What I've noted about many work zones lately is there will be mile
upon mile of barrels and that's it. No construction equipment, no
workers and no evidence that any work has been done in the recent
past. About all you have is weeds gaining a foothold in the shoulder
and alligators and other aasorted debris gathering in the lane where
the barrels are.
>
> How about opening just 1 or 2 work zones at a time, taking everybody and all
> their equipment from those other work zones that would otherwise have also been
> opened, and putting them to work on close to 100% of the length of the 1 or 2
> open work zones in the state, 24/7, and get those jobs done in a few weeks or
> months rather than all year? Most of the nasty stuff that happens in work
> zones seems to mostly occur at the beginning of the work zone where traffic is
> transitioning from highway speeds to work zone speeds, so having only 1 or 2 of
> these transitions in operation in the state of Indiana would seem to be pretty
> much guaranteed to reduce the number of such accidents in Indiana. Do the same
> thing nationwide, and I think there would be fewer workzone accidents.
That would make too much common sense. Also it would cut into the
revenue stream that the states have created with this enhanced penalty
crap. As such, it will never happen.
--
D umber
O ver
T ime
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794496 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 03:05 |
|
Scott M. Kozel:
> Did you see the lead word "if"? He posted what could be a reasonable
> possibility, in that the total miles of highway construction zones may
> have increased, and the traffic volumes within the highway construction
> zones may have increased (actually that would have happened).
>
> What is needed, is an analysis that includes the amount of VMT that
> passed through highway construction zones over the study period.
>
> Simply posting the number of work zone fatalities in one year, and the
> number of work zone fatalities in the year 4 years later, and using that
> simplistic comparison to say that the number of work zone fatalities had
> increased XX percent, is a meaningless comparison by the "researcher".
OF course, X workers killed in workzones makes for better play on Fox
News and these other bastions of, "free press," here in america (sic)
than does a statistic like deaths per VMT in construction zones at its
lowest point ever. I seem to remember, it was either NY or PA that was
reprehensible enough to put some child's face on signs in workzones
with some slogan or another on them to tug at emotions and make the
populace buy the slower = better dogma hook, line and sinker.
--
P lague
O n
T he
U nited
S tates
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794505 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 03:26 |
|
necromancer wrote:
> Scott M. Kozel:
>
>
>>Did you see the lead word "if"? He posted what could be a reasonable
>>possibility, in that the total miles of highway construction zones may
>>have increased, and the traffic volumes within the highway construction
>>zones may have increased (actually that would have happened).
>>
>>What is needed, is an analysis that includes the amount of VMT that
>>passed through highway construction zones over the study period.
>>
>>Simply posting the number of work zone fatalities in one year, and the
>>number of work zone fatalities in the year 4 years later, and using that
>>simplistic comparison to say that the number of work zone fatalities had
>>increased XX percent, is a meaningless comparison by the "researcher".
>
>
> OF course, X workers killed in workzones makes for better play on Fox
> News and these other bastions of, "free press," here in america (sic)
> than does a statistic like deaths per VMT in construction zones at its
> lowest point ever. I seem to remember, it was either NY or PA that was
> reprehensible enough to put some child's face on signs in workzones
> with some slogan or another on them to tug at emotions and make the
> populace buy the slower = better dogma hook, line and sinker.
Must have been NY, although at least a couple years ago PA had those
obnoxious "Slow Down - My Daddy Works Here" signs, in crayon font no less.
Usually in a "work zone" completely devoid of any actual work.
They'd also put up an X-band radar source at the beginning of every work
zone, making a radar detector completely worthless, as that pretty much
meant if you were driving on the turnpike, it'd go off every 10 minutes.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794511 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 03:41 |
|
Nate Nagel:
<< snip >>
> > OF course, X workers killed in workzones makes for better play on Fox
> > News and these other bastions of, "free press," here in america (sic)
> > than does a statistic like deaths per VMT in construction zones at its
> > lowest point ever. I seem to remember, it was either NY or PA that was
> > reprehensible enough to put some child's face on signs in workzones
> > with some slogan or another on them to tug at emotions and make the
> > populace buy the slower = better dogma hook, line and sinker.
>
> Must have been NY, although at least a couple years ago PA had those
> obnoxious "Slow Down - My Daddy Works Here" signs, in crayon font no less.
Probablly was. I do remember that being one of the slogans used.
> Usually in a "work zone" completely devoid of any actual work.
Absolutely.
> They'd also put up an X-band radar source at the beginning of every work
> zone, making a radar detector completely worthless, as that pretty much
> meant if you were driving on the turnpike, it'd go off every 10 minutes.
Don't know about that as I don't use a RD. Tried one once and it
proved more of a distraction than anything else.
--
D epartment of
H ysterical
S creaming
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794516 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 03:51 |
|
On Feb 15, 6:46=A0am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:13:45 -0800 (PST), N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 15, 1:08=A0am, gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> >(a bunch of crap as usual)
>
> >STFU you moron. =A0Your idiocy isn't welcome here.
>
> That GPSTroll just LOVES to argue, doesn't he?
>
> Did he manage to dispute the essential facts presented in the article,
> i.e. that most work zone deaths don't involve workers at
> --
> Please don't give financial rewards to trolls -
> DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com"
Well I have some reservations about the 'facts' 'Things like How many
of the traffic accidents were while work was in progress' How many of
the injured workers (by traffic) were caused by egregious disregard of
th signage'. etc. The whole article reads like it was written by a
person with a mission vice honest reporting. His stats may be correct
but 'liars can figure' springs to mind.
Harry K
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794519 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 03:55 |
|
On Feb 15, 5:53=A0pm, "Scott M. Kozel" <koze... [at] comcast.net> wrote:
> Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> > Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > > Did you see the lead word "if"? =A0He posted what could be a reasonabl=
e
> > > possibility, in that the total miles of highway construction zones may=
> > > have increased, and the traffic volumes within the highway constructio=
n
> > > zones may have increased (actually that would have happened).
>
> > > What is needed, is an analysis that includes the amount of VMT that
> > > passed through highway construction zones over the study period.
>
> > > Simply posting the number of work zone fatalities in one year, and the=
> > > number of work zone fatalities in the year 4 years later, and using th=
at
> > > simplistic comparison to say that the number of work zone fatalities h=
ad
> > > increased XX percent, is a meaningless comparison by the "researcher".=
>
> > First of all, gpsman is a known troll and idiot.
>
> > That said, I tend to agree with his criticism of the article and yet at
> > the same time tend to believe that its conclusions are valid, for no
> > other reason than in my experience there is more often than not no work
> > and no construction workers present in any given construction zone. =A0I=
t
> > seems to me to just be a new kind of speed trap.
>
> Based on the limited data presented, the article was useless for any
> determination of highway construction zone safety.
>
> --
> Scott M. Kozel =A0 =A0Highway and Transportation History Websites
> Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C.http://www.roadstothefuture.com
> Capital Beltway Projects =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.capital-beltway.com=
> Philadelphia and Delaware Valley =A0http://www.pennways.com- Hide quoted t=
ext -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yep!
Harry K
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794554 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 14:04 |
|
Dave Head <rally2xs [at] att.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:19:53 -0500, John Lansford <jlnsford [at] bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>I think that the best way to reduce work zone accidents would be not to have so
>many work zones.
>
>I noted before leaving Indiana over 10 years ago that the state would open
>many, many work zones on its interstate highways, keep them open pretty much
>until the snow was in the air, and then do it all over again the next year.
>Driving thru these work zones, one could observe that work was actually in
>progress in only a very small section of each work zone.
>
>How about opening just 1 or 2 work zones at a time, taking everybody and all
>their equipment from those other work zones that would otherwise have also been
>opened, and putting them to work on close to 100% of the length of the 1 or 2
>open work zones in the state, 24/7, and get those jobs done in a few weeks or
>months rather than all year? Most of the nasty stuff that happens in work
>zones seems to mostly occur at the beginning of the work zone where traffic is
>transitioning from highway speeds to work zone speeds, so having only 1 or 2 of
>these transitions in operation in the state of Indiana would seem to be pretty
>much guaranteed to reduce the number of such accidents in Indiana. Do the same
>thing nationwide, and I think there would be fewer workzone accidents.
People already bitch and moan about how long a particular stretch of
road takes to build, and that is directly related to contractors
having to maintain traffic through the work zone. Letting
"megaprojects" under one contract so there's only one work zone (but a
longer one) doesn't work that well either, due to manpower, cost and
equipment limitations. Multiple work zones on one road means
different contractors are performing the work at the same time, which
speeds up the time the road is under construction. Putting an entire
stretch under one contract would lengthen the construction time, not
reduce it.
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794555 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 14:13 |
|
John Lansford wrote:
> Dave Head <rally2xs [at] att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:19:53 -0500, John Lansford <jlnsford [at] bellsouth.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>
>
>>I think that the best way to reduce work zone accidents would be not to have so
>>many work zones.
>>
>>I noted before leaving Indiana over 10 years ago that the state would open
>>many, many work zones on its interstate highways, keep them open pretty much
>>until the snow was in the air, and then do it all over again the next year.
>>Driving thru these work zones, one could observe that work was actually in
>>progress in only a very small section of each work zone.
>>
>>How about opening just 1 or 2 work zones at a time, taking everybody and all
>>their equipment from those other work zones that would otherwise have also been
>>opened, and putting them to work on close to 100% of the length of the 1 or 2
>>open work zones in the state, 24/7, and get those jobs done in a few weeks or
>>months rather than all year? Most of the nasty stuff that happens in work
>>zones seems to mostly occur at the beginning of the work zone where traffic is
>>transitioning from highway speeds to work zone speeds, so having only 1 or 2 of
>>these transitions in operation in the state of Indiana would seem to be pretty
>>much guaranteed to reduce the number of such accidents in Indiana. Do the same
>>thing nationwide, and I think there would be fewer workzone accidents.
>
>
> People already bitch and moan about how long a particular stretch of
> road takes to build, and that is directly related to contractors
> having to maintain traffic through the work zone. Letting
> "megaprojects" under one contract so there's only one work zone (but a
> longer one) doesn't work that well either, due to manpower, cost and
> equipment limitations. Multiple work zones on one road means
> different contractors are performing the work at the same time, which
> speeds up the time the road is under construction. Putting an entire
> stretch under one contract would lengthen the construction time, not
> reduce it.
>
> John Lansford, PE
> --
> John's Shop of Wood
> http://wood.jlansford.net/
How about simply changing the wording on work zone speed limit signs to
"when workers are present" or "when lights are flashing" (I've actually
seen this in some states) and setting a reasonable work zone speed
limit? (40 MPH on an Interstate highway is not reasonable.) This would
go a long way towards reducing motorist noncompliance and frustration.
IMHO it is clear which states are actually concerned about safety and
which just want to get more revenue. Those few that do as I describe
above probably care about safety. The rest are just trying to get more
money from motorists under the guise of safety.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794561 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 16:10 |
|
On Feb 16, 5:13=A0am, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> John Lansford wrote:
> > Dave Head <rally... [at] att.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:19:53 -0500, John Lansford <jlnsf... [at] bellsouth.ne=
t>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>I think that the best way to reduce work zone accidents would be not to =
have so
> >>many work zones.
>
> >>I noted before leaving Indiana over 10 years ago that the state would op=
en
> >>many, many work zones on its interstate highways, keep them open pretty =
much
> >>until the snow was in the air, and then do it all over again the next ye=
ar.
> >>Driving thru these work zones, one could observe that work was actually =
in
> >>progress in only a very small section of each work zone.
>
> >>How about opening just 1 or 2 work zones at a time, taking everybody and=
all
> >>their equipment from those other work zones that would otherwise have al=
so been
> >>opened, and putting them to work on close to 100% of the length of the 1=
or 2
> >>open work zones in the state, 24/7, and get those jobs done in a few wee=
ks or
> >>months rather than all year? =A0Most of the nasty stuff that happens in =
work
> >>zones seems to mostly occur at the beginning of the work zone where traf=
fic is
> >>transitioning from highway speeds to work zone speeds, so having only 1 =
or 2 of
> >>these transitions in operation in the state of Indiana would seem to be =
pretty
> >>much guaranteed to reduce the number of such accidents in Indiana. =A0Do=
the same
> >>thing nationwide, and I think there would be fewer workzone accidents.
>
> > People already bitch and moan about how long a particular stretch of
> > road takes to build, and that is directly related to contractors
> > having to maintain traffic through the work zone. =A0Letting
> > "megaprojects" under one contract so there's only one work zone (but a
> > longer one) doesn't work that well either, due to manpower, cost and
> > equipment limitations. =A0Multiple work zones on one road means
> > different contractors are performing the work at the same time, which
> > speeds up the time the road is under construction. =A0Putting an entire
> > stretch under one contract would lengthen the construction time, not
> > reduce it.
>
> > John Lansford, PE
> > --
> > John's Shop of Wood
> >http://wood.jlansford.net/
>
> How about simply changing the wording on work zone speed limit signs to
> "when workers are present" or "when lights are flashing" (I've actually
> seen this in some states) and setting a reasonable work zone speed
> limit? =A0(40 MPH on an Interstate highway is not reasonable.) =A0This wou=
ld
> go a long way towards reducing motorist noncompliance and frustration.
>
> IMHO it is clear which states are actually concerned about safety and
> which just want to get more revenue. =A0Those few that do as I describe
> above probably care about safety. =A0The rest are just trying to get more
> money from motorists under the guise of safety.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
40 mph in a work zone, interstate or not, can be very reasonable. The
posted _should_ be set by what work is being done, not by referring to
a statute, e.g., 'speed limit in work zone shall be 40 mph...' even if
all that is going on is clearing barrow pit obstructions. I have seen
that done. I have also seen the 'when workers are present' which
should be a federal mandate on interstates.
Harry K
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794570 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 16:35 |
|
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:04:16 -0500, John Lansford <jlnsford [at] bellsouth.net>
wrote:
>Dave Head <rally2xs [at] att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:19:53 -0500, John Lansford <jlnsford [at] bellsouth.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>
>>I think that the best way to reduce work zone accidents would be not to have so
>>many work zones.
>>
>>I noted before leaving Indiana over 10 years ago that the state would open
>>many, many work zones on its interstate highways, keep them open pretty much
>>until the snow was in the air, and then do it all over again the next year.
>>Driving thru these work zones, one could observe that work was actually in
>>progress in only a very small section of each work zone.
>>
>>How about opening just 1 or 2 work zones at a time, taking everybody and all
>>their equipment from those other work zones that would otherwise have also been
>>opened, and putting them to work on close to 100% of the length of the 1 or 2
>>open work zones in the state, 24/7, and get those jobs done in a few weeks or
>>months rather than all year? Most of the nasty stuff that happens in work
>>zones seems to mostly occur at the beginning of the work zone where traffic is
>>transitioning from highway speeds to work zone speeds, so having only 1 or 2 of
>>these transitions in operation in the state of Indiana would seem to be pretty
>>much guaranteed to reduce the number of such accidents in Indiana. Do the same
>>thing nationwide, and I think there would be fewer workzone accidents.
>
>People already bitch and moan about how long a particular stretch of
>road takes to build, and that is directly related to contractors
>having to maintain traffic through the work zone. Letting
>"megaprojects" under one contract so there's only one work zone (but a
>longer one) doesn't work that well either, due to manpower, cost and
>equipment limitations. Multiple work zones on one road means
>different contractors are performing the work at the same time, which
>speeds up the time the road is under construction. Putting an entire
>stretch under one contract would lengthen the construction time, not
>reduce it.
>
>John Lansford, PE
So you're saying that when they open these 23 mile long work zones, and work
from April until November, with a work crew that works on this 300 yard section
today, and that 300 yard section tomorrow, and a different 300 yard section the
next day, having extra people duplicating that effort every 1/2 mile would
still take from April until November or even longer?
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794578 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 18:58 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> How about simply changing the wording on work zone speed limit signs to
> "when workers are present" or "when lights are flashing" (I've actually
> seen this in some states) and setting a reasonable work zone speed
> limit? (40 MPH on an Interstate highway is not reasonable.)
The only state that I've seen with reasonable work zone limits is North
Carolina. I don't remember if that state has the lights flashing or
workers present on their construction zone signs, but some of their
highway work zones have speed limits of 60 or 65 mph (where the regular
limit is 65 or 70 mph).
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794581 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 19:10 |
|
Arif Khokar wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> How about simply changing the wording on work zone speed limit signs
>> to "when workers are present" or "when lights are flashing" (I've
>> actually seen this in some states) and setting a reasonable work zone
>> speed limit? (40 MPH on an Interstate highway is not reasonable.)
>
>
> The only state that I've seen with reasonable work zone limits is North
> Carolina. I don't remember if that state has the lights flashing or
> workers present on their construction zone signs, but some of their
> highway work zones have speed limits of 60 or 65 mph (where the regular
> limit is 65 or 70 mph).
Thanks for making me realize just how much DC area roads suck, yet
again. I wish we had REGULAR speed limits that high!
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794586 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 20:25 |
|
On Feb 16, 1:10=A0pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:
> > Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> >> How about simply changing the wording on work zone speed limit signs
> >> to "when workers are present" or "when lights are flashing" (I've
> >> actually seen this in some states) and setting a reasonable work zone
> >> speed limit? =A0(40 MPH on an Interstate highway is not reasonable.)
>
> > The only state that I've seen with reasonable work zone limits is North
> > Carolina. =A0I don't remember if that state has the lights flashing or
> > workers present on their construction zone signs, but some of their
> > highway work zones have speed limits of 60 or 65 mph (where the regular
> > limit is 65 or 70 mph).
>
> Thanks for making me realize just how much DC area roads suck, yet
> again. =A0I wish we had REGULAR speed limits that high!
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel
There's a construction zone on I-95 just North of Daytona that is
70MPH.
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794594 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 22:13 |
|
Arif Khokar <akhokar1234 [at] wvu.edu> wrote:
>Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> How about simply changing the wording on work zone speed limit signs to
>> "when workers are present" or "when lights are flashing" (I've actually
>> seen this in some states) and setting a reasonable work zone speed
>> limit? (40 MPH on an Interstate highway is not reasonable.)
>
>The only state that I've seen with reasonable work zone limits is North
>Carolina. I don't remember if that state has the lights flashing or
>workers present on their construction zone signs, but some of their
>highway work zones have speed limits of 60 or 65 mph (where the regular
>limit is 65 or 70 mph).
I believe we do have the "when workers are present" signs for some
workzones. The penalty for speeding in a workzone was raised a few
years ago, but the legislature required signs saying the above as well
for it to be in effect. NCDOT also only reduces the SL down 10mph in
an interstate workzone, unless there's something incredibly special
about it that requires a greater SL reduction. I have seen 45mph on a
65mph stretch near Charlotte, for example, but that was due to an "S
curve" temporary lane shift that was very abrupt.
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794595 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 22:14 |
|
Dave Head <rally2xs [at] att.net> wrote:
>So you're saying that when they open these 23 mile long work zones, and work
>from April until November, with a work crew that works on this 300 yard section
>today, and that 300 yard section tomorrow, and a different 300 yard section the
>next day, having extra people duplicating that effort every 1/2 mile would
>still take from April until November or even longer?
I don't think I said that. I said that having smaller but more
numerous workzones tends to speed up the process, since there are more
construction firms working at the same time rather than one firm with
a larger workzone.
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794599 ] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 22:47 |
|
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:14:45 -0500, John Lansford <jlnsford [at] bellsouth.net>
wrote:
>Dave Head <rally2xs [at] att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>So you're saying that when they open these 23 mile long work zones, and work
>>from April until November, with a work crew that works on this 300 yard section
>>today, and that 300 yard section tomorrow, and a different 300 yard section the
>>next day, having extra people duplicating that effort every 1/2 mile would
>>still take from April until November or even longer?
>
>I don't think I said that. I said that having smaller but more
>numerous workzones tends to speed up the process, since there are more
>construction firms working at the same time rather than one firm with
>a larger workzone.
>
>John Lansford, PE
OK, but Indiana, at least, seems to have had large and numerous work zones,
as in 10 - 25 mile work zones and multiple instances of them. Makes driving
their interstates a lower speed experience than it would be if they had 1 or 2
work zones open in the state at the same time, and got done with the work in
each one in a matter of 4 - 6 weeks instead of 9 months. It just seems that
the application of more manpower and equipment should bring that about,
although I can't say how the contractural arrangements would have to be to make
it work.
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794601 ] |
Sun, 17 February 2008 00:19 |
|
Dave Head <rally2xs [at] att.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:14:45 -0500, John Lansford <jlnsford [at] bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Dave Head <rally2xs [at] att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So you're saying that when they open these 23 mile long work zones, and work
>>>from April until November, with a work crew that works on this 300 yard section
>>>today, and that 300 yard section tomorrow, and a different 300 yard section the
>>>next day, having extra people duplicating that effort every 1/2 mile would
>>>still take from April until November or even longer?
>>
>>I don't think I said that. I said that having smaller but more
>>numerous workzones tends to speed up the process, since there are more
>>construction firms working at the same time rather than one firm with
>>a larger workzone.
>>
>
>OK, but Indiana, at least, seems to have had large and numerous work zones,
>as in 10 - 25 mile work zones and multiple instances of them. Makes driving
>their interstates a lower speed experience than it would be if they had 1 or 2
>work zones open in the state at the same time, and got done with the work in
>each one in a matter of 4 - 6 weeks instead of 9 months. It just seems that
>the application of more manpower and equipment should bring that about,
>although I can't say how the contractural arrangements would have to be to make
>it work.
Contractors have to make an initial major outlay of money when they
take on a highway contract; the bigger the contract, the more money
they have to spend before they get anything back. Performance bonds,
equipment purchase/rentals, hiring workers, etc, all must be done
first. Most contractors can't afford a huge project, so states tend
to break them into more affordable chunks.
Plus, a big project can't be worked on all at once anyway, due to
design or traffic control purposes. At least not without enormous
amounts of manpower/equipment.
Where there is an advantage with one big contract is in the
administration of it; each smaller contract needs inspection and
administration just the same as a big one does. That's a benefit to
the state though, not the contractor.
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794605 ] |
Sun, 17 February 2008 00:50 |
|
John Lansford wrote:
> Dave Head <rally2xs [at] att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:14:45 -0500, John Lansford <jlnsford [at] bellsouth.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dave Head <rally2xs [at] att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>So you're saying that when they open these 23 mile long work zones, and work
>>>
>>>>from April until November, with a work crew that works on this 300 yard section
>>>
>>>>today, and that 300 yard section tomorrow, and a different 300 yard section the
>>>>next day, having extra people duplicating that effort every 1/2 mile would
>>>>still take from April until November or even longer?
>>>
>>>I don't think I said that. I said that having smaller but more
>>>numerous workzones tends to speed up the process, since there are more
>>>construction firms working at the same time rather than one firm with
>>>a larger workzone.
>>>
>>
>>OK, but Indiana, at least, seems to have had large and numerous work zones,
>>as in 10 - 25 mile work zones and multiple instances of them. Makes driving
>>their interstates a lower speed experience than it would be if they had 1 or 2
>>work zones open in the state at the same time, and got done with the work in
>>each one in a matter of 4 - 6 weeks instead of 9 months. It just seems that
>>the application of more manpower and equipment should bring that about,
>>although I can't say how the contractural arrangements would have to be to make
>>it work.
>
>
> Contractors have to make an initial major outlay of money when they
> take on a highway contract; the bigger the contract, the more money
> they have to spend before they get anything back. Performance bonds,
> equipment purchase/rentals, hiring workers, etc, all must be done
> first. Most contractors can't afford a huge project, so states tend
> to break them into more affordable chunks.
>
> Plus, a big project can't be worked on all at once anyway, due to
> design or traffic control purposes. At least not without enormous
> amounts of manpower/equipment.
>
> Where there is an advantage with one big contract is in the
> administration of it; each smaller contract needs inspection and
> administration just the same as a big one does. That's a benefit to
> the state though, not the contractor.
>
> John Lansford, PE
> --
> John's Shop of Wood
> http://wood.jlansford.net/
Then why have the whole thing signed as a construction zone, if work is
only going on in one small section? That seems to be the question that
everyone is asking and has not been answered.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794607 ] |
Sun, 17 February 2008 00:52 |
|
On Feb 15, 8:46=A0am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> Did he manage to dispute the essential facts presented in the article,
> i.e. that most work zone deaths don't involve workers at
Actually, the ratio of 10:1 construction zone fatalities of motorists
to workers sounds about right, from the statistics I've seen.
However, personally knowing a few fellow state inspectors and union
laborers who got killed in a construction zone puts a different light
on it...Stalin's quote about death and statistics eerily applies here.
As far as non-traffic related incidents being lumped in, I don't think
so. A police traffic accident report is the common thread here, and
off-traffic construction accidents are not reported this way, at least
in IL. Such as the female engineer I knew, fresh out of college, who
was run over by a cement truck backing up. Her feet got caught in the
reinforcing bars on a bridge deck and she couldn't get out of the
way. OTOH, a construction resident engineer who got run into when a
car swerved onto the shoulder was reported as a CZ roadway fatality.
RP
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794615 ] |
Sun, 17 February 2008 01:51 |
|
On Feb 16, 6:50 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> Then why have the whole thing signed as a construction zone, if work is
> only going on in one small section? That seems to be the question that
> everyone is asking and has not been answered.
I don't "know", but I "suspect", that highway repairs are not as
simple as they might seem to an "engineer".
I "suspect" some deconstruction may be necessary to determine the
extent of the work that needs to be done, and it appears to me that a
lot of repair work involves drainage and a lot of work to the area in
the vicinity of the highway, before work to the highway itself is
commenced.
I think the control of water flow didn't work out as anticipated
during the original construction and/or the repairs and/or
reconstruction that followed.
I do not question the wisdom of designating a 3 or 4 miles of
construction zone where construction may be ongoing at two 200 yard
sections 2.5-3.5 miles apart when so many drivers seem to be inclined
to race to be the first at the next construction zone if they were not
combined as one.
-----
- gpsman
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794619 ] |
Sun, 17 February 2008 03:19 |
|
gpsman wrote:
> On Feb 16, 6:50 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>>Then why have the whole thing signed as a construction zone, if work is
>>only going on in one small section? That seems to be the question that
>>everyone is asking and has not been answered.
>
>
> I don't "know", but I "suspect", that highway repairs are not as
> simple as they might seem to an "engineer".
>
> I "suspect" some deconstruction may be necessary to determine the
> extent of the work that needs to be done, and it appears to me that a
> lot of repair work involves drainage and a lot of work to the area in
> the vicinity of the highway, before work to the highway itself is
> commenced.
>
> I think the control of water flow didn't work out as anticipated
> during the original construction and/or the repairs and/or
> reconstruction that followed.
>
> I do not question the wisdom of designating a 3 or 4 miles of
> construction zone where construction may be ongoing at two 200 yard
> sections 2.5-3.5 miles apart when so many drivers seem to be inclined
> to race to be the first at the next construction zone if they were not
> combined as one.
> -----
>
> - gpsman
I'm talking about a "construction zone" on an Interstate highway 10
miles long with no work at all going on in it. Why?
Nobody seems to be able to give me any good reason why a speed limit of
40-50 MPH or so should be imposed in that case, and yet I see it just
about every time I visit PA. And it may not be just one of those, oh no
- there have been years where it seemed like more of the Turnpike was a
construction zone than not. (that's why most of the time I'll choose to
take I-68 instead, even though it theoretically takes an hour longer.)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794645 ] |
Sun, 17 February 2008 10:43 |
|
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:19:26 -0500, Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>gpsman wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 6:50 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Then why have the whole thing signed as a construction zone, if work is
>>>only going on in one small section? That seems to be the question that
>>>everyone is asking and has not been answered.
>>
>>
>> I don't "know", but I "suspect", that highway repairs are not as
>> simple as they might seem to an "engineer".
>>
>> I "suspect" some deconstruction may be necessary to determine the
>> extent of the work that needs to be done, and it appears to me that a
>> lot of repair work involves drainage and a lot of work to the area in
>> the vicinity of the highway, before work to the highway itself is
>> commenced.
>>
>> I think the control of water flow didn't work out as anticipated
>> during the original construction and/or the repairs and/or
>> reconstruction that followed.
>>
>> I do not question the wisdom of designating a 3 or 4 miles of
>> construction zone where construction may be ongoing at two 200 yard
>> sections 2.5-3.5 miles apart when so many drivers seem to be inclined
>> to race to be the first at the next construction zone if they were not
>> combined as one.
>> -----
>>
>> - gpsman
>
>I'm talking about a "construction zone" on an Interstate highway 10
>miles long with no work at all going on in it. Why?
>
>Nobody seems to be able to give me any good reason why a speed limit of
>40-50 MPH or so should be imposed in that case, and yet I see it just
>about every time I visit PA. And it may not be just one of those, oh no
>- there have been years where it seemed like more of the Turnpike was a
>construction zone than not. (that's why most of the time I'll choose to
>take I-68 instead, even though it theoretically takes an hour longer.)
>
>nate
Yeah - I once counted 38 construction zones on the Pa. Turnpike. I avoid the
road as much as possible. It is dangerous and slow and a pain in the ass to
drive.
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794652 ] |
Sun, 17 February 2008 16:54 |
|
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:19:28 -0500, John Lansford <jlnsford [at] bellsouth.net>
wrote:
>Dave Head <rally2xs [at] att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:14:45 -0500, John Lansford <jlnsford [at] bellsouth.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Head <rally2xs [at] att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So you're saying that when they open these 23 mile long work zones, and work
>>>>from April until November, with a work crew that works on this 300 yard section
>>>>today, and that 300 yard section tomorrow, and a different 300 yard section the
>>>>next day, having extra people duplicating that effort every 1/2 mile would
>>>>still take from April until November or even longer?
>>>
>>>I don't think I said that. I said that having smaller but more
>>>numerous workzones tends to speed up the process, since there are more
>>>construction firms working at the same time rather than one firm with
>>>a larger workzone.
>>>
>>
>>OK, but Indiana, at least, seems to have had large and numerous work zones,
>>as in 10 - 25 mile work zones and multiple instances of them. Makes driving
>>their interstates a lower speed experience than it would be if they had 1 or 2
>>work zones open in the state at the same time, and got done with the work in
>>each one in a matter of 4 - 6 weeks instead of 9 months. It just seems that
>>the application of more manpower and equipment should bring that about,
>>although I can't say how the contractural arrangements would have to be to make
>>it work.
>
>Contractors have to make an initial major outlay of money when they
>take on a highway contract; the bigger the contract, the more money
>they have to spend before they get anything back. Performance bonds,
>equipment purchase/rentals, hiring workers, etc, all must be done
>first. Most contractors can't afford a huge project, so states tend
>to break them into more affordable chunks.
Hmmmm.... I think I'm seeing the problem. Contractors.
Perhaps the state should be employing these people and buying this equipment
and not letting contracts at all. Maybe the DOT should be doing this building
and repairing of roads using state-owned equimpent and state employees.
>
>Plus, a big project can't be worked on all at once anyway, due to
>design or traffic control purposes. At least not without enormous
>amounts of manpower/equipment.
OK, if you take the people and equipment from the 4 construction zones on I 65
between Indy and Chicago, and those from the 3 construction zones on I-70
between Indy and Terre Haute, and those from the 2 construction zones in I-74
between Indy and Cincinnati, and those from the 3 construction zones in I-74
between Indy and Danville, and those from the remaining 2 construction zones on
I-70 between Indy and Richmond, and stick them all in the 23 mile construction
zone on I-70 between Indy and Richmond, then that construction zone with all
those folks in it and all those trucks and paving machines and cement mixers in
it might just take less than 9 months to get done.
>Where there is an advantage with one big contract is in the
>administration of it; each smaller contract needs inspection and
>administration just the same as a big one does. That's a benefit to
>the state though, not the contractor.
>John Lansford, PE
I'd say the focus should be shifted from benefitting the state toward
benefitting the public by not providing 20 or so construction zones that last
from April to November so that there are 40 opportunities (each end of the
thing) to delay traffic and create hazardous travel.
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794654 ] |
Sun, 17 February 2008 16:59 |
|
On Feb 17, 7:54=A0am, Dave Head <rally... [at] att.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:19:28 -0500, John Lansford <jlnsf... [at] bellsouth.net>=
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Dave Head <rally... [at] att.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:14:45 -0500, John Lansford <jlnsf... [at] bellsouth.ne=
t>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>Dave Head <rally... [at] att.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>So you're saying that when they open these 23 mile long work zones, an=
d work
> >>>>from April until November, with a work crew that works on this 300 yar=
d section
> >>>>today, and that 300 yard section tomorrow, and a different 300 yard se=
ction the
> >>>>next day, having extra people duplicating that effort every 1/2 mile w=
ould
> >>>>still take from April until November or even longer?
>
> >>>I don't think I said that. =A0I said that having smaller but more
> >>>numerous workzones tends to speed up the process, since there are more
> >>>construction firms working at the same time rather than one firm with
> >>>a larger workzone.
>
> >>OK, =A0 but Indiana, at least, seems to have had large and numerous work=
zones,
> >>as in 10 - 25 mile work zones and multiple instances of them. =A0Makes d=
riving
> >>their interstates a lower speed experience than it would be if they had =
1 or 2
> >>work zones open in the state at the same time, and got done with the wor=
k in
> >>each one in a matter of 4 - 6 weeks instead of 9 months. =A0It just seem=
s that
> >>the application of more manpower and equipment should bring that about,
> >>although I can't say how the contractural arrangements would have to be =
to make
> >>it work.
>
> >Contractors have to make an initial major outlay of money when they
> >take on a highway contract; the bigger the contract, the more money
> >they have to spend before they get anything back. =A0Performance bonds,
> >equipment purchase/rentals, hiring workers, etc, all must be done
> >first. =A0Most contractors can't afford a huge project, so states tend
> >to break them into more affordable chunks. =A0
>
> Hmmmm.... I think I'm seeing the problem. =A0Contractors.
>
> Perhaps the state should be employing these people and buying this equipme=
nt
> and not letting contracts at all. =A0Maybe the DOT should be doing this bu=
ilding
> and repairing of roads using state-owned equimpent and state employees.
>
>
<snip>
When have you _ever_ seen a government agency any where near as
efficient as private business? That approach would result in projects
costing 10 times as much, taking much longer to complete and with pee
poor quality control.
Harry K
|
|
|
| Re: Construction Zone BS [message #794656 ] |
Sun, 17 February 2008 17:34 |
|
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:59:47 -0800 (PST), Harry K <turnkey4099 [at] hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Feb 17, 7:54 am, Dave Head <rally... [at] att.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:19:28 -0500, John Lansford <jlnsf... [at] bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Dave Head <rally... [at] att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:14:45 -0500, John Lansford <jlnsf... [at] bellsouth.net>
>> >>wrote:
>>
>> >>>Dave Head <rally... [at] att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>So you're saying that when they open these 23 mile long work zones, and work
>> >>>>from April until November, with a work crew that works on this 300 yard section
>> >>>>today, and that 300 yard section tomorrow, and a different 300 yard section the
>> >>>>next day, having extra people duplicating that effort every 1/2 mile would
>> >>>>still take from April until November or even longer?
>>
>> >>>I don't think I said that. I said that having smaller but more
>> >>>numerous workzones tends to speed up the process, since there are more
>> >>>construction firms working at the same time rather than one firm with
>> >>>a larger workzone.
>>
>> >>OK, but Indiana, at least, seems to have had large and numerous work zones,
>> >>as in 10 - 25 mile work zones and multiple instances of them. Makes driving
>> >>their interstates a lower speed experience than it would be if they had 1 or 2
>> >>work zones open in the state at the same time, and got done with the work in
>> >>each one in a matter of 4 - 6 weeks instead of 9 months. It just seems that
>> >>the application of more manpower and equipment should bring that about,
>> >>although I can't say how the contractural arrangements would have to be to make
>> >>it work.
>>
>> >Contractors have to make an initial major outlay of money when they
>> >take on a highway contract; the bigger the contract, the more money
>> >they have to spend before they get anything back. Performance bonds,
>> >equipment purchase/rentals, hiring workers, etc, all must be done
>> >first. Most contractors can't afford a huge project, so states tend
>> >to break them into more affordable chunks.
>>
>> Hmmmm.... I think I'm seeing the problem. Contractors.
>>
>> Perhaps the state should be employing these people and buying this equipment
>> and not letting contracts at all. Maybe the DOT should be doing this building
>> and repairing of roads using state-owned equimpent and state employees.
>>
>>
><snip>
>
>When have you _ever_ seen a government agency any where near as
>efficient as private business? That approach would result in projects
>costing 10 times as much, taking much longer to complete and with pee
>poor quality control.
>
>Harry K
I dunno, but this crap of having 20 construction zones open for most of the
year sure ain't workin, either.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 15:49:24 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.29100 Sekunden |
