#1 is simply false. All merging is more effective at full speed.
#2 demonstrates a lack of comprehension. With the right lane closed ahead, the slowed traffic in the left lane indicates the effects of the obstruction ahead, and informs drivers that they should exit.
If the left lane isn’t backed up, the effects of the obstruction are not severe, and there is no need to exit.
Allowing both lanes to back up introduces the worst delay, and doubles the number of vehicles needlessly exposed to that delay.
#3 correctly identifies that the load is spread among more routes, but fails to comprehend that those other routes are normally underutilized and have considerable excess capacity available to ameliorate the problem. Diverting excess traffic to routes with excess capacity is a solution, not a problem.
#4, stopped traffic is inevitable with zipper merging immediately before the obstruction. Anyone with more than a million miles of highway experience can corroborate that assertion.
To prevent further troll responses, I’ve got an unexpected few minutes so I’ll try to reply.
Once again you’re ignoring context. Zipper merging is not significantly more effective at reducing any sort of backup at full speed than other methods. You are essentially saying the same thing I did — whether you just weren’t keeping the full context in mind, or you treated it separately just so you could be argumentative is something only you can say.
Once again, ignoring context. I was obviously referring to what those PAST the exit could do to help those behind them. The traffic is needlessly stopped by the inconsistent response to the merge - if both lanes kept going at a slightly reduced speed (mainly for safety) and spaced themselves appropriately in the leadup to the merge itself, then they could easily merge without stopping. Once again, you’re seemingly basing your argument upon the concept of a stoppage — the very thing zipper merging is designed to avoid.
Wow, what a fucking assumption. Even if those other routes were that underutilized (exceedingly unlikely), they won’t be for long with the amount of traffic you’d quickly fill them with. They would likely be “underutilized” for a reason, or people would be using them - especially the locals would would actually benefit the most from taking that exit and who likely would already be doing so if it were normally more beneficial.
It’s “inevitable” mainly because of the inconsistent response of those involved. Once the motoring public at large understands the method and utilizes it, the only way it doesn’t minimize the likelihood of a stoppage is if the roadway is at full capacity already - not impossible, but it’d be bad planning by traffic control to have required that merge at times when that would be the case, which is a different problem entirely.
Now, with this troll-induced (not you) response complete, I’m done with this.
3 was not much of an assumption. Roads are very rarely exposed to their peak capacity. 99.9% of the time they have substantial capacity to absorb excess traffic. Your assumption that they cannot is that 0.1%.
Once the motoring public at large understands the method and utilizes it, the only way it doesn’t minimize t
False. Patently false. The degree of control required to prevent stoppages is not available to individual drivers. To avoid hitting cones, drivers near the end of the closing lane have to make rapid changes in speed to ensure they are lined up for a zipper merge. That means hard braking, and that braking ripples through to everyone behind, in both lanes. Zipper merging is the root cause of stop and go traffic.
That hard braking isn’t required when zippering at the beginning of the closure, because there is no hard obstacle to hit in the open lane.
At best, this zipper-at-the-end method “works” not by achieving any traffic benefit, but by setting the expectation for other drivers behavior.
The alternative to zipper-late is “no passing in work zones”. Your position is established at the time you enter the zone; you have between that time and the obstruction to merge, but you may not pass someone in the adjacent lane. There is no longer any benefit to racing ahead to the end of the lane. The zipper merge occurs shortly after the lane closure.
The upside of zipper-late is that there are fewer opportunities to be pissed off at “cheaters”. It is psychologically better. It reduces road rage.
The downside of zipper-late is everything related to traffic. It introduces far more disruption. It needlessly turns free-flowing traffic into stop-and-go. It endangers workers at or near the closure.
“No passing” is objectively better for traffic before and during the closure. It increases speeds and thus throughput. But it also makes it easy for everyone to identify and be pissed at “cheaters”. Those cheaters induce road rage, so we can’t have the superior traffic method. Instead, we have to normalize cheating and tolerate worse traffic.
We tolerate slower baggage handling and longer walks through the terminal when they move the baggage carousel further away from the gate, but we complain much less when they do that. Zipper-late works much the same. It worsens traffic, but trains us to be more tolerant of worse traffic.
I actually have that 1MM+ as a professional driver - you’re wrong, but too stubborn to admit it. I’m too tired to bother arguing with you - especially since I’ve got some more of that same work to do in the morning. I’m done. Gnite.
#1 is simply false. All merging is more effective at full speed.
#2 demonstrates a lack of comprehension. With the right lane closed ahead, the slowed traffic in the left lane indicates the effects of the obstruction ahead, and informs drivers that they should exit.
If the left lane isn’t backed up, the effects of the obstruction are not severe, and there is no need to exit.
Allowing both lanes to back up introduces the worst delay, and doubles the number of vehicles needlessly exposed to that delay.
#3 correctly identifies that the load is spread among more routes, but fails to comprehend that those other routes are normally underutilized and have considerable excess capacity available to ameliorate the problem. Diverting excess traffic to routes with excess capacity is a solution, not a problem.
#4, stopped traffic is inevitable with zipper merging immediately before the obstruction. Anyone with more than a million miles of highway experience can corroborate that assertion.
To prevent further troll responses, I’ve got an unexpected few minutes so I’ll try to reply.
Now, with this troll-induced (not you) response complete, I’m done with this.
3 was not much of an assumption. Roads are very rarely exposed to their peak capacity. 99.9% of the time they have substantial capacity to absorb excess traffic. Your assumption that they cannot is that 0.1%.
False. Patently false. The degree of control required to prevent stoppages is not available to individual drivers. To avoid hitting cones, drivers near the end of the closing lane have to make rapid changes in speed to ensure they are lined up for a zipper merge. That means hard braking, and that braking ripples through to everyone behind, in both lanes. Zipper merging is the root cause of stop and go traffic.
That hard braking isn’t required when zippering at the beginning of the closure, because there is no hard obstacle to hit in the open lane.
At best, this zipper-at-the-end method “works” not by achieving any traffic benefit, but by setting the expectation for other drivers behavior.
The alternative to zipper-late is “no passing in work zones”. Your position is established at the time you enter the zone; you have between that time and the obstruction to merge, but you may not pass someone in the adjacent lane. There is no longer any benefit to racing ahead to the end of the lane. The zipper merge occurs shortly after the lane closure.
The upside of zipper-late is that there are fewer opportunities to be pissed off at “cheaters”. It is psychologically better. It reduces road rage.
The downside of zipper-late is everything related to traffic. It introduces far more disruption. It needlessly turns free-flowing traffic into stop-and-go. It endangers workers at or near the closure.
“No passing” is objectively better for traffic before and during the closure. It increases speeds and thus throughput. But it also makes it easy for everyone to identify and be pissed at “cheaters”. Those cheaters induce road rage, so we can’t have the superior traffic method. Instead, we have to normalize cheating and tolerate worse traffic.
We tolerate slower baggage handling and longer walks through the terminal when they move the baggage carousel further away from the gate, but we complain much less when they do that. Zipper-late works much the same. It worsens traffic, but trains us to be more tolerant of worse traffic.
I actually have that 1MM+ as a professional driver - you’re wrong, but too stubborn to admit it. I’m too tired to bother arguing with you - especially since I’ve got some more of that same work to do in the morning. I’m done. Gnite.
lol You’re wrong and too stupid to understand, and too stupid to understand how bad a shitty appeal to authority is. Fucking sad.
Well, how can I possibly argue with a mature and obviously impeccably spot-on response like that?
🙄
ETA: Here’s the response you prompted (which proves you wrong as well), goodbye.