Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

werewolfmanjack t1_irvpmp6 wrote

Not sure what the issue is. You get your own lane, it’s not like you are merging, traffic is rarely moving at high speeds there.

50

tads73 OP t1_irvq1fz wrote

I agree, it's still a little awkward. But do you know why the merge has to be so abrupt?

−31

beerspeaks t1_irvslr2 wrote

If you have your own lane, it's not a merge.

And it's abrupt because it's temporary and they have limited space to work with. A major highway should not be passing immediately through the middle of a city.

57

tads73 OP t1_irvumuq wrote

Good answer, you win. Your so smart. But you didn't explain why there is limited space.

−67

beerspeaks t1_irvuus8 wrote

> But you didn't explain why there is limited space.

Yes I did.

> A major highway should not be passing immediately through the middle of a city.

34

tads73 OP t1_irvwt5i wrote

No you didn't. The answer is, it has to cut abruptly because the lane of travel has to terminate prior to entering the footprint of the old bridge. This portion of the roadway is set for demolition. I don't understand what you mean by not passing through the middle of the city part. Although I agree, the project has nothing to do with moving the highway away from the city.

−34

werewolfmanjack t1_irvsljr wrote

Probably a civil engineer interjecting some irreverent comedy into their work, like a “life comes at you fast” type road metaphor.

−4

tads73 OP t1_irvx2o5 wrote

The exit must terminate prior to the old bridge set for demolition. They should have built the 95n on ramp at Broadway.

−4