The middle and last scenario both have people merging in at the end, but only the scenario with matching speed has smooth high throughput flow that alleviates congestion.
The lane hardly moving is usually because of uneven merging at the closure point. If everyone matches speed then both lanes are filled equally. That’s what the traffic engineers say is best.
There’s a problematic entry ramp that I used to drive every day on my commute. Traffic would back up around it every day in rush hour. When I matched speed and zippered in at the end, the congestion actually started to clear a little as the lane being merged into started moving substantially faster without people cutting in out of turn.
This does not address my point at all. I agreed that your suggestion would not necessarily negatively impact the total throughput on your route.
My point was that your route does not exist in a vacuum and the utility of the open lane may not be obvious without having the same information available as the traffic engineers who designed the closure.
Matching speed does a better job of filling both lanes evenly and reduces the amount of backed up traffic. The slow lane is what backs up to prior intersections. Matching speed is what allows the slow lane to clear up and prevent affecting upstream intersections. You’re point isn’t actually relevant to what I’ve described because the lane is fully utilized in a proper zipper merge with speed matching.
So I’m not ignoring the purpose of the merge lane, and I’m not advocating early merging. I’m describing the key aspect of zipper merging that the cruise ahead people are missing.
youtube.com/watch?v=cX0I8OdK7Tk
The middle and last scenario both have people merging in at the end, but only the scenario with matching speed has smooth high throughput flow that alleviates congestion.
The lane hardly moving is usually because of uneven merging at the closure point. If everyone matches speed then both lanes are filled equally. That’s what the traffic engineers say is best.
There’s a problematic entry ramp that I used to drive every day on my commute. Traffic would back up around it every day in rush hour. When I matched speed and zippered in at the end, the congestion actually started to clear a little as the lane being merged into started moving substantially faster without people cutting in out of turn.
This does not address my point at all. I agreed that your suggestion would not necessarily negatively impact the total throughput on your route.
My point was that your route does not exist in a vacuum and the utility of the open lane may not be obvious without having the same information available as the traffic engineers who designed the closure.
Matching speed does a better job of filling both lanes evenly and reduces the amount of backed up traffic. The slow lane is what backs up to prior intersections. Matching speed is what allows the slow lane to clear up and prevent affecting upstream intersections. You’re point isn’t actually relevant to what I’ve described because the lane is fully utilized in a proper zipper merge with speed matching.
So I’m not ignoring the purpose of the merge lane, and I’m not advocating early merging. I’m describing the key aspect of zipper merging that the cruise ahead people are missing.