No Merge Area sign

[Jimmy]

The original configuration on Storrow Drive westbound in Boston at the
Charlesgate entrance was a zero-length merge. There was no room for
an acceleration lane, and there's a blind curve. At busy times, there
would be a line of stopped cars on the entrance ramp, waiting for a
gap at a spot with limited visibility.

Then a year or two ago, they restriped it to make a lane-add. Through
traffic got one lane, and entering traffic got the other, for what
continued as a two lane roadway. This solved the backup and visibilty
problem, without affecting through traffic much since a lot of it used
the previous exit.

But recently they went back to the original zero-length merge. That's
not an unexpected setup considering the age of the road.

But I was thrown off by the "No Merge Area" sign they put up for
through traffic, which is also visible to entering traffic. This
looks *very* similar to the "No Merge Ahead" legend I'm used to seeing
under a lane-add sign (W4-3 at mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/
fig2c_08_longdesc.htm ).

I see that "No Merge Area" is an now official sign, W4-5P. Why would
they approve a sign that's so similar to an existing sign with a
dangerously opposite meaning? Is the "No Merge Ahead" legend limited
to the NYC area?

Jimmy

[Elmer]

Post by Jimmy
The original configuration on Storrow Drive westbound in Boston at the
Charlesgate entrance was a zero-length merge.  There was no room for
an acceleration lane, and there's a blind curve.  At busy times, there
would be a line of stopped cars on the entrance ramp, waiting for a
gap at a spot with limited visibility.
Then a year or two ago, they restriped it to make a lane-add.  Through
traffic got one lane, and entering traffic got the other, for what
continued as a two lane roadway.  This solved the backup and visibilty
problem, without affecting through traffic much since a lot of it used
the previous exit.
But recently they went back to the original zero-length merge.  That's
not an unexpected setup considering the age of the road.
But I was thrown off by the "No Merge Area" sign they put up for
through traffic, which is also visible to entering traffic.  This
looks *very* similar to the "No Merge Ahead" legend I'm used to seeing
under a lane-add sign (W4-3 at mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/
fig2c_08_longdesc.htm ).
I see that "No Merge Area" is an now official sign, W4-5P.  Why would
they approve a sign that's so similar to an existing sign with a
dangerously opposite meaning?  Is the "No Merge Ahead" legend limited
to the NYC area?
Jimmy

It's so dumb what they did there! There are three lanes heading west
on Storrow Drive. Originally (two years ago), the two left lanes
exited to Fenway and the two right lanes continued west onto Soldier's
Field Road; a short distance later, the two lanes from the Charlesgate
flyover would come in with that difficult/dangerous merge you
described.

The change a year or so ago made it such that the two left lanes of
Storrow were "exit only" to Fenway, and the single right lane "exit
only" to continue west on SFR. This eliminated the merging problem
from the Charlesgate flyover, however it caused trouble back on
Storrow because everyone had to be in the correct lane before the
Fenway exit. So, the state simply threw up their hands and put
everything back the way it was before.

The smarter thing to do would be allow the right two lanes of Storrow
Drive to continue west towards SFR, but make them merge into a single
lane immediately after the Fenway exit and before the Charlesgate
flyover merge. (there's plenty of room to do this) The two lanes of
the Charlesgate flyover should also merge into a single lane. The two
single lanes from each direction would join to become the two-lane SFR
with no merging problem at all.

Elmer