Ord 2005-058 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Response: The proposed restriction covers the most heavily traveled portion 0035 in Texas and 2 we believe that limiting the restriction to only certain portions ofthe day will lessen its 3 effectiveness. The department met with law enforcement agencies concerning the duration of the 4 restriction and they also indicated that 24-hour restrictions are preferable. 5 6 Comment: TMTA commented that highway signing installed for the proposed restriction 7 should include "attention getting features". 8 Response: Although not defined in their comment, the department believes that TMT A is 9 suggesting that these signs be equipped with flashing beacons. The department typically uses 10 flashing beacons where necessary to draw a motorist's attention to a specific safety-related 11 situation. Truck lane restriction signs are no different than any other sign noting regulatory 12 conditions (such as a speed limit sign). The department believes that the inclusion of attention- 3 getting features on the truck lane restriction signs is unwarranted due to the 24-hour nature of the 14 restriction. In addition, the department's experience with truck lane restrictions in the Houston 15 area does not indicate that the inclusion of flashing beacons on these signs is necessary. 16 17 Comment: Two commenters noted that the restriction will be problematic at the location of the 18 upper/lower deck split on 135 in central Austin. TMTA noted that implementing the restriction 19 at this location could force trucks to use the upper deck which could lead to more crashes due to 20 potentially higher wind levels hitting the sides of van trailers. 21 Response: The department believes that the wind currents experienced on the upper deck by 22 trucks would be no different than they would on any of the thousands of bridge structures located Page 3 of7 27-May-04 Exhibit A