The Road Warrior w/Dan Hartzell

Tractor-trailer parking: The view through a truck driver's windshield

Dan Hartzell — 2009-11-10T17:39:03-05:00

Fellow warriors,

I thought this e-mail form a truck-driving guy might add some interesting perspective to yesterday's column on truck-parking bans being imposed by Allentown, Whitehall Township and other municipalities.

Regular readers may recall that I am decidedly not a member of the popular Blame the Truckers for Everything Club, and I think this guy makes some good points.

--Road Warrior

I read what some people are complaining about regarding big-rigs being parked on city streets and in malls. I can see their point, but they don't realize that a lot of motor carriers don't have terminals here in the Lehigh Valley, leaving truckers with no place to park.

I've been driving for 30 years, and have gone through a lot of crap for these companies, from trying to find a place to park, and then worrying if my load is safe, while I'm home trying to spend time with my wife and kids. I also bought a home in Bethlehem, we've been there over 11 years, and we try to keep it spotless.

I would bring home the tractor only, not the trailer, and park it up by my garage. I never was bothered by my neighbors or local police till the new breed of officer was patrolling our block and gave me a $25 ticket for having a rig on the street, after having it there for nine years. I give up! I told my wife I will not drive a truck unless they have a terminal in this area--no more rigs at home! (I found one such company, and it was going great till April, but that's another story.)

Seems to me if trucking companies want to run freight and hire drivers in this area then they should have to have a place for their drivers to park, instead of putting it on the driver. Everybody wants the money, from trucking companies to warehouses to local police writing parking tickets. But who's there to help the drivers trying to make a living and come home to spend time with their families?

Oh, that's the other thing: We don't all fit the stereotype of "good ol' boys" with beer bellies and all that. I have over 1 million accident-free miles and a clean driving record, and my daughters graduated from high school with 4.0 gpa's and are in college with scholarships.

By the way, for all who complain about tractor-trailers: When you sit on your furniture, eat your dinner, wear your clothes, watch TV, and do just about anything in modern life, truckers brought you all that stuff.

We would like to say, "You're welcome!"

--Thomas Sarley, Bethlehem

Farm-vehicle mystery solved

Dan Hartzell — 2009-11-02T13:39:57-05:00

As promised in today’s column, the farm vehicle in the photo—er, excuse me, the implement of husbandry in the photo—is indeed a sprayer, as John Bell of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau had suspected.

Farmer Mark Lichtenwalner of Lower Magungie Township, and retired teacher Sanda Schantz of Upper Milford Township, whose husband is a farmer, both identified the vehicle as a high-clearance sprayer used to apply pesticides or other chemicals to corn when the plants are tall.

"Usually this type of sprayer is for pesticides, and the picture looks like it's set up for that application," Mark added. "It could be equipped with drop-nozzles for a mid-season application of nitrogen fertilizer. Another note on this equipment: This is an expensive sprayer that few farmers in the area can afford for limited use. Most likely, it's owned by a compnay doing custom sprays for local farmers, which also means more road travel."

Mark added a personal note relevant to the challenges posed by implements of husbandry being driven on the roadways, both to the farmers driving them and to "regular" motorists.

"I can tell you it's no fun driving farm equipment on area roads anymore," he said. "I'm guessing most people don't know what the slow-moving vehicle emblem means. In the past 20 years, my farm had a couple of accidents; in each case the other driver not only was impatient, but also was speeding. I can't tally all the close calls. The problem of moving farm equipment over the roads is one reason I gave up farming away from my home farm."

Thanks a bunch, Sandy and Mark.

Solution for Race Street/Willowbrook Road dilemma?

Dan Hartzell — 2009-09-28T15:44:17-04:00

Joan Ehritz of Northampton wrote recently with an interesting suggestion regarding the long-stalled plan to add traffic signals to the intersection of Race Street and Willowbrook Road in Hanover Township, Lehigh County, east of Catasauqua.

The township, seeking approval for the signals from PennDOT, has been frustrated by what officials consider a Hummerful of red tape from the state. PennDOT officials say they’re working as quickly and efficiently as they can, but insist it’s their obligation to make sure that all the relevant engineering standards – including safety standards – are met before granting approval.

So here’s Joan’s idea: While we wait for the traffic signals, which require road work including the raising of Willowbrook to create a level intersection, why not add stop signs for the Race Street traffic, creating a four-way stop condition? That would seem to boost safety, provide better access for the Willowbrook traffic, and cost very little as an interim measure.

Not a bad idea, Joan!

I’ll check with the PennDOT people. While four-way stops might not function as efficiently as full-blown traffic signals with turn lanes and properly designed phasing, possibly including green-arrow functions, it seems the stop signs would offer a measure of relief, particularly for Willowbrook traffic.

One possible low-road effect: The flow of prevailing traffic on Race Street might be slowed to the point of creating excessive jams on that more critical thoroughfare.

Still, the proposal seems pretty sound. Give me a few days to see what I can find out. I’ll let you know here on the blog.

Thanks for the suggestion, Joan. It’s a good one, whether PennDOT adopts it or not.

--Road Warrior

Handicap parking -- use versus abuse

Dan Hartzell — 2009-09-24T18:32:49-04:00

Back in June and July of 2008, I wrote three columns within a two-week span regarding the contentious issue of handicap-parking rules and regulations and the use (or misuse) of handicap placards and licenses, igniting a Hummer’s worth of commentary from both sides: Motorists citing cases of apparently able-bodied people utilizing the spaces, versus those contending that they are legitimately handicapped, though this might not always be readily apparent to the casual observer.

A woman who asked that her name not be used – we’ll call her Dawn from Allentown -- came across those columns once again a few months ago, and took the time to compose another thoughtful, and thought-provoking, commentary on the matter.

At the risk of opening this proverbial can of worms once again, I decided to pass her essay along, with minor editing to fix a few typographical errors and to comport with the Morning Call’s rules of style.

Thanks to Dawn for her submission, and to everyone who takes the time to submit questions or comments. I apologize once again for being unable to respond to them all; rest assured they are received, appreciated, and considered – and, by the way, might appear in the column months, or even years, after they’re received.

--Road Warrior

From Dawn:

I know I saw at least one article done recently about handicap parking laws, but I think there are still a lot of violators causing grief for those of us who are truly handicapped.

I am handicapped and have a placard. I already have had to give up and go home instead of being able to do my errands due to not being able to find a handicap space. I have an unfixable chronic knee problem that limits my ability not only to walk, but I also need my car door fully open to get in or out of my car. That means I am the one who needs that extra grid area, or end space. Some days are worse, and I have to use an electric scooter. If I don't need to use my scooter, I must use a walker. I have had so much trouble in the Lehigh Valley trying to manage as a handicap person.

Recently, a lady told me she took the handicap space because the people who own the car are handicapped. Say what??? She was the one driving, and walked into the store alone. She never put up a placard, and the car had no special plate. I was only pointing out to her that she was in a handicap space and had forgotten to put up her sign when she told me her reason. At that point I knew she had no clue and never was going to have one.

I understand people think that just because they own the placard that they have the God-given right to take the spaces. It still requires common courtesy or common sense, if you will, to decide whether or not you should use the spaces. If you are feeling just fine and are fully able to walk or get out of your car, then why not use a normal space? I did during the few months after my surgery when my knee was doing better. Now my knee is very bad again, and I need the space very badly in order to take care of my everyday errands. I am the only person in my family of driving age that can run any errands. I have no choice. It is painful, and adding the frustration of the parking dilemmas is very wearing.

What is wrong with people that they cannot walk a few more parking spaces worth with their fully functioning legs? I am counting down the year and half until my daughter can drive. Then she can drop me off, park in a normal space, and pick me up after we are done.

Which leads me to mention the people who sit in the driver's seat and stay parked in the handicap spaces. Okay, explain that to me. The person driving could have dropped off the passenger, parked anywhere, and then picked up the passenger if they were in need of it. If they themselves are the handicapped person, but are remaining in the car, why do they take the space? Meanwhile, I am the poor lady driving around in circles trying to figure out what to do since there are no open handicap spaces.

Soon I will be using a handicap van with a ramp for my disabled husband, and I know that will cause me even more frustration trying to find a space to do that. He is not able to be just dropped off and wait for me to park, so when the time comes, we will be in even more need of those precious few handicap spaces with van access.

Misuse of handicap parking spaces, whatever its form, needs to stop, or else the number of reserved spaces required will have to increase.

Once I was at a hospital and was parked in a handicap space only to come out and find that the person next to me had parked on the grid, very close to my car. I had to ask a complete stranger to crawl through my car and back it out for me. I also had my placard stolen from my car by a valet. I did not discover it until two days later when I went to use the car again. I had to fill out a form for a replacement. Based on conversations I have had with others, it is a common occurrence for handicap placards to be swiped from cars.

I ask that you pass this on to someone who can write an article or column to plead for more people to be polite and helpful to those of us that need that little bit of help in our lives. I do not wish for my name to be used; I have enough problems without that being added to the mix.

Since I have written this but had no time to send it I have more stories to add. I am upset by the people yelling at my 15 year old who at times either ends up sitting in the car due to her own medical problems or gets to the car with the cart before me (duh I am so slow). Two older ladies yelled at my child today saying she was taught no manners and teens should not be taking up handicap spaces. She let them know I was still making my way out of the store and was actually handicapped. She also let them know she is still too young to drive or would have gladly picked me up. They said sure, right. How rude. This is not the first time either. Also I have been yelled at. I drive what some would call a small sporty looking car so they assume that there is no way I am handicapped. Say what?A man screamed at me as I was turning into a handicap space.. he said you are not handicapped. Um ok really how can you tell by how I drive? It is my left leg not my right leg. I could see if I had a high SUV which would be pretty much impossible for me to get in and out of then yes that would look odd but nothing about my car screams non handicapped.

I feel the need to put a huge sign on my car explaining to all that I have a left knee problem, I do require a handicap space, my child is too young to drive so please leave me alone or offer me help.

Route 309 turn lane returns

Dan Hartzell — 2009-08-25T15:11:41-04:00

Back in November, I criticized PennDOT for removing the right-turn lane from westbound Walbert Avenue to northbound Route 309 in South Whitehall Township. The new road paint that was applied after the resurfacing of Walbert left motorists scratching their hardtops. There still appeared to be plenty of room for the lane that had existed prior to the work – a lane that significantly improved traffic flow because right on red is allowed at the intersection.

PennDOT officials said that technically, the intersection isn't wide enough for the extra lane, and that whoever applied the previous lane markings years ago—probably the township, they said--had made a mistake.

Township officials disagreed, and applied to PennDOT for approval to restore the right-turn lane. To their credit, PennDOT officials agreed, apparently having reconsidered the width limitation. The turn lane was restored at some point during the summer.

Kudos to both the township and PennDOT for their roles in solving this minor quandary. It's not always easy to reconsider a decision objectively, and the willingness to do so is a sign of good leadership.

And thanks to Dick Buehler of Upper Macungie Township, who pointed out the loss of the turn lane.

Readers weigh in on heavier tractor-trailers

Dan Hartzell — 2009-08-04T15:58:45-04:00

My July 27 column in support of the trucking industry's drive to increase the allowable weight for tractor-trailer rigs in the United States put five opposing viewpoints into gear. I continue to believe that that fewer trucks will be needed if the weight limit is increased, and that this would improve roadway safety, diminish road-surface damage, and increase transport efficiency. To give the folks who disagree their say, I'm including four of their replies here (the fifth person requested anonymity).

For those who didn't read the column or who forget some of the details, a copy of it follows the opponents' views, which I respect, as always. Further commentary, from either side of this contentious road, is encouraged at Hartzell@mcall.com.

--Dan Hartzell, "Road Warrior"

Walt Rodgers, Bethlehem Township:

   When are you and Carpenter going to duke it out over this? Let's nitpick your commentary!
   One of the remembrances of taking my CDL test many years ago was the question as to how far I would travel with a truck weighing 70,000 pounds and traveling at 55 mph to come to a dead stop? No panic locking up the brakes! The answer was 300 FEET! A football field length.
   HR 1799 would increase the weight limit by 17,000 pounds. 8 and 1/2 TONS. That is a 21.25% increase. Is the trailer designed to carry another 8-1/2 tons? Did you ever see an overloaded trailer cave in at midpoint? So you add another axle. To carry and stop 8-1/2 tons. If we went on Rte 22 and stopped 100 trucks, how many do you think would have the brakes on all wheels in adjustment? Don't pick a number in the double digits.
   Then there is the tire wear problem. With more than one axle, the tires tend to slide around a turn scrubbing off the tread faster than straight ahead driving. Don't be too sure there is a solid stone base under that asphalt. There wasn't on Center Street when the bridge just south of Rte 22 was replaced in the late '50s!
   The Coalition for Transportation Productivity is like a snake oil salesman or a politician. Fewer accidents maybe, but those that do happen will have an additional 8-1/2 tons of moving mass. They talk of cramming more material in a truck; when I hauled stone, the load was visibly heaped and hopefully didn't fall off the sides. When I hauled pig iron, the load of billets was only about 1/4 up the body side. I could have crammed enough pig iron on the load so as to be visible, but the tires would probably have blown, the springs collapse a well as the frame.
   The per-tire weight distribution is a nice number on a chart. Impresses those who know nothing about trucking. No self-respecting trucker loads evenly in the winter, but loads heavy over his drive wheels for the added traction. If the heaviest piece it to be unloaded at the first stop, why put it forward to even out the load?
   That extra $800 in tax won't cover the cost of filling a pothole!
   Proper driving practices has me rolling on the floor in gales of laughter. In days of yore, we had knights of the road. Now we don't even have serfs of the road.
   And how many of these 97,000 pound goliaths wil roll over the hills of PA at the speed limit? Nothing like being behind one of these giants as he downshifts for the 12th time trying to get over the mountain without gettign down into 1st or 2nd gear and barely moving then.
   Sounds like Obama's healthcare program.

Al Miles, Lehigh Township:

Normally you do your homework very well, but in this case did you Google the subject of "overweight trucks and road damage"? Please do so, as one 40 ton truck does as much damage as 9,600 cars. During the 1970's a I knew the son of then Lehigh professor Byron Daniels, who was doing a study on PA bridges for the effects caused by truck weight and speed. If I recall correctly the stress factors increased geometrically with both higher speeds and/or heavier loads.
As we already have a large percentage of aging bridges in need of repairs, do we really need to make the problem worse by allowing heavier GVW's? How about getting more trucks off the roads by raising fees to $345,600 (the cost of licensing 9600 cars). It costs $621for the largest trucks and $1687.50 for class 25, the largest semi classification.

George Janoski, Whitehall Township:

I feel you're a little off base with your apparent support of increased weight limits for trucks. Our roads and bridges cannot handle the extra weight. Regardless of what the sub-base of highways can handle, consider the asphalt surface we actually drive on. More weight means more of a beating and more problems.

How about the bridges and shoulders of the road? Two of your recent articles address the problems PennDot has in these areas. As for the idea that heavier weight per truck will decrease the number of trucks, think back to when 48' was the limit for length (of trailers) and we increased to 53' for the same reason. Are there less trucks now? This idea is okay for the large companies who would greatly reduce costs by paying less drivers to haul the same tonnage, but it's a real bad idea for the drivers who share the road with them.

I really don't think that an extra fee per truck, handed over to the government, is going to offset the physical harm done by the increased weight. Highway departments do not properly manage the money they have now. You mentioned a few good places on the internet to look at opposing views; may I suggest one for you, landlinemag.com. Thier July,2009 issue contains a whole series of articles on this subject and may change your mind.

Thanks for your great columns, I shall continue to be a regular reader.

Robert H. Mills, Bethlehem:

   I am writing to strongly disagree with your July 27 column in which you favor House Resolution 1799 which would allow the weight limit on trucks to be increased from 80,000 to 97,000 pounds.
   Why? " ...wear and tear of roads tends to increase to the fourth power when axle loads go up. ...In other words, a 40 ton truck can easily cause as much damage to typical roads as 60,000 one-ton cars. The fourth power rule isn't cast in stone, of course, but it happens to describe damage to roads most accurately."
   (www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/4991.html, originally from an article by Robert Poole at the Reason Foundation website, "Trucks and Tolling: The Drama continues:").
   As you know, Dan, you and I as general taxpayers pay significant sums for the repair and upkeep of our roads. The willingness of the Coalition for Transportation Productivity(an industry lobbying group) to include an annual $ 800 per truck for repairs if the weight limit was increased to 97,000 pounds really made me laugh.
   What a pittance! I fully expect to see a column from your fellow columnist, Paul Carpenter, in the near future on this subject as he wrote a blistering column 15-20 years ago when double trailer legislation was being debated in Pennsylvania.

The July 27, 2009 Road Warrior column:

The Morning Call Archives
Copyright © 2009 The Morning Call
Publication Date: July 27, 2009
________________________________________
Headline: Legislation to increase weight loads has merit

Q: I recently came across a small, barely noticeable article concerning federal legislation proposing increases in allowable tractor-trailer weight and length limits. I talked to Sen. Arlen Specter's and Rep. Charles Dent's offices, confirming that this is the case. In inquiring of friends and acquaintances, I found that no one had read or heard of this. It's surprising this was not mentioned in one of your articles, although I could have missed it. Any legislation involving increased limits should be a matter of compelling interest with respect to both public safety and public finance. It is important that this be given adequate notice and debate.
John C. Lychak
Bethlehem

A: It is indeed important, John. The Warrior had not been aware of this proposed change in law until your e-mail pulled in.
   One detail of note: House Resolution 1799 of 2009 would not increase the allowable size of tractor-trailers, in length or any other dimension; only the weight limit would be jacked up, from 80,000 to 97,000 pounds.
   On the road surface, this might seem a terrible idea. Why increase the allowable weight of vehicles already considered dangerously threatening when hurtling down our highways at breakneck speed?
But beneath that thin asphalt surface lies a solid stone base strong enough, perhaps, to support the concept of the 97,000-pound big -rig.
   New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg and other opponents contend that increasing the weight of these trucks would increase stopping distances and further punish our deteriorating roads and bridges. Lautenberg supports counter-legislation that would maintain the 80,000-pound limit.
   "Our bill would protect our infrastructure and improve safety by helping keep dangerously large and heavy tractor-trailer trucks off our roads," the Democrat said in a written statement in April.
   But it's not that simple, according to the Coalition for Transportation Productivity, a lobbying group of 112 companies and associations pushing the 97,000-pounders.
Higher weight limits would make the roads safer, benefit the environment, increase transport efficiency, and cut business costs, all by reducing the number of trucks on the road. Basically, if you cram more stuff in each truck, you'll need fewer trucks down the road, so to speak.
   Braking capacity would not diminish because the heavier trucks would be required to add a sixth axle, providing precisely the amount of additional stopping power to account for the extra weight. The added wheels also maintain the current per-tire weight distribution, diminishing the impact to the road surface.
   In addition, to help pay for road repairs, each extra-heavy rig would pay an annual fee of $800, not exactly a truckload of cash, but it would help. The 80,000-pound limit has been in effect since 1982, and anti-lock brakes and other advancements have made trucks safer, the coalition argues.
   I find all this pretty compelling, John. Again, the size of the trucks would not change; the law would simply allow them to be heavier, which is to say, fuller, and/or with denser stuff inside. It seems that might boost the rollover risk by raising the center of gravity, but coalition spokesman John Runyan said proper load-securing and driving practices would maintain safety.
   The heavier trucks already are allowed in Canada, Mexico, much of Europe, and in Britain, where truck-related accidents declined after their introduction in 2001, according to the coalition.
The folks at Mack Trucks might not see it this way, but many benefits would derive from slowing the growth in the number of big rigs hitting the highways.
   Heavier trucks burn more fuel, but the reduction in the number of vehicles would more than compensate, Runyan said. Fewer trucks would burn less diesel overall, cutting air pollution in the bargain.
   The weight-increase law introduced by Rep. Michael Michaud, a Maine Democrat, would not mandate the 97,000-pound limit, only allow states to adopt it by choice.
   The case is stated effectively at www.transportationproductivity.org, with copies of some of the safety and efficiency studies included. I'm jumping onto this flatbed.
U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent, a Lehigh Valley Republican, already is aboard, supporting 1799 basically for the reasons already stated, said spokesman Gregg Bortz. "More weight on [EACH TRUCK]equals fewer trucks on the road," and the sixth axle adds the necessary safety improvement, he said.
   There are competing safety stats out there, but most opposition to heavier trucks seems to rest on the oil-and-chip foundations of special interests and emotion, heartfelt as some of the latter might be.
The Teamsters union opposes the bill, citing safety concerns, but the fact that fewer truck drivers would be needed surely is a factor. Opponents also include people who have lost loved ones to tragic truck-related accidents, but if proponents are correct, the law would improve safety, not diminish it.
   A spokesman for Sen. Lautenberg did not get back to me with more details on the senator's opposition to the proposal, but the April 1 news release, as well as a May 15 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial, sum it up well. Both are available on the Internet.
   Proponents hope to incorporate the increased weight limit into the six-year highway-funding re-authorization bill, and with the current version set to expire Sept. 30, there's still time for debate.

Road Warrior appears Mondays and Fridays, and the Warrior blogs at mcall.com. E-mail questions about roadways, traffic and transportation, along with your name and the municipality where you live, to hartzell@mcall.com, or write to Road Warrior, Box 1260, Allentown, PA 18105-1260.

Pedaling back

Dan Hartzell — 2009-07-02T18:43:11-04:00

Columns dealing with pedestrian and bicycling issues always seem to raise quite a ruckus. The June 19 version was no exception.

Rather than try to respond to all of the excellent comments that piece elicited, I decided to simply post three of them here on the blog without comment, letting people have their say.

1--Mr. Hartzell,

In reference to your June 19, 2009 column, I can't believe that you suggested, philosophically, that a bicyclist might not really have broken the law if he blew through a stop sign under the stated conditions (an intersection of open rural roads with zero traffic along two-mile sight lines in every direction) but was unobserved by any police officer. While coming to a stop under these conditions might seem absurd (your word), I don't know how one could argue that blowing through any stop sign is not breaking the law (see Title 75, Chapter 35 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes). Why does a police officer have to be present to have such an act be considered illegal? Is the theft of a candy bar not actually stealing unless a police officer catches the person in the act? We're not talking about law enforcement here, which involves proof that a law was broken. We're just musing on whether a law was actually broken.

This brings to mind the oft-quoted expression "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Unless the laws of science are temporarily suspended while the tree falls, you can be sure that a definite sound accompanies a falling tree. Similarly, a bicyclist would be guilty of breaking the law if he/she ignored any stop sign, regardless of who was or wasn't present to observe it.

I suggest you leave philosophical issues to other pundits and stick to your usual fine analysis of real-world traffic issues.

--Dave Boltz, Lower Saucon Township, June 20

2--

First of all, I would like to thank you for writing this column to address the issues of cyclists and pedestrians on roadways. You are raising awareness regarding a very important matter that, yes, is life or death to cyclists and pedestrians, more so than to other road users.

I would like to comment on a few of the statements in your column...

In your column, you make a grossly incorrect statement, where you say: "They're required to ride in the same direction as motor traffic, on the right-hand shoulder of the road, or if no shoulder, in the right-hand travel lane as near as possible to the curb or edge of the road."

Section 3301(b) of the Vehicle Code states "...shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection..."

Section 3505(b) of the Vehicle Code states "A pedalcycle may be operated on the shoulder..."

Reading the Vehicle Code, it is very clear that a cyclist is not obligated to drive on the shoulder by its mere presence as you suggest. The Vehicle Code gives the cyclist the choice to use the shoulder. A good cyclist will choose the travel lane instead of the shoulder if there are hazards such as: broken glass, gravel, storm sewers, debris, car parts or dead animals. These hazards can cause crashes and flat tires.

The other reason that the law allows cyclists to use the travel lane is for interaction with other road users. A cyclist riding on the shoulder or in the gutter of the road is not part of traffic flow. The point in time and space when any road user enters traffic flow is the most likely opportunity for an accident. If traveling on the shoulder and: the shoulder ends, a hazard presents itself, or approaching an intersection, the cyclist will need to enter and reenter traffic flow in each instance.

Using the travel lane, the cyclist is always part of the traffic flow, and as such, the experience is much smoother, being part of the traffic system, rather than on the ragged edge of it.

That said, there is much room for interpretation in terms of exact lane positioning for cyclists and what dictates safe passing by motorists. When cyclists and motorists give each other common decency, respect for life and patience, the experience on the road can be less stressful for everyone.

Share the Road!

--Scott Slingerland, Nazareth

3—Dear Mr. Warrior,

I write to make a small but important correction to your discussion of the rules of the road for bicyclers in which you state that they must use the right hand shoulder of the road. Until about five years ago, bikers were required to ride in the roadway as close to the shoulder as practicable. Then section 3505 of Pennsylvania's traffic laws was amended to read "A pedacycle may be operated on the shoulder of a highway...," emphasis on the word "may." It is always legal for a cyclist to ride (to the right) in the road. Most often, even when the shoulder is well paved, it is safer to ride in the roadway, rather than on the shoulder.

Then, in a follow-up e-mail responding to the Warrior's response to his first e-mail:

As best I understand it, the law used to say that the cyclist must use the roadway, but as far to the right as practicable, which I was taught as a licensed instructor means about three feet to the left of the shoulder. The change in the law gave the bicyclist the option of using the shoulder. For example, I commute daily on the Fahy Bridge. It has a white line marking the shoulder. Before my training as an instructor (part of which took place on the Fahy Bridge) I rode to the right of the white line, but now I ride to the left of the white line. It is counter-intuitive, but I do feel safer riding to the left of the white line (and, at the same time, avoid riding over a lot of road debris and over the sewer grates). In my experience, cars give me wider berth when I am in the roadway of the bridge than when I am on the shoulder.

--Edwin J. Kay, Bethlehem

A shoulder to travel on

Dan Hartzell — 2009-06-25T18:11:29-04:00

Fellow warriors,

Here is an advance, more-detailed look at tomorrow's column. Some of the information provided here could not be included in the print version because of space constraints.

Question: Dan, this is John Brinson calling, it's 12:36 Monday (afternoon), and I am stuck on I-78 westbound between 309 and the 22 merger. I called Ron Young at PennDOT and they have a lane closed because they're doing some crack filling. This is totally unacceptable; it is maddening; traffic is backed up, I'll bet you traffic is backed up to New Jersey. These [golldang] people cannot do this to the driving public. It is unbelievable the damage they're causing to this Valley, the way they shut down the major roads here, 78 and 22, they shut them down because they will not leave two lanes open during road work, and they've got plenty of room to do it if they'd use the shoulders temporarily. Ron said they can't let anybody use the shoulders because they're not designed for traffic loads. Well they certainly should be used during crack-filling and tree-trimming and that kind of crap, because it's, it's just totally maddening. And I'm not the only one who's going crazy here, I mean there are miles and miles of trucks backed up and cars backed up just because these PennDOT District 5 people are so hard-headed; this doesn't happen anywhere else in the country. I've never seen this, and I travel a lot, and I've never seen it this bad, 78 is the worst [golldang] road there is, anywhere. [Sigh of utter frustration.] Thanks for listening. Good-bye.

John Brinson, Weisenberg Township, via voice-mail message

Answer: Sounds like a call many of us want to make when stuck in these confounded traffic jams, eh folks?

John, many readers will recognize you as a frequent Morning Call opinion columnist. You and the Warrior usually drive on opposite sides of the political road, but on this matter you are preachin' to the proverbial choir.

We'll get to the use of the road shoulders in a minute, but my solution, as I've said before, is to virtually eliminate highway traffic restrictions during daylight hours. All such work would be done at night, when severely reduced traffic loads put the brakes on congestion.

There might be some allowable exceptions, cases that truly require the blare of sunlight for proper task execution, though I can't think of any offhand. PennDOT cites bridge or overhead-sign inspections as examples, saying the minute cracks for which engineers are searching might not be visible using artificial light sources.

OK, maybe. But I'd need more persuasion to be convinced for sure. And even if a few exceptions were made, most freeway work still could be done at night.

This solution would ramp up the cost by an estimated 25 to 30 percent, mostly because of the lighting equipment needed and the logistics of dragging it along repeatedly for "moving" operations such as crack-sealing, but it's a price we should be willing to pay through increased taxes (one of your favorite subjects, John).

Since PennDOT spends about $900 million annually on highway maintenance, even taking the high side of the added-cost estimate for night work, Gov. Warrior's executive order banning all highway work between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. would cost an extra $270 million per year.

How would we pay for it, given the contortions Harrisburg already is going through trying to decide how to raise the revenue to fill a $3 billion budgetary pothole?

With 5 billion gallons of gasoline sold in Pennsylvania annually, it would take a 5.4-cent gas-tax increase to cover the Warrior's plan. Round it up to 6 cents, and the price at the pump would soar from $2.70 per gallon to $2.76. Would anyone even notice, given the normal weekly fluctuations?

Nobody really wants to pay more for gas, but here's where your point about the monetary loss from chronic traffic jams merges onto the main road, John: At least some of the braking effect that higher gas prices would apply to the economy would be offset by gains realized through congestion avoidance. My bet is that most, if not all of the tax-hike loss would be recaptured, and we might even make a turn onto Gain Road. Even if we didn't, the reduction in driver frustration should count for something.

Turning to your roadway-shoulder solution, John, PennDOT engineer Chuck Enoch backed up Young's rejection of the concept. It wouldn't be done in this particular case simply because the shoulders are being repaired along with the travel lanes. Very simply, they can't be used while they're being fixed.

Even if that were not the case, Enoch said his sense is that there's not enough room to use the shoulders safely in this instance.

He also reiterated Young's point that shoulders are not designed to withstand the wear and tear posed by traffic; even temporary use of these thinner layers of asphalt might harm them, Enoch said.

Young agreed that the shoulders are quite narrow, particularly on the Route 100 bridge and possibly the nearby Adams Road bridge as well; choke points there would defeat the purpose of the shoulder lanes.

Still, this particular project aside, I trust they normally take the time to look at the plans and seriously consider using the shoulders whenever possible. The solution seems to work well when it is used.

As for the wear and tear, how bad could a week's worth of traffic — admittedly heavy traffic, but don't forget, it would be slowed considerably from the normal 70 mph or more because of the narrowed lanes and psychological barriers — how detrimental could that be for the shoulder?

Plenty, Enoch said: "That could blow it out in a day or two."

This seems unlikely to me, but he's the engineer. He added that on some projects that entail more serious highway construction, and where shoulders are utilized as temporary lanes, asphalt is added to them in advance to prepare them for the abuse.

Enoch rejected my night-work solution in this case because PennDOT crews are doing the work, and the state doesn't have enough of the lighting equipment. And he cited the extra cost, as always, including shift-differential payments for workers.

However, the work they're doing now is in preparation for more to come later this summer — and that will be done at night, by a contractor, thank God.

Most of the asphalt on the stretch of 78 basically from Route 100 to the Berks County line is deteriorating quickly, Enoch said, and will be replaced with a relatively new, micro-surfacing product consisting of two layers of specially designed asphalt for which the current crack-sealing is a preparation.

The material goes down in two separate applications, the first layer sealing the surface and the second providing a wearing layer that requires a curing time of one to four hours, depending on conditions, Enoch said.

The crack-sealing and pothole-filling going on now is designed to make the new material as durable as possible, Enoch said.

Let's hope it works, fellow warriors.

“Always go with the engineer”

Dan Hartzell — 2009-06-16T13:31:56-04:00

In Friday's column on New England Avenue, the new roadway that will be built in east Allentown to provide a better link between Hanover Avenue and American Parkway, I mistakenly said the new intersection that will replace the former Hanover Avenue/Dauphin Street intersection would be located just to the east, at Hanover and E. Turner Street.

Actually, it will be at Hanover and N. Ellsworth Street – I had the right place, but the wrong street name. Just to the south of Hanover, E. Turner, N. Ellsworth and E. Clair streets converge, and the little stub street that emerges to the north is N. Ellsworth. I had consulted Google Maps, which mistakenly labels the road as E. Turner – a logical error, but an error all the same.

I went back through my notes and found that Allentown Public Works Director Rich Young had told me, correctly, that the new four-way intersection would have New England on the north and Ellsworth on the south. That fact escaped me when I checked the electronic map a few days later; I simply accepted what the map displayed.

Damn. I hate it when I can't blame a mistake on someone else.

The lesson? If comes down to a question between what the engineer says and what "the computer" says, always go with the engineer. Engineers might tend to be a little geeky, but at least they're human. And usually pretty damn smart.

Brightening up

Dan Hartzell — 2009-06-12T18:17:18-04:00

Regarding the June 3 posting below titled "Fade Away," I keep forgetting to point out that Allentown workers replaced the faded stop sign on S.Glenwood Street at Union Street -- the same day the blog posting appeared.

City Traffic Superintendent Ron Penrose noted that reports of missing or badly damaged stop signs are checked out as quickly as possible because of the safety factor. Still, this sign clearly had gone unnoticed for a long time, and city officials didn't quibble about whether it was in good enough condition to get by even for a few more weeks.

Kudos to Penrose and the traffic department for their immediate attention to this matter.

New England Avenue

Dan Hartzell — 2009-06-11T12:00:53-04:00

There's a new road coming Allentown's way, long in the planning, and related to the $75 million American Parkway project.

New England Avenue will replace, and greatly improve, the link from the western edge of the city's East Side to the parkway that had been provided by N. Dauphin Street. New England also is expected to take some of the north-south traffic load from Irving Street/Airport Road to the east.

Check it all out in tomorrow's Road Warrior column in the paper, and at mcall.com. Here's a map showing the alignment of the new road, named after a former rail line the path of which it basically will follow, to help clarify how it will all work. Engineers have tweaked this original design a bit on the north side of Union Boulevard, but it's accurate enough to give us a good idea of what the alignments will be.

According to current plans, American Parkway Bridge is expected to span the Lehigh River about a quarter-mile north of the Tilghman Street Bridge in mid-2012.

New England Ave. New England Ave. hartzell4629

Publish at Scribd or explore others:

Fade away

Dan Hartzell — 2009-06-03T18:09:24-04:00

This stop sign on northbound S. Glenwood Street at Union Street in Allentown, just east of Ott Street, is fading quickly into the sunset, so to speak.

The sign sunk to invisibility one recent day for Martina Semmer of Salisbury Township, who blew through the intersection without noticing, or stopping. Luckily, there was no cross-traffic on Union Street, or there might have been a fender-bender or worse.

Allentown Traffic Superintendent Ron Penrose's crack team of sign watchers must have let this one slip through the floorboards. Why this particular placard lost so much pigment is a mystery; the other nearby stops in this quaint neighborhood south of Hamilton Street are in good condition. Perhaps it's simply gone unnoticed for many years, while its neighbors have been renewed.

It's one for Penrose's folks to put on the replacement list.

Reconsidering ‘ambulance drivers’

Dan Hartzell — 2009-05-29T19:27:16-04:00

In the column on no-parking zones one week ago, I wrote the following sentence, oblivious to any negative implications that might be taken:

"In theory, even the police, and certainly the ambulance drivers, should be cited" for parking violations, despite the fact they work for the agency that issues the tickets. (Not the city directly, but a city-created authority, close enough for our purposes.)

Two area Paramedics, Bill Sames of South Whitehall Township, and Charles Herbert of Bangor, e-mailed to say they didn't appreciate the use of the term "ambulance drivers" for their profession. They consider it disrespectful, perhaps even derogatory.

At first I thought they were being a little over-sensitive, and over-sensitivity can be a slippery slope in the newspaper business. I thought that "ambulance chaser" might be considered derogatory by lawyers, but "ambulance driver" simply is someone who happens to be driving an ambulance. Also, Sames and Herbert agreed that not every person driving an ambulance necessarily is a Paramedic; they also might be an Emergency Medical Technician. So Paramedic doesn't cut it as a generic term when you don't know which of the two choices is correct.

I came around to their way of thinking though, after considering their arguments. Sames' example that we would never refer to "police-car drivers" or "fire-engine drivers" in particular seemed to be on the right side of the road.

This portion of Sames' e-mail below makes the overall case very well. I think I'll try to be more careful with this phrasing in the future. Many thanks to both Paramedics for taking the time to write.

We are all Emergency Medical Technicians, (EMT's). Some of us are Paramedics. As in the case of the cities of Bethlehem and Allentown, we are all Paramedics. We understand that people are not too educated with our profession despite our numerous efforts to educate the public. That is where we need your help. People believe most of what they read, so you can be our best asset as addressing us as Paramedics, or at the very least EMT's. EMT's are a lower level of training and cannot do the advanced life saving measures that Paramedics can. With that said, no EMT will ever complain if you call them a Paramedic, but I have to admit, some Paramedics can take offense to be labeled as EMT's. Still, we don't call Police Officers police car drivers, or Firefighters fire truck drivers, do we? Anyone that is in an ambulance, driving or not, has a certain level of training to assist with saving lives. No one is hired "off the street" just to drive an ambulance.

I appreciate your reply to my email, I have to be honest, I didn't think you would reply simply because the amount of emails you must receive everyday. I hope in the future you will be able to help us with our cause. Thanks again.

Update: No-parking signs

Dan Hartzell — 2009-05-28T17:07:07-04:00

In Friday's column regarding no-parking signs along the 100 block of N. Sixth Street in Allentown, I criticized the city's placement of the "arrow" signs, which have the slashed-P diagram with arrows indicating the direction of the specified no-parking zone. Working in conjunction, the signs are designed to mark a zone's boundaries with signs pointing inward, toward each other, and as many dual-arrow sings (arrows pointing in both directions) in between to indicate continuation of the zones.

So you'll have a sign pointing left, and a sign somewhere to the right of it pointing right, with however-many dual-arrow signs in between. No parking in there. Pretty easy.

The problem on N. Sixth, in my opinion, is that the city uses the dual-arrow sign to designate the end of a no-parking zone on all four corners of the block, which is to say, on each side of Sixth at Linden and at Chew. City Traffic Superintendent Ron Penrose defends this practice, saying if a dual-arrow sign is close to an intersection, as each of the four are in this case, they are tantamount to single-arrow signs pointing toward the no-parking zone. In effect, the intersection forms the end of the zone in and of itself, in Penrose's view. And it is self-evident that you can't park directly on the corner of any intersection.

To install yet another no-parking sign -- a single-arrow sign -- on every intersection where this circumstance exists, would be a burden to the city, Penrose said. Of course, that's what he said about the Warrior's other proposed solution: Painting the curbing yellow throughout the block (except for a "loading zone," which would be white curbing, and three parking meters). Too much maintenance, too much cost, he said.

I said I'd admit if I were wrong, but I'm not sure I can do that. Penrose knows his stuff, and I can't say it breaches regulations not to post a single-arrow sign to mark the end of each zone. But the city does so in many other cases (though not all). I still think it would be a good idea, and it couldn't be that costly.

I do have to credit the Allentown Parking Authority for stepping up enforcement of the no-parking regulations on the block, particularly at the Dunkin' Donuts service window on the west side of Sixth. Several members of my band of ubiquitous spies (OK, these are colleagues taking smoke breaks at the "smoking shack" on the east side of Sixth, home to the Morning Call building) have seen enforcement officers shooing multiple scofflaws away. Good work!

I'll have a final note on Friday's column tomorrow. It regards the reactions of two area Paramedics to my use of the term "ambulance drivers."

Switching directions

Dan Hartzell — 2009-05-28T15:43:58-04:00

I noticed on Tuesday and Wednesday of this holiday week that PennDOT's tree-obliteration contractor had switched sides, and had begun work on the eastbound lanes of Route 22, between the 15^th Street and Cedar Crest Boulevard interchanges in South Whitehall Township. To their credit, the crews were not restricting travel lanes on those two days; instead, they were clearing what they could on wide sections of the ramps, and even a stretch of 22 itself just east of 15^th Street where they had enough room to operate while traffic flowed freely.

I foolishly allowed myself to think that maybe the trees on the south side were not encroaching as much as their counterparts to the north, and that eastbound lane closures might not be needed, or at least wouldn't be as chronic as the preceding month-long westbound restrictions.

Silly me. By 10 a.m. today, inch-forward mode prevailed on the eastbound side, well past Route 309. I broke the rules by exiting the on-ramp from northbound 309, doubling back south to Tilghman Street, and took the Rose Garden route to work -- Parkway Road, Broadway, Parkway Boulevard, Turner Street. Didn't lose all that much time.

But be advised that eastbound tree-cutting from the Turnpike overpass to the Lehigh River has arrived, and it could plague us virtually daily through the end of June, by PennDOT estimates. Happy summer!

The not-so-influential Road Warrior

Dan Hartzell — 2009-05-22T11:45:35-04:00

Today's column on the proliferation of illegal parking at the Dunkin' Donuts shop on the 100 block of N. Sixth Street in Allentown, directly across from The Morning Call, didn't seem to faze some city workers. A colleague saw a police officer park his cruiser in front of the shop this morning, with the driver-side tires up onto the sidewalk, and stroll into the shop like nobody's business. I won't even raise the irony of the cops-in-the-donut-shops cliché. Then about 10:45 a.m., I noticed a traffic maintenance truck, and a health-department car, parked in front of the shop's take-out window.

At first I thought the maintenance crew might be working on the overhead pedestrian-crossing warning lights, but that wasn't the case. And maybe a health inspector was checking out the cleanliness of the bakery. But I doubt it. Looked more like a couple of coffee runs. For that matter, maybe the officer was conducting a crime investigation in the donut shop.

Right. So much for the Road Warrior's gripping sphere of influence.

As I said in the column, some Morning Call customers also park illegally on the opposite side of the street. City parking-enforcement officers do conduct some enforcement in this area—Parking Authority officials have the statistics to show it—but they might want to tach it up a bit.

Meanwhile, city Traffic Supt. Ron Penrose e-mailed to say the Warrior got it wrong in alleging that some of the no-parking signs on the block are improperly posted, causing confusion for motorists who do want to obey the rules. Penrose offered to meet at the site some time to enlighten me, and if I'm wrong, I'll certainly say so. Keep your car radio tuned to this station.

Good news, bad news

Dan Hartzell — 2009-05-14T18:29:11-04:00

Here's the good news: PennDOT expects the Hill-to-Hill Bridge repainting project to be completed by 6 a.m. tomorrow, May 15, one week ahead of the scheduled May 22 opening of Sands Casino Resort Bethlehem, according to spokesman Ron Young. The $809,000 sandblasting and repainting of the steel superstructure was handled by Amstar of Western New York, from the Buffalo area. The tent-like enclosures prevented lead-paint contamination of the surrounding area; workers inside the enclosures wore respirators. From what I can see, they did a pretty good job, and got out of there on time.

Here's the bad news: The Route 22 traffic snarls in Whitehall, South Whitehall and Upper Macungie townships, between the Fullerton Avenue and Turnpike (I-476) interchanges, is expected to drag on through the end of June, said PennDOT spokesman Sean Brown.

The burden will shift from the westbound side, where motorists have been bearing these delays almost daily for a month, to the eastbound direction at some point. Brown said that contract is worth about $120,000 for Asplundh Tree Co., which has the specialty equipment and expertise required to slice some of these sizable branches high off the ground, and far back from the highway.

PennDOT considers this a "temporary inconvenience, (semi) permanent improvement," in that the more aggressive cutting and trimming operation, coupled with subsequent herbicide applications, should more effectively prevent re-growth, thus repeat performances, for a longer time to come.

I still think any of this kind of highway work that possibly can be done at night should be done at night, and we taxpayers should happily bear the burden of the extra expense, generally estimated at 25 to 30 percent more. In this instance, instead of $120,000, even using the 30 percent figure, the work would cost $156,000. Let's see, divide the $36,000 difference by the number of cars that will have been delayed for, say, a half-hour or more by the time this is over, and I'll bet you'd end up with an average cost of pennies per car, max. Well worth every one of 'em.

Railing away

Dan Hartzell — 2009-05-12T15:10:37-04:00

Passing along a bit of information from PennDOT:

Norfolk Southern Railroad plans to replace the rail crossing on Cetronia Road east of Trexlertown Road in Upper Macungie Township next week, according to PennDOT spokesman Ron Young. The crossing is at the northwest tip of the Air Products property.

The road is expected to be closed and detoured between Trexlertown and Grange roads from May 18 through May 22. Local access will be maintained on Cetronia between Grange Road and the rail crossing (including access to Air Products), and also between Trexlertown Road and the rail crossing. Through traffic will use the posted detour on Trexlertown Road, Hamilton Boulevard, Mill Creek Road and Grange Road, Young said.

Meanwhile, we're into a fourth frustrating week of traffic jams on Route 22 westbound, west of 15^th Street in South Whitehall Township, as workers contracted by PennDOT continue to hack away at the roadside trees during critical daylight hours. If there's an end in sight, we're gonna need those oversize astronomical binoculars to spot it. Hey Harrisburg, anyone out there willing to introduce a bill specifying that all highway construction work be done at night? And yes, I will accept tax increase in order to pay for it.

Let’s take turns

Dan Hartzell — 2009-05-11T13:34:29-04:00

In Friday's column, PennDOT engineer Tom Walter was correct in saying there is no legal mandate for a motorist to turn into the nearest lane at a multi-lane intersection. But he noted that it's a good idea to turn into the nearest lane when possible, as a courtesy to other motorists, and, as questioners Jean Searfoss of Lower Macungie Township and Gene Tauber of Whitehall Township maintained, it also tends to be safer, and helps traffic move through these complex intersections more efficiently.

As Tony Cox of Bethlehem subsequently pointed out, turning into the nearest lane is, indeed, formally recommended in the Pennsylvania Driver's Manual. Here's what it says in the latest version of the publication meant for people learning to drive or looking to sharpen their skills:

" LEFT AND RIGHT TURNS
On two-lane, two-way streets or highways, make left turns from as close to the center line as possible. Make right turns from as close to the right edge of the roadway as possible. To turn left on multi-lane streets and highways, start from the left lane. If you are turning right, start from the right lane. If you are turning onto a highway, which has more than one (1) lane in the direction you wish to travel, turn into the closest lane going in that direction. Turn into the left lane when making a left turn, and turn into the right lane when making a right turn. If you want to change to another lane, wait until after you have safely completed your turn."

The same advice appears in the Commercial Driver's License Manual. The Warrior was alerted to that by PennDOT engineer Dennis Toomey, who possesses a CDL (the kind of license needed by tractor-trailer drivers) in order to drive a church bus as a volunteer. (Nice work, Mr. T.)

So turning into the nearest lane is a safe, efficient and courteous practice, but it is not required by law. In fact, by law right-turners at a multi-lane intersection must yield to opposing left-turning traffic entering the lane nearest the right-turner, according to Walter. And there might be a legitimate reason for that apart from discourtesy. For example, at the intersection discussed Friday, Mickley and MacArthur roads in Whitehall (the northern intersection of those two roads, near the Taco Bell), westbound Mickley traffic could turn left into the far lane – the southbound lane on the far west side of MacArthur – in order to make an immediate right turn into the shopping center on that side of the road. It would be pretty difficult to avoid that movement, and in that instance, that motorist would have the right-of-way over traffic turning right from eastbound Mickley onto southbound MacArthur.

Thanks to Tony for the heads-up on the Driver's Manual advice. Though much of the information in the manual is based on state Vehicle Code provisions, some of the information takes the form of recommendations, and not mandates of law.

One other point regarding turning at multi-lane intersections: It's important from a safety standpoint to remain in your lane during a turn when there are multiple turning lanes in the same direction. For example, at the intersection just south of that discussed above, Grape Street and MacArthur, there are two left-turn lanes from westbound Grape to southbound MacArthur. In that case, motorists must remain in position during the turn, and that's why traffic engineers provide the helpful dash lines to make the turn safer.

Thanks to Dick Miller of Allentown for clarifying that matter as being distinct from the functioning at Mickley and MacArthur, where only one lane exists for turning from westbound Mickley to southbound MacArthur.

Stimulating news

Dan Hartzell — 2009-05-08T17:58:50-04:00

A construction contract has been awarded for the first road-improvement project in our region to use economic stimulus funding from Washington, PennDOT officials said today.

Bracalente Construction Inc. of Northampton won the $1.25 million deal to repair a two-mile stretch of Route 412, from I-78 to the south, in Bethlehem, Hellertown and Lower Saucon Township, said PennDOT spokesman Ron Young. Construction is expected to begin in June or July.

This is the fifth of 23 planned construction contracts in PennDOT's Allentown-based District 5 using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money. The previous four agreements cover the the sandblasting and repainting of the support structures of a total of 35 bridges in Lehigh, Northampton, Berks, Schuylkill and Monroe counties.

In another stimulating development, Young said earlier this week that Norfolk Southern Railroad intends to replace the deteriorated railroad crossing on Blue Barn Road, just north of Tilghman Street in Upper Macungie Township, next week.

Blue Barn will be closed in the area of the rail crossing beginning Monday morning, and possibly through the week, according ot plans. A posted detour will be suggested, but motorists familiar with the area are likely to find their own way around the closure.

Althea Hahn and Gary Kautzmann, both of Upper Macungie, and John and Thelman Livermon of North Whitehall Township will welcome this news, if not the temporary traffic restrictions. They wrote the Warrior last year in an effort to get the bumpy crossing repaired as soon as possible.

Even more elated will be Peggy Goll of Upper Macungie, who complained about the condition of the crossing two years ago.

Turning to the future

Dan Hartzell — 2009-05-07T14:03:17-04:00

Dear fellow warriors,

Tomorrow's column deals with whether the law mandates that, when making turns at multi-lane intersections, motorists must turn into the lane nearest them. Jean Searfoss of Lower Macungie Township and Gene Tauber of Whitehall Township believe that you should turn into the nearest lane, whether it's required or not. More on all that tomorrow.

In answering the question, I cite as an example making a left-hand turn from westbound Mickley Road onto southbound MacArthur Road in Whitehall. With that stretch of road in mind, I wanted to offer a taste of tomorrow's column, an anecdote not directly related to the question, but interesting nonetheless,. Hope you get a chance to check out the column tomorrow, but in the meantime, here's a condition I've been observing for a number of years.

Many people going south on MacArthur Road from the point where Mickley Road intersects, and who intend to take Route 22 westbound, use the center lane of MacArthur on half-mile this stretch, the right lane tending to lag because of vehicles entering, and exiting, the many businesses on the west side. The trouble is, those people often squeeze into the right lane at the last instant — basically from Best Buy south — which bogs things down even more. I now disdain this practice, even though, true confessions, I'm a past participant. Yea, I used to do the same thing – zoom along in the center lane, bypassing all those turn-related slowdowns, only to sneak into gaps in the traffic just as the entrance ramp approaches. Looking back, this was a discourteous, if not unsafe practice. I'm sure I sometimes forced my way into gaps that didn't really have enough space to enter smoothly.

My current laid-back driving style, consciously adopted over the last five or seven years, is much easier on the psyche. I recommend it highly.

Put up a parking lot

Dan Hartzell — 2009-05-06T12:32:31-04:00

Fellow road warriors:

They're "trimming" the trees again on Route 22 west today, third week in succession, turning the road we love to hate into a parking lot. Folk singer Joni Mitchell would be appalled. Today they're just west of 15th Street.

PennDOT would tell us to be pleased, because, since they're not so much trimming as obliterating, they won't have to shut a lane down to repeat the procedure for a long time to come. And they'll "control" any vegetation by spraying poisons all over the highway right-of-way. Rachel Carson would be appalled.

I'd rather see them conduct this project, and virtually all highway work, exclusively at night. Less popular, but no less justifiable, I think they should raise the gasoline tax to pay for the additional cost of this nights-only construction plan. It's about time we North Americans start paying energy prices closer to everyone else in the West. Our behavior over the past 40 years proves that this is only way we'll ever get serious about conservation. How 'bout this concept: Peg the price to $4 a gallon; if market prices rise, the tax rate falls proportionally, and vice-versa. The price at the pump remains constant, imposing some price stability. Works for me.

By the way, the Mitchell song from the late 1960s about putting up parking lots, "Big YellowTaxi," is a foresightful work of art that rings true especially in the Lehigh Valley. The lyrics are on the internet, just search for: mitchell big yellow taxi.

A sign of the times

Dan Hartzell — 2009-05-05T18:47:49-04:00

Fellow road warriors:

I got the following e-mail from Phil Breslin of Bethlehem regarding the April 24 column on the ultra-faded "loading zone" no-parking sign that, it turned out, had been installedmany years ago by the previous owner of the day-care center there, on 18th Street in South Whitehall Township.

PennDOT officials acted quickly, removing the illegal sign either the day the column appeared, or perhaps the day before, April 23, after I had spoken to them about it.

Breslin's e-mail:

"Congratulations on the resolution of a really dangerous situation. I had the very same concern as Ms. Belman (who submitted the original question about the sign), and wrote to the South Whitehall police on November 18, 2004. They took action of some sort and, for a few weeks, there was no long-term parking in front of the place, but it did not last, and the parking resumed. I have observed, by the way, that there are no vehicles parked at the property on Tuesday mornings, because that is trash pick-up day -- the owners' attitude seems to have been, 'make it convenient for the trash man, but don't be concerned about the traffic hazard on other days.' "

Thanks for the background, Phil.

Update: Asa Packer School entrance

Dan Hartzell — 2009-05-05T12:58:53-04:00

Fellow road warrriors:

In helping to answer questions regarding the entrance and exit to Asa Packer Elementary School in Hanover Township, Northampton County, in the April 27 column, Bethlehem School District Facilities Supervisor Scott Gilliland noted that the school's 40-year-old design plans showed Stoke Park Road connecting directly to Schoenersville Road -- a different alignment than exists today, and one that Gilliland, who's been with the district for about four years, assumed was never built. The phantom Stoke Park Road would have connected to the school property at the point in question.

When the column appeared, Scott Harney of Bethlehem, Robert Harold of Bethlehem Township, Karen Brassington of Whitehall Township, and Glenn Walbert, township supervisors vice chairman, wrote to say the phantom Stoke Park was no phantom at all, but in fact, did exist, from the time the school was built in the 1960s until ten to 12 years ago, when the business development surrounding the school altered the alignments.

Walbert said Stoke Park was relocated at that time in part to eliminate some sharp turns and a difficult intersection. "The vacated section was then deeded to [the business park] in exchange for their building the new road," Walbert explained.

"The cul-de-sac that is there now is all that remains of that original Stoke Park Road," Harold added. Harney remembers the original Stoke Park from "in the80s when I was a student at Asa Packer ... " (Sorry to give away your age, Scott, or at least to hint at it. You're still a youngster in the Warrior's eyes though: Whitehall Class of 1969.) Brassington also is a Packer alum, but she didn't mention the time-frame--so neither will the Warrior.

Finally, Laura Papera of Hanover Township recalled receiving traffic-flow information from the school, prior to the 2007-08 year, that indicated traffic should use the egress point in question only to enter the school grounds, and that exiting traffic should use the southern egress point via Lord Byron Drive and the neighborhood there. But Principal Carol Jacoby said Papera is mistaken --the information detailed traffic patterns between the school's two parking lots, but did not address entry and exit from the property, Jacoby said.

In game-show parlance, the Final Answer to Sara Miller's original question -- Is the narrow road adjacent to the grass island intended only as an entrance, or is it a two-way street for exit and entry -- is that it's a two-way street. Gilliland said district officials will add lane striping, and take other measures if necessary, to clarify the correct traffic flow.

Thanks to Sara for her original question, and to everyone from the district, and to those who responded to clarify the Warrior's phantom assumption about a phantom alignment of Stoke Park Road.

Welcome to the Road Warrior blog

Dan Hartzell — 2009-04-30T16:27:09-04:00

What the heck is a blog, anyway? For my fellow Luddites, the term derives from “Web log,” meaning a kind of log book kept on the world wide web, or, basically, the internet. Started as on-line diaries, blogs have become pages that provide news, opinion pieces, personal profiles, product updates, and other information. They continue to evolve almost by the minute.

The Warrior turns the key on his blog with a kind of “Statement of Principles,” though not quite so formal a thing as that title might suggest.

--The Road Warrior welcomes any and all questions and comments regarding roadway problems, suggested improvements, or really any issues that occur to travelers regarding transportation.

--The Warrior is no expert. I’m basically just a motorist like everyone else. I’ve had some education, training and experience as a reporter, finding answers and tracking down information, but no special instruction as a motorist apart from driver-education classes in high school. I’m learning as I go, right along with everyone else.

--Seven years’ experience answering roadway questions has given me some familiarity with the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code and PennDOT regulations, which hopefully helps me provide a service to readers as quickly and accurately as possible. But I am no highway engineer, and my real function is to contact the relevant engineers, administrators or other officials to secure the proper information.

--As little more than a fellow traveler, the Warrior will not dictate or preach to anyone. I make the same mistakes out on the roadways as other people do. I’m neither qualified for, nor inclined toward, dispensing definitive advice. Most of the advice I offer applies as much to myself as to anyone. I opine not so much about what "you" should do, but rather, what "we" might do to make our travels safer and more efficient.

--I apologize for not answering, or even necessarily responding to, every question I receive; there are far too many, which is a “good” problem, I suppose. I’m not a big fan of “auto response” e-mails; they’re among the most impersonal features of the impersonal computer world. Please understand that I’ve received your questions, and do appreciate them. And by the way, the Warrior sometimes answers questions months, even years after they’re submitted. Often, for example, I’ll collect a number of questions on the same issue — a sign of the issue’s importance. As a result, a good deal of time might pass as the list builds.You never know when your question might pull in to the column.

That's about it. I hope to use this newfangled device to post the complete texts of columns that don't fit into the paper version of the newspaper, to update ongoing issues, and to read and respond to readers' postings when appropriate.

Hope you like it.

Dan Hartzell, "Road Warrior"