Mail Bag: Lp 1604, I-10, FM 1103 and safety

I'm trying to find images, drawing or visual representations on how Loop 1604 and Wiseman is supposed to look like after the construction.
- Guy
We have the materials presented at public meetings posted online, including the schematic of the overall project. Enjoy!

Why are so many electronic message boards being erected along I-10? I count five new ones between Boerne and Kerrville.
- Tim
To be honest, Tim, this was the idea of our folks out in San Angelo. They had been using portable message boards during the winter to key in road conditions updates for drivers. The problem: portable message boards require a guy on-site to update the messages.
Dynamic message boards serve as a very effective means to transmit information to drivers. This is particularly true during major weather events when we have highway obstructions we need to advertise in real time.
For those who remember, we had to close I-10 in various places in West Texas due to ice during storms Kronos and Goliath. The closures created a gridlock scenario with some motorists - particularly big rigs - getting stranded. If we had in place a dynamic messaging system (like we are now installing) at the time the situation could have been mitigated by allowing motorists to get off the highway and detour to other locations. That's what we're about here with this effort.
In fact, we're installing about 30 new signs between Boerne and Sheffield. There are talks of adding signs beyond that - perhaps all the way to El Paso. These signs will be connected to our TransGuide base of operations in San Antonio and be available to the folks in the San Angelo District Operations Center.
The whole project costs us about $3 million. That includes the cost of cameras mounted atop these signs, giving us not only messaging capability but a real-time look at highway and traffic conditions at some pretty remote locations. The end product for you will be not unlike the system of mountain pass cameras used in some states, like Washington.
We should have everything installed and ready for use before winter hits us this year.

I keep seeing damage to the cable guard rails in the median between the lanes of I-10 West from San Antonio to Boerne. Are there any studies or statistics on how many head on collisions they may have prevented? How expensive are they to repair when someone "takes advantage of them?"
- Scott
Cable median barriers are relatively new in the American highway scene - they really came into vogue about a decade ago. Prior to using these cable medians no positive barrier was used, or a type of barrier was used carrying burdensome costs. New York was the first to employ the cable barriers and the Federal Highway Administration posted a 2006 paper extolling their virtues. They've since caught on across the country.
The truth is, every location you see damaged cable is a potential fatality averted. Cross-median collisions (when a vehicle travels across the grass median and strikes an oncoming vehicle, most often head-on) are among the most fatal collisions we see on our highways. The aim of these barriers is preventing these.
Cable barrier is way cheaper to install than concrete is, even if the upkeep is slightly more expensive. Some repair costs - about 20 percent - are offset by insurance claims for us locally.
By the way, we spend somewhere around $400,000 each month (not a typo) on guardrail repairs. That figure includes steel guardrail, crash cushions and cables.

In regards to the expansion project between The RIM and Ralph Fair Road starting September 11th, can we get a detailed plan on how you are planning to minimize the amount of traffic that is invariably going to occur for the next 3 years? I agree we need to do the expansion, but hopefully we learned some lessons from the first I-10 expansion from UTSA to Huebner where the traffic was unbearable and accidents were an all-too-common occurrence. For the sake of everyone's sanity during this time, please tell us you've got something figured out to keep the flow of traffic to a non-road-rage inducing level. You could literally spend an hour getting from Huebner to the RIM during those days, and I don't want to have to do the same again getting from the RIM to RFR!
- Gerard
Well, Gerard, the two projects are pretty much apples and oranges. With the I-10 Huebner project we were adding lanes to the outside (right-hand side) of the highway and we did a lot of work on the ramps. That work on the ramps was a large part of the traffic control issues you saw.
There are a slew of variables that make the comparison a poor one, but we'll keep things simple here.
On the project we're doing now a lot of the work will be done on the inside (left-hand side) and we're not closing any ramps (beyond overnight stuff). We are not reconfiguring any ramps. We are not changing your current traffic alignments or reducing capacity at all.
Honestly, this project is really straightforward and we're out of the way for the most part. Will you see slower traffic? Probably - it's a natural byproduct of the orange signs and barrels. We won't complain about that, ourselves; the slower traffic goes through our office, the safer our workplace is and better our odds of returning home safely each day. But more to your point the daily commute shouldn't be impacted negatively too badly through the project. In fact, you'll see some pretty immediate relief with one new lane (we're building two each way) being opened for your use as soon as early 2019.

What is going on with 1103 Bridge Replacement? You reported on August 8th it was beginning that week. Later delayed until September 5th. Now nothing. Is it now being delayed due to Harvey related repairs?
- Jeff
Work on the FM 1103 overpass officially began September 18 and was delayed for a few reasons - Harvey being one of them.
Those of you not named Jeff, this question was posed twice in a four-week span ... once earlier in August and again just after Harvey hit. We had a few issues pushing us back on the start time, including inconvenient weather patterns and some scheduling gaffes. The good news is a delayed start means little to no impact on drivers.
With work now started the clock is ticking, though. We'll have updates available here as they are pertinent.

When will Military Dr W return to its normal lane configuration?
- Mike
When this traffic shift started the plan was to have things back to normal by September 1. Well, we then got hit with some weather issues in August and had some permitting issues with Bexar County. Then Harvey it. Now we're getting rained on.
Long story short, Mike, we're hoping to have things back to normal by Halloween.
We will have to switch it around one more time to match the intersection to the new southbound frontage road - a task currently anticipated for summer of 2018.

I have seen your advocacy of the "zipper" or late merge. I understand in principle why it should be better than early merging, but I think you neglect to take into consideration two factors that work together to make it impractical in practice. First, there is the law that requires merging traffic to yield. Second is human nature, and the specific driving culture of Texas big cities, which is extremely competitive. Trying to get someone to let you over in ANY situation where you need to change lanes is difficult because people just don't want to give up their position or be behind another car. Add to that in zipper merging the perception that the late merger is "cutting" in front of the line (something most of us were taught was rude since preschool) it's a heavily ingrained sociological problem. Blogs and citing studies won't change that, so what else are you going to do to change the driving culture in Texas?
- Mark
That's a great question, Mark. In short we are still having internal discussions about just how far we want to go as a state to promote the move. As our explanatory post points out some states use fixed and digital highway signs and others have launched full-out awareness campaigns. We aren't sure yet whether we're going to jump onto the bandwagon fully or if we're going to simply advance messaging done by others.
We will point out the "me-first" attitude of too many drivers is not exclusive to Texas; it really is global. The Zipper isn't about being first or not cutting, though - it's about taking turns. And that's a behavior about which even Kindergarteners know well.

Could someone look into the signal timing on the I-10 frontage roads at Dominion Drive? The westbound frontage road has extended green lights in the afternoon to handle the large volume of traffic; as appropriate. However, in the morning, the westbound frontage road still has extended green lights to the detriment of the eastbound frontage roads which now have the largest volume of traffic. This seems way out of balance vis-a-vis the traffic flows.
- Dave
You bet, Dave! We'll be happy to look into this issue and ensure the signal is running optimally vis-à-vis your daily commute (and others).

Mail Bag: Loop 1604, Bandera Rd, I-35, I-10, Hwy 46

So ... we recently re-discovered a number of questions that were sitting un-answered in our blog post drafts list for well over a month. Without any further ado, here are the answers.

Are there any plans on reducing congestion on 1604 around Bandera? There are just way too many vehicles during morning and evening commute times that make getting to or from I-10 a 30-plus minute ordeal.
- Rudy
In a word, yes. However, we're still quite a while away from getting to anything. The real traffic issues here are the ramp configurations at both ends. On one side you have some capacity issues amplified by the cloverleaf intersection. On the other you have traffic slowing and backing up onto the highway main lanes because the ramp is near the cross road.
First there's the issue of that intersection of Loop 1604 and I-10. This whole issue is being taken up by the Metropolitan Planning Organization, which determines our strategic approach to transportation planning in the region, and the Alamo RMA (they're the lead agency on Loop 1604, actually).
At this point a lot of stuff is still up in the air, but we're estimating a cost of about $575 million to add two managed lanes in each direction between Bandera Road and US 281. Right now this is listed in our Project Tracker as something we'll get after early 2020 - but all that really means at this point is we've got it on our radar and we're working to make it happen, but it's currently unfunded.
The cloverleaf issue will partially be addressed with direct connectors running from managed lanes of Loop 1604 to managed lanes on I-10. the current $85 million project on our list addresses traffic outside Loop 1604 but won't help those headed from, say, Bandera Road to the USAA complex.
Again, right now we're still in the planning stages of all this, working out configurations and funding sources and all sorts of stuff. But it is on our radar!
As for that evening commute headed through Bandera ... that's a solve we're looking into as a part of potential stop-gap measures between now and the managed lanes projects. For that westbound movement to Bandera, a simple ramp reversal project - where we swap the entrance and exit ramps between Hausman and Bandera roads - could work wonders. This is something we're just looking into as a possibility to do in the nearer term, and we do not have details yet.
We do not yet have schematics or drawings for any of these jobs we're ready to make public.

What is the status of the re-do of the environmental survey required for expanding 1604 from I-35 to Bandera Rd? When can we expect to see this much needed project get started. I have a one hour commute home daily from Stone Oak to the Fair Oaks area, with most of the congestion on 1604 west bound.
- Peter
Simply put, the environmental survey is on hold at the moment. The Alamo Regional Mobility Authority is the lead agency on this, and they are waiting to identify a viable finance plan (see above) before they invest again in the environmental documents process.

I noticed construction going on at I-35/North New Braunfels. Are there plans to widen the North New Braunfels bridge over I-35?
- William
We're not just widening the bridge, William, we're totally replacing it. A major closure of I-35 a couple of weeks ago really got this kicked off. Right now we've got one lane of traffic in each direction on the bridge while crews replace the first half; we'll go into a second phase in a few months where we'll swap traffic over and finish the job. Bottom line: we'll be wrapping up this project by early 2018.
By the way, the new bridge will look a lot fancier. It's designed to look more like the Walters bridge, which should improve the aesthetics of the area.

When will construction begin on the north overpasses (connectors) of 1604 and 281?.
- Jose
This year! We're working to plan our ground-breaking ceremony (spoiler: the governor will come down for this!) in the early spring. We're receiving bids in February and should be underway around the end of the school year.
This project includes the expansion of US 281 between Loop 1604 and Stone Oak Parkway.

I noticed construction zone signage in place on State Hwy 46 just east of the Boerne city limits. What type of project is planned?
- Mark
A project that's not in San Antonio? You don't say! We have a lot of projects out of the metro area, and this is one of them. It's a pretty up-front job out there; we're adding passing lanes at strategic locations between Boerne city limits and the Kendall-Comal county line. This is a project we just got going with and we still have plenty to go; expect to see completion in 2018.

I've read about the zipper merge and how some states are 'retraining' their drivers to use it. I think TxDOT should do a retraining campaign. This is great info and more people need to see it. I, too, thought it was rude to go to the front of the line. But it's a good thing.
- Carolyn
We're working on one! You've likely seen our post on the zipper merge already. Share it with friends! We are working with our friends in Austin to begin state-wide awareness campaigns. The zipper works!

Question: Are you really not going to make I-10 a three-lane road each way? This is ridiculous or just job preservation (built-in functional obsolescence). You have everything set-up to make it a three-lane road, but won't. Why? It's going to cost so much more to do it in two or three years. I don't expect you to respond, but I just had to mention this.
- John
Our notes remind us, John, you're talking about the I-10 work between Ralph Fair Road and Fair Oaks Parkway that's going right now. That project adds an overpass at Old Fredericksburg Road and converts the frontage roads to one-way.
No, we're not adding any lanes. Really, really.
Why not? A couple of reasons. First, money. We simply don't have it in the budget at the moment. We also don't have the environmental clearance to do that yet.
Now, we do have clearance to add lanes (making a total of four in each way) between La Cantera Parkway and Ralph Fair Road. That's set to start later this year (likely mid- to late-summer).

Mail Bag: A month-plus worth of questions

Does TxDOT evaluate drainage conditions on major roads after a major rain?
The left lane of the southbound 281 access road between Bitters and Wurzbach Parkway was under water Monday morning (9/26). The on-ramp to 281 was also under water with a stalled car on the ramp. Since there was not a flood gauge on the side of the road, it was hard to know how much water was on the on-ramp.
- Tom
We do take a look for problem areas and find ways to address these areas as needed after our major flood events. At your location we don't have a posted flood gauge because it's not the location of a creek bed. Per our Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices:
"If used, the Depth Gauge sign shall be in addition to the ROAD MAY FLOOD, WATER CROSSING, or WHEN FLOODED TURN AROUND DON'T DROWN sign and shall indicate the depth of the water at the deepest point on the roadway." (Section 2C.35.03)

That same section tells us not to post a "water crossing" sign where water only occasionally or temporarily crosses due to flash floods, like this instance. The "road may flood" sign is for areas with frequent flooding issues. This little section of the southbound frontage road of US 281 does not qualify for one of these signs.

Do you know when will they begin to finish the clover on 1604 and 281? What is the projected duration of the project? Will they be expanding 281 from 1604 to Overlook Parkway and be adding bridges across the highway - for example, at Evans Road? Thanks.
- Sal
Are you talking about the other direct connectors at the intersection of Lp 1604 and US 281? Those are part of a project expanding US 281 to include overpasses and frontage roads through Stone Oak Parkway. That project is set to begin spring 2017 and will take more than three years to complete. Continuing the expressway from Stone Oak Parkway through the Comal County line is targeted for the winter of 2018-2019.

Can VIA provide new or modified bus route(s) to relieve traffic congestion in the Alamo Ranch area (e.g, Wiseman west of 1604, Alamo Ranch Parkway, Culebra & FM 1560, etc.)?
- Richard
This would be a fantastic question to pose to VIA; we can't speak on their behalf.

Regarding the "zipper merge", does the "merge at the last minute" rule apply to lanes which are used for entrance and exit ramps such as the ones on Loop 1604 between I-10 and Blanco Rd? Would it be possible to post "zipper merge" signs at several needed places in San Antonio?
-Tom
To be honest, we're still fleshing out the best places for us to use the late merge or "zipper" as well as signing policies. One place you should always use it is when you're approaching a construction zone or a crash scene that's got lanes closed off. Remember - this really only applies during heavy traffic. If traffic is free flowing and not all that congested, merge as soon as you feel comfortable.
As for what to do at those ramp merge points, a good rule of thumb is to not cross a solid line. Wait for the broken line. That's supposed to show drivers where merging is to be done, but not everyone has gotten that memo.

Hi, I think someone wrote up the construction notices incorrectly this week. Your notice said "Current through Wednesday, October 19. 9 p.m. until 5 a.m. nightly. Main lanes, both directions, at Hwy 151. Alternating lanes will close while crews do overhead bridge work. Traffic will use the frontage roads to reach its destination."
1604 was closed off in the middle of the day all day Saturday, causing backups and gridlock. What happened here?
- Rick
Rick, you're absolutely correct. We completely missed the note regarding that closure and dropped the ball. We depend on contractors sending in closure alerts weekly by Thursday night in order to allow our communication staff time to get everything compiled into a weekly report. Sometimes a contractor misses this Thursday deadline, and we're working on getting accountability written into our contracts to prevent this. We're also working to ensure accountability exists when no notice is given.
In this case, it was an oversight - one that won't soon be repeated.

How far towards Canyon Lake is the FM 306 expansion project going to go?
All the way thru to Hgy 281?
- LD
The current work we have going runs from about Hunter Road and ends at River Chase. We have another project at the intersection of Bravo, near Canyon Lake, but that's constructing a left-turn lane at that location and won't expand the road beyond that.

What is the purpose of the new overpass at I-10 and Leon Spring Road?
- Jim
Jim, we're assuming you're talking about the work at Old Fredericksburg Road. If we're wrong, let us know.
We do get asked about the purpose from time to time, and some folks assume it's a widening project that will add capacity to the I-10 main lanes. It's not. All we're doing is adding this new overpass at Old Fred and converting the frontage roads to one-way.
The frontage road conversion is the key here; it's about safety, really. We're hoping to eliminate the excuse those on two-way frontage roads have when they end up driving the wrong way on an interstate. In order to do that, though, we need to shorten the distance for folks between their access point to I-10 and their feeder road. Old Fred cuts the distance between Ralph Fair and Fair Oaks roughly in half.
It also provides an additional distribution route for traffic from the growing Leon Springs/Fair Oaks Ranch area to reach I-10. Right now all that traffic is squeezed into Ralph Fair and through Fair Oaks. With this overpass and its accompanying entrances and exits, we're effectively adding a third option for folks to use in order to reach I-10 and commute into town as they are.

When will the construction of the north bound I-10 off ramp at Hwy 46 in Boerne be completed? This has been going on with little completion for over a year and there doesn't seem to be much current effort to complete it. This intersection is a daily mess. Thanks!
- Mike
We're still looking at spring 2017 for completion of this project. We don't have anything going on at the intersection, though, so we shouldn't really be impacting that much at all. None of the lane shifts we've had there actually impacts the operation of the intersection. What you're likely seeing in your daily commute is additional traffic from a rapidly growing section of Boerne.

On Hwy 46 just East of Boerne the speed limits coming into town are way to fast. There has already been a fatality accident in that area. Traffic should slow down before the Esperonza sub division. Traffic from there to Charger Blvd should not be 50 mph, and from there to the bend at the Kendall County Fair Grounds should be lower than 45. Speed is a proven factor in all accidents. This area is becoming very populated. The limits really need to be lowered. Please!
- Rodney
Rodney, there's a specific process for setting our speed limits and our processes rarely yield a lowered speed limit. That said, we checked with our traffic engineer, who dug this information out for us about a rarely used provision in our policy allowing local governments to conduct their own speed studies on state highways, then make their own recommendation to us:

==================================================

TxDOT’s Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones, Chapter 4, Section 2Speed Zones Unacceptable to a CityAlthough TxDOT has the authority to alter the speed limits on highways within the corporate limits of cities or override a speed limit set by city ordinance on such highways, it is intended that studies be made and recommendations be presented to the city for their acceptance and passage of a city ordinance to establish city speed zones. TxDOT should make every effort to have reasonable speed limits established.In the event that a city will not accept the zones within its corporate limits as submitted by the district, and it is not possible to reach an agreement with the city on reasonable and prudent speed limits, then the district should prepare one strip map showing the city’s preference and one strip map showing TxDOT’s  recommendation. Both strip maps should be submitted to TRF along with the district’s request for Transportation Commission action for making one of the zones effective.  When the commission minute order has been passed, the district should send a copy of the minute order, along with a copy of the strip map, to the city.The setting of speed limits within a city by commission minute order should only be used as a last resort; TxDOT should make every effort to secure the cooperation of the city so that the zones will be set by city ordinance.

==================================================

Is the "zipper merge" rude?

So apparently this has become a trending topic in transportation circles. Several departments of transportation are publicly pushing a discussion on the issue, and we're seeing the topic pop up in social media feeds and on the news itself.

It's the "Zipper Merge".
The idea is simple: when approaching a merge situation on a road or highway - that is, when two lanes move down to one - the merge should take place as near to the merge point as can be done. Doing so can improve traffic flow and safety.

However, folks aren't doing it for a number of reasons. With this in mind, we wanted to take a moment to address the issues surrounding the Zipper Merge.

I don't like waiting to change lanes until the last minute

The feeling of trepidation over merging safely and appropriately are very real in heavy traffic situations. If you're moving at any sort of speed - be it 40 miles per hour or 70 - you don't want to make that merge at the last minute, risking the chance someone in the lane you're moving to is stubbornly unwilling to allow you the chance to get in. We get it - we're all about safety here.

The Zipper is most effective during heavy traffic, so you won't likely use this if you're moving at 70 miles per hour. So don't worry about this issue if you're cruising. Just continue about your business.

If you're moving through traffic, we'd hope you're using your signal every chance to get. We're also hoping you're following Texas law by using those turn signals at least 100 feet before you make your move (you can use your signal further than 100 feet away from your move, though). This should let others know of your intent.

Frankly, the hesitation to merge at the end stems from the assumption it's every driver for themselves out there. That's not the way we should be driving! If everyone uses the Zipper, this trepidation shouldn't even exist. In order to get there, we need to agree collectively to use the Zipper.

I don't want to be rude

We have no idea who made this meme,
but we love the sentiment. Thank you,
Google search, for helping us find this!

The only reason this is even a thing is because of all the folks who are doing it wrong. This includes the folks that move over at the first sign of a need to merge - sometimes more than a mile in advance - and get irritated at those who use the lane that's left vacant.

Here's the thing: we have standards telling us how to set up those orange barrels. If we didn't want you using a lane, we'd put those orange barrels in it. If there are no orange barrels in a lane, it's because we want folks to use that lane.

Because of folks who merge early and get frustrated, road rage becomes a major factor here. Unfortunately it's misdirected and, in most cases, the individuals getting frustrated are the ones truly at fault. Heck, one poor guy posted a video to YouTube shaming folks, when he was the one in the wrong (disclaimer: strong language in the linked video ... viewer discretion advised).

The bottom line: it's not rude to use that open lane, it's actually the way things are supposed to work.

Does it really move traffic faster?

In a word: yes. A 2008 study by the Minnesota DOT says the reduction in traffic backup is 40-50 percent. You read that right: by using the Zipper, you're cutting traffic in half. By the way, they also observed a safer merge and less road rage up there. Those friendly Minnesotans also discovered the Zipper put an end to the frustrations of folks trying to get to exit ramps or turnoffs blocked by that really long backup filled by early mergers.

Minnesota isn't alone. In 2014 the Washington State DOT promoted the Zipper, and the conversation started rolling. The popular tech publication Ars Technica did a piece on the issue that same year.

Some are calling the Zipper, or late merge, a "new" concept, but the reality is it's been employed across the globe for some time. Some countries - like Germany and Austria - require it by law.

Here are what others across the country are saying:

A graphic representation used

by the Arkansas HTD promoting

use of the Zipper

• A representative of the Alabama Department of Public Safety discussed the Zipper with The Huntsville Times six years ago.
• The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities got into the fray through Twitter earlier this year.
• The Arizona DOT branded the Zipper as a new merging method to get buy-in from folks driving along their major projects on I-10.
• The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department began pushing the Zipper in 2015.
• Per the FHWA in 2012, a driver in California had a Zipper graphic placed on his car to educate drivers nearby. Oddly enough, the California DOT has thus far remained skeptical of the technique - one of two states in America to do so.
• The Colorado DOT posted a video to Facebook in 2014, hoping to encourage the Zipper.
• In a work zone safety document from 2012 the Connecticut DOT advocated the Zipper in heavier traffic conditions.
• Last month Delaware Online posted a piece reflecting what's being said elsewhere, encouraging drivers there to do the same.
• All the way back in 2009 Florida DOT published a paper regarding the strategy behind the late-merge system (the engineering term for the Zipper).
• The Georgia DOT posted in 2014 this WSJ piece discussing virtues of the Zipper.
• University of Hawaii Professor of Driving Psychology Leon James is quoted a few times on our resistance to the Zipper, including this piece in Canada. Canada.
• The Idaho Transportation Department has been talking about the Zipper since at least 2011.
• Officials from a variety of agencies are telling Illinois media outlets to take turns at the merge point or caution against trying to prevent folks from using the extended lane that's closing.
• The Indiana Toll Road is trying to get folks to use the Zipper where possible, and INDOT is starting to design highway on-ramps to employ the zipper permanently.

  

  This unofficial bumper sticker
  was developed by a driver in Iowa

• This op-ed from an Iowa reporter confesses her hesitance and eventual embrace of the Zipper.
• Kansas DOT has a great YouTube video of two traffic cones discussing the merge, and is leading the way on this topic.
• The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet discusses the Zipper on their official site. Pretty cool stuff.
• Folks in Louisiana have a lot of other issues to worry about, but the Zipper is still making its way into news media there.
• The town of Lewiston, Maine, posted signs directing what they call an "alternate merge" movement - which is basically a Zipper - and the Portland Press-Herald got their editorial board together to endorse Zippers to Mainers. For real.
• The Washington Post positioned the Zipper against other issues Maryland drivers are facing back in 2015.
• The Massachusetts DOT discussed the dynamic merge - their version of the Zipper - in a series of public meetings earlier this year.
• Michigan DOT employs a new orange sign with a zipper on it, reminding drivers to use the Zipper Merge.
• Googling "zipper merge" yields this story about the nice folks in Minnesota still getting used to the Zipper, though MnDOT is among the leading agencies championing this method.
• Mississippi is one of the few states relatively silent on the issue....
• Af all the videos out there, the one by MoDOT is our fave. Missouri is all-in with the Zipper.
• The conversation in Montana is much more grassroots - take a look at the comments section on this piece.
• Remember all that fuss about the Zipper in Indiana? That's because of studies conducted by folks at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
• The folks at Boulder City (Nevada) Police Department have this little ditty jumping on the Zipper bandwagon.
• New Hampshire Public Radio got in on the Zipper craze in 2014.
• The Neward (New Jersey) Star-Ledger points out there's no law regarding the Zipper, but drivers should do it anyway. Or else.
• With a major project in Albuquerque, the NMDOT has asked folks to do the Zipper.
• Apparently the New York Times has dubbed those merging early "Lineuppers", but this practice is discouraged after visiting with engineers.

  

  The NCDOT started posting these signs
  in construction zones earlier this year

• Drivers in North Carolina are seeing a new sign on NCDOT projects encouraging the Zipper.
• A Reddit user in Cincinnati implored Ohio drivers to read up on the Zipper.
• The folks involved with Sooner Politics seem to think Oklahomans really need the Zipper.
• Joseph Rose of the Oregonian loved endorsements of the Zipper, and raved about studies that showed its effectiveness in 2014.
• Drivers in Pennsylvania got schooled by publications in Lancaster, Reading and from PennDOT itself on the Zipper.
• Rhode Island may be smaller than Bexar County, but the Zipper is still an issue there.
• South Carolina shares the opinion of pretty much everyone: the zipper merge is the most efficient option out there.
• Tennessee is the other state that likes the early merge over the Zipper. In fact, it's actually illegal to do the Zipper up thataway - they consider it a violation of the "no passing zone".
• Texas ... well, you're reading what we think about it right now!
• All the way back in 2007, early proponents of the Zipper appealed to the righteousness of drivers in Utah to merge later.
• Vermont's DOT encouraged the Zipper back in 2013 for a project in Montpelier.
• Virginia DOT published a paper in 2004 recommending the Zipper in a 3-to-1 merge, as well as using it nominally (under heavy traffic) in a 2-to-1 or a 3-to-2 merge.
• We already pointed out Washington's advocacy of the Zipper, but here's another piece from the PacNW, just for fun.
• Another great DOT video - this one from Wisconsin.