Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 206
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I was a designer who drew up traffic-control plans, not a construction engineer who oversaw the actual implementation of those plans, but I'll do my best.
MUTCD chapter 6D (Flagger Control):
§ 6D.05 ¶ 5 includes detailed instructions on hand movements when using flags rather than a stop/slow paddle.
However, it looks like PennDOT is much less strict than the feds on the usage of flags over stop/slow paddles. See the text that I have italicized below. (This is novel to me. NJDOT Standard Specifications § 159.03.08 item A prescribes the use only of paddles, not of flags—even though NJDOT still calls them "flaggers"!)
PennDOT Publication 408 (Construction Specifications) § 901.3:
Publication 212 (Official Traffic Control Devices) § 403:
§ 412:
Publication 213 (Temporary Traffic Control Guidelines) § B-14:
A flagger-controlled alternating-traffic setup beginning at a four-leg signalized intersection is covered by Publication 213 figure 110-Q or 110-R. (For a five-leg intersection, the designer or contractor would have to draw up a custom, but largely similar, traffic-control plan.) Both figures put a paddle-wielding flagger at the end of the road narrowing that isn't at the intersection. To cover the other three approaches, figure 110-Q puts one flag-wielding flagger in the middle of the intersection, while figure 110-R uses three paddle-wielding flaggers (one on each corner). You can see how a contractor might prefer to cut his labor costs by using 110-Q over 110-R.
If there were two flaggers, then the setup was supposed to be alternating traffic with no detours (figure 110-Q), not full closure with a "road closed" sign and detours (figure 215).
So, in sum:
From your description, it sounds like the overall traffic-control setup was standards-compliant as originally designed, but the flaggers were badly trained (one was standing on one side of the intersection, rather than in the middle) and incorrectly equipped (the other was holding only light-up cones, rather than a cone supplementing a flag). You can try complaining to PennDOT that it should follow NJDOT and abandon the use of a flag-wielding flagger standing in the middle of an intersection to control multiple legs of that intersection simultaneously, but you probably won't have much success.
MUTCD § 6D.05 can be pointed at in order to explain how a flagger is "treating his traffic control device like a toy" and "making waving motions that are vague".
Note:
It's very possible that PennDOT has guidelines regarding when 110-Q is unsafe (e. g., due to high traffic volume) and 110-R must be used, and I just failed to find those guidelines.
This may have been a local jurisdiction that should be following PennDOT standards but is just too lazy to do so.
Whether the problem is with the design of the plan or the implementation is not my concern; a plan is useless if you don't follow it. The flagger was not in the middle of the intersection but directly in front of the construction equipment, where he was a distance a way from me and at such an angle that he would have not been visible to the other three legs. I talked to my PennDOT engineer friend again and he said that I should call District 11 on Monday and explain what happened because if nobody complains then nothing will get done. He also told me about how he sort of impersonated a PennDOT engineer years ago (he was working for them but was in a different district) when he came across a construction zone that was set up incorrectly. He said he was from PennDOT and told them what they needed to do to rectify the situation, and they told him that he needed to call their supervisor. He said that if he made any call it would be to the police to shut the job down, and they apparently made the changes he requested. He said that whether or not the police would do anything about it depends on the department, but calling the district office is always a safe bet because few enough people call about tuff like this that they can take all of the citizen complaints seriously.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link