Why don't option lane BGSs look like this???

[kphoger]

Plus, it's on a freeway so the idea that the sign might indicate there is only one thru lane would be ludicrous and therefore doesn't even occur to me.

Interesting thought, now.  Are there any examples of where the through-freeway narrows to one lane, but the exiting movement at that point has an option lane?

I can think of examples where the through-freeway narrows to one lane, but only where the exiting movement is also a single lane.

[wanderer2575]

Plus, it's on a freeway so the idea that the sign might indicate there is only one thru lane would be ludicrous and therefore doesn't even occur to me.

Interesting thought, now.  Are there any examples of where the through-freeway narrows to one lane, but the exiting movement at that point has an option lane?

If so, either the thru freeway is already one lane at that point or there will be Lane Ends signage separate from the exit signage.

[CovalenceSTU]

Plus, it's on a freeway so the idea that the sign might indicate there is only one thru lane would be ludicrous and therefore doesn't even occur to me.

Interesting thought, now.  Are there any examples of where the through-freeway narrows to one lane, but the exiting movement at that point has an option lane?

I-278 at the I-95 interchange used to be exactly that - it's still I-278 until it merges with 1-9 but until 5 years ago, there was only a single option lane to stay on it.

Although I agree there's no confusion normally about the thru freeway only having one lane, especially if the arrows are over the lanes as intended.

[Daniellemil]

Plus, it's on a freeway so the idea that the sign might indicate there is only one here thru lane would be ludicrous and therefore doesn't even occur to me.

Interesting thought, now.  Are there any examples of where the through-freeway narrows to one lane, but the exiting movement at that point has an option lane?

I-278 at the I-95 interchange used to be exactly that - it's still I-278 until it merges with 1-9 but until 5 years ago, there was only a single option lane to stay on it.

Although I agree there's no confusion normally about the thru freeway only having one lane, especially if the arrows are over the lanes as intended.

I agree that confusion is very rare! But there are exceptions to the rules!

[Tom958]

I wish I'd seen this when it was current. This is one of my favorite topics. First, I uploaded this snippet from the 2009 MUTCD six years ago:




In my own state of Georgia, DOT started implementing the 2009 scheme in 2014 or so, though with some major and rather inexplicable exceptions:

In 2017, four signs on the Downtown Connector that had been replaced with 2009 MUTCD-compliant signage were modified to reintroduce the pre-2009 two-color scheme on the signs at the gore, though the option lanes were still hidden per the 2009 MUTCD upstream from there. This was done at the same time as three noncompliant APLs were brought into compliance.* Two years later, two of them were changed back to the complaint scheme when John Lewis's name was appended to Freedom Parkway. Apparently, the designer didn't get the memo that Figure 2E-11 in the 2009 MUTCD didn't apply on the Downtown Connector.

*Two of those APLs were made compliant by changing the lane striping to reintroduce option lanes that had been done away with decades earlier. On one, this was done only days after repaving, requiring brand-new pavement markings to be scraped up and reapplied. Whatever was done, it was apparently done in a panic.

In late 2017-early 2018, a huge signage replacement project from Jimmy Carter Boulevard to I-985 followed the same scheme as on the Downtown Connector: two-color at the splits, hidden option lane upstream. That's nine noncompliant signs if I'm counting correctly including replacement of this compliant but hideous sign installed as part of an earlier project.

In 2019, we got this mess involving three signs. After I brought it to GDOT's attention, I was told that the designer of these signs no longer worked there-- as if this was one person's fault. 




And finally so far, we have this, which went up in mid January of 2024. This would've been a good place for Georgia's first partial APL, but, alas, no.

[Rothman]

I loathe exit only signage over option lanes.  I don't care if it's MUTCD compliant; I hate it.  "EXIT ONLY" should mean that if you're in that lane, there's no way out.

[Tom958]

I loathe exit only signage over option lanes.  I don't care if it's MUTCD compliant; I hate it.  "EXIT ONLY" should mean that if you're in that lane, there's no way out.

The EXIT ONLY in the example above is in fact over the dropped lane. The white arrow is over the option lane. The lane at right is a merge lane that ends beyond the curve-- you can see the RIGHT LANE ENDS yellow diamond on the right shoulder. Hopefully, GDOT will remember to use the proper striping when it's repaved in the near future. As it stands now, it's really confusing since there are so many instances on this part of 285 where auxiliary lanes extend from onramp to offramp.

Since you mentioned the problem in general, though, GDOT is really bad about locating the gore sign upstream from the theoretical gore, thus placing the left black arrow unambiguously over the option lane. This is one of many examples. To add insult to injury, the gantry here is new so it could've been installed at the correct location, but instead they located it immediately behind the previous gantry. Wait: I'm wrong! On this one, they put the new gantry in front of the old one! WTF. GDOT?

[epzik8]

After I brought it to GDOT's attention, I was told that the designer of these signs no longer worked there-- as if this was one person's fault. 

Well, imagine that.

[Scott5114]

Nevada's contribution:

Where the interchange is with a city street:
I-80 Exit 13 at Virginia Street

And a short distance east of there, the APL setup at a freeway interchange:
I-80 Exit 15 at I-580/US 395

Exits with an option lane are quite plentiful in Southern Nevada, so you can find lots of examples here too, like this one from I-15.

[fwydriver405]

Some of the new recent exit signs in Massachusetts as part of certain sign replacements on some freeways have continued to use a white-on-green arrow for the option lane. I'm not sure if there's any official policy regarding this or if there's anything in the Mass supplement to the 2009 MUTCD regarding this.

Example on US 3 North at I-495 North / Lowell Connector, on April 8 2024. A similar example is also present at the MA 4 exit as well.



This sign on US 1 North at the jughandle used to have the "Exit Only" banner cover the two lanes. However, as you can see on the below photo, the option lane has been patched with a white on green arrow, covering the left black on yellow arrow and the word "Exit" as well. (source: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html)



And finally, some signs like at Exit 66 or Exit 64 on I-95 with the two downward facing arrows for the exits have been replaced with upward versions recently as well.

[Rothman]

Just another reason why MA is awesome.

[paulthemapguy]

I loathe exit only signage over option lanes.  I don't care if it's MUTCD compliant; I hate it.  "EXIT ONLY" should mean that if you're in that lane, there's no way out.

I completely agree.  Especially with signs that use downward arrows.  The point of the yellow color is to warn people, and the yellow color in the exit tab is meant to warn those in that lane that they must merge out of that lane in order to continue forward on the mainline.  If the lane is not an exit only lane, it must not be marked with yellow on the sign! Option lanes should not have yellow. I think this might be one reason some agencies are leaning toward APLs, which eliminate this confusion.

[webny99]

Some of the new recent exit signs in Massachusetts as part of certain sign replacements on some freeways have continued to use a white-on-green arrow for the option lane. I'm not sure if there's any official policy regarding this or if there's anything in the Mass supplement to the 2009 MUTCD regarding this.

Example on US 3 North at I-495 North / Lowell Connector, on April 8 2024. A similar example is also present at the MA 4 exit as well.

My only suggestion for this sign would be that the rightmost arrow should be located between EXIT and ONLY rather than to the right of it. Other than that, it looks great.

[wanderer2575]

My only suggestion for this sign would be that the rightmost arrow should be located between EXIT and ONLY rather than to the right of it. Other than that, it looks great.

That may be what the official guidance says, but it would require a wider sign with more blank space.  Like APLs, one has to make a choice.

[webny99]

My only suggestion for this sign would be that the rightmost arrow should be located between EXIT and ONLY rather than to the right of it. Other than that, it looks great.

That may be what the official guidance says, but it would require a wider sign with more blank space.  Like APLs, one has to make a choice.

Why would it require a wider sign? The arrow takes up the same amount of space regardless of where it's located within the EXIT ONLY panel.

[wanderer2575]

My only suggestion for this sign would be that the rightmost arrow should be located between EXIT and ONLY rather than to the right of it. Other than that, it looks great.

That may be what the official guidance says, but it would require a wider sign with more blank space.  Like APLs, one has to make a choice.

Why would it require a wider sign? The arrow takes up the same amount of space regardless of where it's located within the EXIT ONLY panel.

Can't simply flip ONLY and the right arrow; that would push the arrows closer together.  They have to remain as they are relative to each other so they are positioned correctly over the lanes.  No space to move them to the left.  No space to place ONLY to the right of the arrow without widening the sign.

[webny99]

Why would it require a wider sign? The arrow takes up the same amount of space regardless of where it's located within the EXIT ONLY panel.

Can't simply flip ONLY and the right arrow; that would push the arrows closer together.  They have to remain as they are relative to each other so they are positioned correctly over the lanes.  No space to move them to the left.  No space to place ONLY to the right of the arrow without widening the sign.

I hadn't fully considered the distance between the arrows. If that spacing can't be changed at all, I guess I'd be OK with widening the sign a bit. EXIT and the white arrow are a bit tight as it is, so it wouldn't be all bad.

[Scott5114]

If you widen the sign enough, you can eliminate the line break in "Lowell Connector" and save 28 inches of height (16" of text and 12" of interline spacing).