New Signage Styles Seen In The Field

[vtk]

Ohio DOT has an interesting new way of dealing with multiple option lanes:

(These signs are already posted, though last I saw them the action messages were all covered up.  Actual signs in the field have white borders where appropriate.)

MUTCD says APL can't indicate how the ramp splits after it separates from the mainline.  As many of us know, MUTCD also says Ohio's traditional technique of "dancing arrows" is out.  Apparently this is the solution they're going with, and I think it's very awkward.  There's also something similar now on I-71 for exit 121 (OH 750).

[roadman]

I forecast much unnecessary lane changing, especially for people continuing on 33 east.

[machias]

Ohio DOT has an interesting new way of dealing with multiple option lanes:

(These signs are already posted, though last I saw them the action messages were all covered up.  Actual signs in the field have white borders where appropriate.)

MUTCD says APL can't indicate how the ramp splits after it separates from the mainline.  As many of us know, MUTCD also says Ohio's traditional technique of "dancing arrows" is out.  Apparently this is the solution they're going with, and I think it's very awkward.  There's also something similar now on I-71 for exit 121 (OH 750).

Maybe it's because I'm a road geek but I think "dancing arrows" would work much better here than these confusing signs. It's weird that the MUTCD discourages multiple signs for the same destination but multiple signs for the same route are OK.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

Why the aversion to diagrammatic signage? This seems like it would be the perfect situation to use it in (or, even better, reform the MUTCD so that APLs aren't confined to the limited state they're in now).

[roadfro]

I feel the same effect could still have been achieved with an APL sign and strategic placement of the 270 east/270 south shields...

[cl94]

I saw this on their Facebook page and this is precisely why the restrictions on APLs need to be lessened. This is a case where the middle two lanes are option lanes, but you're only allowed one option lane on an APL or diagrammatic. For those unfamiliar with how ODOT used to sign these things, this one comes from the other side of Columbus.

[Revive 755]

At least they don't have one of the options hidden until after the first split as seems to have happened for EB I-70 in St. Louis at the western end of the new Mississippi crossing:
1) Advance sign
2) Sign for ramp to Tucker Boulevard after initial split

There's also this sign in the area.

[mrsman]

At least they don't have one of the options hidden until after the first split as seems to have happened for EB I-70 in St. Louis at the western end of the new Mississippi crossing:
1) Advance sign
2) Sign for ramp to Tucker Boulevard after initial split

There's also this sign in the area.

Having read your post and looked at your links, I believe that this was done to reduce message loading on the signs.  Use the signs to indicate the main turning movements and leave out information about local exits that will confuse interstate traffic.

There should be a separate supplemental sign for Tucker Blvd on a shoulder-side assembly.  And if there isn't one, it should be added.

[vdeane]

I don't think that's too bad.  I-70 is considered the main road here.  If you're traveling on I-70, approaching exit 249A, and don't yet see a sign for exit 249B, it is logical to assume that you should continue on I-70.  What would be bad is if a ramp from an interstate split in two and only one of the options was signed, making the second one a secret known only to locals.

[PurdueBill]

Hate it.  More confusing than dancing arrows.  Three separate exit tabs all with the same exit number?  Watch people staying on 33 all squeeze left, at least their first time through.  Locals will know they can use the #2 lane thru as well over time, but first-timers will squeeze left and then be mad at the people who went straight in the #2 lane.

Fwiw, new dancing arrow assemblies appeared in Akron this summer for the "Do The Detour" project where I-77 is interrupted at the Central Interchange, using the Kenmore leg and 277 as the detour.  Dancing arrow Clearview assemblies appeared in multiple locations.

[Ned Weasel]

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that the MUTCD explicitly prohibits down arrows being used for option lanes (Section 2E.23).  I think it's a good rule, as it avoids the kind of confusion that the sign over the #2 lane in this example could cause.

[myosh_tino]

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that the MUTCD explicitly prohibits down arrows being used for option lanes (Section 2E.23).  I think it's a good rule, as it avoids the kind of confusion that the sign over the #2 lane in this example could cause.

Tell that to Caltrans where they still stick to the way they've always done it. 

I think the MUTCD got it wrong in this case.  Hiding option lanes IMO, causes confusion and unnecessary lane changes.  The simplistic answer in this case is the eliminate option lanes all together.  That way you'll know, at multilane exits, whether the lane you're in is staying on the through route or is exiting.

[vdeane]

I wouldn't be surprised if this actually was a covert push to eliminate option lanes, but IMO they should stick around (and be signed).  I can think of a few locations off the top of my head that don't have option lanes but would benefit tremendously if they were put in.

[jakeroot]

I think the MUTCD got it wrong in this case.  Hiding option lanes IMO, causes confusion and unnecessary lane changes.  The simplistic answer in this case is the eliminate option lanes all together.  That way you'll know, at multilane exits, whether the lane you're in is staying on the through route or is exiting.

The decision to hide an option lane is a choice made by the agency responsible -- there's been a very good way of signing multi-lane exits with option lanes for several years now:

YES of course this is debatable, whether or not APLs are sufficient replacements. But signing an option lane is still technically possible.

[vdeane]

Trouble is, the MUTCD apparently only allows ONE option lane to be signed with an APL; the example from the beginning of the thread has two.

[cl94]

I know I've mentioned this in other threads, but I had a good hour-long discussion with FHWA people and various DOT officials from around the country at TRB 2015 about the APL issues and applications like this were the main thing we discussed. Current regulations don't allow more than one option lane to be signed on an APL. Kansas was having a hell of a time designing signage for the 35-435-10 project that met the standards because it was designed before "dancing arrows" were banned and the multiple option lanes could be easily signed with them.

[hbelkins]

I know I've mentioned this in other threads, but I had a good hour-long discussion with FHWA people and various DOT officials from around the country at TRB 2015 about the APL issues and applications like this were the main thing we discussed. Current regulations don't allow more than one option lane to be signed on an APL. Kansas was having a hell of a time designing signage for the 35-435-10 project that met the standards because it was designed before "dancing arrows" were banned and the multiple option lanes could be easily signed with them.

Shouldn't something that was already designed be grandfathered in, like the switch away from Clearview?

[cl94]

I know I've mentioned this in other threads, but I had a good hour-long discussion with FHWA people and various DOT officials from around the country at TRB 2015 about the APL issues and applications like this were the main thing we discussed. Current regulations don't allow more than one option lane to be signed on an APL. Kansas was having a hell of a time designing signage for the 35-435-10 project that met the standards because it was designed before "dancing arrows" were banned and the multiple option lanes could be easily signed with them.

Shouldn't something that was already designed be grandfathered in, like the switch away from Clearview?

The geometry was designed before the new MUTCD, but signage was not. Large design-build project with many contracts.

[Ned Weasel]

Trouble is, the MUTCD apparently only allows ONE option lane to be signed with an APL; the example from the beginning of the thread has two.

APL signage would be more flexible if the MUTCD allowed a vertical bar to be placed over one of the arrows depicting the off-ramp.  This example (which isn't currently allowed) might be a useful way of presenting more information, unless a study can show that it's too much information for motorists to take in: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9539.msg291806#msg291806.  Section 2E.21 prohibits it, though, and maybe it really is too much information.  I still believe that using a down arrow over an option lane is unnecessarily confusing, though (unless we're talking about dancing arrows, which are not part of the example at the beginning of this thread, and which aren't allowed anyway).  The problem with down arrows is that sometimes they're used (correctly) to show an exclusive use of a lane, and sometimes they're used (incorrectly, in my opinion) to show just one optional use of a lane, and a driver viewing the sign for the first time may have no way of knowing.

If it's better to sign something in such a way that's likely to prompt drivers to make a lane change that they later find to be unnecessary, then perhaps a re-striping is in order.  I'd rather not have the MUTCD allow the white-on-green down arrow to be "the boy who cried wolf" that leads drivers to think they have to change lanes on many occasions when they don't, until they start ignoring the down arrow and find themselves in a lane they didn't want.

[slorydn1]

For situations like this, I think NC actually gets it right. They now paint the route markers on the roadway itself so if you see the shield for the road you want to go to in your lane, no need to move.

[roadfro]

APL signage would be more flexible if the MUTCD allowed a vertical bar to be placed over one of the arrows depicting the off-ramp.  This example (which isn't currently allowed) might be a useful way of presenting more information, unless a study can show that it's too much information for motorists to take in: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9539.msg291806#msg291806.  Section 2E.21 prohibits it, though, and maybe it really is too much information.  I still believe that using a down arrow over an option lane is unnecessarily confusing, though (unless we're talking about dancing arrows, which are not part of the example at the beginning of this thread, and which aren't allowed anyway).  The problem with down arrows is that sometimes they're used (correctly) to show an exclusive use of a lane, and sometimes they're used (incorrectly, in my opinion) to show just one optional use of a lane, and a driver viewing the sign for the first time may have no way of knowing.

If it's better to sign something in such a way that's likely to prompt drivers to make a lane change that they later find to be unnecessary, then perhaps a re-striping is in order.  I'd rather not have the MUTCD allow the white-on-green down arrow to be "the boy who cried wolf" that leads drivers to think they have to change lanes on many occasions when they don't, until they start ignoring the down arrow and find themselves in a lane they didn't want.

Prior to the 2009 MUTCD, a down arrow over showing one optional use of a lane was permitted in the MUTCD and there never seemed to be a major issue with it. This approach was (and still is) common in Nevada, California and many other states. I've never understood the rationale that it prompts unnecessary lane changes out of an option lane (I've only felt a down arrow would prompt a lane change if on an "exit only" panel or if an "only" plaque was next to it)...but maybe it's just differences in regional sign practices that we're accustomed to...

It's worth noting that the NCUTCD (National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) in 2012 endorsed MUTCD changes that would allow the down arrow to be used with option lanes again (signage style used in Nevada for option lanes), as well as a modified APL style that only spans over exiting lanes. It remains to be seen whether FHWA will adopt these into the next MUTCD...

[cl94]

There have been a LOT of complaints about the inflexibility of the current option lane requirements. I fully expect the next MUTCD to have some changes.

[Ned Weasel]

Prior to the 2009 MUTCD, a down arrow over showing one optional use of a lane was permitted in the MUTCD and there never seemed to be a major issue with it. This approach was (and still is) common in Nevada, California and many other states. I've never understood the rationale that it prompts unnecessary lane changes out of an option lane (I've only felt a down arrow would prompt a lane change if on an "exit only" panel or if an "only" plaque was next to it)...but maybe it's just differences in regional sign practices that we're accustomed to...

It's worth noting that the NCUTCD (National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) in 2012 endorsed MUTCD changes that would allow the down arrow to be used with option lanes again (signage style used in Nevada for option lanes), as well as a modified APL style that only spans over exiting lanes. It remains to be seen whether FHWA will adopt these into the next MUTCD...

I probably should've added that I'm personally okay with a down arrow being used in such a way that both optional uses of the lane are shown--i.e., with a vertical bar placed directly over the down arrow, and the two options placed on either side of the vertical bar.  Minnesota has used that stye of signage, and I don't see a problem with it, unless there's a study that has determined it to be excessive information.

If the 2009 MUTCD is right, and I'm not sure that it is, then I think the challenge for traffic engineers is choosing between using a signage style that might not show all of the desired information, and re-striping the lanes so the allowable signage can accurately and explicitly show where all of the lanes go.  But I'd like to see a conclusion to the subject one of these days.