Lane Merges: the Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the “WTF Is That?!”

[Ned Weasel]

Sometime in 2022, the configuration was changed so that the right lane coming from I-95 SB Exit 66 ends as US Route 1 traffic is merging (Overview, Streetview). This new configutation gives US Route 1 traffic an added lane instead of having to merge with exiting I-95 traffic. What caught me offguard was, although there were signs saying the right lane ended, I did not expect the right lane to end right at the gore point of merging US 1 traffic. Curious to know why the lane ends here instead of further back up the ramp before US Route 1 SB re-adds a lane onto the mainline.

I don't like the look of that. I really think they should have ended the lane before the two ramps meet, rather than right where the lanes converge. I'm not aware of a specific rule against that kind of setup, but I'm also not aware of any precedent for it.

[fwydriver405]

Sometime in 2022, the configuration was changed so that the right lane coming from I-95 SB Exit 66 ends as US Route 1 traffic is merging (Overview, Streetview). This new configutation gives US Route 1 traffic an added lane instead of having to merge with exiting I-95 traffic. What caught me offguard was, although there were signs saying the right lane ended, I did not expect the right lane to end right at the gore point of merging US 1 traffic. Curious to know why the lane ends here instead of further back up the ramp before US Route 1 SB re-adds a lane onto the mainline.

I don't like the look of that. I really think they should have ended the lane before the two ramps meet, rather than right where the lanes converge. I'm not aware of a specific rule against that kind of setup, but I'm also not aware of any precedent for it.

I'm curious to know why MassDOT would change this from something that seemed better to having the right lane not having priority? It wasn't just me who was caught offguard, I saw a few close calls with other drivers not expecting this strange configuration.

[Ned Weasel]

I'm curious to know why MassDOT would change this from something that seemed better to having the right lane not having priority? It wasn't just me who was caught offguard, I saw a few close calls with other drivers not expecting this strange configuration.

I don't blame them for wanting to give US 1 a continuous lane instead of forcing it into a merge. But I think they should have narrowed the ramp coming from I-95 down to a single lane, about 1000 feet or so before the ramps meet, instead of right where all the lanes meet. It just seems like good practice to separate two merges from each other rather than having them occur in the same place.

[sprjus4]

From the strict viewpoint of traffic flow, I understand why this was implemented, but when you take into account reality of drivers, this is just asking for accidents.

It almost reminds of situations like this, this, or this.

Kentucky seemed to love them on their I-69 system interchange projects.

[Ned Weasel]

From the strict viewpoint of traffic flow, I understand why this was implemented, but when you take into account reality of drivers, this is just asking for accidents.

It almost reminds of situations like this, this, or this.

Kentucky seemed to love them on their I-69 system interchange projects.

Those examples are garden-variety center lane merges (sometimes called "2+2=3" merges). I do see the similarity, to be honest. And I'm not a fan of them either. I prefer having an outside lane ending either before or after the convergence. But at least these merges are prevalent enough to be familiar to most drivers, except maybe in states that don't use them. (I can't think of any that exist in Kansas or Missouri, but they're all over Illinois.)

[MASTERNC]

From the strict viewpoint of traffic flow, I understand why this was implemented, but when you take into account reality of drivers, this is just asking for accidents.

It almost reminds of situations like this, this, or this.

Kentucky seemed to love them on their I-69 system interchange projects.

Those examples are garden-variety center lane merges (sometimes called "2+2=3" merges). I do see the similarity, to be honest. And I'm not a fan of them either. I prefer having an outside lane ending either before or after the convergence. But at least these merges are prevalent enough to be familiar to most drivers, except maybe in states that don't use them. (I can't think of any that exist in Kansas or Missouri, but they're all over Illinois.)

West Virginia loves these for freeway-to-freeway interchanges.  They even have their own "Left Lane Merge" warning sign

https://goo.gl/maps/kUXpR7JcpJHLQkMH8

[mrsman]

Sometime in 2022, the configuration was changed so that the right lane coming from I-95 SB Exit 66 ends as US Route 1 traffic is merging (Overview, Streetview). This new configutation gives US Route 1 traffic an added lane instead of having to merge with exiting I-95 traffic. What caught me offguard was, although there were signs saying the right lane ended, I did not expect the right lane to end right at the gore point of merging US 1 traffic. Curious to know why the lane ends here instead of further back up the ramp before US Route 1 SB re-adds a lane onto the mainline.

I don't like the look of that. I really think they should have ended the lane before the two ramps meet, rather than right where the lanes converge. I'm not aware of a specific rule against that kind of setup, but I'm also not aware of any precedent for it.

I'm curious to know why MassDOT would change this from something that seemed better to having the right lane not having priority? It wasn't just me who was caught offguard, I saw a few close calls with other drivers not expecting this strange configuration.

A real curiosity.  So under the old configuration 2 lanes of US 1, merged into one, and then merged into the traffic that was exiting from I-95.

Under the modern configuration, 2 lanes of US 1, merged into one and at the same time the two lanes from the I-95 exit are also merging into one, but unfortunately right at the point that the US1 traffic is coming in.  If the merger of the two lanes of I-95 traffic happened earlier, it would likely be an easier merge.

I am reminded of a similar situation in Los Angeles, but it comes with one glaring difference.  US 101 exit to SB Highland Ave.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/1900+N+Highland+Ave,+Los+Angeles,+CA+90068/@34.1154026,-118.3371374,370m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x80c2bf2285dd3807:0x6d424aab0a95fbeb!8m2!3d34.105659!4d-118.3369275!16s%2Fg%2F11bw3z3_44

The street (Highland) ultimately ends up with three lanes instead of two.  The two lanes from the freeway off-ramp merge into one and become the right lane, while the two lanes from the side street (Cauhuenga Blvd W) remain as two lanes (of Highland) , even after the merge.  Based on the traffic patterns when I lived there, there were so many more people taking the freeway exit, that the freeway exit should have had two lanes and the two lanes of the street should merge into one (or force the left lane to turn toward the Pilgrimage Bridge at the next intersection).  Regardless of the traffic involved, at the very least the merging is safe because ultimately the traffic from Caughnga and US 101 do not need to merge into the same lane, only the traffic from US 101 exit has to merge down from two lanes to one.