I recently had the opportunity to travel NB on I-75 at I-696, and came across this: https://goo.gl/maps/Jq39jeAhr1pmK7K68
It says Exit Only, but shows only the rightmost lane must exit.
Turns out, you don't have to exit from the 2nd right lane; the straight/curve exit arrow is correct.
Compare that to the sign on EB I-696 at I-75: https://goo.gl/maps/dY6BLDcMH1e1eEzY9
This sign still has sections covered up for construction, but they have since been removed. Under the L-shaped orange block, it has the Exit Only yellow plaque only for the arrow for the rightmost lane.
A large Exit Only panel like that should not be used with APL signage. There should just be "Exit" and "Only" panels surrounding the right-most lane's arrow like at https://goo.gl/maps/x2bQM1WF1oGk3wzXA
From what I was able to tell by moving forward on Street View: It seems the next exit, 11 Mile, is also exit only. So the likely intent is to convey that both right lanes are exit only and through drivers should merge. Note that it's only about 0.7 miles from the point of this sign to the 11 Mile exit (as measured approximately on Google Maps).
Again, a large Exit Only panel shouldn't be used in this way on an APL. But I see the intent.
Quote from: Bitmapped on January 17, 2023, 11:40:29 AM
A large Exit Only panel like that should not be used with APL signage. There should just be "Exit" and "Only" panels surrounding the right-most lane's arrow like at https://goo.gl/maps/x2bQM1WF1oGk3wzXA
I want to know who the Airport Beaver is and if he can make that sign better.
I actually think this conveys the message well. This is going to be one of those one-off examples where the specific rules regarding these signs doesn't really fit. I guess if we were to fit in the sign to conform to the guidelines, we would only reference the current Exit 61 here, and ignore Exit 62 until after the Exit 61 ramp . But by conveying these lanes are both exiting lanes, it gives motorists an earlier opportunity to remove themselves from the lanes if they are continuing on the highway.
And to answer the Topic's question: Yes, they are Exit Only lanes.
Quote from: Bitmapped on January 17, 2023, 11:40:29 AM
A large Exit Only panel like that should not be used with APL signage. There should just be "Exit" and "Only" panels surrounding the right-most lane's arrow like at https://goo.gl/maps/x2bQM1WF1oGk3wzXA
That sign installation makes me very sad. Aside from the correct exit only usage, the arrows are awful, the lettering is all wrong and it's just... weird.
Since I know this area pretty well the exit only on the Chrysler with the straight arrow is for the 11 Mile exit which is also exit only so those signs are right. They are building a new exit for 11 Mile which is before the Ruether traffic merges in.
Maybe a bigger issue here: Many states are moving away from attaching signs to bridges. This is a new sign, and a large one at that, attached to a bridge and not on its own gantry.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2023, 10:59:10 PM
Maybe a bigger issue here: Many states are moving away from attaching signs to bridges. This is a new sign, and a large one at that, attached to a bridge and not on its own gantry.
That's the only place they could have put a sign there. I-75 is an urban depressed freeway at that point so using the bridges for signs works.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2023, 10:59:10 PM
Maybe a bigger issue here: Many states are moving away from attaching signs to bridges. This is a new sign, and a large one at that, attached to a bridge and not on its own gantry.
Not an issue, per se. NDOT is in on this trend to not attach BGSs to bridges, and from my observations it has noticeably reduced graffiti and vandalism on signs.
Quote from: SectorZ on January 17, 2023, 12:56:15 PM
I want to know who the Airport Beaver is and if he can make that sign better.
(https://www.northernontario.travel/sites/default/files/styles/large-desktop-opt/public/field/image/OrginialBeaverSerial2_bushplanemuseum.jpg?itok=s8Hi_hCA)
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.xYBLY6Buw6v91kdq6tyDNgAAAA%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=a0aec973ff07077f85a2e2b25069ff2899cf2b45f5f72f3c2209d334281d2871&ipo=images)
Funny that this works railroading into the mashup as well.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 18, 2023, 06:22:54 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2023, 10:59:10 PM
Maybe a bigger issue here: Many states are moving away from attaching signs to bridges. This is a new sign, and a large one at that, attached to a bridge and not on its own gantry.
That's the only place they could have put a sign there. I-75 is an urban depressed freeway at that point so using the bridges for signs works.
Gantry could've gone in front of the bridge, with supports on the right I'm the grassy area and where the median concrete barrier is located.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2023, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 18, 2023, 06:22:54 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2023, 10:59:10 PM
Maybe a bigger issue here: Many states are moving away from attaching signs to bridges. This is a new sign, and a large one at that, attached to a bridge and not on its own gantry.
That's the only place they could have put a sign there. I-75 is an urban depressed freeway at that point so using the bridges for signs works.
Gantry could've gone in front of the bridge, with supports on the right I'm the grassy area and where the median concrete barrier is located.
After 12 years of living in Los Angeles, there really is no point in putting up a gantry near a bridge when attaching a sign directly to the bridge is just as good, especially when the freeway goes under at least five overpasses in a row.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2023, 10:59:10 PM
Maybe a bigger issue here: Many states are moving away from attaching signs to bridges. This is a new sign, and a large one at that, attached to a bridge and not on its own gantry.
Michigan is all over the board on that. Some new signs are attached to bridges, some are attached to new gantries -- and the mix is often within the same signing project.
I don't really understand why some states don't want to attach signs to bridges.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 21, 2023, 10:48:38 PM
I don't really understand why some states don't want to attach signs to bridges.
They get in the way of inspections and painting.
Arizona still attaches signs to bridges, with graffiti shields.
I've seen Georgia do both (overhead sign attached to bridge, or on separate gantry). The way I've seen some states attach signs to bridges I disapprove of, in particular, attaching signs to bridges that are at a skewed angle (i.e. not perpendicular) but not including some kind of mounting brackets to make the sign perpendicular. E.g. in California at the I-5/route 99 interchange north of LA
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2023, 01:05:39 PM
I actually think this conveys the message well. This is going to be one of those one-off examples where the specific rules regarding these signs doesn't really fit. I guess if we were to fit in the sign to conform to the guidelines, we would only reference the current Exit 61 here, and ignore Exit 62 until after the Exit 61 ramp . But by conveying these lanes are both exiting lanes, it gives motorists an earlier opportunity to remove themselves from the lanes if they are continuing on the highway.
And to answer the Topic's question: Yes, they are Exit Only lanes.
The rightmost two lanes being EXIT ONLY, the right for Exit 61 and the next for either Exit 61 or 62, it would have helped if the pullthrough for 75 had arrows too downward toward the thru lanes. Uncovering the legend for 11 Mile Road will help too once that exit is reopened.
Quote from: ran4sh on January 22, 2023, 03:01:29 PM
The way I've seen some states attach signs to bridges I disapprove of, in particular, attaching signs to bridges that are at a skewed angle (i.e. not perpendicular) but not including some kind of mounting brackets to make the sign perpendicular. E.g. in California at the I-5/route 99 interchange north of LA
Mounting signs like that CA-99/I-5 junction sign should 100%
not be allowed. Apart from parking signage, it's pretty well accepted that signs should be perpendicular to the roadway, especially overhead freeway guide signs.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2023, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 18, 2023, 06:22:54 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2023, 10:59:10 PM
Maybe a bigger issue here: Many states are moving away from attaching signs to bridges. This is a new sign, and a large one at that, attached to a bridge and not on its own gantry.
That's the only place they could have put a sign there. I-75 is an urban depressed freeway at that point so using the bridges for signs works.
Gantry could've gone in front of the bridge, with supports on the right I'm the grassy area and where the median concrete barrier is located.
For what reason? The bridge being there holding the sign is enough, putting a gantry in front of the bridge wouldn't have worked here.