These arrows DO NOT comply with the MUTCD. So why are they posted?

[tolbs17]

Not in the mood to bump a 3-year-old thread so I want to start with making my own optional lanes thread.

Yes: https://goo.gl/maps/YSogp8e8tUiKCvcn7

Yes: https://goo.gl/maps/UwgeKibNSoeBc6aY6

No: https://goo.gl/maps/dPXKSh2nnnZdZLUM7

No: https://goo.gl/maps/EEXrL6fEkAH8GZfh8

No and I don't think NCDOT does this anymore. https://goo.gl/maps/h5LVAzULSi3QFtB87

[Scott5114]

No: https://goo.gl/maps/dPXKSh2nnnZdZLUM7

Experimental, will be compliant with the 2022 MUTCD whenever it comes out.

No: https://goo.gl/maps/EEXrL6fEkAH8GZfh8

No and I don't think NCDOT does this anymore. https://goo.gl/maps/h5LVAzULSi3QFtB87

Complies with the 2003 MUTCD. (search the forum for Lunenfeld & Alexander for more information)



You should give the 1961 MUTCD a read sometime. You'll shit yourself.

[Tom958]

This is one of my favorite subjects, but I don't have time to deal with it right now since I have to finish my oatmeal and go to work. Maybe when I get home. In the meantime, here's a Facebook post I did about the subject in general, and another about Georgia's fascinating off-and-on defiance of the rule. They're in a public group, so you should be able to see them if you're on Facebook.

Also, here's a perfect illustration of one of the reasons why that scheme is a bad idea. The bridge prevents the sign from being installed at the proper location, so it was installed upstream, and clearly shows two lanes being dropped when in fact only one is.

As it was explained to me, the purpose of the change was to disallow the posting of white down arrows over option lanes because some drivers were unable to discern the difference between black-on-yellow arrows with EXIT ONLY text and white arrows with no text, and would make unnecessary panic lane changes because of it. OK, fine: eliminating the down arrows on the advance signage accomplishes that. But they threw out the baby with the bathwater by banning white-and-black up arrows at the point of divergence as well. The argument is that some drivers might misinterpret the white-and-black arrows as indicating what the dual black arrows absolutely, explicitly, unambiguously indicate. It's just fucking stupid, and it causes the very panic lane changes it's supposed to eliminate.

[Rothman]

I like the white arrows for option lanes.  Having a black-on-yellow arrow for an option lane and one for the exit only lane means that you're expressing two different intentions with the same symbol, which I think is more confusing than having a white arrow for the option and a black arrow for the exit only lane.

[kphoger]

I suspect there's a fundamental difference between us roadgeeks and the driving population at large.  My theory:

1.  We on this forum interpret a black-on-yellow arrow and black-on-yellow 'EXIT ONLY' message as a single "information package".  Similarly, we interpret a white-on-green arrow as a separate "information package".  Therefore, the 2003 MUTCD sign layout makes perfect sense to me.

2.  Most people don't read signs like that.  Rather, they see a green sign with a yellow strip at the bottom.  Some exit signs have a yellow strip, others don't have one, and they only have a vague idea of why that is.  The "information package" they interpret is two arrows–no matter what color those arrows happen to be.  As for the 'EXIT ONLY' message, there's enough variation out there on how that's implemented that its meaning is likewise only a vague idea.

3.  And so, for the majority of drivers, there's little to no difference in meaning between the 2003 and 2009 MUTCD layouts.  Then, if a study has shown that the 2009 layout causes less panic changes on the highway, then they might as well go with it.

(By the way, I prefer the 2003 layout.)

[webny99]

No: https://goo.gl/maps/dPXKSh2nnnZdZLUM7

Experimental, will be compliant with the 2022 MUTCD whenever it comes out.

I like this layout. It's already very common in Ontario.

[SkyPesos]

No: https://goo.gl/maps/dPXKSh2nnnZdZLUM7

Experimental, will be compliant with the 2022 MUTCD whenever it comes out.

I like this layout. It's already very common in Ontario.

Same with me. Indiana have been installing some partial APL signs in recent years too, like the one I found below on I-65 a few months ago.

https://imgur.com/a/zgnxtJE

[JoePCool14]

No: https://goo.gl/maps/dPXKSh2nnnZdZLUM7

Experimental, will be compliant with the 2022 MUTCD whenever it comes out.

I like this layout. It's already very common in Ontario.

Same with me. Indiana have been installing some partial APL signs in recent years too, like the one I found below on I-65 a few months ago.

https://imgur.com/a/zgnxtJE

I feel like that sign was/is planned to be a full APL by the looks of it. I've been through there relatively recently and I feel like that's what I remember seeing.

[webny99]

No: https://goo.gl/maps/dPXKSh2nnnZdZLUM7

Experimental, will be compliant with the 2022 MUTCD whenever it comes out.

I like this layout. It's already very common in Ontario.

Same with me. Indiana have been installing some partial APL signs in recent years too, like the one I found below on I-65 a few months ago.

https://imgur.com/a/zgnxtJE

The fact that the left half of this example is mostly empty makes me think I'd like to see partial APL's in use for A/B exits where there's a split after the exit. You could have a dividing line and list the information for each direction of the split on its own half of the sign.

[odditude]

I suspect there's a fundamental difference between us roadgeeks and the driving population at large.  My theory:
[...]
2.  Most people don't read signs like that.  Rather, they see a green sign with a yellow strip at the bottom.  Some exit signs have a yellow strip, others don't have one, and they only have a vague idea of why that is.  The "information package" they interpret is two arrows–no matter what color those arrows happen to be.  As for the 'EXIT ONLY' message, there's enough variation out there on how that's implemented that its meaning is likewise only a vague idea.

recently confirmed for me by my brother- and sister-in-law, who are both intelligent, well-educated, and had zero clue that the black-on-yellow generally meant "EXIT ONLY" (in particular, this was in a construction zone, where the EXIT ONLY text had been yellowed-out on a 1/4 mi advance sign).

i also prefer the 2003 method, but i've got to agree that the general populace likely doesn't "get it."

[tolbs17]

Also, here's a perfect illustration of one of the reasons why that scheme is a bad idea. The bridge prevents the sign from being installed at the proper location, so it was installed upstream, and clearly shows two lanes being dropped when in fact only one is.

This sign only details one exit lane (even though the second to the far right lane is optional) but due to the bridge blocking of the sign needs to be, they purposely did that.

[SkyPesos]

(By the way, I prefer the 2003 layout.)

Same here. The 2009 changes in some way led to these two exits in my state being signed in a ridiculous way (which I ranted about a few times in the past already).

Though would you prefer an APL if the "traditional" signage is like the following two: 


note that in the second image, the leftmost exit sign is over an option lane, so an "exit only" arrow is misleading

[Tom958]

Also, here's a perfect illustration of one of the reasons why that scheme is a bad idea. The bridge prevents the sign from being installed at the proper location, so it was installed upstream, and clearly shows two lanes being dropped when in fact only one is.

This sign only details one exit lane (even though the second to the far right lane is optional) but due to the bridge blocking of the sign needs to be, they purposely did that.

Which is what should've been done in my example.

[Tom958]

So, to answer the question:

These arrows DO NOT comply with the MUTCD. So why are they posted?

Partly because agencies don't rush out and replace every noncompliant sign as soon as there's a change to the MUTCD. It's been thirteen years, though, so...

Because this aspect of the MUTCD is poorly conceived enough that some agencies defy it, either by dragging their feet in implementation, development and deployment of alternative schemes with the assent of the FHWA, or very-much-post-2009 reuse of pre-2009 practices. 

[US 89]

No: https://goo.gl/maps/dPXKSh2nnnZdZLUM7

Experimental, will be compliant with the 2022 MUTCD whenever it comes out.

And compliant with the Utah version of the current MUTCD. These are literally everywhere in Utah now, and I've also seen them in Colorado and maybe some other places too.

No: https://goo.gl/maps/EEXrL6fEkAH8GZfh8

Complies with the 2003 MUTCD. (search the forum for Lunenfeld & Alexander for more information)

And those signs were put up when that highway was reconstructed around 2004-05, so that would have been the appropriate guidance at the time.

[kphoger]

So, to answer the question:

These arrows DO NOT comply with the MUTCD. So why are they posted?

Partly because agencies don't rush out and replace every noncompliant sign as soon as there's a change to the MUTCD.

In other words...

They do comply with the MUTCD.  Just not the current edition of it.

[jeffandnicole]

While the feds have adjusted signage over the decades to better accommodate how a motorist may interpret a sign or wording, they have very stubbornly stuck with the "EXIT ONLY" language for an exiting lane. I've always felt "MUST EXIT" would be better, and a simple "ONLY" may be perfectly sufficient.

At 2 consecutive interchanges near me, there's a left exit where the left lane must exit. Signage is appropriate for the exit. Just after that is another left exit. Sign is appropriately signed as the left lane *isn't* an exit only lane, but motorists merge out of that lane into the right lane thinking it is.

[ran4sh]

No: https://goo.gl/maps/dPXKSh2nnnZdZLUM7

Experimental, will be compliant with the 2022 MUTCD whenever it comes out.

No: https://goo.gl/maps/EEXrL6fEkAH8GZfh8

No and I don't think NCDOT does this anymore. https://goo.gl/maps/h5LVAzULSi3QFtB87

Complies with the 2003 MUTCD. (search the forum for Lunenfeld & Alexander for more information)



You should give the 1961 MUTCD a read sometime. You'll shit yourself.

And the new MUTCD is going to cause some states to make changes that return to the 2003 standard. Such as the location of the Exit Direction sign for exits with option lanes (2003 standard is at the theoretical gore, 2009 standard is at the point where the option lane starts to widen, 11th Edition returns to the theoretical gore). It's unintentional but I dislike when the states that did nothing can benefit (from continuing to use 2003-standard sign gantries) while those that complied with the 2009 standard must make another round of changes.

I suspect there's a fundamental difference between us roadgeeks and the driving population at large.  My theory:

...

2.  Most people don't read signs like that.  Rather, they see a green sign with a yellow strip at the bottom.  Some exit signs have a yellow strip, others don't have one, and they only have a vague idea of why that is.

And it differs by region too (there are enough option lane exits in Metro Atlanta such that even non-roadgeeks often understood the difference between 2 "exit only" arrows vs 1 "exit only" and 1 regular arrow). I get that one of the goals of the MUTCD is standardization, but maybe that they should consider that the areas that already know how to handle certain signage conditions should be the ones whose signage becomes the national standard, rather than going strictly by experimentation (which I suspect does not have sufficient diversity between different regions anyway).

[tolbs17]

There is a lot of signs here that can easily reflect this change when the new MUTCD standards is published.

[Tom958]

And the new MUTCD is going to cause some states to make changes that return to the 2003 standard. Such as the location of the Exit Direction sign for exits with option lanes (2003 standard is at the theoretical gore, 2009 standard is at the point where the option lane starts to widen, 11th Edition returns to the theoretical gore). It's unintentional but I dislike when the states that did nothing can benefit (from continuing to use 2003-standard sign gantries) while those that complied with the 2009 standard must make another round of changes.

To my shame, I haven't followed what's happening with the new MUTCD, but the 2009 MUTCD still puts conventional exit direction signs at the theoretical gore, and APLs at the point where the option lane starts to widen. Or are we talking about the same thing?

[jeffandnicole]

...It's unintentional but I dislike when the states that did nothing can benefit (from continuing to use 2003-standard sign gantries) while those that complied with the 2009 standard must make another round of changes.

Most states won't need to make any changes.  If they've already updated their signs with the 2009 guidance, they can wait until the signs need to be replaced.  They don't need to rush out and change what already exists if they're in usable condition.

[ran4sh]

...It's unintentional but I dislike when the states that did nothing can benefit (from continuing to use 2003-standard sign gantries) while those that complied with the 2009 standard must make another round of changes.

Most states won't need to make any changes.  If they've already updated their signs with the 2009 guidance, they can wait until the signs need to be replaced.  They don't need to rush out and change what already exists if they're in usable condition.

Right, but they'll have to change it at the time the signs get replaced. As opposed to the states that kept 2003-standard signs and never changed them to 2009-standard, which would be able to keep the 2003-standard signs or at least the gantries.

And the new MUTCD is going to cause some states to make changes that return to the 2003 standard. Such as the location of the Exit Direction sign for exits with option lanes (2003 standard is at the theoretical gore, 2009 standard is at the point where the option lane starts to widen, 11th Edition returns to the theoretical gore). It's unintentional but I dislike when the states that did nothing can benefit (from continuing to use 2003-standard sign gantries) while those that complied with the 2009 standard must make another round of changes.

To my shame, I haven't followed what's happening with the new MUTCD, but the 2009 MUTCD still puts conventional exit direction signs at the theoretical gore, and APLs at the point where the option lane starts to widen. Or are we talking about the same thing?

That's my mistake, I meant that the other way around. A 2003 sign, such as the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander signage which uses one "exit only" arrow and one regular arrow, was supposed to be mounted at the point the option lane starts to widen; a 2009 sign is supposed to be at the theoretical gore.

The proposed new standard is for partial APL signs to be used in these situations, which would go at the point the option lane starts to widen and thus, if a state still had sign gantries in the 2003 position they could be used for the new signs. (see figures 2E-45, 2E-46, and 2E-47)

[tolbs17]

The proposed new standard is for partial APL signs to be used in these situations, which would go at the point the option lane starts to widen and thus, if a state still had sign gantries in the 2003 position they could be used for the new signs. (see figures 2E-45, 2E-46, and 2E-47)

Is there a link to it?

[Scott5114]

The proposed new standard is for partial APL signs to be used in these situations, which would go at the point the option lane starts to widen and thus, if a state still had sign gantries in the 2003 position they could be used for the new signs. (see figures 2E-45, 2E-46, and 2E-47)

Is there a link to it?

Assuming you mean the proposed 2022 MUTCD: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FHWA-2020-0001/document

If you want the 1961 MUTCD: http://www.trafficsign.us/1961mutcd.html

[tolbs17]

The proposed new standard is for partial APL signs to be used in these situations, which would go at the point the option lane starts to widen and thus, if a state still had sign gantries in the 2003 position they could be used for the new signs. (see figures 2E-45, 2E-46, and 2E-47)

Is there a link to it?

Assuming you mean the proposed 2022 MUTCD: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FHWA-2020-0001/document

If you want the 1961 MUTCD: http://www.trafficsign.us/1961mutcd.html

looked at the 2022 MUTCD and I have to admit. It's an interesting proposal I see!

For 1961, stuff is more classic especially with all those word signs.