Signs using "must exit" instead of "exit only"

[US 89]

They aren't... but let's go ahead and restart that debate.

The one in that diagram is. From what I have heard on this forum and seem to have mostly observed in practice, the marking of an option lane as "exit only" is only done beyond the point where the option lane splits, as in this example in Utah. I don't like it, because you can see that sign from well before the split, but at least if you drive under that sign in the second-to-right lane you're guaranteed to exit.

In the diagram linked above, the sign with the second "exit only" arrow comes well before the actual split.

[jakeroot]

In the diagram linked above, the sign with the second "exit only" arrow comes well before the actual split.

The line showing the location of the sign on the diagram quite clearly goes off the top of the image to the split.

[Henry]

In TX and select other states, smaller "Exit Only" panels are placed over the lanes that must leave the freeway, while the option lanes get a regular white arrow indicating that traffic can stay on the freeway if they choose to instead of exiting. Here's a great example on I-45 at the I-10 exchange north of downtown Houston.

[roadman65]

Of all the US signage, I think this is one of the most confusing phrases of language used.  "Exit Only" conveys that there's an exit, but no entrance.  To most of us, we get it what it really means.  But to most of America, especially those that don't often drive on highways or see it for the first time, the term is confusing.

There is a way to convey when that actually is the situation:  https://goo.gl/maps/HCnPEpfeJ99ACc1E7

Which there is no standard for in the MUTCD, so different states do different things. Some states don't even bother indicating the absence of a re-entry ramp. (It's also sometimes implied by the absence of blue service signs, since those are only supposed to be posted if access to return to the highway is available)

The Garden State Parkway never signed exits that had no same direction reentries and once upon a time almost all in Ocean and Atlantic Counties had partial interchanges.

Bergen north of Passack Valley Plaza still has NB only exits with no SB entrances due to the toll plaza as the original NJHA wanted those coming from NY to first pay toll before distributing to other roadways. However, unless they added them now, they never stated no reentry to parkway at all exits north of the toll.

Edit: https://goo.gl/maps/GphUxCGnKbwoZcQx5
Exit 168 guide mentions exit only for the lane to ramp default but nothing to indicate no NB return being impossible.

https://goo.gl/maps/gwhh8mMzVN7jXkzE9
Ditto Exit 171.

[US 89]

In the diagram linked above, the sign with the second "exit only" arrow comes well before the actual split.

The line showing the location of the sign on the diagram quite clearly goes off the top of the image to the split.

You're right. I didn't even notice that there - I just noticed the solid lines on the road immediately to the left of where that image is.

[jakeroot]

In the diagram linked above, the sign with the second "exit only" arrow comes well before the actual split.

The line showing the location of the sign on the diagram quite clearly goes off the top of the image to the split.

You're right. I didn't even notice that there - I just noticed the solid lines on the road immediately to the left of where that image is.

To be fair, the design has no place anywhere near an option lane, at the gore or earlier lol. Idiotic design, I don't know how it got into the MUTCD.

[CtrlAltDel]

In the diagram linked above, the sign with the second "exit only" arrow comes well before the actual split.

The line showing the location of the sign on the diagram quite clearly goes off the top of the image to the split.

You're right. I didn't even notice that there - I just noticed the solid lines on the road immediately to the left of where that image is.

To be fair, the design has no place anywhere near an option lane, at the gore or earlier lol. Idiotic design, I don't know how it got into the MUTCD.

How come?

[1995hoo]

The solution I like for the issue shown in that MUTCD diagram is to use–on the sign located in advance of the exit–a partial "Exit Only" (or "Must Exit") panel over the lane that must exit and to use a standard white-on-green arrow over the option lane. Here is an example from Virginia in which the white-on-green arrow is partially covered with greenout; the greenout was applied sometime between 2008 and 2011 when the ramp was under construction and the exit was narrowed to the single right lane and they never removed the greenout after the left lane on the ramp reopened. If you click back to the 2008 Street View you can see the arrow without greenout.

If you then click down the road to the exit point itself, you see a full-width "Exit Only" with two arrows–and I'd argue that it makes sense right there because those arrows appear over the two exiting lanes. That left-hand arrow was yellowed out from sometime between 2008 and 2011 to sometime in 2017 (although, again, the lane reopened sometime between 2012 and 2014, well before the yellowout was removed).

Maryland does something similar (half panel with white-on-green arrow for the option lane, then full two-arrow "Exit Only" at the exit) on the Outer Loop of I-495 approaching the split for I-270, incidentally, although on their signs the words "Exit Only" are stacked vertically in the right half-panel. At other locations with option lanes, such as the exit for the Cabin John Parkway, I've seen Maryland use a half-panel that just says "ONLY" rather than "Exit Only."

[CovalenceSTU]

In TX and select other states, smaller "Exit Only" panels are placed over the lanes that must leave the freeway, while the option lanes get a regular white arrow indicating that traffic can stay on the freeway if they choose to instead of exiting. Here's a great example on I-45 at the I-10 exchange north of downtown Houston.

I-5 in OR and WA has a lot and I like them, their meaning is obvious and they don't try to hide the option lane like the 2009 standard. I thought it was in the 2003 MUTCD until now, but I double checked and it only says to use diagrammaticals.

[ran4sh]

In TX and select other states, smaller "Exit Only" panels are placed over the lanes that must leave the freeway, while the option lanes get a regular white arrow indicating that traffic can stay on the freeway if they choose to instead of exiting. Here's a great example on I-45 at the I-10 exchange north of downtown Houston.

I-5 in OR and WA has a lot and I like them, their meaning is obvious and they don't try to hide the option lane like the 2009 standard. I thought it was in the 2003 MUTCD until now, but I double checked and it only says to use diagrammaticals.

In other words they were not standardized under previous MUTCDs and only in 2009 did they actually address that. I'm ok with the 2009 standards, because with the previous style of signage it often resulted in non-roadgeeks interpreting the white arrow as also being part of the exit, and therefore changing lanes to the left if trying to stay on the freeway even though they don't need to.

With the 2009 standards, if the option lane is to be emphasized then an APL can be used, if not then the above depicted MUTCD signage can be used. I don't think I would call it "hiding" the option lane because R3-8 signs and the associated pavement markings both clearly indicate it.

[jakeroot]

In the diagram linked above, the sign with the second "exit only" arrow comes well before the actual split.

The line showing the location of the sign on the diagram quite clearly goes off the top of the image to the split.

You're right. I didn't even notice that there - I just noticed the solid lines on the road immediately to the left of where that image is.

To be fair, the design has no place anywhere near an option lane, at the gore or earlier lol. Idiotic design, I don't know how it got into the MUTCD.

How come?

Unless there are two whole exit-only lanes from the beginning, I feel it is misleading to suddenly sign a second exit-only lane right at the gore.

[jeffandnicole]

In the diagram linked above, the sign with the second "exit only" arrow comes well before the actual split.

The line showing the location of the sign on the diagram quite clearly goes off the top of the image to the split.

You're right. I didn't even notice that there - I just noticed the solid lines on the road immediately to the left of where that image is.

To be fair, the design has no place anywhere near an option lane, at the gore or earlier lol. Idiotic design, I don't know how it got into the MUTCD.

How come?

Unless there are two whole exit-only lanes from the beginning, I feel it is misleading to suddenly sign a second exit-only lane right at the gore.

I never cared for this change in the '09 MUTCD.  For the most part, I think states felt the same, as this practice of signing a second exit-only lane never really caught on too often.

[US 89]

In the diagram linked above, the sign with the second "exit only" arrow comes well before the actual split.

The line showing the location of the sign on the diagram quite clearly goes off the top of the image to the split.

You're right. I didn't even notice that there - I just noticed the solid lines on the road immediately to the left of where that image is.

To be fair, the design has no place anywhere near an option lane, at the gore or earlier lol. Idiotic design, I don't know how it got into the MUTCD.

How come?

Unless there are two whole exit-only lanes from the beginning, I feel it is misleading to suddenly sign a second exit-only lane right at the gore.

I never cared for this change in the '09 MUTCD.  For the most part, I think states felt the same, as this practice of signing a second exit-only lane never really caught on too often.

The thing that bothers me more is that in the standard MUTCD signage, there is no overhead mention at all that there's an option lane. Nobody pays attention to the little white signs on the side of the road, which is understandable - usually in urban areas where option lanes are more common, these signs are stuff like "trucks prohibited in left lane", "engine brakes restricted", or "move to next exit if in accident". And this has a noticeable effect on traffic, too: people think they need to be in the far right lane in order to exit. (Because in a lot of cases, when presented with that signage, you do!) And then once they take the exit and an option lane shows up on their left, they all change back into the left lane to turn left at the light at the end of the ramp. All this extra lane changing has the effect of causing unnecessary congestion and probably results in a few more sideswipes and fender benders than you'd have otherwise.

[jp the roadgeek]

Finally got a shot of the CT 9 signage that replaces Left Lane Exit Only

[michravera]

I thought of this topic because three times in the past month, I've passed signs that use the words "MUST EXIT" in some formulation. I remember when I was growing up it seemed like Delaware preferred those words–I remember on I-295 at the US-13 interchange there were a number of signs saying either "THIS LANE MUST EXIT" (with a downward-pointing arrow) or simply "MUST EXIT." Those signs have all long since been replaced and the new signs use the now-customary "EXIT ONLY."

But last Friday I was on a southbound Acela approaching Philadelphia's 30th Street Station and I saw the following sign out the window (I didn't have my phone out and so wasn't fast enough to get a picture):
https://goo.gl/maps/RnVXSLczDYPpUEge8

Also, twice in the past month I've passed a sign on the I-495 Inner Loop in Virginia, a fairly new vertical BGS on the right side of the road as you pass through the Route 7 interchange in Tysons Corner. The sign is an advance BGS for the left-side Dulles exit and, like the sign in Philadelphia, it says "LEFT LANE MUST EXIT" (though it has the words stacked–"left lane" on one line and "must exit" on a second line underneath). I don't have any pictures because both times in the past month I was driving, traffic was reasonably heavy, and by the time I remembered the sign was there it was too late to get a picture. It's not on Google yet–their images are from October 2022 and the sign is more recent because it was posted due to construction causing changes in the lane configuration. That particular sign is interesting because the overhead signs further down the road use "EXIT ONLY."

I'm curious whether anyone has any idea how common the use of "MUST EXIT" is elsewhere. I always kind of liked that wording because I've always felt it's unambiguous. I've seen a few articles over the years in which writers have wrongly said "EXIT ONLY" means you can exit there but you can't re-enter the highway. If those people think that, surely there are others who think that as well. It's obviously an unreasonable interpretation (the interchange nearest to my house proves it), but it's still out there. "This Lane Must Exit" leaves no room for doubt what it means.



BTW, those of you who are interested in trains might take note that you can see two new Acela trainsets (not yet in passenger service) in the background of that Google Street View image if you zoom in under the BGS.

To my way of thinking, "Must Exit" is a physical requirement, whereas "Exit Only" is a regulatory requirement. This seems to be how it is used by CalTrans. I'm sure that there are exceptions. When the configuration of the road is such that the Gods make you exit "Must Exit" is appropriate. When the configuration is such that proper and orderly flow of traffic requires that you exit, "Exit Only" is appropriate.

[jeffandnicole]

To my way of thinking, "Must Exit" is a physical requirement, whereas "Exit Only" is a regulatory requirement. This seems to be how it is used by CalTrans. I'm sure that there are exceptions. When the configuration of the road is such that the Gods make you exit "Must Exit" is appropriate. When the configuration is such that proper and orderly flow of traffic requires that you exit, "Exit Only" is appropriate.

How is that different though than "Left Lane Must Turn Left" and "Right Lane Must Turn Right"?  For the two to be equal, the signage should say "Left Lane Turn Only" which seems utterly nonsensical, but when 'Exit Only' signage is off on the right shoulder rather than overhead, that's the same message conveyed: https://goo.gl/maps/7UvBX2PzzjqLpdebA

[bcroadguy]

I'm not sure if this counts because they're not on BGSes but I've seen several examples of black-on-white RIGHT LANE MUST EXIT signs in California and Washington.

[jay8g]

The white, side-mounted MUST EXIT signs are a MUTCD standard item (R3-33), though I prefer the design in those examples (which is similar to the more-common R3-7) to the design shown in the MUTCD.

As for why those signs have different wording from the overhead signs, I wonder if it's something about not wanting to use the word "must" on non-regulatory signs.

[1995hoo]

Of all the US signage, I think this is one of the most confusing phrases of language used.  "Exit Only" conveys that there's an exit, but no entrance.  To most of us, we get it what it really means.  But to most of America, especially those that don't often drive on highways or see it for the first time, the term is confusing.

There is a way to convey when that actually is the situation:  https://goo.gl/maps/HCnPEpfeJ99ACc1E7

There is GMSV of the "left lane must exit" on I-495, which is an excellent way to convey the idea that not everybody must exit here.  I imagine in the 70s the exit only phrasing might have come about because there were still plenty of freeways/interstates with temporary endings that were heavily posted with must exit signage.

Following up here because, as noted above, that sign wasn't the one I was referring to. The sign I meant is now shown on Google Street View and here is the link. The image doesn't give a good sense for the odd shade of green (a flatter color than usual), but it certainly shows that someone at VDOT backslid into bad habits about Clearview letter height.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/WbXyALLS5c4H8hNa6?g_st=ic