Why don't option lane BGSs look like this???

[J N Winkler]

Something that the MUTCD doesn't make clear at all though, in my opinion, is advance signage. It shows gore point signage displaying both lanes (option and slip lane) as EXIT ONLY in the traditional manner. Would this also be the case in exit approach signage? Or would every exit with an option lane need to use huge APL's for the sake of accuracy? Should we re-embrace diagrammatic signage, since that's what the MUTCD figure shows?

The MUTCD doesn't require an APL (or diagrammatic) for every exit that has an option lane.  When an exit is so equipped and neither type of sign is used, the advance guide signs are exactly the same as if there were no option lane at all, which is why we describe this approach as "hide the option lane."

[jeffandnicole]

I think the sign as it appears in OP would confuse me to hell, to be honest.

You've probably seen this type sign along or in combo with other signs many times and never gave it a second thought.  Just looking at the 95 Corridor in MD & DE:

It's on the DC Beltway's EB Inner Loop approaching 95 North:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eKhKao6NjBe6DZaJ8

On 95 North approaching 395 in Baltimore:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6SkaEgUCWeJcx5F67

On 95 North again, approaching the Express Toll Lane Split:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aoH6SxY5GfDVboi87

Still on 95 North, approaching 695 (and this time, with roadway arrows as well):
https://maps.app.goo.gl/DtneR7GDk5MAtcA68

Then on I-95 in Delaware, approaching the 95/295 Split near Wilmington, DE:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/SmLZhv38fif3XSg59

And after that, staying on 95, approaching the 95/495 Split:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oBUUV935fybqhf838

[Henry]

I think the sign as it appears in OP would confuse me to hell, to be honest.

You've probably seen this type sign along or in combo with other signs many times and never gave it a second thought.  Just looking at the 95 Corridor in MD & DE:

It's on the DC Beltway's EB Inner Loop approaching 95 North:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eKhKao6NjBe6DZaJ8

On 95 North approaching 395 in Baltimore:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6SkaEgUCWeJcx5F67

On 95 North again, approaching the Express Toll Lane Split:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aoH6SxY5GfDVboi87

Still on 95 North, approaching 695 (and this time, with roadway arrows as well):
https://maps.app.goo.gl/DtneR7GDk5MAtcA68

Then on I-95 in Delaware, approaching the 95/295 Split near Wilmington, DE:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/SmLZhv38fif3XSg59

And after that, staying on 95, approaching the 95/495 Split:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oBUUV935fybqhf838

Now those are as clear as you can get! They're two of very few states that actually get it right.

[gonealookin]

Nevada's contribution:

Where the interchange is with a city street:
I-80 Exit 13 at Virginia Street

And a short distance east of there, the APL setup at a freeway interchange:
I-80 Exit 15 at I-580/US 395

[Shedingtonian]

Something that the MUTCD doesn't make clear at all though, in my opinion, is advance signage. It shows gore point signage displaying both lanes (option and slip lane) as EXIT ONLY in the traditional manner. Would this also be the case in exit approach signage? Or would every exit with an option lane need to use huge APL's for the sake of accuracy? Should we re-embrace diagrammatic signage, since that's what the MUTCD figure shows?

The MUTCD doesn't require an APL (or diagrammatic) for every exit that has an option lane.  When an exit is so equipped and neither type of sign is used, the advance guide signs are exactly the same as if there were no option lane at all, which is why we describe this approach as "hide the option lane."

I understand that approach, but I still believe it causes unnecessary lane changes, as it's been discussed here.

What does the MUTCD think of the "dancing arrows" approach (down arrows angled slightly so that they point at the same lane)? And what about signing both destinations on the same lane like in this post, or in these Spanish examples?

[J N Winkler]

The MUTCD doesn't require an APL (or diagrammatic) for every exit that has an option lane.  When an exit is so equipped and neither type of sign is used, the advance guide signs are exactly the same as if there were no option lane at all, which is why we describe this approach as "hide the option lane."

I understand that approach, but I still believe it causes unnecessary lane changes, as it's been discussed here.

This is pretty generally agreed.  The justification is that the unnecessary lane changes (from a faster lane to a slower one, to get into the dropped lane when the option lane can be used) are more benign than with classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander (from a slower lane to a faster one, to escape an option lane the driver incorrectly believes is a dropped lane).

What does the MUTCD think of the "dancing arrows" approach (down arrows angled slightly so that they point at the same lane)? And what about signing both destinations on the same lane like in this post, or in these Spanish examples?

Dancing arrows are prohibited per § 2E.19.  The relevant Standard statement reads:

On overhead signs where down arrows are used to indicate a lane to be followed, a down arrow shall be positioned approximately over the center of each lane and shall point vertically downward toward the approximate center of that lane. Down arrows shall be used only on overhead guide signs that restrict the use of specific lanes to traffic bound for the destination(s) and/or route(s) indicated by these arrows. Down arrows shall not be used unless an arrow can be located over and pointed to the approximate center of each lane that can be used to reach the destination displayed on the sign.

If down arrows are used, having more than one down arrow pointing to the same lane on a single overhead sign (or on multiple signs on the same overhead sign structure) shall not be permitted.

The approach of repeating destinations across multiple sign panels would seem not to be forbidden, but is discouraged for message loading reasons.  (It has also been used in Britain, which has looser limits on the number of destinations that can be used on a single sign.)

As an example of what is considered best practice in the US, TxDOT's Freeway Signing Handbook suggests a limit of 20 message units on an overhead signbridge, with each shield, cardinal direction, destination, or distance expression counting as a single message unit.

[roadfro]

The MUTCD doesn't require an APL (or diagrammatic) for every exit that has an option lane.  When an exit is so equipped and neither type of sign is used, the advance guide signs are exactly the same as if there were no option lane at all, which is why we describe this approach as "hide the option lane."

I understand that approach, but I still believe it causes unnecessary lane changes, as it's been discussed here.

What does the MUTCD think of the "dancing arrows" approach (down arrows angled slightly so that they point at the same lane)? And what about signing both destinations on the same lane like in this post, or in these Spanish examples?

A revision to a standard introduced in the 2009 MUTCD is what prompted a lot of the changes we're discussing in this thread–this standard had previously been a lot less prescriptive. This is the standard relating to treatment of the 'down arrow'. Compare the relevant text in the MUTCD section on "Arrows for Interchange Guide Signs" from 2003 to 2009 below:

Standard:
Downward pointing arrows shall be used only for overhead guide signs to prescribe lane assignment for traffic bound for a destination or route that can be reached only by being in the designated lane(s).

Option:
Downward pointing arrows may be tilted where it is desired to emphasize the separation of roadways.

Standard:
05 On overhead signs where down arrows are used to indicate a lane to be followed, a down arrow shall be positioned approximately over the center of each lane and shall point vertically downward toward the approximate center of that lane. Down arrows shall be used only on overhead guide signs that restrict the use of specific lanes to traffic bound for the destination(s) and/or route(s) indicated by these arrows. Down arrows shall not be used unless an arrow can be located over and pointed to the approximate center of each lane that can be used to reach the destination displayed on the sign.

06 If down arrows are used, having more than one down arrow pointing to the same lane on a single overhead sign (or on multiple signs on the same overhead sign structure) shall not be permitted.

This revision specifically prohibits dancing arrows. I believe this revision was implemented using a similar rationale as the APL, as one arrow per lane provides more positive lane positioning guidance and can reduce confusion.

With the revised definition of the down arrow also meaning that traffic in that lane can only go to the destination on the sign, the new MUTCD also effectively prohibited the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander treatments as displayed in the OP (which had been commonly used in California, Nevada, and other states).

[roadfro]

The MUTCD doesn't require an APL (or diagrammatic) for every exit that has an option lane.  When an exit is so equipped and neither type of sign is used, the advance guide signs are exactly the same as if there were no option lane at all, which is why we describe this approach as "hide the option lane."

I understand that approach, but I still believe it causes unnecessary lane changes, as it's been discussed here.

This is pretty generally agreed.  The justification is that the unnecessary lane changes (from a faster lane to a slower one, to get into the dropped lane when the option lane can be used) are more benign than with classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander (from a slower lane to a faster one, to escape an option lane the driver incorrectly believes is a dropped lane).

I'd maintain that the "hide the option lane" approach adopted by the 2009 MUTCD would have been less awful if they would have allowed the option lane arrow on the exit direction sign to remain white on green and not move the location of the overhead sign.


Nevada DOT has generally been compliant with the "hide the option lane" scheme in new signage projects introduced since about 2012 or so, after having used the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach for so long. In most cases, it's fine (I still hate it). But a recent new sign installation grates on me because now it's flat out wrong.

During a recent repaving on I-580/US 395 in Reno, overhead signage was replaced for the southbound Moana Lane exit. There is an option lane here, and the exit had been signed the old way. The revised signage now uses the new approach, with exit direction sign showing an exit only arrow over the option lane. Problem? With the old signage scheme, the exit direction sign is placed upstream of the theoretical gore point. In the new signage scheme, the exit direction sign is supposed to be placed at or past the theoretical gore. But for this sign replacement, NDOT did not move the overhead sign structure–so now the option lane is marked exit only upstream of the ramp gore, making it appear that two lanes exit. They also have not used pavement marking arrows or lane assignment signs for this situation, as MUTCD figures show.

Advance sign: before & after
At exit: before & after

Same problems exists with the northbound Plumb Lane exit in this stretch.

The only saving grace here is NDOT is really good about using the dotted lane lines for dropped lanes, and normal broken lines are painted here. So the signage snafu doesn't seem to be causing too many issues...or at least I haven't noticed many issues thus far given I pass this only about once a week.  Still, it's not a good look, and illustrative of how this approach is not necessarily the best unless implemented to the letter.

[JoePCool14]

Funny enough, then you look at the even older example, and that sign doesn't even mention that two lanes exit at all.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/9cQFSge7gBn6kVQV6

The Illinois Tollway also has lots of issues with signing option lanes. I've found their approaches inconsistent and in some cases, completely incorrect. For example, I drove through this last weekend, and no signage implied that this was a two-lane exit. I-88 WB at the (to) Naperville Rd exit.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/EV8Nr34fA4egffdN8

They aren't all like that, but I find this very poor.

[Shedingtonian]

The Illinois Tollway also has lots of issues with signing option lanes. I've found their approaches inconsistent and in some cases, completely incorrect. For example, I drove through this last weekend, and no signage implied that this was a two-lane exit. I-88 WB at the (to) Naperville Rd exit.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/EV8Nr34fA4egffdN8

They aren't all like that, but I find this very poor.

I went backwards in the Google Street View and I agree with you. There isn't even any arrow on the pavement to imply that the option lane is an option lane.

Actually, hold that thought. The MUTCD decided to follow the "hide the option lane ON SIGNS" approach. Do we know anything about option lanes as portrayed in MARKINGS?

[CtrlAltDel]

It seems strange to me that the word "EXIT"  and the exit number itself each count as a unit of information. To my mind, they go together like "Polk"  and "Street"  or "Loop"  and "501."  Looking into the matter, the Freeway Signing Handbook calls "EXIT"  a command, but I don't think that's quite the case here.

[SoDakInterstateEnthusiast]

I don't think I've ever seen a sign that didn't have both arrows black on yellow and labeled "EXIT ONLY" even though it's an option lane, and it really annoys me BECAUSE YOU CAN DRIVE STRAIGHT IN THAT LANE SO WHY WOULD IT BE EXIT ONLY

Are you really young?  Signs used to look like that before a recent update to the MUTCD.  (In fact, I didn't know about the change until I saw some construction plans for Kellogg here in Wichita, thought something was wrong with the guide sign as illustrated in the plans, told a friend of mine who was an engineer working on the project, and he took my question to his manager.)

I can tell you the exact date I knew I wanted to pursue roads in some form as a career - May 18th, 2018, on a school trip to Denver (the biggest city I had ever been to at that time). Before that, my experience with MUTCD was limited to the fact that at age two I always begged my mother to walk me up to the stop sign so I could stare at it. So, I suppose you would call me a post-2009-MUTCD-with-Revisons-1-and-2 roadgeek.

I'm not quite knowledgeable of all the terminology - what is a gore point? and what are the reasons for putting a sign ahead of it as opposed to after it? Also, why would a DOT want to put up signs that "hide" the option lane? I'm not fully understanding, if someone would like to clarify.

[kphoger]

I'm not quite knowledgeable of all the terminology - what is a gore point?

Depends...  Is it theoretical?   

[jeffandnicole]

I'm not quite knowledgeable of all the terminology - what is a gore point?

You know where the main highway continues, and the exit lane veers away from the main highway?  That separation that forms between the main lanes and the exit lane is the gore point. (Opinions may vary: Some people may call the paved area where the lanes first split the gore point; others may call the physical separation when there's grass or concrete the gore point.  Usually close enough either way.)

and what are the reasons for putting a sign ahead of it as opposed to after it?

For clarity.  As in gonealookin's example above, showing an 'Exit Only' lane where exiting isn't the only option, the sign would be correct if it was at or after the gore point; but not correct before the gore point.

Also, why would a DOT want to put up signs that "hide" the option lane? I'm not fully understanding, if someone would like to clarify.

Because that's what the MUTCD requires.  DOTs may not want to hide the option lane, but to be in full compliance and have the project (and others) approved for federal funding, they may be required to, unless they seek a design exemption.

[vdeane]

I'm not quite knowledgeable of all the terminology - what is a gore point?

It is the point on the highway where you encounter Al Gore.  Obviously.

[mrsman]

The MUTCD doesn't require an APL (or diagrammatic) for every exit that has an option lane.  When an exit is so equipped and neither type of sign is used, the advance guide signs are exactly the same as if there were no option lane at all, which is why we describe this approach as "hide the option lane."

I understand that approach, but I still believe it causes unnecessary lane changes, as it's been discussed here.

This is pretty generally agreed.  The justification is that the unnecessary lane changes (from a faster lane to a slower one, to get into the dropped lane when the option lane can be used) are more benign than with classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander (from a slower lane to a faster one, to escape an option lane the driver incorrectly believes is a dropped lane).

I'd maintain that the "hide the option lane" approach adopted by the 2009 MUTCD would have been less awful if they would have allowed the option lane arrow on the exit direction sign to remain white on green and not move the location of the overhead sign.


Nevada DOT has generally been compliant with the "hide the option lane" scheme in new signage projects introduced since about 2012 or so, after having used the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach for so long. In most cases, it's fine (I still hate it). But a recent new sign installation grates on me because now it's flat out wrong.

During a recent repaving on I-580/US 395 in Reno, overhead signage was replaced for the southbound Moana Lane exit. There is an option lane here, and the exit had been signed the old way. The revised signage now uses the new approach, with exit direction sign showing an exit only arrow over the option lane. Problem? With the old signage scheme, the exit direction sign is placed upstream of the theoretical gore point. In the new signage scheme, the exit direction sign is supposed to be placed at or past the theoretical gore. But for this sign replacement, NDOT did not move the overhead sign structure–so now the option lane is marked exit only upstream of the ramp gore, making it appear that two lanes exit. They also have not used pavement marking arrows or lane assignment signs for this situation, as MUTCD figures show.

Advance sign: before & after
At exit: before & after

Same problems exists with the northbound Plumb Lane exit in this stretch.

The only saving grace here is NDOT is really good about using the dotted lane lines for dropped lanes, and normal broken lines are painted here. So the signage snafu doesn't seem to be causing too many issues...or at least I haven't noticed many issues thus far given I pass this only about once a week.  Still, it's not a good look, and illustrative of how this approach is not necessarily the best unless implemented to the letter.

I think so many of these option lane situations that involve a simple street exits would probably be best following the Ontario style APL.

Arrow per lane signs, but only for the exit.  Staying on the main highway is implied.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7604427,-79.3961391,3a,15.7y,59.48h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5NteL6SvCJZCqr8q8T6UOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

So for Bayview Ave (or for Moana Lane), you have the one green sign.  A right arrow over the rightmost lane.  (And add the word "only" to make a good touch.)  And then a straight and right over the option lane.  It is still a simple overhead, and there's no need to have an APL for all the other lanes of the highway each time this occurs at a simple exit.

[J N Winkler]

It seems strange to me that the word "EXIT"  and the exit number itself each count as a unit of information. To my mind, they go together like "Polk"  and "Street"  or "Loop"  and "501."  Looking into the matter, the Freeway Signing Handbook calls "EXIT"  a command, but I don't think that's quite the case here.

I don't know the justification for counting "EXIT" and the number in the tab as separate message units.  If I had to guess--which is always dangerous--I'd suspect a research finding to the effect that the combination takes longer for drivers to process than either on its own.

I'd maintain that the "hide the option lane" approach adopted by the 2009 MUTCD would have been less awful if they would have allowed the option lane arrow on the exit direction sign to remain white on green and not move the location of the overhead sign.

I agree.  The 2009 MUTCD changes really created a catch-22 for state DOTs:  move the structure (at a cost of ~$30,000 for a cantilever/~$100,000 for an overhead signbridge, not to mention feasibility issues with a new site) to hide the option lane and remain 100% compliant with MUTCD without using an expensive APL, or risk having to junk the existing structure because it is in the right location for an APL but not beefy enough to hold it.

GMITC papers are no longer available online (at least as a live resource), and AFAIK NCUTCD liaison with FHWA has never been visible to the public, so it is hard for outside observers to gauge how thoroughly GMITC, the NCUTCD as a whole, and FHWA considered this aspect of the problem before they committed to the change.

[mrsman]

I'm struggling to find the actual MUTCD guidance on option lane signage for the older and newer editions of the MUTCD.  All I'm finding right now is guidance for diagrammatic signage.  Anyone got links?


ETA:  I found it in the 2009 edition, Figure 2E-8.  What I'm really looking for is an earlier edition of the MUTCD that actually has a figure that looks like the sign in the OP.

I hate that page so, so much.  Separately marking the option lane white on green is something I find very useful as a driver.

Other ambiguities arise anyway, of course.

For example, with the recently reconstructed I-235/US-54 junction in Wichita, this sign seems to suggest that the rightmost lane only goes to US-54 West.  However, in reality, the rightmost lane goes to US-54 East, but there is a downstream exit for US-54 West along the way.  Technically, all information is correct:  the rightmost lane is indeed an exit-only lane, and US-54 West is indeed accessed via the rightmost lane.  But useful information is "hidden" nonetheless, which results in unnecessary crowding of the option lane by drivers headed east.

This is a really nice readable sign, but I do see your point about incomplete information.  I would replace "WEST" with "EAST & WEST" with WEST written just below EAST &.  Probably the cleanest way to give everyone the best advance knowlege, while still respecting the clear delineation of teh original signage.

Of course, the addition of control cities would also be nice.  Kellogg Ave is actually a freeway here.  I-235 south to Oklahoma City, Kellogg east to Downtown Wichita, and Kellogg west to Airport (or perhaps Dodge City).  A good eastern control east of Wichita could possibly be Springfield MO.

EDITED TO ADD:  Another possibility here is a sign like this:

235 S                           |                Kellogg East                   |       Kellogg West

STRAIGHT      STRAIGHT/SLIGHT RIGHT             SLIGHT RIGHT/SHARP RIGHT

THe arrows would indicate where the lane will lead to.  Straight for 235 south, Slight right for Kellogg East, and Sharp right for Kellogg West. 

In many similar cases, you'd see something along the lines of:

235 S                           |                Kellogg East                   |       Kellogg West

STRAIGHT      STRAIGHT/RIGHT                                   STRAIGHT/RIGHT

But that is somewhat confusing.  FOr the middle lane RIGHT refers to Kellogg East and for the right lane STRAIGHT refers to Kellogg East.


An example showing the arrows like this exists here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0280623,-118.5190852,3a,75y,320.1h,76.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMZaT4vZqze2IZaO89ghg5g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

But I would modify it to be more like an APL sign.  With two sets of rights, It would be helpful to delineate every lane.  So left two lanes are PCH, the third lane is an option for PCH or Choataqua and the right lane is an option for Choataqua or West Channel.  Even though the far right lane is an option lane, in no way should it be signed with a straight arrow, since that may confuse a driver who wants to continue on PCH.  And I think a similar concept for the Wichita exit, each lane should be delineated to where it will ultimately go, advance knowledge of each line, but designated with different types of right arrows to differentiate between east and west.  The only straight arrows should be for staying on 235.


     

[jeffandnicole]

The only saving grace here is NDOT is really good about using the dotted lane lines for dropped lanes, and normal broken lines are painted here. So the signage snafu doesn't seem to be causing too many issues...or at least I haven't noticed many issues thus far given I pass this only about once a week.  Still, it's not a good look, and illustrative of how this approach is not necessarily the best unless implemented to the letter.

I think so many of these option lane situations that involve a simple street exits would probably be best following the Ontario style APL.

Arrow per lane signs, but only for the exit.  Staying on the main highway is implied.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7604427,-79.3961391,3a,15.7y,59.48h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5NteL6SvCJZCqr8q8T6UOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

So for Bayview Ave (or for Moana Lane), you have the one green sign.  A right arrow over the rightmost lane.  (And add the word "only" to make a good touch.)  And then a straight and right over the option lane.  It is still a simple overhead, and there's no need to have an APL for all the other lanes of the highway each time this occurs at a simple exit.

They used this style sign in the US under a trial basis, and I believe it's being approved for full use.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/phYVngaHxJMSESg89

[wanderer2575]

The only saving grace here is NDOT is really good about using the dotted lane lines for dropped lanes, and normal broken lines are painted here. So the signage snafu doesn't seem to be causing too many issues...or at least I haven't noticed many issues thus far given I pass this only about once a week.  Still, it's not a good look, and illustrative of how this approach is not necessarily the best unless implemented to the letter.

I think so many of these option lane situations that involve a simple street exits would probably be best following the Ontario style APL.

Arrow per lane signs, but only for the exit.  Staying on the main highway is implied.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7604427,-79.3961391,3a,15.7y,59.48h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5NteL6SvCJZCqr8q8T6UOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

So for Bayview Ave (or for Moana Lane), you have the one green sign.  A right arrow over the rightmost lane.  (And add the word "only" to make a good touch.)  And then a straight and right over the option lane.  It is still a simple overhead, and there's no need to have an APL for all the other lanes of the highway each time this occurs at a simple exit.

They used this style sign in the US under a trial basis, and I believe it's being approved for full use.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/phYVngaHxJMSESg89

Will it be allowed only just before the exit point, or also on advance signs?  The latter is what should be allowed.

[mrsman]

The only saving grace here is NDOT is really good about using the dotted lane lines for dropped lanes, and normal broken lines are painted here. So the signage snafu doesn't seem to be causing too many issues...or at least I haven't noticed many issues thus far given I pass this only about once a week.  Still, it's not a good look, and illustrative of how this approach is not necessarily the best unless implemented to the letter.

I think so many of these option lane situations that involve a simple street exits would probably be best following the Ontario style APL.

Arrow per lane signs, but only for the exit.  Staying on the main highway is implied.


And to answer OP's original question, if using the normal type of signage, option lanes should certainly be signed that way.  And in some states they are signed that way.  But the problem is that in some states, they don't sign it this way.  The white arrow does not necessarily mean an option, and therefore there is no nationwide consistency.



https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7604427,-79.3961391,3a,15.7y,59.48h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5NteL6SvCJZCqr8q8T6UOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

So for Bayview Ave (or for Moana Lane), you have the one green sign.  A right arrow over the rightmost lane.  (And add the word "only" to make a good touch.)  And then a straight and right over the option lane.  It is still a simple overhead, and there's no need to have an APL for all the other lanes of the highway each time this occurs at a simple exit.

They used this style sign in the US under a trial basis, and I believe it's being approved for full use.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/phYVngaHxJMSESg89

Will it be allowed only just before the exit point, or also on advance signs?  The latter is what should be allowed.

Agreed.  I think the whole point of a lot of the discussion in that there should be a better way to sign which lane goes where well in advance of the exit.

[kphoger]

I think so many of these option lane situations that involve a simple street exits would probably be best following the Ontario style APL.

Arrow per lane signs, but only for the exit.  Staying on the main highway is implied.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7604427,-79.3961391,3a,15.7y,59.48h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5NteL6SvCJZCqr8q8T6UOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

I'm sure I'd get used to it.  But my first reaction is that it doesn't convey clear information about how many lanes continue straight.  If I see that the exit gets an accurate number of arrows to match the number of lanes, then I might assume that the straight-ahead movement also has an accurate number of arrows.  Therefore, I might assume that only the leftmost lane continues straight.

[roadfro]

I'm not quite knowledgeable of all the terminology - what is a gore point?

You know where the main highway continues, and the exit lane veers away from the main highway?  That separation that forms between the main lanes and the exit lane is the gore point. (Opinions may vary: Some people may call the paved area where the lanes first split the gore point; others may call the physical separation when there's grass or concrete the gore point.  Usually close enough either way.)

In some cases (including, I think, the MUTCD), a distinction is made between the "theoretical gore" and the "physical gore". The theoretical gore is the point on the pavement at which the lanes split and the neutral area forms between the through lanes and the exiting ramp lane(s). The physical gore is the actual point of separation between the mainline pavement and ramp pavement, at which there is usually grass/dirt, curb, or barrier physically separating the lanes (and near which the "exit gore" sign is placed [e.g. "Exit 36 (arrow)"]).

In the context of this discussion: The non-Lunenfeld and Alexander option lane signing approach (i.e. the OP) places the overhead exit direction sign just in front of the theoretical gore right before the exit ramp starts to diverge. The current MUTCD signing approach puts the overhead exit direction sign at the physical gore (or at least past the theoretical gore) past the point where the option lane splits off, so at that point there is a new lane on which having a second "exit only" arrow is *technically* correct...

[wanderer2575]

I think so many of these option lane situations that involve a simple street exits would probably be best following the Ontario style APL.

Arrow per lane signs, but only for the exit.  Staying on the main highway is implied.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7604427,-79.3961391,3a,15.7y,59.48h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5NteL6SvCJZCqr8q8T6UOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

I'm sure I'd get used to it.  But my first reaction is that it doesn't convey clear information about how many lanes continue straight.  If I see that the exit gets an accurate number of arrows to match the number of lanes, then I might assume that the straight-ahead movement also has an accurate number of arrows.  Therefore, I might assume that only the leftmost lane continues straight.

Understood, but something's gotta give.  You can have either (1) a full-width APL that clearly shows the destiny of each lane but is huge, expensive, and wastes lots of the space the cost of money and material provided, or (2) a smaller APL that eliminates much of the waste but is focused on showing only the relevant exit information.

I'm not you, but keeping in mind a partial-width sign is to be used at a minor interchange, my assumption is the main point of information is about the exit configuration, not about the thru configuration.  Plus, it's on a freeway so the idea that the sign might indicate there is only one thru lane would be ludicrous and therefore doesn't even occur to me.  One thing about the Ontario signs is that the arrows aren't positioned above their respective lanes.  Saves more money and material.  But compromising by using a partial-width APL with arrows over the intended lanes would help avoid confusion.

[kphoger]

I'm not quite knowledgeable of all the terminology - what is a gore point?

Depends...  Is it theoretical?   

In some cases (including, I think, the MUTCD), a distinction is made between the "theoretical gore" and the "physical gore". The theoretical gore is the point on the pavement at which the lanes split and the neutral area forms between the through lanes and the exiting ramp lane(s). The physical gore is the actual point of separation between the mainline pavement and ramp pavement, at which there is usually grass/dirt, curb, or barrier physically separating the lanes (and near which the "exit gore" sign is placed [e.g. "Exit 36 (arrow)"]).

Yep!  Below is a helpful illustration from the MUTCD.  The theoretical gore is the point at which the trajectories of the bounding lines meet/diverge.  The physical gore, where the actual roadways meet/diverge.

In the context of this discussion: The non-Lunenfeld and Alexander option lane signing approach (i.e. the OP) places the overhead exit direction sign just in front of the theoretical gore right before the exit ramp starts to diverge. The current MUTCD signing approach puts the overhead exit direction sign at the physical gore (or at least past the theoretical gore) past the point where the option lane splits off, so at that point there is a new lane on which having a second "exit only" arrow is *technically* correct...

According to this MUTCD illustration, the theoretical gore for an option lane exit is the point at which the trajectory of the left lane stripe of the exit-only lane meets the trajectory of the edge line of the post-split edge line.  That is to say, it is not, as one might perhaps assume, the point where the hash striping begins.