Option lane with "EXIT ONLY" guide signs

[johndoe]

I've seen some good discussion on MUTCD policies here, so I was hoping to get a few Cliff Notes answers    Forgive my ignorance!  I think most of my questions relate to Chapter 3E (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm)

1.  What's the history/logic behind using diagonally UP and vertically DOWN arrows?  (I think I understand APL signs; I'm more referring to the examples like Figures 8-10 (at the gores) ).  Why weren't the stubby little arrows pointing up?  To me it feels like the down arrows are saying "I'm talking to you!", and the  up arrows are instead saying "here's where you're going".  Why the inconsistency?  I recall some practitioners saying not to combine up and down arrows, maybe they were referring only to vertical arrows?

2.  2E.19.06 says "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."  Again using gore signing of Figures 8-10 as examples, the option lane has two arrows (albeit not down arrows).  Isn't it obvious that the average driver will not know the difference in meaning between up and down arrows, and therefore will be confused why there are more arrows than lanes?  How is the driver supposed to know which lane is opening for the choice lane?

3.  Again using gore signing of Figures 8-10 as examples, the driver in the center lane sees that two lanes are "EXIT ONLY".  How in the world can a lane be referred to as an option lane and yet be signed as "EXIT ONLY"?!  I understand that the road is about to become four lanes at that point, but every driver reading that sign is on a three-lane road, and therefore the 2nd lane is NOT exit only.

4.  Has any entity tried modifying existing gore signage (since APL aren't supposed to be used in those areas) to illustrate which arrows are option lanes?  Here's a very basic idea (no idea why I chose an orange rectangle over half the arrow, but you get the picture).  Just pick some attribute that can be added to the arrows so that it's obvious that is the lane which opens.  Almost like the "dancing" arrows but hopefully more clear?

[briantroutman]

While there is some overlap in lane drop situations that could be signed with downward pointing arrows vs. diagonal upward arrows, I think the general rationale, historically, has been that downward arrows convey maintaining a course of action (i.e. "stay in this lane" ) while upward arrows suggest an active action ("exit here" ). I think that sense is confirmed by the MUTCD's instruction that upward arrows should reflect the angle that the exit ramp diverges from the mainline.

Pre APL, it was probably more logical to sign gradual freeway-freeway divides with downward arrows and exit ramps with diagonal arrows, with lots of gray area between the two extremes.

As to the example you provided, I read it slightly differently. At the point where the overhead is mounted, there are four lanes, not three: two through lanes for I-47, and two exit lanes for SR 24. It's confusing way to sign it because mere feet before that point, there are three lanes: one dedicated through lane for I-47, one option lane, and one dedicated exit for SR 24. Honestly, if we're avoiding APL, the SR 24 guide sign would probably be more accurately signed with two downward EXIT ONLY arrows–because they do point to the center of lanes from which you can only reach SR 24.

Or, if mounted further back–where there truly are three lanes–using the SR 24 guide sign as in your second example but without the I-47 pull-through would work as well. That's the way California would likely sign it.

[jakeroot]

As to the example you provided, I read it slightly differently. At the point where the overhead is mounted, there are four lanes, not three: two through lanes for I-47, and two exit lanes for SR 24. It's confusing way to sign it because mere feet before that point, there are three lanes: one dedicated through lane for I-47, one option lane, and one dedicated exit for SR 24.

But that's of little help if you're reading the sign from a distance, where there are only three lanes. Looking up and seeing four arrows and then looking down and seeing three lanes is, in the best use of the word, a bit misleading.

An APL would be the superior choice for the situations above, in both advance signage and gore-point signage, since the number of arrows stay the same throughout the length of the approach.

[riiga]

Switching to all APLs are the future and they don't need "Exit only". It seems to me the European approach from which APLs are derived is clearly superior in this case.

[jakeroot]

I would like to point out that the MUTCD (more or less) agrees with both me and Riiga, that the APL is superior:

-- At locations where an option lane is present at a multi-lane exit or split, Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs have been shown to be superior to either conventional guide signs or Diagrammatic guide signs because they convey positive direction about which destination and direction each approach lane serves, particularly for the option lane, which is otherwise difficult to clearly sign.

[jeffandnicole]

I think you are looking at these signs in a vacuum, rather than as part of a series of signs approaching the interchange.

Most likely, these will be signs prior to this, either diagrammatic, a sign over 2 lanes with the right arrow stating "Exit Only" and the left arrow being standard white on green over the center lane, or a sign stating "Right 2 Lanes", alerting a motorist to the interchange ahead. 

With those signs, the signage you are referring to becomes more clear.

[johndoe]

downward arrows convey maintaining a course of action (i.e. "stay in this lane" ) while upward arrows suggest an active action ("exit here" )

I suppose this makes sense, although Figures 2E-9 and 2E-10 show how this isn't consistent.

To jakeroot and riiga, don't misunderstand me; IMO APL make a lot of sense.  However...

Standard:
05 If existing Exit Direction and Pull-Through signs are being retained at an interchange as provided in Paragraph 4, an Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide sign shall not be used at the location of the Exit Direction and Pull-Through signs at or in the vicinity of the theoretical gore. New installations of Exit Direction and Pull-Through signs shall not be permitted in conjunction with Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs on new or reconstructed facilities.

Guidance:
06 Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs should be located at approximately 1/2 mile and 1 mile in advance of the exit or split, and at approximately 2 miles in advance of the exit or split where space is available and conditions allow.

The issue is that entities already have sign trusses at gores, and APL are NOT to be used there.  Those DOT do not want to spend extra money for entirely new truss locations.  This is why I asked about item 4.

To jeffandnicole, I can't disagree.  However, what's the point of these huge signs if they're not correct?  How is a driver to know which of the series is actually correct?

[SignBridge]

This issue has been discussed at length over the past few years on these boards. And I'll restate the opinion I've always held: As an observant driver, I had no problem with the former practice of having 2 down arrows for different routes displayed over an option lane. It was perfectly clear to me what it meant.

But the FHWA holds that this was confusing to many drivers, so in the 2009 Manual they created this (in my opinion) ridiculous confusing arrangement that the original poster was criticizing. 

And I for one, don't especially like the new APL signs as shown in the Manual because they waste too much sign space. However they might work out if designed like those on the German Autobahn with shorter arrows shown between the sign legends, without all the wasted space.

I'm eagerly waiting to see what if any modifications to this dopey set-up will be in the next edition of the MUTCD. 

[jakeroot]

This issue has been discussed at length over the past few years on these boards. And I'll restate the opinion I've always held: As an observant driver, I had no problem with the former practice of having 2 down arrows for different routes displayed over an option lane. It was perfectly clear to me what it meant.

But that's not say that every driver is as equally informed as we are. After all, we're the roadgeeks, and we're by far the minority. No one understands signs like us.

And I for one, don't especially like the new APL signs as shown in the Manual because they waste too much sign space. However they might work out if designed like those on the German Autobahn with shorter arrows shown between the sign legends, without all the wasted space.

Functionally, APLs are more informative than their down-arrow counterparts, so I'll take a tall sign any day over a short, less helpful sign. But nonetheless, I agree that the APLs, as laid out by the MUTCD, are way too tall, waste too much space, and in addition, are just ridiculously over-designed.

The issue is that entities already have sign trusses at gores, and APL are NOT to be used there.  Those DOT do not want to spend extra money for entirely new truss locations.  This is why I asked about item 4.

Good point. Seems then, that the MUTCD should permit APLs after the 1/2-mile advance warning (current wording doesn't seem to permit this), so that we could place an APL gantry right where the option lane begins to form. This seems like an optimal setup to me.

[myosh_tino]

And I for one, don't especially like the new APL signs as shown in the Manual because they waste too much sign space. However they might work out if designed like those on the German Autobahn with shorter arrows shown between the sign legends, without all the wasted space.

Or adopt how Caltrans is implementing arrow-per-lane signs by using a shorter arrow.  Using a 72-inch tall arrow just wasn't going to work in California because overhead signs have a maximum height of 120 inches.

I mean is this...

vastly inferior to this...

[johndoe]

Thanks to everyone for their responses.  I don't want this to turn into down arrow vs diagrammatics vs APL, so how about we see who has the best idea for my original point #4.  How else could option lanes be denoted with (non dancing) down arrows?

[jakeroot]

Rather than using the exact number of arrows as their are lanes, you could put up a gantry in the gore itself, with two BGSs on either side of the main support, with just a single arrow pointing up for the left sign, and a single arrow pointing up/right for the right sign, with the two destinations in between.

Once I'm off work, I'll illustrate my idea.

[SignBridge]

Jake, you've re-invented the wheel! (chuckle!) The type of sign you suggest was common in the U.S. back in the 1960's and for much longer in Calif. It's use has been discouraged since back then because errant drivers crash into the pole resulting in serious casualties. This necessitated installing crash barrels at such locations. The full-width sign bridge at gore points was the remedy for that problem. 

[jakeroot]

Jake, you've re-invented the wheel! (chuckle!) The type of sign you suggest was common in the U.S. back in the 1960's and for much longer in Calif. It's use has been discouraged since back then because errant drivers crash into the pole resulting in serious casualties. This necessitated installing crash barrels at such locations. The full-width sign bridge at gore points was the remedy for that problem. 

Shit. I probably only thought of it because I saw one in real-life, and just forgot about it.

Then again, enough barrels in the gore and maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal anymore? I mean, cars are a lot safer than they used to be.

[Mergingtraffic]

I'm not a fan of "hidden" option lanes, where the DOT doesn't tell you there is one until the very end.

The 2nd to right lane (where the US-1 Exit 68 is pointing to) is an option lane for CT-9 and US-1 but drivers don't know it. Therefore, everyone for CT-9 merges into the right most lane when they don't have to.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3194338,-72.3452096,3a,75y,267.64h,86.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa57cawGp0chVKGkXeQzggA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


I'm not a big fan of this set up either.  I-91 is 4-lanes through but the signs lead most to leave the 2nd to right lane is for CT-20 only.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.893341,-72.6441111,3a,75y,59.55h,93.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXRTNa4vayELfn-KTeXhgEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

annnd I'm ALSO not a fan of this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8941256,-72.6426519,201m/data=!3m1!1e3

At the same location, the line on the right of the option lane becomes solid at the point the lane opens up to go right off to Exit 40/CT-20.  Most drivers think solid white line: DO NOT CROSS.  If they are in the option lane hoping to get off at the exit, they may think "oh crap, I'm on the wrong side of the line and must get over to the right." When they don't have to.  It should stay a broken line.

[jakeroot]

I'm not a big fan of this set up either.  I-91 is 4-lanes through but the signs lead most to leave the 2nd to right lane is for CT-20 only.

That's why they don't allow that practice anymore. Option lanes are no longer permitted to be signed in advance with down arrow, only at the split.

Then again, white-on-green generally means "optional" so it should be assumed that you don't have to exit. But, people are pretty stupid.

[SignBridge]

I still don't understand why any driver doesn't get this. If the sign has two arrows and the right-most one says "exit only" and the left one does not, it should be obvious that the second lane goes straight or exit. If that isn't obvious to a driver, then that person shouldn't be on the highway to begin with. Shame on them for being idiots.

And I still think the FHWA created a problem where there wasn't one. To me the sign configuration that the original poster in this thread complained about is more misleading than arrows over option lanes.

[J N Winkler]

Downward arrows convey maintaining a course of action (i.e. "stay in this lane" ) while upward arrows suggest an active action ("exit here" )

I suppose this makes sense, although Figures 2E-9 and 2E-10 show how this isn't consistent.

Originally downward-pointing arrows were used for lane-drop exit direction signs and there are still some installations where that is the case.  The use of upward-pointing arrows is consistent with the "positive guidance" philosophy that came to the fore in the mid-1970's.

There has also traditionally been a fuzzily defined distinction between multilane exits and splits, with the former getting upward-pointing arrows on the exiting arm while the latter get downward-pointing arrows on both arms.

To jakeroot and riiga, don't misunderstand me; IMO APL make a lot of sense.  However...

Standard:
05 If existing Exit Direction and Pull-Through signs are being retained at an interchange as provided in Paragraph 4, an Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide sign shall not be used at the location of the Exit Direction and Pull-Through signs at or in the vicinity of the theoretical gore. New installations of Exit Direction and Pull-Through signs shall not be permitted in conjunction with Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs on new or reconstructed facilities.

Guidance:
06 Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs should be located at approximately 1/2 mile and 1 mile in advance of the exit or split, and at approximately 2 miles in advance of the exit or split where space is available and conditions allow.

The issue is that entities already have sign trusses at gores, and APL are NOT to be used there.  Those DOT do not want to spend extra money for entirely new truss locations.  This is why I asked about item 4.

I have a hard time taking pity on those state DOTs, considering how many of them joined the NCUTCD in an ill-thought-out act of civil disobedience (sending a boilerplate letter which I paraphrase "Too many suggested changes in this revision cycle; not enough time to review them; therefore we are not commenting," instead of actual comments) when the rulemaking for the 2009 MUTCD was in progress.

This said, the minimum-intervention approach to accommodating the new requirements is simply not to use APLs; they are required only for TOTSOs, and the "hiding option lane arrow" approach the MUTCD now shows requires relocating at most the truss closest to the gore point.

As for alternate treatments of the option lane arrow at the exit itself, a few have been tried, some only within the context of tachistoscope studies.  Dewar et al. did one for MTO in Ontario (report downloadable through the MTO Library) that featured a "ghost arrow" for the straight-ahead movement (similar to the two-headed arrow used on APLs, but with the straight-ahead head as an outline instead of a solid).  It was not a roaring success.  And this was with upward-pointing arrows; I've never heard of a successful attempt with downward-pointing arrows.

I frankly think a better approach would be to obtain a relaxation in the MUTCD sufficient to allow the use of "sawn-off" APLs (exiting destinations and their lane assignments only, no straight-ahead information other than one arrowhead for the branch of the option lane that goes straight ahead) for retrofit installations.  This is the way Florida DOT (for example) would like to go.

[roadfro]

I still don't understand why any driver doesn't get this. If the sign has two arrows and the right-most one says "exit only" and the left one does not, it should be obvious that the second lane goes straight or exit. If that isn't obvious to a driver, then that person shouldn't be on the highway to begin with. Shame on them for being idiots.

And I still think the FHWA created a problem where there wasn't one. To me the sign configuration that the original poster in this thread complained about is more misleading than arrows over option lanes.

I can't agree with this quote more 

I frankly think a better approach would be to obtain a relaxation in the MUTCD sufficient to allow the use of "sawn-off" APLs (exiting destinations and their lane assignments only, no straight-ahead information other than one arrowhead for the branch of the option lane that goes straight ahead) for retrofit installations.  This is the way Florida DOT (for example) would like to go.

The straight ahead arrow could just include the shield and direction banner for the straight ahead direction (maybe even at a smaller size), just for reinforcement purposes.

Actually, I think this would be a good approach for any installation involving option lanes, especially at service interchanges. The arrows could use angled shafts (similar to the elbow angled arrows used on junction assemblies) instead of curves, to make it seem less like a split. And this would also allow for the sign structure placement to return to the theoretical (painted) gore instead of the physical gore, which is more intuitive. (If you combined this signing concept with arrows designed closer in size to what Caltrans has been using for APLs, I think the idea would become more widespread.)

[lordsutch]

I frankly think a better approach would be to obtain a relaxation in the MUTCD sufficient to allow the use of "sawn-off" APLs (exiting destinations and their lane assignments only, no straight-ahead information other than one arrowhead for the branch of the option lane that goes straight ahead) for retrofit installations.  This is the way Florida DOT (for example) would like to go.

Which, of course, is what MTO uses in Ontario without any obvious driver confusion issues.

[SignBridge]

I like Mr. Winkler's suggestion too, re: the "sawn-off" APL sign. It might be a reasonable way to address this signing issue. If Florida is looking to try it, maybe they can persuade the FHWA to allow it in the next edition of the MUTCD.