High Five question

[Tom958]

Yesterday in "there is NO way that is MUTCD compliant" on Facebook (yeah, I know), someone posted a complaint about the signage from eastbound I-635 to US 75. On the 635 mainline, the ramp is two lanes signed thusly:

EDIT: Thanks, CtrlAltDel!

https://maps.app.goo.gl/RpeLpSGmp1NisvEC9

Poster dude says that the ramp is often congested because drivers believe that the EXIT ONLY panel over the right lane indicates that the right lane is exclusively for traffic headed south on US 75 and that only one lane is available for heading north even though in fact both lanes serve northbound traffic and the southbound ramp splits off to the right:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/5sJiWDgQcmg2WdGW8

I replied, with some patient elaboration, that the signage was correct and that he was getting upset over nothing. He went off on me, and I replied that, while I believe his contention that the ramp is congested, I find it hard to believe that drivers who are familiar with the ramp would sit in backed-up traffic in the left lane day after day rather than learning to book past it in the right lane. That is, whatever congestion there is must be caused by something else.

The reason I'm posting this here instead of in the traffic control forum is to hear a local perspective: Does it appear that the congestion there is, in fact, caused by misinterpretation of the signage as poster dude contends? If so, would something like this this classic bit of Californicana be worth a try?

[CtrlAltDel]

I have to admit I find the sign misleading. If I were not familiar with the area, I would stay out of the rightmost of the two lanes if I were taking the exit to north US-75.


A similar thing happens on north I-355 exiting to I-88 in the Chicago area. The signs look like this:


But in fact, both lanes will take you to east I-88.

Now whether either set of signs is compliant with the MUTCD, I couldn't say, since there are a number of vagaries there I'm not familiar with, but I would definitely say both of them are misleading or perhaps even inaccurate.

[Tom958]

I have to admit I find the sign misleading. If I were not familiar with the area, I would stay out of the rightmost of the two lanes if I were taking the exit to north US-75.

As would I. However, surely a large majority of the people who use this ramp are familiar enough with it to use the right lane to head toward McKinney if the left lane is backed up. Or are they? That's what I was asking about.

Now whether either set of signs is compliant with the MUTCD, I couldn't say, since there are a number of vagaries there I'm not familiar with, but I would definitely say both of them are misleading or perhaps even inaccurate.

Oh, it's definitely noncompliant due to my least favorite aspect of the 2009 MUTCD:



I'm not at all sure that putting one big EXIT ONLY panel across the bottom of the unisign would clarify things, but maybe it would.

An APL would be correct here, but if one were used they probably wouldn't attempt to show the ramp split. Or they could use conventional signage that doesn't show the split. That'd solve the issue at hand, but it would probably cause some Dallas-bound drivers to have to make a late rightward lane change.

As far as it being misleading, yes, it is, but it's a white lie. The sign specifies a lane to reach each destination but doesn't bother showing exactly what every lane does. Given a choice between that and causing some Dallas-bound drivers to have to make a late rightward lane change, I and TxDOT would prefer the former. 

[CtrlAltDel]

I have to admit I find the sign misleading. If I were not familiar with the area, I would stay out of the rightmost of the two lanes if I were taking the exit to north US-75.

As would I. However, surely a large majority of the people who use this ramp are familiar enough with it to use the right lane to head toward McKinney if the left lane is backed up. Or are they? That's what I was asking about.

I'm not local to the area, but I am (or was) local to that other area I mentioned, and there it is common for people going to east I-88 to stay out of the left lane. I often use that lane, though, since I know it goes through, and once the traffic for west I-88 branches off, I almost always have a nice bit of open road to myself to the merge with east I-88. If I were to put it in numbers, I would hazard to guess that the ratio for east I-88 is 1:9 between the left and right lanes. So, I would not be surprised if it were similar with the I-635 / US-75 situation.

As far as signing solutions, while definitely not MUTCD compliant, I wonder if something like this would work:


I'm also partial to half arrows, although I stand pretty much alone in that regard:

[-- US 175 --]

What about just US 75 and the controls

75
McKinney
Dallas

and wherever the arrows need to go.  Then wait till the signage where the gore point split is at the top of the ramp before you put up exact directions and the leftward/rightward arrows.  May not be MUTCD-correct, but the confusion may be lessened compared to the current sign assembly.

[BJ59]

A solution could be to sign it like this, at the I-35E and PGBT intersection.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.9751878,-96.9329901,3a,21.8y,355.21h,92.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soBXMxDaDAwVbyyeu11xGLg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Then it splits off further up the flyover
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.9780461,-96.9333223,3a,75y,15.46h,96.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srLCefzLOT9ahLVCSx225Bw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

(This might be a bad example because nobody uses the southbound ramp to I-35E but the signage is a good example)

Of course that sign itself could create congestion from any Southbound US-75 traffic in the left lane trying to merge right to exit.
Other than that, there's probably no good way to fix the congestion issue. The issue is probably from there being so many cars exiting from I-635 to US-75, and not as much in the signage.

[Road Hog]

It virtually doesn't matter because the 2 lanes are merged into 1 shortly after the split. One APL should be more accurate and better.

[The Ghostbuster]

Is Texas ever going to renumber US 75's exits north of the High Five Interchange to mileage-based? I think it should have happened when the segment south of 635 was reconstructed and had its exits renumbered. I would expect that the exit numbers going from 8 to 20 likely causes confusion.

[Ellie]

Is Texas ever going to renumber US 75's exits north of the High Five Interchange to mileage-based? I think it should have happened when the segment south of 635 was reconstructed and had its exits renumbered. I would expect that the exit numbers going from 8 to 20 likely causes confusion.

Maybe when it becomes an Interstate?

[The Ghostbuster]

I think a better question is if it becomes an Interstate. Outside of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, suggesting that US 69 would become an Interstate after being upgraded to Interstate Standards, US 69 is still far from Interstate Standards along its entire length within the state of Oklahoma. According to the Interstate 45 page at the Interstate Guide: "There are no formal plans to extend Interstate 45 northward from Dallas into Oklahoma." Until such formal plans become a reality, an Interstate 45 northern extension is as likely to happen as an Interstate 45 southern extension further into Galveston along TX 87.

[Bobby5280]

The bits of new US-69 freeway segments getting built in Oklahoma (Calera-Durant, McAlester) do meet modern Interstate standards. The problem is the older "legacy" freeway segments. The freeway immediately North of the Red River in Colbert has some outdated ramp and bridge designs. The same goes for the US-69/75 freeway going thru Durant and up to Caddo.

The freeway segment that starts North of McAlester, crosses I-40 and ends near the Southern outskirts of Muskogee looks like it had proper ramp geometry and shoulder widths to qualify for an I-shield. The only bad thing about the highway is a big part of it was built like one of the old Oklahoma turnpikes, where the opposing roadways are butted up next to each other and separated by a Jersey barrier.

The biggest problem with any effort extending I-45 into/thru Oklahoma is the stubborn gaps. The Tushka-Atoka-Stringtown stretch is a bad one. And then there's public resistance to a freeway in/near Muskogee (ODOT could always route US-69 farther West outside city limits).

If officials at ODOT or in the state government wanted to do so they could sign bits of I-45 in Oklahoma right now. That one segment crossing I-40 seems to be up to Interstate standards. If that segment was signed it might provide some momentum to get the freeway upgrade project in McAlester finished and get the freeway extended down past Savanna and the entrance to the Army Ammunition Plant.

[-- US 175 --]

The city of Sherman has come out and said they want to pursue interstate status for US 75 once the current construction work there is completed.  They haven't said more yet, that I've heard.

[ran4sh]

Is Texas ever going to renumber US 75's exits north of the High Five Interchange to mileage-based? I think it should have happened when the segment south of 635 was reconstructed and had its exits renumbered. I would expect that the exit numbers going from 8 to 20 likely causes confusion.

Do US routes (or state routes) in Texas use Interstate-standard mileposts? The state reference system I am aware of, is non-compliant for at least 2 reasons (1) Mileage for north-south routes starts from the north and increases going south (2) At county lines, the reference number jumps to a whole number - this prevents the "reset at county line" issue that exists in some states, but causes inaccurate overall mileage count since a whole number is being used to represent just a fraction of a mile. I.e. if a county line were at mile 15.5, then the mile 16 sign would be at that county line, only 0.5 miles from mile 15, instead of the full 1 mile that would result from ignoring county lines.

[BJ59]

The city of Sherman has come out and said they want to pursue interstate status for US 75 once the current construction work there is completed.  They haven't said more yet, that I've heard.

What are the benefits of converting US-75 to an interstate? Does the federal government maintain it or give money? Why not just leave it as US-75? I feel like converting it to an interstate number would be an injustice as US-75 has historically been iconic in DFW.

[Ellie]

The city of Sherman has come out and said they want to pursue interstate status for US 75 once the current construction work there is completed.  They haven't said more yet, that I've heard.

What are the benefits of converting US-75 to an interstate? Does the federal government maintain it or give money? Why not just leave it as US-75? I feel like converting it to an interstate number would be an injustice as US-75 has historically been iconic in DFW.

I-45 ending in Dallas is somewhat weird, and a much more natural terminus would be Big Cabin in Oklahoma, given how that road is just a straight continuation of I-45 and heavily-used by long-distance traffic.

[SkyPesos]

Here's OhioDOT's solution to this similar configuration, where there's two lanes leaving a mainline freeway then splitting ahead, with the right lane as an option lane: https://maps.app.goo.gl/dL6GmpELNB6w8fsq8

Not the best, but it's more clear than what is in the op for US 75.

[ran4sh]

Here's OhioDOT's solution to this similar configuration, where there's two lanes leaving a mainline freeway then splitting ahead, with the right lane as an option lane: https://maps.app.goo.gl/dL6GmpELNB6w8fsq8

Not the best, but it's more clear than what is in the op for US 75.

The signage there to indicate both EB and WB I-70 separately, but on the same sign, is probably worthy of another thread. It's similar to how, on I-285, the exits to GA 400 have "north/south" on them, instead of leaving the directions off entirely.