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

[SoDakInterstateEnthusiast]

Why don't option lane BGSs look like this

[1995hoo]

Who says they don't look like that?

[Mapmikey]

or here in Virginia - https://goo.gl/maps/FkkqbbGdA2Jx9w9DA

You might consider this not the same but here's one on an APL assembly - https://goo.gl/maps/8HjfzBsyqJYbM1vq8

[SoDakInterstateEnthusiast]

Who says they don't look like that?

or here in Virginia - https://goo.gl/maps/FkkqbbGdA2Jx9w9DA

You might consider this not the same but here's one on an APL assembly - https://goo.gl/maps/8HjfzBsyqJYbM1vq8

Oh

I guess I say they don't look like that. And I'm wrong

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

[Rothman]

Who says they don't look like that?

or here in Virginia - https://goo.gl/maps/FkkqbbGdA2Jx9w9DA

You might consider this not the same but here's one on an APL assembly - https://goo.gl/maps/8HjfzBsyqJYbM1vq8

Oh

I guess I say they don't look like that. And I'm wrong

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

Weird.  Signs with white on green for the option lane and black on yellow for the exit only lane are common.  That said, NYSDOT botched it at I-690 EB at Bridge St/Thompson Rd/NY 635.

[wanderer2575]

Michigan says "hello":

https://goo.gl/maps/ZMRWX3oKU7VW6MZD8
https://goo.gl/maps/SJdN65Eb3v8N4jVf8

What irritates me is that, because these aren't considered "major" interchanges, none of the advance signage indicates there is an option lane.  I've vented about that elsewhere.

[kphoger]

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.)

[fhmiii]

I-85 SB just north of Atlanta:

https://goo.gl/maps/sPi8i9caiV9RnP568

I-29 SB just north of Riverside, MO:

https://goo.gl/maps/aGF7JMPGVnJcgZjk9

[kphoger]

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.

[Scott5114]

In Oklahoma, the thing to do used to be to post them both as option lanes...


(photo by Eric Stuve)

[J N Winkler]

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?

The approach to signing option lanes the OP is talking about has never been diagrammed in the MUTCD.  I have always understood it to be permitted in the 2003 and earlier editions because the manual never actually defined the term multilane exit, thus permitting a yellow "EXIT ONLY" patch to be used at exits where the ramp receives traffic from an option lane as well as a dropped lane.

The approach the MUTCD actually showed (up to 2003) originated in a 1976 FHWA report, Harold Lunenfeld and Gerson Alexander's Signing Treatments for Interchange Lane Drops.  It does not use yellow patches at all for lane drops that involve an option lane.

[Rothman]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

I prefer that minor ambiguity to showing a lane as exit only when it really is just an option lane.

[webny99]

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.

I prefer that minor ambiguity to showing a lane as exit only when it really is just an option lane.

I have to agree. I would take the Kansas signage a thousand times over the atrocities that exist currently in a similar configuration at I-490/I-590/NY 590 (see here ).

[Shedingtonian]

I have to agree. I would take the Kansas signage a thousand times over the atrocities that exist currently in a similar configuration at I-490/I-590/NY 590 (see here ).

That is awful... Not only does it have the same issue that SoDakInterstateEnthusiast originally complained about, but also completely wrong arrows and text.

What should be done there, though? I'm talking about the EXIT ONLY tab under I-590. Leave only the down arrow? Put the text above the arrow?

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.

Another question I have is, why does the sign in the MUTCD look like that, and not like the sign at the start of the thread, when states DO display option lanes like in the sign at the start of the thread?

[kphoger]

Another question I have is, why does the sign in the MUTCD look like that, and not like the sign at the start of the thread, when states DO display option lanes like in the sign at the start of the thread?

Signage as in the OP was supposedly found to be confusing to drivers in its own way, and the confusion caused by the new way was apparently preferable.  That is to say, confusion prompting a straight-through driver to unnecessarily change from one continuing lane into a different continuing lane wasn't seen to be such a big deal as we roadgeeks make it out to be.

Winkler:  do you have a link to the actual study?

[J N Winkler]

Signage as in the OP was supposedly found to be confusing to drivers in its own way, and the confusion caused by the new way was apparently preferable.  That is to say, confusion prompting a straight-through driver to unnecessarily change from one continuing lane into a different continuing lane wasn't seen to be such a big deal as we roadgeeks make it out to be.

Winkler:  do you have a link to the actual study?

I am not aware that a study was ever performed to test the "hide the option lane" approach the MUTCD currently recommends for exits with option lanes that are not signed with APLs.

In the years before the 2009 MUTCD was drafted, the NCUTCD's Guide and Motorist Information Signing Technical Committee (GMITC) considered the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach used by many state DOTs (the one that results in guide signs like that shown in the OP) and found it to be unsatisfactory for the reasons you cite.  For the exit direction sign, they recommended the solution that is now shown in the MUTCD, i.e., "EXIT ONLY" for all lane assignment arrows at a location just past the theoretical gore point.  However, I think FHWA came up with "hide the option lane" for the advance guide signs all on its own.

Although the NCUTCD website has a meetings archive that runs back to 2004, GMITC papers are now viewable only by members.  I recall that the key conversation about non-Lunenfeld & Alexander signs occurred around 2005, while the tachistoscope research that was used to justify APLs occurred shortly before the NPRM for the 2009 MUTCD was released in 2007.

[Shedingtonian]

To me, option lanes were a difficult enough subject for me to wrap my head around when I first found out about them. Once I did, though, I found the OP to be a good enough approach as to their signage.

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?

[kphoger]

To me, option lanes were a difficult enough subject for me to wrap my head around when I first found out about them. Once I did, though, I found the OP to be a good enough approach as to their signage.

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?

I personally think overhead APL is preferable to diagrammatic for advance signage.  I dislike pretty much any signage approach that requires me to count how many lanes over I am from the edge.

[kphoger]

So, I guess the simple answer to the question in the OP is this:  because no illustration in the MUTCD looks like that.

[webny99]

So, I guess the simple answer to the question in the OP is this:  because no illustration in the MUTCD looks like that.

However, Ohio is an exception, as many option lane BGSs do look like that in Ohio.

I have to agree. I would take the Kansas signage a thousand times over the atrocities that exist currently in a similar configuration at I-490/I-590/NY 590 (see here ).

That is awful... Not only does it have the same issue that SoDakInterstateEnthusiast originally complained about, but also completely wrong arrows and text.

What should be done there, though? I'm talking about the EXIT ONLY tab under I-590. Leave only the down arrow? Put the text above the arrow?

I would support replacing the entire works with an APL at this location.

With the existing sign, though, just removing the EXIT (down arrow) ONLY from the 590 NB sign and replacing it with a standard down arrow would be an improvement. It's clear that both that arrow and the rightmost arrow on the I-490 sign are pointing to the second-from-right lane.

[kphoger]

So, I guess the simple answer to the question in the OP is this:  because no illustration in the MUTCD looks like that.

However, Ohio is an exception, as many option lane BGSs do look like that in Ohio.

Well yes, it's been pointed out that a lot of places actually sign them like this–and especially used to.  But I guess doing so was never actually compliant with the MUTCD to begin with.

[epzik8]

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

[1995hoo]

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

Do you get confused in Maryland on the Outer Loop approaching I-270?

(BTW, I like the way that sign has a black border around the "Exit Only" portion.)