Lane Merges: the Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the “WTF Is That?!”

[fwydriver405]

So, I was perusing google maps near Mobile, AL, and saw this. Google street view isn't updated, but does it really need to be to show how ugly this looks?

This actually makes a lot of sense, because it allows traffic to either yield and then safely make the quickly upcoming left turn, or use the other lane and bypass the merge without having to yield.

This configuration kind of reminds me of how some on-ramps (UK: slip ramp) join on some UK motorways when there are two lanes merging onto the motorway...

Example 1

[kphoger]

So, I was perusing google maps near Mobile, AL, and saw this. Google street view isn't updated, but does it really need to be to show how ugly this looks?

This actually makes a lot of sense, because it allows traffic to either yield and then safely make the quickly upcoming left turn, or use the other lane and bypass the merge without having to yield.

This configuration kind of reminds me of how some on-ramps (UK: slip ramp) join on some UK motorways when there are two lanes merging onto the motorway...

Example 1

Street View

[MCRoads]

Unfamiliar driver:

"Oh nice, 3 lanes that exit"


Then,
"Ah shit, why is this lane ending!!!"

Is there any point to this at all?  I would think that they would just make the right two lanes exit and be done with it.

At the Interstate 93 and I-293/Everett Turnpike split in Hooksett NH, for drivers continuing straight to I-293/Everett Turnpike SB, I never really understood why a third lane appears here, only for it to end 580 m (634 yd) after I-93 leaves the Everett Turnpike.

Why not just leave the I-293 approach at two lanes, especially since I-293 / Everett Turnpike has only two thru lanes for ~14.8 km (~9.2 mi) south of this interchange? It appears this configuration was like this for some time now, since Google Earth suggests that this has been in place since 1998.

Oh wow. I thought at first that the middle lane split into 2 lanes, which kind of made sense, but they force an extra lane out of there! That's odd...

[mrsman]

Unfamiliar driver:

"Oh nice, 3 lanes that exit"

snip


Then,
"Ah shit, why is this lane ending!!!"

snip

Is there any point to this at all?  I would think that they would just make the right two lanes exit and be done with it.

At the Interstate 93 and I-293/Everett Turnpike split in Hooksett NH, for drivers continuing straight to I-293/Everett Turnpike SB, I never really understood why a third lane appears here, only for it to end 580 m (634 yd) after I-93 leaves the Everett Turnpike.

Why not just leave the I-293 approach at two lanes, especially since I-293 / Everett Turnpike has only two thru lanes for ~14.8 km (~9.2 mi) south of this interchange? It appears this configuration was like this for some time now, since Google Earth suggests that this has been in place since 1998.

Oh wow. I thought at first that the middle lane split into 2 lanes, which kind of made sense, but they force an extra lane out of there! That's odd...

There is this sign further back:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.071213,-71.4719477,3a,75y,186.44h,86.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPKEYMJu7fSC9p0SFhOOoQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It clearly delineates the left lane for 293, the second lane for 293 or 93, and the right two lanes for 93 only.  I cannot even fathom who would even be driving in that third lane for 293.  Are there times when this split is congested  and folks who were in the third lane at the sign that I posted cut over in the last minute to make the exit for 293?  That is the only thing I can think of, the third lane will facilitate a dangerous move of a last minute cut over that at least does not need to merge in with the 293 traffic until after the split.

[wanderer2575]

There is this sign further back:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.071213,-71.4719477,3a,75y,186.44h,86.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPKEYMJu7fSC9p0SFhOOoQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It clearly delineates the left lane for 293, the second lane for 293 or 93, and the right two lanes for 93 only.  I cannot even fathom who would even be driving in that third lane for 293.  Are there times when this split is congested  and folks who were in the third lane at the sign that I posted cut over in the last minute to make the exit for 293?  That is the only thing I can think of, the third lane will facilitate a dangerous move of a last minute cut over that at least does not need to merge in with the 293 traffic until after the split.

The sign on the other side of that gantry is messed up:

https://goo.gl/maps/jvbBmz8GY64wAcNa6

"Prepare for a wicked lane merge if you're in the second left lane!"

[hotdogPi]

"Prepare for a wicked crazy lane merge if you're in the second left lane!"

Fixed, given the location of the sign.

[fillup420]

one of my local merges. I-85 in Orange county NC

[ari-s-drives]

There's a two-fer near where I grew up. If you're coming from eastbound I-580 to southbound I-680, you have about 50 meters to do a blind merge. After this, though, you have a quarter of a mile to merge into high-speed traffic before your lane exits the freeway again.

[Brandon]

May I present the Hillside Strangler as a candidate for "WTF Is That?"?

2 lanes from I-290 east
1 lane from I-294 north
1 lane from I-294 south
2 lanes from I-88 east (one on either side of I-290)
All to squeeze into 3 lanes of I-290 east of there.  Did I mention the lane drops along the way?

Western part: https://goo.gl/maps/fUuxFnQSfAniL6Tk9
Eastern part: https://goo.gl/maps/9iWZWeXduCNYjdCy8.
I-88 east: https://goo.gl/maps/u83n2H2AYttLmjGL8
I-290 east: https://goo.gl/maps/Akkav4WPzjYRA5sV9
Between Mannheim and 25th Avenue: https://goo.gl/maps/mEHYgbfBWMNDarwz8
A bit further east: https://goo.gl/maps/awTZkoPtwddczrob7

This wonderful bit of fuckery from IDOT backs up even during a pandemic.

[RobbieL2415]

MA 24. Merge from hell.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1987466,-71.0790143,3a,75y,168.32h,82.96t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZIrSpmbqN1fBFQE_c0zD7w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DZIrSpmbqN1fBFQE_c0zD7w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D124.14194%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Typical MA "fuck you, you're on you're own" merge. No room to accelerate. Traffic here is already going 65-70 in a 55,
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6841295,-71.1351827,3a,43.4y,141.49h,84.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn3Tq54xMz1S9-YsLqU6Cng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

And then when they do give you an acceleration lane, like here on the Mass Pike, its not striped, so traffic often just presses in whenever it wants to.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1933497,-71.8501269,3a,75y,61.25h,80.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5ckM70t--Fxqfx1KuDXs7A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Then we have this section of Hudson St. in Hartford that's wide enough for two lanes but no one can agree on it. Sometimes it's two, but then you get that one guy that says its one and sits dead center.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7615253,-72.6769895,3a,75y,20.24h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRQDKjzUDAqLXtP2qkr7IVg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[andrepoiy]

Then we have this section of Hudson St. in Hartford that's wide enough for two lanes but no one can agree on it. Sometimes it's two, but then you get that one guy that says its one and sits dead center.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7615253,-72.6769895,3a,75y,20.24h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRQDKjzUDAqLXtP2qkr7IVg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'd probably be the guy that sits dead centre...

[kphoger]

Then we have this section of Hudson St. in Hartford that's wide enough for two lanes but no one can agree on it. Sometimes it's two, but then you get that one guy that says its one and sits dead center.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7615253,-72.6769895,3a,75y,20.24h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRQDKjzUDAqLXtP2qkr7IVg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'd probably be the guy that sits dead centre...

2011 view

[kphoger]

And then when they do give you an acceleration lane, like here on the Mass Pike, its not striped, so traffic often just presses in whenever it wants to.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1933497,-71.8501269,3a,75y,61.25h,80.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5ckM70t--Fxqfx1KuDXs7A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Don't people merge whenever they want anyway, regardless of striping?

[deathtopumpkins]

MA 24. Merge from hell.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1987466,-71.0790143,3a,75y,168.32h,82.96t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZIrSpmbqN1fBFQE_c0zD7w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DZIrSpmbqN1fBFQE_c0zD7w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D124.14194%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

This is gone. Now all 4 lanes join, then the right lane ends. It's visible in the Dec. 2020 imagery, but there's a truck in the way of any decent view: https://goo.gl/maps/2iwiX3NGFJ8WD48j8

I liked the center lane merge better, tbh. And the northbound-to-eastbound interior lane merge is still there as of Tuesday.

[fwydriver405]

MA 24. Merge from hell.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1987466,-71.0790143,3a,75y,168.32h,82.96t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZIrSpmbqN1fBFQE_c0zD7w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DZIrSpmbqN1fBFQE_c0zD7w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D124.14194%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

This is gone. Now all 4 lanes join, then the right lane ends. It's visible in the Dec. 2020 imagery, but there's a truck in the way of any decent view: https://goo.gl/maps/2iwiX3NGFJ8WD48j8

I liked the center lane merge better, tbh. And the northbound-to-eastbound interior lane merge is still there as of Tuesday.

Let's not forget...

In MA:
- the northbound collector lanes of the Zakim Bridge coming from the Sumner Tunnel or from Cross St. wanting to go on I-93 NB was like this as well, also modified recently to only have one lane merge instead of the two like the MA 24 from I-93 examples.
- The ramp from the Mass. Pike Exit 134 to I-93 South before Exit 15 (Mass. Ave) is like the former MA 24 from I-93 lane configuration to this day. Some people like shown in this video, like to merge crossing the gore point like I've seen many times...
- I-495's northern end to I-95 North before I-95 exit 90 is like this as well.
- Many on-ramps on Soldiers Field Rd (from the Allston exit thru Harvard and the Elliot Br intersection), Storrow Drive (Charles/MGH to Storrow WB comes to mind), and the Alewife Brook Pkwy from the Elliot Br to the Route 16 intersection.

NH:
I-293 in Manchester before Exit 1, where I-93 merges with that centre lane merge
I-293 North in Hooksett where I-93 and the toll portion take over (with a special centre lane merge sign, older version from Alp's site)
I-95 in Portsmouth, both from the left (from the Portsmouth traffic circle) and right (from the Spaulding Turnpike)

...as well as one location near West Gardiner ME (I-295's northern end to I-95 North merges). The West Gardiner one has also been modified to add 2 lanes onto I-95 before ending both lanes one at a time at a decent distance. Modifed when the new West Gardiner Toll Plaza was complete.

[mrsman]

Interior lane merges are terrible.  By design, they leave little room for drivers to be able to get into proper position.  I understand when 2 2-lane roads merge into a 3-lane road that this type of merge is done so as not to give priority to either route - but it is still a problem.  Give MassDOT some kudos for fixing the merge from hell on MA 24, as mentioned above.

Perhaps the only version of interior lane merge that was done safely was the merge on the NJTP just south of exit 8A, before the road was widened some years ago.  The right lane of the left roadway merged in with the left lane of the right roadway to form the new middle lane of the 3-lane NJTP that is south of the neckdown.  Traffic on the other lanes was restricted from interfering with these two lanes (no changing lanes) and they provided a good amount of room to make the merger.  Safe merge when traffic was light, horrible merge that cause miles-long backups during busy times.  Thank goodness they widened this a few year ago to keep the dual roadway setup for several more miles south.

Here's a GSV from 2012:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3377398,-74.4793688,3a,75y,212.07h,88.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sP1CUNHc-LygPoCiHgVOcIw!2e0!5s20120601T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Here's an example of an interior lane merge that I hate, largely because it is so unnecessary.  In West Sacramento, the 2-lane CA-275 (Tower Bridge Gateway) merges in with the 3-lane US 50 to create a 4-lane US 50.  Unlike when two freeways come together, there isn't that much traffic on CA 275.  CA 275 should form one lane prior to merging with US 50 and then just merge into US 50's fourth lane.  I lived in the area, and when I was driving on CA 275, I'd always drive only in the right lane to avoid this point of merger.


https://www.google.com/maps/@38.576595,-121.5293029,3a,75y,274.33h,90.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stsDtfhT9YFHc8tAynmjR8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e3

[kphoger]

Perhaps the only version of interior lane merge that was done safely was the merge on the NJTP just south of exit 8A, before the road was widened some years ago.  The right lane of the left roadway merged in with the left lane of the right roadway to form the new middle lane of the 3-lane NJTP that is south of the neckdown.  Traffic on the other lanes was restricted from interfering with these two lanes (no changing lanes) and they provided a good amount of room to make the merger.

Reminds me of this underappreciated UK example:

So, I was perusing google maps near Mobile, AL, and saw this. Google street view isn't updated, but does it really need to be to show how ugly this looks?

This actually makes a lot of sense, because it allows traffic to either yield and then safely make the quickly upcoming left turn, or use the other lane and bypass the merge without having to yield.

This configuration kind of reminds me of how some on-ramps (UK: slip ramp) join on some UK motorways when there are two lanes merging onto the motorway...

Example 1

Street View

[DrSmith]

The merge onto Rt 24 in Randolph is better now. It was tough with the old center merge as you around those corners and there is very little sight distance and you are thrown together.

There's the center merge on Rt 42 north in NJ with the Expressway. At least the two parallel for a bit and you can see the other lane before the merge. With that distance there, an overhead sign would be helpful.

[Ned Weasel]

Interior lane merges are terrible.

That's one thing my state doesn't do that I'm really glad they don't do.

Illinois does them all over the place, and then you have those interior lane merges where you actually have three lanes merging into one: https://goo.gl/maps/53cc9rzY9edkE7XV9

Speaking of that interchanges, I'm tempted to add this to the "WTF Is That?!" category: https://goo.gl/maps/WBxysgprPU8Wy4Dc7 .  On southbound I-57, you have a lane joining the freeway as an auxiliary lane.  But, at about halfway down the length of the auxiliary lane, the stripes disappear, making it an unstriped lane.  And downstream, you have a 3 -> 2+2 split, but, thanks to the lack of striping on the auxiliary lane, there's absolutely no way to discern whether the middle lane is an option lane or the auxiliary lane fans into two lanes.  This thing is truly maddening.

[jeffandnicole]

The merge onto Rt 24 in Randolph is better now. It was tough with the old center merge as you around those corners and there is very little sight distance and you are thrown together.

There's the center merge on Rt 42 north in NJ with the Expressway. At least the two parallel for a bit and you can see the other lane before the merge. With that distance there, an overhead sign would be helpful.

A little interesting tidbit with the 42 / Expressway merge. Even though they're only separated by white lines for a short distance, the AC Expressway lanes are 65 mph and the 42 lanes are 55 mph. The 55 limit for all lanes is signed right where the lanes merge together.

[johndoe]

Unfamiliar driver:

"Oh nice, 3 lanes that exit"
[image removed]

Then,
"Ah shit, why is this lane ending!!!"
[image removed]

Is there any point to this at all?  I would think that they would just make the right two lanes exit and be done with it. 

Up until 2009, this was actually a 3 lane exit.

The thing is, once this ramp meets the mainline, the mainline becomes 5 lanes, so one lane had to end. And back then, it was the lane on the mainline that ended. I guess the traffic patterns changed as time went on and there were more cars coming from the mainline, and therefore they decided to remove one lane from this ramp.

Here's a guess: could it be that they want to minimize weaving - by ending the right rather than left the upstream freeway wouldn't be as likely to change lanes to right - maybe making it tougher for an upstream ramp to merge?  (I couldn't find the spot in Google so not sure if that's a possibility)

[johndoe]

This may be slightly off topic, but I'm always amused by the lane that appears out of the gorepoint on the stub of SR 7 (and then promptly disappears after the I-5 ramps).

Going the other way, you have two lanes end at almost the same time with minimal signage, though I doubt there's ever enough traffic for that to be a big issue.

bizarre little route, maybe years ago they expected 7 to extend further south.  You could probably argue what we see now is overbuilt considering the southern limit of the freeway, but I kind of like the NB idea: I'm seeing it like a "poor man's CD" ... anybody in lane 3 is weaving.  It would make lane changes easier and make it obvious who wants to go where (can't always trust turn signals ha!)

[mrsman]

Here is an interesting merge on eastbound Union Turnpike in Queens, NY.  There's a lot to take in here.

(Using some older GSVs as there appears to be construction that changes the situation a bit in the newer photos.)

First, you have eastbound traffic in three separate roadways: Jackie Robinson Pkwy on the innermost lanes, then Union Tpke main lanes, then Union Turnpike service lanes.  The main lanes go under Queens Blvd, and the service lanes intersect with Queens Blvd.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.714594,-73.8293753,3a,75y,55.85h,82.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seLtk_IBkm49leBBB-eWzCw!2e0!5s20180701T000000!7i13312!8i6656

At this point, any traffic from the UT service lanes must exit to the left to merge onto the UT main lanes and then merge their way all the way to the left in order to reach Van Wyck Expy north.  (traffic from the Jackie Robinson will have a right hand exit ramp that merges with this left to join in for traffic to Van Wyck north.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7148253,-73.82837,3a,75y,55.85h,82.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swHgQ1N9wifDWqSiWKNZU8w!2e0!5s20180701T000000!7i16384!8i8192

After the Van Wyck ramp exit, the two lanes of UT main merge into one, while the service lanes remain as two lanes with parking.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7153674,-73.8262842,3a,75y,38.82h,74.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSMiwH68VOx7FaY3J1EN_uw!2e0!5s20180701T000000!7i13312!8i6656

[IMO traffic would be much better if the one lane of UT main just merged with the two lane service road to become a three lane UT.  The construction seems to be doing that, but I'm not sure if that's the final configuration.]

Anyway, as you drive along a little bit more, the one lane of UT main will then split into two again.  But the right lane will force a merge into the service lanes.  And this happens right at a major point of decision.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7162396,-73.8226731,3a,75y,61.97h,66.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgUI6WAhcbPH9ULQSpfCmkw!2e0!5s20150701T000000!7i13312!8i6656

The very left lane (what was the lane from the main UT lanes) will go to Union Turnpike.  The middle lane (the left service lane and the traffic that merged in from the main lanes) will go to UT or the GC parkway entrance or to continue on the GC service lanes, and the right lane will continue on the service lanes.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7162554,-73.8218198,3a,75y,69.28h,88.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s53KaHXlTCrSuOnlpmPxm-Q!2e0!5s20150701T000000!7i13312!8i6656

And here is the point of the parkway entrance a few feet further:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7161546,-73.8209648,3a,75y,69.28h,88.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxRUOf2H30LOreqPcbN6kIw!2e0!5s20150701T000000!7i13312!8i6656

So again, all of the following means that traffic from the main UT lanes that wants either the GC parkway entrance or the service lanes has to interact with traffic from the service lanes at the very point that the service lane traffic could be going into multiple directions.  If the lane from main lanes merged in as I had stated up ahead, it would mean that instead of a last minute merge, the traffic from the UT main lanes will have the equivalent of about 2 city blocks to make a single lane change - which IMO is  a lot safer.

THe consturction does the following -- merges in the lane from main UT immediately after the Van Wyck offramp:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7158473,-73.8247332,3a,75y,64.61h,78.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6XcqtUr4_siBAKL_Z6sssg!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Producing a 3 lane UT eastbound with admittedly narrow lanes but clearly delineates where traffic ultimately goes.  Left lane to UT, right lane to GC service lane, and the middle lane to UT, GC Pkwy or GC service road.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7162916,-73.8219297,3a,75y,84.58h,63.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stQqOectHxfV7gVHB5yNWZg!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192

So I hope that when construction concludes, they basically keep the same orientation as they had during construction, except that they make all the lanes standard width.  IMO, it will make the merging here a lot safer.

[jakeroot]

This may be slightly off topic, but I'm always amused by the lane that appears out of the gorepoint on the stub of SR 7 (and then promptly disappears after the I-5 ramps).

Going the other way, you have two lanes end at almost the same time with minimal signage, though I doubt there's ever enough traffic for that to be a big issue.

bizarre little route, maybe years ago they expected 7 to extend further south.  You could probably argue what we see now is overbuilt considering the southern limit of the freeway, but I kind of like the NB idea: I'm seeing it like a "poor man's CD" ... anybody in lane 3 is weaving.  It would make lane changes easier and make it obvious who wants to go where (can't always trust turn signals ha!)

It was definitely intended to go further south, all the way to SR-512 and then down further south. Construction was paused in the late 60s and never resumed. So what we have today was originally meant to accept traffic from both S 38th St and multiple interchanges to the south as well, so it would have been about right for that. You can see from the alignment of the concrete panels that it would have been three northbound lanes, and the on-ramp from westbound 38th would have provided an auxiliary lane between that on-ramp and the northbound I-5 on-ramp. I believe the merge from the eastbound 38th (the loop) would have been a merge rather than add-lane.

[andrepoiy]

Unfamiliar driver:

"Oh nice, 3 lanes that exit"
[image removed]

Then,
"Ah shit, why is this lane ending!!!"
[image removed]

Is there any point to this at all?  I would think that they would just make the right two lanes exit and be done with it. 

Up until 2009, this was actually a 3 lane exit.

The thing is, once this ramp meets the mainline, the mainline becomes 5 lanes, so one lane had to end. And back then, it was the lane on the mainline that ended. I guess the traffic patterns changed as time went on and there were more cars coming from the mainline, and therefore they decided to remove one lane from this ramp.

Here's a guess: could it be that they want to minimize weaving - by ending the right rather than left the upstream freeway wouldn't be as likely to change lanes to right - maybe making it tougher for an upstream ramp to merge?  (I couldn't find the spot in Google so not sure if that's a possibility)

Before 2009, the right-most lane ended on the mainline. Now it's this right lane ending at this ramp shown. There is no weaving in any situation.