MUTCD gripes

[Eth]

The "incorrect examples" posted from the MUTCD are actually very correct, and are based on placement of the sign. If you'll notice, the sign is located overhead right at the gore point, where each lane is clearly identifiable.

I don't know about you, but given that I don't tend to look straight up at signs while driving, this seems of limited usefulness to me. Particularly in congested scenarios where the road beyond the gore point may in fact not be very visible from your current location.

[jakeroot]

How about we just dump down arrows and exit only messages entirely, and just move to up arrows pointing in the correct direction?

Seconded.

Thanks. You know I prefer the Nordic method.

The problem is that the 2009 vanilla MUTCD has no way of showing option lanes prior to the lane split on overhead signage. The overhead signage only shows the dropped lane; the only indications that an option lane exists are arrows painted on the pavement and small R3-8 signs posted on the side of the road. That to me is misleading. It's shown on page 24 of this PDF.

The Utah version of the MUTCD solves this problem by using the partial APLs posted above, and also scrapping the R3-8 signs. See pages 278 and 279 of the Utah MUTCD. (warning: large PDF file size)

Option lane signage with down arrows were replaced with APLs. Full stop. You can still advertise option lanes prior to the split, you just have to use up arrows. Utah has circumvented this new requirement by inventing a variation that combines the original style, with down arrows, with up arrows. I'm not sure what the FHWA has to say about it, but I don't see any issues. The big positive of the new partial APL is that there is exactly as many arrowheads as there are movements. The old style had one arrow for a lane that did two things. Personally, I'm not a fan of that, regardless of how "successfully" it was used in the past.

[Scott5114]

One unfortunate side effect of the ban on dancing arrows is OkDOT's new favorite practice of just putting a small pullthrough at the left side of a gantry reading something along the lines of "I-35 South, Left 3 Lanes". It's hard to see how being forced to count lanes while navigating is any better than an arrow being at an angle other than 90°.

[paulthemapguy]

The "incorrect examples" posted from the MUTCD are actually very correct, and are based on placement of the sign. If you'll notice, the sign is located overhead right at the gore point, where each lane is clearly identifiable.

I don't know about you, but given that I don't tend to look straight up at signs while driving, this seems of limited usefulness to me. Particularly in congested scenarios where the road beyond the gore point may in fact not be very visible from your current location.

THANK YOU LOL.  Pretty sure signs aren't designed for motorists who are 0.0 feet away.

[kphoger]

The "incorrect examples" posted from the MUTCD are actually very correct, and are based on placement of the sign. If you'll notice, the sign is located overhead right at the gore point, where each lane is clearly identifiable.

I don't know about you, but given that I don't tend to look straight up at signs while driving, this seems of limited usefulness to me. Particularly in congested scenarios where the road beyond the gore point may in fact not be very visible from your current location.

THANK YOU LOL.  Pretty sure signs aren't designed for motorists who are 0.0 feet away.

Of course not.  That's why signs placed at the gore point are in fact designed to be read by drivers who haven't gotten there yet.  (That doesn't negate Eth's point about the lanes beyond the gore point not being very visible from your current location.)

[Mergingtraffic]

The basic idea is to "hide" the option lane so that an arrow (with accompanying "Exit Only" panel/patch) for the added lane after the diverge is visible only on an exit direction sign that is itself situated after the diverge.  Many agencies have cantilever sign structures situated upstream of the diverge to accommodate old-school non-Lunenfeld & Alexander signs, and I suspect at least some of them have been fudging by simply putting the option lane arrow in black against yellow in an otherwise carbon-copied design.

I never understood that logic.  In cases where this happens (and CT does this a lot) it forces drivers to possibly unecessarily change into a right hand lane (if the exit is on the right) when they don't really have to and thus backing up traffic.  Only to find up ahead at that they could've simply stayed in the option lane.

Also, quick clarifying question: I assume the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach is something like this, with the dropped lane in yellow and the option lane outside the "exit only" yellow section:

I still say the best way to sign an option lane is to have an individual separate sign over each lane.  It may be more complex but I think drivers get mixed up over the large overhead signage.  In the pic above  i can see thru drivers merging to the left from the "3rd lane from the right option lane" because they think "oh that lane is for US-6" even though there's a white arrow over the green portion of the sign.

[kphoger]

↓ ↓   This remains true, it seems.   ↓ ↓

none of the existing options for signing lane drops with option lanes hits a home run. 

[jakeroot]

Also, quick clarifying question: I assume the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach is something like this, with the dropped lane in yellow and the option lane outside the "exit only" yellow section:

I still say the best way to sign an option lane is to have an individual separate sign over each lane.  It may be more complex but I think drivers get mixed up over the large overhead signage.  In the pic above  i can see thru drivers merging to the left from the "3rd lane from the right option lane" because they think "oh that lane is for US-6" even though there's a white arrow over the green portion of the sign.

You can't really blame them. Pull-through signs ostensibly point to "only" lanes, but use white arrows instead of black. Unless we want everyone to second-guess white-on-green arrows, we need to figure out a scheme that's less "grey", as in the above sign. Seriously, if that lane on the left goes to more than just US-6/UT-156, why doesn't it say as much?

[vdeane]

Why would it say as much?  I generally assume that a lane continues as a through lanes unless there's a black on yellow "exit only" sign, I know the lane configuration is otherwise, or some other signage (such as a "lane ends" sign or through lanes being marked but not including that one) shows that it isn't.

[jakeroot]

Why would it say as much?  I generally assume that a lane continues as a through lanes unless there's a black on yellow "exit only" sign, I know the lane configuration is otherwise, or some other signage (such as a "lane ends" sign or through lanes being marked but not including that one) shows that it isn't.

I just explained above. Pull through signs use white on green arrows, and they aren't option lanes (except in a few municipalities when butted up against a sign like the one above, with two arrows over one lane). How would anyone know where else that left lane went?

[vdeane]

But they aren't exit lanes, either.  For me, the default in through unless told otherwise.  Is that not normal?  Or are people so bad at navigating these days that they constantly need to be told where every single lane goes?

[jeffandnicole]

Why would it say as much?  I generally assume that a lane continues as a through lanes unless there's a black on yellow "exit only" sign, I know the lane configuration is otherwise, or some other signage (such as a "lane ends" sign or through lanes being marked but not including that one) shows that it isn't.

I just explained above. Pull through signs use white on green arrows, and they aren't option lanes (except in a few municipalities when butted up against a sign like the one above, with two arrows over one lane). How would anyone know where else that left lane went?

Pull thru signs often don't use white on green arrows.  The vast majority don't, unless is a very major interchange where the additional arrows may be of use.

It's an extremely clear exit sign - Exit Number, Exit Tab, Distance to Exit.  It can't really be mistaken.  And it's extremely rare for any sort of pull-thru sign to be used alongside a 1 Mile ahead sign anyway.

But they aren't exit lanes, either.  For me, the default in through unless told otherwise.  Is that not normal?  Or are people so bad at navigating these days that they constantly need to be told where every single lane goes?

Am I allowed to write "Yes" in a 500 point large text here?

[kphoger]

But they aren't exit lanes, either.  For me, the default in through unless told otherwise.  Is that not normal?  Or are people so bad at navigating these days that they constantly need to be told where every single lane goes?

Am I allowed to write "Yes" in a 500 point large text here?

Well, you shouldn't be allowed to, because it was an either-or question, not a yes-no question.
Are you agreeing that it's perfectly acceptable to make his assumption, or are you agreeing that people are stupid?

[jakeroot]

But they aren't exit lanes, either.  For me, the default in through unless told otherwise.  Is that not normal?  Or are people so bad at navigating these days that they constantly need to be told where every single lane goes?

I'm referring mostly to "only" situations, not exits per se.

Nevertheless, I assume everyone is an idiot.

[jeffandnicole]

Does shortening the quoted passage make it clearer?

are you agreeing that people are stupid?

Yes.

[Mergingtraffic]

I-91 by mergingtraffic, on Flickr

Case in point, in this pic the left 4-lanes continue straight for I-91.  People think only the left 3-lanes do because the 4th lane is on the "exit" sign.  I don't think they make the connection.   So people change lanes when they don't have to.

If every lane had a separate sign over it saying which lane for which route (I-91 or CT-20 or both) with an arrow (kind of like how they paint shields in every individual lane), it would be clearer.  Yes, you have to dumb things down for motorists.

[kphoger]

I-91 by mergingtraffic, on Flickr

Case in point, in this pic the left 4-lanes continue straight for I-91.  People think only 3-lanes do because the 4th lane is on the "exit" sign.  I don't think they make the connection.   So people change lanes when they don't have to.

If every lane had a sign over it here, it would be clearer.  Yes, you have to dumb things down for motorists.

An APL would do nicely there, IMO.

[jeffandnicole]

I-91 by mergingtraffic, on Flickr

Case in point, in this pic the left 4-lanes continue straight for I-91.  People think only the left 3-lanes do because the 4th lane is on the "exit" sign.  I don't think they make the connection.   So people change lanes when they don't have to.

If every lane had a separate sign over it saying which lane for which route (I-91 or CT-20 or both) with an arrow (kind of like how they paint shields in every individual lane), it would be clearer.  Yes, you have to dumb things down for motorists.

That's an erroneous sign then that shouldn't have been used as such.  A wider sign with the 4th arrow, or a pull-thru sign without arrows would've made way more sense here.

This is now an APL, but coming off the Delaware Memorial Bridge into NJ motorists were greeted with this:  https://goo.gl/maps/MwDwrRKHrUK2 (The small arrows lined up better with the lane than it appears in this GSV shot). From my observations, while signage on the bridge stated "NJ TPK, US 40, Left 2 lanes", those coming off the bridge appeared to have no issues understanding the right-center lane was an option lane.

[jakeroot]

An APL would do nicely there, IMO.

I think the FHWA would agree, as that's the requirement now. I would also prefer an APL.

That's an erroneous sign then that shouldn't have been used as such.  A wider sign with the 4th arrow, or a pull-thru sign without arrows would've made way more sense here.

The sign was designed properly. Pull-throughs with arrows are quite common, and the spacing between arrows is correct.

While I have problems with down arrows, there is a good version: MnDOT's vertical divider placed above the arrow allows the correct number of lanes and no guessing, since I think most drivers interpret a divider above their lane as meaning "two options".

[J N Winkler]

That's an erroneous sign then that shouldn't have been used as such.  A wider sign with the 4th arrow, or a pull-thru sign without arrows would've made way more sense here.

The sign was designed properly. Pull-throughs with arrows are quite common, and the spacing between arrows is correct.

Actually, Jeffandnicole is correct--this assembly is not designed properly according to the pre-2009 criteria, which call for the pull-through to have an arrow over the fourth lane to indicate the option to go straight.  The classic Lunenfeld & Alexander approach would also eliminate the "Exit Only" panel on the advance guide sign for the exit.

While I have problems with down arrows, there is a good version: MnDOT's vertical divider placed above the arrow allows the correct number of lanes and no guessing, since I think most drivers interpret a divider above their lane as meaning "two options".

Yes.  This solution would also work well in this location.

[jakeroot]

That's an erroneous sign then that shouldn't have been used as such.  A wider sign with the 4th arrow, or a pull-thru sign without arrows would've made way more sense here.

The sign was designed properly. Pull-throughs with arrows are quite common, and the spacing between arrows is correct.

Actually, Jeffandnicole is correct--this assembly is not designed properly according to the pre-2009 criteria, which calls for the pull-through to have an arrow over the fourth lane to indicate the option to go straight.  The classic Lunenfeld & Alexander approach would also eliminate the "Exit Only" panel on the advance guide sign for the exit.

Ahh, thanks. I was thinking "one arrow per lane" was correct for down arrows, but now I remember why I'm not a giant fan of traditional down arrows.

[SignBridge]

I-91 by mergingtraffic, on Flickr



I would eliminate the confusion by deleting the arrows from the "pull-through" sign. That would eliminate the potential confusion and still have the exit signed clearly.

[jakeroot]

I would eliminate the confusion by deleting the arrows from the "pull-through" sign. That would eliminate the potential confusion and still have the exit signed clearly.

That still wouldn't eliminate the confusion related to the single arrow going multiple places. If I'm expected to tie the white arrow on the exit sign to both the destination on the exit sign and the pull-through, which without arrows would be farther off to the left than it already is (in the above photo), I'm probably going to get it wrong at-speed. Or at least falsely assume the wrong thing.

Remember, drivers are idiots. Don't let them assume anything. Most drivers are going to assume that white arrows go to the destination on the sign they are attached.

[SignBridge]

As an alternative, we could eliminate the pull-through sign altogether and just leave the existing exit sign in place which works fine for me. It's what our friend JNW calls a classic Non L & A type sign. We have some of those here on Long Island and I have no problem with this type of signing.

[jeffandnicole]

I'm a bit surprised at the confusing your expressing Jake. These signs have been the standard design for an option lane for decades, with a general non-arrow pull thru next to it. I can't recall seeing any confusion whatsoever, as some people turn for the exit, and some continue straight. I would be shocked if you don't encounter some of these on your normal drives.