I write to the CTDOT quite often about different projects/improvements etc and they are always helpful and write back thoughful responses....
With that said, my next quest is to ask about the "Exit Only" sign policies.
I noticed at expressway interchanges where drivers of a certain lane have an option to stay on the current expressway or to exit, the signage indicates that you have to move over to the farthest right or lefthand lane, when often that is not the case. Drivers can stay in the middle lane and either stay straight or exit.
For example, if you have a three lane roadway that splits, two lanes exit to the right and two stay straight, the middle lane would diverge, where you could either stay straight or exit. The CTDOT signage says that only the right farthest lane will "exit only" with no arrow for the middle lane. It makes some drivers switch lanes unneccesarily.
There is one instance where the DOT signs such interchanges correctly and that is here on I-91.....so how would you describe this Route 20 Exit 40 sign to the DOT folk to encourage them to install more? Note: the left arrow on green background and only the right arrow/lane is signed "exit only" It's common in other states but not in CT. I couldn't find it in the traffic manual from the FWHA.
http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=windsor+locks,+ct&sll=37.439974,-95.712891&sspn=39.694934,92.8125&ie=UTF8&ll=41.893429,-72.644048&spn=0,359.969187&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.893373,-72.644154&panoid=h8FMRqV5_ITPU6hrXTZucg&cbp=12,47.34,,0,-5.97 (http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=windsor+locks,+ct&sll=37.439974,-95.712891&sspn=39.694934,92.8125&ie=UTF8&ll=41.893429,-72.644048&spn=0,359.969187&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.893373,-72.644154&panoid=h8FMRqV5_ITPU6hrXTZucg&cbp=12,47.34,,0,-5.97)
GDOT, they're hot and cold. I write to them a lot -- not as much now -- and they've made some changes to some things. I still don't like how lanes just end without any notification. I wished they'd (GDOT) use a diagonal arrow and dashed lines all the way to the end of the lane, to help drivers know that they have to merge right or left, respectively.
Be well,
Bryant
Tell the DOT to add a white arrow? Optional lane arrow?
I tried once in the past to get MoDOT to change the signs on EB US 40 between Mason Road and I-270. Problem was the auxiliary lane between Mason and I-270 would overload with stop and go traffic, only to open up once the auxiliary lane divided into two lanes, one for each direction on I-270. Unfortunately, my request seemed to have gotten lost somewhere. I've heard last year from a MoDOT worker that the new up shared straight/right arrow option in the MUTCD for guide signs will help with this general optional lane signage problem.
But there's also a somewhat irritating way PennDOT takes care of the problem, but the coloring creates another issue:
http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=&g=windsor+locks,+ct&ie=UTF8&ll=40.292244,-76.881359&spn=0,359.978027&t=k&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.292324,-76.88134&panoid=OhkSQTMgN6oGcs_39iNqng&cbp=12,12.98,,0,-8.49 (http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=&g=windsor+locks,+ct&ie=UTF8&ll=40.292244,-76.881359&spn=0,359.978027&t=k&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.292324,-76.88134&panoid=OhkSQTMgN6oGcs_39iNqng&cbp=12,12.98,,0,-8.49)
Quote from: doofy103 on June 14, 2009, 08:30:37 PM
There is one instance where the DOT signs such interchanges correctly and that is here on I-91.....so how would you describe this Route 20 Exit 40 sign to the DOT folk to encourage them to install more? Note: the left arrow on green background and only the right arrow/lane is signed "exit only" It's common in other states but not in CT. I couldn't find it in the traffic manual from the FWHA.
In California, that type of advanced exit sign would would look like...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F2Lane_Adv_RtOnly.jpg&hash=759c689ddc4b1cc4fa5a575e610a660c6b66bfb2)
and the corresponding guide sign at the exit would be...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F2Lane_RtOnly.jpg&hash=c57cb2133f500b96a1b8dfc7e80201c0abd7ed92)
Of course, our signing standards are far from the norm :biggrin:
There is actually a problem with the signing at I-91/SR 20 as shown in the Street View extract: the "straight ahead" option for the optional lane is not shown. On the left-hand pull-through sign there are three downward-pointing arrows for the through lanes, but the optional lane is actually a fourth through lane, and would be signed as such in the classic Lunenfeld & Alexander scenario (two closely spaced arrows, each on a separate sign, to indicate the option). The sign on right is a non-Lunenfeld & Alexander advance guide sign which is designed for use without a pull-through sign having downward-pointing arrows at lane drops with an optional lane.
It would be much better if the pull-through sign did not have downward-pointing arrows.
Re. sending an email to ConnDOT, it should be enough to say that it would be helpful if optional lanes were consistently indicated on advance guide and exit direction signs. You could provide examples (using Street View) of interchanges with optional lanes which are signed as ordinary lane drops, and one example of a correctly signed lane drop with an optional lane. I personally wouldn't use I-91/SR 20 unless there wasn't a better example elsewhere in Connecticut.
(I wouldn't recommend using the terms "Lunenfeld & Alexander" in the email because they are a reference to a 1976 study on lane drop and lane split signing which was done for FHWA by Harold Lunenfeld and Gerson Alexander, and resulted in the progression of signs which is currently diagrammed in the MUTCD. It is old enough that I think even DOT engineers would have difficulty getting their hands on a copy.)
You may very well find you are pushing on an open door--signing optional lanes is a notorious problem and has been for over 40 years.
Edit: Here are some of the "standard" options for signing I-91/SR 20. I haven't yet drawn some of the more offbeat choices, or the MUTCD proposal. I departed from the in-field example, which uses a smaller type size for "Bradley International Airport" and spells out "Airport" instead of using a plane symbol despite the likely foreign clientele, and the drawings below are all at consistent scale.
Option 1--classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander, with no pull-through sign (may not be appropriate for system interchanges like I-91/SR 20)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10050%2Fct-20-bradley-intl-airport-option-1-non-la.png&hash=a1ceea38bcddbcbad3128c397c504262c4f188d2)
Option 2--Same as option 1 but with a pull-through sign
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10050%2Fct-20-bradley-intl-airport-option-2-non-la-with-pull-through.png&hash=18796c6b1f29d7c0badb9450f384e76260c335e1)
Option 3--Classic Lunenfeld & Alexander (note close positioning of the signs)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10050%2Fct-20-bradley-intl-airport-option-3-la.png&hash=bf8078579d50ea80392cf93a6a14c34a1682e777)