Why can't they just have the exit onlys be true exit onlys? I saw on some of their interchanges that there was no exit only (even though there was an exit ramp) and the exit only lane just ended. :confused:
Can you give us an example or two? (interchanges that are this way)
Supposedly it's better design from a traffic standpoint to end the lane just beyond the interchange instead of having an Exit Only ramp. This is done at I-280 (NJ) WB at Exit 4A, although curiously "Exit Only" is used on the sign there. It has to do either with volume balancing and/or preventing last-second lane changes - operational vs. safety benefits.
mightyace: there's a few on I-694 near the Mississippi River. Some occasional ones along I-94 in scattered spots across the metro, including westbound at MN 101 and at MN 280. There's even a "Lane Ends Merge Right", due to a left-side exit on eastbound 94 at Mounds Blvd, on the east side of downtown St. Paul.
My server host is doing updates this week, so I won't be able to upload snaps until Saturday...
Future widening perhaps?
Doubtful, and just about impossible in most of the cases. Several of these are basically short extensions of auxiliary lanes between adjacent interchange ramps that have close spacing....MnDOT likes using the term "escape lane" for them, as it gives traffic trying to merge on that extra 100-200-300-whatever feet to get up to speed and make the merge.
NOTE TO THE ADMINS: move this thread since its not only in MN.
I would say in this case there are two topics: the specific treatment of the Minnesota cases (since there are so many) and the more generic case. If you'd like to start a more general thread in the appropriate forum, go for it!
so whats more costly, the "lane ends merge left/right" signs, or a car crash?
I'll stay in MN.
I've seen this on I-95 in Chatham County at the I-16 junction, west of Savannah. I've also seen it on I-359 North at I-20/59 (Tuscaloosa, Alabama).
Be well,
Bryant
I saw this on the 94/WIS 164 interchange heading EB on I-94.