[Discussion split from the Road-Related Illustrations page. Discussion generated from J.N. Winkler's post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=575.msg41702#msg41702) which contained many sign illustrations and thus was left in the other thread. If there are illustrations in this thread you wish to copy into the other thread you may do so, of course. -S.]
In Southern California, HOV lanes are in effect 24/7. Guide signs for exits from the HOV lane are almost always green while overhead carpool reassurance signs (denoting minimum occupancy and lane assignment) are always white. California also uses white guide signs to denote traffic restrictions like truck bypass and climbing lanes and truck bans.
In Northern California, all HOV lanes on freeways are only in effect during commute hours (usually from 5-9am and 3-7pm). Instead of posting overhead carpool signs like down south, all carpool information (hours of operation and min occupancy) is posted on small signs in the median of the freeway. Where there are carpool only exits (85/101 in both Mountain View and south San Jose, 237/880 in Milpitas, I-80 west at the MacArthur Maze in Oakland) all guide signs are green with a black diamond on the left side. Hours of operation are usually noted in a white box at the top of the sign. Kind of like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fhov_ca_example.jpg&hash=9d933f0f52f6f31deeec75a83f419ebdb7330b4d)
Of course because we're dealing with Caltrans there are the "occasional oddities". :confused: For example, there are HOV exits on eastbound I-80 at the Richmond Parkway and westbound I-80 at Cutting Blvd signed with a white guide sign. The Richmond Pkwy exit has the small diamond like in JN Winkler's previous post while the Cutting Blvd exit uses the large black diamond like my example.
Also, when route shields are put on a white guide sign, there usually is no black border around interstate and state route shields. U.S. route are outlined in black. With that said, there are times when a normal route marker is bolted onto a white guide sign which produces an illusion of a border.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 25, 2009, 01:01:42 PM
The MUTCD requires white background for these signs because the I-75 HOV lanes involved in the accident operate part-time only. Green background, however, is specified for HOV lanes which are in 24-hour operation.
Where is this specified in the MUTCD? I tried looking for it, but couldn't find any text or images alluding to this. All MUTCD images of HOV guide signs show white on green with the diamond symbol in the upper corner.
White on black guide signing seems counter-intuitive to me, regardless of time-of-day or other restriction. If it is in the MUTCD, it should be changed.
I think the full-height diamond symbol, as seen in myosh's California example, better displays the fact that the guide sign applies to the HOV lane only. It could do without the "Carpools Only" legend, though, as that should be clearly defined on other signage and adds clutter to the exit direction sign.
Quote from: roadfro on October 17, 2009, 09:11:37 PM
I believe the practice of putting exit numbers on the interchange sequence/community exits sign is discouraged, although I can't find any text to support that in the current MUTCD.
I was mistaken on this topic (discussed back on page 11 of this thread).
In looking for information related to black-on-white HOV guide signage, I found an option statement in Section 2E.37 of the MUTCD that allows exit numbers to be placed to the left of the interchange name on interchange sequence signs. Since it's an option statement, it still doesn't seem to be a common practice...
Quote from: roadfro on October 25, 2009, 08:16:49 PMWhere is this [white background for guide signs referring to part-time HOV lanes] specified in the MUTCD? I tried looking for it, but couldn't find any text or images alluding to this. All MUTCD images of HOV guide signs show white on green with the diamond symbol in the upper corner.
I looked for it just now and couldn't find it either. Moreover, the illustrations accompanying the portion of Chapter 2E dealing with HOV lane guide signing show green backgrounds for guide signs regardless of whether the HOV restrictions are part-time or continuous.
My guess (which I can't verify right now since I don't have any print editions of the
MUTCD within easy reach) is that the requirement for white background was eliminated in a past
MUTCD edition. However, HOV lane signing in a number of cities is based on the white-background rule, including Phoenix and Atlanta.
As an aside, the figures in the current
MUTCD are loosely based on the Katy Freeway reconstruction and widening in Houston, where the HOV lanes are in part-time operation but have green-background guide signs.
QuoteI think the full-height diamond symbol, as seen in myosh's California example, better displays the fact that the guide sign applies to the HOV lane only. It could do without the "Carpools Only" legend, though, as that should be clearly defined on other signage and adds clutter to the exit direction sign.
I think "CARPOOLS ONLY" is provided because the diamond symbol used to refer to all kinds of preferential lanes, not just HOV lanes. Nowadays the
MUTCD provides for the diamond symbol to have an exclusive HOV meaning but there are probably still a lot of cycle lane signs around with diamonds. (From this point of view, it is technically redundant for a diamond sign to have "HOV" or "High Occupancy Vehicle" in the text message as well, but this added legend is helpful to drivers who are naïve to HOV lanes, which includes a substantial proportion of the American population because there are some large cities--like Chicago--with no HOV lanes as such.)
My main concern about the California approach to carpool lane sign design is that it seems to be an unwritten rule that the diamond symbol and its black background must take up the entirety of one side of the sign. This is normally the left side on signs with a longer horizontal dimension (usually overhead-mounted advance guide and exit direction signs) and the top side on vertically oblong signs (usually mounted on top of the median barrier). This results in somewhat less efficient use of sign area than the diamond-in-corner approach diagrammed in the
MUTCD and favored by most other agencies which maintain HOV lanes. Metro in Houston, which operates the Houston-area HOV lanes, favors a compromise approach--corner diamonds are used, but they are integrated into a multicolored stripe which runs across the entire top of the sign and has the same vertical height as the diamond symbol, so the message space on the sign remains rectangular.
Quote from: roadfro on October 25, 2009, 08:22:42 PMQuote from: roadfro on October 17, 2009, 09:11:37 PMI believe the practice of putting exit numbers on the interchange sequence/community exits sign is discouraged, although I can't find any text to support that in the current MUTCD.
I was mistaken on this topic (discussed back on page 11 of this thread).
In looking for information related to black-on-white HOV guide signage, I found an option statement in Section 2E.37 of the MUTCD that allows exit numbers to be placed to the left of the interchange name on interchange sequence signs. Since it's an option statement, it still doesn't seem to be a common practice...
I guess something like the following occurred during a past
MUTCD rulemaking:
FHWA: We would like to eliminate the option to use exit numbers on interchange sequence signs.
NDDOT (and other agencies, possibly): Hey! We do this and we find it helps motorists. Please leave exit numbers on interchange sequence signs in the
MUTCD, otherwise we'll have to add it back in via supplement.
FHWA: OK.
I have to agree with Roadfro on this one. I think the full height diamond on overhead hov exit signs provides a better visual indication that the exit is for carpools only. Like I said, the majority of HOV exits exist in Southern Californa where HOV lanes are in effect 24/7 and are separated from the mixed flow lanes. In Northern California where HOV restrictions are only in effect during commute hours and the lanes are open-access meaning you can enter and exit the HOV lane whenever you wish. It's because of this open access, HOV-only exits are few and far between in Northern California.
Here are a couple of more examples of HOV-only exit signing. First is the HOV-exit for the Happiest Place on Earth (home to a famous Mouse) and the second is a Carpool-to-Carpool ramp from CA-237 east to I-880 north.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fhov_disney_exit.jpg&hash=23e02b1556a7a9ca2f9511fca8e1795a1d58f0b5)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fhov_i880_exit.jpg&hash=7ac3977b469a36f71abe9e3fb839f2066d9af151)
While not so important in Southern California, the white panel at the top of the signs is important in Northern California because it also shows when the carpool restriction is in effect for the ramp. Outside of the listed hours, the ramp is open to all traffic.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 26, 2009, 07:24:55 AM
I think "CARPOOLS ONLY" is provided because the diamond symbol used to refer to all kinds of preferential lanes, not just HOV lanes. Nowadays the MUTCD provides for the diamond symbol to have an exclusive HOV meaning but there are probably still a lot of cycle lane signs around with diamonds. (From this point of view, it is technically redundant for a diamond sign to have "HOV" or "High Occupancy Vehicle" in the text message as well, but this added legend is helpful to drivers who are naïve to HOV lanes, which includes a substantial proportion of the American population because there are some large cities--like Chicago--with no HOV lanes as such.)
The diamond symbol does not have an exclusive HOV meaning, but that is by far what it's used for most often (especially on freeways). It is still used for other exclusive uses, such as bus lanes. However, use of the diamond symbol for bicycle lanes was removed from the MUTCD (not sure if it was the Millenium Edition or the 2003 version that removed it).
Quote
My main concern about the California approach to carpool lane sign design is that it seems to be an unwritten rule that the diamond symbol and its black background must take up the entirety of one side of the sign. This is normally the left side on signs with a longer horizontal dimension (usually overhead-mounted advance guide and exit direction signs) and the top side on vertically oblong signs (usually mounted on top of the median barrier). This results in somewhat less efficient use of sign area than the diamond-in-corner approach diagrammed in the MUTCD and favored by most other agencies which maintain HOV lanes. Metro in Houston, which operates the Houston-area HOV lanes, favors a compromise approach--corner diamonds are used, but they are integrated into a multicolored stripe which runs across the entire top of the sign and has the same vertical height as the diamond symbol, so the message space on the sign remains rectangular.
The black stripe with diamond symbol along the top of median mounted signs is MUTCD standard for almost every use (if not all uses).
I'm interested in this Houston design. Can you link an example?
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 26, 2009, 07:06:18 PM
I have to agree with Roadfro on this one. I think the full height diamond on overhead hov exit signs provides a better visual indication that the exit is for carpools only. Like I said, the majority of HOV exits exist in Southern Californa where HOV lanes are in effect 24/7 and are separated from the mixed flow lanes. In Northern California where HOV restrictions are only in effect during commute hours and the lanes are open-access meaning you can enter and exit the HOV lane whenever you wish. It's because of this open access, HOV-only exits are few and far between in Northern California.
While not so important in Southern California, the white panel at the top of the signs is important in Northern California because it also shows when the carpool restriction is in effect for the ramp. Outside of the listed hours, the ramp is open to all traffic.
The drawback of this approach is that it mixes a regulatory message with a guidance message. In my opinion, it's not necessary, especially when there are required median-mounted regulatory signs spaced at regular intervals that reiterates the carpool time restrictions (I believe the MUTCD minimum spacing for these is every 1/6-mile).
Quote from: roadfro on October 26, 2009, 09:33:06 PMHowever, use of the diamond symbol for bicycle lanes was removed from the MUTCD (not sure if it was the Millenium Edition or the 2003 version that removed it).
I think it was the 2003 revision that did it.
QuoteI'm interested in this Houston design. Can you link an example?
I will see if I can find it in Street View. The only source I have for it at the moment are the sign design sheets from the Katy Freeway reconstruction and, being in black and white only, they don't give a very good idea of how the color scheme works.
QuoteThe drawback of this approach [carpool times of operation on the same panel as guide sign information] is that it mixes a regulatory message with a guidance message. In my opinion, it's not necessary, especially when there are required median-mounted regulatory signs spaced at regular intervals that reiterates the carpool time restrictions (I believe the MUTCD minimum spacing for these is every 1/6-mile).
I don't think it is objectionable
per se to have a regulatory message on the same panel as guide sign information; WSDOT does the same at some of its HOV direct access interchanges, generally as black-on-white bottom panels which on some signs are adjacent to black-on-yellow bottom panels. But having carpool hours of operation on the same panel does increase message loading and I think it works better, as you suggest, to distribute the information more evenly in time and space.
I found this on US 59 (Southwest FRWY) just past the Wesleyan exit:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=29.728901,-95.440046&spn=0,359.994823&z=18&layer=c&cbll=29.728889,-95.440376&panoid=SXXxPWdmEpXrNcLD0Iil7Q&cbp=12,78.88,,0,-1.2 (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=29.728901,-95.440046&spn=0,359.994823&z=18&layer=c&cbll=29.728889,-95.440376&panoid=SXXxPWdmEpXrNcLD0Iil7Q&cbp=12,78.88,,0,-1.2)
EDIT: There's also this in the TxDOT MUTCD, 2009 Edition (pages 80-86):
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/library/pubs/gov/devices/2006part2e.pdf (http://ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/library/pubs/gov/devices/2006part2e.pdf)
EDIT 2: From AARoads itself!
(https://www.aaroads.com/texas/us050-099/us-059_n_main_02_099.jpg)
New I-75 HOV signage (Clayton County, Ga.):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi594.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt24%2FBryant5493%2FPICT1839.jpg&hash=c444556b64ec3e26aa2db2340162ed369a0cbec4)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi594.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt24%2FBryant5493%2FPICT1840.jpg&hash=5d1cab21a013dfd62af81e5384fbc87b1ea88dc3)
Be well,
Bryant
Looking NB on I-95 in NoVA just south of the Springfield Interchange. Here the lanes are reversible and normal green guide signs depict the HOV lane exits. This was on a Sunday with the HOV lanes opened NB and "Open To All Traffic" (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FI-95NORTHCLOSERTOI-395ANDI-495NORTH.jpg&hash=ab230a1a64e053a7ccf03f033f53614aa7e623a0)
Jersey's are pretty normal, except on I-287, in which they eliminated HOV lanes, now empty gantries stand.
The HOV lanes on I-84 and I-91 in Hartford, CT have all white BGS.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on October 28, 2009, 05:46:00 PM
The HOV lanes on I-84 and I-91 in Hartford, CT have all white BGS.
The application of those HOV lanes is a bit quirky. They have their own ramps and signage, but rather than a physical divider, they're only separated from the main lines by pavement marking and signs which read "Crossing Divider Prohibited" (like this one) (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/connecticut050/i-084_eb_exit_059_02.jpg). What divider? I don't see a divider.
Although, attempting to drive over the "divider" might prove a rough ride. It's sloped into the center and there are catch basins there.
The ones here in Nashville simply have black on white signs on the median divider.
There is an overhead sign on I-65 North just south of Exit 65 (TN 96) where the HOV lane begins.
Here (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Pittsburgh,+PA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.671324,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Pittsburgh,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania&ll=40.487693,-80.009265&spn=0.008192,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.487463,-80.009203&panoid=HEwSDovBqdJ1XQ58z4igkQ&cbp=12,350.9,,0,4.9) is how the only HOV lanes in Pennsylvania are signed.
The California examples would probably look better if formatted like the I-75 pictures posted by bryant5493. I still like the prominent diamond, though.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 28, 2009, 06:11:47 PM
The application of those HOV lanes [on I-84 and I-91 in Hartford, CT] is a bit quirky. They have their own ramps and signage, but rather than a physical divider, they're only separated from the main lines by pavement marking and signs which read "Crossing Divider Prohibited" (like this one) (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/connecticut050/i-084_eb_exit_059_02.jpg). What divider? I don't see a divider.
Although, attempting to drive over the "divider" might prove a rough ride. It's sloped into the center and there are catch basins there.
The "divider" appears to be a painted buffer zone. The sign should probably be reworded.
Here in CT as mentioned above, just about all HOV Signage is Black on White or as I refer to them as BWS's instead of BGS's. HOV is unique here in that it only exists north of Hartford on I-91, and East of Hartford on I-84. The lane is separated by a wide painted median in the roadway (nothing that would physically bar you from corssing over). There are separate Left exits for HOV lane. Using I-91 as an example for exiting, there are no Southbound exits from the HOV lane headed into Hartford on I-91. T here are only HOV onramps southbound, and only HOV exits Northbound. HOV lanes here DO allow motorcycles, as well as buses and 2-person+ carpools. These are HOV only 24/7/365. HOV exits do NOT use exit numbers.
A few shots
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2Fbws1.JPG&hash=22dffd1d01bf2b7acf4566320cbb91572a0cab24)
on each regular north and southbound entrance ramp to I-91 you are greeted with a sign like this.
as getting on southbound you either have to be in the HOV lane at it's start, or get on an HOV onramp. Northbound you can only get on the HOV lane in Hartford.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2Fbws2.JPG&hash=e40780bcda33ca73e2504a76734f666960071f11)
Some HOV signs share gantries with Regular BGS's
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2Fbws3.JPG&hash=2f1df835bfdcfd0c506c8e9f6dd073d671e43649)
Because there is no physical barrier, these signs about not crossing the divider are plastered everywhere.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2Fbws4.JPG&hash=2651e9254e3204264be2931b7f4f1f7e10a362db)
HOV reasurance or pull-through does NOT incorporate the interstate shield anywhere on either I-91 or I-84 to the best of my knowledge.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2Fbws5.JPG&hash=a28cdf46c1ab5e7b1ee6fd6ff3e91d88668db4d3)
Ground level Exit Sign, HOV exits do NOT use the coresponding regular exit numbers. There are no numbered HOV exits.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 28, 2009, 06:11:47 PM
Although, attempting to drive over the "divider" might prove a rough ride. It's sloped into the center and there are catch basins there.
People do it all the time during rush hour, and they kick crap up from the median all over my car and it really pisses me off, lol.
Here are a few pics that kind of illustrate the HOV differences between Southern and Northern California.
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_103a_07a.jpg)
This is I-5 at the CA-55 interchange in Orange County. The HOV restriction is 24/7 and is separated from the mixed flow lanes by a double-yellow line plus a white line. This "buffer" zone is probably only a couple of feet wide. There are periodic breaks where traffic can enter or exit the HOV lane.
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_sb_exit_399_05.jpg)
This is U.S. 101 at the CA-85 junction in Santa Clara County. The HOV restriction is only in effect from 5-9 AM and 3-7 PM Monday-Friday. All other times, the lane is a mixed flow lane. Because of this, the HOV lane is separated from the mixed flow lanes by a simple dashed line. During HOV hours, traffic can enter and exit the lane at any time. There are no dedicated entry/exit points. If you can't tell, the HOV lane is the far left lane.
The only physically divided HOV lanes in Hampton Roads are those on I-64 between 564 and 264 in Norfolk, signage for which is usually the standard BGS with a white banner across the top reading "RESTRICTED LANE" with the black diamond symbol. Example here. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Norfolk,+VA&sll=36.740491,-76.261736&sspn=0.024727,0.038581&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Norfolk,+Virginia&ll=36.912307,-76.262637&spn=0.003084,0.004823&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=36.913093,-76.263206&panoid=P5LiYcN_ppbWvqVYuQJa8Q&cbp=12,311.68,,0,-2.61)
Unfortunately not all signs have these, which can make it difficult sometimes to distinguish between HOV and regular signage coming around curves.
And none of the other HOV lanes in Hampton Roads (I-64 in Hampton and Newport News & in Chesapeake, I-264 in Virginia Beach & Norfolk) are at all physically separated from the main travel lanes, and thus have no special signage other than the standard black-on-white signs denoting the lanes as HOV.
Quote from: deathtopumpkinsThe only physically divided HOV lanes in Hampton Roads are those on I-64 between 564 and 264 in Norfolk, signage for which is usually the standard BGS with a white banner across the top reading "RESTRICTED LANE" with the black diamond symbol.
Aren't those lanes reversible, depending on morning or evening rush hour?
Be well,
Bryant
More HOV signage from Atlanta:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi594.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt24%2FBryant5493%2FAtlantaHOV.jpg&hash=454823c601e8a86e7f5fdf15be554b3c3e61008d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi594.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt24%2FBryant5493%2FAtlantaHOV-2.jpg&hash=29df98495cb8b03e2d12f3d4134b3e8644c3777b)
Be well,
Bryant
Inefficient use of space, there could've been 10 general purpose lanes here, instead of 6.
http://www.wytout.com/bws3.JPG (http://www.wytout.com/bws3.JPG)
QuoteAren't those lanes reversible, depending on morning or evening rush hour?
They are. NW-bound (towards the Navy base) in the morning, SE-bound (towards I-264/VA Beach) in the evening. They also typically run SE-bound all day Saturday and Sunday morning, then NW-bound Sunday afternoon/evening/night...to facilitate beach-bound and return traffic.
QuoteInefficient use of space, there could've been 10 general purpose lanes here, instead of 6.
I have two theories on that. First is that ConnDOT wanted to run the HOV lanes in both directions 24/7 (which they are), so having reversible lanes wouldn't work for that. Second is that they wanted them physically separated from the general lanes, but for whatever reason did not want to spend money on a Jersey barrier.
^^ Thanks, froggie.
Be well,
Bryant
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Flouisiana050%2Fus-090b_eb_exit_011a_02.jpg&hash=43a8b5f4d8ddd35ac112a9f9b629580348147125)
Here;s what they look like around here:
Direction signs:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.onthighways.com%2Fhwy_404-406_images%2F404_dv_17_south.jpg&hash=54dcc1cfa9338a485ec9156fc37755ea8f2d50bf)
Exit lane forming:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.onthighways.com%2Fhwy_404-406_images%2F404_dv_18_south.jpg&hash=579f180ccbe3e5ce083d97d6721bf8df412d50c9)
Buffer zone:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.onthighways.com%2Fhwy_402-403_images%2F403_cl_111-5_east.jpg&hash=21873a8d5667c867f164d8c156dc9b8e1d49d06d)
"Weave" zone: (left side only)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.onthighways.com%2Fhwy_404-406_images%2F404_cl_20_north_may08_lg.jpg&hash=e4e5af4011cbcf7be0d29b13ab9f9e62c8554f2d)
Quote from: Bryant5493 on October 28, 2009, 10:04:23 AM
New I-75 HOV signage (Clayton County, Ga.):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi594.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt24%2FBryant5493%2FPICT1839.jpg&hash=c444556b64ec3e26aa2db2340162ed369a0cbec4)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi594.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt24%2FBryant5493%2FPICT1840.jpg&hash=5d1cab21a013dfd62af81e5384fbc87b1ea88dc3)
Be well,
Bryant
Could it be true? Has Georgia comes to its senses and quit using that skinny typeface? Hurray!, I may have to move back down there!
Sadly, the only HOV area in the State.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.m-bike.org%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F04%2Fimg_6849.jpg&hash=3defc84941ba7931f55e42b8e298dee14401ff29)
Georgia's larger "HOV EXIT" tabs are a direct result of that horrific bus crash when the bus driver mistook an Hov left exit sign for a simple lane "shifting over a little" sign as is common in Southern California (I-10 for example). That accident underscores the importance of standards and continuity in highway signage.
North Carolina's first HOV lanes are somewhat peculiar. I don't care for the + symbol even though it makes perfect sense, and I drove this section of I-77 north of Charlotte and I remember it having one very long access opportunity but no more for its entire length.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fcharmistke11.jpg&hash=1bec425108c310dc57ed44d8079565ea6c9d21f2)
Quote from: architect77Could it be true? Has Georgia comes to its senses and quit using that skinny typeface? Hurray!, I may have to move back down there!
Those newer signs in that photo are around the areas where there's new HOV signage, not anywhere else. Though, they could spread to more locations.
Be well,
Bryant
Quote from: Bryant5493 on October 31, 2009, 10:57:16 AM
Quote from: architect77Could it be true? Has Georgia comes to its senses and quit using that skinny typeface? Hurray!, I may have to move back down there!
Those newer signs in that photo are around the areas where there's new HOV signage, not anywhere else. Though, they could spread to more locations.
Be well,
Bryant
I always say that the contractor messed up the default font in Word, and that's why Georgia's signs are all screwed up! :-D
Quote from: architect77 on October 31, 2009, 12:23:47 AM
North Carolina's first HOV lanes are somewhat peculiar. I don't care for the + symbol even though it makes perfect sense, and I drove this section of I-77 north of Charlotte and I remember it having one very long access opportunity but no more for its entire length.
I don't see what's so peculiar about that... What else would you use besides the + to denote two or more? And as for the restricted access, also perfectly normal. Our HOV lanes here on I-64 have one entrance, and then 9 miles later an exit. And the HOV lanes on I-84 east of Hartford, CT are similar: Heading eastbound you have one entrance, and a few HOV-only exits to surface streets, before a few miles later an exit back onto the I-84 mainline. The point of HOV lanes is not to be entirely accessible.
There's full signage for the HOV lanes on I-279 North out of Pittsburgh, but I never see them open! :pan:
NJ's only HOV lanes. The signs that used to be on I-287 and I-80 were pretty much the same.
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey050/i-095_nj_tpk_nb_exit_012_05.jpg)
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 01, 2009, 09:22:29 AM
...The point of HOV lanes is not to be entirely accessible.
Not quite. The goal of HOV lanes is to encourage multiple-occupant vehicles, thereby reducing congestion.
However, limiting or restricting access to an HOV lane reduces weaving and merging conflicts with regular traffic, in theory reducing congestion and delay for vehicles in the HOV lane. Highway planners implement such designs in an effort to entice motorists to use carpool using HOV lanes.
Well that is the ultimate goal, yes, but you get my point. ;-) They have no significant benefit over the regular travel lanes if one can move freely in-and-out.