Why don't option lane BGSs look like this
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53187744375_cdc3e1032c_z.jpg)
Who says they don't look like that? (https://maps.app.goo.gl/4ohu9edUJggC8K7A8)
or here in Virginia - https://goo.gl/maps/FkkqbbGdA2Jx9w9DA
You might consider this not the same but here's one on an APL assembly - https://goo.gl/maps/8HjfzBsyqJYbM1vq8
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 14, 2023, 04:02:08 PM
Who says they don't look like that? (https://maps.app.goo.gl/4ohu9edUJggC8K7A8)
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 14, 2023, 04:06:35 PM
or here in Virginia - https://goo.gl/maps/FkkqbbGdA2Jx9w9DA
You might consider this not the same but here's one on an APL assembly - https://goo.gl/maps/8HjfzBsyqJYbM1vq8
Oh
I guess I say they don't look like that. And I'm wrong
I don't think I've ever seen a sign that didn't have both arrows black on yellow and labeled "EXIT ONLY" even though it's an option lane, and it really annoys me BECAUSE YOU CAN DRIVE STRAIGHT IN THAT LANE SO WHY WOULD IT BE EXIT
ONLY
Quote from: SoDakInterstateEnthusiast on September 14, 2023, 04:16:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 14, 2023, 04:02:08 PM
Who says they don't look like that? (https://maps.app.goo.gl/4ohu9edUJggC8K7A8)
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 14, 2023, 04:06:35 PM
or here in Virginia - https://goo.gl/maps/FkkqbbGdA2Jx9w9DA
You might consider this not the same but here's one on an APL assembly - https://goo.gl/maps/8HjfzBsyqJYbM1vq8
Oh
I guess I say they don't look like that. And I'm wrong
I don't think I've ever seen a sign that didn't have both arrows black on yellow and labeled "EXIT ONLY" even though it's an option lane, and it really annoys me BECAUSE YOU CAN DRIVE STRAIGHT IN THAT LANE SO WHY WOULD IT BE EXIT ONLY
Weird. Signs with white on green for the option lane and black on yellow for the exit only lane are common. That said, NYSDOT botched it at I-690 EB at Bridge St/Thompson Rd/NY 635.
Michigan says "hello":
https://goo.gl/maps/ZMRWX3oKU7VW6MZD8
https://goo.gl/maps/SJdN65Eb3v8N4jVf8
What irritates me is that, because these aren't considered "major" interchanges, none of the advance signage indicates there is an option lane. I've vented about that elsewhere.
Quote from: SoDakInterstateEnthusiast on September 14, 2023, 04:16:49 PM
I don't think I've ever seen a sign that didn't have both arrows black on yellow and labeled "EXIT ONLY" even though it's an option lane, and it really annoys me BECAUSE YOU CAN DRIVE STRAIGHT IN THAT LANE SO WHY WOULD IT BE EXIT ONLY
Are you really young? Signs used to look like that before a recent update to the MUTCD. (In fact, I didn't know about the change until I saw some construction plans for Kellogg here in Wichita, thought something was wrong with the guide sign as illustrated in the plans, told a friend of mine who was an engineer working on the project, and he took my question to his manager.)
I-85 SB just north of Atlanta:
https://goo.gl/maps/sPi8i9caiV9RnP568 (https://goo.gl/maps/sPi8i9caiV9RnP568)
I-29 SB just north of Riverside, MO:
https://goo.gl/maps/aGF7JMPGVnJcgZjk9 (https://goo.gl/maps/aGF7JMPGVnJcgZjk9)
I'm struggling to find the actual MUTCD guidance on option lane signage for the older and newer editions of the MUTCD. All I'm finding right now is guidance for diagrammatic signage. Anyone got links?
ETA: I found it in the 2009 edition, Figure 2E-8 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/fig2e_08_longdesc.htm). What I'm really looking for is an earlier edition of the MUTCD that actually has a figure that looks like the sign in the OP.
In Oklahoma, the thing to do used to be to post them both as option lanes...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.okroads.com%2F101903%2Fi35exit119a.JPG&hash=8b929cb112af6c675c7799ddb0ab430f1fdb9664)
(photo by Eric Stuve)
Quote from: kphoger on September 14, 2023, 06:26:02 PMI'm struggling to find the actual MUTCD guidance on option lane signage for the older and newer editions of the MUTCD. All I'm finding right now is guidance for diagrammatic signage. Anyone got links?
The approach to signing option lanes the OP is talking about has never been diagrammed in the
MUTCD. I have always understood it to be permitted in the 2003 and earlier editions because the manual never actually defined the term
multilane exit, thus permitting a yellow "
EXIT ONLY" patch to be used at exits where the ramp receives traffic from an option lane as well as a dropped lane.
The approach the
MUTCD actually showed (up to 2003) originated in a 1976 FHWA report, Harold Lunenfeld and Gerson Alexander's
Signing Treatments for Interchange Lane Drops. It does not use yellow patches at all for lane drops that involve an option lane.
Quote from: kphoger on September 14, 2023, 06:26:02 PM
I'm struggling to find the actual MUTCD guidance on option lane signage for the older and newer editions of the MUTCD. All I'm finding right now is guidance for diagrammatic signage. Anyone got links?
ETA: I found it in the 2009 edition, Figure 2E-8 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/fig2e_08_longdesc.htm). What I'm really looking for is an earlier edition of the MUTCD that actually has a figure that looks like the sign in the OP.
I hate that page so, so much. Separately marking the option lane white on green is something I find very useful as a driver.
Quote from: Rothman on September 15, 2023, 06:57:09 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 14, 2023, 06:26:02 PM
I'm struggling to find the actual MUTCD guidance on option lane signage for the older and newer editions of the MUTCD. All I'm finding right now is guidance for diagrammatic signage. Anyone got links?
ETA: I found it in the 2009 edition, Figure 2E-8 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/fig2e_08_longdesc.htm). What I'm really looking for is an earlier edition of the MUTCD that actually has a figure that looks like the sign in the OP.
I hate that page so, so much. Separately marking the option lane white on green is something I find very useful as a driver.
Other ambiguities arise anyway, of course.
For example, with the recently reconstructed I-235/US-54 junction in Wichita,
this sign (https://maps.app.goo.gl/wgjktKC9zqde2tws9) seems to suggest that the rightmost lane only goes to US-54 West. However, in reality, the rightmost lane
goes to US-54 East, but there is a downstream exit for US-54 West (https://maps.app.goo.gl/n3EnHP6QdEqhyQEf6) along the way. Technically, all information is correct: the rightmost lane is indeed an exit-only lane, and US-54 West is indeed accessed via the rightmost lane. But useful information is "hidden" nonetheless, which results in unnecessary crowding of the option lane by drivers headed east.
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2023, 10:02:24 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 15, 2023, 06:57:09 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 14, 2023, 06:26:02 PM
I'm struggling to find the actual MUTCD guidance on option lane signage for the older and newer editions of the MUTCD. All I'm finding right now is guidance for diagrammatic signage. Anyone got links?
ETA: I found it in the 2009 edition, Figure 2E-8 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/fig2e_08_longdesc.htm). What I'm really looking for is an earlier edition of the MUTCD that actually has a figure that looks like the sign in the OP.
I hate that page so, so much. Separately marking the option lane white on green is something I find very useful as a driver.
Other ambiguities arise anyway, of course.
For example, with the recently reconstructed I-235/US-54 junction in Wichita, this sign (https://maps.app.goo.gl/wgjktKC9zqde2tws9) seems to suggest that the rightmost lane only goes to US-54 West. However, in reality, the rightmost lane goes to US-54 East, but there is a downstream exit for US-54 West (https://maps.app.goo.gl/n3EnHP6QdEqhyQEf6) along the way. Technically, all information is correct: the rightmost lane is indeed an exit-only lane, and US-54 West is indeed accessed via the rightmost lane. But useful information is "hidden" nonetheless, which results in unnecessary crowding of the option lane by drivers headed east.
I prefer that minor ambiguity to showing a lane as exit only when it really is just an option lane.
Quote from: Rothman on September 15, 2023, 10:46:35 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2023, 10:02:24 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 15, 2023, 06:57:09 AM
I hate that page so, so much. Separately marking the option lane white on green is something I find very useful as a driver.
Other ambiguities arise anyway, of course.
For example, with the recently reconstructed I-235/US-54 junction in Wichita, this sign (https://maps.app.goo.gl/wgjktKC9zqde2tws9) seems to suggest that the rightmost lane only goes to US-54 West. However, in reality, the rightmost lane goes to US-54 East, but there is a downstream exit for US-54 West (https://maps.app.goo.gl/n3EnHP6QdEqhyQEf6) along the way. Technically, all information is correct: the rightmost lane is indeed an exit-only lane, and US-54 West is indeed accessed via the rightmost lane. But useful information is "hidden" nonetheless, which results in unnecessary crowding of the option lane by drivers headed east.
I prefer that minor ambiguity to showing a lane as exit only when it really is just an option lane.
I have to agree. I would take the Kansas signage a thousand times over the atrocities that exist currently in a similar configuration at I-490/I-590/NY 590 (see
here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1444667,-77.5538461,3a,90y,108.18h,79.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCR-97jlB8FckGQwZLzK0NQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) :thumbdown:).
Quote from: webny99 on September 15, 2023, 11:22:32 AM
I have to agree. I would take the Kansas signage a thousand times over the atrocities that exist currently in a similar configuration at I-490/I-590/NY 590 (see here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1444667,-77.5538461,3a,90y,108.18h,79.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCR-97jlB8FckGQwZLzK0NQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) :thumbdown:).
That is awful... Not only does it have the same issue that SoDakInterstateEnthusiast originally complained about, but also completely wrong arrows and text.
What should be done there, though? I'm talking about the EXIT ONLY tab under I-590. Leave only the down arrow? Put the text above the arrow?
Quote from: kphoger on September 14, 2023, 06:26:02 PM
I'm struggling to find the actual MUTCD guidance on option lane signage for the older and newer editions of the MUTCD. All I'm finding right now is guidance for diagrammatic signage. Anyone got links?
ETA: I found it in the 2009 edition, Figure 2E-8 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/fig2e_08_longdesc.htm). What I'm really looking for is an earlier edition of the MUTCD that actually has a figure that looks like the sign in the OP.
Another question I have is, why does the sign in the MUTCD look like that, and not like the sign at the start of the thread, when states DO display option lanes like in the sign at the start of the thread?
Quote from: Shedingtonian on September 15, 2023, 11:43:25 AM
Another question I have is, why does the sign in the MUTCD look like that, and not like the sign at the start of the thread, when states DO display option lanes like in the sign at the start of the thread?
Signage as in the OP was supposedly found to be confusing to drivers in its own way, and the confusion caused by the new way was apparently preferable. That is to say, confusion prompting a straight-through driver to unnecessarily change from one continuing lane into a different continuing lane wasn't seen to be such a big deal as we roadgeeks make it out to be.
Winkler: do you have a link to the actual study?
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2023, 11:50:53 AMSignage as in the OP was supposedly found to be confusing to drivers in its own way, and the confusion caused by the new way was apparently preferable. That is to say, confusion prompting a straight-through driver to unnecessarily change from one continuing lane into a different continuing lane wasn't seen to be such a big deal as we roadgeeks make it out to be.
Winkler: do you have a link to the actual study?
I am not aware that a study was ever performed to test the "hide the option lane" approach the
MUTCD currently recommends for exits with option lanes that are not signed with APLs.
In the years before the 2009
MUTCD was drafted, the NCUTCD's Guide and Motorist Information Signing Technical Committee (GMITC) considered the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach used by many state DOTs (the one that results in guide signs like that shown in the OP) and found it to be unsatisfactory for the reasons you cite. For the exit direction sign, they recommended the solution that is now shown in the
MUTCD, i.e., "
EXIT ONLY" for all lane assignment arrows at a location just past the theoretical gore point. However, I think FHWA came up with "hide the option lane" for the advance guide signs all on its own.
Although the NCUTCD website (https://ncutcd.org/) has a meetings archive that runs back to 2004, GMITC papers are now viewable only by members (https://gmi.ncutcd.org/). I recall that the key conversation about non-Lunenfeld & Alexander signs occurred around 2005, while the tachistoscope research that was used to justify APLs occurred shortly before the NPRM for the 2009
MUTCD was released in 2007.
To me, option lanes were a difficult enough subject for me to wrap my head around when I first found out about them. Once I did, though, I found the OP to be a good enough approach as to their signage.
Something that the MUTCD doesn't make clear at all though, in my opinion, is advance signage. It shows gore point signage displaying both lanes (option and slip lane) as EXIT ONLY in the traditional manner. Would this also be the case in exit approach signage? Or would every exit with an option lane need to use huge APL's for the sake of accuracy? Should we re-embrace diagrammatic signage, since that's what the MUTCD figure shows?
Quote from: Shedingtonian on September 15, 2023, 01:39:15 PM
To me, option lanes were a difficult enough subject for me to wrap my head around when I first found out about them. Once I did, though, I found the OP to be a good enough approach as to their signage.
Something that the MUTCD doesn't make clear at all though, in my opinion, is advance signage. It shows gore point signage displaying both lanes (option and slip lane) as EXIT ONLY in the traditional manner. Would this also be the case in exit approach signage? Or would every exit with an option lane need to use huge APL's for the sake of accuracy? Should we re-embrace diagrammatic signage, since that's what the MUTCD figure shows?
I personally think overhead APL is preferable to diagrammatic for advance signage. I dislike pretty much any signage approach that requires me to count how many lanes over I am from the edge.
So, I guess the simple answer to the question in the OP is this: because no illustration in the MUTCD looks like that.
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2023, 04:26:12 PM
So, I guess the simple answer to the question in the OP is this: because no illustration in the MUTCD looks like that.
However, Ohio is an exception, as many option lane BGSs
do look like that in Ohio.
Quote from: Shedingtonian on September 15, 2023, 11:43:25 AM
Quote from: webny99 on September 15, 2023, 11:22:32 AM
I have to agree. I would take the Kansas signage a thousand times over the atrocities that exist currently in a similar configuration at I-490/I-590/NY 590 (see here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1444667,-77.5538461,3a,90y,108.18h,79.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCR-97jlB8FckGQwZLzK0NQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) :thumbdown:).
That is awful... Not only does it have the same issue that SoDakInterstateEnthusiast originally complained about, but also completely wrong arrows and text.
What should be done there, though? I'm talking about the EXIT ONLY tab under I-590. Leave only the down arrow? Put the text above the arrow?
I would support replacing the entire works with an APL at this location.
With the existing sign, though, just removing the EXIT (down arrow) ONLY from the 590 NB sign and replacing it with a standard down arrow would be an improvement. It's clear that both that arrow and the rightmost arrow on the I-490 sign are pointing to the second-from-right lane.
Quote from: webny99 on September 15, 2023, 04:41:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2023, 04:26:12 PM
So, I guess the simple answer to the question in the OP is this: because no illustration in the MUTCD looks like that.
However, Ohio is an exception, as many option lane BGSs do look like that in Ohio.
Well yes, it's been pointed out that a lot of places actually sign them like this–and especially
used to. But I guess doing so was never actually compliant with the MUTCD to begin with.
I think the sign as it appears in OP would confuse me to hell, to be honest.
Quote from: epzik8 on September 15, 2023, 04:46:22 PM
I think the sign as it appears in OP would confuse me to hell, to be honest.
Do you get confused in Maryland on the Outer Loop approaching I-270 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/XEXvEss12Hpq8pRbA)?
(BTW, I like the way that sign has a black border around the "Exit Only" portion.)
Quote from: Shedingtonian on September 15, 2023, 01:39:15 PMSomething that the MUTCD doesn't make clear at all though, in my opinion, is advance signage. It shows gore point signage displaying both lanes (option and slip lane) as EXIT ONLY in the traditional manner. Would this also be the case in exit approach signage? Or would every exit with an option lane need to use huge APL's for the sake of accuracy? Should we re-embrace diagrammatic signage, since that's what the MUTCD figure shows?
The
MUTCD doesn't require an APL (or diagrammatic) for every exit that has an option lane. When an exit is so equipped and neither type of sign is used, the advance guide signs are exactly the same as if there were no option lane at all, which is why we describe this approach as "hide the option lane."
Quote from: epzik8 on September 15, 2023, 04:46:22 PM
I think the sign as it appears in OP would confuse me to hell, to be honest.
You've probably seen this type sign along or in combo with other signs many times and never gave it a second thought. Just looking at the 95 Corridor in MD & DE:
It's on the DC Beltway's EB Inner Loop approaching 95 North:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eKhKao6NjBe6DZaJ8
On 95 North approaching 395 in Baltimore:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6SkaEgUCWeJcx5F67
On 95 North again, approaching the Express Toll Lane Split:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aoH6SxY5GfDVboi87
Still on 95 North, approaching 695 (and this time, with roadway arrows as well):
https://maps.app.goo.gl/DtneR7GDk5MAtcA68
Then on I-95 in Delaware, approaching the 95/295 Split near Wilmington, DE:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/SmLZhv38fif3XSg59
And after that, staying on 95, approaching the 95/495 Split:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oBUUV935fybqhf838
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 15, 2023, 06:39:02 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on September 15, 2023, 04:46:22 PM
I think the sign as it appears in OP would confuse me to hell, to be honest.
You've probably seen this type sign along or in combo with other signs many times and never gave it a second thought. Just looking at the 95 Corridor in MD & DE:
It's on the DC Beltway's EB Inner Loop approaching 95 North:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eKhKao6NjBe6DZaJ8
On 95 North approaching 395 in Baltimore:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6SkaEgUCWeJcx5F67
On 95 North again, approaching the Express Toll Lane Split:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aoH6SxY5GfDVboi87
Still on 95 North, approaching 695 (and this time, with roadway arrows as well):
https://maps.app.goo.gl/DtneR7GDk5MAtcA68
Then on I-95 in Delaware, approaching the 95/295 Split near Wilmington, DE:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/SmLZhv38fif3XSg59
And after that, staying on 95, approaching the 95/495 Split:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oBUUV935fybqhf838
Now those are as clear as you can get! They're two of very few states that actually get it right.
Nevada's contribution:
Where the interchange is with a city street:
I-80 Exit 13 at Virginia Street (https://maps.app.goo.gl/jJy9pYbhQwTXbxY38)
And a short distance east of there, the APL setup at a freeway interchange:
I-80 Exit 15 at I-580/US 395 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/NUSRTwWDZg9k7D3B9)
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 15, 2023, 05:40:19 PM
Quote from: Shedingtonian on September 15, 2023, 01:39:15 PMSomething that the MUTCD doesn't make clear at all though, in my opinion, is advance signage. It shows gore point signage displaying both lanes (option and slip lane) as EXIT ONLY in the traditional manner. Would this also be the case in exit approach signage? Or would every exit with an option lane need to use huge APL's for the sake of accuracy? Should we re-embrace diagrammatic signage, since that's what the MUTCD figure shows?
The MUTCD doesn't require an APL (or diagrammatic) for every exit that has an option lane. When an exit is so equipped and neither type of sign is used, the advance guide signs are exactly the same as if there were no option lane at all, which is why we describe this approach as "hide the option lane."
I understand that approach, but I still believe it causes unnecessary lane changes, as it's been discussed here.
What does the MUTCD think of the "dancing arrows" approach (down arrows angled slightly so that they point at the same lane)? And what about signing both destinations on the same lane like in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14459.msg2699429#msg2699429), or in these Spanish (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1DcUQ2j6ebeDYBXy7) examples (https://maps.app.goo.gl/uywKt48hBAkDRS7j6)?
Quote from: Shedingtonian on September 16, 2023, 04:21:14 AMQuote from: J N Winkler on September 15, 2023, 05:40:19 PMThe MUTCD doesn't require an APL (or diagrammatic) for every exit that has an option lane. When an exit is so equipped and neither type of sign is used, the advance guide signs are exactly the same as if there were no option lane at all, which is why we describe this approach as "hide the option lane."
I understand that approach, but I still believe it causes unnecessary lane changes, as it's been discussed here.
This is pretty generally agreed. The justification is that the unnecessary lane changes (from a faster lane to a slower one, to get into the dropped lane when the option lane can be used) are more benign than with classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander (from a slower lane to a faster one, to escape an option lane the driver incorrectly believes is a dropped lane).
Quote from: Shedingtonian on September 16, 2023, 04:21:14 AMWhat does the MUTCD think of the "dancing arrows" approach (down arrows angled slightly so that they point at the same lane)? And what about signing both destinations on the same lane like in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14459.msg2699429#msg2699429), or in these Spanish (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1DcUQ2j6ebeDYBXy7) examples (https://maps.app.goo.gl/uywKt48hBAkDRS7j6)?
Dancing arrows are prohibited per § 2E.19. The relevant Standard statement reads:
QuoteOn overhead signs where down arrows are used to indicate a lane to be followed, a down arrow shall be positioned approximately over the center of each lane and shall point vertically downward toward the approximate center of that lane. Down arrows shall be used only on overhead guide signs that restrict the use of specific lanes to traffic bound for the destination(s) and/or route(s) indicated by these arrows. Down arrows shall not be used unless an arrow can be located over and pointed to the approximate center of each lane that can be used to reach the destination displayed on the sign.
If down arrows are used, having more than one down arrow pointing to the same lane on a single overhead sign (or on multiple signs on the same overhead sign structure) shall not be permitted.
The approach of repeating destinations across multiple sign panels would seem not to be forbidden, but is discouraged for message loading reasons. (It has also been used in Britain, which has looser limits on the number of destinations that can be used on a single sign.)
As an example of what is considered best practice in the US, TxDOT's
Freeway Signing Handbook (http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/TxDOTOnlineManuals/TxDOTManuals/fsh/index.htm) suggests a limit of 20 message units on an overhead signbridge, with each shield, cardinal direction, destination, or distance expression counting as a single message unit.
(https://i.imgur.com/XIflVd8.png)
Quote from: Shedingtonian on September 16, 2023, 04:21:14 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 15, 2023, 05:40:19 PM
The MUTCD doesn't require an APL (or diagrammatic) for every exit that has an option lane. When an exit is so equipped and neither type of sign is used, the advance guide signs are exactly the same as if there were no option lane at all, which is why we describe this approach as "hide the option lane."
I understand that approach, but I still believe it causes unnecessary lane changes, as it's been discussed here.
What does the MUTCD think of the "dancing arrows" approach (down arrows angled slightly so that they point at the same lane)? And what about signing both destinations on the same lane like in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14459.msg2699429#msg2699429), or in these Spanish (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1DcUQ2j6ebeDYBXy7) examples (https://maps.app.goo.gl/uywKt48hBAkDRS7j6)?
A revision to a standard introduced in the 2009 MUTCD is what prompted a lot of the changes we're discussing in this thread–this standard had previously been a lot less prescriptive. This is the standard relating to treatment of the 'down arrow'. Compare the relevant text in the MUTCD section on "Arrows for Interchange Guide Signs" from 2003 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1r2/part2/part2e2.htm#section2E18) to 2009 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2e.htm#section2E19) below:
Quote from: 2003 MUTCD Sec 2E.18
Standard:
Downward pointing arrows shall be used only for overhead guide signs to prescribe lane assignment for traffic bound for a destination or route that can be reached only by being in the designated lane(s).
Option:
Downward pointing arrows may be tilted where it is desired to emphasize the separation of roadways.
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD Sec 2E.19
Standard:
05 On overhead signs where down arrows are used to indicate a lane to be followed, a down arrow shall be positioned approximately over the center of each lane and shall point vertically downward toward the approximate center of that lane. Down arrows shall be used only on overhead guide signs that restrict the use of specific lanes to traffic bound for the destination(s) and/or route(s) indicated by these arrows. Down arrows shall not be used unless an arrow can be located over and pointed to the approximate center of each lane that can be used to reach the destination displayed on the sign.
06 If down arrows are used, having more than one down arrow pointing to the same lane on a single overhead sign (or on multiple signs on the same overhead sign structure) shall not be permitted.
This revision specifically prohibits dancing arrows. I believe this revision was implemented using a similar rationale as the APL, as one arrow per lane provides more positive lane positioning guidance and can reduce confusion.
With the revised definition of the down arrow also meaning that traffic in that lane can only go to the destination on the sign, the new MUTCD also effectively prohibited the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander treatments as displayed in the OP (which had been commonly used in California, Nevada, and other states).
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 16, 2023, 01:43:55 PM
Quote from: Shedingtonian on September 16, 2023, 04:21:14 AMQuote from: J N Winkler on September 15, 2023, 05:40:19 PMThe MUTCD doesn't require an APL (or diagrammatic) for every exit that has an option lane. When an exit is so equipped and neither type of sign is used, the advance guide signs are exactly the same as if there were no option lane at all, which is why we describe this approach as "hide the option lane."
I understand that approach, but I still believe it causes unnecessary lane changes, as it's been discussed here.
This is pretty generally agreed. The justification is that the unnecessary lane changes (from a faster lane to a slower one, to get into the dropped lane when the option lane can be used) are more benign than with classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander (from a slower lane to a faster one, to escape an option lane the driver incorrectly believes is a dropped lane).
I'd maintain that the "hide the option lane" approach adopted by the 2009 MUTCD would have been less awful if they would have allowed the option lane arrow on the exit direction sign to remain white on green and not move the location of the overhead sign.
Nevada DOT has generally been compliant with the "hide the option lane" scheme in new signage projects introduced since about 2012 or so, after having used the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach for so long. In most cases, it's fine (I still hate it). But a recent new sign installation grates on me because now it's flat out wrong.
During a recent repaving on I-580/US 395 in Reno, overhead signage was replaced for the southbound Moana Lane exit. There is an option lane here, and the exit had been signed the old way. The revised signage now uses the new approach, with exit direction sign showing an exit only arrow over the option lane. Problem? With the old signage scheme, the exit direction sign is placed upstream of the theoretical gore point. In the new signage scheme, the exit direction sign is supposed to be placed at or past the theoretical gore. But for this sign replacement, NDOT did not move the overhead sign structure–so now the option lane is marked exit only upstream of the ramp gore, making it appear that two lanes exit. They also have not used pavement marking arrows or lane assignment signs for this situation, as MUTCD figures show.
Advance sign: before (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Trsvx4eM2cXc5yHk7) & after (https://maps.app.goo.gl/HzaF9zaoXJkToxgi9)
At exit: before (https://maps.app.goo.gl/kCvX5NVP4416vtJc8) & after (https://maps.app.goo.gl/aG1mU4G4voqshM8H6)
Same problems exists with the northbound Plumb Lane exit in this stretch.
The only saving grace here is NDOT is really good about using the dotted lane lines for dropped lanes, and normal broken lines are painted here. So the signage snafu doesn't seem to be causing too many issues...or at least I haven't noticed many issues thus far given I pass this only about once a week. Still, it's not a good look, and illustrative of how this approach is not necessarily the best unless implemented to the letter.
Funny enough, then you look at the even older example, and that sign doesn't even mention that two lanes exit at all.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/9cQFSge7gBn6kVQV6
The Illinois Tollway also has lots of issues with signing option lanes. I've found their approaches inconsistent and in some cases, completely incorrect. For example, I drove through this last weekend, and no signage implied that this was a two-lane exit. I-88 WB at the (to) Naperville Rd exit.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/EV8Nr34fA4egffdN8
They aren't all like that, but I find this very poor.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on September 17, 2023, 12:16:27 PM
The Illinois Tollway also has lots of issues with signing option lanes. I've found their approaches inconsistent and in some cases, completely incorrect. For example, I drove through this last weekend, and no signage implied that this was a two-lane exit. I-88 WB at the (to) Naperville Rd exit.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/EV8Nr34fA4egffdN8
They aren't all like that, but I find this very poor.
I went backwards in the Google Street View and I agree with you. There isn't even any arrow on the pavement to imply that the option lane
is an option lane.
Actually, hold that thought. The MUTCD decided to follow the "hide the option lane ON SIGNS" approach. Do we know anything about option lanes as portrayed in MARKINGS?
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 16, 2023, 01:43:55 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/XIflVd8.png)
It seems strange to me that the word "EXIT" and the exit number itself each count as a unit of information. To my mind, they go together like "Polk" and "Street" or "Loop" and "501." Looking into the matter, the
Freeway Signing Handbook calls "EXIT" a command, but I don't think that's quite the case here.
Quote from: kphoger on September 14, 2023, 04:33:44 PM
Quote from: SoDakInterstateEnthusiast on September 14, 2023, 04:16:49 PM
I don't think I've ever seen a sign that didn't have both arrows black on yellow and labeled "EXIT ONLY" even though it's an option lane, and it really annoys me BECAUSE YOU CAN DRIVE STRAIGHT IN THAT LANE SO WHY WOULD IT BE EXIT ONLY
Are you really young? Signs used to look like that before a recent update to the MUTCD. (In fact, I didn't know about the change until I saw some construction plans for Kellogg here in Wichita, thought something was wrong with the guide sign as illustrated in the plans, told a friend of mine who was an engineer working on the project, and he took my question to his manager.)
I can tell you the exact date I knew I wanted to pursue roads in some form as a career - May 18th, 2018, on a school trip to Denver (the biggest city I had ever been to at that time). Before that, my experience with MUTCD was limited to the fact that at age two I always begged my mother to walk me up to the stop sign so I could stare at it. So, I suppose you would call me a post-2009-MUTCD-with-Revisons-1-and-2 roadgeek.
I'm not quite knowledgeable of all the terminology - what is a gore point? and what are the reasons for putting a sign ahead of it as opposed to after it? Also, why would a DOT want to put up signs that "hide" the option lane? I'm not fully understanding, if someone would like to clarify.
Quote from: SoDakInterstateEnthusiast on September 18, 2023, 03:40:03 PM
I'm not quite knowledgeable of all the terminology - what is a gore point?
Depends... Is it theoretical? :biggrin:
Quote from: SoDakInterstateEnthusiast on September 18, 2023, 03:40:03 PM
I'm not quite knowledgeable of all the terminology - what is a gore point?
You know where the main highway continues, and the exit lane veers away from the main highway? That separation that forms between the main lanes and the exit lane is the gore point. (Opinions may vary: Some people may call the paved area where the lanes first split the gore point; others may call the physical separation when there's grass or concrete the gore point. Usually close enough either way.)
Quote from: SoDakInterstateEnthusiast on September 18, 2023, 03:40:03 PM
and what are the reasons for putting a sign ahead of it as opposed to after it?
For clarity. As in gonealookin's example above, showing an 'Exit Only' lane where exiting isn't the only option, the sign would be correct if it was at or after the gore point; but not correct before the gore point.
Quote from: SoDakInterstateEnthusiast on September 18, 2023, 03:40:03 PM
Also, why would a DOT want to put up signs that "hide" the option lane? I'm not fully understanding, if someone would like to clarify.
Because that's what the MUTCD requires. DOTs may not want to hide the option lane, but to be in full compliance and have the project (and others) approved for federal funding, they may be required to, unless they seek a design exemption.
Quote from: SoDakInterstateEnthusiast on September 18, 2023, 03:40:03 PM
I'm not quite knowledgeable of all the terminology - what is a gore point?
It is the point on the highway where you encounter Al Gore. Obviously.
Quote from: roadfro on September 16, 2023, 02:28:20 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 16, 2023, 01:43:55 PM
Quote from: Shedingtonian on September 16, 2023, 04:21:14 AMQuote from: J N Winkler on September 15, 2023, 05:40:19 PMThe MUTCD doesn't require an APL (or diagrammatic) for every exit that has an option lane. When an exit is so equipped and neither type of sign is used, the advance guide signs are exactly the same as if there were no option lane at all, which is why we describe this approach as "hide the option lane."
I understand that approach, but I still believe it causes unnecessary lane changes, as it's been discussed here.
This is pretty generally agreed. The justification is that the unnecessary lane changes (from a faster lane to a slower one, to get into the dropped lane when the option lane can be used) are more benign than with classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander (from a slower lane to a faster one, to escape an option lane the driver incorrectly believes is a dropped lane).
I'd maintain that the "hide the option lane" approach adopted by the 2009 MUTCD would have been less awful if they would have allowed the option lane arrow on the exit direction sign to remain white on green and not move the location of the overhead sign.
Nevada DOT has generally been compliant with the "hide the option lane" scheme in new signage projects introduced since about 2012 or so, after having used the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach for so long. In most cases, it's fine (I still hate it). But a recent new sign installation grates on me because now it's flat out wrong.
During a recent repaving on I-580/US 395 in Reno, overhead signage was replaced for the southbound Moana Lane exit. There is an option lane here, and the exit had been signed the old way. The revised signage now uses the new approach, with exit direction sign showing an exit only arrow over the option lane. Problem? With the old signage scheme, the exit direction sign is placed upstream of the theoretical gore point. In the new signage scheme, the exit direction sign is supposed to be placed at or past the theoretical gore. But for this sign replacement, NDOT did not move the overhead sign structure–so now the option lane is marked exit only upstream of the ramp gore, making it appear that two lanes exit. They also have not used pavement marking arrows or lane assignment signs for this situation, as MUTCD figures show.
Advance sign: before (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Trsvx4eM2cXc5yHk7) & after (https://maps.app.goo.gl/HzaF9zaoXJkToxgi9)
At exit: before (https://maps.app.goo.gl/kCvX5NVP4416vtJc8) & after (https://maps.app.goo.gl/aG1mU4G4voqshM8H6)
Same problems exists with the northbound Plumb Lane exit in this stretch.
The only saving grace here is NDOT is really good about using the dotted lane lines for dropped lanes, and normal broken lines are painted here. So the signage snafu doesn't seem to be causing too many issues...or at least I haven't noticed many issues thus far given I pass this only about once a week. Still, it's not a good look, and illustrative of how this approach is not necessarily the best unless implemented to the letter.
I think so many of these option lane situations that involve a simple street exits would probably be best following the Ontario style APL.
Arrow per lane signs, but only for the exit. Staying on the main highway is implied.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7604427,-79.3961391,3a,15.7y,59.48h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5NteL6SvCJZCqr8q8T6UOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
So for Bayview Ave (or for Moana Lane), you have the one green sign. A right arrow over the rightmost lane. (And add the word "only" to make a good touch.) And then a straight and right over the option lane. It is still a simple overhead, and there's no need to have an APL for all the other lanes of the highway each time this occurs at a simple exit.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 17, 2023, 07:40:43 PMIt seems strange to me that the word "EXIT" and the exit number itself each count as a unit of information. To my mind, they go together like "Polk" and "Street" or "Loop" and "501." Looking into the matter, the Freeway Signing Handbook calls "EXIT" a command, but I don't think that's quite the case here.
I don't know the justification for counting "
EXIT" and the number in the tab as separate message units. If I had to guess--which is always dangerous--I'd suspect a research finding to the effect that the combination takes longer for drivers to process than either on its own.
Quote from: roadfro on September 16, 2023, 02:28:20 PMI'd maintain that the "hide the option lane" approach adopted by the 2009 MUTCD would have been less awful if they would have allowed the option lane arrow on the exit direction sign to remain white on green and not move the location of the overhead sign.
I agree. The 2009
MUTCD changes really created a catch-22 for state DOTs: move the structure (at a cost of ~$30,000 for a cantilever/~$100,000 for an overhead signbridge, not to mention feasibility issues with a new site) to hide the option lane and remain 100% compliant with
MUTCD without using an expensive APL, or risk having to junk the existing structure because it is in the right location for an APL but not beefy enough to hold it.
GMITC papers are no longer available online (at least as a live resource), and AFAIK NCUTCD liaison with FHWA has never been visible to the public, so it is hard for outside observers to gauge how thoroughly GMITC, the NCUTCD as a whole, and FHWA considered this aspect of the problem before they committed to the change.
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2023, 10:02:24 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 15, 2023, 06:57:09 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 14, 2023, 06:26:02 PM
I'm struggling to find the actual MUTCD guidance on option lane signage for the older and newer editions of the MUTCD. All I'm finding right now is guidance for diagrammatic signage. Anyone got links?
ETA: I found it in the 2009 edition, Figure 2E-8 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/fig2e_08_longdesc.htm). What I'm really looking for is an earlier edition of the MUTCD that actually has a figure that looks like the sign in the OP.
I hate that page so, so much. Separately marking the option lane white on green is something I find very useful as a driver.
Other ambiguities arise anyway, of course.
For example, with the recently reconstructed I-235/US-54 junction in Wichita, this sign (https://maps.app.goo.gl/wgjktKC9zqde2tws9) seems to suggest that the rightmost lane only goes to US-54 West. However, in reality, the rightmost lane goes to US-54 East, but there is a downstream exit for US-54 West (https://maps.app.goo.gl/n3EnHP6QdEqhyQEf6) along the way. Technically, all information is correct: the rightmost lane is indeed an exit-only lane, and US-54 West is indeed accessed via the rightmost lane. But useful information is "hidden" nonetheless, which results in unnecessary crowding of the option lane by drivers headed east.
This is a really nice readable sign, but I do see your point about incomplete information. I would replace "WEST" with "EAST & WEST" with WEST written just below EAST &. Probably the cleanest way to give everyone the best advance knowlege, while still respecting the clear delineation of teh original signage.
Of course, the addition of control cities would also be nice. Kellogg Ave is actually a freeway here. I-235 south to Oklahoma City, Kellogg east to Downtown Wichita, and Kellogg west to Airport (or perhaps Dodge City). A good eastern control east of Wichita could possibly be Springfield MO.
EDITED TO ADD: Another possibility here is a sign like this:
235 S | Kellogg East | Kellogg West
STRAIGHT STRAIGHT/SLIGHT RIGHT SLIGHT RIGHT/SHARP RIGHT
THe arrows would indicate where the lane will lead to. Straight for 235 south, Slight right for Kellogg East, and Sharp right for Kellogg West.
In many similar cases, you'd see something along the lines of:
235 S | Kellogg East | Kellogg West
STRAIGHT STRAIGHT/RIGHT STRAIGHT/RIGHT
But that is somewhat confusing. FOr the middle lane RIGHT refers to Kellogg East and for the right lane STRAIGHT refers to Kellogg East.
An example showing the arrows like this exists here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0280623,-118.5190852,3a,75y,320.1h,76.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMZaT4vZqze2IZaO89ghg5g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
But I would modify it to be more like an APL sign. With two sets of rights, It would be helpful to delineate every lane. So left two lanes are PCH, the third lane is an option for PCH or Choataqua and the right lane is an option for Choataqua or West Channel. Even though the far right lane is an option lane, in no way should it be signed with a straight arrow, since that may confuse a driver who wants to continue on PCH. And I think a similar concept for the Wichita exit, each lane should be delineated to where it will ultimately go, advance knowledge of each line, but designated with different types of right arrows to differentiate between east and west. The only straight arrows should be for staying on 235.
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2023, 10:33:35 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 16, 2023, 02:28:20 PM
The only saving grace here is NDOT is really good about using the dotted lane lines for dropped lanes, and normal broken lines are painted here. So the signage snafu doesn't seem to be causing too many issues...or at least I haven't noticed many issues thus far given I pass this only about once a week. Still, it's not a good look, and illustrative of how this approach is not necessarily the best unless implemented to the letter.
I think so many of these option lane situations that involve a simple street exits would probably be best following the Ontario style APL.
Arrow per lane signs, but only for the exit. Staying on the main highway is implied.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7604427,-79.3961391,3a,15.7y,59.48h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5NteL6SvCJZCqr8q8T6UOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
So for Bayview Ave (or for Moana Lane), you have the one green sign. A right arrow over the rightmost lane. (And add the word "only" to make a good touch.) And then a straight and right over the option lane. It is still a simple overhead, and there's no need to have an APL for all the other lanes of the highway each time this occurs at a simple exit.
They used this style sign in the US under a trial basis, and I believe it's being approved for full use.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/phYVngaHxJMSESg89
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 19, 2023, 12:11:16 AM
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2023, 10:33:35 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 16, 2023, 02:28:20 PM
The only saving grace here is NDOT is really good about using the dotted lane lines for dropped lanes, and normal broken lines are painted here. So the signage snafu doesn't seem to be causing too many issues...or at least I haven't noticed many issues thus far given I pass this only about once a week. Still, it's not a good look, and illustrative of how this approach is not necessarily the best unless implemented to the letter.
I think so many of these option lane situations that involve a simple street exits would probably be best following the Ontario style APL.
Arrow per lane signs, but only for the exit. Staying on the main highway is implied.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7604427,-79.3961391,3a,15.7y,59.48h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5NteL6SvCJZCqr8q8T6UOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
So for Bayview Ave (or for Moana Lane), you have the one green sign. A right arrow over the rightmost lane. (And add the word "only" to make a good touch.) And then a straight and right over the option lane. It is still a simple overhead, and there's no need to have an APL for all the other lanes of the highway each time this occurs at a simple exit.
They used this style sign in the US under a trial basis, and I believe it's being approved for full use.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/phYVngaHxJMSESg89
Will it be allowed only just before the exit point, or also on advance signs? The latter is what should be allowed.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 19, 2023, 12:24:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 19, 2023, 12:11:16 AM
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2023, 10:33:35 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 16, 2023, 02:28:20 PM
The only saving grace here is NDOT is really good about using the dotted lane lines for dropped lanes, and normal broken lines are painted here. So the signage snafu doesn't seem to be causing too many issues...or at least I haven't noticed many issues thus far given I pass this only about once a week. Still, it's not a good look, and illustrative of how this approach is not necessarily the best unless implemented to the letter.
I think so many of these option lane situations that involve a simple street exits would probably be best following the Ontario style APL.
Arrow per lane signs, but only for the exit. Staying on the main highway is implied.
And to answer OP's original question, if using the normal type of signage, option lanes should certainly be signed that way. And in some states they are signed that way. But the problem is that in some states, they don't sign it this way. The white arrow does not necessarily mean an option, and therefore there is no nationwide consistency.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7604427,-79.3961391,3a,15.7y,59.48h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5NteL6SvCJZCqr8q8T6UOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
So for Bayview Ave (or for Moana Lane), you have the one green sign. A right arrow over the rightmost lane. (And add the word "only" to make a good touch.) And then a straight and right over the option lane. It is still a simple overhead, and there's no need to have an APL for all the other lanes of the highway each time this occurs at a simple exit.
They used this style sign in the US under a trial basis, and I believe it's being approved for full use.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/phYVngaHxJMSESg89
Will it be allowed only just before the exit point, or also on advance signs? The latter is what should be allowed.
Agreed. I think the whole point of a lot of the discussion in that there should be a better way to sign which lane goes where well in advance of the exit.
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2023, 10:33:35 PM
I think so many of these option lane situations that involve a simple street exits would probably be best following the Ontario style APL.
Arrow per lane signs, but only for the exit. Staying on the main highway is implied.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7604427,-79.3961391,3a,15.7y,59.48h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5NteL6SvCJZCqr8q8T6UOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
I'm sure I'd get used to it. But my first reaction is that it doesn't convey clear information about how many lanes continue straight. If I see that the exit gets an accurate number of arrows to match the number of lanes, then I might assume that the straight-ahead movement also has an accurate number of arrows. Therefore, I might assume that only the leftmost lane continues straight.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2023, 03:56:41 PM
Quote from: SoDakInterstateEnthusiast on September 18, 2023, 03:40:03 PM
I'm not quite knowledgeable of all the terminology - what is a gore point?
You know where the main highway continues, and the exit lane veers away from the main highway? That separation that forms between the main lanes and the exit lane is the gore point. (Opinions may vary: Some people may call the paved area where the lanes first split the gore point; others may call the physical separation when there's grass or concrete the gore point. Usually close enough either way.)
In some cases (including, I think, the MUTCD), a distinction is made between the "theoretical gore" and the "physical gore". The theoretical gore is the point on the pavement at which the lanes split and the neutral area forms between the through lanes and the exiting ramp lane(s). The physical gore is the actual point of separation between the mainline pavement and ramp pavement, at which there is usually grass/dirt, curb, or barrier physically separating the lanes (and near which the "exit gore" sign is placed [e.g. "Exit 36 (arrow)"]).
In the context of this discussion: The non-Lunenfeld and Alexander option lane signing approach (i.e. the OP) places the overhead exit direction sign just in front of the theoretical gore right before the exit ramp starts to diverge. The current MUTCD signing approach puts the overhead exit direction sign at the physical gore (or at least past the theoretical gore) past the point where the option lane splits off, so at that point there is a new lane on which having a second "exit only" arrow is *technically* correct...
Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2023, 12:01:49 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2023, 10:33:35 PM
I think so many of these option lane situations that involve a simple street exits would probably be best following the Ontario style APL.
Arrow per lane signs, but only for the exit. Staying on the main highway is implied.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7604427,-79.3961391,3a,15.7y,59.48h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5NteL6SvCJZCqr8q8T6UOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
I'm sure I'd get used to it. But my first reaction is that it doesn't convey clear information about how many lanes continue straight. If I see that the exit gets an accurate number of arrows to match the number of lanes, then I might assume that the straight-ahead movement also has an accurate number of arrows. Therefore, I might assume that only the leftmost lane continues straight.
Understood, but something's gotta give. You can have either (1) a full-width APL that clearly shows the destiny of each lane but is huge, expensive, and wastes lots of the space the cost of money and material provided, or (2) a smaller APL that eliminates much of the waste but is focused on showing only the relevant exit information.
I'm not you, but keeping in mind a partial-width sign is to be used at a minor interchange, my assumption is the main point of information is about the exit configuration, not about the thru configuration. Plus, it's on a freeway so the idea that the sign might indicate there is only one thru lane would be ludicrous and therefore doesn't even occur to me. One thing about the Ontario signs is that the arrows aren't positioned above their respective lanes. Saves more money and material. But compromising by using a partial-width APL with arrows over the intended lanes would help avoid confusion.
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2023, 03:54:05 PM
Quote from: SoDakInterstateEnthusiast on September 18, 2023, 03:40:03 PM
I'm not quite knowledgeable of all the terminology - what is a gore point?
Depends... Is it theoretical? :biggrin:
Quote from: roadfro on September 19, 2023, 12:49:39 PM
In some cases (including, I think, the MUTCD), a distinction is made between the "theoretical gore" and the "physical gore". The theoretical gore is the point on the pavement at which the lanes split and the neutral area forms between the through lanes and the exiting ramp lane(s). The physical gore is the actual point of separation between the mainline pavement and ramp pavement, at which there is usually grass/dirt, curb, or barrier physically separating the lanes (and near which the "exit gore" sign is placed [e.g. "Exit 36 (arrow)"]).
Yep! Below is a helpful illustration from the MUTCD. The theoretical gore is the point at which the trajectories of the bounding lines meet/diverge. The physical gore, where the actual roadways meet/diverge.
(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig3b_09_2.gif)
Quote from: roadfro on September 19, 2023, 12:49:39 PM
In the context of this discussion: The non-Lunenfeld and Alexander option lane signing approach (i.e. the OP) places the overhead exit direction sign just in front of the theoretical gore right before the exit ramp starts to diverge. The current MUTCD signing approach puts the overhead exit direction sign at the physical gore (or at least past the theoretical gore) past the point where the option lane splits off, so at that point there is a new lane on which having a second "exit only" arrow is *technically* correct...
According to this MUTCD illustration, the theoretical gore for an option lane exit is the point at which the trajectory of the left lane stripe
of the exit-only lane meets the trajectory of the edge line of the post-split edge line. That is to say, it is
not, as one might perhaps assume, the point where the hash striping begins.
(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig3b_08_2.gif)
Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 19, 2023, 01:07:44 PM
Plus, it's on a freeway so the idea that the sign might indicate there is only one thru lane would be ludicrous and therefore doesn't even occur to me.
Interesting thought, now. Are there any examples of where the through-freeway narrows to one lane, but the exiting movement at that point has an option lane?
I can think of examples where the through-freeway narrows to one lane, but only where the exiting movement is also a single lane.
:hmmm:
Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2023, 01:23:18 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 19, 2023, 01:07:44 PM
Plus, it's on a freeway so the idea that the sign might indicate there is only one thru lane would be ludicrous and therefore doesn't even occur to me.
Interesting thought, now. Are there any examples of where the through-freeway narrows to one lane, but the exiting movement at that point has an option lane?
If so, either the thru freeway is already one lane at that point or there will be Lane Ends signage separate from the exit signage.
Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2023, 01:23:18 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 19, 2023, 01:07:44 PM
Plus, it's on a freeway so the idea that the sign might indicate there is only one thru lane would be ludicrous and therefore doesn't even occur to me.
Interesting thought, now. Are there any examples of where the through-freeway narrows to one lane, but the exiting movement at that point has an option lane?
I-278 at the I-95 interchange (https://maps.app.goo.gl/B4u8JHgFayHcsgE38) used to be exactly that - it's still I-278 until it merges with 1-9 but until 5 years ago, there was only a single option lane to stay on it.
Although I agree there's no confusion normally about the thru freeway only having one lane, especially if the arrows are over the lanes as intended.
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on September 19, 2023, 08:09:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2023, 01:23:18 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 19, 2023, 01:07:44 PM
Plus, it's on a freeway so the idea that the sign might indicate there is only one here (https://drawnbyhislight.com) thru lane would be ludicrous and therefore doesn't even occur to me.
Interesting thought, now. Are there any examples of where the through-freeway narrows to one lane, but the exiting movement at that point has an option lane?
I-278 at the I-95 interchange (https://maps.app.goo.gl/B4u8JHgFayHcsgE38) used to be exactly that - it's still I-278 until it merges with 1-9 but until 5 years ago, there was only a single option lane to stay on it.
Although I agree there's no confusion normally about the thru freeway only having one lane, especially if the arrows are over the lanes as intended.
I agree that confusion is very rare! But there are exceptions to the rules!
I wish I'd seen this when it was current. This is one of my favorite topics. First, I uploaded this snippet from the 2009 MUTCD six years ago:
(https://i.imgur.com/8H5Zuc3.png?1)
In my own state of Georgia, DOT started implementing the 2009 scheme in 2014 or so, though with some major and rather inexplicable exceptions:
In 2017, four signs on the Downtown Connector that had been replaced with 2009 MUTCD-compliant signage were modified to reintroduce the pre-2009 two-color scheme on the signs at the gore, though the option lanes were still hidden per the 2009 MUTCD upstream from there. This was done at the same time as three noncompliant APLs were brought into compliance.* Two years later, two of them were changed back to the complaint scheme when John Lewis's name was appended to Freedom Parkway. Apparently, the designer didn't get the memo that Figure 2E-11 in the 2009 MUTCD didn't apply on the Downtown Connector.
*Two of those APLs were made compliant by changing the lane striping to reintroduce option lanes that had been done away with decades earlier. On one, this was done only days after repaving, requiring brand-new pavement markings to be scraped up and reapplied. Whatever was done, it was apparently done in a panic.
In late 2017-early 2018, a huge signage replacement project from Jimmy Carter Boulevard to I-985 followed the same scheme as on the Downtown Connector: two-color at the splits, hidden option lane upstream. That's nine noncompliant signs if I'm counting correctly including replacement of this compliant but hideous sign (https://maps.app.goo.gl/NxhYEuacLSJRbXq1A) installed as part of an earlier project.
In 2019, we got this mess involving three signs. After I brought it to GDOT's attention, I was told that the designer of these signs no longer worked there-- as if this was one person's fault. :spin:
(https://i.imgur.com/Q9AaLQ1.jpg)
And finally so far, we have this, which went up in mid January of 2024. This would've been a good place for Georgia's first partial APL, but, alas, no.
(https://i.imgur.com/3s9MgAg.jpg)
I loathe exit only signage over option lanes. I don't care if it's MUTCD compliant; I hate it. "EXIT ONLY" should mean that if you're in that lane, there's no way out.
Quote from: Rothman on April 27, 2024, 11:19:32 AMI loathe exit only signage over option lanes. I don't care if it's MUTCD compliant; I hate it. "EXIT ONLY" should mean that if you're in that lane, there's no way out.
The EXIT ONLY in the example above is in fact over the dropped lane. The white arrow is over the option lane. The lane at right is a merge lane that ends beyond the curve-- you can see the RIGHT LANE ENDS yellow diamond on the right shoulder. Hopefully, GDOT will remember to use the proper striping when it's repaved in the near future. As it stands now, it's really confusing since there are so many instances on this part of 285 where auxiliary lanes extend from onramp to offramp.
Since you mentioned the problem in general, though, GDOT is really bad about locating the gore sign upstream from the theoretical gore, thus placing the left black arrow unambiguously over the option lane. This (https://maps.app.goo.gl/B2fWnpcnKAw8vVB86) is one of many examples. To add insult to injury, the gantry here is new so it could've been installed at the correct location, but instead they located it immediately behind the previous gantry. Wait: I'm wrong! On this one, they put the new gantry in front of the old one (https://maps.app.goo.gl/PxQCVyeHSssk1znH8)! WTF. GDOT?
Quote from: Tom958 on April 27, 2024, 10:59:42 AMAfter I brought it to GDOT's attention, I was told that the designer of these signs no longer worked there-- as if this was one person's fault. :spin:
Well, imagine that.
Quote from: gonealookin on September 15, 2023, 11:40:17 PMNevada's contribution:
Where the interchange is with a city street:
I-80 Exit 13 at Virginia Street (https://maps.app.goo.gl/jJy9pYbhQwTXbxY38)
And a short distance east of there, the APL setup at a freeway interchange:
I-80 Exit 15 at I-580/US 395 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/NUSRTwWDZg9k7D3B9)
Exits with an option lane are quite plentiful in Southern Nevada, so you can find lots of examples here too, like this one from I-15 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0210469,-115.1808641,3a,48.2y,176.9h,90.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPfmplTikfZWj9FU5FUnl8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu).
Some of the new recent exit signs in Massachusetts as part of certain sign replacements on some freeways have continued to use a white-on-green arrow for the option lane. I'm not sure if there's any official policy regarding this or if there's anything in the Mass supplement to the 2009 MUTCD regarding this.
Example on US 3 North at I-495 North / Lowell Connector, on April 8 2024. A similar example is also present at the MA 4 exit as well.
(https://i.ibb.co/frP43tK/DSC02093.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dkzGN63)
This sign on US 1 North at the jughandle used to have the "Exit Only" banner cover the two lanes. However, as you can see on the below photo, the option lane has been patched with a white on green arrow, covering the left black on yellow arrow and the word "Exit" as well. (source: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html)
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/us1signsjh224r.JPEG)
And finally, some signs like at Exit 66 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5458687,-70.9826549,3a,34.3y,201.73h,91.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGkBa85GeTi94xCRKTkeTtQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu) or Exit 64 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5333665,-70.9826697,3a,27.5y,153.42h,94.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfrHq_NN7bzpVC-E2T7TyYQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu) on I-95 with the two downward facing arrows for the exits have been replaced with upward versions recently as well.
Just another reason why MA is awesome.
Quote from: Rothman on April 27, 2024, 11:19:32 AMI loathe exit only signage over option lanes. I don't care if it's MUTCD compliant; I hate it. "EXIT ONLY" should mean that if you're in that lane, there's no way out.
I completely agree. Especially with signs that use downward arrows. The point of the yellow color is to warn people, and the yellow color in the exit tab is meant to warn those in that lane that they must merge out of that lane in order to continue forward on the mainline. If the lane is not an exit only lane, it must not be marked with yellow on the sign! Option lanes should not have yellow. I think this might be one reason some agencies are leaning toward APLs, which eliminate this confusion.
Quote from: fwydriver405 on April 30, 2024, 10:17:55 PMSome of the new recent exit signs in Massachusetts as part of certain sign replacements on some freeways have continued to use a white-on-green arrow for the option lane. I'm not sure if there's any official policy regarding this or if there's anything in the Mass supplement to the 2009 MUTCD regarding this.
Example on US 3 North at I-495 North / Lowell Connector, on April 8 2024. A similar example is also present at the MA 4 exit as well.
(https://i.ibb.co/frP43tK/DSC02093.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dkzGN63)
My only suggestion for this sign would be that the rightmost arrow should be located
between EXIT and ONLY rather than to the right of it. Other than that, it looks great.
Quote from: webny99 on May 08, 2024, 11:09:27 AMMy only suggestion for this sign would be that the rightmost arrow should be located between EXIT and ONLY rather than to the right of it. Other than that, it looks great.
That may be what the official guidance says, but it would require a wider sign with more blank space. Like APLs, one has to make a choice.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 08, 2024, 12:37:32 PMQuote from: webny99 on May 08, 2024, 11:09:27 AMMy only suggestion for this sign would be that the rightmost arrow should be located between EXIT and ONLY rather than to the right of it. Other than that, it looks great.
That may be what the official guidance says, but it would require a wider sign with more blank space. Like APLs, one has to make a choice.
Why would it require a wider sign? The arrow takes up the same amount of space regardless of where it's located within the EXIT ONLY panel.
Quote from: webny99 on May 08, 2024, 01:09:20 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on May 08, 2024, 12:37:32 PMQuote from: webny99 on May 08, 2024, 11:09:27 AMMy only suggestion for this sign would be that the rightmost arrow should be located between EXIT and ONLY rather than to the right of it. Other than that, it looks great.
That may be what the official guidance says, but it would require a wider sign with more blank space. Like APLs, one has to make a choice.
Why would it require a wider sign? The arrow takes up the same amount of space regardless of where it's located within the EXIT ONLY panel.
Can't simply flip ONLY and the right arrow; that would push the arrows closer together. They have to remain as they are relative to each other so they are positioned correctly over the lanes. No space to move them to the left. No space to place ONLY to the right of the arrow without widening the sign.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 08, 2024, 01:33:02 PMQuoteWhy would it require a wider sign? The arrow takes up the same amount of space regardless of where it's located within the EXIT ONLY panel.
Can't simply flip ONLY and the right arrow; that would push the arrows closer together. They have to remain as they are relative to each other so they are positioned correctly over the lanes. No space to move them to the left. No space to place ONLY to the right of the arrow without widening the sign.
I hadn't fully considered the distance between the arrows. If that spacing can't be changed at all, I guess I'd be OK with widening the sign a bit. EXIT and the white arrow are a bit tight as it is, so it wouldn't be all bad.
If you widen the sign enough, you can eliminate the line break in "Lowell Connector" and save 28 inches of height (16" of text and 12" of interline spacing).