Two lane exit from single lane

[jakeroot]

If you truly do that, that is clearly a 2 lane road.  But I would hope you're just saying you pass on the right as an example.

I used to understand the law as saying that you could pass on the right as long as there was sufficient pavement on the right, but, since I've reread the law, I realize that it only allows passing on the right of a car is turning left. So I have passed slow-moving vehicles on the right, but I don't anymore.

EDIT: RCW 46.61.115

[cl94]

I mean that, if a lane is wide enough for 2 cars, 2 cars will use it regardless of legality. Don't know about the rest of the country, but many 2-lane streets with on-street parking around here are treated as 4 lanes if there are no parked cars. Same logic applies. I'm referring to practice, not theory.

Interesting. Would you consider these to be examples of four-lanes without cars, two-lanes with? I use these roads on a regular basis, and I will occasionally pass on the right, but I get a lot of dirty looks.

If you truly do that, that is clearly a 2 lane road.  But I would hope you're just saying you pass on the right as an example.

Those are 2 lanes. Some of the streets I'm talking about have 20 foot lanes as they are striped.

Here's some Chicago examples, and yes, they do act as though they are four lanes.

Fullerton Avenue
63rd Street Note the truck passing the bus.
And in the other direction on 63rd Street
87th Street Note the vehicle having to move left to avoid a parked car.  That's fairly common.

I would post a Buffalo example, but they look exactly like these down to the broken yellow centerline.

[slorydn1]

Passing on the right on Trent Road in New Bern  had gotten so bad that DOT felt the need to post a sign reminding drivers that it's illegal to do so.

See we have a buttload of retirees here that like to do 20-25 in a 35 and hug the center line that people were just blowing their doors off to the right, and then wrecks would happen when said retiree decided to turn right at one of the side streets. Back in my pizza delivery days I had witnessed a bunch of these wrecks first hand.

[blanketcomputer]

I mean that, if a lane is wide enough for 2 cars, 2 cars will use it regardless of legality. Don't know about the rest of the country, but many 2-lane streets with on-street parking around here are treated as 4 lanes if there are no parked cars. Same logic applies. I'm referring to practice, not theory.

Sure, a wide city street might be different. In the case of a freeway exit, I would be more inclined to follow the pavement markings indicating a single, albeit very wide, lane. I think using #5 the same way as #1 is dangerous and confusing to drivers. #1 is marked in a way to remove the confusion from this movement and actually delineate the paths drivers should take to complete it.

[Ned Weasel]

I think using #5 the same way as #1 is dangerous and confusing to drivers. #1 is marked in a way to remove the confusion from this movement and actually delineate the paths drivers should take to complete it.

If we're talking about situations that are confusing to drivers, what do other people here think of a situation where a single, unstriped right lane on a freeway becomes a two-lane exit?  The lack of striping makes it impossible to determine whether it is a #2 or a #3 (numbers of course referring to this diagram: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15440.msg2062903#msg2062903).  My assumption is that this defaults to a #3, but is that correct?  I've already posted about the one occurrence of this situation that I've seen, and I don't want to make this a duplicate post, so I'll just leave this as questions for anyone who's interested.

(Edited for word choice.)

[wxfree]

I found this example yesterday evening.  US 277 exits off a concurrency with TX 70.  Two lanes divide directly into four lanes.  I'm not sure why, as one lane ends and US 277 becomes a two-lane road.  I suppose it's a short passing zone in case a top-heavy truck slows down a lot on the curve.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.0104036,-100.2770044,3a,75y,338.31h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVuC73_7I1aH3XZVk36eeQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

[kphoger]

I found this example yesterday evening.  US 277 exits off a concurrency with TX 70.  Two lanes divide directly into four lanes.  I'm not sure why, as one lane ends and US 277 becomes a two-lane road.  I suppose it's a short passing zone in case a top-heavy truck slows down a lot on the curve.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.0104036,-100.2770044,3a,75y,338.31h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVuC73_7I1aH3XZVk36eeQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

I just remembered this specific interchange, got all excited, dug through three pages of threads, posted a GSV shot, then realized the last post on the thread was the EXACT SAME LOCATION.  Grrrrr.....

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the crossover for southbound TX-70 traffic heading north on US-277 is also inexplicably two lanes.  This leads to the following weird progression.  It really is insanity.

1.  A two-lane left exit with no dropped or option lane


2.  460 feet later, two lanes merging into the single left lane of US-277 with no taper


3.   A diagrammatic sign suggesting you're now on a three-lane roadway with an option lane (LIES!)


4.  A two-lane right exit with no dropped or option lane

[cl94]

I can't post a link on my phone, but there are a couple at Jones Beach on Long Island. One of them is even 3 lanes.

[kphoger]

Now that I'm thinking about 277 in Texas, I realize it's more common than I thought.  Where US-277 meets US-67 on the northeast side of San Angelo, there is this type of situation as well.  This interchange recently underwent some construction (an active project when I drove through last summer), so it may be that some of these examples are no longer apparent.

Approaching on SB US-277:  2-lane left exit with no option or dropped lane
Merging from SB US-277 onto NB US-67:  2-lanes merge into a single lane with no taper

There are a couple of others visible in GSV at this junction, but the approach tapers are longer, so I figure they're iffy examples.

[kphoger]

I can't post a link on my phone, but there are a couple at Jones Beach on Long Island. One of them is even 3 lanes.

Indeed.  Here's an example there, where the option lane splits in two.  Basically, two lanes become three lanes at the point of exit.

[cl94]

I can't post a link on my phone, but there are a couple at Jones Beach on Long Island. One of them is even 3 lanes.

Indeed.  Here's an example there, where the option lane splits in two.  Basically, two lanes become three lanes at the point of exit.

I was actually thinking of this one at the end of the Meadowbrook.

[kphoger]

I can't post a link on my phone, but there are a couple at Jones Beach on Long Island. One of them is even 3 lanes.

Indeed.  Here's an example there, where the option lane splits in two.  Basically, two lanes become three lanes at the point of exit.

I was actually thinking of this one at the end of the Meadowbrook.

That's a dropped lane (#3 in the image below), so it does not fit the thread.

There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what I'm talking about, so maybe a simplified diagram would be clearer.



The two key characteristics are: 1.) No lane drop, and 2.) Two theoretical gore points (one for each exit lane) touching the edge line of the through lane.

There's a bit of a gray area between #1 and #5, but I think the distinction is relevant. With the striping in #1, two cars riding nose-to-tail in the right lane could exit simultaneously–easily and neatly. Even though the pavement surface is essentially identical in #5, the striping forces it to act more like #4, where vehicles would exit single file and then fan out to fill both lanes where the divider striping appears.

[paulthemapguy]

There's a thread for this!?  Awesome!!  This annoys the hell out of me too.
And I am very very grateful to briantroutman for that diagram.  It drives me nuts.  It's not that the other configurations are unsafe-it's that they're inefficient.  If you can get twice the flow into the exit ramp, why wouldn't you configure the striping to allow that--especially if it's a heavily-traveled ramp?

If you're looking for more examples, I-465 southbound at 86th St is one that gets me every time.  One lane gets to exit and immediately opens into two lanes, instead of allowing for an optional exit out of the second lane of I-465.  https://goo.gl/maps/U5XGQ98oH9D2

[kphoger]

There's a thread for this!?  Awesome!!  This annoys the hell out of me too.
And I am very very grateful to briantroutman for that diagram.  It drives me nuts.  It's not that the other configurations are unsafe-it's that they're inefficient.  If you can get twice the flow into the exit ramp, why wouldn't you configure the striping to allow that--especially if it's a heavily-traveled ramp?

If you're looking for more examples, I-465 southbound at 86th St is one that gets me every time.  One lane gets to exit and immediately opens into two lanes, instead of allowing for an optional exit out of the second lane of I-465.  https://goo.gl/maps/U5XGQ98oH9D2

Isn't that one a #3?

[paulthemapguy]

There's a thread for this!?  Awesome!!  This annoys the hell out of me too.
And I am very very grateful to briantroutman for that diagram.  It drives me nuts.  It's not that the other configurations are unsafe-it's that they're inefficient.  If you can get twice the flow into the exit ramp, why wouldn't you configure the striping to allow that--especially if it's a heavily-traveled ramp?

If you're looking for more examples, I-465 southbound at 86th St is one that gets me every time.  One lane gets to exit and immediately opens into two lanes, instead of allowing for an optional exit out of the second lane of I-465.  https://goo.gl/maps/U5XGQ98oH9D2

Isn't that one a #3?

Yeah but it's the same situation, just with an exit only lane.  (I'm not starting a new thread when the situations are nearly the same.)

[freebrickproductions]

I hope this one on Holmes Avenue here in Huntsville counts, even though it isn't signed as an exit:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7276361,-86.6404949,3a,46y,251.54h,80.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHrBkYHKVDCrqqrcUwWanjg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

Also, a bit of a fun fact: the one-way road the peels off of Holmes Avenue and onto UAH's campus is actually the original routing of Holmes Avenue.

[empirestate]

You know, it occurs to me that all the exits from the Bear Mountain Circle qualify:
https://goo.gl/maps/zvXdz5scmLm

This probably applies to a lot of older-style traffic circles elsewhere, too.

[wanderer2575]

Eastbound I-94 at I-75 in downtown Detroit.

https://goo.gl/maps/ZNJEpHNbaZA2

[cl94]

You know, it occurs to me that all the exits from the Bear Mountain Circle qualify:
https://goo.gl/maps/zvXdz5scmLm

This probably applies to a lot of older-style traffic circles elsewhere, too.

Two exits at the one a few miles west of there qualify.

The old Kingston traffic circle at the west end of I-587 qualified until they got rid of it. Latham Circle also qualified until they channelized the lanes.

Here's one in Niskayuna outside of GE's research complex.

[jakeroot]

You know, it occurs to me that all the exits from the Bear Mountain Circle qualify:
https://goo.gl/maps/zvXdz5scmLm

This probably applies to a lot of older-style traffic circles elsewhere, too.

Two exits at the one a few miles west of there qualify.

The old Kingston traffic circle at the west end of I-587 qualified until they got rid of it. Latham Circle also qualified until they channelized the lanes.

Here's one in Niskayuna outside of GE's research complex.

I'm not totally sure I agree with this assessment. At least by European standards (assuming the US has none for traffic circles), the right-most lane of a circle is an "exit only" at each leg (inside lane being an optional turn-off-or-stay-on lane). The inside lane has the option of exiting, or continuing around. The lane lines don't agree with this, but this is typically how traffic circles operate in the rest of the world (to the best of my knowledge).

Then again, I don't live in the Northeast. The only experience I have driving traffic circles are driving around the various traffic circles in Edmonton, Alberta, where they operate as I describe above.

[cl94]

You know, it occurs to me that all the exits from the Bear Mountain Circle qualify:
https://goo.gl/maps/zvXdz5scmLm

This probably applies to a lot of older-style traffic circles elsewhere, too.

Two exits at the one a few miles west of there qualify.

The old Kingston traffic circle at the west end of I-587 qualified until they got rid of it. Latham Circle also qualified until they channelized the lanes.

Here's one in Niskayuna outside of GE's research complex.

I'm not totally sure I agree with this assessment. At least by European standards (assuming the US has none for traffic circles), the right-most lane of a circle is an "exit only" at each leg (inside lane being an optional turn-off-or-stay-on lane). The inside lane has the option of exiting, or continuing around. The lane lines don't agree with this, but this is typically how traffic circles operate in the rest of the world (to the best of my knowledge).

Then again, I don't live in the Northeast. The only experience I have driving traffic circles are driving around the various traffic circles in Edmonton, Alberta, where they operate as I describe above.

At least around here, both lanes could operate as option lanes.

[wanderer2575]

Now, how about the other side of the interchange -- two entrance lanes merging into a single existing thru lane with no extended acceleration lane?

Entrance ramp to westbound I-696 west of M-1 (Woodward Avenue):
https://goo.gl/maps/TTSD5eaxbHK2

[empirestate]

You know, it occurs to me that all the exits from the Bear Mountain Circle qualify:
https://goo.gl/maps/zvXdz5scmLm

This probably applies to a lot of older-style traffic circles elsewhere, too.

Two exits at the one a few miles west of there qualify.

The old Kingston traffic circle at the west end of I-587 qualified until they got rid of it. Latham Circle also qualified until they channelized the lanes.

Here's one in Niskayuna outside of GE's research complex.

I'm not totally sure I agree with this assessment. At least by European standards (assuming the US has none for traffic circles), the right-most lane of a circle is an "exit only" at each leg (inside lane being an optional turn-off-or-stay-on lane). The inside lane has the option of exiting, or continuing around. The lane lines don't agree with this, but this is typically how traffic circles operate in the rest of the world (to the best of my knowledge).

Then again, I don't live in the Northeast. The only experience I have driving traffic circles are driving around the various traffic circles in Edmonton, Alberta, where they operate as I describe above.

At least around here, both lanes could operate as option lanes.

That's just it; there's no apparent standard for how striping like this is supposed to work. You can't count on a motorist entering the right lane not to continue 180 degrees through the circle, rather than existing immediately.

We must also assume that, if these older traffic circles were meant to function as modern roundabout, they'd be re-striped as such. But then, what purpose does the left lane have, if exits are only ever allowed from the right lane?


iPhone

[jakeroot]

At least by European standards (assuming the US has none for traffic circles), the right-most lane of a circle is an "exit only" at each leg (inside lane being an optional turn-off-or-stay-on lane). The inside lane has the option of exiting, or continuing around. The lane lines don't agree with this, but this is typically how traffic circles operate in the rest of the world (to the best of my knowledge).

Then again, I don't live in the Northeast. The only experience I have driving traffic circles are driving around the various traffic circles in Edmonton, Alberta, where they operate as I describe above.

At least around here, both lanes could operate as option lanes.

That's just it; there's no apparent standard for how striping like this is supposed to work. You can't count on a motorist entering the right lane not to continue 180 degrees through the circle, rather than exiting immediately.

We must also assume that, if these older traffic circles were meant to function as modern roundabout, they'd be re-striped as such.

The European rules generally discount the first exit (most often, a right turn). Both lanes can proceed past this exit, but at the next exit, the right lane becomes an exit only.

Why more circles aren't re-striped as roundabouts, I couldn't say. It genuinely boggles my mind. There are obviously many that have been re-striped, but the fact that there are circles with concentric markings still out there, really surprises me. We've been building modern roundabouts for over 20 years at this point.

But then, what purpose does the left lane have, if exits are only ever allowed from the right lane?

Seemingly none, by American standards. If the right lane was an exit-only at each leg, a la Europe, these traffic circles would have much higher capacities.

[empirestate]

The European rules generally discount the first exit (most often, a right turn). Both lanes can proceed past this exit, but at the next exit, the right lane becomes an exit only.

Thing is, exit only to which lane? You'll often have conflicts here between motorists exiting from the right lane of the circle and from the left lane of the circle, both into the left lane of the exit. Given the way it's striped, why shouldn't someone in the right lane of the circle expect to have both exiting lanes available to him?

(There's a lot more at play here, too, such as the toll booth to the bridge requiring a choice between staffed (right) and E-ZPass (left) lanes. Plus the fact that the circle is often just plain jammed up with traffic, such that any roundabout functionality goes out the window...)