MUTCD Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2020) now available

[J N Winkler]

I'd also add that the key word in the sections quoted is "may."  I'm not sure I've ever seen an agency use both R3-33 and W9-7 (or local equivalents with the same background colors) at the same exit, and many don't use either.

[Ned Weasel]

The MUTCD requires overhead signs with downward-pointing arrows to provide positive guidance; nevertheless, a few states have isolated examples of lane drops with ground-mounted signing only.  (I think there is one in Kansas, but the location escapes me at present.)

Southbound US 69 at 135th Street in Overland Park.

[jakeroot]

If you read the sections kphoger quoted in the previous reply, it should become clear what the purposes of the two signs are. One is an advance warning, the other denotes that an exit movement is required from the lane. Kind of like a warning sign for a reduced speed limit ahead vs. the speed limit sign itself.

Some of our confusion seems to stem from the notion that all signs related to law/required action are displayed on white regulatory signs, but we forgot that some warning signs provide advance notice of regulation (stop ahead, speed limit ahead, etc.).

Of course, that brings us back to the fact that yellow is used at the gore point itself.

For example, why is the [EXIT ONLY] plaque at the gore point shown below yellow instead of white?  The previous two signs could be considered warnings, but what about the final one?



I'd argue that it's still a warning sign, and not regulatory in nature.  As long as a driver hasn't actually passed the gore point (that is, there's still only a single white line between his lane and the through lanes), then he's perfectly free to change out of that lane.  He's not actually required to exit.  Only after the lanes actually diverge must a driver in that lane actually exit–and that is by virtue of the lane lines, not by virtue of signage.

This post is exactly why current signage rubs me the wrong way.

The signs make sense. JN Winkler just mentioned a dozen posts ago that black-on-yellow EXIT ONLY signs are consistent and at least decently well-understood, although perhaps not perfectly so.

Still, that the primary signage for an exit has no regulatory component seems like a miss. I wouldn't mind seeing the final sign at a split change from "EXIT ONLY" to "MUST EXIT", and the colors change from black-on-yellow (warning of a regulatory condition(?)) to black-on-white (actual regulatory condition) at the gore point itself.

This change may raise two additional concerns, however: (1) if warnings are meant to apply before the sign, the actual gore-point sign is still correct using black-on-yellow, as only at the point where the driver passes beneath the sign may they no longer leave that lane; as well, (2) regulatory conditions are generally not signed with warnings.

[Ned Weasel]

This post is exactly why current signage rubs me the wrong way.

The signs make sense. JN Winkler just mentioned a dozen posts ago that black-on-yellow EXIT ONLY signs are consistent and at least decently well-understood, although perhaps not perfectly so.

Still, that the primary signage for an exit has no regulatory component seems like a miss. I wouldn't mind seeing the final sign at a split change from "EXIT ONLY" to "MUST EXIT", and the colors change from black-on-yellow (warning of a regulatory condition(?)) to black-on-white (actual regulatory condition) at the gore point itself.

This change may raise two additional concerns, however: (1) if warnings are meant to apply before the sign, the actual gore-point sign is still correct using black-on-yellow, as only at the point where the driver passes beneath the sign may they no longer leave that lane; as well, (2) regulatory conditions are generally not signed with warnings.

Change the color to a yellow tint for Warnuatory, and change the wording from "EXIT ONLY" to "EXIT PLEASE."

[interstatefan990]

Why would we even need to make regulatory exit signage in the first place? When a lane is Exit Only, it physically leaves the roadway. If you are in the exiting lane when you reach the gore point, you don't really have a choice. It's like putting up a regulatory sign that says "MUST TURN WHEN APPROACHING CURVE". The exit signs only need to be black-on-yellow warnings in my opinion. My guess is that existing black-on-white signs are just there to prevent drivers from making dangerous last-ditch maneuvers across the channelizing lines in order to avoid taking the exit.

[ran4sh]

Why would we even need to make regulatory exit signage in the first place? When a lane is Exit Only, it physically leaves the roadway. If you are in the exiting lane when you reach the gore point, you don't really have a choice. It's like putting up a regulatory sign that says "MUST TURN WHEN APPROACHING CURVE". The exit signs only need to be black-on-yellow warnings in my opinion. My guess is that existing black-on-white signs are just there to prevent drivers from making dangerous last-ditch maneuvers across the channelizing lines in order to avoid taking the exit.

"My guess is that existing black-on-white signs are just there to prevent drivers from making dangerous last-ditch maneuvers across the channelizing lines in order to avoid taking the exit."

It seems that it's really because some states require a regulatory sign to be posted for that condition under their state law. This is what was explained in the federal notice when the 2009 MUTCD was enacted (the previous MUTCD did not have a standard regulatory sign for exit-only lanes, just the "exit only" panels for BGSs).

[ran4sh]

The MUTCD requires overhead signs with downward-pointing arrows to provide positive guidance; nevertheless, a few states have isolated examples of lane drops with ground-mounted signing only.  (I think there is one in Kansas, but the location escapes me at present.)

Southbound US 69 at 135th Street in Overland Park.

I've also seen such on I-277 in Charlotte NC as well as I-16 in Macon GA. I hate it. I like that at least GDOT got rid of all of the ground mounted "exit only" signs in metro Atlanta.

[RobbieL2415]

IMO we need better warning signs for merging. More specifically, we need warning signs that tell drivers that the need to use the full potential of the merge and that they need to merge at the speed limit.

Even text warning signs that say "Follow lane to end", "Must merge at speed limit" or some verbiage like that.

It is a huge pet peeve of mine when drivers just bumble on at 40mph and THEN speed up once they're on the freeway. The on-ramp and the merge area, assuming they're properly designed, are designed to allow you to be up to the speed limit BEFORE you enter the thru lane. And if you're going to bumble on at 40mph, then you need to use the full potential of the merge to allow traffic enough time to either slow down or change lanes.

[kphoger]

IMO we need better warning signs for merging. More specifically, we need warning signs that tell drivers that the need to use the full potential of the merge and that they need to merge at the speed limit.

Even text warning signs that say "Follow lane to end", "Must merge at speed limit" or some verbiage like that.

It is a huge pet peeve of mine when drivers just bumble on at 40mph and THEN speed up once they're on the freeway. The on-ramp and the merge area, assuming they're properly designed, are designed to allow you to be up to the speed limit BEFORE you enter the thru lane. And if you're going to bumble on at 40mph, then you need to use the full potential of the merge to allow traffic enough time to either slow down or change lanes.

But that's not always the case.

If there's a gap in traffic at the beginning of the merge zone, then a driver should merge there–not wait till the end and have the gap disappear.

And if the flow of traffic in the right lane is going 5-10 mph under the speed limit, then it's frankly a bad idea to merge at the speed limit.

(Oh, and when is traffic in the right lane going under the speed limit?  Every day on my way home from work, that's when.)

[RobbieL2415]

IMO we need better warning signs for merging. More specifically, we need warning signs that tell drivers that the need to use the full potential of the merge and that they need to merge at the speed limit.

Even text warning signs that say "Follow lane to end", "Must merge at speed limit" or some verbiage like that.

It is a huge pet peeve of mine when drivers just bumble on at 40mph and THEN speed up once they're on the freeway. The on-ramp and the merge area, assuming they're properly designed, are designed to allow you to be up to the speed limit BEFORE you enter the thru lane. And if you're going to bumble on at 40mph, then you need to use the full potential of the merge to allow traffic enough time to either slow down or change lanes.

But that's not always the case.

If there's a gap in traffic at the beginning of the merge zone, then a driver should merge there–not wait till the end and have the gap disappear.

And if the flow of traffic in the right lane is going 5-10 mph under the speed limit, then it's frankly a bad idea to merge at the speed limit.

(Oh, and when is traffic in the right lane going under the speed limit?  Every day on my way home from work, that's when.)

There is no legitimate reason for anyone driving a passenger vehicle to merge below the speed limit or lower, as conditions warrant.
When traffic is heavy, there is no legitimate reason for any driver to not use the full merge area. You don't immediately get the right-of-way when the gore ends and get to move over and cut someone off.

[vdeane]

IMO we need better warning signs for merging. More specifically, we need warning signs that tell drivers that the need to use the full potential of the merge and that they need to merge at the speed limit.

Even text warning signs that say "Follow lane to end", "Must merge at speed limit" or some verbiage like that.

It is a huge pet peeve of mine when drivers just bumble on at 40mph and THEN speed up once they're on the freeway. The on-ramp and the merge area, assuming they're properly designed, are designed to allow you to be up to the speed limit BEFORE you enter the thru lane. And if you're going to bumble on at 40mph, then you need to use the full potential of the merge to allow traffic enough time to either slow down or change lanes.

But that's not always the case.

If there's a gap in traffic at the beginning of the merge zone, then a driver should merge there–not wait till the end and have the gap disappear.

And if the flow of traffic in the right lane is going 5-10 mph under the speed limit, then it's frankly a bad idea to merge at the speed limit.

(Oh, and when is traffic in the right lane going under the speed limit?  Every day on my way home from work, that's when.)

Keep in mind that at least some of that congestion is from people slowing down to let in the person who is bumbling onto the freeway at 40.  I know.  I've seen one ramp merge near me go from free-flow to brake lights in 30 seconds (this spot, specifically - and people still do it even now that there's an auxiliary lane from there to the next exit!), all from one person merging in (often across the lane lines before the ramp fully merges) well below the speed of traffic.

[kphoger]

There is no legitimate reason for anyone driving a passenger vehicle to merge below the speed limit or lower, as conditions warrant.
When traffic is heavy, there is no legitimate reason for any driver to not use the full merge area. You don't immediately get the right-of-way when the gore ends and get to move over and cut someone off.

So, where I merge onto Kellogg here this afternoon, and traffic in the right lane is going 40 mph with their brake lights on (probably due to weaving traffic at this interchange, I should still just go ahead and merge in at 60 mph?  And ram into the first car I come to?  Sorry, but I prefer to actually match the speed of traffic, NOT a number on a sign.  Which means that I usually aim for 10 mph under the speed limit.

If traffic is flowing freely, then (1) I can easily accelerate to the speed limit in no time, and (2) there wouldn't really be many drivers inconvenienced by my merging in at a lower speed anyway, considering that the gaps are bigger and the middle lane isn't clogged up.

If traffic is thick, then (1) I don't have to wear on my brakes as much to get down to the speed of traffic, and (2) I have less risk of getting rear-ended in the case of a precipitous slow-down.  (Accidents are common there, so sometimes traffic is only going 20.)

Right-lane traffic going the full speed limit there during my commute home is actually more rare of an occurrence than it going 5-10 under.  I certainly wouldn't want signage telling people to merge at the full speed limit.  That's a recipe for a wreck.

[PurdueBill]

There is no legitimate reason for anyone driving a passenger vehicle to merge below the speed limit or lower, as conditions warrant.
When traffic is heavy, there is no legitimate reason for any driver to not use the full merge area. You don't immediately get the right-of-way when the gore ends and get to move over and cut someone off.

So, where I merge onto Kellogg here this afternoon, and traffic in the right lane is going 40 mph with their brake lights on (probably due to weaving traffic at this interchange, I should still just go ahead and merge in at 60 mph?  And ram into the first car I come to?  Sorry, but I prefer to actually match the speed of traffic, NOT a number on a sign.  Which means that I usually aim for 10 mph under the speed limit.

If traffic is flowing freely, then (1) I can easily accelerate to the speed limit in no time, and (2) there wouldn't really be many drivers inconvenienced by my merging in at a lower speed anyway, considering that the gaps are bigger and the middle lane isn't clogged up.

If traffic is thick, then (1) I don't have to wear on my brakes as much to get down to the speed of traffic, and (2) I have less risk of getting rear-ended in the case of a precipitous slow-down.  (Accidents are common there, so sometimes traffic is only going 20.)

Right-lane traffic going the full speed limit there during my commute home is actually more rare of an occurrence than it going 5-10 under.  I certainly wouldn't want signage telling people to merge at the full speed limit.  That's a recipe for a wreck.

The "or lower, as conditions warrant" is the part that makes allowance for when traffic is moving slower than the speed limit, but that is probably too much for a sign.

I could swear that there was somewhere (Maryland?) that had signs advising to maintain speed and "match speed and merge".  The verbiage to "match speed" seems to convey that if the road is moving at 35, then merge in at 35.  If it is moving at 65, then you need to get up to 65 to merge in, not expecting to move into traffic doing 50 and make people slam on the brakes or swerve around you.

[RobbieL2415]

There is no legitimate reason for anyone driving a passenger vehicle to merge below the speed limit or lower, as conditions warrant.
When traffic is heavy, there is no legitimate reason for any driver to not use the full merge area. You don't immediately get the right-of-way when the gore ends and get to move over and cut someone off.

So, where I merge onto Kellogg here this afternoon, and traffic in the right lane is going 40 mph with their brake lights on (probably due to weaving traffic at this interchange, I should still just go ahead and merge in at 60 mph?  And ram into the first car I come to?  Sorry, but I prefer to actually match the speed of traffic, NOT a number on a sign.  Which means that I usually aim for 10 mph under the speed limit.

If traffic is flowing freely, then (1) I can easily accelerate to the speed limit in no time, and (2) there wouldn't really be many drivers inconvenienced by my merging in at a lower speed anyway, considering that the gaps are bigger and the middle lane isn't clogged up.

If traffic is thick, then (1) I don't have to wear on my brakes as much to get down to the speed of traffic, and (2) I have less risk of getting rear-ended in the case of a precipitous slow-down.  (Accidents are common there, so sometimes traffic is only going 20.)

Right-lane traffic going the full speed limit there during my commute home is actually more rare of an occurrence than it going 5-10 under.  I certainly wouldn't want signage telling people to merge at the full speed limit.  That's a recipe for a wreck.

The "or lower, as conditions warrant" is the part that makes allowance for when traffic is moving slower than the speed limit, but that is probably too much for a sign.

I could swear that there was somewhere (Maryland?) that had signs advising to maintain speed and "match speed and merge".  The verbiage to "match speed" seems to convey that if the road is moving at 35, then merge in at 35.  If it is moving at 65, then you need to get up to 65 to merge in, not expecting to move into traffic doing 50 and make people slam on the brakes or swerve around you.

The word "must" should appear on such a sign. Or maybe just start ticketing drivers who merge poorly.

[RobbieL2415]

There is no legitimate reason for anyone driving a passenger vehicle to merge below the speed limit or lower, as conditions warrant.
When traffic is heavy, there is no legitimate reason for any driver to not use the full merge area. You don't immediately get the right-of-way when the gore ends and get to move over and cut someone off.

So, where I merge onto Kellogg here this afternoon, and traffic in the right lane is going 40 mph with their brake lights on (probably due to weaving traffic at this interchange, I should still just go ahead and merge in at 60 mph?  And ram into the first car I come to?  Sorry, but I prefer to actually match the speed of traffic, NOT a number on a sign.  Which means that I usually aim for 10 mph under the speed limit.

If traffic is flowing freely, then (1) I can easily accelerate to the speed limit in no time, and (2) there wouldn't really be many drivers inconvenienced by my merging in at a lower speed anyway, considering that the gaps are bigger and the middle lane isn't clogged up.

If traffic is thick, then (1) I don't have to wear on my brakes as much to get down to the speed of traffic, and (2) I have less risk of getting rear-ended in the case of a precipitous slow-down.  (Accidents are common there, so sometimes traffic is only going 20.)

Right-lane traffic going the full speed limit there during my commute home is actually more rare of an occurrence than it going 5-10 under.  I certainly wouldn't want signage telling people to merge at the full speed limit.  That's a recipe for a wreck.

You would approach at the speed of traffic and merge using the entire merge area, i.e. a zipper merge.

[kphoger]

The word "must" should appear on such a sign. Or maybe just start ticketing drivers who merge poorly.

And, at some locations, it is all but impossible to merge at speed.  The interchange responsible for most of the slow-down at the point I mentioned earlier is a perfect example.  The accel/decel lane between the two loop ramps is only 471 feet long.  Merging onto Kellogg, you're coming off an uphill loop, and then you have just 13 dashes of the white line to get up to 60 mph?  Nobody merges in at the speed limit there.  In fact, doing so can be dangerous, because other drivers are slowing down to exit at the 25 mph advisory speed in the same lane.

IMO we need better warning signs for merging. More specifically, we need warning signs that tell drivers that the need to use the full potential of the merge and that they need to merge at the speed limit.

Even text warning signs that say "Follow lane to end", "Must merge at speed limit" or some verbiage like that.

It is a huge pet peeve of mine when drivers just bumble on at 40mph and THEN speed up once they're on the freeway. The on-ramp and the merge area, assuming they're properly designed, are designed to allow you to be up to the speed limit BEFORE you enter the thru lane. And if you're going to bumble on at 40mph, then you need to use the full potential of the merge to allow traffic enough time to either slow down or change lanes.

You would approach at the speed of traffic and merge using the entire merge area, i.e. a zipper merge.

That's my point.  The speed of traffic is lower than the speed limit more often than not in the location I posted.  So don't erect a sign telling people to merge at the speed limit.

[jakeroot]

What if we posted speed limits at the on-ramps?

It could either accompany the FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign in those states that use it, assuming it doesn't busy it up, or as a second sign later down the ramp.

Slow-merging drivers are pretty uncommon here in WA (most drivers are very good about merging quickly), but then I feel other states are very bad at signing on-ramps. Some drivers may genuinely not realize they are entering a freeway at first.

[J N Winkler]

The situation Kphoger is talking about is a compromised design dating from completion of the I-135/US 54 turban interchange in the late 1970's.  This involved the upgrading of Kellogg from a surface arterial to a (relatively) modern freeway between Topeka (east fringe of downtown) and Bluff (a north-south road midway between Hillside and Oliver that was basically a collector but, at the time, functioned as a signalized access point to Kellogg).  Putting in loops instead of link ramps for Hillside on eastbound Kellogg avoided taking Sunnyside, still an elementary school at the time but now an apartment building, as well as part of Calvary Cemetery.  Even so, this decision still necessitated shifting the Kellogg centerline to the north--Kellogg Drive, which borders the cemetery, is actually in the footprint of the old road.  The loops do create a weaving section, but to put in links would have created a weave between traffic entering from I-135 and traffic exiting onto Hillside that would arguably have been worse, and until the freeway was extended to Oliver and beyond, mainline traffic tended to slow down for a signal at Bluff.  (It still slows down to a degree because this is the point at which eastbound Kellogg climbs out of the Arkansas River floodplain, with a gentle uphill grade that drivers almost uniformly fail to anticipate.)

Absent travel demand management, the logical fix would appear to be to braid ramps so that traffic exits for Hillside before the merge point for cars coming from I-135.  I don't see this entering the development pipeline except as part of a widening of Kellogg that would displace its centerline further to the north and probably also involve the closure of the restricted-access interchange with Grove.



As regards people merging slowly onto the freeway, I think this complaint (as well as a large share of "bad driving" complaints in general) tends to be about declining LOS exposing otherwise tolerable deficiencies in geometric design more than it is about skill per se.  We generally don't worry about drivers who seem less confident or afraid of overtaxing their automatic transmissions as long as it is easy to get around them.

[Scott5114]

The accel/decel lane between the two loop ramps is only 471 feet long. 

Looking at this in Google Street View, now I want to write a story about a man named Oliver Edgemoor.

[kphoger]

The accel/decel lane between the two loop ramps is only 471 feet long. 

Looking at this in Google Street View, now I want to write a story about a man named Oliver Edgemoor.

Make sure his wife's name is Beverly Carneiro.

[stevashe]

If you read the sections kphoger quoted in the previous reply, it should become clear what the purposes of the two signs are. One is an advance warning, the other denotes that an exit movement is required from the lane. Kind of like a warning sign for a reduced speed limit ahead vs. the speed limit sign itself.

Some of our confusion seems to stem from the notion that all signs related to law/required action are displayed on white regulatory signs, but we forgot that some warning signs provide advance notice of regulation (stop ahead, speed limit ahead, etc.).

Of course, that brings us back to the fact that yellow is used at the gore point itself.

For example, why is the [EXIT ONLY] plaque at the gore point shown below yellow instead of white?  The previous two signs could be considered warnings, but what about the final one?



I'd argue that it's still a warning sign, and not regulatory in nature.  As long as a driver hasn't actually passed the gore point (that is, there's still only a single white line between his lane and the through lanes), then he's perfectly free to change out of that lane.  He's not actually required to exit.  Only after the lanes actually diverge must a driver in that lane actually exit–and that is by virtue of the lane lines, not by virtue of signage.

You're totally correct, though I was only referring to those two post-mounted signs with my comments. For the overhead signs, I suspect the choice of yellow may have more to do with increased visibility as opposed to the technicality of whether it's a warning or regulatory message because at least in my experience, yellow tends to catch my eye a lot more than white.

[Scott5114]

The accel/decel lane between the two loop ramps is only 471 feet long. 

Looking at this in Google Street View, now I want to write a story about a man named Oliver Edgemoor.

Make sure his wife's name is Beverly Carneiro.

Think I'd get sued for making Where in the World Is Beverly Carneiro?

It's just a book that says "I-70 exit 233 in Kansas."

The rest of the pages are blank.

[kphoger]

IMO we need better warning signs for merging. More specifically, we need warning signs that tell drivers that the need to use the full potential of the merge and that they need to merge at the speed limit.

Even text warning signs that say "Follow lane to end", "Must merge at speed limit" or some verbiage like that.

It is a huge pet peeve of mine when drivers just bumble on at 40mph and THEN speed up once they're on the freeway. The on-ramp and the merge area, assuming they're properly designed, are designed to allow you to be up to the speed limit BEFORE you enter the thru lane. And if you're going to bumble on at 40mph, then you need to use the full potential of the merge to allow traffic enough time to either slow down or change lanes.

So, where I merge onto Kellogg here this afternoon, and traffic in the right lane is going 40 mph with their brake lights on (probably due to weaving traffic at this interchange, I should still just go ahead and merge in at 60 mph?  And ram into the first car I come to?  Sorry, but I prefer to actually match the speed of traffic, NOT a number on a sign.  Which means that I usually aim for 10 mph under the speed limit.

You would approach at the speed of traffic and merge using the entire merge area, i.e. a zipper merge.

That's my point.  The speed of traffic is lower than the speed limit more often than not in the location I posted.  So don't erect a sign telling people to merge at the speed limit.

Oh hey, look...

Speed limit = 60 mph

I merged in at around 42 mph, and I still had to step on the brakes.  Good thing there weren't any signs on the ramp encouraging me to merge at the speed limit.

[jakeroot]

I still don't understand how you can reference the speed limit without posting it first. "Merge at speed limit" would be meaningless without the speed limit posted right before it.

[kphoger]

It's a recipe for disaster anyway.  Rear-end someone while merging, and then tell your insurance adjuster it wasn't your fault because you had to obey the sign.