States that still use white down arrows for exit option lanes

[SkyPesos]

It looks like white downward pointing arrows has supposedly not been permitted for this use since the 2009 MUTCD, and has been replaced by other signage styles like partial APLs. However, there are still new installations going up. Post examples of signs installed in the 2020s that still use a white downward pointing arrow for an option lane next to an "Exit only" lane.

Ohio has a few of them in the Cincinnati area.
- I-275 WB Exit 47 - Direct sign replacement sometime between Aug 2024 and July 2025
- I-275 EB Exit 49 (I-71) - Also a direct sign replacement at same time as one above
- I-75 NB Exit 16 (I-275) - Installed sometime between Jun 2022 and Oct 2024 after construction. Also interesting that this one is at while the on-ramp from the previous exit is still merging in.

[Henry]

I actually think that having a white arrow over the option lane where the far right lane is Exit Only makes more sense than marking both lanes with the latter condition, which is something the MUTCD continues to get wrong. However, I like the newer mini-APL application that was added in the 2023 edition even better, as it conveys the clearest message as to which lane is the option lane.

As for the question, I've seen some around Seattle that could be seen as similar, but use the slanted white up arrows:
I-5 NB at I-90, where the Dearborn/James/Madison Street exit gets the option lane
I-90 WB at I-5, with I-5 using the option lane and James/Madison being Exit Only

[fwydriver405]

Massachusetts still does this on their new signage, as of the last few recent sign replacement contracts statewide.

Examples on I-495 at I-290 (1/4 mile, At exit), I-290 at I-190 (½ mile, At exit), and these slanted examples in "Why don't option lane BGSs look like this???" below:

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.



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)



And finally, some signs like at Exit 66 or Exit 64 on I-95 with the two downward facing arrows for the exits have been replaced with upward versions recently as well.

[paulthemapguy]

Illinois does this all over the place and it drives me up a wall. IDOT and ISTHA both do it constantly.

[kphoger]

Illinois does this all over the place and it drives me up a wall. IDOT and ISTHA both do it constantly.

What!?  You actually prefer the double exit only, even though only one lane is an exit only lane?

[paulthemapguy]

Illinois does this all over the place and it drives me up a wall. IDOT and ISTHA both do it constantly.

What!?  You actually prefer the double exit only, even though only one lane is an exit only lane?

That is the opposite of what I said. I hate when there's a down arrow indicating an "exit only" for the second lane when it's not an exit only lane.

[Rothman]

Illinois does this all over the place and it drives me up a wall. IDOT and ISTHA both do it constantly.

What!?  You actually prefer the double exit only, even though only one lane is an exit only lane?

That is the opposite of what I said. I hate when there's a down arrow indicating an "exit only" for the second lane when it's not an exit only lane.

For what it's worth, the "it" in your comment wasn't clear to me, either.

[paulthemapguy]

Illinois does this all over the place and it drives me up a wall. IDOT and ISTHA both do it constantly.

What!?  You actually prefer the double exit only, even though only one lane is an exit only lane?

That is the opposite of what I said. I hate when there's a down arrow indicating an "exit only" for the second lane when it's not an exit only lane.

For what it's worth, the "it" in your comment wasn't clear to me, either.

I didn't quote any previous post, so assume I responded to the original premise of the thread.

[kphoger]

I think the misunderstanding is that I glossed over the "down" part of the thread title.  Sorry.

[Rothman]

Illinois does this all over the place and it drives me up a wall. IDOT and ISTHA both do it constantly.

What!?  You actually prefer the double exit only, even though only one lane is an exit only lane?

That is the opposite of what I said. I hate when there's a down arrow indicating an "exit only" for the second lane when it's not an exit only lane.

For what it's worth, the "it" in your comment wasn't clear to me, either.

I didn't quote any previous post, so assume I responded to the original premise of the thread.

I suppose.  Of course, you know what they say about making other people assume... ;D

[wanderer2575]

As for the question, I've seen some around Seattle that could be seen as similar, but use the slanted white up arrows:
I-5 NB at I-90, where the Dearborn/James/Madison Street exit gets the option lane
I-90 WB at I-5, with I-5 using the option lane and James/Madison being Exit Only

Michigan did this with 2017 sign replacements on a section of I-696.  I don't believe I've seen it anywhere else in the state.



I posted this in another thread awhile back, but here's where a white up/right arrow shows in advance for the option lane while a second sign at the gore point correctly shows a double-lane Exit Only.