Freeway Regulations that should be adopted by the FHWA

[Georgia Guardrail]

Here is my list of freeway regulations I would like to see put into place by the FHWA.  Of course I realize probably none of these (save the left hand merge one) will be implemented.

1.) Ban left-side ramps on mainline freeways for future projects (unless no feasible alternative exists)
2.) Full cloverleaf interchanges prohibited between two busy freeways (unless CD roads exist)
3.) Cloverleafs limited to parclo (two loops diagonal either both entrance or both exiting freeway)
4.) Signals required when left turns cross >2 lanes of traffic
5.) Prohibit conversion of freeway breakdown shoulders into flex lanes
6.) Toll lanes on freeways must be physically barrier-separated (any barrier type, just not painted solid double lines)



What are some regulations and practices you'd like to see?

[MikeTheActuary]

Three unlikely ideas that I wouldn't hate:

1.  Require median barriers of sufficient height to protect drivers from glare due to oncoming drivers' damned LED headlights. (I'd prefer fixing the problems with LED headlights, but that doesn't seem to be happening.)

2.  Minimum 3 miles between consecutive exits on through or major bypass freeways.

3.  Require patrols by armed drones to discourage left-lane blocking with extreme prejudice.

[1995hoo]

....

4.) Signals required when left turns cross >2 lanes of traffic

....

That seems irrelevant on a "freeway," which should not have traffic lights nor at-grade left turns at all.

[kphoger]

That seems irrelevant on a "freeway," which should not have traffic lights nor at-grade left turns at all.

That's what I was thinking, but then I figured he must be talking about interchanges with the crossroad.

[Anthony_JK]

Here is my list of freeway regulations I would like to see put into place by the FHWA.  Of course I realize probably none of these (save the left hand merge one) will be implemented.

1.) Ban left-side ramps on mainline freeways for future projects (unless no feasible alternative exists)
2.) Full cloverleaf interchanges prohibited between two busy freeways (unless CD roads exist)
3.) Cloverleafs limited to parclo (two loops diagonal either both entrance or both exiting freeway)
4.) Signals required when left turns cross >2 lanes of traffic
5.) Prohibit conversion of freeway breakdown shoulders into flex lanes
6.) Toll lanes on freeways must be physically barrier-separated (any barrier type, just not painted solid double lines)



What are some regulations and practices you'd like to see?

I would give an exception on 1) for TOTSO situations where the continuous through route exits to the left. 

I'm assuming that 2) would allow for cloverstacks where appropriate? 

Only other rule I would add: 

Absolutely NO at-grade intersections, grade-level rail crossings, or median crossings except those marked as emergency ONLY. (That's for you, I-78 NYC, I-86 NYS and I-180 Wyoming.)

[PColumbus73]

More strictly enforce VMS/CMS usage. Get rid of them being used for 'funny' messages.

[kphoger]

Full-width paved right shoulder required.

[1995hoo]

I think some sort of limitation on either the number of signs per gantry, or on the amount of information that can be posted on a sign, might be a good idea. I keep thinking of the sign overload you see in Virginia as you approach I-66 on the Inner Loop of the Beltway. If you're not from this area, there is a huge load of information to process from a large number of big signs within a fairly short space. Consider the gantry seen in this Street View image; all of the signs shown apply to traffic in the general-purpose lanes, although the sign on the far left can be informative for drivers exiting the HO/T lanes to I-66. The very large sign for Exit 49A, in particular, feels like a lot of information for someone unfamiliar with the area to need to process.

[PColumbus73]

I think some sort of limitation on either the number of signs per gantry, or on the amount of information that can be posted on a sign, might be a good idea. I keep thinking of the sign overload you see in Virginia as you approach I-66 on the Inner Loop of the Beltway. If you're not from this area, there is a huge load of information to process from a large number of big signs within a fairly short space. Consider the gantry seen in this Street View image; all of the signs shown apply to traffic in the general-purpose lanes, although the sign on the far left can be informative for drivers exiting the HO/T lanes to I-66. The very large sign for Exit 49A, in particular, feels like a lot of information for someone unfamiliar with the area to need to process.

4 references for I-66 is definitely confusing.

Maybe they should adopt something like Hwy 401 in Ontario and have Express and GP signage on separate gantries.

[1995hoo]

4 references for I-66 is definitely confusing.

....

I think the signs you see coming the other direction on the Beltway are worse in that respect because of having multiple I-66 West shields on the same sign. Especially the sign to the left over the HO/T lanes. What I find puzzling is that none of the signs for the I-66 HO/T lanes have the purple "E-ZPass EXPRESS ONLY" banners at the top that signs for the Beltway and I-95/I-395 HO/T lanes have. I haven't looked at the MUTCD to see whether they changed the standard.

[cockroachking]

Absolutely NO at-grade intersections, grade-level rail crossings, or median crossings except those marked as emergency ONLY. (That's for you, I-78 NYC, I-86 NYS and I-180 Wyoming.)

At grades on I-86 in NY? That's news to me...

I think some sort of limitation on either the number of signs per gantry, or on the amount of information that can be posted on a sign, might be a good idea. I keep thinking of the sign overload you see in Virginia as you approach I-66 on the Inner Loop of the Beltway. If you're not from this area, there is a huge load of information to process from a large number of big signs within a fairly short space. Consider the gantry seen in this Street View image; all of the signs shown apply to traffic in the general-purpose lanes, although the sign on the far left can be informative for drivers exiting the HO/T lanes to I-66. The very large sign for Exit 49A, in particular, feels like a lot of information for someone unfamiliar with the area to need to process.

Signing the headache-inducing partial tolling scheme of I-66 inside the Beltway certainly doesn't help. A VMS (perhaps a small inset, showing either TOLL or NO TOLL) showing if it is currently tolled or not would probably be better. And that tiny sign for VA-243 should probably be moved to a secondary location in advance, along with the HOV 3+ restrictions from above.

[kphoger]

I think some sort of limitation on either the number of signs per gantry, or on the amount of information that can be posted on a sign, might be a good idea.

This could possibly be based on speed limit.  More info is easier to parse if you're going slower, because you have more time to look at it.

[74/171FAN]

And that tiny sign for VA-243 should probably be moved to a secondary location in advance, along with the HOV 3+ restrictions from above.

Honestly there may be more VA 243 signs on I-495 than on VA 243 itself.

[1995hoo]

Signing the headache-inducing partial tolling scheme of I-66 inside the Beltway certainly doesn't help. A VMS (perhaps a small inset, showing either TOLL or NO TOLL) showing if it is currently tolled or not would probably be better. And that tiny sign for VA-243 should probably be moved to a secondary location in advance, along with the HOV 3+ restrictions from above.

And you know, the sign doesn't mention that the HOVs need an E-ZPass Flex to get the free ride.

[PColumbus73]

4 references for I-66 is definitely confusing.

....

I think the signs you see coming the other direction on the Beltway are worse in that respect because of having multiple I-66 West shields on the same sign. Especially the sign to the left over the HO/T lanes. What I find puzzling is that none of the signs for the I-66 HO/T lanes have the purple "E-ZPass EXPRESS ONLY" banners at the top that signs for the Beltway and I-95/I-395 HO/T lanes have. I haven't looked at the MUTCD to see whether they changed the standard.

The right-hand sign could also imply that it's an express only exit framed by the two shields.

Could be fixed by signing it as I-66 WEST / TO Express Lane (Exit)

[cockroachking]

4 references for I-66 is definitely confusing.

....

I think the signs you see coming the other direction on the Beltway are worse in that respect because of having multiple I-66 West shields on the same sign. Especially the sign to the left over the HO/T lanes. What I find puzzling is that none of the signs for the I-66 HO/T lanes have the purple "E-ZPass EXPRESS ONLY" banners at the top that signs for the Beltway and I-95/I-395 HO/T lanes have. I haven't looked at the MUTCD to see whether they changed the standard.

The right-hand sign could also imply that it's an express only exit framed by the two shields.

Could be fixed by signing it as I-66 WEST / TO Express Lane (Exit)

I don't see a reason to even bother signing the Express Lanes at this point, since it is a downstream split and it isn't a shared ramp with another direction of regular lanes (like NB on the Beltway).

[Georgia Guardrail]

....

4.) Signals required when left turns cross >2 lanes of traffic

....

That seems irrelevant on a "freeway," which should not have traffic lights nor at-grade left turns at all.

This is for interchange ramps that connect a freeway and access road.  If the access road has 2 lanes in both directions, there should be a signalized intersection and not just a stop sign for left turns to get on or off the ramp.

[ElishaGOtis]

I think some sort of limitation on either the number of signs per gantry, or on the amount of information that can be posted on a sign, might be a good idea.

This could possibly be based on speed limit.  More info is easier to parse if you're going slower, because you have more time to look at it.

Operating speed, never speed limit imho. I've seen limits artificially reduced simply to save money on a design or a sign configuration. You'll have a double safety problem with both an artificially low speed limit and an inadequate signing configuration with traffic moving far faster.

[kphoger]

4.) Signals required when left turns cross >2 lanes of traffic

This is for interchange ramps that connect a freeway and access road.  If the access road has 2 lanes in both directions, there should be a signalized intersection and not just a stop sign for left turns to get on or off the ramp.

Huh?  How does the number of lanes on an access road matter?  I can't think of a single instance in which on- or off-ramp traffic has to cross more than one lane of an access road to get to or from the mainline of the freeway.  And besides, those aren't generally governed by stoplights or stop signs.

Typical example:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/KcQBGGjmdAMyGbQKA


EDIT:  Are you talking about something like this?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/k6Y6127MKxG84Zmm8

[Georgia Guardrail]

4.) Signals required when left turns cross >2 lanes of traffic

This is for interchange ramps that connect a freeway and access road.  If the access road has 2 lanes in both directions, there should be a signalized intersection and not just a stop sign for left turns to get on or off the ramp.

Huh?  How does the number of lanes on an access road matter?  I can't think of a single instance in which on- or off-ramp traffic has to cross more than one lane of an access road to get to or from the mainline of the freeway.  And besides, those aren't generally governed by stoplights or stop signs.

Typical example:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/KcQBGGjmdAMyGbQKA


EDIT:  Are you talking about something like this?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/k6Y6127MKxG84Zmm8

Yes, the latter, kind of.  Except it would be a situation where the access road would have two lanes of traffic going in each direction.  It's especially bad when there are trees obstructing the view and you have to make a left across several lanes without a traffic light.

[kphoger]

Yes, the latter, kind of.  Except it would be a situation where the access road would have two lanes of traffic going in each direction.  It's especially bad when there are trees obstructing the view and you have to make a left across several lanes without a traffic light.

Can you provide an example?  I'm struggling to think of an interchange where...
(1) there's an access road along the freeway,
(2) the access road has at least four lanes,
(3) there is not stoplight control, and
(4) sight lines are obscured by trees or whatever.

[Georgia Guardrail]

Yes, the latter, kind of.  Except it would be a situation where the access road would have two lanes of traffic going in each direction.  It's especially bad when there are trees obstructing the view and you have to make a left across several lanes without a traffic light.

Can you provide an example?  I'm struggling to think of an interchange where...
(1) there's an access road along the freeway,
(2) the access road has at least four lanes,
(3) there is not stoplight control, and
(4) sight lines are obscured by trees or whatever.

Like this interchange in Lexington KY with New Circle Road (KY 4) and Versailles Road (US 60). https://maps.app.goo.gl/Wh9HBeUhPywHBUCo8  See how you have to make a dangerous left on a busy road to get to the on ramp? 

The history of this interchange when it was first built was they couldn't purchase the farm land on the right so that's why there wasn't a cloverleaf on that side.  Regardless, to fix this they should do what they did on the other side of New Circle Road and convert the dangerous left turn into a flyover ramp.  Either that or add a traffic light system.

[kphoger]

This is for interchange ramps that connect a freeway and access road.

Like this interchange in Lexington KY with New Circle Road (KY 4) and Versailles Road (US 60). https://maps.app.goo.gl/Wh9HBeUhPywHBUCo8

I don't see any access road there.  Versailles Rd is just a ... road.

You think every single multi-lane road that interchanges with a freeway should have stoplight control?  That's nuts.

[PColumbus73]

This is for interchange ramps that connect a freeway and access road.

Like this interchange in Lexington KY with New Circle Road (KY 4) and Versailles Road (US 60). https://maps.app.goo.gl/Wh9HBeUhPywHBUCo8

I don't see any access road there.  Versailles Rd is just a ... road.

You think every single multi-lane road that interchanges with a freeway should have stoplight control?  That's nuts.

Does FHWA have much say over design standards for non-interstate highways?

[Rothman]

This is for interchange ramps that connect a freeway and access road.

Like this interchange in Lexington KY with New Circle Road (KY 4) and Versailles Road (US 60). https://maps.app.goo.gl/Wh9HBeUhPywHBUCo8

I don't see any access road there.  Versailles Rd is just a ... road.

You think every single multi-lane road that interchanges with a freeway should have stoplight control?  That's nuts.

Does FHWA have much say over design standards for non-interstate highways?

Yes...but: Project-by-project for ones that are on the National Highway System or projects they designate Projects of Divisional Interest (PoDI).  May depend on the State-FHWA agreement for the particular state as well, in which FHWA delegates certain authorities to states for milestone document approvals.  Gets complicated quickly and dependent upon enforcement, which can be somewhat IRS-like ("We reserve the right to audit any FHWA-funded federal-aid project...").  So, the standards are very context-dependent when implemented.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/standards/qa.cfm#q01

Don't expect much consistency across the NHS, though.  Compare US 20 in upstate NY to the infamous Willets Point Blvd NHS Connector: https://maps.app.goo.gl/eKX6QLxy4vvXB953A.  Think I heard NYSDOT and FHWA finally got it de-designated, but haven't confirmed.