What does a "pull through" sign look like?

[ixnay]

And why is it called a "pull through"?  What is the sign being pulled through?

And I imagine there are/were other types of freeway signs besides pull through.

If this has been answered elsewhere on this site, please link us to the thread(s).  Thank you.

ixnay

[hotdogPi]

I think it's a "continue straight" sign.

[Roadrunner75]

See section 2E.12 here:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm

[Zeffy]

In short, a pullthrough sign is basically a reassurance sign that informs motorists of what road they are on. They are common when approaching/leaving interchanges.



In this case, the NORTH I-295 sign is the pullthrough here (I.E. you are traveling on I-295 heading North at this point), while each of the Exit 65 signs are either an exit direction sign (65A), or an advance guide sign (65B).

[hbelkins]

I always thought of pull-thru signs as having downward-facing arrows.

[sammi]

I always thought of pull-thru signs as having downward-facing arrows.

That was the case in some versions of the MUTCD (Caltrans uses them heavily).

[Henry]

I always thought of pull-thru signs as having downward-facing arrows.

That was the case in some versions of the MUTCD (Caltrans uses them heavily).

Normally arrows aren't required on these signs, and most states tend to add a control city to the pullthrough as well.

[theline]

My opinion is that a down arrow on the pull-through is a bad idea. It can mislead drivers into thinking that the lane pointed at is the only lane for through traffic. It can cause slower traffic to pull abruptly over into the fast lane. If you want to have down arrows, do one arrow per lane.

[Alps]

Pull-through signs do not require arrows. If they do have arrows, there must be one arrow over every through lane. The old practices of omitting the right lane (because there is merging traffic ahead), or not accounting for widenings (so an old sign points to 2 of 4 lanes), are out the window.

[ixnay]

Ok, thanks, people.  I credit Alps' family of sites for introducing me to the term "pull through sign" several years ago when I first came across these sites.  I remember thinking then, "'Pull through' ?!? What is *that*?!?"  Thanks again.

ixnay

[jakeroot]

I always thought of pull-thru signs as having downward-facing arrows.

That was the case in some versions of the MUTCD (Caltrans uses them heavily).

I've driven in Vancouver, Edmonton, and Calgary, all of whom use downward-facing arrows on the pull-through signs (though often they are APL-like setups)...for example, this sign on the Deerfoot Trail north of Calgary:



This sign looks decidedly Caltrans, barring the Clearview.

[Zeffy]

I think that pullthroughs are better with no arrows and a control city. I think their main purpose is to say "yes, you actually did not take the exit and are still on this road".

[jakeroot]

I think that pullthroughs are better with no arrows and a control city. I think their main purpose is to say "yes, you actually did not take the exit and are still on this road".

Having only just driven in Edmonton and Calgary for the first time, I found the full-width pull-thrus nice and re-assuring, if only because from a long distance, the bigger sign almost always indicates a continuation. There was also a few cases where the downward-facing arrows helped indicate (particularly from a distance) the number of lanes up ahead. For example, if there was three down-ward facing arrows, and I was in the number 4 lane, I know that either A) my lane is ending, or B) my lane is exiting.

[myosh_tino]

Sorry about jumping into this conversation about a week late...

I always thought of pull-thru signs as having downward-facing arrows.

That was the case in some versions of the MUTCD (Caltrans uses them heavily).

Newer installations are more likely to have downward-facing arrows but there are plenty of old pull-through signs based on specs that are still valid today.  The G24-series of signs have multiple variants (e.g. G24-1, G24-2, etc).  Some pull throughs have arrows, some don't.  Some pull throughs have cardinal directions, others don't.  For the most part, route shields are above the control cities but there are some that place the route shield to the left of the control city block.  Here are some drawings of G24-series signs (the first 4 are straight from the Caltrans sign spec)...

G24-1... route shield + control city, NO cardinal direction or arrows

G24-3... route shield w/direction + 2 control cities, NO arrows

G24-4... 2 shields w/direction + 2 control cities vertically stacked, NO arrows

G24-6... route shield w/direction next to control cites with down arrows

G24 Variant... route shield next to control city, NO arrows or cardinal direction

Note: This sign is located at the I-280/CA-85 interchange in Cupertino, CA.

G24 Variant... Similar to G24-1 but with cardinal direction and arrows

Note: This is how most new pull-through signs look like and resembles the Canadian pull-through posted by Jake upthread.

I think that pullthroughs are better with no arrows and a control city. I think their main purpose is to say "yes, you actually did not take the exit and are still on this road".

Isn't that what reassurance markers are for?  On wider roads, like the 5 and 6-lane (in one direction) behemoths in southern California, down arrows provide the added guidance to drivers telling them what lanes are the "through" lanes.

[ET21]

I prefer it with no arrows like here, especially if it's not at a major split junction 


Arrows are best in situations like this, so you know which lane you need to be in for the pull through interstate when the road splits (in this pic, I-290 is the pullthrough example)

[cl94]

New York has VERY few cases without arrows, I-87 at Exit 6 in Latham being a notable exception. There are certainly places where arrows aren't necessary, but they exist anyway.

[ixnay]

See section 2E.12 here:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm

So *that's* where the pull-through and reassurance terms originated - at the FHWA apparently.  Proof that the gummint has a sense of humor after all. 

ixnay

[J N Winkler]

From the standpoint of lane configuration, pull-through signs need downward-pointing arrows only when the upcoming exit is multilane.  Under the classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach (abandoned in the 2009 MUTCD) for signing single-lane drops with option lanes, many agencies would use pull-through signs without downward-pointing arrows and provide two arrows on the advance guide and exit direction signs (one arrow per sign for the dropped lane, the other arrow per sign for the option lane), on the basis that these were not multilane exits.

[doorknob60]

I find this pullthrough interesting, in Nampa, ID on I-84.

Source: Street View

All three left lanes go to the same place, but the put the farthest left one's control city to Ontario (38 mi away) and the other two lanes' control city to Caldwell (~10 miles away), presumably to encourage non-local traffic to stay out of the right lane (the section between Nampa and Caldwell is crowded and in need of upgrade; ITD I believe is working on it).

Oh, and the double Exit Only signage for the exit bugs me, because only the farthest right lane is Exit only; the second right line is an option lane. Is this the proper way to sign this?
To me, the old way it was signed (before the widening project) makes more sense to me. This is from Oct 2009 on Street View:

[corco]

I noticed this a few months back over there too and came to a similar conclusion, so perhaps the sign is intuitive.

Normally Idaho posts a "Thru Traffic Keep Left" sign in this instance, but I don't think there's any here.

[J N Winkler]

Oh, and the double Exit Only signage for the exit bugs me, because only the farthest right lane is Exit only; the second right line is an option lane. Is this the proper way to sign this?

Yes, it is what the MUTCD now requires, as of the 2009 edition.  This particular change has caused much upset on this forum.

[cl94]

Oh, and the double Exit Only signage for the exit bugs me, because only the farthest right lane is Exit only; the second right line is an option lane. Is this the proper way to sign this?

Yes, it is what the MUTCD now requires, as of the 2009 edition.  This particular change has caused much upset on this forum.

It makes sense if the sign is posted at or past the gore point. At this point, the option lane has split and there are technically two separate lanes. I know Ohio has been doing it that way for 20 years. I won't start talking about Ohio's using slanted arrows to indicate option lanes

[roadfro]

Oh, and the double Exit Only signage for the exit bugs me, because only the farthest right lane is Exit only; the second right line is an option lane. Is this the proper way to sign this?

Yes, it is what the MUTCD now requires, as of the 2009 edition.  This particular change has caused much upset on this forum.

The signs are correct according to 2009 MUTCD specs; however, the positioning of the sign is incorrect. The exit direction sign in this style should be placed over the physical gore point with the new signing style–here, the exit direction sign is placed over the theoretical gore (which is incorrect for current spec but correct for the old signing practice).

[mrsman]

I find this pullthrough interesting, in Nampa, ID on I-84.

Source: Street View

All three left lanes go to the same place, but the put the farthest left one's control city to Ontario (38 mi away) and the other two lanes' control city to Caldwell (~10 miles away), presumably to encourage non-local traffic to stay out of the right lane (the section between Nampa and Caldwell is crowded and in need of upgrade; ITD I believe is working on it).

Not a fan.  I'd prefer one sign with both control cities instead.  Or better yet, if using two control cities, the further one should be a nationally recognized city.  So the sign should read : I-84 Caldwell / Portland OR or  I-84 Ontario / Portland OR

(In some of the control cities threads, there is discussion about whether to use a close in or a further city.  I don't believe in using San Francisco as a control city on I-80 westbound in Pennsylvania for instance, but instead of using a super small city like Du Bois, maybe it would be better to use I-80 WEST Du Bois / Cleveland OH.  It helps long distance travel, while still acknowledging the next town on the road.)

[PurdueBill]

Oh, and the double Exit Only signage for the exit bugs me, because only the farthest right lane is Exit only; the second right line is an option lane. Is this the proper way to sign this?

Yes, it is what the MUTCD now requires, as of the 2009 edition.  This particular change has caused much upset on this forum.

It makes sense if the sign is posted at or past the gore point. At this point, the option lane has split and there are technically two separate lanes. I know Ohio has been doing it that way for 20 years. I won't start talking about Ohio's using slanted arrows to indicate option lanes

Indeed most Ohio installations have done it close to right as far as the double EXIT ONLY arrows...despite the dancing arrows upstream.  MUTCD 2009 being so specific about the signs being at the physical gore, not at the divergence of the marked lanes, is weird.  The exit lane has already split from the thru lane; why must the sign be even further downstream from there?  As long as it isn't actually pointing at two lanes I don't get the problem.

Example (borrowed from Steve's site)...
advance:


at theoretical gore, pointing at distinctly different lanes but now technically not correctly placed:


Old enough to predate MUTCD 2009 obviously, and still alive--even though they removed the lighting a couple years ago (as seen in street view).  Long may they live.