multilane exit signage on freeways

[Duke87]

Here's something else I don't like. These signs suggest that to stay on I-70 you should move over to the left lane as the middle lane is for PA-906. A better option would be for the middle sign to have NEXT RIGHT or similar.

The Cross County Parkway tells a similar lie:


In Reality, the Bronx River parkway is an exit to the right with no lane drop, either of the right two lanes will get you on the CD road for exits 5, 4N, and 4S (also, note the exit tab wider than the sign...), and either of the left two lanes will get you onto the inner through roadway towards the Saw Mill Parkway.

[J N Winkler]

PennDOT, I fixed your sign:



The original sign is actually a textbook example of abuse of downward-pointing arrows.

Isn't the Belle Vernon bridge scheduled for more work?  If it is, these signs will probably be replaced (again).

[Mergingtraffic]

Here is another example of the misuse that can occur with optional lane exits.


On I-95 in CT...The right lane for Exit 85 (Route 1) does exit...but what the sign doesn't tell you is that the 2nd to right lane is an option lane!  This leads to drivers switching to the right lane when they don't have to.

Another annoyance is Exit 86 is a two lane left exit as CT-184 is a short expressway spur.  However, the two lane left exit does not have an optional lane, but there is enough pavement to provide one.   Ugh!

[myosh_tino]

Here's something else I don't like. These signs suggest that to stay on I-70 you should move over to the left lane as the middle lane is for PA-906. A better option would be for the middle sign to have NEXT RIGHT or similar.

The only real problem I have with those Pennsylvania signs is the down arrow on the pull through which really shouldn't be there. The other two signs are fine IMO.  California used to do this pretty extensively and they still are on certain new installations.  Here are a few signs near my home that kind of illustrate my point.  The only difference though is the pull through signs in my examples do not have any down arrows on it...

Southbound CA-85 at Central Expwy (Exit 23)

This is an old "butterfly" sign bridge.  By "butterfly" I mean a sign bridge with the support post in the gore point.  California has started to make a concerted effort to remove these types of sign bridges in the name of safety.

Southbound CA-85 at El Camino Real/Grant Road/CA-237 (Exit 22B)

These are new signs that replaced an older "butteryfly" sign bridge.  The pull through sign (not shown) does not have any down arrows.

Westbound CA-237 at Mathilda Avenue/US 101 South (Exit 3B)

These are also new signs that replaced an old "butterfly" sign bridge.  The pull through sign (not shown) does not have any down arrows.

[agentsteel53]

California has started to make a concerted effort to remove these types of sign bridges in the name of safety.

damn!  those tend to be some of the oldest signs in California; I think they stopped putting up new butterflies in the 60s or 70s.  Some of them have brand new signs, but a lot of them remain intact with the original 1960s porcelain.

[myosh_tino]

California has started to make a concerted effort to remove these types of sign bridges in the name of safety.

damn!  those tend to be some of the oldest signs in California; I think they stopped putting up new butterflies in the 60s or 70s.  Some of them have brand new signs, but a lot of them remain intact with the original 1960s porcelain.

Not meaning to drift a little off-topic but here's a list of interchanges in Santa Clara County that had butterfly sign bridges replaced between 2006 and 2008 with standard ones...

Interstate 280 (Southbound ONLY)
De Anza Blvd (Exit 11)
Wolfe Road (Exit 10)
Winchester Blvd (Exit 6)

California 237
Evelyn Avenue (Exit 1C - Westbound)
Mathilda Avenue/US 101 North (Exit 3B)
US 101 North (Exit 3A - Westbound)
Lawrence Expwy (Exit 5 - Eastbound)

Interstate 880
The Alameda/California 82 (Exit 2 - Northbound)
Coleman Avenue (Exit 3 - Northbound)
North First Street (Exit 4A - Northbound... this one had the outlined US 101 shield)

U.S. 101 (Northbound)
Ellis Street (Exit 397)
Moffett Blvd (Exit 398)
Amphitheater Pkwy (Exit 400A)
Rengstorff Avenue (Exit 400B)
San Antonio Road (Exit 400C... this one had the outlined US 101 shield)
Oregon Expwy/Embarcadero Rd (Exit 402)

U.S. 101 (Southbound)
San Antonio Road South (Exit 400C)
San Antonio Road North (Exit 400B)
Ellis Street (Exit 397)

This will probably break AgentSteel53's heart but Caltrans just completed a pretty major sign replacement project along I-580 between Oakland and I-238 (this is the old US 50 alignment right?) where all exit and advance signs were replaced with new reflective signs on tubular sign bridges.

[agentsteel53]

one old outline shield left in the state ... the ones in Ventura County are all gone, too.  (There are a few scattered ones from the late 1990s.)

[J N Winkler]

damn!  those tend to be some of the oldest signs in California; I think they stopped putting up new butterflies in the 60s or 70s.  Some of them have brand new signs, but a lot of them remain intact with the original 1960s porcelain.

For Caltrans, butterfly removal = "gore cleanup project."  It has been policy to clean up gores since the mid-1980's at least, but the number and frequency of gore cleanups may have increased as a result of the closer attention Caltrans gives to signing in general these days.

[agentsteel53]

For Caltrans, butterfly removal = "gore cleanup project."  It has been policy to clean up gores since the mid-1980's at least, but the number and frequency of gore cleanups may have increased as a result of the closer attention Caltrans gives to signing in general these days.

of all the things to concentrate on.  the East LA interchange needs more lanes, badly; taking down the old porcelains and replacing them with retro-reflective signs will not actually solve the problem.

[roadfro]

Here is another example of the misuse that can occur with optional lane exits.


On I-95 in CT...The right lane for Exit 85 (Route 1) does exit...but what the sign doesn't tell you is that the 2nd to right lane is an option lane!  This leads to drivers switching to the right lane when they don't have to.

This "misuse" is now part of the MUTCD preferred signing method! All that would be missing are the lane-use signs on the shoulder and pavement arrows...

[agentsteel53]

given that original-spec I-95 shield on that gantry, I will forgive them anything short of the pavement suddenly falling away into an abyss.

[Hellfighter]

Here's an example of arrows that are actually correct...

[myosh_tino]

Regarding down arrows for exits with option lanes:

I definitely agree with the angled downward arrows rule, as that does get a bit confusing. But I also agree with the "one arrow per lane" rule, as multiple arrows over a lane can be tough to discern if not done properly.  For the pictured example, the sign assembly can be modified such that the vertical lines separating the messages doesn't extend below the text, with the arrow centered below the vertical line.  This way, there would be exactly six arrows in this instance to match the six lanes provided, and I believe the intent of the shared lane would be clear (although I've never seen a real example of this, so I can only speculate).  I realize this method would probably result in one much larger sign panel instead of the three that appear to be used in this case, but it

OK, I had a go at Roadfro's suggestion of using vertical lines to separate the sign panels with the option lane arrow centered below the vertical line.  First the original sign...


Now with the modifications suggested by Roadfro...

I'm kind of divided on the look of this sign and whether drivers would be confused on what lane they need to get in to make the transition to CA-22 or CA-57.  I guess being from California, I'm used to two arrows pointing at the same lane.

Just for the heck of it, I tried the "Stacked Overheads" method used in Britain suggested by Truvelo...

[agentsteel53]

out of those three options I actually prefer the British style the best, but that is because I have been alerted to it several days ago.  I do not know if in general drivers would think to look for two rows of arrows, because that never happens in the US.  

the second style... I would like it except to me the arrow kinda blends into the separator line.  What about having two arrows like this?  (Forgive my fast, crude photoshop edit!)

[myosh_tino]

out of those three options I actually prefer the British style the best, but that is because I have been alerted to it several days ago.  I do not know if in general drivers would think to look for two rows of arrows, because that never happens in the US.  

the second style... I would like it except to me the arrow kinda blends into the separator line.  What about having two arrows like this?  (Forgive my fast, crude photoshop edit!)

You mean like this...


IMO, I don't see much benefit of this modification over the original sign with arrows pointing straight down.  Regarding the British style, when I first saw it, I thought "yuck" but now that I created the sign in my last post, my thinking is now "hey it's not so bad".  I do agree with you though that I don't think drivers here are ready for that type of sign layout yet.

[agentsteel53]

yes, like that - dunno why I didn't think to just rotate the arrows. 

I think the benefit is that without the divided line as in the very first original sign, people know that that lane is something that they can happily exist in without getting sliced in half.  For some reason the fully divided signs to me imply a separate lane for each arrow, and given that that is not the case on the road itself, there is something incongruous about the sign.

[Scott5114]

How the hell would you represent this with up arrows like the MUTCD wants? You would have 3 up arrows, then one up/curved arrow, then....what treatment do the 22 lanes get??

[myosh_tino]

How the hell would you represent this with up arrows like the MUTCD wants? You would have 3 up arrows, then one up/curved arrow, then....what treatment do the 22 lanes get??

Good question.  I suspect Caltrans will get a waiver to not have to implement the up-arrow style exit signage.  IIRC, these exits are pretty close to one another so using the new style is next to impossible without having to separate the exit signage on to two sign bridges.  It will also be interesting to see what California puts in it's supplement.

[shoptb1]

Here's something else I don't like. These signs suggest that to stay on I-70 you should move over to the left lane as the middle lane is for PA-906. A better option would be for the middle sign to have NEXT RIGHT or similar.

I would agree...I've noticed this a lot on I-70/I-76 in PA.  It's almost as frustrating as Ohio's wonderful practice of having "hidden" exit lanes, i.e., multi-lane exits not even marked on any of the signs that just magically have additional lanes, which seems to cause all sorts of last-minute mind-changes on the part of drivers.  Wouldn't it be better to just let drivers know that there's an option?   

[shoptb1]

Just for the heck of it, I tried the "Stacked Overheads" method used in Britain suggested by Truvelo...

For the most part, I think that the Europeans tend to have some really great ideas when it comes to signage, but I just cannot bring myself to be a fan of this overhead stacking like the British are using.  It doesn't seem intuitive at a glance...I'm more of a fan of this mock-up by myosh_tino.



This makes sense and I think it is easily interpreted at a glance.

[froggie]

If I'm not mistaken, the new MUTCD discourages the multiple-arrows-for-one-lane that you put into your revision.

[myosh_tino]

If I'm not mistaken, the new MUTCD discourages the multiple-arrows-for-one-lane that you put into your revision.

Then how would you suggest Caltrans sign this particular example?  Remember that these exits are close enough together that two separate sign bridges are not an option (wouldn't provide drivers with enough warning).


BTW, this is the original sign.

[agentsteel53]

If I'm not mistaken, the new MUTCD discourages the multiple-arrows-for-one-lane that you put into your revision.

discourages, or prohibits? 

[J N Winkler]

If I'm not mistaken, the new MUTCD discourages the multiple-arrows-for-one-lane that you put into your revision.

The relevant part is § 2E.19:  "On overhead signs where down arrows are used to indicate a lane to be followed, a down arrow shall be positioned approximately over the center of each lane and shall point vertically downward toward the approximate center of that lane. Down arrows shall be used only on overhead guide signs that restrict the use of specific lanes to traffic bound for the destination(s) and/or route(s) indicated by these arrows. Down arrows shall not be used unless an arrow can be located over and pointed to the approximate center of each lane that can be used to reach the destination displayed on the sign."  This is a Standard statement.

So, the following are prohibited:

*  "Dancing" arrows (i.e., arrows which do not point directly downward and are not centered over the lanes to which they apply)

*  Multiple arrows (whether on one or more sign panels) for optional lanes

*  Single arrows for optional lanes, unless the sign is designed so that the arrow refers to a group of options, as in Myosh_tino's example:



*  British-style "stacked" overheads (they fail on the multiple arrows per lane criterion)

*  Arrows pertaining to non-compulsory movements, such as the US 22 Business example Tim Reichard posted, the Belle Vernon Bridge example Truvelo posted, or the numerous instances of downward-pointing arrows on the left-hand sign in traditional Caltrans butterflies

§ 2E.19 is actually quite powerful when you look at it closely.  I am really happy FHWA took a stand against dancing arrows (I hate them), but we'll get clobbered with the unintended consequences.

In regards to the I-5/SR 57/SR 22 example, Myosh_tino's solution with vertical ruled lines centered on optional-lane arrows would comply with the MUTCD, since the centering makes it clear that the arrow refers to the destinations on either side of the vertical ruled line.  (This approach is used by MnDOT at some locations in the Twin Cities.)  Another solution which would comply, but would not be as effective, would be to have three separate signs for I-5, SR 57, and SR 22, and to provide a downward-pointing arrow just on the SR 22 sign (in effect to sign it per the 2003 MUTCD recommendation for a simple lane drop).  Then, once past the SR 22 exit, the SR 57 exit would be signed as a simple lane drop.

Why do these solutions comply with the MUTCD, as opposed to coming under § 2E.20, which requires a diagrammatic sign (either stippled-arrow or arrow-per-lane) for optional lanes at multi-lane exits?  Because, once again, the MUTCD does not define multi-lane exits.  This means that because both the SR 57 and SR 22 exits are instances of a simple lane drop with an optional lane, they can be treated as not being multi-lane exits.  The § 2E.20 requirement applies only to multi-lane exits.  In fact, Figure 2E-11 shows an example of a dropped lane plus optional lane which is not signed using diagrammatics.  The next figure, 2E-12, shows the same situation signed without "EXIT ONLY"!!!

How the hell would you represent this with up arrows like the MUTCD wants? You would have 3 up arrows, then one up/curved arrow, then....what treatment do the 22 lanes get??

As noted above, an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic is not compulsory, but this situation is messy indeed for both stippled-arrow and arrow-per-lane diagrammatics.  A stippled-arrow diagrammatic could be designed for this situation, but it would be rather tall, with heavy message loading.  An arrow-per-lane diagrammatic could also be designed but it would have to be a custom production, with the arrows referring to the SR 22 exit being more "bent" than those referring to the SR 57 exit.

In regards to Myosh_tino's comments on Caltrans getting a waiver for arrow-per-lane diagrammatics, I don't think they will.  I don't think they can obtain a waiver from a Standard statement, and they are already using arrow-per-lane diagrammatics.  What I think will happen is that they will find some way of not complying with the arrow height requirements.  I think the MUTCD's arrow height requirements are a bit excessive--for example, they require 72" arrows in some contexts, which is double the shield height.  The arrows are also required to be centered over the lanes to which they apply, and I think this requirement is unnecessary for arrow-per-lane diagrammatics.  I support this requirement for downward-pointing arrows on other signs, but not for upward-pointing arrows on diagrammatics, because I think the two are interpreted differently by motorists.

[Scott5114]

Here, I had a go at this assembly. I went a bit overboard and did signage for the next two interchanges as well. Blue squares indicate the lanes beneath the sign.



There's no easy answers here. My approach is a bit simplistic in that it completely ignores the dropped lane for CA 57 until after the CA 22 ramp has departed. (Yes, there is room to wedge that assembly in ¼ mile from the ramps...there is currently a mileage sign on a cantilever at that point). Not perfect and might cause some unwarranted lane changes, but really, I think this is the best that could be done.