AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Signage for Option Lanes  (Read 1171 times)

Tom958

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 688
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Lawrenceville, GA
  • Last Login: October 17, 2018, 09:34:35 PM
Re: Signage for Option Lanes
« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2018, 05:56:52 AM »

Actually, the before condition was not in compliance either. You can only sign an option lane as an exit only if the sign for the exit is past the gore point. What they put in place is also not compliant. The only real way to sign option lanes is APL or MNDOT. Or, no signage. WSDOT has been opting for no advanced option lane signage, lately. Only advanced warning of an 'exit only', with arrows on the pavement being the only indicator of an option lane.

Indeed. One problem with the 2009 protocol is that sometimes a bridge prevents the signage from being installed at the proper location. Irritatingly, though, here and in many other places the gantry was installed upstream from where it needs to be for no apparent reason. This spot on 285 is the most glaring example: to compound the screwup, the gantry was replaced as well as the signage, but it was installed immediately behind the replaced structure, not a couple hundred feet downstream where it belongs.

Pavement markings are used in downtown Atlanta, but nowhere else that I recall. the MUTCD also specifies four R3-8's, but they're used inconsistently and/or erroneously, and I seriously doubt that drivers even notice them.
Logged

SSR_317

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 155
  • Why does FHWA hate "Exit 0"?

  • Age: 62
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: October 16, 2018, 03:57:37 PM
Re: Signage for Option Lanes
« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2018, 01:00:45 PM »

Even APL signs can be confusing in certain situations...I think an individual/separate sign over each lane works best.
If I saw that, I'd think the middle lane would take me to an 84/72 concurrency.
It is a concurrency, even though it only lasts about a mile. (I-84 and CT 72)

In which case, he'd think the middle lane would be an extension of the concurrency. I agree that an entire sign per lane is a bit much (some state basically do this with pavement markings, which is preferred to actual signs).
I don't know how signing something with a pavement marking only is preferable to signing AND marking. Do those areas of the country who do that not get snow, which can quickly render pavement markings invisible? Snow can sometimes obscure signs as well, but you see my point.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8366
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: WA · BC · DC
  • Last Login: October 17, 2018, 11:40:46 PM
Re: Signage for Option Lanes
« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2018, 02:08:21 PM »

the MUTCD also specifies four R3-8's, but they're used inconsistently and/or erroneously, and I seriously doubt that drivers even notice them.

Interesting! I definitely don't recall seeing those on any Seattle-area freeways. Are you sure that's not a Georgia MUTCD-supplement thing?

I agree that an entire sign per lane is a bit much (some state basically do this with pavement markings, which is preferred to actual signs).
I don't know how signing something with a pavement marking only is preferable to signing AND marking. Do those areas of the country who do that not get snow, which can quickly render pavement markings invisible? Snow can sometimes obscure signs as well, but you see my point.

There's not that many parts of the country where pavement markings are invisible most of the time. Even the snowiest areas of the country plow freeways. The catch is that constant plowing quickly peels away the marking, meaning that they have to be repainted once a year at least.

Illinois, the upper sections of which are pretty damn snowy, uses more than a few of the optional MUTCD markings (freeway edge extensions come to mind), so IDOT/ISTHA must not mind repainting the markings.
Logged

Tom958

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 688
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Lawrenceville, GA
  • Last Login: October 17, 2018, 09:34:35 PM
Re: Signage for Option Lanes
« Reply #28 on: June 27, 2018, 04:27:52 PM »

the MUTCD also specifies four R3-8's, but they're used inconsistently and/or erroneously, and I seriously doubt that drivers even notice them.

Interesting! I definitely don't recall seeing those on any Seattle-area freeways. Are you sure that's not a Georgia MUTCD-supplement thing?

Figure 2E-11, page 204 of the 2009 MUTCD edition on my laptop, which has revisions 1 & 2 from May 2012. I guess that's current. I'll go ahead and point out that the inclusion of these goofy little signs in the MUTCD is an admission that the compliant BGS's are inadequate. I'll also mention that the only difference on the MUTCD between an option lane split like we're talking about and a situation where the extra lane is added on the right and the is no option lane... is... the lack of R3-8's. The stupid doth burn, IMO.  :clap:

EDIT: Oh, hell.  :bigass:
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 04:46:33 PM by Tom958 »
Logged

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2871
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: October 17, 2018, 11:27:52 PM
Re: Signage for Option Lanes
« Reply #29 on: June 27, 2018, 08:14:56 PM »

the MUTCD also specifies four R3-8's, but they're used inconsistently and/or erroneously, and I seriously doubt that drivers even notice them.
Interesting! I definitely don't recall seeing those on any Seattle-area freeways. Are you sure that's not a Georgia MUTCD-supplement thing?

Figure 2E-11, page 204 of the 2009 MUTCD edition on my laptop, which has revisions 1 & 2 from May 2012. I guess that's current. I'll go ahead and point out that the inclusion of these goofy little signs in the MUTCD is an admission that the compliant BGS's are inadequate. I'll also mention that the only difference on the MUTCD between an option lane split like we're talking about and a situation where the extra lane is added on the right and the is no option lane... is... the lack of R3-8's. The stupid doth burn, IMO.  :clap:

EDIT: Oh, hell.  :bigass:
https://i.imgur.com/8H5Zuc3.png

The use of R3-8 seems like completely unnecessary sign spam, especially with four of them.

Edit: Just noticed that two of them are marked as optional in that diagram. That's improved, but I still think there's got to be a better solution.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 08:21:57 PM by MNHighwayMan »
Logged

Tom958

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 688
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Lawrenceville, GA
  • Last Login: October 17, 2018, 09:34:35 PM
Re: Signage for Option Lanes
« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2018, 02:18:24 PM »

But I will say that Minnesota's implementation of down arrow option lane signage is my non-up arrow preference.
I concur with this. I remember suggesting this in another thread several years ago...don't know how long Minnesota's been doing this.

As long as I can remember, and probably longer. ;-)


I like the MN method, too, but AFAIK it was tested and found to be inferior to the approved schemes. OTOH, this thread is about preferences, not necessarily about what's best.  :-D

I'm impressed with Michigan's partial APL's. Better this type than the ones with two straight arrows, or the one from Utah with no pullthrough shield.

Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8366
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: WA · BC · DC
  • Last Login: October 17, 2018, 11:40:46 PM
Re: Signage for Option Lanes
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2018, 02:42:55 PM »

But I will say that Minnesota's implementation of down arrow option lane signage is my non-up arrow preference.
I concur with this. I remember suggesting this in another thread several years ago...don't know how long Minnesota's been doing this.

As long as I can remember, and probably longer. ;-)


I like the MN method, too, but AFAIK it was tested and found to be inferior to the approved schemes. OTOH, this thread is about preferences, not necessarily about what's best.  :-D

I'm impressed with Michigan's partial APL's. Better this type than the ones with two straight arrows, or the one from Utah with no pullthrough shield.

https://i.imgur.com/r4gv2Gp.jpg

That is perhaps the cleanest partial APL I have ever seen. Props to Michigan for being a little creative with the arrows, too (I see they are custom to allow for a shorter sign).
Logged

Tom958

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 688
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Lawrenceville, GA
  • Last Login: October 17, 2018, 09:34:35 PM
Re: Signage for Option Lanes
« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2018, 02:49:30 PM »

I prefer the western adaptation of the signs (NM, CO, AZ, UT, etc.). They give a clear and understandable message. Colorado Springs, and surrounding areas, in particular, usually uses an APL at the 1-mile warning, then, at the gore, uses a NM style sign. Very intuitive, very concise.

What's an NM style sign? I looked around Colorado Springs for a bit and din't see anything obvious.I did find this masterpiece, though.
Logged

webny99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1868
  • Left lane is for passing, not camping!

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Rochester, NY
  • Last Login: October 17, 2018, 02:33:23 PM
Re: Signage for Option Lanes
« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2018, 03:42:43 PM »

Ontario does this at almost every exit along the QEW. Full APL's aren't really needed when there's a regular deceleration lane and an option lane (in other words, no change in the number of through lanes).

briantroutman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1794
  • Location: Philadelphia
  • Last Login: October 17, 2018, 10:22:25 PM
    • briantroutman.com/land
Re: Signage for Option Lanes
« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2018, 03:55:42 PM »

^ From a design standpoint, my problem with the above Ontario example is that the exit destination legend sits to the left of the right-curving arrows—and actually, it’s closest to a straight ahead arrow that identifies the direction of travel that won’t take you to that destination. Analyzed within the American APL signing paradigm, this sign seems to suggest that the through lane goes to Seventh Street, and the two exit lanes go toward some unidentified destination.

So while I understand the concept (i.e. that there is no need to identify all through lanes), I think that either the legend needs to be moved above and/or to the right of the curved arrows. Or alternatively, something needs to be done to the straight ahead (through) arrow to show that it is a possible move but not part of the exit movement—such as the straight ahead arrow shaft and head being outline rather than filled.
Logged

paulthemapguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3351
  • Beeeeees?

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Illinois
  • Last Login: October 17, 2018, 11:52:40 PM
Re: Signage for Option Lanes
« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2018, 06:38:02 PM »

When it comes to signing option lanes, any state's method is better than the northern Illinois method, which is not to sign them at all.  (This infuriates me.)
Logged
My life is a collect-a-thon. Like Banjo Kazooie but IRL.
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.

My goal:  A shield photo for every Interstate and US highway, plus 3 state highways from each state!
Shield collection: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmhQf3nW
Originals: https://flic.kr/s/aHskFU42pF

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.