MUTCD gripes

[vtk]

I think the FHWA is currently trying to pretend that TOTSOs don't exist on freeways.

Every Interstate overlap necessarily has a TOTSO at either end. FHWA should address this better than they currently do.

[SignBridge]

Okay, I have to admit to being naïve and ignorant here. What does TOTSO mean?

[NE2]

Okay, I have to admit to being naïve and ignorant here. What does TOTSO mean?

Learn to fish: http://www.google.com/search?q=totso

[SignBridge]

Thank you!  Ya' know I don't friggin' believe this. I had tried a Google search before posting my question, using UPPER CASE letters and it does not get the same results as using lower case. Ya' just can't miss a friggin' trick with anything. My whole day today has been full of frustrating crap like this......... 

Sorry for the venting. The official term for totso used in MUTCD used to be route discontinuity in the older editions but I don't see it used in the 2009 edition.

[agentsteel53]

The official term for totso used in MUTCD used to be route discontinuity in the older editions but I don't see it used in the 2009 edition.

I would have thought a "route discontinuity" was something completely different.  like I-710 between Valley Boulevard and Pasadena is a route discontinuity.

[SignBridge]

(Chuckle!) Yes, I've been to L.A. and I'm familiar with that location.  I guess that's a different kind of route discontinuity. The Manual used to describe the situation where at a split with an option-lane or a lane-drop, the exit would be straight ahead and the dominant signed route would curve off left or right. But again, they do not use that term anymore in the current Manual. I always thought it was a nice crisp sounding term to use though!

[NE2]

The official term for totso used in MUTCD used to be route discontinuity in the older editions but I don't see it used in the 2009 edition.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/millennium/06.14.01/errata.pdf has a bunch of 'delete "and Route Discontinuity." ' instructions. But even before that, it seems to be only used in reference to that one figure.

[SignBridge]

Well, I'm dating myself here; I still have my 2 previous Manuals. It appeared in the 1988 edition on page 2F-19, figure 2-31, signing illustration for a 2-lane exit with optional lane and route discontinuity. In the 2000 Manual, the same diagram appears on page 2E-25, figure 2E-6, and omits the words route discontinuity from the description as does the 2009 Manual's similar diagram on page-196, figure 2E-5. However this time the words Through Lanes Curve to the Left have been added.   

[vdeane]

I think the FHWA is currently trying to pretend that TOTSOs don't exist on freeways.

Every Interstate overlap necessarily has a TOTSO at either end. FHWA should address this better than they currently do.

Not necessarily.
http://goo.gl/maps/vaPKY

[SignBridge]

Vdeane and vtk, I couldn't read the blurry signs in that link you posted. In what way do you feel that TOTSO's are not well addressed in the MUTCD? And what improvements would you like to see?

[SignBridge]

Hmmm...........my wheels are turning slowly tonight. I think the route discontinuity issue I referred to in the MUTCD only relates to the exit being the straight route and the thru route curving away.

But the TOTSO issue that some of you brought up is where you have to exit the road you're on to stay on the Interstate route. Have I got that right?

And an example would be southbound on the NJ Turnpike taking Exit-6 to the Pennsy Pike to stay on I-95, eventually when it's finally all built.

[NE2]

But the TOTSO issue that some of you brought up is where you have to exit the road you're on to stay on the Interstate route. Have I got that right?

And an example would be southbound on the NJ Turnpike taking Exit-6 to the Pennsy Pike to stay on I-95, eventually when it's finally all built.

Yes. Although that's a gentle enough split that you could easily call staying on the Turnpike the exit. A better example is the Ohio Turnpike near Youngstown, where I-76 and I-80 both "TOTSO" twice.

[Ned Weasel]

I'm wondering whether this method of TOTSO signing is MUTCD-compliant (pretend the I-49 shields were up by the time the Google car came by):

https://maps.google.com/?ll=37.049281,-94.426951&spn=0.000394,0.00066&t=k&z=21&layer=c&cbll=37.049281,-94.426951&panoid=g9QES5-NCL1slxp-bqILjA&cbp=12,7.21,,0,6.58

https://maps.google.com/?ll=37.056601,-94.42642&spn=0.001574,0.002642&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.056514,-94.426415&panoid=RMRveB-3Vjrr1_wVlkBGgQ&cbp=12,349.97,,0,3.84

If the mainline is being signed as the exit (Exit 39B, in this case), then isn't it, according to the MUTCD, supposed to be signed as a two-lane lane drop, with the black-on-yellow "LEFT" exit plaque?  And shouldn't the exit gore sign in the second image have an up arrow on the left side, instead of the diagonal right arrow?

This is why the MUTCD is unclear about signing TOTSOs.  It gives no guidance in situations where a through-route Interstate takes a single-lane departure that is not a lane drop.

Here's another MUTCD headache:

https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.413206,-96.238711&spn=0.004338,0.010568&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.413477,-96.238524&panoid=8OO1yCje8QqnbZUO79MTfg&cbp=12,37.28,,0,-1.19

Keep in mind that all of the above examples are very recent in terms of the lifespan of overhead guide signs.

[OracleUsr]

So a TOTSO is what we roadgeeks often refer to as "Exit to Self" then...gotcha.

[NE2]

So a TOTSO is what we roadgeeks often refer to as "Exit to Self" then...gotcha.

"TOTSO" is just another roadgeek term.

[myosh_tino]

Here's another MUTCD headache:

https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.413206,-96.238711&spn=0.004338,0.010568&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.413477,-96.238524&panoid=8OO1yCje8QqnbZUO79MTfg&cbp=12,37.28,,0,-1.19

Couldn't one argue that the through route is the Kansas Turnpike?

[NE2]

Here's another MUTCD headache:

https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.413206,-96.238711&spn=0.004338,0.010568&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.413477,-96.238524&panoid=8OO1yCje8QqnbZUO79MTfg&cbp=12,37.28,,0,-1.19

Couldn't one argue that the through route is the Kansas Turnpike?

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E31

Where numbered routes overlap, continuity of interchange numbering shall be established for only one of the routes (see Figure 2E-21). If one of the routes is an Interstate and the other route is not an Interstate, the Interstate route shall maintain continuity of interchange numbering.

Technically this doesn't apply, since KTA is not a number, but it's definitely intended to. However, nothing prevents them from beginning I-335 at mile 127.

[Ned Weasel]

Here's another MUTCD headache:

https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.413206,-96.238711&spn=0.004338,0.010568&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.413477,-96.238524&panoid=8OO1yCje8QqnbZUO79MTfg&cbp=12,37.28,,0,-1.19

Couldn't one argue that the through route is the Kansas Turnpike?

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E31

Where numbered routes overlap, continuity of interchange numbering shall be established for only one of the routes (see Figure 2E-21). If one of the routes is an Interstate and the other route is not an Interstate, the Interstate route shall maintain continuity of interchange numbering.

Technically this doesn't apply, since KTA is not a number, but it's definitely intended to. However, nothing prevents them from beginning I-335 at mile 127.

Also, there's technically nothing in the MUTCD that prohibits an Interstate through route from existing on its own exit, so signing NB I-35 as the exit here is technically okay.  If you wanted to sign I-335/The Kansas Turnpike as the exit, though, then you would have to use lane drop and left exit signage, according to my understanding of the MUTCD.  As counter-intuitive as it may be to sign an Interstate through route as its own exit, it is probably the only MUTCD-sanctioned method of signing a single-lane TOTSO that is not a lane drop (and I say "only" by interpreting this through process of elimination), unless you sign all mainline lanes as a left-exit lane drop.  The MUTCD doesn't even specifically address any form of TOTSO; it only addresses "a multi-lane exit having an optional exit lane that also carries the through route..." (all over Chapter 2E).

There are three problems with the Kansas Turnpike Exit 127 signage, though: (1) in accordance with MUTCD rules on exit numbering, it is supposed to be Exit 127A, and I-35 Exit 127A (US 50/6th Ave) should then be Exit 127B; (2) only one route is supposed to be signed for Kansas City ("At any decision point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route," Section 2E.13) (this is a tough issue to address, as some parts of Kansas City, MO and most of Kansas City, KS are better served by the Turnpike, while other parts of Kansas City, MO are better served by I-35, but I think the MUTCD's preference is to leave I-35 signed for Kansas City, since it is the official control city for I-35 at this point, and only sign I-335/The Kansas Turnpike for Topeka, since Kansas City is only a control city for I-70 and not I-335); (3) the exit direction sign is supposed to include the cardinal direction (North, for I-35).  Also, I'm pretty sure the I-335 shield is supposed to be placed to the left of the KTA shield, as Interstates are always primary, and toll routes, by process of elimination, are subordinate to all other numbered routes.

[NE2]

Kansas City is only a control city for I-70 and not I-335

[citation needed]

[Ned Weasel]

Kansas City is only a control city for I-70 and not I-335

[citation needed]

All right; I can't find the AASHTO's full list of control cities right now, so I'll have to save that for later Googling.  Even if I'm wrong, though, that doesn't get over the MUTCD requirement of only having one route indicate a given destination.

[Ned Weasel]

Now that I think of it, I wonder if an outside lane can be considered an optional exit lane.  If so, then this would technically allow APL or diagrammatic signage for single-lane TOTSOs that aren't lane drops.  The "Support" in Section 2E.20, though, indicates that the intent of the MUTCD is only to treat an interior lane as an option lane.

[hbelkins]

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

Schneider staying on 335?  Oh the calamity.  Must be going to Topeka.

(All of the mega-carriers LOVE to shunpike whenever possible, mine included.)

[Ned Weasel]

Nice photos!  Neither of those examples is fully MUTCD-compliant, but that doesn't necessarily bother me.  A couple of things that bother me, though, are that the diagrammatic sign implies a northbound US 50, and that it depicts a number 3 lane that doesn't exist. 

[vdeane]

Vdeane and vtk, I couldn't read the blurry signs in that link you posted. In what way do you feel that TOTSO's are not well addressed in the MUTCD? And what improvements would you like to see?

It's where NY 17 (future I-86) splits off from I-81 east of Binghamton.  Note the lack of an exit number and how the pavement splits so evenly that there really isn't a mainline (at least in terms of lanes; traffic counts are another story).  The other end of the split is similar but complicated by Kamikaze Curve (plus the Southern Tier Expressway has much more traffic than the Quickway).