daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Highways & Autobahns

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 1st, 2012, 06:06 AM   #7861
FM 2258
Registered User
 
FM 2258's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,040
Likes (Received): 313

Quote:
Originally Posted by musiccity View Post
I-40 in Nashville
<snip>

I-40/I-24 Interchange
Nice pictures. Great arrows, I say if it ain't broke don't fix it. I think I said it before...in my mind if the arrow points down it means you're staying on the highway, if it points up, you're leaving the highway for another roadway.
FM 2258 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old March 1st, 2012, 09:10 AM   #7862
-Pino-
Funkin' down the Track
 
-Pino-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 617
Likes (Received): 56

Quote:
Originally Posted by myosh_tino View Post
The #3 lane (counting from the left) IS an option lane for I-70 or I-435 North. In that case, isn't an arrow-per-lane sign required per the 2009 MUTCD Sec 2E.20?
The photo suggests that the #3 is NOT an option lane, but a through lane. After the I-435 South exit, a separate exit lane appears on the right to carry traffic to the I-435 North.

To revert on JN Winkler's thoughts, I can see his reasoning, but his proposed signs (pretty much the pre-2009 system) is, in my opinion, equally likely to provoke uncessary lane changes. Topeka and Wichita-bound traffic might leave the #3 lane because it seems to head to Des Moines. Of course, the fact that there is no EXIT ONLY above that lane tells you that you will not be forced to turn off to Des Moines, but the arrow suggests something different. In other words: the message of the old system is counter-intuitive. Presumably that is why the MUTCD with the standing arrows / European system came into being in the first place.

It may be because I am European, but I absolutely believe that the new system is the better approach. I do appreciate that the standing arrows are not ideal when it comes to signposting two exits in quick succession, but as I mentioned, neither was the old system. One could play around a bit by not placing Topeka and Wichita next to each other on the sign, but to rather place them underneath each other. That would keep Topeka-bound traffic on lane #3, but you then still need to introduce a form of advance warning to traffic exiting to Wichita. You pretty much want them in lane #3 at this stage ...
__________________
http://www.brombeer.net/signs
-Pino- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 1st, 2012, 10:24 AM   #7863
Traffic Eng.
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7
Likes (Received): 7

I would have to agree to -Pino-'s post, but that's just because I'm European too . Without reading the previous posts I imagined that it would be easier to confuse the locals (at least in the first time) with the changes than confusing a first-timer.

So I'd say the arrows over lane signage is pretty good. Wichita is in the middle of one lane when Topeka is in the middle of two lanes, from here it's pretty intuitive that only one arrow is for Whichita and two arrows are for Topeka.

The signs are already installed and I think it's worthy to observe how well they actually work.
Traffic Eng. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 1st, 2012, 08:03 PM   #7864
myosh_tino
Registered User
 
myosh_tino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 97
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Pino- View Post
The photo suggests that the #3 is NOT an option lane, but a through lane. After the I-435 South exit, a separate exit lane appears on the right to carry traffic to the I-435 North.
I think you have your directions mixed up. The first exit on I-70 West is to I-435 North, the second exit is to I-435 South. Also, the #3 lane IS an option lane as you have the option to stay on I-70 West or exit onto I-435 North. You are correct that just past the exit a new exit-only lane to I-435 South forms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Pino- View Post
To revert on JN Winkler's thoughts, I can see his reasoning, but his proposed signs (pretty much the pre-2009 system) is, in my opinion, equally likely to provoke uncessary lane changes. Topeka and Wichita-bound traffic might leave the #3 lane because it seems to head to Des Moines. Of course, the fact that there is no EXIT ONLY above that lane tells you that you will not be forced to turn off to Des Moines, but the arrow suggests something different. In other words: the message of the old system is counter-intuitive. Presumably that is why the MUTCD with the standing arrows / European system came into being in the first place.
But I believe the way the new arrow-per-lane sign is laid out causes even more driver confusion because it implies that vehicles in the #2 lane may also exit to I-435 South when in reality, if you're in the #2 lane you would need to dive across 2 lanes to make the exit. At least with the pre-2009 MUTCD style, the advance guide sign for I-435 South gives an indication that those wanting to take that exit should move into the rightmost through lane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Pino- View Post
It may be because I am European, but I absolutely believe that the new system is the better approach. I do appreciate that the standing arrows are not ideal when it comes to signposting two exits in quick succession, but as I mentioned, neither was the old system.
I believe the new arrow-per-lane signs can be useful but I think their use should be limited to where the next exit must be at least 1 mile ahead to allow proper advance guide signing. I am also not a fan of overly tall signs (I'm from California where the max overhead sign height is 10 ft.) and the amount of wasted space the new arrow-per-lane signs tend to have.
myosh_tino no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 1st, 2012, 08:24 PM   #7865
-Pino-
Funkin' down the Track
 
-Pino-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 617
Likes (Received): 56

Quote:
Originally Posted by myosh_tino View Post
But I believe the way the new arrow-per-lane sign is laid out causes even more driver confusion because it implies that vehicles in the #2 lane may also exit to I-435 South when in reality, if you're in the #2 lane you would need to dive across 2 lanes to make the exit. At least with the pre-2009 MUTCD style, the advance guide sign for I-435 South gives an indication that those wanting to take that exit should move into the rightmost through lane.
You might even be able to do so out of the #1 lane. You've got about a quarter of a mile to go before the exit and, provided that traffic levels are low enough, you can easily cross a few lanes and make the exit. What is important, however, is an indication how far away the I-435 South exit is. On comparable signs in Europe that will find that distance. The combination of traffic density and distance indication allows the motorist en route to the I-435 South to decide when to move to lane #3.

Quote:
I believe the new arrow-per-lane signs can be useful but I think their use should be limited to where the next exit must be at least 1 mile ahead to allow proper advance guide signing. I am also not a fan of overly tall signs (I'm from California where the max overhead sign height is 10 ft.) and the amount of wasted space the new arrow-per-lane signs tend to have.
The wasted space tends to come with better overview when compared to three separate overhead signs. Which is also worth something. But I do agree that sign makers should be careful not to overdimension their gantries.

I would not say that all cause for the arrow-per-lane signs is lost if the next exit is closer than 1 mile. But you need to be careful in announcing the next exit through your lane allocation. In my opinion, you need a much more neutral approach that simply says how far away the next exit is and then only start allocating lanes for that next exit after you have passed the initial exit. But to be honest, I think the same of working with the old falling arrows.
__________________
http://www.brombeer.net/signs
-Pino- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 1st, 2012, 10:06 PM   #7866
myosh_tino
Registered User
 
myosh_tino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 97
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Pino- View Post
You might even be able to do so out of the #1 lane. You've got about a quarter of a mile to go before the exit and, provided that traffic levels are low enough, you can easily cross a few lanes and make the exit. What is important, however, is an indication how far away the I-435 South exit is. On comparable signs in Europe that will find that distance. The combination of traffic density and distance indication allows the motorist en route to the I-435 South to decide when to move to lane #3.
I'm sorry but diving across 3 lanes in a quarter mile, even in light traffic, is dangerous even borderline reckless and will earn you a ticket if a cop sees you do it. While the arrow-per-lane sign does not provide a distance to the I-435 South exit, the drawing I posted upthread does provide a distance for the I-435 South advance guide sign (1/4 mile).
myosh_tino no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 1st, 2012, 11:22 PM   #7867
J N Winkler
Road enthusiast
 
J N Winkler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oxford
Posts: 262
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by myosh_tino View Post
Wait a minute. The I-70/I-435 North exit, where the arrow-per-lane sign is installed does have an option lane that carries the through route. The #3 lane (counting from the left) IS an option lane for I-70 or I-435 North. In that case, isn't an arrow-per-lane sign required per the 2009 MUTCD Sec 2E.20?
I would contend not. My interpretation of the 2E.20 criterion is that the exit carries the through route--i.e., the interchange is a TOTSO. In this case there is an option lane for I-70 and I-435 but I-70 itself does not follow the exit.

The actual wording in 2E.20 is as follows:

Quote:
On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs as provided in Sections 2E.21 and 2E.22 shall be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges (see Section 2E.32) that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route (see Figures 2E-4, 2E-5, 2E-8, and 2E-9) and for all splits that include an option lane (see Figures 2E-6 and 2E-10).
It comes down to what is meant by "optional exit lane." If the intention is to require diagrammatics at all major interchanges which have an option lane, then it is not necessary to specify that the "optional exit lane" also carries the through route or, for that matter, to specify that it is an optional exit lane.

I think the intention is actually to limit the requirement to TOTSO situations and splits, a fairly narrow application which is a traditional concern in the literature on driver expectancy. The MUTCD allows arrow-per-lane diagrammatics to be used in other situations where an option lane is present but it does not actually mandate them.

By the way, thank you for drawing my suggested approach. It is actually correct for MUTCD 2003. A couple of changes are necessary to update it for MUTCD 2009. First, in the first gantry the second arrow needs to be dropped from the advance guide sign for Exit 8A, so that it is a simple lane-drop sign with just one down arrow against a yellow panel. Second, in the second gantry, the bottom yellow panel has to extend across the full width of the lane-drop exit direction sign for Exit 8A (so that both "exit" arrows are black against yellow).

Pino is correct to say that the old (2003) arrangement encouraged drivers to make unnecessary lane changes to avoid the option lane. That is the rationale for the current (2009) approach, which is based (if memory serves) on a simulator study which Jonathan Upchurch carried out at the University of Massachusetts in 2003. It does encourage drivers to make unnecessary lane changes into the dropped lane when they can equally well take the option lane for the exit, but the consequences of this tend to be more benign because the driver is moving right (rather than left) and is expecting to exit. The MUTCD recommends ground-mounted lane assignment signs (regulatory colors) to warn drivers of the option lane condition at such exits, and some state DOTs have tried part-width arrow-per-lane diagrammatics which show just the dropped lane and the option lane (not the through lanes).

Last edited by J N Winkler; March 1st, 2012 at 11:39 PM.
J N Winkler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 2nd, 2012, 07:45 AM   #7868
ScraperDude
lagom
 
ScraperDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kansas City / Columbus
Posts: 1,398
Likes (Received): 14

The interchange you guys are discussing is a dream come true compared to the rest in Kansas City. This entire city is PLAGUED with left exits, left lanes that end (I-435 Eastern leg Missouri side) as soon as a major ramp joins I-435 from the right, that lane continues and the left lane ends and what was a middle lane becomes the new left lane which in turn causes semi-trucks to now be traveling in the left lane.... for miles.... this madness starts at I-435 and I-35 NE Kansas City metro, I-435 and Parvin rd, I-435 and Armour rd (just one mile south of Parvin rd) and finally at the I-435 and I-70 interchange you are discussing.

People are always shooting across 4 or 5 lanes of traffic to reach a left exit here.
__________________
it's like.... a hot tranny mess up in here
ScraperDude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2012, 02:37 AM   #7869
Tommy Boy
MEGATALLS for AMERICA
 
Tommy Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 213
Likes (Received): 6

Does it have a site of the project in Kansas City, or pictures. Thanks
Tommy Boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2012, 08:19 AM   #7870
myosh_tino
Registered User
 
myosh_tino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 97
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by J N Winkler View Post
I would contend not. My interpretation of the 2E.20 criterion is that the exit carries the through route--i.e., the interchange is a TOTSO. In this case there is an option lane for I-70 and I-435 but I-70 itself does not follow the exit.

The actual wording in 2E.20 is as follows: ...
Quote:
On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs as provided in Sections 2E.21 and 2E.22 shall be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges (see Section 2E.32) that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route (see Figures 2E-4, 2E-5, 2E-8, and 2E-9) and for all splits that include an option lane (see Figures 2E-6 and 2E-10).
Hmm... that's not how I interpreted 2E.20. If I may, here is Figure 2E-4 from the 2009 MUTCD which is referenced in your quote from Sec 2E.20...


In this example, I-84 is the through route and the exit is for route 72. This does not look like a TOTSO situation to me. It looks like a standard multi-lane exit with an option lane.
myosh_tino no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2012, 01:45 PM   #7871
J N Winkler
Road enthusiast
 
J N Winkler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oxford
Posts: 262
Likes (Received): 0

Myosh_tino: yes, you are right, that is not a TOTSO. My interpretation is that it shows the permissive case: an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic may be used but is not required to be used. Note that the drawing caption does not state that the interchange is "major," which is part of the "must" condition in the Standard statement in 2E.20.
J N Winkler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2012, 03:02 PM   #7872
Tom 958
Registered User
 
Tom 958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: near Atlanta
Posts: 706
Likes (Received): 75

Quote:
Originally Posted by J N Winkler View Post
Myosh_tino: yes, you are right, that is not a TOTSO. My interpretation is that it shows the permissive case: an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic may be used but is not required to be used. Note that the drawing caption does not state that the interchange is "major," which is part of the "must" condition in the Standard statement in 2E.20.
Indeed. There are many, many such splits in (for instance) Atlanta, the vast majority of which are just lane drop ramps for service interchanges. If using arrows-per-lane signage was mandatory, it would blur the distinction between a major fork and just another offramp.

As a matter of fact, I remember that sometime in the early '80's GaDOT put old skool diagrammatic arrows at a few such ramps (I-20 and Wesley Chapel Road was one), but took them down after a few months, possibly out of common sense or possibly because FHWA informed them that their interpretation of the then-current MUTCD was incorrect.

Speaking of which, a few months ago I posted about the signage for Atlanta's I-85 HOT lanes having to be redone before the lanes opened because they were at odds with the MUTCD. They looked stupid, too.

EDIT: That said, Connecticut 72 is a freeway, so IMO the signage myosh_tino posted would be appropriate there.

Last edited by Tom 958; March 3rd, 2012 at 03:08 PM.
Tom 958 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2012, 08:04 PM   #7873
AUchamps
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 386
Likes (Received): 4

I don't like the "California look" for Exit Only. Give me the more conventional style. It's bad enough that we're losing Highway Gothic to Clearview but now this? Give me a freakin' break.
__________________
But what is Strumatic, we have to define what Strumatic is, a word that refers to the experience of driving/travelling on a superior motorway called Struma motorway or to the ultimative psychedelic road experience only possible on brand new roads and most effective when there´s snow outside so that the shiny crashbarriers shine even more and reflect the snow and the asphalt looks even better. I must think of it´s best definition first. -Radi Click
AUchamps no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2012, 08:23 PM   #7874
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 33,217
Likes (Received): 4061

What is actually so bad about Clearview? I don't understand all the fuss about it among road enthusiasts. It looks like a fine font to me, it's better than most fonts used in Europe for instance.
__________________

my clinched highways • highway pictures @ Flickr and Youtube
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2012, 08:28 PM   #7875
myosh_tino
Registered User
 
myosh_tino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 97
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
What is actually so bad about Clearview? I don't understand all the fuss about it among road enthusiasts. It looks like a fine font to me, it's better than most fonts used in Europe for instance.
While I suppose I could live with the letters, Clearview numerals are absolutely hideous. Series E/E(M) and D numerals are far superior IMO.
myosh_tino no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2012, 05:44 AM   #7876
Rail Claimore
Registered User
 
Rail Claimore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 1,174
Likes (Received): 5

I'm fine with Clearview, and it works well for white letters on dark backgrounds. But for black letters on light backgrounds, it's atrocious.
Rail Claimore no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2012, 12:35 AM   #7877
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 44,372
Likes (Received): 15844

Green power coming to a freeway near you?



Concept is from 2007 but kinda interesting nonetheless.
__________________
We are floating in space...
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2012, 01:26 PM   #7878
Paddington
Registered User
 
Paddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Southland
Posts: 4,508
Likes (Received): 801

Hideous
Paddington no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2012, 06:05 PM   #7879
diablo234
Oh No He Didn't
 
diablo234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,761

Quote:
Originally Posted by desertpunk View Post
Green power coming to a freeway near you?



Concept is from 2007 but kinda interesting nonetheless.
I don't see that generating much wind power.
diablo234 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2012, 06:08 PM   #7880
g.spinoza
Lord Kelvin
 
g.spinoza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Torino
Posts: 6,247
Likes (Received): 559

Better than nothing...
__________________
My clinched highways

My euro banknotes

My climbed mountains

(uniformity's not communism...)
g.spinoza no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
america, california, highway, highways, interstate, los angeles, united states, urban

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu