News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Is Georgia finally getting it about APL's?

Started by Tom958, August 28, 2016, 07:37:36 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Tom958

Yesterday I took a mini road trip to photograph the Northwest Corridor reversible HOT lane project on I-75 and I-575 north of Atlanta. Georgia has had a rogueish approach to APL signage, using them at major interchanges whether they're warranted or not, and not using them where they are warranted. I discovered yesterday that they're getting away from that, though there are some caveats.

If you'd like to see the rest of yesterday's photos plus countless others, they're at Peach State Roads on Facebook.

First, this new conventional sign replaces a rogue APL for a split with no option lane. The APL's upstream are still there, for now. The shrouded portion of the pullthrough sign (is it really a pullthrough, then?) pertains to the access ramp to the reversible roadway, which will be closed during the AM rush.



Next, this APL replaces quite recent conventional signage on the CD.  Note the signage for SunTrust Park, the Braves' new stadium, and the stadium itself beyond. Why the left fork is shown as bending to the left is a mystery to me-- it's unambiguously straight ahead.



Off the immediate topic, but here's the first signage I've seen for the reversible itself. This is just north of Windy Hill Road.





Tom958

#1
Ha, posted by accident. I'll just split the post-- it'd be too big anyway.

This conventional sign installation replaces a diagrammatic sign that I'd suspect was a bit of a landmark for travellers.


Just beyond, this one used to be one of the few surviving cantilevered signs in metro Atlanta.



And, at the split. As you'll soon see, there's an APL-appropriate exit only about 3/4 mile beyond here, and a case could've been made for using an APL here to give sufficient notice, with a conventional sign for 575. Perhaps it was thought that the curvature of the roadways here would make that too confusing.



Or, you could just put the APL only a short distance beyond the split.



NOOOOOO!!!!  :wow: :wow: :wow: Yes, people here drive like this, but the signage ought not encourage it.



Perfectly good APL here, other than forgetting the exit number. For historical reasons, the three lane exit widens to four lanes well before the split. In the background here or in Streetview you can see the four-arrow-for-three-lanes conventional signage.



And, a rogue APL replacing conventional signage. Really, they should've put the APL back where there were still three lanes and used conventional signage here.

Zeffy

I believe the one for Windy Hill Road is technically against the MUTCD - I thought only one option lane arrow was permitted on APL signs.

APLs need to go back to the drawing board. I think there need to be some new approaches thought up, because this current method results in large, wasteful signs, and diagrammatic signs, which they replaced, were no better.

California has a solid method for APLs, at least from what I've seen, being that they have a sign height restriction.
Life would be boring if we didn't take an offramp every once in a while

A weird combination of a weather geek, roadgeek, car enthusiast and furry mixed with many anxiety related disorders

Tom958

Quote from: Zeffy on August 28, 2016, 10:02:00 AM
I believe the one for Windy Hill Road is technically against the MUTCD - I thought only one option lane arrow was permitted on APL signs.

Hence the NOOOOOOO!!!!! I've posted these photos in the order in which I took them, and up until here I'd thought that Georgia finally understood the rules.

Quote from: Zeffy on August 28, 2016, 10:02:00 AMAPLs need to go back to the drawing board. I think there need to be some new approaches thought up, because this current method results in large, wasteful signs, and diagrammatic signs, which they replaced, were no better.

California has a solid method for APLs, at least from what I've seen, being that they have a sign height restriction.

Can't argue with that, but it's a separate issue from understanding and following a consistent protocol, which GDOT seems unable to do.

jakeroot

#4
Quote from: Zeffy on August 28, 2016, 10:02:00 AM
APLs need to go back to the drawing board. I think there need to be some new approaches thought up, because this current method results in large, wasteful signs, and diagrammatic signs, which they replaced, were no better.

The current rules are way too restrictive. The things I'd change:

- permit arrows at all angles, rather than the current "left", "right", and "straight"; This makes it easier to sign multiple splits.
- permit variable sign heights; current regulations require too much stacking of information, which forces signs to be very tall
- following the above, permit the placement of shields between the arrows; this shortens the sign height considerably
- drop the "exit only" plaque requirement; the arrows angled different directions should be enough to portray an "exit only" situation
- permit APLs at splits without option lanes; APLs were invented for option lanes, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be effective in signing drop-lane splits.
- permit the placement of arrows "near" the center of the lane; i.e. drop any requirement that requires arrows to be placed exactly over the center of a lane

I haven't made a sign in a while, but here's several APLs that I've made over the years which illustrate these rules:










jakeroot

#5
Quote from: Tom958 on August 28, 2016, 10:35:58 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 28, 2016, 10:02:00 AM
APLs need to go back to the drawing board. I think there need to be some new approaches thought up, because this current method results in large, wasteful signs, and diagrammatic signs, which they replaced, were no better.

California has a solid method for APLs, at least from what I've seen, being that they have a sign height restriction.

Can't argue with that, but it's a separate issue from understanding and following a consistent protocol, which GDOT seems unable to do.

I think most of the APLs are just fine. But GDOT is being limited by the current rules, so you end up with some funky signs like the Windy Hill Road sign.

vdeane

Seems odd that multiple option lanes wouldn't be allowed on APLs... what about areas with multiple nearby splits?  What's the kosher way of signing it?  Or is the MUTCD trying to imply that you shouldn't be using multiple option lanes nearby?  Is it unsafe or something?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Tom958

#7
This is my 500th post. I'm a US Highway now!  :clap:

Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2016, 07:28:06 PM
Seems odd that multiple option lanes wouldn't be allowed on APLs... what about areas with multiple nearby splits?  What's the kosher way of signing it? 

Just use a vertical arrow there and move the vertical line between the 75 and 285 portions to directly over the arrow. Seems pretty intuitive to me.


Quote from: jakerootI think most of the APLs are just fine. But GDOT is being limited by the current rules, so you end up with some funky signs like the Windy Hill Road sign.

It appears that I've failed utterly in trying to make my point: Aside from whatever issues there are with APL's in general and how they're to be used under the MUTCD, Georgia has had some additional issues due (apparently) to misunderstanding of the rules and poor quality control. What I'm trying to show is that GDOT has improved its grasp of how to do MUTCD signage, both APL and conventional, and has gone to considerable effort and expense to replace relatively recently installed noncompliant signage. Unfortunately, GDOT is not yet immune to brain flatulence, as my last three examples show.

Still, it's an improvement for the agency that's responsible for this:



And this:


jakeroot

#8
Quote from: Tom958 on August 28, 2016, 09:52:39 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 28, 2016, 12:16:37 PM
I think most of the APLs are just fine. But GDOT is being limited by the current rules, so you end up with some funky signs like the Windy Hill Road sign.

It appears that I've failed utterly in trying to make my point: Aside from whatever issues there are with APL's in general and how they're to be used under the MUTCD, Georgia has had some additional issues due (apparently) to misunderstanding of the rules and poor quality control. What I'm trying to show is that GDOT has improved its grasp of how to do MUTCD signage, both APL and conventional, and has gone to considerable effort and expense to replace relatively recently installed noncompliant signage. Unfortunately, GDOT is not yet immune to brain flatulence, as my last three examples show.

No, you made your point very clear: Georgia has had difficulty making APLs because of their misunderstanding of the rules, and poor quality control. The way I see it, however, is that Georgia is being put between a rock and a hard place: The MUTCD requires APLs when there's an option lane, but there are many junctions all across Georgia where there are several option lanes in a row, and they must all be, somehow, signed on the same sign. The current design regulations make this exceptionally difficult, hence, my original point: GDOT is being limited by the current rules, so you end up with some funky [looking] signs.

Now, is there actual quality control issues? It certainly seems so: the 285-Exit 34/33 sign in your post above is a clear example of poor quality control (the sign on the right just needs a right-facing arrow -- how a combo straight/right arrow got in there, I have no idea). But other signs, like the 75/285 split several posts up is an example of where Georgia had to, somehow, sign a split using only up arrows. They decided to use combo straight/right arrow, and it looks pretty strange. But you can't effectively sign a split using only one up arrow. This is why the MUTCD should permit unlimited arrow angles, so that multiple splits can be signed on one sign.

cl94

Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2016, 07:28:06 PM
Seems odd that multiple option lanes wouldn't be allowed on APLs... what about areas with multiple nearby splits?  What's the kosher way of signing it?  Or is the MUTCD trying to imply that you shouldn't be using multiple option lanes nearby?  Is it unsafe or something?

From discussions I have had with FHWA folks at TRB, part of the reasoning is to reduce the number of option lanes in a compact area. Of course, since many states loved their "dancing arrows" and designed intersections where 4 lanes split into 6 (middle 2 are option), there is no legal way to clearly sign such intersections and rumblings within FHWA are that more guidance and multiple option lanes are a must for APLs.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

mrsman

I think the reality of the APL does not live up to the promise of the APL - just as all the posters above have said.

Yes, it is much easier, in theory, to keep track of lanes where you have one arrow per lane.  Certainly easier than some of the stippled diagrammatic arrows where you have to go and count the lanes.  Certainly easier than seeing signs with more arrows than lanes which was the traditional approach or the approach of dancing arrows.  Yet the reality of very complex interchanges, the kind where more clarity would be most helpful, the APL just doesn't work.

Could you do it at the East LA Interchange?   The Oakland Maze?  Kansas City where so many freeways enter the inner loop?  The Bruckner Interchange in the Bronx?  The Golden Glades Interchange near Miami?  Other really complicated interchanges?  And simply having FHWA tell you not to make such compllicated interchanges is not an answer.  These already exist and there needs to be proper signage so that drivers can get to the destination safely without last minute lane changes.




On the Redesign This thread about a year ago, I've posted the BGS where eastbound I-278 (BQE) meets I-495 (LIE) in western Queens, NY.  Here you have a situation with a three lane freeway:  The left lane forces you to stay on I-278 to Bronx.  The middle lane allows you to go to I-278 Bronx or the ramp on I-495.  The right lane allows you to go to the ramp to I-495.  But that's not all.  Of the two lanes that lead to I-495, you have to make a decision very quickly, the left of the two lanes allows you to go toward Midtown.  Both the left and the right of the two lanes allows you to go Riverhead (Eastern Long Island).  So yes, as currently signed you have a traditional split between 278 vs 495 and then 1/4 mile later a split between 495 west and 495 east.  Each individual split can be signed adequatelly with the current signage or with APLs.  The problem is that there is no way to indicate what lane you need to be in for the second split before you hit the first split. And if you do not know, you will be making a dangerous last minute lane change. wh

This is not a complicated interchange, it is the interchange of two freeways and I am sure that there are many similar interchanges around the counrty where you make an exit to the right to go in either direction of the intersecting freeway.  If each direction had their own lane, no problem.  But split lanes are very common.

Is there any way to indicate before both splits the following ultimate lane division:

Left lane - 278 Bronx

Middle lane - 278 Bronx, 495 Midtown, 495 Riverhead

Right lane - 495 Riverhead.

Oh, and since you already are on 278, the 278 to the Bronx must be considered staying on the road, not making a left turn.


Here are references for the current signage:


https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7307537,-73.926295,3a,75y,45.52h,75.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4B38hK6-sdnwjZJoSOtvHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1


Look like they have added an APL type sign recently, but it still doesn't help the surprise left for those wanting Midtown:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7327198,-73.9249282,3a,75y,45.52h,75.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO5NVM4_P3XYL6FAxZcsNlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1




https://www.google.com/maps/place/Long+Island+City,+Queens,+NY/@40.7328303,-73.9228727,3a,75y,105.46h,71.61t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skPsntIkTsiec0bIwepW1tA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DkPsntIkTsiec0bIwepW1tA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D318.69647%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c2592bc7bab159:0x56156cc4c5ee8e31!8m2!3d40.744679!4d-73.9485424!6m1!1e1



jakeroot

Quote from: mrsman on September 04, 2016, 04:07:41 PM
I think the reality of the APL does not live up to the promise of the APL - just as all the posters above have said.

Yes, it is much easier, in theory, to keep track of lanes where you have one arrow per lane.  Certainly easier than some of the stippled diagrammatic arrows where you have to go and count the lanes.  Certainly easier than seeing signs with more arrows than lanes which was the traditional approach or the approach of dancing arrows.  Yet the reality of very complex interchanges, the kind where more clarity would be most helpful, the APL just doesn't work.

Could you do it at the East LA Interchange?   The Oakland Maze?  Kansas City where so many freeways enter the inner loop?  The Bruckner Interchange in the Bronx?  The Golden Glades Interchange near Miami?  Other really complicated interchanges?  And simply having FHWA tell you not to make such compllicated interchanges is not an answer.  These already exist and there needs to be proper signage so that drivers can get to the destination safely without last minute lane changes.

The issue with the APL is not the arrows. It's the FHWA. They are being far too picky with the design of the signs. If they eased up on the rules, and allowed different arrows, different placement of shields, etc, I think almost any split could be signed...

Quote from: mrsman on September 04, 2016, 04:07:41 PM
[redesign 278/495 split on Long Island]

Is there any way to indicate before both splits[?]

My design seems sufficient, without being overly redundant (both signs are 113" tall):



At the [second] split:


Tom958

#12
Well, we could always do more as the Dutch have. This example uses more-curved and less-curved arrows, multiple panels, and even variation in size within a single panel to articulate which lanes go where. Surely all of these ideas were considered in developing our APL standards. Why were they rejected? I can't think of an acceptable answer to that question.



Re mrsman's example in Queens, I think there's no way to sign exactly what lane does what in such a limited space (oh: you didn't mention 48th Street!). Nor, IMO, is there a compelling need to. The trickiest part is to ensure that drivers heading for 495 west know to be in the left lane of the offramp, which also means being in or at least moving toward the center lane of 278 before the split. If doing so implies that the right lane of the offramp is the only lane that goes to 495 east, so be it; there'll likely be enough drivers who are familiar with the area and who thus know otherwise to keep overuse of the right lane from becoming a serious problem.

That said, under the current MUTCD, both dancing arrows and having white-on-green and black-on-yellow arrows on the same sign are  banned. An APL is thus the only option for signing the critical option lane. What to do? I see two options: Leave the current signage and beg the FHWA's indulgence, or correctly follow the practices set down in the current MUTCD and hope for the best.


jakeroot

Quote from: Tom958 on September 04, 2016, 08:02:41 PM
Well, we could always do more as the Dutch have. This example uses more-curved and less-curved arrows, multiple panels, and even variation in size within a single panel to articulate which lanes go where. Surely all of these ideas were considered in developing our APL standards.

I'm not totally sure where exactly the idea for up arrows originated, but certainly some European countries had an effect (namely, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands).

I've designed a multi-lane split using similar arrows to the dutch ... catch is, I'm not sure my signs are to scale. They are quite old works:





Quote from: Tom958 on September 04, 2016, 08:02:41 PM
Re mrsman's example in Queens, I think there's no way to sign exactly what lane does what in such a limited space (oh: you didn't mention 48th Street!). Nor, IMO, is there a compelling need to. The trickiest part is to ensure that drivers heading for 495 west know to be in the left lane of the offramp, which also means being in or at least moving toward the center lane of 278 before the split. If doing so implies that the right lane of the offramp is the only lane that goes to 495 east, so be it; there'll likely be enough drivers who are familiar with the area and who thus know otherwise to keep overuse of the right lane from becoming a serious problem.

Only responding to this because you posted your comment only seconds after I posted my designs. Check them out and let me know what you think.

mrsman

I like your signs jakeroot.  While the first sign may never be as specific as I would like, given the unusual circumstance of allowing the middle lane to go three directions, it does seem to at least let people know: 1) right two lanes to exit to 495, 2) Of the two lanes exiting to 495, keep left for Midtown and keep right for Riverhead.  That is still a lot better than current signage.

And yes the actual lane configuration is more specifed on the second split, but my point in the exercise was informing people to get in the correct lane before the first split occurs.

If I was using the notation of LA area radio traffic reporters (who refer to the left lane as the #1 lane, the next lane to the right as the #2 lane, etc.), seeing your sign would lead me to believe:

#1 lane: 278 East Bronx
#2 lane: 278 East Bronx or 495 West Midtown
#3 lane: 495 East Riverhead

As Tom958 points out, while not exactly precise on what each lane can do, at the very least it gets people in the correct lane to where they need to go.  The only missing information is that it does not let people going to Riverhead know that they may also use the #2 lane.  But this is much less of a problem than having Midtown people in lane #3 who then have to make a last minute change to reach their ramp.

For your Overland Park, KS example, I read the sign as telling me:

#1, #2, #3 - I-435 West
#4 I-435 West or US 69
#5 US 69 or Antioch Road
#6 Antioch Road

[I am less concerned about choosing the correct lane between US 69 N vs US 69 S becauase there appears to be a lot of room to make that choice, unlike the situation in Queens.]

For your Sacramento example, I read the sign as telling me:

#1, #2, #3 - Biz-80 East Reno
#4 Biz-80 East Reno or Biz-80/US 50 West San Francisco
#5 Biz-80/US 50 West San Francisco or US 50 East South Lake Tahoe

[I have lived in Northern California for 3 years and went by this interchange enough times to be familiar enough with it, so that I know what Biz-80 is and am not confused by the Biz-80/US 50 multiplex, although I have forgotten the precise lane assignments.]



myosh_tino

Quote from: Tom958 on September 04, 2016, 08:02:41 PM
That said, under the current MUTCD, both dancing arrows and having white-on-green and black-on-yellow arrows on the same sign are  banned. An APL is thus the only option for signing the critical option lane. What to do? I see two options: Leave the current signage and beg the FHWA's indulgence, or correctly follow the practices set down in the current MUTCD and hope for the best.

You have a third option.  Leave the signs as-is and invoke "Engineering Judgement" because there is no adequate way to sign such a complex interchange without using multiple down arrows pointing to a single lane.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

Tom958

@jakeroot: As much as I hate to say it, no, I don't like your signs, at least not as direct alternatives to unsatisfactory situations we see in the contemporary US. You've gone too far in the direction of creating your own format for your designs to be appropriate as alternatives to existing signage. Beyond that, while it's legit to challenge yourself by imposing a Californian height limit on your signs, doing so is an unnecessary impediment to designing good signage where 120 inches isn't a law of nature. The Dutch example I posted makes that very clear, hinting at the folly of excessive uniform height as well as of inadequate uniform height. Finally, both your format and several European ones use multiple shields for the same route, which I disdain for their redundancy in situations where information overload is usually part of the problem at hand. The Dutch example does it out of force of long-established habit and could easily be rectified within their adopted format, but yours does it because of (often) arbitrary space constraints.

Sorry.

I know we all disdain the wasted space on the standard American APL, but your alternative is just too cramped. Contrary to my earlier assertion, a much less vertically challenged version of what you've designed here would do the trick, though a simplified version that doesn't attempt to show that traffic headed for 495 east can use both ramp lanes might be preferable for its greater simplicity.



@everybody: I remember this classic, which would address the situation in Queens. Would it be too much to imagine something like this, with California-style EXIT ONLY tabs bracketing the right arrow and used with a white down arrow pullthrough, in the next iteration of the MUTCD?


johndoe

I'm no signing expert, but I find it an interesting topic.  Such a weird balance of art and science (or at least that's my view since I don't know the nitty-gritty). 

One of the other challenges I've experienced on projects is "The Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide sign at the exit shall not be located at or near the theoretical gore." (2E.21.03)  So if you update signs but don't have the money for new trusses, you end up doing pull-through arrows anyway.  I think it will be interesting going forward; will this rule stay?  Many old interchanges have the trusses downstream of the theoretical gore, so when will those start to get updated?

That brings me to my LEAST favorite situation; where an option lane is signed as exit only (since technically the lane exists at the point of the truss).  We talked about that a bit in this thread I started a while back:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16467
I STILL can't fathom how an OPTION lane is supposed to be signed as exit ONLY.

cl94

Quote from: Tom958 on September 05, 2016, 08:00:45 AM
Finally, both your format and several European ones use multiple shields for the same route, which I disdain for their redundancy in situations where information overload is usually part of the problem at hand. The Dutch example does it out of force of long-established habit and could easily be rectified within their adopted format, but yours does it because of (often) arbitrary space constraints.

I know we all disdain the wasted space on the standard American APL...

Thank you. The California size constraint is only relevant in one state: California. Otherwise, cramped signs are not the way to go, especially with an aging population that has trouble reading signs as it is. I'd rather have too much green space than not enough. Redundancy on a single sign is discouraged by the MUTCD and having multiple copies of the same shield counteracts any benefits from the restrictions on the number of control cities/destination. Information overload is NOT what we want and the main thing the MUTCD has been trying to eliminate with the new standards.

End rant.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

vdeane

Yep.  I would go so far as to say that California's size constraint make their signs the ugliest in the nation (on a state by state basis) by far.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

compdude787

I know this is sort of going off on a tangent, but why is it that California makes its signs shorter than other states?

jakeroot

#21
Quote from: Tom958 on September 05, 2016, 08:00:45 AM
@jakeroot: As much as I hate to say it, no, I don't like your signs, at least not as direct alternatives to unsatisfactory situations we see in the contemporary US. You've gone too far in the direction of creating your own format for your designs to be appropriate as alternatives to existing signage. Beyond that, while it's legit to challenge yourself by imposing a Californian height limit on your signs, doing so is an unnecessary impediment to designing good signage where 120 inches isn't a law of nature. The Dutch example I posted makes that very clear, hinting at the folly of excessive uniform height as well as of inadequate uniform height. Finally, both your format and several European ones use multiple shields for the same route, which I disdain for their redundancy in situations where information overload is usually part of the problem at hand. The Dutch example does it out of force of long-established habit and could easily be rectified within their adopted format, but yours does it because of (often) arbitrary space constraints.

I appreciate the criticism. Most users seem to be accepting of my APLs, so I'm pretty surprised to find someone who isn't. There's obviously nothing wrong with that -- lots of "older" people are used to the old up/down arrow combination signs that litter the US today, so much so that any alternative is viewed as messy or unnecessary -- but, I do feel that it's necessary to at least defend my designs. So, if you'll allow me.

First of all, I don't necessarily think that I've deviated a lot from the current MUTCD. I use the standard up-arrow width (7.75"), standard shield size, standard typeface (FHWA) and font size, standard exit tab size, etc. The only deviation from the current APL designs is that I've moved some of the items around on the sign, and I've eliminated the vast amounts of green space.

Speaking of green space, that brings me to my second point: I have not imposed any height limit on my signs, but I've never found anything more than 144" (i.e. taller than the width of a standard lane) to be necessary. If it needs to be any taller, it's because there's a need to sign A) a bunch of routes, or B) a bunch of destinations, but most of my designs try to eliminate excessive information, so I rarely need to create tall signs (I rarely use more than one destination, and most of my signs only sign one route per destination). In the Dutch example, the only reason the signs aren't all the same height as the pull-through, is because of the desire to use distance markers, and several different destinations. If you deleted the distances from the sign, and lowered the number of destinations to one or two, the signs would be just as short as my 278/495 designs. Admittedly, the major shortcoming of my designs is the lack of a distance marker. Some of my signs have them, if there's room, but I generally don't use them (signs more than one mile in advance, I would sign like this). That said, my intent would be to use APLs only within one mile of a split, so I don't think there'd ever be a reason to use distances (unless multiple exits are signed using one sign).

Quote from: cl94 on September 05, 2016, 08:00:27 PM
Thank you. The California size constraint is only relevant in one state: California. Otherwise, cramped signs are not the way to go, especially with an aging population that has trouble reading signs as it is. I'd rather have too much green space than not enough.
Quote from: Tom958 on September 05, 2016, 08:00:45 AM
I know we all disdain the wasted space on the standard American APL, but your alternative is just too cramped. Contrary to my earlier assertion, a much less vertically challenged version of what you've designed here would do the trick...

Oh, it's too cramped? How do you guys figure that? Is there some sort of "cramp" index that the MUTCD developed? If there is, I'd be happy to redesign any sign to meet those requirements. Too cramped is simply too subjective for me to take seriously. Sorry.

jakeroot

Quote from: Tom958 on September 05, 2016, 08:00:45 AM
Finally, both your format and several European ones use multiple shields for the same route, which I disdain for their redundancy in situations where information overload is usually part of the problem at hand.
Quote from: cl94 on September 05, 2016, 08:00:27 PM
Redundancy on a single sign is discouraged by the MUTCD and having multiple copies of the same shield counteracts any benefits from the restrictions on the number of control cities/destination. Information overload is NOT what we want and the main thing the MUTCD has been trying to eliminate with the new standards.

On the 278/495 sign, I used multiple 495 EAST shields to, the best of my ability, illustrate the middle lane's ability to go east on 495; if I were to make that sign again, I would not use multiple shields. Hell, the 495 East sign would be an entirely separate sign. But, mrsman challenged me to a redesign, so I tried to follow through with that.

In regards to the use of duplicate shields between up arrows, I do this to eliminate excessive "scanning" by drivers. You should be able to look up from your lane at the sign in front, and see if your arrow goes where you want it to. If you're in the far left lane, your eyes pretty much go straight to the 80-East-biz shield. If you're in the right lane, you see the 99/50 shields. It's not meant to be excessively redundant. It's just meant to make it easier to spot the information that you might be looking for, so you can get your eyes back on the road.


jakeroot

#23
Quote from: compdude787 on September 05, 2016, 08:59:23 PM
I know this is sort of going off on a tangent, but why is it that California makes its signs shorter than other states?

Wind loading. I don't know the exact specifics as to why that's the case. myosh_tino -- our resident California expert -- would know for sure why. It has to do with the design of the sign trusses, though.

cl94

The New York contingent here certainly has more experience with these than others, but NYSDOT found a way to get rid of the green space without major changes to the design of the sign[/url]. NYSTA has/had a couple examples as well.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)



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.