Arrow-Per-Lane (APL) signs

[KEK Inc.]

You'd want a truss structure or a very thick monotube in high wind areas.

In Wyoming, many of their traffic mast-arms are replaced with truss designs. 



https://www.google.com/maps/place/Casper,+WY/@42.821071,-106.369383,3a,75y,238.55h,87.14t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sxRgzvx1N8BTLTC-ZLkX3dA!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x87609365c85e7a63:0x69cefc3917343e53

[jwags]

Here's a weird APL in Milwaukee. They only used an arrow for the exiting lane and then for the other lanes the sign just says "AHEAD".

GSV Link

[DaBigE]

Monotube gantries that WSDOT uses are an ass-ton cheaper than the fu-fu artsy fartsy gantries Wisconsin and Texas use.  Honestly, I prefer the minimalist aesthetics.

So far, those "artsy fartsy" gantry supports in Wisconsin are the exception and not the rule. They're only being used on the mega projects (US/I41, I90/94, Marquette Interchange, Zoo Interchange, Madison beltline/Verona Rd., etc.) where there is a significant portion of the project budget for "Community Sensitive Design". And if the government watchdogs have their way, we'll be back to the old truss/monopole supports in no time.

[SSOWorld]

Here's a weird APL in Milwaukee. They only used an arrow for the exiting lane and then for the other lanes the sign just says "AHEAD".

GSV Link

Temporary.  By 2020 that will likely be a full APL with 4 lanes

[Pink Jazz]

One thing to wonder - why hasn't Arizona adopted APLs?  In fact I think ADOT even balked at the concept due to the costs.  Considering we have a lot of older drivers, I think there is a fairly obvious case for them in Arizona.  If ADOT can afford licenses for Clearview, I don't see why they can't afford fabricating APL signage.

[J N Winkler]

One thing to wonder - why hasn't Arizona adopted APLs?

Arizona does use APLs.  The construction plans for TRACS H855701C (a sign replacement contract) calls for them on I-8 approaching its terminus at I-10.

I used to think ADOT had a phobia about using stippled-arrow diagrammatics too.  However, close study of as-builts now available through the ROAD portal shows that at one point a stippled-arrow diagrammatic was used at the east end of former SR 360 (now part of US 60).  There is also a recent project that experiments with the Minnesota approach of using a ruled line over a downward-pointing arrow to indicate an option lane.

[Pink Jazz]

One thing to wonder - why hasn't Arizona adopted APLs?

Arizona does use APLs.  The construction plans for TRACS H855701C (a sign replacement contract) calls for them on I-8 approaching its terminus at I-10.

I used to think ADOT had a phobia about using stippled-arrow diagrammatics too.  However, close study of as-builts now available through the ROAD portal shows that at one point a stippled-arrow diagrammatic was used at the east end of former SR 360 (now part of US 60).  There is also a recent project that experiments with the Minnesota approach of using a ruled line over a downward-pointing arrow to indicate an option lane.

I guess that will be the first in the state.  I wonder if they will also be used for the SMF.

[myosh_tino]

AFAIK, California only has two installations of Arrow-per-Lane signage, at the 180-41 interchange in Fresno and at the 99-152 interchange north of Madera, both of which have some rather interesting looking arrows.  For the sake of this discussion, I am not included signs in the Sacramento area as those were in existence far before the FHWA implemented APL signs.  I recently ran across the signing plans for a pavement rehab project on CA-58 approaching the CA-99 interchange in Bakersfield that includes APL signage leading up to the 58-99 interchange...



The layout isn't the best and is complicated by the fact that there are 2 closely-spaced exits (58W/99N and 99S) and there are no exit numbers.  With that said, one positive is Caltrans provided dimensions for the APL arrows which I was able to use to create a spec for the through, option and exit arrows.

[jakeroot]

AFAIK, California only has two installations of Arrow-per-Lane signage, at the 180-41 interchange in Fresno and at the 99-152 interchange north of Madera, both of which have some rather interesting looking arrows.  For the sake of this discussion, I am not included signs in the Sacramento area as those were in existence far before the FHWA implemented APL signs.  I recently ran across the signing plans for a pavement rehab project on CA-58 approaching the CA-99 interchange in Bakersfield that includes APL signage leading up to the 58-99 interchange...

http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/58-99_caAPL.png

The layout isn't the best and is complicated by the fact that there are 2 closely-spaced exits (58W/99N and 99S) and there are no exit numbers.  With that said, one positive is Caltrans provided dimensions for the APL arrows which I was able to use to create a spec for the through, option and exit arrows.

I like what I see! I would adjust the placement of the shields to improve the size of "Sacramento", but I appreciate Caltrans using the space between the arrows.

To make sure I'm understanding the sign correctly, the left two lanes go the end of the freeway, lane three goes to 99 South or 58 West, and lane four goes to 99 North. Am I onto something?

[SignBridge]

That sign is too cramped. It should be spread out horizontally and then the vertical lines wouldn't be needed and the sign would have better readability.

[myosh_tino]

To make sure I'm understanding the sign correctly, the left two lanes go the end of the freeway, lane three goes to 99 South or 58 West, and lane four goes to 99 North. Am I onto something?

Close.

Until the Westside Pkwy connection is completed, West 58 multiplexes with North 99 so the lane assignments go like this (starting from the left)...

Lanes 1-2 -- End of Freeway (future West 58/Westside Pkwy)
Lane 3 -- South 99 *or* North 99/West 58
Lane 4 -- North 99/West 58

[jakeroot]

To make sure I'm understanding the sign correctly, the left two lanes go the end of the freeway, lane three goes to 99 South or 58 West, and lane four goes to 99 North. Am I onto something?

Close.

Until the Westside Pkwy connection is completed, West 58 multiplexes with North 99 so the lane assignments go like this (starting from the left)...

Lanes 1-2 -- End of Freeway (future West 58/Westside Pkwy)
Lane 3 -- South 99 *or* North 99/West 58
Lane 4 -- North 99/West 58

Ahh, gotcha. No harm done I suppose, since those lanes still go to those routes.

That sign is too cramped. It should be spread out horizontally and then the vertical lines wouldn't be needed and the sign would have better readability.

I don't think it's any more cramped than any other California sign .

[wanderer2575]

New signage on I-696 in Michigan last year includes some APLs.

MDOT's freeway standard appears to be a full-width sign when the road is four or fewer lanes wide ...


... but a partial-width sign over only the exit-only lane, the option lane, and the first thru-only lane when the road is five or more lanes wide ...
(EDIT:  The sign plans show the leftmost arrow being taller and wider than the others; I wonder if that was a goof but the contractor followed the plans.)


... or maybe not even the thru-only lane.


This is an unusual one in Novi -- a three-lane exit with two exit-only lanes and an option lane.  (Another thru lane opens on the right a bit farther along.)  (And that's a windshield smudge in the photo, not a sign defect.)  The "1 1/4 miles" is shoehorned between the two exit-only lanes and is off-center for the exit.  It would look better if it were centered over the three exit arrows, but that would have required a taller sign with more wasted green space, so I think I'm okay with this design.

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

NYC installed a new one last year when the new Kozciuszco Bridge opened for northbound/eastbound traffic on the BQE (I278) at the LIE (I495). Only oe I have seen in the city and state so far

I-278

https://goo.gl/maps/Mur1QGmsVXK2

[lordsutch]

... but a partial-width sign over only the exit-only lane, the option lane, and the first thru-only lane when the road is five or more lanes wide ...
(EDIT:  The sign plans show the leftmost arrow being taller and wider than the others; I wonder if that was a goof but the contractor followed the plans.)


... or maybe not even the thru-only lane.

Looks like some (positive) Ontario influence has hopped across the Detroit River.

[bzakharin]

I've always wondered about this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4234469,-74.5740906,3a,75y,106.14h,86.96t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s74UbGfqfD4U76ygTVhI7nQ!2e0!5s20170801T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
It completely misrepresents the situation. The two lanes exiting to the Parkway haven't even begun yet. All three lanes are thru at this location. I doubt it's a holdover from a previous configuration. The ACE was never 1 lane here. Why they're even using an (alleged) APL here is a mystery.

[jakeroot]

I've always wondered about this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4234469,-74.5740906,3a,75y,106.14h,86.96t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s74UbGfqfD4U76ygTVhI7nQ!2e0!5s20170801T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
It completely misrepresents the situation. The two lanes exiting to the Parkway haven't even begun yet. All three lanes are thru at this location. I doubt it's a holdover from a previous configuration. The ACE was never 1 lane here. Why they're even using an (alleged) APL here is a mystery.

I think they just used the wrong type of down arrow. Notice how the shaft widens as it gets farther from the arrowhead? That's a standard up arrow pointing down (instead of straight up, standard for roadside guide signs, or up at an angle, standard for overhead signs). APL arrows use a shaft with a consistent thickness. They should have used the standard guide sign down arrow instead (the kind with the really short shaft). I think these arrows have reference codes, but I can't find online what those would be. Note this diagram, though:



Personally, I do find the signs rather confusing. They should have one sign for the GSP on the right, with an additional black-on-yellow sign on the left saying "THROUGH TRAFFIC KEEP LEFT", since that seems to be the goal with the current configuration.

EDIT: Just want to note that I am aware of how old these signs are.

[PHLBOS]

I've always wondered about this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4234469,-74.5740906,3a,75y,106.14h,86.96t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s74UbGfqfD4U76ygTVhI7nQ!2e0!5s20170801T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
It completely misrepresents the situation. The two lanes exiting to the Parkway haven't even begun yet. All three lanes are thru at this location. I doubt it's a holdover from a previous configuration. The ACE was never 1 lane here. Why they're even using an (alleged) APL here is a mystery.

A few things worth noting:

1.  Those particular signs long predates the current APL standards (most here including yourself already knew that) that's in the MUTCD.

2.  Those signs are obviously not spec'd per the MUTCD of the era.  The ACE is SJTA operated and those signs were spec'd by them.

3.  Not 100% sure of the early history of this interchange configuration but before there were APL or diagrammatic sign standards; many agencies just winged it with their lane signs.  While the ACE does not drop down to one lane in this area; the above set-up is assuming that the majority of the traffic in this area is peak-season Shore-bound traffic exiting south.

[SignBridge]

To expand on PHLBOS's comment, the agency that operates the Atlantic City Expwy. seems to operate in its own little signing world that does not include modern standards or the MUTCD. The one time I ever drove that road, back in 2011, I was amazed to see how non-standard and 1950's like their signing was.

[PHLBOS]

To expand on PHLBOS's comment, the agency that operates the Atlantic City Expwy. seems to operate in its own little signing world that does not include modern standards or the MUTCD. The one time I ever drove that road, back in 2011, I was amazed to see how non-standard and 1950's like their signing was.

To be fair, SJTA's newer signs are closer to MUTCD standards than their older surviving signage.

[bzakharin]

Not only are the ACE signs non-standard, they are not even internally consistent. Here's what they're doing in the other direction:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4076057,-74.542255,3a,75y,275.61h,97t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_cdqxVLU5__0jjkwuaPCXw!2e0!5s20170801T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
I did notice two positive changes relatively recently. The first you can see in my previous link, the "55 MPH ahead" graphical sign which replaced "reduced speed ahead" both here and approaching the western terminus. The second is the "pay toll ahead" signs are now black on yellow, not white on blue.

There is also the random placement of larger mile markers, mostly the 1/10 ones, but two (36 and 38) full mile ones have been enlarged as well. I can't find any rhyme or reason in why certain markers are replaced and not others.

[jeffandnicole]

I've always wondered about this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4234469,-74.5740906,3a,75y,106.14h,86.96t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s74UbGfqfD4U76ygTVhI7nQ!2e0!5s20170801T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
It completely misrepresents the situation. The two lanes exiting to the Parkway haven't even begun yet. All three lanes are thru at this location. I doubt it's a holdover from a previous configuration. The ACE was never 1 lane here. Why they're even using an (alleged) APL here is a mystery.

Those signs on the Expressway always nerved me. There should never be any indication where keeping left is the correct thing to do, because the law is to Keep Right Except to Pass.  Get someone in the left lane that's not familiar with the area; they're going to go slower than need be and will never get over until they're submerged in the Atlantic Ocean.

And to point it out as well...the center lane never goes to the Garden State Parkway.  As mentioned, all 3 lanes are thru lanes for the AC Expressway.  I guess the idea was to have the right lane merge over onto the decal lane, then the center lane merges over into the right lane.  When the 2nd decal lane began, everyone will shift over again.  Maybe good in theory.  Maybe it worked in 1965.  It's not relevant or reasonable today.

Because the decal lanes are their own lanes, a modern-day APL would not be appropriate here.

To be fair, SJTA's newer signs are closer to MUTCD standards than their older surviving signage.

Closer, but some of them are ugly as hell.  It appears that every contract uses a different sign maker, and every sign maker uses the ugly version of the sign variation available to them.

One positive change is this oddly formed sign:  https://goo.gl/maps/5uV88tXZqJC2 .  It seems to say "Reduced.  Speed Curves Ahead."  It should really be "Reduced Speed.  Curves Ahead".  Why they put the flashing (when they worked) lights between Reduced and Speed, no idea.  It now appears as the much more familiar https://goo.gl/maps/AhP6d9KUBiB2 .

And it's either this one or the previous one, but it's now been updated to show "First, Second, Third and Fourth Left/Right"! https://goo.gl/maps/Wqy7FEv4yAo

[webny99]

As I read this thread, the question forming in my mind is this:

Which do you prefer, this, or this? Both achieve the same purpose, but the latter is more efficient (and visually appealing) IMO.

[MNHighwayMan]

As I read this thread, the question forming in my mind is this:

Which do you prefer, this, or this? Both achieve the same purpose, but the latter is more efficient (and visually appealing) IMO.

I like the concept of APL signs, but my biggest problem with them is that the height of the arrows makes the signs way too big. Seems like a waste of materials to me.

[riiga]

Which do you prefer, this, or this? Both achieve the same purpose, but the latter is more efficient (and visually appealing) IMO.

The former, but only if they weren't such a waste of space. Both jakeroot and I have experimented with more spacesaving arrows. The problem doesn't lie in the use of APLs, but rather how restricted the APL guidelines are. Another benefit of APLs is that you can omit "EXIT ONLY" as that information is shown by the arrows.

Example of alternate layouts: