Is Georgia finally getting it about APL's?

[Tom958]

Amazing: GDOT has replaced a rogue APL with a correct APL! Embarrassingly, I took this photo way back on August 12, but it didn't click for me what I was seeing until I passed the same spot yesterday. The support post for the former APL is still visible beyond:



Here's my photo of the previous condition:



Most of the rogue APL's here are due to APL's being used where there is no option lane. This, however, was a case where the APL was sited too far back and thus bore five arrows instead of four. To correct it involved making a new sign and installing it on a new gantry in front of the old one. There's a similar situation on I-285 southbound approaching I-20 east. Maybe it's in line for the same treatment. 

[jeffandnicole]

Amazing: GDOT has replaced a rogue APL with a correct APL! Embarrassingly, I took this photo way back on August 12, but it didn't click for me what I was seeing until I passed the same spot yesterday. The support post for the former APL is still visible beyond:

Would be nice to have a little more space between the left edge of the sign and the left straight arrow...but definitely better than before.

[Tom958]

Would be nice to have a little more space between the left edge of the sign and the left straight arrow...but definitely better than before.

Ah:the reason that it's so cramped on the left side is presumably because there's a left-side exit to the reversible HOT lanes coming up ahead. Beyond, you can see the ramp rising from the median. There'll surely be a conventional sign installed for it right before it opens.

[wanderer2575]

2009 MUTCD Section 2E.20 p2:

Standard:
02   "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). Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs shall not be used on freeways and expressways for any other types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits and splits that do not have an option lane."

Interesting that I just came across this quote.  There's a sign replacement project in progress on I-696 in Michigan.  There will be APLs where appropriate at exits to other freeways, but not at other exits with an option lane.  I've not understood why this is so, but now I assume it's in compliance with this directive that APLs may be used only at "major" interchanges.

My question is:  Why?  If a "non-major" exit has an option lane, why is an APL prohibited?   What's the point?

(apologies for continuing the drift away from the OP.)

[ekt8750]

2009 MUTCD Section 2E.20 p2:

Standard:
02   "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). Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs shall not be used on freeways and expressways for any other types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits and splits that do not have an option lane."

Interesting that I just came across this quote.  There's a sign replacement project in progress on I-696 in Michigan.  There will be APLs where appropriate at exits to other freeways, but not at other exits with an option lane.  I've not understood why this is so, but now I assume it's in compliance with this directive that APLs may be used only at "major" interchanges.

My question is:  Why?  If a "non-major" exit has an option lane, why is an APL prohibited?   What's the point?

(apologies for continuing the drift away from the OP.)

My guess is that they want the signage to convey the importance of the interchange. Basically, big sign for big interchange, smaller sign for lesser ones. It certainly would explain why they require such large specs for APLs to begin with.

[jeffandnicole]

My question is:  Why?  If a "non-major" exit has an option lane, why is an APL prohibited?   What's the point?

I'm thinking most minor interchanges that fall into this category would probably be exit ramps with no decal lane, so the right lane 'splits' from itself for the exit. 

Almost every interchange where there's at least one dedicated lane exiting from the mainline, with another lane splitting, falls into the 'major' category.  The APLs were mostly designed for this exit type.

[Tom958]

My question is:  Why?  If a "non-major" exit has an option lane, why is an APL prohibited?   What's the point?

(apologies for continuing the drift away from the OP.)

My guess is that they want the signage to convey the importance of the interchange. Basically, big sign for big interchange, smaller sign for lesser ones. It certainly would explain why they require such large specs for APLs to begin with.

Which is apparently one thing that Georgia has done in Atlanta. However, there are three approaches to unambiguously major interchanges in Atlanta where there are no option lanes and where APL's are used despite being specifically forbidden.    In fairness, I've seen a reference in the MUTCD to maintaining consistency as to type of signage, which is apparently what GDOT was trying to do. I'm to lazy to look it up right now, though. 

More in answer to the question at hand, there's this:

Section 2E.32 Interchange Classification Support:
01 For signing purposes, interchanges are classified as major, intermediate, and minor... Descriptions of these classifications are as follows:
A. Major interchanges are subdivided into two categories: (a) interchanges with other expressways or freeways, ]b]or (b) interchanges with high-volume multi-lane highways, principal urban arterials, or major rural routes where the volume of interchanging traffic is heavy or includes many road users unfamiliar with the area.[/b]

So, "major interchanges" aren't necessarily system interchanges.

It could be that that the decision of APL versus conventional signage at a service interchange with an option lane exit is based on the likelihood that, with conventional signage, a sufficient number of motorists will be confused enough by the option lane being hidden almost right up to the split* to cause operational and possibly safety problems.

Anyway, there's this, at a service interchange that somewhat meets the stated criteria for a major interchange:


*assuming they don't see the S3-8's, if they're even there. In Georgia, they usually aren't. 

[wanderer2575]

My question is:  Why?  If a "non-major" exit has an option lane, why is an APL prohibited?   What's the point?

I'm thinking most minor interchanges that fall into this category would probably be exit ramps with no decal lane, so the right lane 'splits' from itself for the exit. 

Almost every interchange where there's at least one dedicated lane exiting from the mainline, with another lane splitting, falls into the 'major' category.  The APLs were mostly designed for this exit type.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about.  There are a few interchanges on I-696 (not with other freeways) that have a dedicated exit-only lane plus an option lane -- for example, at Woodward Avenue (M-1) and at Southfield Road -- but will not have advance APLs because apparently they aren't "major" interchanges.  I just don't understand why such a category matters.  If there's an exit-only lane plus an option lane, which is exactly the configuration for which APLs are designed, why specifically prohibit APLs because of an arbitrary designation that it's an "intermediate" or "minor" interchange?

[jeffandnicole]

My question is:  Why?  If a "non-major" exit has an option lane, why is an APL prohibited?   What's the point?

I'm thinking most minor interchanges that fall into this category would probably be exit ramps with no decal lane, so the right lane 'splits' from itself for the exit. 

Almost every interchange where there's at least one dedicated lane exiting from the mainline, with another lane splitting, falls into the 'major' category.  The APLs were mostly designed for this exit type.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about.  There are a few interchanges on I-696 (not with other freeways) that have a dedicated exit-only lane plus an option lane -- for example, at Woodward Avenue (M-1) and at Southfield Road -- but will not have advance APLs because apparently they aren't "major" interchanges.  I just don't understand why such a category matters.  If there's an exit-only lane plus an option lane, which is exactly the configuration for which APLs are designed, why specifically prohibit APLs because of an arbitrary designation that it's an "intermediate" or "minor" interchange?

Is it that they *won't* do it, or they just haven't switched over yet?  There's no requirement for them to change to APLs just because they're permitted.  If there's construction coming up, or a large full-scale sign program in effect, maybe they'll change them at that time.

[wanderer2575]

My question is:  Why?  If a "non-major" exit has an option lane, why is an APL prohibited?   What's the point?

I'm thinking most minor interchanges that fall into this category would probably be exit ramps with no decal lane, so the right lane 'splits' from itself for the exit. 

Almost every interchange where there's at least one dedicated lane exiting from the mainline, with another lane splitting, falls into the 'major' category.  The APLs were mostly designed for this exit type.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about.  There are a few interchanges on I-696 (not with other freeways) that have a dedicated exit-only lane plus an option lane -- for example, at Woodward Avenue (M-1) and at Southfield Road -- but will not have advance APLs because apparently they aren't "major" interchanges.  I just don't understand why such a category matters.  If there's an exit-only lane plus an option lane, which is exactly the configuration for which APLs are designed, why specifically prohibit APLs because of an arbitrary designation that it's an "intermediate" or "minor" interchange?

Is it that they *won't* do it, or they just haven't switched over yet?  There's no requirement for them to change to APLs just because they're permitted.  If there's construction coming up, or a large full-scale sign program in effect, maybe they'll change them at that time.

It is a full-scale sign replacement program currently underway along a 20-mile stretch of freeway, and the plans show they won't be doing APLs at these exits to non-freeways.  Presumably because of the MUTCD directive that APLs can't be used at "intermediate" or "minor" interchanges.  I don't understand the prohibition on that basis.

[Tom958]

It is a full-scale sign replacement program currently underway along a 20-mile stretch of freeway, and the plans show they won't be doing APLs at these exits to non-freeways.  Presumably because of the MUTCD directive that APLs can't be used at "intermediate" or "minor" interchanges.  I don't understand the prohibition on that basis.

The wording is confusing, but there is no such prohibition:

"On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs... SHALL be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route and for all splits that include an option lane.

"Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs SHALL NOT be used on freeways and expressways for any other types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits (I've seen some of these in Florida!) and splits that do not have an option lane (like the ones I was referring to in metro Atlanta)."

Between "shall" and "shall not" is a gray area that's nominally addressed by a given agency's judgment as to what constitutes a major interchange (but probably involves other factors that don't lend themselves to policy pronouncements).

To further illustrate, here's part of the project map for the I-285-GA400 interchange. Here all of the offramps that meet the "shall" criteria will be signed with APL's, GDOT presumably having decided they were all major, or at least major enough. 

[epzik8]

I really hope so.

[ekt8750]

It is a full-scale sign replacement program currently underway along a 20-mile stretch of freeway, and the plans show they won't be doing APLs at these exits to non-freeways.  Presumably because of the MUTCD directive that APLs can't be used at "intermediate" or "minor" interchanges.  I don't understand the prohibition on that basis.

The wording is confusing, but there is no such prohibition:

"On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs... SHALL be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route and for all splits that include an option lane.

"Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs SHALL NOT be used on freeways and expressways for any other types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits (I've seen some of these in Florida!) and splits that do not have an option lane (like the ones I was referring to in metro Atlanta)."

Between "shall" and "shall not" is a gray area that's nominally addressed by a given agency's judgment as to what constitutes a major interchange (but probably involves other factors that don't lend themselves to policy pronouncements).

To further illustrate, here's part of the project map for the I-285-GA400 interchange. Here all of the offramps that meet the "shall" criteria will be signed with APL's, GDOT presumably having decided they were all major, or at least major enough. 

I have to say that third APL with the 2 exits looks really nice. It's pretty rare to APLs with multiple exits actually done right.

[Tom958]

APL's in Atlanta: the gift that keeps on giving. Just in the last week, what used to be a curved arrow under I-20 east was replaced by the split arrow you see now. There's a story: when the rebuilding of the Downtown Connector was finished in 1989, the lane that goes to I-20 east also continued straight for a thousand feet or so to an exit only lane for Fulton Street/Atlanta Stadium/Turner Field. Long ago, that exit lane was truncated so that it led only to I-20 east, beginning again as an auxiliary lane just beyond the gore... until sometime this week, when the old configuration was restored and the split arrow added to the APL. Annoyingly, the highway was repaved within the last few months, but GDOT hadn't come up with this scheme them, so the old markings have been conspicuously blacked over. 

Here's the Google Streetview if you want to look around.



So, that's the what. As for the why: it seems like an odd time to change a lane configuration that's been in place for so many years. As you can see, the way they've signed it is awkward at best, and there's really no way to sign it properly with either APL's or conventional signage due to space constraints, both in terms of close exit spacing and available width.

Given the recent relocation and replacement of that APL I posted about just upthread, I'm wondering whether the objective of this change was to bring these APL's back into nominal compliance with the MUTCD. If so, I'd expect to see reintroduction of the option lane for the 75-85 split on the north side and the rogue APL's leading into it modified similarly to what's been done here. 

[Tom958]

Given the recent relocation and replacement of that APL I posted about just upthread, I'm wondering whether the objective of this change was to bring these APL's back into nominal compliance with the MUTCD. If so, I'd expect to see reintroduction of the option lane for the 75-85 split on the north side and the rogue APL's leading into it modified similarly to what's been done here. 

Ha, they did it sometime this week, I'm told, and did a neat job of it. Photos will be upcoming, possibly tomorrow.

[Tom958]

As promised, photos of the Equifax option lane, reintroduced after a hiatus of (I think) about a quarter century. Unlike the last fix I showed you, they did a neat job. The special striping to the left was introduced fairly recently to make it clearer which lanes go to which Interstate-- I was surprised to see a second special stripe added. Gee, I dunno.  Note also the added shield for 85 in the option lane. There's at least one and maybe two other sets of pavement shields like this.



A generally successful effort is marred, IMO, by this weird split arrow, which confusingly resembles a gore. Call in the grinder again, please. 

[jakeroot]

As promised, photos of the Equifax option lane...The special striping to the left was introduced fairly recently to make it clearer which lanes go to which Interstate...A generally successful effort is marred, IMO, by this weird split arrow, which confusingly resembles a gore. Call in the grinder again, please. 

https://i.imgur.com/iNTNEvf.jpg?

The same type of gore arrow used in Florida and the UK. I think it would be clearer if there was edge extension markings (the dashed white markings that you must cross to exit a freeway in some states -- Alabama, in addition to many other states, uses the markings). Without the markings, it definitely has the appearance of an errant gore marking.

[mrsman]

As promised, photos of the Equifax option lane...The special striping to the left was introduced fairly recently to make it clearer which lanes go to which Interstate...A generally successful effort is marred, IMO, by this weird split arrow, which confusingly resembles a gore. Call in the grinder again, please. 

https://i.imgur.com/iNTNEvf.jpg?

The same type of gore arrow used in Florida and the UK. I think it would be clearer if there was edge extension markings (the dashed white markings that you must cross to exit a freeway in some states -- Alabama, in addition to many other states, uses the markings). Without the markings, it definitely has the appearance of an errant gore marking.

And given that, I would think that it would lead to accidents or near-misses.  At highway speeds, I would think that I would need to drive between the arrow and the lane line only to discover that the width is less than the width of my car, which would lead me to unnecessarily drive my car partially in the adjoining lane. 

What they should do for clarity is put in a sign in the gore.  I see in GSV that there is a sign for exit 251B in the gore, but IMO a better sign would be a sign indicating 85to the left and 75 to the right.  I understand that this is technically an exit, but given that it is a major freeway split is a more important indication.

[roadfro]

^ A regular shared left/thru pavement marking arrow (or a slightly elongated version) would do the trick here.  The current marking does look like the gore point without additional clues for context.

LG-D850

[Tom958]

Very recently, GDOT has started using surface road-type arrows on the Downtown Connector, and there are at least three approaching this split. Having already established what pavement arrows are supposed to look like makes this even more confusing.

[jakeroot]

An interim improvement might also be to extend the straight-arrow shaft past the left-arrow shaft, so that it doesn't have the appearance of a gore. Also, some larger arrow heads would be nice. Both in addition to edge-extension markings across the left-arrow so that it's clear it's an exit.

[Tom958]

An interim improvement might also be to extend the straight-arrow shaft past the left-arrow shaft, so that it doesn't have the appearance of a gore. Also, some larger arrow heads would be nice. Both in addition to edge-extension markings across the left-arrow so that it's clear it's an exit.

Gravedig! What actually happened is that they ground away the V at the base of the arrows, leaving two separate arrows. This happened within not very long of me and my pals raising the issue on GDOT's Facebook page, though we didn't suggest that specific fix.. Yay, us! And it really is a great improvement.

[jaidenscott316]

An interim improvement might also be to extend the straight-arrow shaft past the left-arrow shaft, so that it doesn't have the appearance of a gore. Also, some larger arrow heads would be nice. Both in addition to edge-extension markings across the left-arrow so that it's clear it's an exit.

Gravedig! What actually happened is that they ground away the V at the base of the arrows, leaving two separate arrows. This happened within not very long of me and my pals raising the issue on GDOT's Facebook page, though we didn't suggest that specific fix.. Yay, us! And it really is a great improvement.

Yeah, I'd say GDOT is finally getting it about APLS

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7218757,-84.2367399,3a,44.9y,208.61h,87.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srfusi_ZkfrpRtYpujJhlog!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

[Big John]

^^ The honorary names are not needed on the BGS and could have saved some room.

[roadfro]

Yeah, I'd say GDOT is finally getting it about APLS

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7218757,-84.2367399,3a,44.9y,208.61h,87.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srfusi_ZkfrpRtYpujJhlog!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

I'd say GDOT is not 'getting it' based on this image.

The whole concept of APL is "one arrow per lane". There are five lanes here, but the sign has six arrows–the two in the middle should have been a single split arrow, since the third lane is a true option lane. If there were six lanes here that worked as depicted, then an APL would not have been required.