Arrow-Per-Lane (APL) signs

[jeffandnicole]

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.

The nice thing about the APLs is that is actually unifies what had been a real mix of various options for these multi-option lanes.  The MUTCD did have a standard in place, but in reality there was no unity of such signs.

As for wasted space/materials - in the long run, it's extremely minor.  The extra space may cost a few hundred bucks in total.  For comparison, a single 'No Parking' sign and post is often over $100.

[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.

The nice thing about the APLs is that is actually unifies what had been a real mix of various options for these multi-option lanes.  The MUTCD did have a standard in place, but in reality there was no unity of such signs.

As for wasted space/materials - in the long run, it's extremely minor.  The extra space may cost a few hundred bucks in total.  For comparison, a single 'No Parking' sign and post is often over $100.

Right, which is why I like the concept, I'm just not a huge fan of the implementation. Maybe I'll get used to those humongous arrows and the signs will look less ugly to me as time goes on. I dunno. The other trouble is, the alternatives, like riiga posted, just look too cluttered to me. And that second one seems slightly confusing–is the third lane from the left for I-10 or Exit 19A?

[jakeroot]

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.

The nice thing about the APLs is that is actually unifies what had been a real mix of various options for these multi-option lanes.  The MUTCD did have a standard in place, but in reality there was no unity of such signs.

As for wasted space/materials - in the long run, it's extremely minor.  The extra space may cost a few hundred bucks in total.  For comparison, a single 'No Parking' sign and post is often over $100.

Right, which is why I like the concept, I'm just not a huge fan of the implementation. Maybe I'll get used to those humongous arrows and the signs will look less ugly to me as time goes on. I dunno. The other trouble is, the alternatives, like riiga posted, just look too cluttered to me. And that second one seems slightly confusing–is the third lane from the left for I-10 or Exit 19A?

I don't think you'll have to get used to the humongous arrows. California has been experimenting with short arrows for a little while now, and I wouldn't be surprised if some other states experiment with those arrows on their own signs, more than likely another western state such as Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, or Washington.

On the other hand, humongous arrows have a place if it's part of the design. For example, this sign that I made a few months ago:



I have also designed signs with nearly-standard arrow heights. It's really about how you place the information. Current APL guidelines inherently waste space:

[MNHighwayMan]

I don't think you'll have to get used to the humongous arrows. California has been experimenting with short arrows for a little while now, and I wouldn't be surprised if some other states experiment with those arrows on their own signs, more than likely another western state such as Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, or Washington.

On the other hand, humongous arrows have a place if it's part of the design. For example, this sign that I made a few months ago:



I have also designed signs with nearly-standard arrow heights. It's really about how you place the information. Current APL guidelines inherently waste space:

Yeah, the wasted space is partly the reason I don't like the current implementation (and, of course, the overly-tall straight arrows contributes to that problem). But I really dig that second example you posted–I wouldn't be unhappy with that standard.

[wanderer2575]

Michigan had at least one early prototype APL sign with fairly short arrows, in downtown Detroit (it's still there):

(Edit to add:  This sign was also an early prototype of Clearview font before the state adopted it and went all-out nuts with it.)

[jakeroot]

Michigan had at least one early prototype APL sign with fairly short arrows, in downtown Detroit (it's still there):

https://i.imgur.com/RmsK6wP.jpg

I like it! Especially the lack of redundant "EXIT ONLY" stickers that APLs really shouldn't have anyways. The right arrows are a bit funky but the point is gotten across just as well.

[SignBridge]

The Manual actually does require the exit only box on APL's, but I agree it is redundant and maybe unnecessary on that type of signing.

[jakeroot]

I was trying to remember what those arrows reminded me of...it clicked:



I'm curious when that 75/375 sign was installed, and when the first official APL showed up. Michigan was an early user of Clearview, IIRC, but I don't remember when APL's first popped up as an official signing method for option-lane splits. I've seen early examples from Sacramento and Denver (I think), but given the use of Clearview, this would almost certainly be one of the last pre-APL 'APL' signs. Interesting how all the predecessors are better designed than what the FHWA mandates (at least in my opinion).

The Manual actually does require the exit only box on APL's, but I agree it is redundant and maybe unnecessary on that type of signing.

Right. They waste space, and the direction of the arrows indicates well enough what is occurring that they are absolutely redundant.

[J N Winkler]

Michigan had at least one early prototype APL sign with fairly short arrows, in downtown Detroit (it's still there):

(Edit to add:  This sign was also an early prototype of Clearview font before the state adopted it and went all-out nuts with it.)

I wonder if this was installed by change order.  There was a contract advertised in the middle of 2008 (82252-59295) that covered part of the signing for this exit approach, but it called for the one-mile advance guide sign to be a stippled-arrow diagrammatic and did not include designs for the half-mile advance guide and exit direction signs, which are APLs.  At the time this contract went to bid, the 2009 edition of the MUTCD was going through rulemaking and FHWA had already released proposed text and figures.  (I neglected to download them for my files.  FHWA took them off the website soon after the rulemaking closed, and Archive.org does not have them because they are too bulky.  Nevertheless, I am reasonably certain they included example drawings for APLs.)

I was trying to remember what those arrows reminded me of...it clicked:



I'm curious when that 75/375 sign was installed, and when the first official APL showed up. Michigan was an early user of Clearview, IIRC, but I don't remember when APL's first popped up as an official signing method for option-lane splits. I've seen early examples from Sacramento and Denver (I think), but given the use of Clearview, this would almost certainly be one of the last pre-APL 'APL' signs. Interesting how all the predecessors are better designed than what the FHWA mandates (at least in my opinion).

I am not convinced that Florida sign pre-dates addition of APLs to the MUTCD.  StreetView does show it in place as of 2013, and my collection of OOCEA/CFX signing plans that goes back to 2011 does not include it, so chances are it was installed before 2011, but not necessarily before release of proposed text and figures for what is now the 2009 MUTCD.  Arrow design and placement matches that of other APLs CFX has installed from 2011 to the present, including sawn-off APLs at select service interchanges.

I am not sure where the first APL was installed following release of the 2009 MUTCD.  My files include early examples in Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin, many of which did not follow the MUTCD APL guidelines to the letter.  Many agencies objected (rightly) to the 72 in vertical arrows and it took ages for FHWA to release a drawing that (if memory serves) permits 48 in arrows.

Long before APLs were added to the MUTCD, TxDOT's Houston district was using arrow-block diagrammatics.  These are conceptually similar to APLs but have just route markers (no destinations) and space is saved by not centering each arrow over the lane to which it refers.  I haven't seen an arrow-block diagrammatic in a recent TxDOT plans set, but they were used quite extensively when US 59 was reconstructed and widened in the early noughties, so I suspect examples still survive in the field.

[J N Winkler]

I've done some looking in the misc.transport.road archives, and this is my candidate for first true APL:

I-43 and STH 145 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin

This sign was installed around August 2006, as part of the Marquette Interchange construction project.  I believe the design dates from 2004 or even earlier, so it is contemporary with the initial tachistoscope studies supporting the APL concept.  It was widely panned in MTR at the time.  I know I have multiple copies of the sign panel details, but none of them is pattern-accurate--very unusually for WisDOT in general, the Marquette Interchange contracts were advertised without pattern-accurate signing sheets.  (At the time WisDOT's Southeast Region was the agency's red-headed stepchild, though things have changed now that it hosts the department's freeway megaprojects unit.)

Edit:  In a 2004 thread dealing with the I-10/BW 8 reconstruction project outside Houston (part of the Katy Freeway widening), user argatlam@my-deja.com--myself, almost fifteen years ago--reminds me that FHWA wanted to add APLs to the 2003 MUTCD, but was dissuaded from doing so by unfavorable comment.

[jakeroot]

I was trying to remember what those arrows reminded me of...it clicked:
https://i.imgur.com/Jl1jwsK.png

I'm curious when that 75/375 sign was installed, and when the first official APL showed up. Michigan was an early user of Clearview, IIRC, but I don't remember when APL's first popped up as an official signing method for option-lane splits. I've seen early examples from Sacramento and Denver (I think), but given the use of Clearview, this would almost certainly be one of the last pre-APL 'APL' signs. Interesting how all the predecessors are better designed than what the FHWA mandates (at least in my opinion).

I am not convinced that Florida sign pre-dates addition of APLs to the MUTCD.  StreetView does show it in place as of 2013, and my collection of OOCEA/CFX signing plans that goes back to 2011 does not include it, so chances are it was installed before 2011, but not necessarily before release of proposed text and figures for what is now the 2009 MUTCD.  Arrow design and placement matches that of other APLs CFX has installed from 2011 to the present, including sawn-off APLs at select service interchanges.

My bad. I was wondering if that 75/375 split in Detroit posted above by wanderer2575 was one of the earlier APLs, not the 408/417 sign outside of Orlando that I posted. I think the latter was installed when that interchange was reconfigured in 2012. Certainly after APL standards were published.

[Eth]

I am not convinced that Florida sign pre-dates addition of APLs to the MUTCD.  StreetView does show it in place as of 2013, and my collection of OOCEA/CFX signing plans that goes back to 2011 does not include it, so chances are it was installed before 2011, but not necessarily before release of proposed text and figures for what is now the 2009 MUTCD.  Arrow design and placement matches that of other APLs CFX has installed from 2011 to the present, including sawn-off APLs at select service interchanges.

When did Florida switch over from green to yellow TOLL banners on state road shields? Was that before or after the adoption of the 2009 MUTCD?

[busman_49]

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.

For me, #2 is the clear winner.  It doesn't use as much material and I like the arrow heads on the second one.

[J N Winkler]

I was wondering if that 75/375 split in Detroit posted above by wanderer2575 was one of the earlier APLs, not the 408/417 sign outside of Orlando that I posted. I think the latter was installed when that interchange was reconfigured in 2012. Certainly after APL standards were published.

I think the I-75/I-375 signs (there are actually two, with identically shaped arrows) were installed in 2007/2008, as experiments, but I have no easy way to confirm.  99% of the signing sheets I have in my files are for contract signing work, so if an agency installs a particular sign in-house, using its own sign shop and sign crew resources, I almost certainly won't have a copy of the documentation for it even if I have every single contract the agency advertised at the time.

The WisDOT APL from 2006 is definitely an example of contract signing, however.

When did Florida switch over from green to yellow TOLL banners on state road shields? Was that before or after the adoption of the 2009 MUTCD?

Good question.  The toll road shield appears in a chapter of Florida DOT's roadway standard plans and may also be diagrammed (with color) in one or more of the traffic manuals.  The trick will be discovering whether old editions are archived online, either on Florida DOT's own website or through Archive.org.

[myosh_tino]

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:

Actually, I made the following drawing using the modified Caltrans APL arrows (42" vs 66") and retained the look-and-feel of a typical U.S. overhead guide sign...

[bzakharin]

Is the orphaned "only" part of the Caltrans sign? Because it's not clear to me what it refers to. also, if I-5 is the thru route here, shouldn't the CA 99 arrows be curved to the left?

[myosh_tino]

Is the orphaned "only" part of the Caltrans sign? Because it's not clear to me what it refers to. also, if I-5 is the thru route here, shouldn't the CA 99 arrows be curved to the left?

If you look at the road geometry (https://goo.gl/maps/SpduijX3NHx), it's I-5 that appears to exit and the through lanes become CA-99.  The current signs (as shown in the GMSV link) also show I-5 "exiting" to the right.

The ONLY plaque is a carryover from current Caltrans policy where on freeway-to-freeway exits, ONLY is typically used in lieu of EXIT ONLY.  With that said, I'm with jakeroot in that I don't think the EXIT ONLY plaques are necessary on APL signs.

[bzakharin]

Is the orphaned "only" part of the Caltrans sign? Because it's not clear to me what it refers to. also, if I-5 is the thru route here, shouldn't the CA 99 arrows be curved to the left?

If you look at the road geometry (https://goo.gl/maps/SpduijX3NHx), it's I-5 that appears to exit and the through lanes become CA-99.  The current signs (as shown in the GMSV link) also show I-5 "exiting" to the right.

The ONLY plaque is a carryover from current Caltrans policy where on freeway-to-freeway exits, ONLY is typically used in lieu of EXIT ONLY.  With that said, I'm with jakeroot in that I don't think the EXIT ONLY plaques are necessary on APL signs.

You can't have it both ways. If the left lanes are signed as an exit then they can't be the ones with straight arrows.

[Brandon]

Is the orphaned "only" part of the Caltrans sign? Because it's not clear to me what it refers to. also, if I-5 is the thru route here, shouldn't the CA 99 arrows be curved to the left?

If you look at the road geometry (https://goo.gl/maps/SpduijX3NHx), it's I-5 that appears to exit and the through lanes become CA-99.  The current signs (as shown in the GMSV link) also show I-5 "exiting" to the right.

The ONLY plaque is a carryover from current Caltrans policy where on freeway-to-freeway exits, ONLY is typically used in lieu of EXIT ONLY.  With that said, I'm with jakeroot in that I don't think the EXIT ONLY plaques are necessary on APL signs.

You can't have it both ways. If the left lanes are signed as an exit then they can't be the ones with straight arrows.

You've never been to this interchange, have you?  CA-99 uses the main freeway lanes that go straight through (3 lanes).  These do not turn.  I-5 uses a ramp that cuts to the right and then over CA-99 (2 lanes).  The sign is accurate using straight arrows for the "exit".

Aerial of the interchange: https://goo.gl/maps/V43HTXkHJvt

[jakeroot]

APL's, just like the diagrammatic arrows, are supposed to represent the physical geometry of the movement. A straight movement should not be signed with anything but straight arrows (likewise for left and right movements). Splits for C/D lanes (two basically straight movements) can be tricky but it's far from impossible to sign.

[SignBridge]

That 99/5 split shown above is a good example of what many on this board have called a TOTSO, meaning Turn off to Stay On. The MUTCD calls this route discontinuity.

The general principle encouraged by the Manual is that arrows should reflect the approx alignment of the roadway itself, so Myosh's California styled sign pictured above is correct in my opinion.

[wanderer2575]

I was wondering if that 75/375 split in Detroit posted above by wanderer2575 was one of the earlier APLs, not the 408/417 sign outside of Orlando that I posted. I think the latter was installed when that interchange was reconfigured in 2012. Certainly after APL standards were published.

I think the I-75/I-375 signs (there are actually two, with identically shaped arrows) were installed in 2007/2008, as experiments, but I have no easy way to confirm.  99% of the signing sheets I have in my files are for contract signing work, so if an agency installs a particular sign in-house, using its own sign shop and sign crew resources, I almost certainly won't have a copy of the documentation for it even if I have every single contract the agency advertised at the time.

You are correct; I don't recall the exact year so I'll take your word of 2007 or 2008, but these were installed as part of a demonstration of Clearview.  Several BGSs were installed along a loop of northbound M-10 --> eastbound I-94 --> southbound I-75 in downtown Detroit.  Some were Clearview signs mounted next to FHWA signs, and a few actually had both fonts on the same sign.  I believe there was some convention of state highway engineers at Cobo Hall at the time so MDOT installed these so everyone could take a field trip and have a look-see in actual application.  (Not to stray too far from topic, and perhaps feeding the Clearview conspiracy theories, but I am convinced MDOT deliberately cut back the reflectivity of the FHWA text on these demo signs.)

As part of the demo, MDOT also threw in a couple APL prototypes, as J N Winkler noted.  I don't have a photo of the first one at the 1/2-mile point but you can see it here on StreetView:  https://goo.gl/maps/3gNbvZHsf9n  This one is interesting because it's narrow (the arrows aren't over the lanes they represent) and the fourth lane doesn't even exist at this point.  (The Mack Ave sign came some years later.)

[Scott5114]

I feel like TOTSO situations are one of those where traditional diagrammatics are more effective than APLs.

[jakeroot]

I feel like TOTSO situations are one of those where traditional diagrammatics are more effective than APLs.

I feel like the APL still works plenty well. But, as an alternative to the traditional diagrammatic, I present this graphic from WSDOT that illustrates a crossover movement without lane lines (which I've always felt were hard to read). I feel like these work well as a supplement to a series of APL signs (as is the case at this interchange north of Vancouver, WA: https://goo.gl/WWzRVb)...

[Scott5114]

I agree with you that diagrammatics are kind of bad at what APLs are good at, which is illustrating option lanes. Where diagrammatics excel is giving a driver an idea of how an interchange or interchange complex works, such as when multiple ramps are involved or are on opposite sides of the highway.


This diagrammatic doesn't even involve any option lanes–it's just there to emphasize that a major system junction is coming up, and that traffic wishing to take I-635 NORTH needs to be in the left lane.