Arrow-Per-Lane (APL) signs

[US 89]

That doesn't solve your problem though, because there is no indication that the third lane from the left is an option lane for I-10 or Mesa St. It's just an up arrow into the divider line.

An up arrow directly into the divider line means that the lane splits ahead. I don't see how it could be any clearer, but I guess that's just me.

I would personally go with a dual arrow showing the split.  Too many signs abound where an arrow is located very close to a line, or on the wrong side of the line, to make it very clear this single arrow is supposed to mean the lane will split ahead.

What other signage is used where an arrow purposely is directed into a divider?  APLs are just a different take on other, existing signage, and that message isn't the norm.

Agreed. In my mind, APLs work because there's a separate arrow for each possible lane destination. If you direct an arrow into the divider line, it means you're using one arrow to direct to two destinations. I don't see how using one up arrow for two destinations is any less confusing than using a down arrow for that purpose - which is not allowed anymore.

If I saw a sign like that in the field, I'd likely waste considerable time figuring out which side of the line that straight arrow is supposed to be on. It wouldn't even occur to me that it represents a lane that splits.

I like the idea of using the arrow Scott posted and centering it under the divider line. Clear, to the point, and accurate.

[jeffandnicole]

That doesn't solve your problem though, because there is no indication that the third lane from the left is an option lane for I-10 or Mesa St. It's just an up arrow into the divider line.

An up arrow directly into the divider line means that the lane splits ahead. I don't see how it could be any clearer, but I guess that's just me.

I would personally go with a dual arrow showing the split.  Too many signs abound where an arrow is located very close to a line, or on the wrong side of the line, to make it very clear this single arrow is supposed to mean the lane will split ahead.

What other signage is used where an arrow purposely is directed into a divider?  APLs are just a different take on other, existing signage, and that message isn't the norm.

I believe the "pointing towards a dividing line" way of signing a split is meant to be in reference to the use of a dividing line over a down arrow, which ostensibly has the same meaning.

Here's an example in Seattle, on southbound I-5: https://goo.gl/maps/7JE2QCVtfLfCy8So8

The problem, of course, is that APLs have different design characteristics than down arrows, so trying to jerry-rig a feature from down arrows into an up arrow sign doesn't always work, and I would argue an up arrow pointing towards a line may not be a great idea. That said, if it's already a common design solution, then maybe it's not all that bad of an idea.

Is it a common design solution though?  I noticed going back about 5 years, that sign was 2 separate signs (albeit with some arrow crowdness)

[J N Winkler]

I think the issue with aligning an APL arrow directly under a divider line is that it is too difficult to differentiate from a common APL design error.  I'm also not convinced APLs, at a conceptual level, are an appropriate solution for successive splits; I haven't heard that they have been tested for that purpose, even using cheap tachistoscope studies.

A couple of possible solutions:

[Scott5114]

I understand South Africa uses signs like that, and I believe jakeroot has posted similar designs in the past, but my primary objection to them is it's not immediately obvious which arrow applies to which lane. I see the sign coming up, look around, count one-two-three lanes to the left of me, look back at the sign, look at the one-two-three-fourth arrow–and now it's too late to see where the fourth arrow even goes.

This also presupposes that looking at the other lanes is even possible. If one is abreast of a large truck, or weather conditions obstruct observation of the lane lines (i.e. if you're in Oklahoma where we use sidewalk chalk for lane markings that disappears in wet conditions and at night), one has no hope of knowing where the lane they're in is going to.

I feel like the best tool for multiple successive splits is either the stippled-arrow diagrammatic, or perhaps the (old?) British practice of providing multiple signs in a vertical stack with down arrows aligned to center over the signs. Oooooor...maybe we could dance the arrows again...

[jakeroot]

Here are more of my designs for successive option lanes using APLs (same junction as part of a redesign):











Here is some of that South African-inspired signage, although I couldn't find any that showed multiple successive exits:

[SignBridge]

As an old school driver I find all of the signs pictured in the above posts to be a little confusing. I still think conventional signing with down-arrows was better and that the FHWA was wrong to ban the use of down arrows for option lane signs.

[jakeroot]

As an old school driver I find all of the signs pictured in the above posts to be a little confusing. I still think conventional signing with down-arrows was better and that the FHWA was wrong to ban the use of down arrows for option lane signs.

One thing to note is that these signs are largely addressing complex situations where, even with down arrows, good signing isn't very easy.

For example, I find California's use of multiple down arrows pointing to one lane to be confusing; with multiple successive exits, you could easily have six or seven down arrows for only five (or even four) lanes.

While I'm not a fan of stippled-arrow diagrammatic signage, as I find the lane markings very hard to read at-speed, I find expanding them out to multiple adjacent up arrows to be an untested-yet-possibly-brilliant idea.

[SkyPesos]

As an old school driver I find all of the signs pictured in the above posts to be a little confusing. I still think conventional signing with down-arrows was better and that the FHWA was wrong to ban the use of down arrows for option lane signs.

Though would you prefer an APL if the "traditional" signage is like the following two: 


note that in the second image, the leftmost exit sign is over an option lane, so an "exit only" arrow is misleading

[SignBridge]

Well LOL those signs in Cincinnati appear to be badly formatted. And I think the exit number tags create more visual confusion than they solve. Not only that but there is a saying among smarter highway engineers that: If you can't sign it, don't build it.

[ran4sh]

Well LOL those signs in Cincinnati appear to be badly formatted. And I think the exit number tags create more visual confusion than they solve. Not only that but there is a saying among smarter highway engineers that: If you can't sign it, don't build it.

What do those engineers have to say about MUTCD compliance? Because there are some configurations that can be signed in a way that drivers understand but not necessarily in a way that complies with the MUTCD

I think those are in Columbus not Cincinnati though. Otherwise Columbus is being skipped as a control city on I-71 north.

[SkyPesos]

Well LOL those signs in Cincinnati appear to be badly formatted. And I think the exit number tags create more visual confusion than they solve. Not only that but there is a saying among smarter highway engineers that: If you can't sign it, don't build it.

What do those engineers have to say about MUTCD compliance? Because there are some configurations that can be signed in a way that drivers understand but not necessarily in a way that complies with the MUTCD

I think those are in Columbus not Cincinnati though. Otherwise Columbus is being skipped as a control city on I-71 north.

From what I heard, it's signed like that to comply with the MUTCD, albeit a confusing way to do it, since dancing arrows (ODOT's old way of signing an exit like this) are disallowed since 2009, and ODOT seem to not want to use APLs for some reason.

And yes, it's Columbus, not Cincy. The beltway is 270, not 275.

[Occidental Tourist]

As part of finishing up express lanes on the 15 Freeway in Corona, California in 2021, northbound lanes got true APLs and southbound lanes got these "sort-of"  APLs:

[JoePCool14]

As part of finishing up express lanes on the 15 Freeway in Corona, California in 2021, northbound lanes got true APLs and southbound lanes got these "sort-of"  APLs:

Seems something like that is pretty effective without needing a massive sign panel. I like that. Just need a direction on I-15.

[ran4sh]

That panel is too small. Not enough space between "Riverside" and "1/4 mile", or between the 91 marker and the exit 96 B tab, etc.

The MUTCD specifically says to lay out the information on the sign first, and then from that information design the exterior dimensions of the sign. California often does the reverse, starts with its arbitrary 120ft sign height and then squeezes information onto the sign.

[SkyPesos]

That panel is too small. Not enough space between "Riverside" and "1/4 mile", or between the 91 marker and the exit 96 B tab, etc.

That's Caltrans for you . They also somehow have issues with gantries supporting external exit tabs, when 49 states have no problems with it.

[SignBridge]

The business of California's not using external exit number tabs has been discussed prior to this with various theories. My guess is that it's about money. On a statewide scale, it would probably cost Caltrans a lot more for the extra hardware, sign panels, etc to do external tabs, so they take the cheap way out effectively screwing up the legend layout on many of their signs.

Remember they never wanted to do exit numbers in the first place and were forced into it by the FHWA. So they took the least expensive route they could, and then they can blame the Feds for the signs looking like crap 'cause it was their idea, not Caltrans. .

[Occidental Tourist]

If the lack of cardinal directions bothers you on that one, don't look at the actual APLs on the northbound side.    BTW, one of the northbound APL signs, the one at Magnolia Avenue (the linked image), is missing a lane.  That rightmost on-ramp lane is not a merge lane and turns into an exit only lane for the 91 Freeway.

Caltrans used to sign many pullthroughs without cardinal directions.  Sometimes they would put up a greenout cardinal direction after fact.  This led to many uncentered signs. When they started replacing button copy signs with retroreflective, in many instances they kept the prior sign layout for the new sign, whether that old layout was off-centered, had no cardinal direction, or whatever.  So in some instances, if the old sign didn't have a cardinal direction, the new sign won't either.  The 57 Freeway has some great examples of this, both old and new.

[PurdueBill]

As an old school driver I find all of the signs pictured in the above posts to be a little confusing. I still think conventional signing with down-arrows was better and that the FHWA was wrong to ban the use of down arrows for option lane signs.

Though would you prefer an APL if the "traditional" signage is like the following two: 


note that in the second image, the leftmost exit sign is over an option lane, so an "exit only" arrow is misleading

Ohio had "dancing arrows" down pretty well where it was pretty clear that a lane split later on.  The newest treatment, one sign per lane like these, is nutty.  Note how there is no room for suffixes on any of the street names (Pkwy, Place, Lane) because that would widen the sign enough that the others wouldn't be over their lanes.  Same destination on more than one sign so that the lanes can be noted without dancing arrows.  Insanity!  The Ohio Dancing Arrows would have been better. 

The number of sign arrays that ODOT has been through at that exit in 20 years (newish button copy only for Polaris [no 750 shield], then array after array as the exit became the split diamond with bypass of the first intersection northbound and the sign arrays that arose from that....) is stupefying.

[roadfro]

As an old school driver I find all of the signs pictured in the above posts to be a little confusing. I still think conventional signing with down-arrows was better and that the FHWA was wrong to ban the use of down arrows for option lane signs.

Though would you prefer an APL if the "traditional" signage is like the following two: 


note that in the second image, the leftmost exit sign is over an option lane, so an "exit only" arrow is misleading

Ohio had "dancing arrows" down pretty well where it was pretty clear that a lane split later on.  The newest treatment, one sign per lane like these, is nutty.  Note how there is no room for suffixes on any of the street names (Pkwy, Place, Lane) because that would widen the sign enough that the others wouldn't be over their lanes.  Same destination on more than one sign so that the lanes can be noted without dancing arrows.  Insanity!  The Ohio Dancing Arrows would have been better. 

The number of sign arrays that ODOT has been through at that exit in 20 years (newish button copy only for Polaris [no 750 shield], then array after array as the exit became the split diamond with bypass of the first intersection northbound and the sign arrays that arose from that....) is stupefying.

I agree...the one sign per lane treatment is very nutty. And there's a lot more message loading that way, so it's harder to parse at speed.

I'm not familiar with these interchange layouts, but I feel like you could design something there, not using APLs but with down arrows, that would be a lot easier to read at speed.

[SkyPesos]

I'm not familiar with these interchange layouts, but I feel like you could design something there, not using APLs but with down arrows, that would be a lot easier to read at speed.

If dancing arrows weren't banned, you can be sure that ODOT would've used them instead of this weird layout to denote option lanes.

[cl94]

There's no good way to sign many of these Ohio exits and remain in compliance. As current APL rules are written, no more than one option lane is allowed on a single sign. But I don't know who in their right mind would think this solution (the only technically-compliant solution I can think of for 2+ option lanes) is better than either dancing arrows or an APL with multiple option lanes.

[stormwatch7721]

As an old school driver I find all of the signs pictured in the above posts to be a little confusing. I still think conventional signing with down-arrows was better and that the FHWA was wrong to ban the use of down arrows for option lane signs.

Though would you prefer an APL if the "traditional" signage is like the following two: 


note that in the second image, the leftmost exit sign is over an option lane, so an "exit only" arrow is misleading

Where are these at in Ohio?

[SkyPesos]

As an old school driver I find all of the signs pictured in the above posts to be a little confusing. I still think conventional signing with down-arrows was better and that the FHWA was wrong to ban the use of down arrows for option lane signs.

Though would you prefer an APL if the "traditional" signage is like the following two: 


note that in the second image, the leftmost exit sign is over an option lane, so an "exit only" arrow is misleading

Where are these at in Ohio?

First one: I-670 EB at the I-270/US 62 exit
Second one: I-71 NB at the Polaris/Ikea exit
Both are in the Columbus area.

[webny99]

Here's a four-way APL on I-630 at I-430 near Little Rock. I must say I was pretty impressed by this one. One of the better implementations of the APL that I've seen for what could be a confusing set of exits.

That's a really good sign! Shame about the single up arrow pointing to the dividing line, but there's really no way to sign that without totally custom arrows.

I like the shorter sign height too. Well done Arkansas!

Going back to my Arkansas example, which I believe was the initial spark for this conversation about successive splits...

I don't see the problem with the arrow pointing up to the dividing line. You wouldn't want that at the actual gore point, but I don't see it as a necessary distinction to make before the first split as long as there's another sign at the second split.

[US 89]

Here's a four-way APL on I-630 at I-430 near Little Rock. I must say I was pretty impressed by this one. One of the better implementations of the APL that I've seen for what could be a confusing set of exits.

That's a really good sign! Shame about the single up arrow pointing to the dividing line, but there's really no way to sign that without totally custom arrows.

I like the shorter sign height too. Well done Arkansas!

Going back to my Arkansas example, which I believe was the initial spark for this conversation about successive splits...

I don't see the problem with the arrow pointing up to the dividing line. You wouldn't want that at the actual gore point, but I don't see it as a necessary distinction to make before the first split as long as there's another sign at the second split.

Here's the problem with the Arkansas sign though. Say I want to go to I-430 north and I'm in lane 4 (i.e. fourth from the left). I look at that sign and determine that since the arrow for my lane is a little left of that dividing line, my lane goes to Shackleford and I need to move one lane to the right to exit. Then, after negotiating traffic and making that lane change, I'm going to be annoyed that I never needed to move at all. The sign makes it look like the only way to 430 north is staying straight in lane 5, when that is in fact not the case. If enough people start making that sudden lane change, eventually you're going to start getting some accidents caused by that unnecessary movement.

Also, the exit to 430 north is 8B, which should be really be labeled everywhere there's a reference to that exit. That doesn't happen here.