AARoads Forum

I can't find a topic on these things that are rapidly appearing, so I figured I'd start one. Yesterday, I was at a workshop on the rebuilding of the I-35/I-435/US 69/K-10 interchange complex outside of Kansas City. In a breakout group, I, along with a few engineers from the FHWA and private firms, analyzed the signage plan provided by KDOT. While the complex was designed long before the introduction of APLs, someone decided to redesign all of the signage so any assembly with option lane signage features an APL covering all lanes. I'll post a couple low-quality cell phone pics of the signage map below. I-35 runs NNE-SSW and K-10 is unlabeled.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7538/16079960368_362b17ef12_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/quW111)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7489/16265678321_2c4f173d81_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qMkRtF)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7503/16241572136_d66a3bd53b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qKdixN)

A few things I'd like to point out:

-On I-435 north of K-10, NB has an APL sign with the portion over the left lane being a yellow "lane ends" sign and a black up arrow
-At the same location SB, a one-lane exit without an option lane is on the APL sign.
-In several locations, most notably on I-435 EB just east of I-35, the APL has two exits, each with an option lane, departing quickly from the right. Arrow directions are "up", "slight right", and "right".

Each of us in the group agreed that the MUTCD provides limited guidance as to how APLs are to be applied, lacking examples of how to sign such a complex interchange that would have had simpler signage if diagrammatic signs weren't discouraged. Ohio's solution with the slanted arrows isn't great, but the system here is overly complex due to MUTCD requirements regarding option lanes and APLs.

Any thoughts or other APL talk you'd like to bring up?

I find the thin dividing line that depends from the top edge of the signs to be, well, a little half-assed.

British Columbia did this along Highway 1 with the $3B gateway program. Only difference is that they use APLs regardless of the number of lanes exiting nor whether or not they are exit-only. Most interchanges have APLs now. Here's a photo that demonstrates what most junctions are signed like (ignore the unfinished bottom bit):

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8173/8002903855_2edcc1f634_z.jpg)

EDIT: Here's another sort-of-APL setup, to give you an idea of how liberally BC uses up arrows:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUrgfy.jpg&hash=8db17c4035f31830dbf54f6f63e5a8ce0f0b678f)

The current MUTCD attempts to stamp out the wide variation in different DOTs' usage of down arrows.  The next MUTCD will attempt to stamp out the wide variation in different DOTs' usage of APL.

The problem with APLs is that they are way too fucking big. Having a huge sign that spans 4-6 lanes of traffic just isn't cost-practical IMO. I think diagrammatic signs, or heck even the old dancing arrows approaches were more better in that regard. However, Minnesota's way of putting an arrow with a vertical line above it also seems to communicate its point decently well, so I think maybe more studies should be done on that as well.

Quote from: cl94 on January 12, 2015, 10:39:41 PM
I can't find a topic on these things that are rapidly appearing, so I figured I'd start one. Yesterday, I was at a workshop on the rebuilding of the I-35/I-435/US 69/K-10 interchange complex outside of Kansas City. In a breakout group, I, along with a few engineers from the FHWA and private firms, analyzed the signage plan provided by KDOT. While the complex was designed long before the introduction of APLs, someone decided to redesign all of the signage so any assembly with option lane signage features an APL covering all lanes. I'll post a couple low-quality cell phone pics of the signage map below. I-35 runs NNE-SSW and K-10 is unlabeled.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7538/16079960368_362b17ef12_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/quW111)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7489/16265678321_2c4f173d81_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qMkRtF)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7503/16241572136_d66a3bd53b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qKdixN)

A few things I'd like to point out:

-On I-435 north of K-10, NB has an APL sign with the portion over the left lane being a yellow "lane ends" sign and a black up arrow
-At the same location SB, a one-lane exit without an option lane is on the APL sign.
-In several locations, most notably on I-435 EB just east of I-35, the APL has two exits, each with an option lane, departing quickly from the right. Arrow directions are "up", "slight right", and "right".

Each of us in the group agreed that the MUTCD provides limited guidance as to how APLs are to be applied, lacking examples of how to sign such a complex interchange that would have had simpler signage if diagrammatic signs weren't discouraged. Ohio's solution with the slanted arrows isn't great, but the system here is overly complex due to MUTCD requirements regarding option lanes and APLs.

Any thoughts or other APL talk you'd like to bring up?

Looking at many of these APL signs in the photos, especially the ones spanning five or six lanes, I see a lot of wasted space which equals a lot of wasted money. Even down or dancing arrows per lane would reduce the cost quite a bit. I agree with Zeffy, the APL signs are just way too big!

If the MUTCD allowed modifiable arrows (so they didn't have to be 4 feet tall) we could make pretty short APL signs that were still decently effective and didn't waste so much space.

Are dancing arrows still allowed?

The sheer cost of each APL was mentioned. Another suggestion I heard was to adopt Ontario's option lane signage, which I agree with. If you're not familiar with Ontario's practice, they place a yellow sign at the side of the road illustrating the movements of each lane. The arrows look like APL arrows, but lanes that either do not exit or are not option lanes are not shown.

The biggest problem with the dancing arrows is that they aren't universal and induce confusion. I remember my parents being very confused when we moved to Ohio and saw them because option lanes out here, if signed at all, had normal down arrows or diagrammatics until APLs cane around. Downward-slanting arrows out here indicated when a freeway had a curve at a system interchange.

Downward-slanting (and thus dancing) arrows are explicitly prohibited in the 2009 MUTCD.

Does the MUTCD allow New York style fat-ass signs like this?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fi-87%2Fnn7.jpg&hash=b9eea01ba51bc7ee70c4e5c0407fe15a9f0fe2ec)
from http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/i-87/n.html

Quote from: jakeroot on January 13, 2015, 01:26:48 PM
If the MUTCD allowed modifiable arrows (so they didn't have to be 4 feet tall) we could make pretty short APL signs that were still decently effective and didn't waste so much space.

First, the current arrow-per-lane arrows are not 4 feet tall.  They are 5 1/2 to 6 feet tall depending on whether you go by the spec in the latest SHSM or the current MUTCD.

Second, who says the you have to follow the spec  :D...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FCaltrans_APL.jpg&hash=0581d816f639f8c4def3d7cfecd96ed667aeafa8)

This sign was put up by Caltrans on westbound CA-180 in Fresno.  By my approximations, the up arrows are only 45 inches tall which results in less wasted space on the sign panel and allows Caltrans to implement arrow-per-lane signage while keeping the 120-inch maximum guide sign panel height policy.

Downward-slanting (and thus dancing) arrows are explicitly prohibited in the 2009 MUTCD.
Wrong, such are still allowed for exits & splits with dedicated lanes.  Scroll down to Figure 2E-14 (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2e.pdf) for example.

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 13, 2015, 02:48:36 PM

Quote from: cl94 on January 13, 2015, 01:29:12 PM
Downward-slanting (and thus dancing) arrows are explicitly prohibited in the 2009 MUTCD.

Wrong, such are still allowed for exits & splits with dedicated lanes.  Scroll down to Figure 2E-14 (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2e.pdf) for example.

Wrong, those aren't slanted.

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 13, 2015, 02:48:36 PM

Quote from: cl94 on January 13, 2015, 01:29:12 PMThe biggest problem with the dancing arrows is that they aren't universal and induce confusion.

'Dancing' arrows have been around on highways in the U.S. long before diagrammatics and APLs.

Quote from: cl94 on January 13, 2015, 01:29:12 PM
Downward-slanting (and thus dancing) arrows are explicitly prohibited in the 2009 MUTCD.

Wrong, such are still allowed for exits & splits with dedicated lanes.  Scroll down to Figure 2E-14 (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2e.pdf) for example.

Recently-erected signage (http://goo.gl/maps/Ddz9a) along I-93 northbound at the Braintree (MA 3) split (http://goo.gl/maps/9hjXU) uses (mostly downward) dancing arrows.

Signage along US 3 southbound approaching I-95 in Burlington, MA (http://goo.gl/maps/28lcb)

I don't see any downward-slanting arrows. Your Mass examples have the arrows facing the wrong direction (they should be pointing up).

Figure 2E-14 does not have any arrows pointing down that are also slanting. The only slanting arrows are pointing up.

Unless I'm mistaken, these are the arrows that induce confusion. The arrow in the "Indian Head" BGS is pointed ambiguously in a sideways direction.

(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland295/i-295_sb_exit_001b_01.jpg)

my only experience with APL signs is on I-95 in Delaware, and they are way too tall. the ridiculous length of the arrows pushes the important information up so high you have to take your eyes off the road to look up at the signs.

Quote from: cl94 on January 13, 2015, 01:29:12 PM

I've since crossed out my previous post.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 13, 2015, 02:59:38 PMYour Mass examples have the arrows facing the wrong direction (they should be pointing up).

Roadman can shed some light towards why MassDOT does such.

Based on a few examples I could find, signage costs about $25-$40 a square foot.  On projects of this magnitude, the overall cost of the additional room APL takes up is very minor.  And that would have to be weighed again the cost of traditional signage to determine how much additional APL signage would cost. We're probably talking less than $100,000 total for this Kansas project, on a project that's going to cost tens of millions.

Quote from: cl94 on January 13, 2015, 01:29:12 PM
The sheer cost of each APL was mentioned. Another suggestion I heard was to adopt Ontario's option lane signage, which I agree with. If you're not familiar with Ontario's practice, they place a yellow sign at the side of the road illustrating the movements of each lane. The arrows look like APL arrows, but lanes that either do not exit or are not option lanes are not shown.

The biggest problem with the dancing arrows is that they aren't universal and induce confusion. I remember my parents being very confused when we moved to Ohio and saw them because option lanes out here, if signed at all, had normal down arrows or diagrammatics until APLs cane around. Downward-slanting arrows out here indicated when a freeway had a curve at a system interchange.

Downward-slanting (and thus dancing) arrows are explicitly prohibited in the 2009 MUTCD.

If you're interested in the I-35/I-435/US 69/K-10 project in Lenexa and Overland Park, it's worth noting that KDOT used to love dancing arrows, perhaps even more than Ohio's DOT.  KDOT used to employ dancing arrows in almost every option lane situation on freeways until sometime after the 2009 MUTCD expressly prohibited them.  Personal views on dancing arrows aside, I would say that KDOT made a rather conscientious effort to point each arrow to the lane to which it was referring, rather than using a thoughtless 45-degree angle as in the Maryland example Jake (jakeroot) shared, and, in that light, I would say KDOT was much more skillful in its design of dancing-arrow signage than many other DOTs across the country.

If the 2009 MUTCD hadn't nixed KDOT's beloved dancing arrows, I can almost guarantee you that the I-35/I-435/US 69/K-10 interchange complex would be full of them, and it would perhaps even be a contender for the most dazzling display of dancing arrows in the country, given the complexity and relatively close spacing of numerous successive option lane situations.  In fact, if you drive present-day I-435 and US 69 in Overland Park, you will see extensive, near-consistent use of dancing arrows at many interchanges.

If I were to vote for a single solution to be employed universally in option lane situations, I would agree with Zeffy and argue in favor if Minnesota's approach of using a vertical bar centered above a perfectly vertical down arrow.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2015, 03:25:32 PM
Based on a few examples I could find, signage costs about $25-$40 a square foot.  On projects of this magnitude, the overall cost of the additional room APL takes up is very minor.  And that would have to be weighed again the cost of traditional signage to determine how much additional APL signage would cost. We're probably talking less than $100,000 total for this Kansas project, on a project that's going to cost tens of millions.

They're going to argue about the additional wind-load next. Keep fending them off! :-D Damn APL haters.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 13, 2015, 05:09:36 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2015, 03:25:32 PM
Based on a few examples I could find, signage costs about $25-$40 a square foot.  On projects of this magnitude, the overall cost of the additional room APL takes up is very minor.  And that would have to be weighed again the cost of traditional signage to determine how much additional APL signage would cost. We're probably talking less than $100,000 total for this Kansas project, on a project that's going to cost tens of millions.

They're going to argue about the additional wind-load next. Keep fending them off! :-D Damn APL haters.

Issue is that with stuff like this, every cent counts. A full APL sign covering all lanes could cost hundreds more than an exit sign and a pull-through. One of the ideas we had was to, in cases with >2 through lanes, cut off every through-only lane except for the one immediately adjacent to the option lane.

Quote from: cl94 on January 13, 2015, 06:42:42 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 13, 2015, 05:09:36 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2015, 03:25:32 PM
Based on a few examples I could find, signage costs about $25-$40 a square foot.  On projects of this magnitude, the overall cost of the additional room APL takes up is very minor.  And that would have to be weighed again the cost of traditional signage to determine how much additional APL signage would cost. We're probably talking less than $100,000 total for this Kansas project, on a project that's going to cost tens of millions.

They're going to argue about the additional wind-load next. Keep fending them off! :-D Damn APL haters.

Issue is that with stuff like this, every cent counts. A full APL sign covering all lanes could cost hundreds more than an exit sign and a pull-through. One of the ideas we had was to, in cases with >2 through lanes, cut off every through-only lane except for the one immediately adjacent to the option lane.

Or just make the sign shorter so it's both cheap and effective:

(https://i.imgur.com/px7ElMF.png)

---

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 13, 2015, 02:35:16 PM
First, the current arrow-per-lane arrows are not 4 feet tall.  They are 5 1/2 to 6 feet tall depending on whether you go by the spec in the latest SHSM or the current MUTCD.

Jesus. That's even worse than I thought.

These are the types of dancing arrows I am referring to, especially at splits such as the one depicted here (photo courtesy of John Krakoff).

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/314912/1476011_10152927927428934_6215648501154211517_n.jpg)

Quote from: jakeroot on January 13, 2015, 12:00:55 AM
British Columbia did this along Highway 1 with the $3B gateway program. Only difference is that they use APLs regardless of the number of lanes exiting nor whether or not they are exit-only. Most interchanges have APLs now. Here's a photo that demonstrates what most junctions are signed like (ignore the unfinished bottom bit):

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8173/8002903855_2edcc1f634_z.jpg)

EDIT: Here's another sort-of-APL setup, to give you an idea of how liberally BC uses up arrows:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUrgfy.jpg&hash=8db17c4035f31830dbf54f6f63e5a8ce0f0b678f)

I like this two-sign setup much better than the weak thin dividing line that reaches halfway into the field and doesn't seem to have any relationship to the rest of the sign. 

I don't mean to dwell on it, but every time I see that line it feels like it was late and the designer was tired and had an early-morning deadline to make and kind of gave up.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 13, 2015, 09:05:15 PM
I don't mean to dwell on it, but every time I see that line it feels like it was late and the designer was tired and had an early-morning deadline to make and kind of gave up.

The primary use case for APL signs is when you have a lane that goes straight and right. This double arrow goes right under the dividing line.

Quote from: cl94 on January 13, 2015, 06:42:42 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 13, 2015, 05:09:36 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2015, 03:25:32 PM
Based on a few examples I could find, signage costs about $25-$40 a square foot.  On projects of this magnitude, the overall cost of the additional room APL takes up is very minor.  And that would have to be weighed again the cost of traditional signage to determine how much additional APL signage would cost. We're probably talking less than $100,000 total for this Kansas project, on a project that's going to cost tens of millions.

They're going to argue about the additional wind-load next. Keep fending them off! :-D Damn APL haters.

Issue is that with stuff like this, every cent counts. A full APL sign covering all lanes could cost hundreds more than an exit sign and a pull-through. One of the ideas we had was to, in cases with >2 through lanes, cut off every through-only lane except for the one immediately adjacent to the option lane.

And that's what I'm referring to.  On projects like these, where tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars are being spent, hundreds of dollars are like pennies in the sofa.  DOT officials will be concerned with today's requirements and getting the public and local officials to agree to the project, not whether a few hundred dollars are spent on additional signage.

If they can save a few million on design techniques, they'll be willing to listen.  But at the same time, if a group of people protest how a ramp affects their neighborhood, the DOT may redesign the ramp.  It may add a million or two to the total cost, but it's worth it in the end if everyone is satisfied and it doesn't overly impact other things associated with the project.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2015, 09:50:10 PM

Quote from: cl94 on January 13, 2015, 06:42:42 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 13, 2015, 05:09:36 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2015, 03:25:32 PM
Based on a few examples I could find, signage costs about $25-$40 a square foot.  On projects of this magnitude, the overall cost of the additional room APL takes up is very minor.  And that would have to be weighed again the cost of traditional signage to determine how much additional APL signage would cost. We're probably talking less than $100,000 total for this Kansas project, on a project that's going to cost tens of millions.

They're going to argue about the additional wind-load next. Keep fending them off! :-D Damn APL haters.

Issue is that with stuff like this, every cent counts. A full APL sign covering all lanes could cost hundreds more than an exit sign and a pull-through. One of the ideas we had was to, in cases with >2 through lanes, cut off every through-only lane except for the one immediately adjacent to the option lane.

And that's what I'm referring to.  On projects like these, where tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars are being spent, hundreds of dollars are like pennies in the sofa.  DOT officials will be concerned with today's requirements and getting the public and local officials to agree to the project, not whether a few hundred dollars are spent on additional signage.

If they can save a few million on design techniques, they'll be willing to listen.  But at the same time, if a group of people protest how a ramp affects their neighborhood, the DOT may redesign the ramp.  It may add a million or two to the total cost, but it's worth it in the end if everyone is satisfied and it doesn't overly impact other things associated with the project.

JeffandNicole's comment doesn't take into account the structural issues with mounting a much larger sign. A larger sign means potential additional hardware for mounting, and definitely increased weight of the sign--which, could mean greater material cost, not to mention additional design work if the DOT doesn't have a sign structure standard that supports APL. So you're looking at possible thousands (or 10s of thousands) per sign to implement APL when all costs are added. In a project like the ones pictured, it could be significant money.

One example: NDOT's first real APL signs were on I-80 in Reno. They ended up using monotube sign bridges, because the NDOT standard truss was not designed for APLs (which are about 2-3 times the height of NDOT standard signs). These I-80 signs were the first monotube sign bridges installed in Nevada.

Quote from: roadfro on January 13, 2015, 10:55:14 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2015, 09:50:10 PM

Quote from: cl94 on January 13, 2015, 06:42:42 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 13, 2015, 05:09:36 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2015, 03:25:32 PM
Based on a few examples I could find, signage costs about $25-$40 a square foot.  On projects of this magnitude, the overall cost of the additional room APL takes up is very minor.  And that would have to be weighed again the cost of traditional signage to determine how much additional APL signage would cost. We're probably talking less than $100,000 total for this Kansas project, on a project that's going to cost tens of millions.

They're going to argue about the additional wind-load next. Keep fending them off! :-D Damn APL haters.

Issue is that with stuff like this, every cent counts. A full APL sign covering all lanes could cost hundreds more than an exit sign and a pull-through. One of the ideas we had was to, in cases with >2 through lanes, cut off every through-only lane except for the one immediately adjacent to the option lane.

And that's what I'm referring to.  On projects like these, where tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars are being spent, hundreds of dollars are like pennies in the sofa.  DOT officials will be concerned with today's requirements and getting the public and local officials to agree to the project, not whether a few hundred dollars are spent on additional signage.

If they can save a few million on design techniques, they'll be willing to listen.  But at the same time, if a group of people protest how a ramp affects their neighborhood, the DOT may redesign the ramp.  It may add a million or two to the total cost, but it's worth it in the end if everyone is satisfied and it doesn't overly impact other things associated with the project.

JeffandNicole's comment doesn't take into account the structural issues with mounting a much larger sign. A larger sign means potential additional hardware for mounting, and definitely increased weight of the sign--which, could mean greater material cost, not to mention additional design work if the DOT doesn't have a sign structure standard that supports APL. So you're looking at possible thousands (or 10s of thousands) per sign to implement APL when all costs are added. In a project like the ones pictured, it could be significant money.

One example: NDOT's first real APL signs were on I-80 in Reno. They ended up using monotube sign bridges, because the NDOT standard truss was not designed for APLs (which are about 2-3 times the height of NDOT standard signs). These I-80 signs were the first monotube sign bridges installed in Nevada.

I'll add to that. At least one of NYSTA's APL installations is so tall that it features a beefy bracing system that extends up from the gantry along the width of the sign. Given where it is (Exit 53), they have to consider high winds when designing the signs. The somewhat-new New York truss can handle APLs, but the sheer height is something that they cannot manage alone.

Quote from: cl94 on January 13, 2015, 11:01:13 PM

Quote from: roadfro on January 13, 2015, 10:55:14 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2015, 09:50:10 PM

Quote from: cl94 on January 13, 2015, 06:42:42 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 13, 2015, 05:09:36 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2015, 03:25:32 PM
Based on a few examples I could find, signage costs about $25-$40 a square foot.  On projects of this magnitude, the overall cost of the additional room APL takes up is very minor.  And that would have to be weighed again the cost of traditional signage to determine how much additional APL signage would cost. We're probably talking less than $100,000 total for this Kansas project, on a project that's going to cost tens of millions.

They're going to argue about the additional wind-load next. Keep fending them off! :-D Damn APL haters.

Issue is that with stuff like this, every cent counts. A full APL sign covering all lanes could cost hundreds more than an exit sign and a pull-through. One of the ideas we had was to, in cases with >2 through lanes, cut off every through-only lane except for the one immediately adjacent to the option lane.

And that's what I'm referring to.  On projects like these, where tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars are being spent, hundreds of dollars are like pennies in the sofa.  DOT officials will be concerned with today's requirements and getting the public and local officials to agree to the project, not whether a few hundred dollars are spent on additional signage.

If they can save a few million on design techniques, they'll be willing to listen.  But at the same time, if a group of people protest how a ramp affects their neighborhood, the DOT may redesign the ramp.  It may add a million or two to the total cost, but it's worth it in the end if everyone is satisfied and it doesn't overly impact other things associated with the project.

JeffandNicole's comment doesn't take into account the structural issues with mounting a much larger sign. A larger sign means potential additional hardware for mounting, and definitely increased weight of the sign--which, could mean greater material cost, not to mention additional design work if the DOT doesn't have a sign structure standard that supports APL. So you're looking at possible thousands (or 10s of thousands) per sign to implement APL when all costs are added. In a project like the ones pictured, it could be significant money.

One example: NDOT's first real APL signs were on I-80 in Reno. They ended up using monotube sign bridges, because the NDOT standard truss was not designed for APLs (which are about 2-3 times the height of NDOT standard signs). These I-80 signs were the first monotube sign bridges installed in Nevada.

I'll add to that. At least one of NYSTA's APL installations is so tall that it features a beefy bracing system that extends up from the gantry along the width of the sign. Given where it is (Exit 53), they have to consider high winds when designing the signs. The somewhat-new New York truss can handle APLs, but the sheer height is something that they cannot manage alone.

I'm surprised more states haven't adopted monotube structures (a la Washington) where they work with all types of signs of all heights. No thinking about sign height, blah blah blah. Just install the structure, attach the sign, DONE.

(^^ am I over-simplifying the process?)

It has nothing to do with the type of structure, it's having to design for 120 mph winds and a 140 degree temperature swing. New York has very strict structural requirements. It's wind bracing more than anything else. If a sign is taller, the wind exerts a larger moment on the sign and supports. Simply putting up a monotube won't fix it and those present their own issues.

I'm not against the use of APLs for option lanes. I just think the current requirements are excessive, especially when you have to consider climate conditions, environmental sustainability when it comes to the use of materials, and overall cost. I've said it before and I'll say it again: people I've spoken to in practice tell me that every cent in every contract matters.

For fun, I did a mockup of an interchange near me in both the Minnesota DOT method of signing option lanes, and with the traditional FHWA APL approach: (Interchange Link (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.46423,-74.44988&spn=0.001575,0.003557&t=h&z=19))

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FNJ_US1-130Split-MNDOT_zpsc93ea39b.png&hash=01bb3eed01a0059c1ee272fb79c02297e737d96b)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FNJ_US1-130Split-APL_zps3018e1d6.png&hash=a7d390b4438f7ae41338f54b9f78fb5c14583342)

While both signs are rather wide, you may notice that the APL version is most definitely taller than the MNDOT method.

Quote from: NE2 on January 13, 2015, 09:09:35 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 13, 2015, 09:05:15 PM
I don't mean to dwell on it, but every time I see that line it feels like it was late and the designer was tired and had an early-morning deadline to make and kind of gave up.

The primary use case for APL signs is when you have a lane that goes straight and right. This double arrow goes right under the dividing line.

That is true, and my mind completely skipped over that fact because that damn little lost line bugs me so much.

Quote from: Zeffy on January 14, 2015, 12:02:21 AM
While both signs are rather wide, you may notice that the APL version is most definitely taller than the MNDOT method.

It's all how you sign it ... this sign is just a hair over 9 feet tall.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0rO3fkY.png&hash=fc87e0700033cd958292a5aa9fc2725535aff7b9)

To piggyback on what Jeffy posted, here are three sign drawings following different specs...

#1 - Classic Caltrans (option lane with down-arrows)

#2 - Arrow-per-Lane Caltrans-style

#3 - Vanilla MUTCD (but retained California-style exit "tab")

Oddly enough, even though the FHWA APL is narrower, it is still a larger sign square footage wise.  The two California signs are 475 sq ft (47.5' x 10') while the FHWA APL is 602 sq ft (43' x 14').  With that said, I guess you can put me firmly in the anti-APL camp.  The signs are way to big and waste too much sign panel space.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 14, 2015, 01:05:56 AM
It's all how you sign it ... this sign is just a hair over 9 feet tall.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0rO3fkY.png&hash=fc87e0700033cd958292a5aa9fc2725535aff7b9)

I think there's something wrong with your scale.  Operating under the assumption that the up-arrows are 66", the legend is 16" and the route shield is 36", your sign should should measure at least 11 1/2 feet (I'm also assuming there's 12" between the bottom of the sign and the arrows and between Trenton and the route shield and between the route shield and the top of the sign).  FWIW, the signs in my drawing are to correct scale.

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 14, 2015, 02:13:22 AM
I think there's something wrong with your scale.  Operating under the assumption that the up-arrows are 66", the legend is 16" and the route shield is 36", that should should measure at least 11 1/2 feet (I'm also assuming there's 12" between the bottom of the sign and the arrows and between Trenton and the route shield and between the route shield and the top of the sign).  FWIW, the signs in my drawing are to correct scale.

I've recently added the MUTCD arrowhead to my Illustrator library, so I've been having some trouble keeping arrow scales in line (for what it's worth, the arrows are custom made -- the right arrow, for example). At this point, I'm more interested in the constant of the arrows: the width of the stroke. Also, the arrows are not full height. They are shortened (even the outer ones that could feasibly be full height).

Here's a slightly repaired version:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FN8ZCMOd.png&hash=a55801c09724e0e234f944282fb55001b02585b5)

I offer this even more slimmed down version, it's about as short as APL's can get.

(https://i.imgur.com/PH73eGr.png)

Quote from: jakeroot on January 13, 2015, 11:07:55 PM

I'm surprised more states haven't adopted monotube structures (a la Washington) where they work with all types of signs of all heights. No thinking about sign height, blah blah blah. Just install the structure, attach the sign, DONE.

(^^ am I over-simplifying the process?)

In a word - yes.  For larger sign sizes (i.e. APL and diagrammatics), when you consider the panel dimensions, loading requirements, wind design, trichord or box truss type structures can be fabricated at lower cost than equivalent monotube supports.  Also, monotube supports require specialty hardware for sign attachment, and have no redundancy, making them more likely to collapse should the panels or structure be hit by a raised dump body or overheight truck.

Quote from: roadman on January 14, 2015, 11:36:18 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 13, 2015, 11:07:55 PM
I'm surprised more states haven't adopted monotube structures (a la Washington) where they work with all types of signs of all heights. No thinking about sign height, blah blah blah. Just install the structure, attach the sign, DONE.

(^^ am I over-simplifying the process?)

In a word - yes.  For larger sign sizes (i.e. APL and diagrammatics), when you consider the panel dimensions, loading requirements, wind design, trichord or box truss type structures can be fabricated at lower cost than equivalent monotube supports.  Also, monotube supports require specialty hardware for sign attachment, and have no redundancy, making them more likely to collapse should the panels or structure be hit by a raised dump body or overheight truck.

If the state decided to completely commit to monotubes, would the costs fall a little (buying in bulk and all)?

If memory serves, the main Johnson County Gateway contract (being done as a design-build) is budgeted for around $250 million.  If the Springfield Interchange is taken as representative (10% of contract cost attributed to signing, including structures), then the signing shown in those rollplots is probably around $25 million of work.  And because of the structural element arising from the heavy use of APL diagrammatics, the total amount may be quite a bit higher (Springfield had conventional signs).

So, the monotube works in less locations, and is more expensive. Why does anyone use it?

Quote from: jakeroot on January 14, 2015, 03:13:24 PM

Quote from: roadman on January 14, 2015, 11:36:18 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 13, 2015, 11:07:55 PM
I'm surprised more states haven't adopted monotube structures (a la Washington) where they work with all types of signs of all heights. No thinking about sign height, blah blah blah. Just install the structure, attach the sign, DONE.

(^^ am I over-simplifying the process?)

In a word - yes.  For larger sign sizes (i.e. APL and diagrammatics), when you consider the panel dimensions, loading requirements, wind design, trichord or box truss type structures can be fabricated at lower cost than equivalent monotube supports.  Also, monotube supports require specialty hardware for sign attachment, and have no redundancy, making them more likely to collapse should the panels or structure be hit by a raised dump body or overheight truck.

If the state decided to completely commit to monotubes, would the costs fall a little (buying in bulk and all)?

No - there's rarely a one-size-fits-all (or most).  Exact placement of the supports can vary, so exact widths will vary as well.

It is more expensive for states that don't currently use monotubes because there are ton of upfront costs for design (tube itself, the base/foundation, mounting hardware, etc) and testing (wind, temperature change, etc).  I don't think it's a simple as saying, "let's use WSDOT's monotube designs as-is."

Caltrans does use monotubes from time to time although their gantry of choice is still the truss.  I'm not entirely sure what the criteria is for using a monotube over a truss but even with monotubes, the maximum sign height is still 120 inches and all signs on the monotube must be the same height.  To take things a step further, Caltrans specifies 6 different tube sizes (diameter and thickness of the pipe) depending on sign panel height, post height and the span length.  To see these specs go to http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_plans/HTM/stdplns-US-customary-units-new10.htm#overhead and scroll down to "OVERHEAD SIGNS (TUBULAR)".  Click on "click to view" to see a PDF of the detail.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 14, 2015, 03:44:29 PM
So, the monotube works in less locations, and is more expensive. Why does anyone use it?

In one word - aesthetics.  Which to me has always been stupid, because aesthetics are totally subjective and, thus, a totally irrational reason to intentionally use more expensive hardware.  Especially when color galvanizing the support structures achieves the same effect at less cost.

Quote from: roadman on January 14, 2015, 05:19:22 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 14, 2015, 03:44:29 PM
So, the monotube works in less locations, and is more expensive. Why does anyone use it?

In one word - aesthetics.  Which to me has always been stupid, because aesthetics are totally subjective and, thus, a totally irrational reason to intentionally use more expensive hardware.  Especially when color galvanizing the support structures achieves the same effect at less cost.

Aesthetics is absolutely objective. But there are places where DOTs secondary interest is aesthetics. I can only assume that (in my case) WSDOT groups the gantry into the second group, and thus the more attractive gantry option is selected (given that the price difference is minimal but, in their opinion, is the preferable option given the more "airey" feeling they have).

Here is a recently widening section of freeway near Seattle:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrGRlQTs.png&hash=2a5ef91f7c5e68c54c779c295f95b02ac701233f)

Quote from: roadman on January 14, 2015, 05:19:22 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 14, 2015, 03:44:29 PM
So, the monotube works in less locations, and is more expensive. Why does anyone use it?

In one word - aesthetics.  Which to me has always been stupid, because aesthetics are totally subjective and, thus, a totally irrational reason to intentionally use more expensive hardware.  Especially when color galvanizing the support structures achieves the same effect at less cost.

One other advantage that monotube/pipe gantries have (such was commented on another thread) is that such are less prone to graffiti/vandalism.  It's more of a challenge to climb up a monotube/pipe gantry than a truss gantry (which is similar to a set of monkeybars in terms of climbing).

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 15, 2015, 11:45:12 AM
One other advantage that monotube/pipe gantries have (such was commented on another thread) is that such are less prone to graffiti/vandalism.  It's more of a challenge to climb up a monotube/pipe gantry than a truss gantry (which is similar to a set of monkeybars in terms of climbing).

That's not the case in California, Nevada and Arizona.  Truss gantries in these states use single pole supports and yet graffiti is still a problem (at least in California it is).

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images085/ca-085_nb_exit_024b_02.jpg)

(https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada015/i-015_nb_exit_041a_02.jpg)

(https://www.aaroads.com/west/arizona010/i-010_eb_exit_150_03.jpg)

Quote from: roadman on January 14, 2015, 05:19:22 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 14, 2015, 03:44:29 PM
So, the monotube works in less locations, and is more expensive. Why does anyone use it?

In one word - aesthetics.  Which to me has always been stupid, because aesthetics are totally subjective and, thus, a totally irrational reason to intentionally use more expensive hardware.  Especially when color galvanizing the support structures achieves the same effect at less cost.

IMO truss gantries look better than monotubes.

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 15, 2015, 12:47:00 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 15, 2015, 11:45:12 AM
One other advantage that monotube/pipe gantries have (such was commented on another thread) is that such are less prone to graffiti/vandalism.  It's more of a challenge to climb up a monotube/pipe gantry than a truss gantry (which is similar to a set of monkeybars in terms of climbing).

That's not the case in California, Nevada and Arizona.  Truss gantries in these states use single pole supports and yet graffiti is still a problem (at least in California it is).

I mentioned less prone to vandalism not 100% immune, there is a difference.  Additionally, I was primarily referring to montube pipe gantries not single-pole-supported truss gantries.

Another gantry-magnet for vandals are those catwalks (intended for maintenance workers & support lights) shown in two of your posted-photos.

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 15, 2015, 01:47:06 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 15, 2015, 12:47:00 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 15, 2015, 11:45:12 AM
One other advantage that monotube/pipe gantries have (such was commented on another thread) is that such are less prone to graffiti/vandalism.  It's more of a challenge to climb up a monotube/pipe gantry than a truss gantry (which is similar to a set of monkeybars in terms of climbing).

That's not the case in California, Nevada and Arizona.  Truss gantries in these states use single pole supports and yet graffiti is still a problem (at least in California it is).

I mentioned less prone to vandalism not 100% immune, there is a difference.  Additionally, I was primarily referring to montube pipe gantries not single-pole-supported truss gantries.

Another gantry-magnet for vandals are those catwalks (intended for maintenance workers & support lights) shown in two of your posted-photos.

If someone can get up a vertical round pipe, they can inch along a horizontal pipe up top. If someone is determined, they will tag it.

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.

Monotube designs are generally avoided in high-wind areas.  On the other hand, truss designs can be less flexible. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGycDquOb1o

Yes, truss designs are generally less flexible than monotube designs.  However, properly designed truss structures have redundant load paths, so they are able to more easily dissapate wind than monotube structures are.

Quote from: roadman on January 15, 2015, 04:58:43 PM
Yes, truss designs are generally less flexible than monotube designs.  However, properly designed truss structures have redundant load paths, so they are able to more easily dissapate wind than monotube structures are.

If there's high wind, you want some level of rigidity. Truss structures provide a great amount of strength while allowing air to pass through, therefore wind has less surface area for the wind to act on.

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.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bowkera.com%2Fimages%2FWyoming%2FCasper%2520Friends%2FWYOWINDSOCK.JPG&hash=c2b5854ce68d0a9790a6b5b371e6f63d81c942d7)

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

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 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=mke&hl=en&ll=42.925053,-87.935606&spn=0.004766,0.008256&sll=44.900771,-89.56949&sspn=13.352958,33.815918&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.92492,-87.935604&panoid=nB08DKjGq2sVtPyN9CoALQ&cbp=12,188.76,,0,6.43)

Quote from: KEK Inc. on January 15, 2015, 04:46:28 PM
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.

Quote from: jwags on January 17, 2015, 05:22:03 PM
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 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=mke&hl=en&ll=42.925053,-87.935606&spn=0.004766,0.008256&sll=44.900771,-89.56949&sspn=13.352958,33.815918&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.92492,-87.935604&panoid=nB08DKjGq2sVtPyN9CoALQ&cbp=12,188.76,,0,6.43)

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

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.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 23, 2018, 01:21:12 PMOne 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.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 23, 2018, 02:03:00 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 23, 2018, 01:21:12 PMOne 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.

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...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F58-99_caAPL.png&hash=5d35e63183fd9867bb752b2635b5e6f9aa3f3076)

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 (http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/specs/Caltrans-APL.pdf).

Quote from: myosh_tino on March 24, 2018, 03:09:55 PM
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 (http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/specs/Caltrans-APL.pdf).

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?

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.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 24, 2018, 08:08:58 PM
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

Quote from: myosh_tino on March 25, 2018, 02:27:35 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on March 24, 2018, 08:08:58 PM
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.

Quote from: SignBridge on March 24, 2018, 10:37:21 PM
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 ;-).

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 ...
(https://i.imgur.com/TGepOKu.jpg)

... 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.)
(https://i.imgur.com/GT0fGmb.jpg)

... or maybe not even the thru-only lane.
(https://i.imgur.com/r4gv2Gp.jpg)

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.
(https://i.imgur.com/HMrtGSw.jpg)

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

Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 25, 2018, 02:58:06 PM
... 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.)
(https://i.imgur.com/GT0fGmb.jpg)

... or maybe not even the thru-only lane.
(https://i.imgur.com/r4gv2Gp.jpg)

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

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.

Quote from: bzakharin on March 26, 2018, 03:19:10 PM
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:

(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/images/fig-2d-02.gif)

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.

Quote from: bzakharin on March 26, 2018, 03:19:10 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: SignBridge on March 26, 2018, 08:06:48 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: bzakharin on March 26, 2018, 03:19:10 PM
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.

Quote from: PHLBOS on March 27, 2018, 10:08:38 AM
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

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

Which do you prefer, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1087824,-77.588022,3a,75y,286.62h,81.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfULN5saaX_0AeQtVvsoj0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7270355,-93.2822345,3a,75y,356.45h,89.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seGNBzpdpTpVNqBy8YCV-rA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Both achieve the same purpose, but the latter is more efficient (and visually appealing) IMO.

Quote from: webny99 on April 02, 2018, 10:06:06 AM
As I read this thread, the question forming in my mind is this:

Which do you prefer, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1087824,-77.588022,3a,75y,286.62h,81.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfULN5saaX_0AeQtVvsoj0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7270355,-93.2822345,3a,75y,356.45h,89.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seGNBzpdpTpVNqBy8YCV-rA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? 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.

Quote from: webny99 on April 02, 2018, 10:06:06 AM
Which do you prefer, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1087824,-77.588022,3a,75y,286.62h,81.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfULN5saaX_0AeQtVvsoj0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7270355,-93.2822345,3a,75y,356.45h,89.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seGNBzpdpTpVNqBy8YCV-rA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? 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:
(https://i.imgur.com/RXarg0e.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/Cu22kGB.png)

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 02, 2018, 11:22:46 AM

Quote from: webny99 on April 02, 2018, 10:06:06 AM
As I read this thread, the question forming in my mind is this:

Which do you prefer, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1087824,-77.588022,3a,75y,286.62h,81.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfULN5saaX_0AeQtVvsoj0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7270355,-93.2822345,3a,75y,356.45h,89.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seGNBzpdpTpVNqBy8YCV-rA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? 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.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 02, 2018, 03:32:33 PM

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 02, 2018, 11:22:46 AM

Quote from: webny99 on April 02, 2018, 10:06:06 AM
As I read this thread, the question forming in my mind is this:

Which do you prefer, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1087824,-77.588022,3a,75y,286.62h,81.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfULN5saaX_0AeQtVvsoj0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7270355,-93.2822345,3a,75y,356.45h,89.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seGNBzpdpTpVNqBy8YCV-rA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? 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?

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 02, 2018, 03:44:43 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 02, 2018, 03:32:33 PM

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 02, 2018, 11:22:46 AM

Quote from: webny99 on April 02, 2018, 10:06:06 AM
As I read this thread, the question forming in my mind is this:

Which do you prefer, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1087824,-77.588022,3a,75y,286.62h,81.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfULN5saaX_0AeQtVvsoj0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7270355,-93.2822345,3a,75y,356.45h,89.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seGNBzpdpTpVNqBy8YCV-rA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? 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:

(https://i.imgur.com/ySyHtBK.png)

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:

(https://i.imgur.com/cTEyWbg.png)

Quote from: jakeroot on April 02, 2018, 03:57:55 PM
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:

(https://i.imgur.com/ySyHtBK.png)

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:

(https://i.imgur.com/cTEyWbg.png)

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.

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.)

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

Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 02, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
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.

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.

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).

Quote from: SignBridge on April 02, 2018, 09:27:21 PM
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.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 02, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
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.)

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

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.)

Quote from: jakeroot on April 03, 2018, 01:16:52 AMI 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.

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.

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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0446742,-87.9263952,3a,18y,22.35h,95.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq1nw5lIBNCUj4tkgYTtRlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

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. (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/misc.transport.road/arrow-per-lane%7Csort:date/misc.transport.road/70gy8lj-4bg/kCr8sDLiNXAJ)  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 (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/misc.transport.road/arrow-per-lane%7Csort:date/misc.transport.road/NkWSJnNnDTo/Xex3OYmMDlkJ) 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.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 03, 2018, 02:29:56 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 03, 2018, 01:16:52 AMI 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.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 03, 2018, 02:29:56 AM
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?

Quote from: webny99 on April 02, 2018, 10:06:06 AM
As I read this thread, the question forming in my mind is this:

Which do you prefer, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1087824,-77.588022,3a,75y,286.62h,81.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfULN5saaX_0AeQtVvsoj0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7270355,-93.2822345,3a,75y,356.45h,89.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seGNBzpdpTpVNqBy8YCV-rA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? 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.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 03, 2018, 04:16:06 AMI 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.

Quote from: Eth on April 03, 2018, 08:23:02 AMWhen 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.

Quote from: riiga on April 02, 2018, 03:18:21 PM
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/RXarg0e.png)

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...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FcaAPL_5-99.png&hash=ca7eeb7b5dc8c2f936f33f23110df5d3e7bca477)

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?

Quote from: bzakharin on April 03, 2018, 12:30:40 PM
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.

Quote from: myosh_tino on April 03, 2018, 01:54:10 PM

Quote from: bzakharin on April 03, 2018, 12:30:40 PM
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.

Quote from: bzakharin on April 03, 2018, 05:41:42 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on April 03, 2018, 01:54:10 PM

Quote from: bzakharin on April 03, 2018, 12:30:40 PM
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

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.

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.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 03, 2018, 11:55:42 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 03, 2018, 04:16:06 AMI 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.)

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

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 04, 2018, 12:11:32 AM
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)...

(https://i.imgur.com/YRCNkZi.png)

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.

(https://i.imgur.com/oQNmQ47.jpg)
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.

ADOT has installed its first APL signage in the Phoenix area, on the US 60 WB in Tempe.  This is due to a lane restriping.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 04, 2018, 05:21:31 AM
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.

(https://i.imgur.com/oQNmQ47.jpg)
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.

IIRC, wasn't this location the first multi-arrow diagrammatic (as opposed to the normal two on such signs) that the DOT got a special waiver from FHWA to install (not this specific sign, but the one originally installed at this location)?

Quote from: roadman on July 24, 2018, 04:31:59 PMIIRC, wasn't this location the first multi-arrow diagrammatic (as opposed to the normal two on such signs) that the DOT got a special waiver from FHWA to install (not this specific sign, but the one originally installed at this location)?

I don't know about that.  I think Christmas tree diagrammatics were in the original Mast & Kolsrud study alongside the much more common fork diagrammatics, and there have been examples of very long standing in Akron, Ohio (I-77/I-76/SR 8) and Birmingham, Alabama (I-20/I-65/I-59), though I believe both have fallen victim to replacement--Clearview conversion in Akron and freeway widening in Birmingham.

Washington's first APL at a location with an HOV lane (and exit) was slowly installed over the last couple weeks, and is almost completely unveiled. Seeing genuine exit tabs is a bit unusual for me!

(https://i.imgur.com/Jton8zb.jpg)

ADOT has installed more APLs in the Phoenix area at the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway interchanges.

I wonder what are the remaining states or US territories without APLs. I have yet to see any in Puerto Rico.

New Hampshire, as part of of the Spaulding Turnpike project, recently put up it's third APL set for the Exit 6 interchange. The arrows don't align with the lanes just yet because they need to do some final touches to the area before the road is complete in the summer. US 4 is a TOTSO movement in order to continue WB while NH 16 continues as a partial toll road. Here's some new vs old signage:

(https://i.ibb.co/NV5rcZ4/IMG-0669.jpg) (https://ibb.co/NV5rcZ4) (https://i.ibb.co/sHLDLHZ/IMG-0670.jpg) (https://ibb.co/sHLDLHZ)

Just as an update, there are a few APL installations in the Phoenix area now, including at the L-202 SMF interchanges, as well as one at the I-10/L-101 Agua Fria interchange in the West Valley.  I wonder if in the future when ADOT decides to update the signs on the US 60 Superstition will there be APL signs installed at the US 60/L-202 interchange (this interchange in the US 60 EB direction confuses a lot of drivers in my experience, getting off at L-202 North when they meant to go South).

I kind of like ADOT's take on APL signage, with a more compact design than most other states.  I know one of the reasons ADOT originally balked at the idea of APL signage was due to higher costs since it would have required the signs to be much larger.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 12, 2020, 11:57:12 PM
Just as an update, there are a few APL installations in the Phoenix area now, including at the L-202 SMF interchanges, as well as one at the I-10/L-101 Agua Fria interchange in the West Valley.  I wonder if in the future when ADOT decides to update the signs on the US 60 Superstition will there be APL signs installed at the US 60/L-202 interchange (this interchange in the US 60 EB direction confuses a lot of drivers in my experience, getting off at L-202 North when they meant to go South).

I kind of like ADOT's take on APL signage, with a more compact design than most other states.  I know one of the reasons ADOT originally balked at the idea of APL signage was due to higher costs since it would have required the signs to be much larger.

Any pics available?

I feel that APL signage is usually very clear at conveying the message of what lane to be in, but it is important to address some of the downsides.  The size and cost of the signs.  That they do not work well for really complicated interchanges.

Perhaps AZ can be a model for other states in their signage practices.

Sorry to revive an old thread but just had to bring this up. How common is it for APL's to be signed when there even isn't a dedicated exit only lane? NHDOT recently replaced the Exit 1 signs on I-93 N last October and the 1-mile advance for Exit 1 coming from Massachusetts features this:

(https://i.ibb.co/pzCjc70/NH93-Exit1-0-3-N.png) (https://ibb.co/r6n2Yj7)

Older signage, this former assembly (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tZQytiBko0Q/UeC6JSFZ2aI/AAAAAAAAA98/_obzBqx6Fao/s1600/i93nh713a.jpg) used to be the only indication of Exit 1 before the APL's.

I don't know how common it is, but APL signing is only required where there is an option lane involved. It was for that situation that APL signing was designed. Not for a normal exit or a simple lane-drop configuration.

Quote from: SignBridge on November 17, 2020, 10:17:33 PM
I don't know how common it is, but APL signing is only required where there is an option lane involved. It was for that situation that APL signing was designed. Not for a normal exit or a simple lane-drop configuration.

After the rest area a little bit less than 1 mile from that sign assembly, a 5th lane is added as an exit-only lane for exit 1. In that case, between the rest area and Exit 1 NB, the #4 lane is an option lane, and the #5 for Exit 1 only.

(https://i.ibb.co/QpGhLrz/NH93-Exit1-1-2-N.png) (https://ibb.co/4KxCzP9)

Not too common. Pretty rare, I shall imagine. I believe the APL is only "permitted" when one of the exits is at least two lanes and involves an option lane.

That said, I feel there is still value in using up arrows when there is only a single option lane, such as above (even if, in reality, there is another exit lane that simply hasn't shown up yet).

As well, given the circumstances of this interchange, I think this is quite a nice setup. I think standard practice elsewhere would be not use an APL until the fifth lane were added, but I like this approach too.

New signs along I-71 N approaching I-264 in Louisville, feature APL's of "LEFT | LEFT/UP."  The thru movement is the LEFT movement because of a sharp curve at I-264. The exit is the UP movement. A dropped lane is added beyond the assemblies. No Streetview yet, signs are only a few months old.

Also, I-71 N to I-265 S ramp features the opposite where the thru movement is only a single lane.
https://goo.gl/maps/G6E5ra7RfzQKGzGVA

KYTC has been doing a lot APL work around Louisville in recent months. Saw new ones on I-264 at US 60 tonight.

Minnesota installed its second sets over the last year at the Forest Lake split of 35E/35W. Interestingly, they replaced the signs at the Burnsville split around the same time but those installs are similar to standard MnDOT practice with a line over the option lane arrow, except to now sign the I-35W "exit" as a left exit with an exit only lane.

Quote from: CardInLex on November 18, 2020, 06:08:51 PM
New signs along I-71 N approaching I-264 in Louisville, feature APL's of "LEFT | LEFT/UP."  The thru movement is the LEFT movement because of a sharp curve at I-264. The exit is the UP movement. A dropped lane is added beyond the assemblies. No Streetview yet, signs are only a few months old.

Also, I-71 N to I-265 S ramp features the opposite where the thru movement is only a single lane.
https://goo.gl/maps/G6E5ra7RfzQKGzGVA

KYTC has been doing a lot APL work around Louisville in recent months. Saw new ones on I-264 at US 60 tonight.

Which US 60 exit, Shelbyville Rd or Dixie Hwy?

Quote from: cabiness42 on November 18, 2020, 06:49:48 PM

Quote from: CardInLex on November 18, 2020, 06:08:51 PM
New signs along I-71 N approaching I-264 in Louisville, feature APL’s of “LEFT | LEFT/UP.” The thru movement is the LEFT movement because of a sharp curve at I-264. The exit is the UP movement. A dropped lane is added beyond the assemblies. No Streetview yet, signs are only a few months old.

Also, I-71 N to I-265 S ramp features the opposite where the thru movement is only a single lane.
https://goo.gl/maps/G6E5ra7RfzQKGzGVA

KYTC has been doing a lot APL work around Louisville in recent months. Saw new ones on I-264 at US 60 tonight.

Which US 60 exit, Shelbyville Rd or Dixie Hwy?

Sorry, should have been more specific. Shelbyville Road. They were on I-264 east heading toward exit 20.

Edit: replacing the signs on this gantry: https://goo.gl/maps/DH2f7hH6QZ8qEEK87

MDOT (Michigan) is usually good with sign design so I was surprised with a pair of new APLs that went up a couple weeks ago on the newly-reconstructed northbound I-75 in Hazel Park.

(1)  Two exits on the same sign, which apparently is a no-no per the MUTCD.

(2)  An EXIT ONLY banner across the bottom of the entire sign.  The second lane (with an option to I-696) doesn't become exit-only at 11 Mile Road.

(https://i.imgur.com/xkXXoKY.jpg)

Quote from: jakeroot on November 17, 2020, 10:50:43 PM
Not too common. Pretty rare, I shall imagine. I believe the APL is only "permitted" when one of the exits is at least two lanes and involves an option lane.

That said, I feel there is still value in using up arrows when there is only a single option lane, such as above (even if, in reality, there is another exit lane that simply hasn't shown up yet).

As well, given the circumstances of this interchange, I think this is quite a nice setup. I think standard practice elsewhere would be not use an APL until the fifth lane were added, but I like this approach too.

When I posted that assembly to the New Hampshire thread, some people thought the Exit 1 signs were a bit overkill, however, what you said gave me a second opinion about those APL signs at Exit 1 and I actually agree with your statement. It's worth noting that this exit in the NB direction hasn't had a proper advance sign (1 or ½ mile) for quite a while now ever since the Cross Street Bridge was replaced in 2008-09ish...

Also, I've noticed that most APL's in New Hampshire (except for one (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1151.msg2496406#msg2496406)) and Massachusetts (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1204123,-72.0719816,3a,32.2y,20.7h,96.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smRu-WdPad-9W04ZHVHG0-Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (except at 495/90 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2628556,-71.5658925,3a,18.5y,285.42h,91.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSwQxsbRNeqCDJpvHIFR_1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)) display two destinations per movement... last time I checked, this was under the guidance section in the MUTCD, is one or two destinations permitted per movement?

Quote from: MUTCD Section 2E.21 Design of Overhead Arrow-per-Lane Guide Signs for Option LanesGuidance:
08 Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs used on freeways and expressways should be designed in accordance with the following additional criteria:

No more than one destination should be displayed for each movement, and no more than two destinations should be displayed per sign.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on November 21, 2020, 11:00:50 PM
MDOT (Michigan) is usually good with sign design so I was surprised with a pair of new APLs that went up a couple weeks ago on the newly-reconstructed northbound I-75 in Hazel Park.

(1)  Two exits on the same sign, which apparently is a no-no per the MUTCD.

That didn't stop this from happening: https://goo.gl/maps/PMdnpAumiaN3MWG2A

Quote
(2)  An EXIT ONLY banner across the bottom of the entire sign.  The second lane (with an option to I-696) doesn't become exit-only at 11 Mile Road.

I get that that's technically wrong, but I think they wanted to show that the #3 lane is actually dropped and doesn't continue on I-75.

Quote from: stridentweasel on November 22, 2020, 01:54:40 PM

Quote
(2)  An EXIT ONLY banner across the bottom of the entire sign.  The second lane (with an option to I-696) doesn't become exit-only at 11 Mile Road.

I get that that's technically wrong, but I think they wanted to show that the #3 lane is actually dropped and doesn't continue on I-75.

The lane doesn't drop, though; it's continuous, and the lane that drops at 11 Mile Road is an auxiliary lane added by the I-696 on-ramp. At least that's what wanderer2575 seems to be saying, which is backed up by pre-reconstruction satellte imagery.

While still not allowed by the MUTCD, the two-exit APL might make some sense if the third lane did drop at the immediate next exit, but at that location it makes no sense, and 11 Mile Road has no business being on an APL here.

Quote from: Roadsguy on November 22, 2020, 04:18:56 PM
The lane doesn't drop, though; it's continuous, and the lane that drops at 11 Mile Road is an auxiliary lane added by the I-696 on-ramp. At least that's what wanderer2575 seems to be saying, which is backed up by pre-reconstruction satellte imagery.

While still not allowed by the MUTCD, the two-exit APL might make some sense if the third lane did drop at the immediate next exit, but at that location it makes no sense, and 11 Mile Road has no business being on an APL here.

Oh, crap.  I should have checked.  And looking at this again, I misread this:

Quote from: wanderer2575 on November 21, 2020, 11:00:50 PM
The second lane (with an option to I-696) doesn't become exit-only at 11 Mile Road.

I thought it said, "The second lane...doesn't become exit-only until 11 Mile Road."  My bad.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on November 21, 2020, 11:00:50 PM
MDOT (Michigan) is usually good with sign design so I was surprised with a pair of new APLs that went up a couple weeks ago on the newly-reconstructed northbound I-75 in Hazel Park.


(1)  Two exits on the same sign, which apparently is a no-no per the MUTCD.

(2)  An EXIT ONLY banner across the bottom of the entire sign.  The second lane (with an option to I-696) doesn't become exit-only at 11 Mile Road.

(https://i.imgur.com/xkXXoKY.jpg)

Where does the MUTCD say that you can't have two exits on an APL sign? It's possible but I haven't found it yet.

Quote from: fwydriver405 on November 21, 2020, 11:46:56 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on November 17, 2020, 10:50:43 PM
Not too common. Pretty rare, I shall imagine. I believe the APL is only "permitted" when one of the exits is at least two lanes and involves an option lane.

That said, I feel there is still value in using up arrows when there is only a single option lane, such as above (even if, in reality, there is another exit lane that simply hasn't shown up yet).

As well, given the circumstances of this interchange, I think this is quite a nice setup. I think standard practice elsewhere would be not use an APL until the fifth lane were added, but I like this approach too.

When I posted that assembly to the New Hampshire thread, some people thought the Exit 1 signs were a bit overkill, however, what you said gave me a second opinion about those APL signs at Exit 1 and I actually agree with your statement. It's worth noting that this exit in the NB direction hasn't had a proper advance sign (1 or ½ mile) for quite a while now ever since the Cross Street Bridge was replaced in 2008-09ish...

Also, I've noticed that most APL's in New Hampshire (except for one (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1151.msg2496406#msg2496406)) and Massachusetts (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1204123,-72.0719816,3a,32.2y,20.7h,96.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smRu-WdPad-9W04ZHVHG0-Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (except at 495/90 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2628556,-71.5658925,3a,18.5y,285.42h,91.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSwQxsbRNeqCDJpvHIFR_1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)) display two destinations per movement... last time I checked, this was under the guidance section in the MUTCD, is one or two destinations permitted per movement?

Quote from: MUTCD Section 2E.21 Design of Overhead Arrow-per-Lane Guide Signs for Option LanesGuidance:
08 Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs used on freeways and expressways should be designed in accordance with the following additional criteria:

No more than one destination should be displayed for each movement, and no more than two destinations should be displayed per sign.

The guidance re: only one destination for each route is a "should" meaning it is only a recommendation, not a standard. So it doesn't have to be followed if engineers have a reason for deviating from it.

Quote from: SignBridge on November 22, 2020, 08:27:46 PM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on November 21, 2020, 11:00:50 PM
MDOT (Michigan) is usually good with sign design so I was surprised with a pair of new APLs that went up a couple weeks ago on the newly-reconstructed northbound I-75 in Hazel Park.


(1)  Two exits on the same sign, which apparently is a no-no per the MUTCD.

(2)  An EXIT ONLY banner across the bottom of the entire sign.  The second lane (with an option to I-696) doesn't become exit-only at 11 Mile Road.

(https://i.imgur.com/xkXXoKY.jpg)

Where does the MUTCD say that you can't have two exits on an APL sign? It's possible but I haven't found it yet.

Section 2E.21, paragraph 09:  "Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs shall not be used to depict a downstream split of an exit ramp on a sign located on the mainline."

I also need to amend my earlier post to say this sign might correctly reflect a future alignment (multiple exits on a single sign ignored).  As the northbound I-75 reconstruction continues, the exit to 11 Mile Road will be moved about 2/3 mile south to braid with the entrance ramp from I-696, thus eliminating the current weave/merge.  It's possible lane #3 (I misnumbered it earlier) might become exit-only to 11 Mile Road, with a new lane #3 coming from the entrance ramp from I-696.  But that is at least a couple years away.  Post correct signs now and change them when the lane alignments change.

I think you might be misinterpreting that MUTCD section. I believe it refers to one exit that splits into two routes further down the ramp, such as a cloverleaf with a collector-distributor road or a freeway transition that splits for each direction after leaving the original freeway.

I don't think it was meant to apply to two separate exits from the main road, but again that's just my interpretation.

Quote from: SignBridge on November 22, 2020, 10:06:14 PM
I think you might be misinterpreting that MUTCD section. I believe it refers to one exit that splits into two routes further down the ramp, such as a cloverleaf with a collector-distributor road or a freeway transition that splits for each direction after leaving the original freeway.

If that is the case, then Utah broke from that on its latest signage at the 15/215 south interchange:

(https://i.imgur.com/E4qw90V.jpg)

Quote from: wanderer2575 on November 22, 2020, 09:57:06 PM
Section 2E.21, paragraph 09:  "Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs shall not be used to depict a downstream split of an exit ramp on a sign located on the mainline."

Quote from: SignBridge on November 22, 2020, 10:06:14 PM
I believe it refers to one exit that splits into two routes further down the ramp, such as a cloverleaf with a collector-distributor road or a freeway transition that splits for each direction after leaving the original freeway.

I don't think it was meant to apply to two separate exits from the main road, but again that's just my interpretation.

I think you're right, based on the bolded phrase above.  Within the rule, it is the exit ramp that splits.

Quote from: US 89 on November 23, 2020, 01:03:01 AM
If that is the case, then Utah broke from that on its latest signage at the 15/215 south interchange:

(https://i.imgur.com/E4qw90V.jpg)

And I think you're right about that as well.  The downstream split of the exit ramp should only be signed at the gore point.

The FHWA needs to get off their high-horse with these signs. What the hell is wrong with signing a ramp split? If an exit ramp splits in two immediately after it diverges from the mainlines, signing that exit as a single exit without any other indication of a split is daft.

What needs to be allowed is multiple sign panels. For example, if a right lane of a option-lane split (ie the "exit only" lane) diverges immediately after the divergence from the mainline, that lane should be permitted to be displayed on its own panel separate from the other APL panel that shows the option lane. With the same right-hook arrow, of course, but a separate panel.

Quote from: jakeroot on November 23, 2020, 02:59:52 PM
The FHWA needs to get off their high-horse with these signs. What the hell is wrong with signing a ramp split? If an exit ramp splits in two immediately after it diverges from the mainlines, signing that exit as a single exit without any other indication of a split is daft.

What needs to be allowed is multiple sign panels. For example, if a right lane of a option-lane split (ie the "exit only" lane) diverges immediately after the divergence from the mainline, that lane should be permitted to be displayed on its own panel separate from the other APL panel that shows the option lane. With the same right-hook arrow, of course, but a separate panel.

When you mean by that, do you mean something similar to the signs upstream in this (https://goo.gl/maps/V2nWUjJT8eVHHJ5Y7) example, at Exit 22 C-B-A in Providence?

Quote from: fwydriver405 on November 23, 2020, 04:15:50 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on November 23, 2020, 02:59:52 PM
The FHWA needs to get off their high-horse with these signs. What the hell is wrong with signing a ramp split? If an exit ramp splits in two immediately after it diverges from the mainlines, signing that exit as a single exit without any other indication of a split is daft.

What needs to be allowed is multiple sign panels. For example, if a right lane of a option-lane split (ie the "exit only" lane) diverges immediately after the divergence from the mainline, that lane should be permitted to be displayed on its own panel separate from the other APL panel that shows the option lane. With the same right-hook arrow, of course, but a separate panel.

When you mean by that, do you mean something similar to the signs upstream in this (https://goo.gl/maps/V2nWUjJT8eVHHJ5Y7) example, at Exit 22 C-B-A in Providence?

Not exactly. What I mean is allowing two separate APL panels on the same sign gantry, for when there needs to be clear delineation in which lanes do what, but where a single huge panel may not do the job.

Something like this:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50638476393_bfb41e5007_4k.jpg)

Quote from: jakeroot on November 23, 2020, 02:59:52 PM
The FHWA needs to get off their high-horse with these signs. What the hell is wrong with signing a ramp split? If an exit ramp splits in two immediately after it diverges from the mainlines, signing that exit as a single exit without any other indication of a split is daft.

What needs to be allowed is multiple sign panels. For example, if a right lane of a option-lane split (ie the "exit only" lane) diverges immediately after the divergence from the mainline, that lane should be permitted to be displayed on its own panel separate from the other APL panel that shows the option lane. With the same right-hook arrow, of course, but a separate panel.

I think the intent of the MUTCD rule here is to ensure that the arrows depict the conditions at the mainline exit correctly. If you start having double-headed arrows depicting a downstream ramp split along the mainline signage, it could be misinterpreted as being separate mainline exits.

With that said, I don't see anything wrong with sign legend layouts that imply how drivers should position themselves correctly for the downstream ramp split. Like I see nothing wrong with the I-15 South/I-215 example posted just upthread–the arrows show one mainline exit for I-215 in compliance with MUTCD statement, but the legend conveys the fact that the downstream ramp splits and helps position drivers in advance.

There may also be merit to allowing multiple sign panels in complex situations. But you'd also need to balance that with concerns for excess message loading.

How can one work for US-264 and I-795? Seems like they didn't put one there.

And the eastern end of the Goldsboro bypass also doesn't have one.

The southern end of the Southwest bypass in Greenville has one though

No APL sign here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.124269,-80.9128879,3a,65.4y,337.05h,69.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPVB-XVyQY9sh0L7Gqio5Zg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DPVB-XVyQY9sh0L7Gqio5Zg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D76.54716%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)? Interesting.

Quote from: tolbs17 on May 07, 2021, 08:08:48 PM
How can one work for US-264 and I-795? Seems like they didn't put one there.

And the eastern end of the Goldsboro bypass also doesn't have one.

The southern end of the Southwest bypass in Greenville has one though

Those pre-date the requirement for APLs. The FHWA does not require signs to be reinstalled immediately after a change to the manual. It's called "grandfathering".

Quote from: tolbs17 on July 21, 2021, 06:24:55 PM
No APL sign here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.124269,-80.9128879,3a,65.4y,337.05h,69.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPVB-XVyQY9sh0L7Gqio5Zg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DPVB-XVyQY9sh0L7Gqio5Zg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D76.54716%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)? Interesting.

Those signs appear to predate the APL.  Kind of hard to implement something that hasn't been invented yet.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 21, 2021, 06:27:43 PM

Quote from: tolbs17 on May 07, 2021, 08:08:48 PM
How can one work for US-264 and I-795? Seems like they didn't put one there.

And the eastern end of the Goldsboro bypass also doesn't have one.

The southern end of the Southwest bypass in Greenville has one though

Those pre-date the requirement for APLs. The FHWA does not require signs to be reinstalled immediately after a change to the manual. It's called "grandfathering".

For Goldsboro, it's understandable I say.

US-264 I-795, that part opened in 2003. But when I see I-587 shields, I'm sure those signs will be updated.

Quote from: kphoger on July 21, 2021, 06:28:16 PM

Quote from: tolbs17 on July 21, 2021, 06:24:55 PM
No APL sign here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.124269,-80.9128879,3a,65.4y,337.05h,69.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPVB-XVyQY9sh0L7Gqio5Zg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DPVB-XVyQY9sh0L7Gqio5Zg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D76.54716%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)? Interesting.

Those signs appear to predate the APL.  Kind of hard to implement something that hasn't been invented yet.

That interchange was constructed in the 90s.

APLs only became part of the MUTCD in 2009. And even then, only signs designed after each stated officially adopted the 2009 MUTCD actually had to feature them. For WA, this was December 2011; we only have two freeway-to-freeway APLs across the whole state (one in Vancouver and one in Tacoma).

Here's Hawaii's version of APL signage, on the west end of Interstate H1:

(https://i.imgur.com/EdNkbDi.jpg)

I found a new partial APL sign on NB I-65 in Indiana last week. I like this as a replacement for dancing arrows (not that INDOT used that many dancing arrows in the first place, looking at you ODOT) to show option lanes, though I do have an issue with the road name centered over the right arrow only, instead of centered relative to the whole sign. Also uses less space as it omits the pullthrough portion, something MoDOT could've done instead of going overkill with full APL signage at exits 220, 222, 224, 228 and 229B.
(https://i.imgur.com/otNGe67.jpg)

^^^^^

It's crazy how much that area has grown. I remember when that interchange didn't have any services, not even a single gas station.

Here's one of four new APL's at a recently-completed ramp braid-CD complex just south of Atlanta. This assembly is repeated at the one mile mark, where the GA 331 offramp breaks off. Is the I-285 offramp straight ahead? Off to the right? maybe both, as it was before the current project was completed. And does it matter? Either way, it's pretty obvious that traffic bound for 285 needs to be in the right lane. 

I assume that GDOT is riffing off of a practice I've seen in Florida whereby an unnecessary, noncompliant APL (https://goo.gl/maps/B393qhuZbxBv4j5M7) is used well in advance of the exit if a lane is to be added downstream to create a two-lane exit with an option lane. A proper APL* (https://goo.gl/maps/wZzp73Zkwj9Qi1BD7) is then used after the lane is added. My Florida example is clear enough because the legend is placed correctly in relation to the split arrow, but the EXIT ONLY in the Georgia scheme prevents that, leading to a dog's breakfast effect.

There's no option lane here and thus no warrant for an APL; conventional signage with no arrow would've been the MUTCD-compliant way to go. However, in GDOT's defense, there was a properly warranted, properly designed APL (https://goo.gl/maps/CHrsGVWFnJSHv6Uk8) under the earlier setup. Perhaps GDOT felt that the APL was enough of a landmark that removing it could be hazardously confusing to drivers who are familiar with the area.

(https://i.imgur.com/2EyFxNC.jpg)

Quote from: Tom958 on October 28, 2021, 08:12:46 AM
However, in GDOT's defense, there was a properly warranted, properly designed APL (https://goo.gl/maps/CHrsGVWFnJSHv6Uk8) under the earlier setup. Perhaps GDOT felt that the APL was enough of a landmark that removing it could be hazardously confusing to drivers who are familiar with the area.

Kind of wondering, what are some examples of APLs that were installed and removed later?

Here's one on I-70 WB at the I-270 exit (exit 232)
2011 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7460568,-90.4315971,3a,57.8y,288.44h,92.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCmn1pwLOSRKLUGJIFs3bFQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656): Single lane exit, with conventional signage
2012-2015 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7460623,-90.4314367,3a,48.9y,284.81h,94.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spDMO0KUvybE_5-7lDVaarQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656): 2 lane exit with option lane, signed with APL signage. Probably one of the better APLs I've seen with arrow size.
2016-now (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7459876,-90.4314297,3a,43.2y,287.59h,93.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQUa0TjFnMR0YUvjSNcQFFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192): Still a 2 lane exit with option lane, changed back to conventional signage. Imo a step backwards, and I think the APL is fine for this interchange, especially considering how new the sign was when it was removed.

I haven't scoured the state looking for examples, but I think that Florida does this a good bit, as I mentioned in my post today (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14459.msg2675787#msg2675787). I wonder if other states do, too.  :hmmm:

I kind of like it, actually.

Quote from: fwydriver405 on November 17, 2020, 10:30:47 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on November 17, 2020, 10:17:33 PM
I don't know how common it is, but APL signing is only required where there is an option lane involved. It was for that situation that APL signing was designed. Not for a normal exit or a simple lane-drop configuration.

After the rest area a little bit less than 1 mile from that sign assembly, a 5th lane is added as an exit-only lane for exit 1. In that case, between the rest area and Exit 1 NB, the #4 lane is an option lane, and the #5 for Exit 1 only.

(https://i.ibb.co/QpGhLrz/NH93-Exit1-1-2-N.png) (https://ibb.co/4KxCzP9)

Quote from: Tom958 on October 28, 2021, 09:02:50 AM
I haven't scoured the state looking for examples, but I think that Florida does this a good bit, as I mentioned in my post today (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14459.msg2675787#msg2675787). I wonder if other states do, too.  :hmmm:

I kind of like it, actually.

Quote from: fwydriver405 on November 17, 2020, 10:30:47 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on November 17, 2020, 10:17:33 PM
I don't know how common it is, but APL signing is only required where there is an option lane involved. It was for that situation that APL signing was designed. Not for a normal exit or a simple lane-drop configuration.

After the rest area a little bit less than 1 mile from that sign assembly, a 5th lane is added as an exit-only lane for exit 1. In that case, between the rest area and Exit 1 NB, the #4 lane is an option lane, and the #5 for Exit 1 only.

(https://i.ibb.co/QpGhLrz/NH93-Exit1-1-2-N.png) (https://ibb.co/4KxCzP9)

Most states do it. I know North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey definitely do it. They are becoming more common. Maryland on the other hand, apparently not...

Quote from: tolbs17 on October 28, 2021, 09:19:11 AM
Maryland on the other hand, apparently not...

Sure (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9668171,-76.1877617,3a,75y,58.22h,84.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6zdrlTYcMvYzIJAnATmWMw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) about (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9736939,-76.1756151,3a,75y,41.79h,87.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s68CgiACFwEdOJlqT3caL_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en) that (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9791119,-76.170755,3a,75y,41.25h,88.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjcta7F-fQHF47l4sA34fw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en)?  :)

Quote from: jmacswimmer on October 28, 2021, 09:25:10 AM

Quote from: tolbs17 on October 28, 2021, 09:19:11 AM
Maryland on the other hand, apparently not...

Sure (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9668171,-76.1877617,3a,75y,58.22h,84.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6zdrlTYcMvYzIJAnATmWMw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) about (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9736939,-76.1756151,3a,75y,41.79h,87.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s68CgiACFwEdOJlqT3caL_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en) that (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9791119,-76.170755,3a,75y,41.25h,88.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjcta7F-fQHF47l4sA34fw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en)?  :)

Well I haven't been to Maryland since 2016, and from what I can see on the signs from on I-95 from I-895 to I-695, those are all just normal signs with downward pointing arrows.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3229885,-76.5300851,3a,29.6y,217.24h,93.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHdBRQXiBRYf6k1IcXQKdEw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en

Quote from: tolbs17 on October 28, 2021, 09:19:11 AM
Most states do it. I know North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey definitely do it. They are becoming more common. Maryland on the other hand, apparently not...

Ohio: What's an APL again?

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 28, 2021, 08:30:42 AM
Kind of wondering, what are some examples of APLs that were installed and removed later?

Here's one on I-70 WB at the I-270 exit (exit 232)
2011 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7460568,-90.4315971,3a,57.8y,288.44h,92.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCmn1pwLOSRKLUGJIFs3bFQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656): Single lane exit, with conventional signage
2012-2015 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7460623,-90.4314367,3a,48.9y,284.81h,94.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spDMO0KUvybE_5-7lDVaarQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656): 2 lane exit with option lane, signed with APL signage. Probably one of the better APLs I've seen with arrow size.
2016-now (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7459876,-90.4314297,3a,43.2y,287.59h,93.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQUa0TjFnMR0YUvjSNcQFFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192): Still a 2 lane exit with option lane, changed back to conventional signage. Imo a step backwards, and I think the APL is fine for this interchange, especially considering how new the sign was when it was removed.

Shame that a new (and expensive) APL was removed, but the newer conventional signage gets around the restriction that a downstream ramp split cannot be signed on an APL.  Maybe that was causing a problem here.  The newer signage gives more advance guidance of which lane to use for each direction of I-270.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 28, 2021, 08:30:42 AMKind of wondering, what are some examples of APLs that were installed and removed later?

Not what you're looking for, but this one on I-285 in Atlanta (https://goo.gl/maps/RH29wbPm6izxcjFA9) is redesigned, refabricated, and relocated from its original non-MUTCD-compliant design and location. The original supports are still standing in this view, and the previous view shows the original setup.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 28, 2021, 09:44:15 AM

Quote from: tolbs17 on October 28, 2021, 09:19:11 AM
Most states do it. I know North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey definitely do it. They are becoming more common. Maryland on the other hand, apparently not...

Ohio: What's an APL again?

Ikr, I don't see any sign there.

I think I've mentioned this before with regards to APL's... if both directions are high-speed roadways (navigable at freeway speeds), then I prefer Minnesota's approach (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7079874,-93.2846304,3a,43.4y,0.26h,90.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skSCm8rWDazfq1QvPGnUNfg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). The smaller arrows are much neater than the giant oversized ones, with basically no change in the meaning or legibility of the sign. And it avoids the issue of having to point one or both sets of arrows in either a left or right direction in cases like this one where neither roadway really "turns".

Quote from: tolbs17 on October 28, 2021, 09:58:57 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 28, 2021, 09:44:15 AM

Quote from: tolbs17 on October 28, 2021, 09:19:11 AM
Most states do it. I know North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey definitely do it. They are becoming more common. Maryland on the other hand, apparently not...

Ohio: What's an APL again?

Ikr, I don't see any sign there.

There actually are a few one-offs in Columbus and Toledo, but still rare compared to a lot of other states. Rare enough that it's so close to not existing at all.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 28, 2021, 10:08:58 AM

Quote from: tolbs17 on October 28, 2021, 09:58:57 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 28, 2021, 09:44:15 AM

Quote from: tolbs17 on October 28, 2021, 09:19:11 AM
Most states do it. I know North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey definitely do it. They are becoming more common. Maryland on the other hand, apparently not...

Ohio: What's an APL again?

Ikr, I don't see any sign there.

There actually are a few one-offs in Columbus and Toledo, but still rare compared to a lot of other states. Rare enough that it's so close to not existing at all.

Likewise with MD...AFAIK, the ones I linked at the US 50/301 eastern split are the only ones in the entire state.  (I just felt like being pedantic and pointing out that Maryland does, in fact, have 3 APL's at least :-P)

Quote from: wanderer2575 on October 28, 2021, 09:53:18 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 28, 2021, 08:30:42 AM
Kind of wondering, what are some examples of APLs that were installed and removed later?

Here's one on I-70 WB at the I-270 exit (exit 232)
2011 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7460568,-90.4315971,3a,57.8y,288.44h,92.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCmn1pwLOSRKLUGJIFs3bFQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656): Single lane exit, with conventional signage
2012-2015 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7460623,-90.4314367,3a,48.9y,284.81h,94.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spDMO0KUvybE_5-7lDVaarQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656): 2 lane exit with option lane, signed with APL signage. Probably one of the better APLs I've seen with arrow size.
2016-now (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7459876,-90.4314297,3a,43.2y,287.59h,93.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQUa0TjFnMR0YUvjSNcQFFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192): Still a 2 lane exit with option lane, changed back to conventional signage. Imo a step backwards, and I think the APL is fine for this interchange, especially considering how new the sign was when it was removed.

Shame that a new (and expensive) APL was removed, but the newer conventional signage gets around the restriction that a downstream ramp split cannot be signed on an APL.  Maybe that was causing a problem here.  The newer signage gives more advance guidance of which lane to use for each direction of I-270.

Hmm, never thought of that as a reason for its removal. That may be why there's ground mounted lane split signs telling SB 270 to use the left lane and NB 270 on right lane right after the split from I-70 when the APL was used. They were removed when the APL was removed.

Quote from: tolbs17 on October 28, 2021, 09:19:11 AMMost states do it. I know North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey definitely do it. They are becoming more common. Maryland on the other hand, apparently not...

Were talking about two different things-- I should've made a more elaborate post. In places where an extra lane is added, then dropped at a major exit, Florida, New Hampshire, and I don't know who else have been known to place a non-MUTCD-compliant proto-APL like this before the lane is added...
(https://i.ibb.co/pzCjc70/NH93-Exit1-0-3-N.png)


...and a normal APL after. I want to know if other states do that, too.
(https://i.ibb.co/QpGhLrz/NH93-Exit1-1-2-N.png)

Kentucky has installed this one along I-71. (Sorry, Google Maps won't let me share a direct Streetview link).

https://goo.gl/maps/p92g85RXB83jxQEW6

Quote from: CardInLex on October 28, 2021, 11:11:58 AM
Kentucky has installed this one along I-71. (Sorry, Google Maps won't let me share a direct Streetview link).

https://goo.gl/maps/p92g85RXB83jxQEW6

Try this (https://goo.gl/maps/xGGHSYUkgXnHDmTJ7).  :bigass:

Serendipitously, it's a noncompliant APL used in advance of an added lane, which is my personal area of interest today. There's no proper APL  downstream, though. Just conventional signage (https://goo.gl/maps/LnKdJTDYNqsRFaE46).

Noncompliant though it is, it's a big improvement on what was there before (https://goo.gl/maps/rdE8KZWx7Bh9cxmy5).

^^  Really, an APL is non-compliant if a lane is added past the sign?  That's ridiculous if the sign arrows properly correspond to the lane alignment at the point of the sign.

Michigan put in a couple of these with 2017 sign replacements.

Eastbound I-96 at Novi Road:  https://goo.gl/maps/GfSDe9p2rhureYfQ7
Farther along with an added lane from the Novi Road entrance ramp:  https://goo.gl/maps/mXVRKKK6mu6yXnfu6

Eastbound I-696 approaching I-75:  https://goo.gl/maps/rVXpdY98RDo75TzX8
Farther along with an added lane from the Bermuda Street entrance ramp:  https://goo.gl/maps/Wej83fR3e3EGe6f76

Quote from: wanderer2575 on October 28, 2021, 01:13:14 PM
^^  Really, an APL is non-compliant if a lane is added past the sign?  That's ridiculous if the sign arrows properly correspond to the lane alignment at the point of the sign.

Michigan put in a couple of these with 2017 sign replacements.

Eastbound I-96 at Novi Road:  https://goo.gl/maps/GfSDe9p2rhureYfQ7
Farther along with an added lane from the Novi Road entrance ramp:  https://goo.gl/maps/mXVRKKK6mu6yXnfu6

Eastbound I-696 approaching I-75:  https://goo.gl/maps/rVXpdY98RDo75TzX8
Farther along with an added lane from the Bermuda Street entrance ramp:  https://goo.gl/maps/Wej83fR3e3EGe6f76

Thanks for your informative reply!

As for compliance, is there anything like that in the MUTCD? If there is, I missed it. There's no need for it because conventional signage is adequate. All that's needed is to inform drivers who want to exit there that they need to be in the right lane. Conversely, the split arrow with no lane drop describes tens of thousands of exits across the world. Accepting that condition as a warrant for such an elaborate sign would be truly absurd.

Quote from: Tom958 on October 28, 2021, 05:00:41 PMAs for compliance, is there anything like that in the MUTCD? If there is, I missed it. There's no need for it because conventional signage is adequate. All that's needed is to inform drivers who want to exit there that they need to be in the right lane. Conversely, the split arrow with no lane drop describes tens of thousands of exits across the world. Accepting that condition as a warrant for such an elaborate sign would be truly absurd.

There is definitely no APL diagrammed in the MUTCD that shows just a simple exit.  But I don't know whether a lane gain between such an APL and the exit affects whether the sign is compliant--it would likely require close study of the verbiage to make that determination.  It is unquestionable that an APL showing the gained lane (which is dropped at the exit) does comply, and I'm of the school of thought that an APL sign should be a faithful representation of the lane configuration at its mounting location (positive guidance and all that).

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 28, 2021, 05:23:03 PMThere is definitely no APL diagrammed in the MUTCD that shows just a simple exit.  But I don't know whether a lane gain between such an APL and the exit affects whether the sign is compliant--it would likely require close study of the verbiage to make that determination.  It is unquestionable that an APL showing the gained lane (which is dropped at the exit) does comply, and I'm of the school of thought that an APL sign should be a faithful representation of the lane configuration at its mounting location (positive guidance and all that).

I agree, especially with the part I bolded.

As of now, my own evolving position is that an APL that depicts a single exit is desirable as a means of drawing attention to an upcoming added-then-dropped-plus-option lane exit, and should be explicitly permitted in the MUTCD. Those agencies that have implemented them without the blessing of the MUTCD are to be commended.  :clap:

That new one in Atlanta is still a mess, though.

(https://i.imgur.com/2EyFxNC.jpg)

It seems that it would have been possible for GDOT to mount the exit 237 sign farther right (and adjust the arrow so that it remains over the lane) to give them the space needed for the I-285 legend on the APL.

Quote from: ran4sh on October 28, 2021, 06:04:28 PM
It seems that it would have been possible for GDOT to mount the exit 237 sign farther right (and adjust the arrow so that it remains over the lane) to give them the space needed for the I-285 legend on the APL.

I agree with that. The sign does not need to be centered, just the arrow. Scoot the sign to the right, and have the "EXIT ONLY" legend to the right of the arrow.

^This is what VDOT did in downtown Petersburg

https://maps.app.goo.gl/yMd27U6gWD88hSLW7

Quote from: Tom958 on October 28, 2021, 12:12:09 PM

Quote from: CardInLex on October 28, 2021, 11:11:58 AM
Kentucky has installed this one along I-71. (Sorry, Google Maps won't let me share a direct Streetview link).

https://goo.gl/maps/p92g85RXB83jxQEW6

Try this (https://goo.gl/maps/xGGHSYUkgXnHDmTJ7).  :bigass:

Serendipitously, it's a noncompliant APL used in advance of an added lane, which is my personal area of interest today. There's no proper APL  downstream, though. Just conventional signage (https://goo.gl/maps/LnKdJTDYNqsRFaE46).

Noncompliant though it is, it's a big improvement on what was there before (https://goo.gl/maps/rdE8KZWx7Bh9cxmy5).

Thanks! There is another APL upstream from the first one I linked.
https://goo.gl/maps/1J6nXf9fjtMPVeNM7 (Google Maps need to fix their iPad app).

Here is another new KYTC APL install for multiple exits on I-264.
https://goo.gl/maps/s12ex7tymMexyzpT6

Quote from: CardInLex on October 28, 2021, 06:26:51 PM
Here is another new KYTC APL install for multiple exits on I-264.
https://goo.gl/maps/s12ex7tymMexyzpT6

Terrible design.  It's not at all clear that lane 4 is only an option lane to I-64 east and one may remain in it to stay on I-264.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on October 28, 2021, 06:51:23 PM

Quote from: CardInLex on October 28, 2021, 06:26:51 PM
Here is another new KYTC APL install for multiple exits on I-264.
https://goo.gl/maps/s12ex7tymMexyzpT6

Terrible design.  It's not at all clear that lane 4 is only an option lane to I-64 east and one may remain in it to stay on I-264.

True, but Lane 4 does drop at the following exit (US 60). To stay on I-264 you must be in lanes 1, 2, or 3 (really 1 or 2 because 3 ends just past the US 60 exit).

Quote from: plain on October 28, 2021, 06:18:17 PM
^This is what VDOT did in downtown Petersburg

https://maps.app.goo.gl/yMd27U6gWD88hSLW7

I wish they would have left the control cities of Atlanta and Miami on there.

There's this sawn off APL in Northern KY on I-75/71.

https://goo.gl/maps/dmqg7i7V3QyMJ6gdA

Quote from: CardInLex on October 28, 2021, 07:11:42 PM
There's this sawn off APL in Northern KY on I-75/71.

https://goo.gl/maps/dmqg7i7V3QyMJ6gdA

That's better than the INDOT example I posted upthread. Still have reassurance signage without taking over the space of multiple lanes.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 28, 2021, 07:22:47 PM

Quote from: CardInLex on October 28, 2021, 07:11:42 PM
There's this sawn off APL in Northern KY on I-75/71.

https://goo.gl/maps/dmqg7i7V3QyMJ6gdA

That's better than the INDOT example I posted upthread. Still have reassurance signage without taking over the space of multiple lanes.

The example you posted is actually following what's proposed in the new MUTCD. I actually think I prefer it because it doesn't imply you have to be in the option lane to continue on mainline whereas the KY version could make an unsuspecting driver think only that one lane continues on mainline.

Quote from: ran4sh on October 28, 2021, 07:10:09 PM

Quote from: plain on October 28, 2021, 06:18:17 PM
^This is what VDOT did in downtown Petersburg

https://maps.app.goo.gl/yMd27U6gWD88hSLW7

I wish they would have left the control cities of Atlanta and Miami on there.

A lot of us do, but there's one of each still nearby.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ArmbAHfsow5ukob36
https://maps.app.goo.gl/EKLZbHDzbg8AhdoGA

There's another Atlanta posting on I-95 SB north of Richmond as well.

Really nice seeing all the NKY examples, it seems like a lot more APL have been installed on I-71/75 since the last time I've been on that road. Now if ODOT D8 right across the river can get the memo, that would be great.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 28, 2021, 06:15:24 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on October 28, 2021, 06:04:28 PM
It seems that it would have been possible for GDOT to mount the exit 237 sign farther right (and adjust the arrow so that it remains over the lane) to give them the space needed for the I-285 legend on the APL.

I agree with that. The sign does not need to be centered, just the arrow. Scoot the sign to the right, and have the "EXIT ONLY" legend to the right of the arrow.

Or they could've used conventional signage per the MUTCD.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Tom958 on October 29, 2021, 02:34:09 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 28, 2021, 06:15:24 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on October 28, 2021, 06:04:28 PM
It seems that it would have been possible for GDOT to mount the exit 237 sign farther right (and adjust the arrow so that it remains over the lane) to give them the space needed for the I-285 legend on the APL.

I agree with that. The sign does not need to be centered, just the arrow. Scoot the sign to the right, and have the "EXIT ONLY" legend to the right of the arrow.

Or they could've used conventional signage per the MUTCD.  :rolleyes:

But it's interstate to interstate. Doesn't it have to be an APL as the split involves an option lane?

Quote from: jakeroot on October 29, 2021, 05:14:38 PMBut it's interstate to interstate. Doesn't it have to be an APL as the split involves an option lane?

As Jonathan Winkler pointed out, "There is definitely no APL diagrammed in the MUTCD that shows just a simple exit," and there certainly isn't an MUTCD requirement to use something that's not in the MUTCD.

Quote from: Tom958 on October 30, 2021, 12:47:31 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 29, 2021, 05:14:38 PMBut it's interstate to interstate. Doesn't it have to be an APL as the split involves an option lane?

As Jonathan Winkler pointed out, "There is definitely no APL diagrammed in the MUTCD that shows just a simple exit," and there certainly isn't an MUTCD requirement to use something that's not in the MUTCD.

Understood. I didn't take his comment to mean that APLs were not required prior to both exit lanes being present, however.

Given that it's such an unusual situation, and and that an official interpretation has never been made, I would still assume that an APL would be the best option as it would be a consistent design from the first sign to the last. I'm not sure mixing up and down arrows would be as helpful (I'm not opposed to mixing a series of up or down arrow signs with non-arrow signage, such as a regular guide sign stating "285 Atlanta Bypass, 2 Miles".)

Quote from: jakeroot on October 29, 2021, 05:14:38 PM
But it's interstate to interstate. Doesn't it have to be an APL as the split involves an option lane?

I don't think so from what I've seen. Example I posted upthread that swapped out APLs for conventional signage

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 28, 2021, 08:30:42 AM
Kind of wondering, what are some examples of APLs that were installed and removed later?

Here's one on I-70 WB at the I-270 exit (exit 232)
2011 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7460568,-90.4315971,3a,57.8y,288.44h,92.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCmn1pwLOSRKLUGJIFs3bFQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656): Single lane exit, with conventional signage
2012-2015 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7460623,-90.4314367,3a,48.9y,284.81h,94.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spDMO0KUvybE_5-7lDVaarQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656): 2 lane exit with option lane, signed with APL signage. Probably one of the better APLs I've seen with arrow size.
2016-now (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7459876,-90.4314297,3a,43.2y,287.59h,93.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQUa0TjFnMR0YUvjSNcQFFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192): Still a 2 lane exit with option lane, changed back to conventional signage. Imo a step backwards, and I think the APL is fine for this interchange, especially considering how new the sign was when it was removed.

Some more I know of
- I-71 NB approaching I-275 (exit 17) (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2630917,-84.3585945,3a,52.2y,23.68h,88.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3f8Q8kkaA6RnyTI0wMRymg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
- I-275 EB approaching I-71 (exit 49) (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2777883,-84.3605373,3a,49y,132.14h,94.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_kG0SHFYinN95cfsXr7qzg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
- I-75 NB approaching I-275 (exit 16) (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2807773,-84.4406766,3a,75y,1h,96.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se28hSFlJRTHYVuWZPYZ4yg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 28, 2021, 05:23:03 PM
There is definitely no APL diagrammed in the MUTCD that shows just a simple exit.  But I don't know whether a lane gain between such an APL and the exit affects whether the sign is compliant--it would likely require close study of the verbiage to make that determination.  It is unquestionable that an APL showing the gained lane (which is dropped at the exit) does comply, and I'm of the school of thought that an APL sign should be a faithful representation of the lane configuration at its mounting location (positive guidance and all that).

JN, your school of thought is spot-on and is already codified in the 2009 MUTCD.

Quote from: 2009 MUTCD
Section 2E.21 Design of Overhead Arrow-per-Lane Guide Signs for Option Lanes
<...>
Standard:
07 Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs used on freeways and expressways shall include one arrow above each lane and shall be designed in accordance with the following criteria:
<...>
H.    The number of lanes displayed on a sign shall correspond to the number of lanes at the location of that sign. An advance sign shall not depict lanes that are added downstream of a sign location.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2021, 01:19:20 PM

Quote from: Tom958 on October 30, 2021, 12:47:31 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 29, 2021, 05:14:38 PMBut it's interstate to interstate. Doesn't it have to be an APL as the split involves an option lane?

As Jonathan Winkler pointed out, "There is definitely no APL diagrammed in the MUTCD that shows just a simple exit," and there certainly isn't an MUTCD requirement to use something that's not in the MUTCD.

Understood. I didn't take his comment to mean that APLs were not required prior to both exit lanes being present, however.

Given that it's such an unusual situation, and and that an official interpretation has never been made, I would still assume that an APL would be the best option as it would be a consistent design from the first sign to the last. I'm not sure mixing up and down arrows would be as helpful (I'm not opposed to mixing a series of up or down arrow signs with non-arrow signage, such as a regular guide sign stating "285 Atlanta Bypass, 2 Miles".)

I agree.  The sign in Atlanta is very helpful, even if it doesn't meet the requirements of the MUTCD.  It is quite important, particularly for freeway to freeway interchanges to identify early on the correct lane to be at.  The APL's purpose is to avoid  the lane confusion that still exists in many signs.

When you are two miles away, identify to people which lane to be in.  Even if an extra lane gets added later, identify where they are now and then  add a new sign as the new lane comes in.

Quote from: mrsman on October 31, 2021, 12:56:02 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2021, 01:19:20 PM
Understood. I didn't take his comment to mean that APLs were not required prior to both exit lanes being present, however.

Given that it's such an unusual situation, and that an official interpretation has never been made, I would still assume that an APL would be the best option as it would be a consistent design from the first sign to the last. I'm not sure mixing up and down arrows would be as helpful (I'm not opposed to mixing a series of up or down arrow signs with non-arrow signage, such as a regular guide sign stating "285 Atlanta Bypass, 2 Miles".)

I agree.  The sign in Atlanta is very helpful, even if it doesn't meet the requirements of the MUTCD.  It is quite important, particularly for freeway to freeway interchanges to identify early on the correct lane to be at.  The APL's purpose is to avoid the lane confusion that still exists in many signs.

When you are two miles away, identify to people which lane to be in.  Even if an extra lane gets added later, identify where they are now and then add a new sign as the new lane comes in.

An arrowless conventional sign properly placed toward the right side of the roadway would be plenty adequate to show that traffic wishing to exit to I-285 needs to be in the right lane, with an arrowless pullthrough if needed, which it would be here. That's what I meant by

Quote from: meOr they could've used conventional signage per the MUTCD.  :rolleyes:

There's no need to invoke MUTCD-defiant down arrows or rogue APL designs with weirdly-displaced legends.

NOW...

What I'm grateful to have discovered by posting here is that, in addition to Florida, New Hampshire and Michigan have also apparently adopted the convention of using a simple-exit APL as a subtle means of signaling to drivers that an upcoming split will be signed with one or more properly-warranted APLs once an additional lane comes into play downstream. This has happened despite the fact that there's no such sign in the MUTCD. To me, it seems unlikely that at least three different state D'sOT came up with this independently. There must've been some discussion in channels that we're generally not privy to.

I believe that a key reason to follow signage conventions is that doing so communicates useful information to drivers who couldn't accurately sketch out a proper BGS if their lives depended on it. I see this apparently-emerging convention as a laudable case of design pros exploiting human nature to accomplish a worthwhile purpose, which I think is pretty cool.

That said, I still think the one in Atlanta is a mess. I reiterate that I think it's likely that they did it that way not so much to follow the emerging convention  as to avoid removing an APL at a location where the public was already accustomed to seeing one.

Quote from: Tom958 on November 01, 2021, 05:29:38 AM

Quote from: mrsman on October 31, 2021, 12:56:02 PM

I agree.  The sign in Atlanta is very helpful, even if it doesn't meet the requirements of the MUTCD.  It is quite important, particularly for freeway to freeway interchanges to identify early on the correct lane to be at.  The APL's purpose is to avoid the lane confusion that still exists in many signs.

When you are two miles away, identify to people which lane to be in.  Even if an extra lane gets added later, identify where they are now and then add a new sign as the new lane comes in.

An arrowless conventional sign properly placed toward the right side of the roadway would be plenty adequate to show that traffic wishing to exit to I-285 needs to be in the right lane, with an arrowless pullthrough if needed, which it would be here. That's what I meant by

Quote from: meOr they could've used conventional signage per the MUTCD.  :rolleyes:

There's no need to invoke MUTCD-defiant down arrows or rogue APL designs with weirdly-displaced legends.

In general I agree that a conventional sign placed toward the right can indicate an upcoming exit on the right. However, there are some states like CA where sometimes a conventional sign is placed toward the left for an exit on the right. So while that solution would work in Georgia and probably most of the country, it might be more confusing if done in California where the sign placement left or right does not have consistent meaning.

Any left-hand exits are supposed to be signed as such from the first in the series of advance signs. Absent such indication, all exits would be presumed to be on the right-hand side.

I assume the above poster was referencing California's interchange sequence signs listing distances to the next three exits. For years those were located overhead in the medians of their freeways which I agreed with. Recently California started placing those signs on the right, still overhead. I thought the left side was better so a driver in the left lanes would notice them more readily and be able to start moving over to the right when he saw his exit coming up in a few miles. On California's multi-lane freeways (usually at least four lanes) a driver in the left lanes will be less likely to notice those signs when placed on the right side.

And now back to our discussion of APL's. LOL

Following the conventions of APLs, shouldn't the first encountered exit be on the far right, and the next exit be the next sign to the left?  I needed to take this exit and saw this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/bvmUG9BXV6KFsaRk7) today.  I knew they had reconfigured the exit from a standard cloverleaf, so now I wasn't sure what exactly it was.  Luckily the second set of signs (https://goo.gl/maps/tjnsMv6o2AX8GMka8) made things clear.

(PS for the first link: Looks like we got us a convoy!)

This KYTC install highlights the "multiplexed exit"  APL issue. Exit 9A has an option lane, so it's APL. Exit 9B is a cloverleaf but gets put to the left of the thru movements on the APL. Even though the 9B sign's exit tab is on the right and it doesn't feature a "LEFT"  warning, the signs placement to the left of the thru lanes makes drivers think they need to be in the far left lane to exit.

https://goo.gl/maps/BThshd8LWGY1BCFF8

Quote from: CardInLex on November 02, 2021, 11:02:03 AM
This KYTC install highlights the "multiplexed exit"  APL issue. Exit 9A has an option lane, so it's APL. Exit 9B is a cloverleaf but gets put to the left of the thru movements on the APL. Even though the 9B sign's exit tab is on the right and it doesn't feature a "LEFT"  warning, the signs placement to the left of the thru lanes makes drivers think they need to be in the far left lane to exit.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/YES3XvrggpfqUsTm9

The issue here is that the designers used an APL for a condition that could and should've been signed conventionally, with a two-lane EXIT ONLY with diagonally upward arrows for 9A and an arrowless sign for 9B. Upstream, a single down arrow EXIT ONLY for 9A with a hidden option lane and another arrowless sign for 9B. Because of the position of this interchange within the area's highway system, I'm gonna say that a large majority of drivers there are familiar enough with the 9A ramp to understand how to make use of the hidden option lane. Others can simply follow the signs.

One caveat might be that the bridge behind would prevent MUTCD-compliant conventional overheads there from being installed at their optimum location. It's hard to believe that would be considered a fatal flaw, but then it's also hard to see how they came up with what they did.  :clap:

Of course, they could keep it as-is but add a big yellow RIGHT tab to the 9A sign. :bigass:

I think that sign was installed when the new bridge was opened, and it will probably be replaced when the interchange is rebuilt as part of the I-265 work.

Quote from: ErmineNotyours on November 01, 2021, 11:28:55 PM
Following the conventions of APLs, shouldn't the first encountered exit be on the far right, and the next exit be the next sign to the left?  I needed to take this exit and saw this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/bvmUG9BXV6KFsaRk7) today.  I knew they had reconfigured the exit from a standard cloverleaf, so now I wasn't sure what exactly it was.  Luckily the second set of signs (https://goo.gl/maps/tjnsMv6o2AX8GMka8) made things clear.

(PS for the first link: Looks like we got us a convoy!)

(https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2021/7/31/proc/3753637_7dbe2c24dabe0445cd4f1eab7f8218ef.jpg)
The convoy says hey back!  :wave:

Quote from: ErmineNotyours on November 01, 2021, 11:28:55 PM
Following the conventions of APLs, shouldn't the first encountered exit be on the far right, and the next exit be the next sign to the left?  I needed to take this exit and saw this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/bvmUG9BXV6KFsaRk7) today.  I knew they had reconfigured the exit from a standard cloverleaf, so now I wasn't sure what exactly it was.  Luckily the second set of signs (https://goo.gl/maps/tjnsMv6o2AX8GMka8) made things clear.

(PS for the first link: Looks like we got us a convoy!)

Yeah, somebody seriously screwed up. In the first set of signs, they should be reversed. You might consider contacting the agency that erected those signs and point out the error to them. And there's a second issue of inconsistent destinations. The first sign shows Puyallup and the second one shows S. 348 St. They are supposed to be consistent thru the series of signs for an exit.

Quote from: Tom958 on November 02, 2021, 04:21:08 PM

Quote from: CardInLex on November 02, 2021, 11:02:03 AM
This KYTC install highlights the "multiplexed exit"  APL issue. Exit 9A has an option lane, so it's APL. Exit 9B is a cloverleaf but gets put to the left of the thru movements on the APL. Even though the 9B sign's exit tab is on the right and it doesn't feature a "LEFT"  warning, the signs placement to the left of the thru lanes makes drivers think they need to be in the far left lane to exit.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/YES3XvrggpfqUsTm9

The issue here is that the designers used an APL for a condition that could and should've been signed conventionally, with a two-lane EXIT ONLY with diagonally upward arrows for 9A and an arrowless sign for 9B. Upstream, a single down arrow EXIT ONLY for 9A with a hidden option lane and another arrowless sign for 9B. Because of the position of this interchange within the area's highway system, I'm gonna say that a large majority of drivers there are familiar enough with the 9A ramp to understand how to make use of the hidden option lane. Others can simply follow the signs.

One caveat might be that the bridge behind would prevent MUTCD-compliant conventional overheads there from being installed at their optimum location. It's hard to believe that would be considered a fatal flaw, but then it's also hard to see how they came up with what they did.  :clap:

Of course, they could keep it as-is but add a big yellow RIGHT tab to the 9A sign. :bigass:

A hidden option lane would not do well here. Traffic wanting to go to 265 South really needs to  be in the middle option lane because the right lane drops immediately onto KY 22.

And since this is interstate to interstate wouldn't APL be the most correct option?

Quote from: hbelkins on November 02, 2021, 05:45:43 PM
I think that sign was installed when the new bridge was opened, and it will probably be replaced when the interchange is rebuilt as part of the I-265 work.

This approach is staying the same with the I-Move project so I don't see these signs being replaced.

Quote from: hbelkinsI think that sign was installed when the new bridge was opened, and it will probably be replaced when the interchange is rebuilt as part of the I-265 work.

If "the new bridge" means the one over the Ohio River, the sign and the ramp widening that prompted it don't seem to be related as the widened ramp carries traffic moving away from the bridge. And... from what I see, the only improvement for this interchange under the I-Move project is the CD for southbound I-71, which is already finished.

OT, but I'm really at a loss to understand how the 71 north to 265 south movement requires a second lane, but a one-lane loop ramp with (still) a short weaving section over 71 can be adequate in the opposite direction.

Quote from: CardInLex on November 03, 2021, 03:58:16 PMA hidden option lane would not do well here. Traffic wanting to go to 265 South really needs to be in the middle option lane because the right lane drops immediately onto KY 22.

I'm writing too much about this. It's likely that the design team had this debate. If so, my side lost, and at worst the result is not so unsatisfactory as to require prompt remediation. However...

I wouldn't call it immediately. The added lane is 3/4 of a mile long. At 1/4 mile in is this nonstandard APL that makes it perfectly clear that 265 traffic needs to be in the left lane, with an additional 1700 feet after the gantry to change lanes before the ramp becomes contiguous with the 265 mainline, then another 1000 feet before the KY 22 ramp starts to diverge. Plenty of room. Also, as I asserted earlier, that movement doesn't seem particularly attractive to long-distance travelers. It's likely that most drivers who use this ramp do so frequently and therefore have the opportunity to learn to use the option lane even though it's hidden, or, if they're not bright enough to figure that out, to start their lane change before the sign informs them that they need to.

All in all, going with conventional signage here would impose a minor inconvenience upon a small number of drivers, IMO likely less than the inconvenience to drivers bound for 841 north who mistakenly believe that their exit, which is only a quarter mile away, is on the left rather than the right.

Quote from: CardInLexAnd since this is interstate to interstate wouldn't APL be the most correct option?

For the split itself, sure. It's the effect on how the next exit is signed that's the problem. The importance of the split is a factor, but it shouldn't dictate the solution entirely at the expense of other factors.

Having said all that, it may well be that the deciding factor in favor of an APL was the fact that the location of the Springdale Road bridge prevents a conventional overhead from being installed at the optimum location. The left black-on-yellow arrow of the EXIT ONLY panel would be confusingly close to the right mainline lane, thereby possibly prompting the very type of panicked, needless lane change that prompted the introduction of hidden option lanes in the first place. Also, the exit for 841 north would've been displaced confusingly to the left. This could've been mitigated by:

Tearing down the bridge and replacing it with one with a longer span over northbound I-71

Tolerating having no right shoulder under the existing bridge and shifting the new lane outboard, or

Building the new half-mile-long auxiliary lane that precedes the split in the median of 71 instead of on the right. Shifted mainlines suck, though.

One last thing: If not for the bridge problem, they could've used something like this to somewhat mitigate the right-lane-goes-to-KY 22 problem. Can't do that with APL's.

Wouldn't the absolute easiest fix be to simply ground-mount the sign after the split on the right?

You could also have a non-standard APL where the middle lane shows the straight-on movement as being the next exit, and then have a regular exit sign after that.

Or they could just standardize an APL design to use in such situations. Both (1) multiple successive exits from the mainline, and (2) a split that occurs on an exit ramp shortly after it exits from the mainline.

Quote from: jakeroot on November 04, 2021, 04:25:36 PM
Wouldn't the absolute easiest fix be to simply ground-mount the sign after the split on the right?

Yeah. And make it huge and super tall so it'd be clearly visible and legible over the APL.  :awesomeface:

APLs on the eastbound Ohio Turnpike (I-80), before Youngstown.  Interesting that "Pennsylvania" is abbreviated as "Pa" instead of "PA."

(https://i.imgur.com/DSVkgSs.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/n1PDrQ4.jpg)

Quote from: wanderer2575 on November 15, 2021, 10:18:40 PM
APLs on the eastbound Ohio Turnpike (I-80), before Youngstown.  Interesting that "Pennsylvania" is abbreviated as "Pa" instead of "PA."

(https://i.imgur.com/DSVkgSs.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/n1PDrQ4.jpg)

Ohio does that a lot. For example, all the "Erie Pa" signs on I-90 EB east of Cleveland.

Quote from: SkyPesos on November 15, 2021, 10:27:07 PM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on November 15, 2021, 10:18:40 PM
APLs on the eastbound Ohio Turnpike (I-80), before Youngstown.  Interesting that "Pennsylvania" is abbreviated as "Pa" instead of "PA."

(https://i.imgur.com/DSVkgSs.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/n1PDrQ4.jpg)

Ohio does that a lot. For example, all the "Erie Pa" signs on I-90 EB east of Cleveland.

New York does this as well with Erie Pa, though not consistently (newer signs have Erie PA).  Other states use literary instead of postal abbreviations, I've seen signs in Rhode Island for "Boston Ma" and "Boston Mass" and in Tennessee for "Jackson Miss". The signs aren't going to be mailed, so there's no reason to use postal abbreviations and upper case state abbreviations might be interpreted as something else like a type of roadway or something.

Quote from: jakeroot on November 04, 2021, 04:25:36 PM
Wouldn't the absolute easiest fix be to simply ground-mount the sign after the split on the right?

You could also have a non-standard APL where the middle lane shows the straight-on movement as being the next exit, and then have a regular exit sign after that.

Could the 841 NB sign have two lines of verbiage at the bottom like
SECOND RIGHT
1/4 MILE
to emphasize that it's not this right exit, but the next one?

Here's an interesting use of an APL at the new DDI southeast of Tucson at Exit 275 Houghton Rd off Interstate 10. Photo courtesy of ADOT.

(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/houghtonddi.jpg)

Here's a four-way APL on I-630 at I-430 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7474131,-92.3775809,3a,49y,288.39h,85.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D291.42633%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) 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.

Yeah that's a relatively good display re: the number of lanes involved. The arrow for the left exit is too small for some reason. And I'm puzzled why some states don't show destinations for 3-digit Interstates. In the Northeast, destinations are shown for them.

Quote from: webny99 on November 30, 2021, 05:06:08 PM
Here's a four-way APL on I-630 at I-430 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7474131,-92.3775809,3a,49y,288.39h,85.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D291.42633%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) 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!

This is kind of a funky one that doesn't exist yet, but is coming in the next couple years with the reconstruction of I-96 in western Oakland County.  (This will replace the current APL, of which I posted a photo earlier in this thread.)  The arrows are correctly positioned over the three lanes that exist at this point, but they're way off-center on the sign because of the number of shields for the one thru lane.

(https://i.imgur.com/gNfwTVR.jpg)

I wish someone would make a map on which states use APL's and which don't, similar to the Clearview vs. FHWA one...

Quote from: Henry on December 16, 2021, 11:04:32 AMI wish someone would make a map on which states use APL's and which don't, similar to the Clearview vs. FHWA one...

Here is a start at one:

AK  N
HI  N Y
WA  Y
OR  Y
ID  N Y
CA  Y
NV  Y
UT  Y
MT  N
WY  N
AZ  Y
NM  N Y
CO  Y
ND  N Y
SD  N
NE  Y
KS  Y
OK  Y
TX  Y
MN  Y
IA  Y
MO  Y
AR  Y
LA  N
MS  Y
AL  Y
GA  Y
FL  Y
SC  N Y
NC  Y
TN  Y
VA  Y
IL  Y
WI  Y
MI  Y
IN  Y
KY Y
OH  Y
WV  N
MD  N Y
PA  Y
DE  Y
NJ  N Y
NY  Y
VT  N Y
NH  Y
ME  N Y
MA  N Y
RI  N Y
CT  Y

I'm inviting corrections, though.  States marked N are more likely to be in error since nearly all of the others have been marked Y on the basis of Google StreetView imagery or construction plans sheets showing APLs.  I am not counting APL-like signs found on surface roads leading to freeways (e.g., at DDIs) since those are dealt with under a separate section of the MUTCD.

Edit:  List is now corrected to reflect the existence of APLs in HI (I-H1 Exit 2, picture posted upthread), NM, ND, SC, MD, NJ, VT, ME, MA, and RI.

Edit II:  List has been amended to reflect use of APLs in ID.

NJ is Yes.

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 16, 2021, 04:05:47 PM
OH  Y

Note that they are pretty rare in Ohio (there's a few each in Youngstown and Toledo, and one in Columbus that I can think of). Otherwise, it might as well have been a no. All of them are in Clearview, and ODOT stopped using Clearview at around 2017 or so, which could mean that they also stopped installing APLs, also considering that this new ugly and confusing way of signing option lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.011162,-82.9056536,3a,45y,70.74h,94.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0k8d6soaK8ai3HoCAnuOTA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) is getting more common.

SC is yes, see https://goo.gl/maps/5gwvNVi6Mt4EekDJ6

HI, NM, ND, MA, RI, and VT are a yes

MD is technically a yes, but only in one spot (as far as I'm aware): the US 50/301 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9668186,-76.1877615,3a,75y,69.75h,84.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6zdrlTYcMvYzIJAnATmWMw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) split on (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9736693,-76.1756369,3a,75y,45.38h,88.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syaCKwGG0DWH0CJCtyADNsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en) the Eastern Shore (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9791119,-76.1707551,3a,75y,42.97h,88.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjcta7F-fQHF47l4sA34fw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en).

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 16, 2021, 04:15:53 PM
HI, NM, ND, MA, RI, and VT are a yes

I'm starting a map of what we have so far, but I'd like to see at least one example from each before marking a state as "Yes", and preferably some sense of whether they're rare or common in the state.

Here's one for North Dakota (https://www.google.com/maps/@46.8525037,-96.8405451,3a,37.5y,355.53h,92.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szmXLuIxLuy1GKwCMOWYPBg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). They're obviously rare in ND relative to other states because there's few cities big enough to warrant them at more than a select few locations. I imagine Vermont is similar; if any exist, they're probably pretty rare.

I can also confirm New Mexico (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1663574,-106.5855637,3a,47.1y,5.35h,92.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssQ6NCt_oZJIyTMH_ZFSdow!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) although not consistently (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1065736,-106.6103591,3a,22y,285.02h,90.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI0TITCdDTpyUmsRiuRtFZw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (not that NMDOT is known to be consistent at much of anything).

Oklahoma is definitely "yes but not consistently"–our first stippled-arrow diagrammatics appeared after the first APL, and I know of two instances where the split arrow on an APL is actually a tiny stippled-arrow diagrammatic!

MA uses APL's at the eastern terminus of Interstate 84 (1 mile (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i90signs418a.JPG), ½ mile (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i90signs418b.JPG)), as well as the approach to the northern terminus of MA Route 24 (2 miles (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma24signs121www.jpg), 1 mile (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma24signs321b.jpg), ½ mile (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma24signs821a.jpg)). There is also a partial one on I-95 / MA Route 128 South at US 3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4778138,-71.2162514,3a,27.5y,251.07h,93.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0Z4PtfVvHZyBpR3YeaXldA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) as well. Not aware of any more planned in MA as of the writing of this message.

All photos taken by Robert Malme, which can be found here (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c).

---

Quote from: webny99 on December 16, 2021, 04:51:07 PM
I imagine Vermont is similar; if any exist, they're probably pretty rare.

EDIT: Speaking of Vermont, I don't know if these count, but these two are at the US Route 7 and Vermont Route 279 interchange in Bennington (¼ mile (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9036293,-73.2000693,3a,26.1y,333.12h,92.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm9ey6BkAkro-bappn7Dhaw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), at exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.905698,-73.2031468,3a,16.8y,290.37h,91.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ-sQNk1Lc8JiTaIAWC3jdQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)).

---

Maine will eventually get one once the Exit 45 improvements at Maine Route's 703's western terminus is complete (page 105 in this planset (https://www.maineturnpike.com/cmstemplates/showAttachment.ashx?g=a8a93638-ec5f-4167-ace5-1fdd497ad203))

(https://i.ibb.co/mGSZyNS/Screenshot-2021-12-16-at-17-53-50.png) (https://ibb.co/KXm4sKm)

Quote from: webny99 on December 16, 2021, 04:51:07 PM

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 16, 2021, 04:15:53 PM
HI, NM, ND, MA, RI, and VT are a yes

I'm starting a map of what we have so far, but I'd like to see at least one example from each before marking a state as "Yes", and preferably some sense of whether they're rare or common in the state.

Here's one for North Dakota (https://www.google.com/maps/@46.8525037,-96.8405451,3a,37.5y,355.53h,92.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szmXLuIxLuy1GKwCMOWYPBg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). They're obviously rare in ND relative to other states because there's few cities big enough to warrant them at more than a select few locations. I imagine Vermont is similar; if any exist, they're probably pretty rare.

I can also confirm New Mexico (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1663574,-106.5855637,3a,47.1y,5.35h,92.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssQ6NCt_oZJIyTMH_ZFSdow!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) although not consistently (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1065736,-106.6103591,3a,22y,285.02h,90.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI0TITCdDTpyUmsRiuRtFZw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (not that NMDOT is known to be consistent at much of anything).

They're going to be rare in a number of states because they're a new standard and signs only get replaced every few decades, and these can require some significant changes. But just one still counts.

As far as NJ goes...

https://maps.app.goo.gl/czV6HTQJtCpugzBo6

https://maps.app.goo.gl/NMKbe1hx5ZKC5dcp6

Here's RI:
(¼ mile (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8352357,-71.416108,3a,75y,198.23h,97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scsAVVtiGYWaT06RASQ9rKA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), at exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.830761,-71.4178729,3a,75y,189.72h,90.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saXIqa45ODksuqvbhkCngDw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)).

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 16, 2021, 05:34:57 PM
Here's RI:
(¼ mile (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8352357,-71.416108,3a,75y,198.23h,97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scsAVVtiGYWaT06RASQ9rKA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), at exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.830761,-71.4178729,3a,75y,189.72h,90.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saXIqa45ODksuqvbhkCngDw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)).

Two more at the exit: (1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8286109,-71.4185117,3a,39.2y,193.74h,97.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seBwpR6risMiEULJrGF18Ng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), 2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8274354,-71.4190995,3a,15y,225.86h,88.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shtiPC3-2ZHHq1Jfw8nS2Tw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192))
And this one at I-295 South at US Route 6 (½ mile* (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8424534,-71.5138012,3a,67.8y,206.7h,89.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shrneNYflFY7liYkrP8K7Kw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), at exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.838105,-71.5173751,3a,36y,197.52h,91.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3sZ27VXnjje46ArtJKhjcQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192))
*the ½ mile one has the exit only arrow over the breakdown lane. don't know if they intended to make an aux lane between the two interchanges.

Thank you, all--the links to examples are especially helpful.  I've edited the original post accordingly.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 16, 2021, 05:34:34 PM

Quote from: webny99 on December 16, 2021, 04:51:07 PM

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 16, 2021, 04:15:53 PMHI, NM, ND, MA, RI, and VT are a yes

I'm starting a map of what we have so far, but I'd like to see at least one example from each before marking a state as "Yes", and preferably some sense of whether they're rare or common in the state.

They're going to be rare in a number of states because they're a new standard and signs only get replaced every few decades, and these can require some significant changes. But just one still counts.

There are certainly a few states where APLs are all but one-offs.  For MN, which has long had its homegrown approach for handling option lanes at freeway-to-freeway interchanges, I found just one example (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.074553,-93.445906,3a,75y,358.22h,87.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spkVg4D9bqzIQ0FrYg7UzoQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  However, the APL concept surfaced in rulemaking in 2007 and became part of the MUTCD in 2009, so there has been a minimum of 12 years for state DOTs and turnpike agencies to work out how and where they want to install them.  We are down to just seven states with no known examples.

And there are, of course, installed examples that predate their adoption in the MUTCD. For example, the first APL I remember seeing was on I-43 in Milwaukee (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0447683,-87.9258476,3a,34.5y,320.93h,95.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slaSVkQOsfABwORxAUJ3JuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), at the 2008 Chicago road meet. The details on that sign differ from the modern design of APL, but it is unquestionably an early attempt at one.

My North Dakota example is an early one, too. The arrows are a different design than what we're used to seeing now, and the same sign is visible in 2008 Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@46.852509,-96.8406331,3a,37.5y,359.44h,92.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgXWfcAicYFJjqyApGEG34g!2e0!7i3328!8i1664).

Here's what I have for a map so far. I included two levels of APL prevalence to account for states like Maryland (with only one or a few known examples) and Ohio (where APL's exist, but are not yet common statewide). I marked everything that was a Yes on J N Winkler's original list as green; only changing to yellow those for which someone had provided additional insight, so there's a lot of states marked green that may need to switch to yellow (and possibly vice versa).

(https://imgur.com/k60AxOX.jpg)

Nice!

District of Columbia is a yes as well. This sign was installed recently.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8804092,-77.0308657,3a,63.3y,53.88h,87.96t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sdAuWLTNS-HcGif-AIm98ew!2e0!5s20210901T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DdAuWLTNS-HcGif-AIm98ew%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D32.277313%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2021, 04:59:40 PM
Oklahoma is definitely "yes but not consistently"–our first stippled-arrow diagrammatics appeared after the first APL, and I know of two instances where the split arrow on an APL is actually a tiny stippled-arrow diagrammatic!

I want to see them!!!!

Don't recall seeing them in Puerto Rico, someone correct me if I am wrong.

Quote from: SkyPesos on December 16, 2021, 04:14:37 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 16, 2021, 04:05:47 PM
OH  Y

Note that they are pretty rare in Ohio (there's a few each in Youngstown and Toledo, and one in Columbus that I can think of). Otherwise, it might as well have been a no. All of them are in Clearview, and ODOT stopped using Clearview at around 2017 or so, which could mean that they also stopped installing APLs, also considering that this new ugly and confusing way of signing option lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.011162,-82.9056536,3a,45y,70.74h,94.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0k8d6soaK8ai3HoCAnuOTA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) is getting more common.

I believe that the Ohio Turnpike will be getting a bunch more APL signs put up at where the new toll plazas are going (MP 4, MP 49, MP 211, and MP 239)...

Quote from: Tom958 on December 16, 2021, 10:03:21 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2021, 04:59:40 PM
Oklahoma is definitely "yes but not consistently"–our first stippled-arrow diagrammatics appeared after the first APL, and I know of two instances where the split arrow on an APL is actually a tiny stippled-arrow diagrammatic!

I want to see them!!!!

Here's one. Even has the incorrect # of lanes lol

https://maps.app.goo.gl/vKojeAVQTyiLmJLYA

Quote from: plain on December 16, 2021, 11:33:44 PM

Quote from: Tom958 on December 16, 2021, 10:03:21 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2021, 04:59:40 PM
Oklahoma is definitely "yes but not consistently"–our first stippled-arrow diagrammatics appeared after the first APL, and I know of two instances where the split arrow on an APL is actually a tiny stippled-arrow diagrammatic!

I want to see them!!!!

Here's one. Even has the incorrect # of lanes lol

https://maps.app.goo.gl/vKojeAVQTyiLmJLYA

I miss seeing the diagrammatic signs...

Quote from: tolbs17 on December 16, 2021, 11:48:37 PM

Quote from: plain on December 16, 2021, 11:33:44 PM

Quote from: Tom958 on December 16, 2021, 10:03:21 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2021, 04:59:40 PM
Oklahoma is definitely "yes but not consistently"–our first stippled-arrow diagrammatics appeared after the first APL, and I know of two instances where the split arrow on an APL is actually a tiny stippled-arrow diagrammatic!

I want to see them!!!!

Here's one. Even has the incorrect # of lanes lol

https://maps.app.goo.gl/vKojeAVQTyiLmJLYA

I miss seeing the diagrammatic signs...

I don't. Not if the point was to depict lane assignments (the depiction of lanes on diagrammatics is too small to easily determine where each lane goes), which is what most diagrammatics were for. A more appropriate usage would be to depict multiple movements whose advance guide signage would otherwise overlap, or in similarly complex situations.

Quote from: plain on December 16, 2021, 11:33:44 PM

Quote from: Tom958 on December 16, 2021, 10:03:21 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2021, 04:59:40 PM
Oklahoma is definitely "yes but not consistently"–our first stippled-arrow diagrammatics appeared after the first APL, and I know of two instances where the split arrow on an APL is actually a tiny stippled-arrow diagrammatic!

I want to see them!!!!

Here's one. Even has the incorrect # of lanes lol

https://maps.app.goo.gl/vKojeAVQTyiLmJLYA

I think that actually is the correct number of arrows, they're just spaced way too tightly. There's 3 arrows over the center and left center lanes; one of them should be over the far left lane.

Quote from: webny99 on December 17, 2021, 09:50:53 AM

Quote from: plain on December 16, 2021, 11:33:44 PM

Quote from: Tom958 on December 16, 2021, 10:03:21 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2021, 04:59:40 PM
Oklahoma is definitely "yes but not consistently"–our first stippled-arrow diagrammatics appeared after the first APL, and I know of two instances where the split arrow on an APL is actually a tiny stippled-arrow diagrammatic!

I want to see them!!!!

Here's one. Even has the incorrect # of lanes lol

https://maps.app.goo.gl/vKojeAVQTyiLmJLYA

I think that actually is the correct number of arrows, they're just spaced way too tightly. There's 3 arrows over the center and left center lanes; one of them should be over the far left lane.

And the splitting arrow doesn't need the skip lines shown within the arrows!

Quote from: webny99 on December 17, 2021, 09:50:53 AM

Quote from: plain on December 16, 2021, 11:33:44 PM

Quote from: Tom958 on December 16, 2021, 10:03:21 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2021, 04:59:40 PM
Oklahoma is definitely "yes but not consistently"–our first stippled-arrow diagrammatics appeared after the first APL, and I know of two instances where the split arrow on an APL is actually a tiny stippled-arrow diagrammatic!

I want to see them!!!!

Here's one. Even has the incorrect # of lanes lol

https://maps.app.goo.gl/vKojeAVQTyiLmJLYA

I think that actually is the correct number of arrows, they're just spaced way too tightly. There's 3 arrows over the center and left center lanes; one of them should be over the far left lane.

The number of arrows is correct, but the diagrammatic arrow is wrong. The diagrammatic is missing the far left lane.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 17, 2021, 09:56:10 AM

Quote from: webny99 on December 17, 2021, 09:50:53 AM

Quote from: plain on December 16, 2021, 11:33:44 PM
Here's one. Even has the incorrect # of lanes lol

https://maps.app.goo.gl/vKojeAVQTyiLmJLYA

I think that actually is the correct number of arrows, they're just spaced way too tightly. There's 3 arrows over the center and left center lanes; one of them should be over the far left lane.

And the splitting arrow doesn't need the skip lines shown within the arrows!

Haha, I missed that!  :-D

Quote from: 7/8 on December 17, 2021, 09:56:23 AM
The number of arrows is correct, but the diagrammatic arrow is wrong. The diagrammatic is missing the far left lane.

Now I see what you're talking about, but I'll bet most drivers don't even notice it's a diagrammatic, much less that it has the wrong number of lanes!

Quote from: webny99 on December 17, 2021, 10:08:31 AM

Quote from: 7/8 on December 17, 2021, 09:56:23 AM
The number of arrows is correct, but the diagrammatic arrow is wrong. The diagrammatic is missing the far left lane.

Now I see what you're talking about, but I'll bet most drivers don't even notice it's a diagrammatic, much less that it has the wrong number of lanes!

Yeah it's pretty hilarious. It'd be small to read while driving!

I think APL signs would work here. I don't know if this is the right thread for this but whatever...

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8978999,-78.8667071,3a,29.5y,304.79h,91.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0FjjIFtH9xZQFMzm-K2K2A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0FjjIFtH9xZQFMzm-K2K2A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D261.2129%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0167519,-78.8642345,3a,35.1y,244.83h,90.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGiJfQQNGEt8XkD6PPFEdoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Over here, The arrows should be pointing upwards east.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1584648,-77.3518405,3a,45.3y,29.56h,89.75t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJPWHk0MDC449ykp8QT0ihw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DJPWHk0MDC449ykp8QT0ihw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D334.2824%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Quote from: tolbs17 on December 19, 2021, 12:29:17 AM
Over here, The arrows should be pointing upwards east.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1584648,-77.3518405,3a,45.3y,29.56h,89.75t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJPWHk0MDC449ykp8QT0ihw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DJPWHk0MDC449ykp8QT0ihw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D334.2824%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Lots of older signs still have downward pointing arrows at the exit gore. Ohio have a ton of examples, to start off.

Quote from: tolbs17 on December 19, 2021, 12:29:17 AM
I think APL signs would work here. I don't know if this is the right thread for this but whatever...

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8978999,-78.8667071,3a,29.5y,304.79h,91.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0FjjIFtH9xZQFMzm-K2K2A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0FjjIFtH9xZQFMzm-K2K2A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D261.2129%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0167519,-78.8642345,3a,35.1y,244.83h,90.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGiJfQQNGEt8XkD6PPFEdoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Yes for the first one, but it's an older sign from before APLs were adopted.  States don't rush out and immediately replace all their signage when there's a change in the MUTCD.

No for the second one because it's at the gore point where the option lane has already split off.  Install a new gantry several hundred feet upstream before the split, and an APL would be appropriate there.

Idaho got its first set of APL signs at the recently-reconstructed I-84 interchange with I-86 heading EB.

1 mile: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5684206,-113.5445617,3a,75y,83.79h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s60pJWT4wEN0gt7WAG6gVPg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

near the split: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5687575,-113.5341726,3a,15y,82.21h,97.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNW2UZ4iIFPRs363m3GnjmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

at the split: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5691838,-113.5285837,3a,75y,82.21h,97.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9mFPs8weZkhLk5diMWiTRw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 19, 2021, 03:52:03 AM
Idaho got its first set of APL signs at the recently-reconstructed I-84 interchange with I-86 heading EB.

1 mile: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5684206,-113.5445617,3a,75y,83.79h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s60pJWT4wEN0gt7WAG6gVPg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

near the split: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5687575,-113.5341726,3a,15y,82.21h,97.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNW2UZ4iIFPRs363m3GnjmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

at the split: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5691838,-113.5285837,3a,75y,82.21h,97.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9mFPs8weZkhLk5diMWiTRw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

"At the split" in this case is a few hundred feet upstream from where the signs should actually be posted. That sign gantry should have been placed right in front of that new flyover.

Quote from: tolbs17 on December 16, 2021, 11:48:37 PM

Quote from: plain on December 16, 2021, 11:33:44 PM

Quote from: Tom958 on December 16, 2021, 10:03:21 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2021, 04:59:40 PM
Oklahoma is definitely "yes but not consistently"–our first stippled-arrow diagrammatics appeared after the first APL, and I know of two instances where the split arrow on an APL is actually a tiny stippled-arrow diagrammatic!

I want to see them!!!!

Here's one. Even has the incorrect # of lanes lol

https://maps.app.goo.gl/vKojeAVQTyiLmJLYA

I miss seeing the diagrammatic signs...

Go to Kansas. Still plenty of them there.

Quote from: tolbs17 on December 19, 2021, 12:29:17 AM
I think APL signs would work here. I don't know if this is the right thread for this but whatever...

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8978999,-78.8667071,3a,29.5y,304.79h,91.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0FjjIFtH9xZQFMzm-K2K2A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0FjjIFtH9xZQFMzm-K2K2A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D261.2129%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0167519,-78.8642345,3a,35.1y,244.83h,90.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGiJfQQNGEt8XkD6PPFEdoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Over here, The arrows should be pointing upwards east.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1584648,-77.3518405,3a,45.3y,29.56h,89.75t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJPWHk0MDC449ykp8QT0ihw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DJPWHk0MDC449ykp8QT0ihw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D334.2824%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

The first one is not signed correctly as per the current Manual. The display doesn't even acknowledge that there is an option lane.

The second one is correctly signed for an intermediate-level interchange. Pavement markings showing the lane use and the overhead gore sign does have up-tilted arrows over both exiting lanes.

The third one could use some improvement. Agreed the arrows should be up-tilted.

AHEM lets come back to bakersfield

remeber this intersection yep it has APL signs now
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3434522,-119.0395139,3a,19.7y,8.77h,93.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWJSybu0zf94xwt4465rYWQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DWJSybu0zf94xwt4465rYWQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D71.850624%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192


https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3434522,-119.0395139,3a,19.7y,8.77h,93.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWJSybu0zf94xwt4465rYWQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DWJSybu0zf94xwt4465rYWQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D71.850624%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Note the 5th lane are taped due to construction

Interesting that CA has APLs before external exit tabs.

Quote from: webny99 on December 16, 2021, 07:52:58 PM
Here's what I have for a map so far. I included two levels of APL prevalence to account for states like Maryland (with only one or a few known examples) and Ohio (where APL's exist, but are not yet common statewide). I marked everything that was a Yes on J N Winkler's original list as green; only changing to yellow those for which someone had provided additional insight, so there's a lot of states marked green that may need to switch to yellow (and possibly vice versa).

(https://imgur.com/k60AxOX.jpg)

I would agree that Texas needs to be switched to yellow. You'll find some  (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7782883,-95.6445365,3a,75y,359.58h,91.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sz4nyD0JSUG2JBjq9IQepvQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) wacky (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6801315,-95.3893968,3a,25.6y,74.27h,90.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-2wDDFgkrzyPpYPtHoXZuA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) examples here and there, but in general, Texas does not use them. Most new freeway signage looks somewhat like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7252807,-95.3753312,3a,75y,46.89h,91.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNt8ciKwztLzbvkG7gdC1RQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).

Quote from: CoreySamson on December 20, 2021, 04:27:18 PM
I would agree that Texas needs to be switched to yellow. You'll find some  (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7782883,-95.6445365,3a,75y,359.58h,91.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sz4nyD0JSUG2JBjq9IQepvQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) wacky (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6801315,-95.3893968,3a,25.6y,74.27h,90.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-2wDDFgkrzyPpYPtHoXZuA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) examples here and there, but in general, Texas does not use them. Most new freeway signage looks somewhat like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7252807,-95.3753312,3a,75y,46.89h,91.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNt8ciKwztLzbvkG7gdC1RQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).

That second example doesn't appear to have option lanes, so an APL wouldn't be warranted anyway...

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 19, 2021, 03:52:03 AM
Idaho got its first set of APL signs at the recently-reconstructed I-84 interchange with I-86 heading EB.

1 mile: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5684206,-113.5445617,3a,75y,83.79h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s60pJWT4wEN0gt7WAG6gVPg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

near the split: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5687575,-113.5341726,3a,15y,82.21h,97.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNW2UZ4iIFPRs363m3GnjmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
...

Interesting. A lane gets added as the APL series progresses. You don't see that too much, but I-490 WB at NY/I-390 is similar: first two lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1571694,-77.6563648,3a,75y,275.57h,82.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNyjSr32t9X_1_oWGCDPCQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1), then three (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.157631,-77.6642202,3a,75y,269.54h,90.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0tfedJISLVkoJeu5nV-7Jw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) after the exit only lane comes in.

Here's an updated map with status changes for ID, TX, KS, and DC. I also demoted PA, as they aren't consistent with their use of APL's.
We're down to 6 states with no known APL's.

(https://imgur.com/9PxwNym.jpg)

Are we sure about Illinois?  I've seen them used commonly on new Illinois Tollways (ISTHA), but I don't think I've seen any on IDOT freeways.

I question NJ with 'sometimes'.  They usually will use them when signage is reconstructed, but when replacing signage in-kind it's a bit more hit or miss.  So they actively use them...but they won't replace good signage just to put up an APL.

Another example...  https://goo.gl/maps/ChgKKgSXQuaeLTX69

What's the distinction between "frequently" and "sometimes"? The MUTCD only calls for APLs in specific conditions (i.e. an option lane) while some users on here are using non-option lane exits as evidence of a state "sometimes" or "not" using APLs. Plus many states still have signs from before the 2009 MUTCD that are not yet due to be replaced.

And one can easily go here - https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5768427,-74.5771561,3a,89.4y,95.99h,91.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjVNiq8xx9c4eKubg3ttTlA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 19, 2021, 03:52:03 AMIdaho got its first set of APL signs at the recently-reconstructed I-84 interchange with I-86 heading EB.

1 mile: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5684206,-113.5445617,3a,75y,83.79h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s60pJWT4wEN0gt7WAG6gVPg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

near the split: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5687575,-113.5341726,3a,15y,82.21h,97.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNW2UZ4iIFPRs363m3GnjmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

at the split: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5691838,-113.5285837,3a,75y,82.21h,97.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9mFPs8weZkhLk5diMWiTRw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Thanks for these--I've updated the list accordingly.

Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 21, 2021, 10:56:37 AMAre we sure about Illinois?  I've seen them used commonly on new Illinois Tollways (ISTHA), but I don't think I've seen any on IDOT freeways.

Illinois DOT uses them.

(https://i.imgur.com/aLU7P0d.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/t72V2dn.png)

Quote from: CoreySamson on December 20, 2021, 04:27:18 PMI would agree that Texas needs to be switched to yellow. You'll find some  (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7782883,-95.6445365,3a,75y,359.58h,91.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sz4nyD0JSUG2JBjq9IQepvQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) wacky (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6801315,-95.3893968,3a,25.6y,74.27h,90.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-2wDDFgkrzyPpYPtHoXZuA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) examples here and there, but in general, Texas does not use them. Most new freeway signage looks somewhat like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7252807,-95.3753312,3a,75y,46.89h,91.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNt8ciKwztLzbvkG7gdC1RQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).

I wouldn't classify the arrow-block diagrammatics at the first two links as APLs.  In any event, they are specific to the Houston district, where they were used for years (possibly decades) before APLs came on the scene.  Here is a bona fide example of a TxDOT APL:

(https://i.imgur.com/GmS6ykj.png)

Quote from: ran4sh on December 21, 2021, 11:33:21 PM
What's the distinction between "frequently" and "sometimes"? The MUTCD only calls for APLs in specific conditions (i.e. an option lane) while some users on here are using non-option lane exits as evidence of a state "sometimes" or "not" using APLs. Plus many states still have signs from before the 2009 MUTCD that are not yet due to be replaced.

I had been just going off what I knew and what others had posted. It seemed worthwhile to distinguish between states where there's just one or two examples (North Dakota, Idaho) vs. where they're the norm. But if all 44 states that use APL's are doing so on all new installs, maybe it's a pointless distinction.

Also, as far as I know, neither Wyoming nor South Dakota has any option lanes at all, so it's no surprise that there are no APL's in those states.

Quote from: webny99 on December 22, 2021, 11:22:08 AM
Also, as far as I know, neither Wyoming nor South Dakota has any option lanes at all, so it's no surprise that there are no APL's in those states.

That's true but they could still use APLs if they use them in a non-compliant way like some other states have done. For example Georgia uses APLs for some major interchanges that don't have an option lane, while some other states use APLs to depict an exit as well as a downstream split on the ramp.

Quote from: webny99 on December 22, 2021, 11:22:08 AMAlso, as far as I know, neither Wyoming nor South Dakota has any option lanes at all, so it's no surprise that there are no APL's in those states.

South Dakota DOT started putting construction plans online around 2005 and, over the years, I have accumulated about 2300 sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets.  Not one of them is for an APL, but several are for stippled-arrow diagrammatics, including one at Exit 77/41st Street on I-29 southbound in Sioux Falls (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5277547,-96.7807213,3a,67.7y,172.71h,92.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn6fNd56nyI1T5zPEGOx1ug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), which is a high-volume service interchange (not a system interchange) and does have an option lane.  All of this, taken together, makes me suspect a policy decision not to use APLs.

Quote from: webny99 on December 17, 2021, 10:08:31 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 17, 2021, 09:56:10 AM

Quote from: webny99 on December 17, 2021, 09:50:53 AM

Quote from: plain on December 16, 2021, 11:33:44 PM
Here's one. Even has the incorrect # of lanes lol

https://maps.app.goo.gl/vKojeAVQTyiLmJLYA

I think that actually is the correct number of arrows, they're just spaced way too tightly. There's 3 arrows over the center and left center lanes; one of them should be over the far left lane.

And the splitting arrow doesn't need the skip lines shown within the arrows!

Haha, I missed that!  :-D

Quote from: 7/8 on December 17, 2021, 09:56:23 AM
The number of arrows is correct, but the diagrammatic arrow is wrong. The diagrammatic is missing the far left lane.

Now I see what you're talking about, but I'll bet most drivers don't even notice it's a diagrammatic, much less that it has the wrong number of lanes!

The whole point of APL is to be rid of diagrammatic symbols.  How very Oklahoma to still include it (and have it be wrong anyway).

Quote from: webny99 on December 22, 2021, 11:22:08 AM
Also, as far as I know, neither Wyoming nor South Dakota has any option lanes at all

Wyoming has at least one option lane in Casper. It is signed with diagrammatics upstream (https://goo.gl/maps/S5TtY5i6TKwHcPVy5) and with down arrows at the actual split (https://goo.gl/maps/N2KEJ6mvn65wDmmSA).

Good to know. I figured this would be the place to find out if there are option lanes in those states, and it turns out it's a yes for both (although a reaffirmed no for APL's).

Quote from: webny99 on December 21, 2021, 10:37:32 AM
Here's an updated map with status changes for ID, TX, KS, and DC. I also demoted PA, as they aren't consistent with their use of APL's.
We're down to 6 states with no known APL's.

(https://imgur.com/9PxwNym.jpg)

I would also demote Nebraska into the yellow spot due to them having one APL location in the whole state, which is I-80 heading WB at the I-76 junction.

APL on the approach to the North Terminal at Detroit Metro Airport:

(https://i.imgur.com/61iUP9G.jpg)

I'm no expert on this, but two examples upthread got me interested...apologies as I'm sure this has been touched on before.
I think my question boils down to "what are you supposed to do when you have a 2nd close downstream diverge?  Should one sign attempt to talk about all three paths, or just the gore you're approaching first?" 

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 22, 2021, 01:22:57 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/aLU7P0d.png)

So if you want to go to Rockford or Milwaukee the arrow points the same way (straight) ...maybe that diverge happens further downstream but it seems strange to have the same direction.  Is that technically permissible by MUTCD?

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 22, 2021, 01:22:57 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/GmS6ykj.png)

This one seems really wacky to me, I don't know that I've ever seen a non-option arrow under the top vertical dividing line.  Is that common?  Here it is in real life: https://www.google.com/maps/@31.7660986,-106.4826269,3a,43.7y,233.12h,97.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8P2mtbDapyg89aetZiR6SQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
So they've done this because lane 3 is going to become an option lane at the next diverge.  Similar to above, it does feel weird to have two different exits denoted with the same arrow, but is that the intent of MUTCD?  On the other hand though, this does make sense about the gore you're approaching (and the downstream sign talks about the next gore).

How do other places deal with the "two diverges" issue?  Is there a "right" and "wrong" way per MUTCD, or is it more art than science?  Is MUTCD going to be changed to deal with this in future? 

So the IL and TX examples above opt to treat the upstream sign as only diagramming the first gore, the very first post in this thread shows a KS example where the single sign diagrams both gores:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9348021,-94.7371684,3a,75y,102.41h,95.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv41xGStk7wOGINtLk7eyGQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The MUTCD is deficient on that issue, it says that the sign must not depict more than one split, or a downstream split after a ramp, ignoring that there are situations where this is necessary in order to provide drivers with sufficient advance notice. It might be that since FHWA doesn't support such close interchanges/splits being built, they also don't say anything about how to design signage for such.

Edit

That Kansas example is so tall that most states would never do that. Especially if they also had to include destinations or control cities along with the route markers.

Quote from: webny99 on November 30, 2021, 05:06:08 PM
Here's a four-way APL on I-630 at I-430 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7474131,-92.3775809,3a,49y,288.39h,85.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D291.42633%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) 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.

Since the right exit is just a single (non-dropped) lane, I'm not really sure why it even needs to be on that sign.  And why doesn't lane 5 get the "exit only"?  If I'm thinking about this right, they need a downstream sign to show lane 4 isn't truly just through, but through-right to 430N (as you can see in below pic).  I wonder if having a "fourth" direction would be worth potential driver confusion if it saves you a whole extra sign... like a "squished" version of the KS example.  (top is real, bottom is my thought)
(https://i.imgur.com/ffNgBYq.png)

If you go a little further west you see a unique sign, I guess for the drivers coming on from the loop ramp? similar to the Minny option lane signs:
https://goo.gl/maps/1MtQXWAgXUB12Gfb7

and then further west the left exit doesn't get "exit only" and number, but right does... (opposite of the earlier sign for some reason)
https://goo.gl/maps/zeZjkuuZNdWAQQVy7

^^  The existing sign (not your modification) correctly shows the lane usage at the point where the sign is located.  This is where the MUTCD needs to get off its high horse about APL design and acknowledge actual lane alignment.

Remember the old New Jersey Turnpike arrow? Let's get it, but make it a two-headed Broadway star. Put it under your divider line, and the idea is clear enough, isn't it?

(https://i.imgur.com/brbtNOv.png)

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 09, 2022, 06:44:23 PM
Remember the old New Jersey Turnpike arrow? Let's get it, but make it a two-headed Broadway star. Put it under your divider line, and the idea is clear enough, isn't it?

(https://i.imgur.com/brbtNOv.png)

An arrow like this is proposed in the new MUTCD. But it is only mentioned for toll booth splits.

Quote from: johndoe on January 09, 2022, 10:06:34 AM
I'm no expert on this, but two examples upthread got me interested...apologies as I'm sure this has been touched on before.
I think my question boils down to "what are you supposed to do when you have a 2nd close downstream diverge?  Should one sign attempt to talk about all three paths, or just the gore you're approaching first?" 

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 22, 2021, 01:22:57 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/aLU7P0d.png)

So if you want to go to Rockford or Milwaukee the arrow points the same way (straight) ...maybe that diverge happens further downstream but it seems strange to have the same direction.  Is that technically permissible by MUTCD?

Rockford-Milwaukee is a bodge resulting from the desire to correctly show the option lane exit to I-190 while providing a shoutout to the i-294 exit on the right less than a mile downstream. It's not compliant, but I suppose that the Feds signed off on it anyway due to the seeming lack of a better option.

Unfortunately, the three straight arrows bear no resemblance to what the lanes actually do: all three lanes continue onto I-90, and the I-294 exit is a simple one-lane right side offramp with a rather inexplicable decel lane. IMO, what should've been done here is to use an APL upstream, but conventional signage at the split: an arrowless pullthrough for I-90, an arrowless EXIT 77 3/4 MILE for I-294, and a sign with two diagonally upward arrows for I-190. Doing that would've eliminated the need to cram too much information into not enough space. Unfortunately, the MUTCD allows that only as a temporary measure.

Quote from: johndoeThis one seems really wacky to me, I don't know that I've ever seen a non-option arrow under the top vertical dividing line.  Is that common?  Here it is in real life: https://www.google.com/maps/@31.7660986,-106.4826269,3a,43.7y,233.12h,97.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8P2mtbDapyg89aetZiR6SQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
So they've done this because lane 3 is going to become an option lane at the next diverge.  Similar to above, it does feel weird to have two different exits denoted with the same arrow, but is that the intent of MUTCD?  On the other hand though, this does make sense about the gore you're approaching (and the downstream sign talks about the next gore).

There's nothing at all wrong with this sign. It could be an example in the MUTCD of how to do it.

Quote from: johndoeHow do other places deal with the "two diverges" issue?  Is there a "right" and "wrong" way per MUTCD, or is it more art than science?  Is MUTCD going to be changed to deal with this in future? 

So the IL and TX examples above opt to treat the upstream sign as only diagramming the first gore, the very first post in this thread shows a KS example where the single sign diagrams both gores:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9348021,-94.7371684,3a,75y,102.41h,95.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv41xGStk7wOGINtLk7eyGQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

To answer your question snarkily but honestly and accurately, sometimes they just screw it up by making things harder than they actually are. That Kansas mess is an excellent illustration of that. Why did they decide to add the absolutely ordinary left and right turns at the top of an absolutely ordinary service offramp to an APL on the mainline?  :pan: Dump that useless crap and do it like this. Problem solved.  :clap:

Quote from: Tom958 on January 09, 2022, 08:12:58 PM
To answer your question snarkily but honestly and accurately, sometimes they just screw it up by making things harder than they actually are. That Kansas mess is an excellent illustration of that. Why did they decide to add the absolutely ordinary left and right turns at the top of an absolutely ordinary service offramp to an APL on the mainline?  :pan: Dump that useless crap and do it like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.7660986,-106.4826269,3a,43.7y,233.12h,97.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8P2mtbDapyg89aetZiR6SQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Problem solved.  :clap:

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. If I were driving through there for the first time I would be avoiding that lane entirely out of uncertainty.

I had to go back into my Imgur archives to find how I approached multiple exit lanes on APLs. Basically, I just used two different angles for arrows. Not ideal for sure:

(https://i.imgur.com/68v3Ewe.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/cmFTmtX.png)

This is just my opinion, but I think Arkansas' approach of straight arrows separated by a partial divider line works just fine.

Quote from: US 89 on January 10, 2022, 09:21:34 AMThat 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.

Quote from: Tom958 on January 10, 2022, 05:38:53 PM

Quote from: US 89 on January 10, 2022, 09:21:34 AMThat 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.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 10, 2022, 06:47:13 PM

Quote from: Tom958 on January 10, 2022, 05:38:53 PM

Quote from: US 89 on January 10, 2022, 09:21:34 AMThat 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.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 10, 2022, 06:47:13 PM

Quote from: Tom958 on January 10, 2022, 05:38:53 PM

Quote from: US 89 on January 10, 2022, 09:21:34 AMThat 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.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 10, 2022, 07:36:00 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 10, 2022, 06:47:13 PM

Quote from: Tom958 on January 10, 2022, 05:38:53 PM

Quote from: US 89 on January 10, 2022, 09:21:34 AMThat 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)

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:

(https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/0/0d/Calif-22-calif-57-possible-diagrammatic.png)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2Fb%2Fbe%2FCalif-22-calif-57-possible-diagrammatic-7.png&hash=e34355ec3f459ba4acd3e8e3c95ef07de022c0f4)

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...

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

(https://i.imgur.com/KMJA0i6.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/oPHaFT9.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/YwcRTxy.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/HgwFmgu.png)

---

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

(https://i.imgur.com/VVfFrIn.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/ENq16Br.png)

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.

Quote from: SignBridge on January 11, 2022, 08:59:12 PM
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.

Quote from: SignBridge on January 11, 2022, 08:59:12 PM
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:  :hmmm:
(https://i.imgur.com/EOo9udj.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/rpzWZuL.png)
note that in the second image, the leftmost exit sign is over an option lane, so an "exit only" arrow is misleading

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.

Quote from: SignBridge on January 11, 2022, 09:44:33 PM
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.

Quote from: ran4sh on January 12, 2022, 11:26:57 AM

Quote from: SignBridge on January 11, 2022, 09:44:33 PM
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.

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:

(https://i.imgur.com/objOEI7.jpg)

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on January 13, 2022, 01:42:20 AM
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:

(https://i.imgur.com/objOEI7.jpg)

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

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.

Quote from: ran4sh on January 13, 2022, 03:55:26 PM
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.

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. .

If the lack of cardinal directions bothers you on that one, don't look at the actual APLs on the northbound side (https://imgur.com/TyqnUE9).  :-D  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.

Quote from: SkyPesos on January 11, 2022, 09:24:29 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on January 11, 2022, 08:59:12 PM
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:  :hmmm:
(https://i.imgur.com/EOo9udj.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/rpzWZuL.png)
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.

Quote from: PurdueBill on January 18, 2022, 11:19:45 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on January 11, 2022, 09:24:29 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on January 11, 2022, 08:59:12 PM
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:  :hmmm:
(https://i.imgur.com/EOo9udj.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/rpzWZuL.png)
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.

Quote from: roadfro on January 19, 2022, 12:14:04 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: SkyPesos on January 11, 2022, 09:24:29 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on January 11, 2022, 08:59:12 PM
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:  :hmmm:
(https://i.imgur.com/EOo9udj.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/rpzWZuL.png)
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?

Quote from: stormwatch7721 on January 19, 2022, 08:56:09 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on January 11, 2022, 09:24:29 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on January 11, 2022, 08:59:12 PM
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:  :hmmm:
(https://i.imgur.com/EOo9udj.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/rpzWZuL.png)
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.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 01, 2021, 03:43:52 PM

Quote from: webny99 on November 30, 2021, 05:06:08 PM
Here's a four-way APL on I-630 at I-430 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7474131,-92.3775809,3a,49y,288.39h,85.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D291.42633%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) 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.

Quote from: webny99 on January 19, 2022, 09:04:34 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on December 01, 2021, 03:43:52 PM

Quote from: webny99 on November 30, 2021, 05:06:08 PM
Here's a four-way APL on I-630 at I-430 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7474131,-92.3775809,3a,49y,288.39h,85.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D291.42633%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) 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.

Quote from: US 89 on January 20, 2022, 12:23:56 PM

Quote from: webny99 on November 30, 2021, 05:06:08 PM
Here's a four-way APL on I-630 at I-430 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7474131,-92.3775809,3a,49y,288.39h,85.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D291.42633%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) near Little Rock. ...

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.

Maybe we need a poll on this. I don't read it that way at all. Ideally the arrow would be perfectly lined up with the divider, but it being ever so slightly to the left doesn't change my interpretation of the sign.

Quote from: webny99 on January 20, 2022, 02:02:37 PM

Quote from: US 89 on January 20, 2022, 12:23:56 PM

Quote from: webny99 on November 30, 2021, 05:06:08 PM
Here's a four-way APL on I-630 at I-430 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7474131,-92.3775809,3a,49y,288.39h,85.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D291.42633%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) near Little Rock. ...

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.

Maybe we need a poll on this. I don't read it that way at all. Ideally the arrow would be perfectly lined up with the divider, but it being ever so slightly to the left doesn't change my interpretation of the sign.

I don't see how you interpret an arrow pointing into Shackleford as "oh that might actually also go to 430". The straight components of the other split arrowheads carry meaning based on which side of the divider they’re on. And even if the one between 430 north and Shackleford were right under the divider, I'd just avoid that lane out of uncertainty.

That also seems to go against the whole point of APLs. If one APL arrow-head can refer to more than one destination, I don't see how that is any better than the down arrows that were supposedly so confusing they are no longer allowed. Sure, they were clumsy and maybe not the clearest, but they were capable of giving a complete picture of what lanes went where and allowing drivers to plan accordingly. There are probably ways to design APL signs to do that, but I don't think any of them are currently MUTCD kosher.

Here's an example of something that I don't think is technically allowed but makes more sense: I-15 northbound in Sandy, UT (https://goo.gl/maps/dPkRcF1vzd6jahM99). Sure, it has a right and straight arrow pointing to the same destination, but at least it doesn't hide that general purpose lane 3 is in fact an option lane.

Quote from: US 89 on January 20, 2022, 06:53:30 PM
Here's an example of something that I don't think is technically allowed but makes more sense: I-15 northbound in Sandy, UT (https://goo.gl/maps/dPkRcF1vzd6jahM99). Sure, it has a right and straight arrow pointing to the same destination, but at least it doesn't hide that general purpose lane 3 is in fact an option lane.

I dig this sign except for the EXIT ONLY above the rightmost option (UT 209). I mean I get their thinking with it but it could've been left out.

Quote from: SkyPesos on January 19, 2022, 08:58:07 PM

Quote from: stormwatch7721 on January 19, 2022, 08:56:09 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on January 11, 2022, 09:24:29 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on January 11, 2022, 08:59:12 PM
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:  :hmmm:
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.

Columbus has more of those arrays than is probably good (with more examples like 270 SB approaching 70 but fewer signs across), but Dayton has seen them arrive (e.g., I-75 approaching the I-70 exit with 3 signs; one for WB, one for both, one for EB).  The ones pictured are the jackpot, though.

Quote from: US 89 on January 20, 2022, 06:53:30 PM

Quote from: webny99 on January 20, 2022, 02:02:37 PM

Quote from: US 89 on January 20, 2022, 12:23:56 PM

Quote from: webny99 on November 30, 2021, 05:06:08 PM
Here's a four-way APL on I-630 at I-430 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7474131,-92.3775809,3a,49y,288.39h,85.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D291.42633%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) near Little Rock. ...

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.

Maybe we need a poll on this. I don't read it that way at all. Ideally the arrow would be perfectly lined up with the divider, but it being ever so slightly to the left doesn't change my interpretation of the sign.

I don't see how you interpret an arrow pointing into Shackleford as "oh that might actually also go to 430". The straight components of the other split arrowheads carry meaning based on which side of the divider they're on. And even if the one between 430 north and Shackleford were right under the divider, I'd just avoid that lane out of uncertainty.
...

Here's an example of something that I don't think is technically allowed but makes more sense: I-15 northbound in Sandy, UT (https://goo.gl/maps/dPkRcF1vzd6jahM99). Sure, it has a right and straight arrow pointing to the same destination, but at least it doesn't hide that general purpose lane 3 is in fact an option lane.

I interpret the arrow as pointing towards the divider, which means that it could go to either destination. I don't see how it's any different from this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7328087,-93.2832945,3a,49y,359.1h,89.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXab0tIUQ1PhTSxsktdzccQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1), just with the arrows pointing up instead of down.

I like the Utah example a lot. I wouldn't be opposed to a split arrow like this on the Arkansas sign, as it's definitely a bit clearer, but I just don't think it makes that much of a difference either way.

Quote from: plain on January 20, 2022, 08:11:52 PM
I dig this sign except for the EXIT ONLY above the rightmost option (UT 209). I mean I get their thinking with it but it could've been left out.

Actually, that "EXIT ONLY" could just be shifted down to the bottom to match the other two. I'm fine with it being there since it is technically an exit lane, but I can't see any reason why it needs to be situated near the top of the arrow.

Quote from: PurdueBill on January 20, 2022, 11:40:29 PM
Columbus has more of those arrays than is probably good (with more examples like 270 SB approaching 70 but fewer signs across), but Dayton has seen them arrive (e.g., I-75 approaching the I-70 exit with 3 signs; one for WB, one for both, one for EB).  The ones pictured are the jackpot, though.

I wonder if this started out as an ODOT D6 thing. I don't recall seeing any of those in my home ODOT district (D8), only seen them in Columbus.

Quote from: webny99 on January 21, 2022, 08:21:13 AM

Quote from: US 89 on January 20, 2022, 06:53:30 PM

Quote from: webny99 on January 20, 2022, 02:02:37 PM

Quote from: US 89 on January 20, 2022, 12:23:56 PM

Quote from: webny99 on November 30, 2021, 05:06:08 PM
Here's a four-way APL on I-630 at I-430 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7474131,-92.3775809,3a,49y,288.39h,85.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0G004K3zA7c2gv7NsfOoYQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D291.42633%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) near Little Rock. ...

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.

Maybe we need a poll on this. I don't read it that way at all. Ideally the arrow would be perfectly lined up with the divider, but it being ever so slightly to the left doesn't change my interpretation of the sign.

I don't see how you interpret an arrow pointing into Shackleford as "oh that might actually also go to 430". The straight components of the other split arrowheads carry meaning based on which side of the divider they're on. And even if the one between 430 north and Shackleford were right under the divider, I'd just avoid that lane out of uncertainty.
...

Here's an example of something that I don't think is technically allowed but makes more sense: I-15 northbound in Sandy, UT (https://goo.gl/maps/dPkRcF1vzd6jahM99). Sure, it has a right and straight arrow pointing to the same destination, but at least it doesn't hide that general purpose lane 3 is in fact an option lane.

I interpret the arrow as pointing towards the divider, which means that it could go to either destination. I don't see how it's any different from this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7328087,-93.2832945,3a,49y,359.1h,89.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXab0tIUQ1PhTSxsktdzccQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1), just with the arrows pointing up instead of down.

I like the Utah example a lot. I wouldn't be opposed to a split arrow like this on the Arkansas sign, as it's definitely a bit clearer, but I just don't think it makes that much of a difference either way.

Quote from: plain on January 20, 2022, 08:11:52 PM
I dig this sign except for the EXIT ONLY above the rightmost option (UT 209). I mean I get their thinking with it but it could've been left out.

Actually, that "EXIT ONLY" could just be shifted down to the bottom to match the other two. I'm fine with it being there since it is technically an exit lane, but I can't see any reason why it needs to be situated near the top of the arrow.

Because it's not "exit only" at the first exit (which is what the "exit only" at the bottom of the right arrows are referring to).

Quote from: webny99 on January 21, 2022, 08:21:13 AM

Quote from: US 89 on January 20, 2022, 06:53:30 PM
I don't see how you interpret an arrow pointing into Shackleford as "oh that might actually also go to 430". The straight components of the other split arrowheads carry meaning based on which side of the divider they're on. And even if the one between 430 north and Shackleford were right under the divider, I'd just avoid that lane out of uncertainty.
...

Here's an example of something that I don't think is technically allowed but makes more sense: I-15 northbound in Sandy, UT (https://goo.gl/maps/dPkRcF1vzd6jahM99). Sure, it has a right and straight arrow pointing to the same destination, but at least it doesn't hide that general purpose lane 3 is in fact an option lane.

I interpret the arrow as pointing towards the divider, which means that it could go to either destination. I don't see how it's any different from this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7328087,-93.2832945,3a,49y,359.1h,89.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXab0tIUQ1PhTSxsktdzccQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1), just with the arrows pointing up instead of down.

I like the Utah example a lot. I wouldn't be opposed to a split arrow like this on the Arkansas sign, as it's definitely a bit clearer, but I just don't think it makes that much of a difference either way.

Just wanted to say that I was also interpreting the up arrow as pointing towards the vertical divider; it's not that uncommon for some slight misalignment; WSDOT dramatically messed up (https://goo.gl/maps/9XhkCxLUfSk1AWyG6) on I-5 in Tacoma, but I think people are figuring it out.

As to the right hook-arrow pointing at the straight-up arrow, I can't say I'm a fan. It achieves the APL goal of "one arrowhead per possible exit" but at the cost of being a bit bizarre to look at. I think there's a better way.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 21, 2022, 04:31:05 PM

Quote from: webny99 on January 21, 2022, 08:21:13 AM

Quote from: US 89 on January 20, 2022, 06:53:30 PM
I don't see how you interpret an arrow pointing into Shackleford as "oh that might actually also go to 430". The straight components of the other split arrowheads carry meaning based on which side of the divider they're on. And even if the one between 430 north and Shackleford were right under the divider, I'd just avoid that lane out of uncertainty.
...

Here's an example of something that I don't think is technically allowed but makes more sense: I-15 northbound in Sandy, UT (https://goo.gl/maps/dPkRcF1vzd6jahM99). Sure, it has a right and straight arrow pointing to the same destination, but at least it doesn't hide that general purpose lane 3 is in fact an option lane.

I interpret the arrow as pointing towards the divider, which means that it could go to either destination. I don't see how it's any different from this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7328087,-93.2832945,3a,49y,359.1h,89.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXab0tIUQ1PhTSxsktdzccQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1), just with the arrows pointing up instead of down.

I like the Utah example a lot. I wouldn't be opposed to a split arrow like this on the Arkansas sign, as it's definitely a bit clearer, but I just don't think it makes that much of a difference either way.

Just wanted to say that I was also interpreting the up arrow as pointing towards the vertical divider; it's not that uncommon for some slight misalignment; WSDOT dramatically messed up (https://goo.gl/maps/9XhkCxLUfSk1AWyG6) on I-5 in Tacoma, but I think people are figuring it out.

As to the right hook-arrow pointing at the straight-up arrow, I can't say I'm a fan. It achieves the APL goal of "one arrowhead per possible exit" but at the cost of being a bit bizarre to look at. I think there's a better way.

The #4 lane points to the divider.  It does lead to being an option lane for Shackleford or 430 north.  Probably a better way to indicate that would be a two-headed arrow with one base.  Both arrows pointing striaght ahead, but one slightly to the left and the other slightly to the right, to correctly indicate that this lane goes to two different destinations that happen to be straight at this point. 

The following sign makes it clear that this lane indeed is ofr either Shackleford or 430 north, but I believe the whole idea with an arrow per lane, is one arrow for each lane.  And arrowheads denoting different directions.

Not that anyone cares, but I've been avoiding this thread because it blows me away that there's anyone on this planet, let alone posting in this thread, who can't comprehend that a straight arrow pointing directly toward a dividing line indicates that the lane is an option lane that will split between the two indicated destinations downstream of and separate from the divergence indicated by the split arrow. And, conversely, if the dividing line is between two straight arrows rather than directly under one, it means that there's no option lane (or it could mean that the designers didn't know what they were doing, or that there wasn't enough room for a by-the-book way of doing what they wanted to do, but that's a separate issue). That's a matter of my emotional reaction to hard-to-process information. Whatever, Tom.

HOWEVER...

My understanding is that, in developing the APL scheme now in use, the concept was tested against both conventional signage and this Minnesota unisign scheme (https://goo.gl/maps/tL3emDoRBiAjAFVc7). Under that scheme, there's no reason for the dividing line to be anywhere other than directly over the option lane arrow because if there's no option lane, they'd use separate signs, as shown here (https://goo.gl/maps/r63tNuUTZa1XuR3Z6). The logic of APLs is similar-- just the style of arrow is different.

Personally, I think that the Minnesota scheme is the best of the three, but testing found that it was inferior to APLs. That's why APLs are in the 2009 MUTCD and Minnesota-style unisigns aren't. It just occurred to me that the reason that the Minnesota scheme was found inferior to APLs is that the subset of drivers who are unable to comprehend the meaning of an arrow aligned exactly with a dividing line is a lot larger than I would've thought, and that whatever testing was done didn't pick up on that, possibly because only single splits were tested. It'd be nice to know if that was the case. Circumstantial evidence certainly suggests that not enough effort was put into deciding how to sign two option lane-lane drops in sequence, let alone into communicating a consistent policy to designers.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 21, 2022, 04:31:05 PMJust wanted to say that I was also interpreting the up arrow as pointing towards the vertical divider; it's not that uncommon for some slight misalignment; WSDOT dramatically messed up (https://goo.gl/maps/9XhkCxLUfSk1AWyG6) on I-5 in Tacoma, but I think people are figuring it out.

That's really heinous. To me, it looks like the design was correct because the divider line is in the right place, but the fabricator took it upon themself to move the split arrow to where they thought it should go.

It's the same effect as this mess in Dacula, GA (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11045.msg2703554#msg2703554), but the one in Georgia was apparently deliberate, the result of the designer trying to depict a split downstream on the offramp.

(https://i.imgur.com/fkpCOD4.jpg?1)

That type of signing is very common in California. I actually thought that was the location in the photo 'til I read it was in Georgia.

Been awful quiet here lately. Is everybody hibernating for the winter? LOL

Quote from: SignBridge on February 14, 2022, 07:51:24 PM
Been awful quiet here lately. Is everybody hibernating for the winter? LOL

Unless people don't have anything to say, but that's just my guess.

But anyways, I think both of these locations would be good candidates for APL signs.

https://goo.gl/maps/dCchtgJ1sonfGxBw5

https://goo.gl/maps/GeSfWuFw6yGRiM648

Quote from: tolbs17 on February 14, 2022, 08:15:11 PMBut anyways, I think both of these locations would be good candidates for APL signs.

https://goo.gl/maps/dCchtgJ1sonfGxBw5

https://goo.gl/maps/GeSfWuFw6yGRiM648

The second is signed correctly per Section 2E.23 of the MUTCD, found on page 203 of this document (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2e.pdf). An illustration is on page 204. The first is similar, though the down arrows rather than diagonally upward arrows for the exit are dated. In case you're wondering, I had to look up the MUTCD section because I didn't remember how long the added lane had to be before it was regarded as a normal lane. It's half a mile, and neither of your examples exceeds that. 

I'd be good with using an APL at the point of divergence, but that's not the rule.

Sometimes when they make optional lanes, they don't always install APL signs. For example:  https://goo.gl/maps/jPR58pGd6sfBxFtc8

Unless it was too big or because of the bridge, but this is what I found. https://goo.gl/maps/qcYALYsQUtQNN9xq5

One can go here but this is an older sign and I don't know when TDOT plans to replace these. https://goo.gl/maps/XQiYRurk5g5o8gYG6

Same for here: https://goo.gl/maps/m8ry74BA2dzZvC537

In those first two photos from North Carolina, I don't see any option lanes there. Looks like the two (and then three) left lanes are for exit only and the three right lanes are thru lanes. And I'd say NC DOT did a nice job on those signs. They look excellent.

Quote from: SignBridge on March 04, 2022, 08:09:29 PM
In those first two photos from North Carolina, I don't see any option lanes there. Looks like the two (and then three) left lanes are for exit only and the three right lanes are thru lanes. And I'd say NC DOT did a nice job on those signs. They look excellent.

Kinda noticed that now. The left two lanes are exit only with a third one adding up before the split.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on December 19, 2021, 02:22:54 AM

Quote from: tolbs17 on December 19, 2021, 12:29:17 AM
I think APL signs would work here. I don't know if this is the right thread for this but whatever...

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8978999,-78.8667071,3a,29.5y,304.79h,91.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0FjjIFtH9xZQFMzm-K2K2A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0FjjIFtH9xZQFMzm-K2K2A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D261.2129%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0167519,-78.8642345,3a,35.1y,244.83h,90.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGiJfQQNGEt8XkD6PPFEdoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Yes for the first one, but it's an older sign from before APLs were adopted.  States don't rush out and immediately replace all their signage when there's a change in the MUTCD.

Recent signing plans show that an APL is not going there. Kind of random but it is what it is.

Montana has finally entered the APL game with its first install put up on I-90 westbound between exits 452 and 450 in Billings!

Quote from: tolbs17 on March 04, 2022, 08:45:58 PM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on December 19, 2021, 02:22:54 AM

Quote from: tolbs17 on December 19, 2021, 12:29:17 AM
I think APL signs would work here. I don't know if this is the right thread for this but whatever...

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8978999,-78.8667071,3a,29.5y,304.79h,91.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0FjjIFtH9xZQFMzm-K2K2A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0FjjIFtH9xZQFMzm-K2K2A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D261.2129%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8978999,-78.8667071,3a,29.5y,304.79h,91.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0FjjIFtH9xZQFMzm-K2K2A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0FjjIFtH9xZQFMzm-K2K2A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D261.2129%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0167519,-78.8642345,3a,35.1y,244.83h,90.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGiJfQQNGEt8XkD6PPFEdoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0167519,-78.8642345,3a,35.1y,244.83h,90.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGiJfQQNGEt8XkD6PPFEdoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Yes for the first one, but it's an older sign from before APLs were adopted.  States don't rush out and immediately replace all their signage when there's a change in the MUTCD.

Recent signing plans show that an APL is not going there. Kind of random but it is what it is.

There is definitely one needed at these locations.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5441544,-86.7538419,3a,20.7y,67.43h,95.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP3s7tCZXh4CIdNHc1zGs4w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5441544,-86.7538419,3a,20.7y,67.43h,95.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP3s7tCZXh4CIdNHc1zGs4w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5657419,-86.8238211,3a,75y,48.98h,92.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgbj7bEo6oHIypaP6VdORGQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dgbj7bEo6oHIypaP6VdORGQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D117.001526%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5657419,-86.8238211,3a,75y,48.98h,92.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgbj7bEo6oHIypaP6VdORGQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dgbj7bEo6oHIypaP6VdORGQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D117.001526%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3705873,-86.3226307,3a,36y,182.65h,92.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sL28VE-Bdbs8St4GcPYJ9gQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DL28VE-Bdbs8St4GcPYJ9gQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D88.38729%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3705873,-86.3226307,3a,36y,182.65h,92.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sL28VE-Bdbs8St4GcPYJ9gQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DL28VE-Bdbs8St4GcPYJ9gQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D88.38729%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9652532,-85.4531538,3a,75y,26.21h,87.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sViGw0rODiqsM1iZUvj1TQg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DViGw0rODiqsM1iZUvj1TQg%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D355.72504%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9652532,-85.4531538,3a,75y,26.21h,87.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sViGw0rODiqsM1iZUvj1TQg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DViGw0rODiqsM1iZUvj1TQg%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D355.72504%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7445007,-84.3996271,3a,48.9y,67.86h,83.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swoWZdY4aITQoWcjGOBmLFA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DwoWZdY4aITQoWcjGOBmLFA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D290.16364%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7445007,-84.3996271,3a,48.9y,67.86h,83.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swoWZdY4aITQoWcjGOBmLFA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DwoWZdY4aITQoWcjGOBmLFA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D290.16364%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7660536,-84.4977167,3a,75y,93.87h,97.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAKOQe8JS6YkPi5E0vnJUxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7660536,-84.4977167,3a,75y,93.87h,97.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAKOQe8JS6YkPi5E0vnJUxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.388637,-86.7972203,3a,75y,66.24h,91.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssA5s1ddsOqS8AHatsKF9AA!2e0!5s20181101T000000!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.388637,-86.7972203,3a,75y,66.24h,91.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssA5s1ddsOqS8AHatsKF9AA!2e0!5s20181101T000000!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5907522,-86.8057727,3a,75y,185.71h,91.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stNLL4CCWMPiTkUlSbQqZOw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DtNLL4CCWMPiTkUlSbQqZOw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D311.13565%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5907522,-86.8057727,3a,75y,185.71h,91.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stNLL4CCWMPiTkUlSbQqZOw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DtNLL4CCWMPiTkUlSbQqZOw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D311.13565%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3448628,-88.7658606,3a,15.2y,255.41h,91.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suCoZIoSjIbDA06lePxGI6g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DuCoZIoSjIbDA06lePxGI6g%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D300.58884%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3448628,-88.7658606,3a,15.2y,255.41h,91.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suCoZIoSjIbDA06lePxGI6g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DuCoZIoSjIbDA06lePxGI6g%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D300.58884%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5962235,-86.6508992,3a,16.1y,321.9h,92.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8bSRlteLYwL6rFaNmY9HBw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D8bSRlteLYwL6rFaNmY9HBw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D282.09222%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5962235,-86.6508992,3a,16.1y,321.9h,92.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8bSRlteLYwL6rFaNmY9HBw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D8bSRlteLYwL6rFaNmY9HBw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D282.09222%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

Quote from: jaidenscott316 on August 08, 2023, 10:23:55 PM
There is definitely one needed at these locations.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5441544,-86.7538419,3a,20.7y,67.43h,95.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP3s7tCZXh4CIdNHc1zGs4w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5441544,-86.7538419,3a,20.7y,67.43h,95.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP3s7tCZXh4CIdNHc1zGs4w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5657419,-86.8238211,3a,75y,48.98h,92.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgbj7bEo6oHIypaP6VdORGQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dgbj7bEo6oHIypaP6VdORGQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D117.001526%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5657419,-86.8238211,3a,75y,48.98h,92.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgbj7bEo6oHIypaP6VdORGQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dgbj7bEo6oHIypaP6VdORGQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D117.001526%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3705873,-86.3226307,3a,36y,182.65h,92.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sL28VE-Bdbs8St4GcPYJ9gQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DL28VE-Bdbs8St4GcPYJ9gQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D88.38729%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3705873,-86.3226307,3a,36y,182.65h,92.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sL28VE-Bdbs8St4GcPYJ9gQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DL28VE-Bdbs8St4GcPYJ9gQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D88.38729%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9652532,-85.4531538,3a,75y,26.21h,87.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sViGw0rODiqsM1iZUvj1TQg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DViGw0rODiqsM1iZUvj1TQg%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D355.72504%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9652532,-85.4531538,3a,75y,26.21h,87.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sViGw0rODiqsM1iZUvj1TQg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DViGw0rODiqsM1iZUvj1TQg%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D355.72504%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7445007,-84.3996271,3a,48.9y,67.86h,83.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swoWZdY4aITQoWcjGOBmLFA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DwoWZdY4aITQoWcjGOBmLFA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D290.16364%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7445007,-84.3996271,3a,48.9y,67.86h,83.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swoWZdY4aITQoWcjGOBmLFA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DwoWZdY4aITQoWcjGOBmLFA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D290.16364%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7660536,-84.4977167,3a,75y,93.87h,97.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAKOQe8JS6YkPi5E0vnJUxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7660536,-84.4977167,3a,75y,93.87h,97.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAKOQe8JS6YkPi5E0vnJUxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.388637,-86.7972203,3a,75y,66.24h,91.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssA5s1ddsOqS8AHatsKF9AA!2e0!5s20181101T000000!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.388637,-86.7972203,3a,75y,66.24h,91.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssA5s1ddsOqS8AHatsKF9AA!2e0!5s20181101T000000!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5907522,-86.8057727,3a,75y,185.71h,91.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stNLL4CCWMPiTkUlSbQqZOw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DtNLL4CCWMPiTkUlSbQqZOw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D311.13565%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5907522,-86.8057727,3a,75y,185.71h,91.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stNLL4CCWMPiTkUlSbQqZOw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DtNLL4CCWMPiTkUlSbQqZOw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D311.13565%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3448628,-88.7658606,3a,15.2y,255.41h,91.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suCoZIoSjIbDA06lePxGI6g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DuCoZIoSjIbDA06lePxGI6g%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D300.58884%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3448628,-88.7658606,3a,15.2y,255.41h,91.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suCoZIoSjIbDA06lePxGI6g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DuCoZIoSjIbDA06lePxGI6g%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D300.58884%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5962235,-86.6508992,3a,16.1y,321.9h,92.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8bSRlteLYwL6rFaNmY9HBw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D8bSRlteLYwL6rFaNmY9HBw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D282.09222%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5962235,-86.6508992,3a,16.1y,321.9h,92.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8bSRlteLYwL6rFaNmY9HBw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D8bSRlteLYwL6rFaNmY9HBw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D282.09222%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?authuser=0&entry=ttu)

Several of these do not have option lane configurations, and would not be eligible for APL signing.

Correct, APL signs were created specifically to address the alleged problem created by the FHWA re: option lanes. And I say this because I never had a problem understanding the display of two arrows over an option lane on separate signs for different routes. I've always felt the FHWA created a problem where there wasn't one.

Then WisDOT misapplies APL like this: https://goo.gl/maps/ZHumbxaQQRsD5utw6

Quote from: SignBridge on August 11, 2023, 08:31:09 PM
Correct, APL signs were created specifically to address the alleged problem created by the FHWA re: option lanes. And I say this because I never had a problem understanding the display of two arrows over an option lane on separate signs for different routes. I've always felt the FHWA created a problem where there wasn't one.

I don't quite agree with the bold line. The MUTCD must be a flexible set of standards that can reflect changing driver behavior, rather than dictating what drivers have to learn and adapt to. If the FHWA senses that any part of the manual is being continuously misunderstood, even in small numbers, it should be their responsibility to craft a better solution.

My issue with white-on-green down arrows is that they mean different things depending on the context: on a pull-through sign, they are a mandatory movement. On an exit sign, they are an optional movement. Sometimes they are used over an exit-only lane that appears only briefly before an exit. If there is a pull-through sign in addition to an exit sign, there might be two arrows over one lane, which could be interpreted as either two adjacent lanes, or a single lane that goes two ways, depending on how well placed the signs is are.

*edited for clarity

There shouldn't be two down arrows over one lane on a pull-thru sign. It should be one arrow per lane. If that situation exists it's probably a design error which is a different issue.

Quote from: SignBridge on August 11, 2023, 10:25:27 PM
There shouldn't be two down arrows over one lane on a pull-thru sign. It should be one arrow per lane. If that situation exists it's probably a design error which is a different issue.

Sorry, not written well. I meant situations where there is a pull-through adjacent to an exit sign. Here is my edited sentence:

Quote from: jakeroot on August 11, 2023, 10:11:53 PM
If there is a pull-through sign in addition to an exit sign, there might be two arrows over one lane, which could be interpreted as either two adjacent lanes, or a single lane that goes two ways, depending on how well placed the signs is are.

Okay jakeroute; sorry I did misunderstand you the first time. Got your correct meaning now.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 11, 2023, 10:11:53 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on August 11, 2023, 08:31:09 PM
Correct, APL signs were created specifically to address the alleged problem created by the FHWA re: option lanes. And I say this because I never had a problem understanding the display of two arrows over an option lane on separate signs for different routes. I've always felt the FHWA created a problem where there wasn't one.

I don't quite agree with the bold line. The MUTCD must be a flexible set of standards that can reflect changing driver behavior, rather than dictating what drivers have to learn and adapt to. If the FHWA senses that any part of the manual is being continuously misunderstood, even in small numbers, it should be their responsibility to craft a better solution.

My issue with white-on-green down arrows is that they mean different things depending on the context: on a pull-through sign, they are a mandatory movement. On an exit sign, they are an optional movement. Sometimes they are used over an exit-only lane that appears only briefly before an exit. If there is a pull-through sign in addition to an exit sign, there might be two arrows over one lane, which could be interpreted as either two adjacent lanes, or a single lane that goes two ways, depending on how well placed the signs is are.

*edited for clarity

I kinda get where FHWA was coming from with this change. If you're gonna have arrows over each lane at the bottom of a sign, it makes sense to have one arrow per lane.

At the same time, in "fixing" the problem with down arrows, the FHWA created another problem in marking option lanes as "exit only" at the actual point of exit. They tried to mitigate this by moving the location of the actual signs further downstream (from ahead of the theoretical gore point to to that point or the actual gore) so that the option lane has already exited at the point of the sign. But this approach created other issues with seeing "exit only" marked over two lanes instead of one, which goes against the driver expectation based on what information given upstream on advance signage showing one exit only lane. I don't know of any entities that used this scheme prior to its adoption in the 2009 MUTCD, nor am I aware of FHWA having done any study or testing of it. Thus it seems like this scheme is a new traffic control method that was introduced without any field testing–a somewhat unusual result given that most new things to the MUTCD don't make it in there without some kind of official experimentation process or study. (Although I'm not sure how much testing APLs got either, to be honest.) The fix was supposed to solve apparent driver confusion issues, but the solution crafted isn't exactly better and introduces its own issues.


I wish FHWA would have adopted an approach of having the option lane arrow indicated on the exit direction sign with white on green (as has been common in Nevada and many other western states, in what I believe is sometimes referred to by forum member J N Winkler as the "non-Lunenfeld & Alexander" approach), even if the new standard disallowed the drop arrow on the advance sign. That would've been less ambiguous and still convey a similar message that 2009 MUTCD was trying to achieve. And would have kept a signing practice already widely in use (even if that practice hadn't been specifically outlined in the manual previously).

Quote from: roadfro on August 13, 2023, 03:53:50 PM
At the same time, in "fixing" the problem with down arrows, the FHWA created another problem in marking option lanes as "exit only" at the actual point of exit. They tried to mitigate this by moving the location of the actual signs further downstream (from ahead of the theoretical gore point to to that point or the actual gore) so that the option lane has already exited at the point of the sign. But this approach created other issues with seeing "exit only" marked over two lanes instead of one, which goes against the driver expectation based on what information given upstream on advance signage showing one exit only lane. I don't know of any entities that used this scheme prior to its adoption in the 2009 MUTCD, nor am I aware of FHWA having done any study or testing of it. Thus it seems like this scheme is a new traffic control method that was introduced without any field testing–a somewhat unusual result given that most new things to the MUTCD don't make it in there without some kind of official experimentation process or study. (Although I'm not sure how much testing APLs got either, to be honest.) The fix was supposed to solve apparent driver confusion issues, but the solution crafted isn't exactly better and introduces its own issues.

In my opinion, the even bigger problem than introducing a second "exit only" lane at the point of exit, is the lack of any advance overhead signage for an option lane. This causes drivers intending to exit to scramble to shift into the far right "exit only" lane, thinking that's the only lane that exits (a configuration which is not uncommon!). I just don't see how a signage pattern that results in a lot of panicky lane changes can be a good thing.

I am aware that the MUTCD does have those small white signs on the right indicating an option lane is approaching. But let's be real. In an urban setting, there is often way too much traffic for the unfamiliar driver to be in tune with small white regulatory signs like that. Especially when the vast majority of those regulatory signs on urban freeways are things like "No vehicles towing trailers in left lane" or "Move accident vehicles to next exit" and other things of the like. Those are always "reminder" type signs that may not even apply to average Joe in a car, not "you need to look at this now to know where to go".

So like I said earlier, even if FHWA  didn't create a problem where there wasn't one, their solution actually created more problems than it solved, if in fact there even was a problem to begin with.

Or to put it another way: the cure is worse than the disease (if any).

I still think FHWA erred in not adopting Ontario-style APL signs as an option (no pun intended) for less significant interchanges that drop an auxiliary lane, which I think would have resolved a lot of the problems with downward arrows and stippled arrows more simply, saving the full-blown APL treatment for major freeway-to-freeway splits and the like.

Quote from: lordsutch on August 15, 2023, 01:36:22 PM
I still think FHWA erred in not adopting Ontario-style APL signs as an option (no pun intended) for less significant interchanges that drop an auxiliary lane, which I think would have resolved a lot of the problems with downward arrows and stippled arrows more simply, saving the full-blown APL treatment for major freeway-to-freeway splits and the like.

Partial APLs, in the style of that used in Ontario, are actually becoming quite common. They are not in the MUTCD yet, but I've heard they may be soon.

Quote from: SignBridge on August 13, 2023, 08:02:52 PM
So like I said earlier, even if FHWA  didn't create a problem where there wasn't one, their solution actually created more problems than it solved, if in fact there even was a problem to begin with.

Or to put it another way: the cure is worse than the disease (if any).

You're saying that, but motorists understand the APLs and there's little confusion.  I'm not sure where you're thinking these signs create a problem.

FHWA did propose to add sawn-off APLs (which is essentially what the Ontario-style signs are) to the upcoming 11th Edition of the MUTCD.  But that has yet to drop.

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 15, 2023, 06:46:51 PM
FHWA did propose to add sawn-off APLs (which is essentially what the Ontario-style signs are) to the upcoming 11th Edition of the MUTCD.  But that has yet to drop.

A crucial difference is that the Ontario signs show the option lane well in advance, while the MUTCD allows that only for "major" (i.e. system) interchanges.  Is that proposed to change in the next edition?

Quote from: wanderer2575 on August 15, 2023, 07:02:43 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 15, 2023, 06:46:51 PM
FHWA did propose to add sawn-off APLs (which is essentially what the Ontario-style signs are) to the upcoming 11th Edition of the MUTCD.  But that has yet to drop.

A crucial difference is that the Ontario signs show the option lane well in advance, while the MUTCD allows that only for "major" (i.e. system) interchanges.  Is that proposed to change in the next edition?

I believe the partial ('sawn off') APL is specifically for non-system interchanges where a full-blown APL is potentially not necessary, and is meant as a replacement for the down arrow signage no longer permitted.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 15, 2023, 07:22:10 PM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on August 15, 2023, 07:02:43 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 15, 2023, 06:46:51 PMFHWA did propose to add sawn-off APLs (which is essentially what the Ontario-style signs are) to the upcoming 11th Edition of the MUTCD.  But that has yet to drop.

A crucial difference is that the Ontario signs show the option lane well in advance, while the MUTCD allows that only for "major" (i.e. system) interchanges.  Is that proposed to change in the next edition?

I believe the partial ('sawn off') APL is specifically for non-system interchanges where a full-blown APL is potentially not necessary, and is meant as a replacement for the down arrow signage no longer permitted.

Yes--as Jake says, the sawn-off APL is to be available for minor and intermediate interchanges.  But the proposed figures suggest that FHWA also wants to retain the "hide the option lane" approach of the 2009 MUTCD as an option.

Here are the relevant figures positioned side by side:

(https://i.imgur.com/bw64sFw.png)

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 15, 2023, 06:46:00 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on August 13, 2023, 08:02:52 PM
So like I said earlier, even if FHWA  didn't create a problem where there wasn't one, their solution actually created more problems than it solved, if in fact there even was a problem to begin with.

Or to put it another way: the cure is worse than the disease (if any).

You're saying that, but motorists understand the APLs and there's little confusion.  I'm not sure where you're thinking these signs create a problem.

If there are no problems with APL signs, then what are we all discussing here?

The problem that I find is conventional signing with standard down arrows, including with two arrows for different routes over one lane, was easier to visually read and understand than APL signs that are so huge with the legend all over the place instead of simply boxed on smaller signs in conventional signing.

If the proposed changes allow option lanes on "sawn-off" APLs for all interchanges, that can only be a good thing.  It's ridiculous that "hide the option lane" is still retained as allowable.  The whole purpose of signing is to provide clear guidance to drivers, so it's absurd to deliberately omit such information.  In the case of Figure 2E-48 (the figure on the right) and I intend to turn left at the top of the ramp, I'd like to know in advance that I should use the option lane to put myself in the left lane of the ramp, rather than seeing -- surprise! -- that having put myself in the exit-only lane I now have to make a lane change on the ramp within a shorter distance.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on August 15, 2023, 08:49:39 PM
If the proposed changes allow option lanes on "sawn-off" APLs for all interchanges, that can only be a good thing.  It's ridiculous that "hide the option lane" is still retained as allowable.  The whole purpose of signing is to provide clear guidance to drivers, so it's absurd to deliberately omit such information.  In the case of Figure 2E-48 (the figure on the right) and I intend to turn left at the top of the ramp, I'd like to know in advance that I should use the option lane to put myself in the left lane of the ramp, rather than seeing -- surprise! -- that having put myself in the exit-only lane I now have to make a lane change on the ramp within a shorter distance.

JeffandNicole, this is another of the problems I'm talking about created by APL signing.

Quote from: SignBridge on August 15, 2023, 08:34:03 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 15, 2023, 06:46:00 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on August 13, 2023, 08:02:52 PM
So like I said earlier, even if FHWA  didn't create a problem where there wasn't one, their solution actually created more problems than it solved, if in fact there even was a problem to begin with.

Or to put it another way: the cure is worse than the disease (if any).

You're saying that, but motorists understand the APLs and there's little confusion.  I'm not sure where you're thinking these signs create a problem.

If there are no problems with APL signs, then what are we all discussing here?

Because we discuss everything on these forums.

Quote from: SignBridge on August 15, 2023, 08:34:03 PM
The problem that I find is conventional signing with standard down arrows, including with two arrows for different routes over one lane, was easier to visually read and understand than APL signs that are so huge with the legend all over the place instead of simply boxed on smaller signs in conventional signing.

It's been pointed out that providing two arrows over one lane, from a distance, can make it appear there are two separate lanes.

Doing a quick perusal of the web, it's noted by numerous publications, both state and private research, that states APL signage (the feds actually term them OAPL: Overhead Arrow Per Lane) research concluded the signs offer clear benefits to motorists.  Coming upon this site: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/67028 , it suggests research that goes back to 1992 showing one arrow per lane is beneficial. 

The first paragraph on page 2 of that report reads:

Quote
Previous research suggested that overhead signs with specific lane assignment information better support driver decisions and lane choice at interchanges than diagrammatic guide signs. The use of an individual arrow for each lane on guide signs is more effective in communicating lane assignment information than a graphic view of the entire roadway lane assignment displayed in one arrow (Brackett et al. 1992). Furthermore, drivers readily understand the relationship between specific lanes and corresponding destinations displayed by overhead signs with specific lane assignment information (Richard and Lichty 2013). Golembiewski and Katz (2008) found that drivers made significantly more correct lane choices and comprehended a sign configuration showing one arrow per lane compared to diagrammatic signs. Fitzpatrick et al. (2013) also found that OAPL signs were superior for helping drivers make correct lane choices compared with diagrammatic signs.

Further on page 3, it references the following:

Quote
Results found that every driver correctly exited when shown an OAPL sign, and slightly more than one-third made an unnecessary lane change.

The unnecessary lane change reflects that motorists were more likely to utilize the 'Exit Only' lane vs the option lane, however as shown in the first sentence, the testers were able to, at a minimum, correctly exit the highway.

The more common criticism of the signage is mentioned further down, which is the size and cost of the signage.

The more recent studies, which that report is really about, along with others including this one ( https://highways.dot.gov/research/projects/evaluation-additional-alternative-arrow-types-and-sizes-overhead-arrow-lane-oapl ) is for partial width OAPL.

Now, you're going to say that this is due to trying to solve a problem that didn't exist.  But studies showed that there was a problem that did exist, although it may not have for you.  Signage continues to evolve.  The signage you prefer isn't the first signage that was used for exits and option lanes.  They came out overtime, after previous versions were found to be confusing.  And enough confusion still exists for many drivers that they wanted to come out with something else.   Remember - even the common STOP sign wasn't perfected on try number 1 - many of them used to be yellow at first.

Quote from: SignBridge on August 15, 2023, 08:55:16 PM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on August 15, 2023, 08:49:39 PM
If the proposed changes allow option lanes on "sawn-off" APLs for all interchanges, that can only be a good thing.  It's ridiculous that "hide the option lane" is still retained as allowable.  The whole purpose of signing is to provide clear guidance to drivers, so it's absurd to deliberately omit such information.  In the case of Figure 2E-48 (the figure on the right) and I intend to turn left at the top of the ramp, I'd like to know in advance that I should use the option lane to put myself in the left lane of the ramp, rather than seeing -- surprise! -- that having put myself in the exit-only lane I now have to make a lane change on the ramp within a shorter distance.

JeffandNicole, this is another of the problems I'm talking about created by APL signing.

On the contrary, this is a problem created by a lack of APL signing when there is an option lane.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on August 16, 2023, 12:08:10 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on August 15, 2023, 08:55:16 PM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on August 15, 2023, 08:49:39 PM
If the proposed changes allow option lanes on "sawn-off" APLs for all interchanges, that can only be a good thing.  It's ridiculous that "hide the option lane" is still retained as allowable.  The whole purpose of signing is to provide clear guidance to drivers, so it's absurd to deliberately omit such information.  In the case of Figure 2E-48 (the figure on the right) and I intend to turn left at the top of the ramp, I'd like to know in advance that I should use the option lane to put myself in the left lane of the ramp, rather than seeing -- surprise! -- that having put myself in the exit-only lane I now have to make a lane change on the ramp within a shorter distance.

JeffandNicole, this is another of the problems I'm talking about created by APL signing.

On the contrary, this is a problem created by a lack of APL signing when there is an option lane.

J&N, you're right about your last point. That issue about how to sign option lanes with conventional signing is a actually a case of poorly thought out configuration by the FHWA in the 2009 Manual. So I stand corrected on that one. It's not an OAPL problem.

But I stand by my general viewpoint on OAPL's. In my personal opinion, all those studies that you cited show is that different drivers react differently to different forms of visual graphics.

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 15, 2023, 07:35:35 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on August 15, 2023, 07:22:10 PM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on August 15, 2023, 07:02:43 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 15, 2023, 06:46:51 PMFHWA did propose to add sawn-off APLs (which is essentially what the Ontario-style signs are) to the upcoming 11th Edition of the MUTCD.  But that has yet to drop.

A crucial difference is that the Ontario signs show the option lane well in advance, while the MUTCD allows that only for "major" (i.e. system) interchanges.  Is that proposed to change in the next edition?

I believe the partial ('sawn off') APL is specifically for non-system interchanges where a full-blown APL is potentially not necessary, and is meant as a replacement for the down arrow signage no longer permitted.

Yes--as Jake says, the sawn-off APL is to be available for minor and intermediate interchanges.  But the proposed figures suggest that FHWA also wants to retain the "hide the option lane" approach of the 2009 MUTCD as an option.

Here are the relevant figures positioned side by side:

(https://i.imgur.com/bw64sFw.png)

Sawn-off APL's of the style shown in the MUTCD proposal above are already in use in some places. Notably on New Jersey's Garden State Pkwy. Northbound at Exits 142 B-C, just north of the Union Toll Plaza (if it's still there LOL)