I would like to know, could anyone let me know what year each state adopted APL signage? I think Arizona is the most recent, adopting it in 2018. I believe ADOT initially balked due to the higher sign cost and larger signs, but they eventually came up with a solution with custom smaller arrows.
Also, what are the remaining holdouts?
I didn't know know this was an 'adopting' type thing. I thought it was just another option during construction or possibly sign replacement.
I also think this group makes out the cost a bigger issue than it really is. There's numerous ADA things such as ped crossing lights and handicap ramp improvements, along with unseen things such as detention ponds for water runoff, that are now requirements that cost way more than several extra square feet of sign panel.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 12, 2019, 09:33:36 PM
I didn't know know this was an 'adopting' type thing. I thought it was just another option during construction or possibly sign replacement.
I also think this group makes out the cost a bigger issue than it really is. There's numerous ADA things such as ped crossing lights and handicap ramp improvements, along with unseen things such as detention ponds for water runoff, that are now requirements that cost way more than several extra square feet of sign panel.
Remember, a larger sign needs to be able to handle additional wind load, which adds to the cost. Apparently cost was the reason why ADOT initially balked at the idea. ADOT did try some alternative approaches, but they were apparently found to be less effective with older drivers than APL signage. ADOT likely realized in the end that with the large retirement population that APL signage was the best option for the state.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 12, 2019, 10:43:02 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 12, 2019, 09:33:36 PM
I didn't know know this was an 'adopting' type thing. I thought it was just another option during construction or possibly sign replacement.
I also think this group makes out the cost a bigger issue than it really is. There's numerous ADA things such as ped crossing lights and handicap ramp improvements, along with unseen things such as detention ponds for water runoff, that are now requirements that cost way more than several extra square feet of sign panel.
Remember, a larger sign needs to be able to handle additional wind load, which adds to the cost. Apparently cost was the reason why ADOT initially balked at the idea. ADOT did try some alternative approaches, but they were apparently found to be less effective with older drivers than APL signage. ADOT likely realized in the end that with the large retirement population that APL signage was the best option for the state.
When APLs were first proposed in the NPA for the 2009 MUTCD, I looked at a couple of locations where MassHighway/MassDOT was about to install traditional diagrammatics and did a quick 'what if they used APLs instead' comparison. In summary, panel costs for APLs vs diagrammatics increased by about 30 to 40 percent, and support costs increased by about 40 to 60 percent. I'd hardly call that insignificant.
Arizona DOT hardly ever used diagrammatics back when stippled arrows were the sole out-of-the-box option. The only one I have spotted in old as-builts was at US 60/former SR 360 (east end of the Superstition Freeway).
We have discussed this before and I do not believe we reached universal agreement, but I have long contended that the MUTCD requires APLs (as a shall condition) only in new-build cases involving a through-route TOTSO. They are, of course, permissible wherever there is an option lane.
A first step to determining earliest APL in each state is establishing which states have at least one example. I'll start:
AK ? N
HI ?
WA ? Y
OR Y
CA Y
AZ Y
UT Y (also uses sawn-off APLs)
CO Y
ID ? N
MT N
WY ?
NV Y
ND ? Y
SD Y
NE Y (but not in Omaha--only known example is to be installed at I-80/I-76)
KS Y
OK N (only example known was not a straight APL and was a construction sign)
TX Y
LA ?
AR Y
MO Y
IA Y
MN Y
WI Y
IL Y
KY ? Y
TN ?
MS Y
AL Y
GA Y
FL Y
IN Y
OH Y
MI Y
WV ?
VA ? Y
NC Y
SC ? Y
MD ?
PA Y
DE Y
NJ ?
NY ? Y
CT ? Y
RI ?
MA ? Y
VT ? N
NH ?
ME Y
I consulted my signing sheets (numbering probably over 100,000 at this point) to verify the existence or otherwise of APLs in various states. The pattern I have seen for many states is in-kind replacement of existing stippled-arrow diagrammatics in combination with new APL installations, often in isolated locations. Nebraska is probably the most extreme case, but to find just one example for Indiana required paging through 1600 of about 3200 signing sheets, the only example I found for Ohio is on one of the US 33 bypasses, and in Texas old-school non-Lunenfeld & Alexander signing treatments for option lanes are the norm while APLs are the exception (the one I found is at the I-35/US 183 split).
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 13, 2019, 09:50:07 PM
We have discussed this before and I do not believe we reached universal agreement, but I have long contended that the MUTCD requires APLs (as a shall condition) only in new-build cases involving a through-route TOTSO. They are, of course, permissible wherever there is an option lane.
Could you point me to this discussion? I've been looking at the
Manual, and I can't really see your contention.
Based on a Utah signage thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4045.msg122510#msg122510), the first APLs in that state were installed in 2011.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 13, 2019, 10:58:55 PMCould you point me to this discussion? I've been looking at the Manual, and I can't really see your contention.
That discussion (including a post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18699.msg2174176#msg2174176) explaining my position in full; my statement about Arizona having no diagrammatics reflects the fact that I did not know about US 60/SR 360 at that point) occurred in a long thread discussing APLs in Georgia.
The relevant
MUTCD section is § 2E.20. The disagreement revolves around what is meant by "optional exit lane that also carries the through route." I contend that restricts the requirement to major interchanges with option lanes that are either splits or TOTSOs. Others say it requires APLs at all major interchanges with option lanes. "Major interchange" is as defined in § 2E.32 and is a fairly elastic category, with
service system interchanges (freeway-to-freeway) included at minimum. This classification scheme is what frees agencies from having to erect APLs at every service interchange that has an option lane.
SC's first APL is about 3 or 4 years old now, on 26 eastbound approaching 77, where an extra lane had been added to 26 beyond this interchange. There are also a couple of new one that have been up less than a year on 77 northbound approaching 20, where once again they added a lane to 77 beyond this interchange.
WA = Y (2012)
WSDOT adopted the APL in 2012. First install was on I-5 at I-205 in Vancouver (https://goo.gl/maps/xRXypGfV6D1zH7H47). Second install was literally last week in Tacoma (https://i.imgur.com/rOhQ9z3.jpg).
WSDOT has used various (https://goo.gl/maps/BkutmJGTMBbiMV1F9) types (https://goo.gl/maps/jjdxGep5ommVjMEV7) of up arrows in the past, with layouts similar to APLs, only shorter. But really only two official installs, as of last week. There is also this up arrow install (https://goo.gl/maps/h842YS3mqv4WqiGq5), but I believe it's maintained by the Port of Seattle. It's really quite nice, as they stuck the destinations between the arrows, which saves on sign height.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 14, 2019, 12:35:55 AM
The relevant MUTCD section is § 2E.20. The disagreement revolves around what is meant by "optional exit lane that also carries the through route." I contend that restricts the requirement to major interchanges with option lanes that are either splits or TOTSOs. Others say it requires APLs at all major interchanges with option lanes. "Major interchange" is as defined in § 2E.32 and is a fairly elastic category, with service interchanges (freeway-to-freeway) included at minimum. This classification scheme is what frees agencies from having to erect APLs at every service interchange that has an option lane.
Interesting. WSDOT has used the traditional white-on-green down arrow for option lanes well past when they were put out to pasture by the FHWA, as I'm sure you may be aware (I've mentioned it before). I had forgotten about the service interchange requirements; this example (https://goo.gl/maps/xva9JAG7NFipUC3A8) of a down-arrow option lane sign came online just this year, being the most recent one that I know of. It's also at a service interchange, so I suspect it may be non-compliant (especially as it was installed at least seven years after WSDOT adopted the 2009 MUTCD).
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 13, 2019, 09:50:07 PM
Arizona DOT hardly ever used diagrammatics back when stippled arrows were the sole out-of-the-box option. The only one I have spotted in old as-builts was at US 60/former SR 360 (east end of the Superstition Freeway).
We have discussed this before and I do not believe we reached universal agreement, but I have long contended that the MUTCD requires APLs (as a shall condition) only in new-build cases involving a through-route TOTSO. They are, of course, permissible wherever there is an option lane.
A first step to determining earliest APL in each state is establishing which states have at least one example. I'll start:
AK ?
HI ?
WA ?
OR Y
CA Y
AZ Y
UT Y (also uses sawn-off APLs)
CO Y
ID ?
MT N
WY ?
NV Y
ND ?
SD Y
NE Y (but not in Omaha--only known example is to be installed at I-80/I-76)
KS Y
OK N (only example known was not a straight APL and was a construction sign)
TX Y
LA ?
AR Y
MO Y
IA Y
MN Y
WI Y
IL Y
KY ?
TN ?
MS Y
AL Y
GA Y
FL Y
IN Y
OH Y
MI Y
WV ?
VA ?
NC Y
SC ?
MD ?
PA Y
DE Y
NJ ?
NY ?
CT ?
RI ?
MA ?
VT ?
NH ?
ME Y
I consulted my signing sheets (numbering probably over 100,000 at this point) to verify the existence or otherwise of APLs in various states. The pattern I have seen for many states is in-kind replacement of existing stippled-arrow diagrammatics in combination with new APL installations, often in isolated locations. Nebraska is probably the most extreme case, but to find just one example for Indiana required paging through 1600 of about 3200 signing sheets, the only example I found for Ohio is on one of the US 33 bypasses, and in Texas old-school non-Lunenfeld & Alexander signing treatments for option lanes are the norm while APLs are the exception (the one I found is at the I-35/US 183 split).
MA is now Yes. APLs were recently installed on I-84 east in Sturbridge approaching I-90/MassPike and on the exit ramps from I-495 to I-90/MassPike. These signs were installed as part of the Legacy Toll Plaza demolition projects. APL signs are also planned to be installed on Route 24 in Randolph approaching I-93, the signs to be installed as part of the current Route 24 Fall River to Randolph sign replacement project. Note that, as a rule, MassDOT continues to use traditional diagrammatics at locations where the number of lanes at the advance sign locations differs from the number of lanes at the exit ramp.
First one I can remember for Kentucky is on I-64 at the Mountain Parkway, installed as part of the I-64 widening from Exit 94 to Exit 98.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 14, 2019, 12:35:55 AM
The disagreement revolves around what is meant by "optional exit lane that also carries the through route." I contend that restricts the requirement to major interchanges with option lanes that are either splits or TOTSOs.
That I saw, and I see where you're coming from there. But the full text of Part 2, Chapter E, Section 20, Paragraph 2 (the only part of the section with "shalls") of the
Manual states:
Quote from: MUTCD
On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs as provided in Sections 2E.21 and 2E.22 shall be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges (see Section 2E.32) that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route (see Figures 2E-4, 2E-5, 2E-8, and 2E-9) and for all splits that include an option lane (see Figures 2E-6 and 2E-10). Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs shall not be used on freeways and expressways for any other types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits and splits that do not have an option lane.
(emphasis mine)Since your first comment only mentioned TOTSOs, I was wondering how all the rigmarole as to what counts as a major interchange or some other more or less ambiguous definition elsewhere in the
Manual could neuter the requirement for APLs at a split with an option lane.
Quote from: wriddle082 on August 14, 2019, 01:41:41 AMSC's first APL is about 3 or 4 years old now, on 26 eastbound approaching 77, where an extra lane had been added to 26 beyond this interchange. There are also a couple of new one that have been up less than a year on 77 northbound approaching 20, where once again they added a lane to 77 beyond this interchange.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 14, 2019, 01:58:23 AM
WA = Y (2012)
WSDOT adopted the APL in 2012. First install was on I-5 at I-205 in Vancouver (https://goo.gl/maps/xRXypGfV6D1zH7H47). Second install was literally last week in Tacoma (https://i.imgur.com/rOhQ9z3.jpg).
Quote from: roadman on August 14, 2019, 11:26:51 AMMA is now Yes. APLs were recently installed on I-84 east in Sturbridge approaching I-90/MassPike and on the exit ramps from I-495 to I-90/MassPike. These signs were installed as part of the Legacy Toll Plaza demolition projects. APL signs are also planned to be installed on Route 24 in Randolph approaching I-93, the signs to be installed as part of the current Route 24 Fall River to Randolph sign replacement project. Note that, as a rule, MassDOT continues to use traditional diagrammatics at locations where the number of lanes at the advance sign locations differs from the number of lanes at the exit ramp.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 14, 2019, 12:08:39 PM
First one I can remember for Kentucky is on I-64 at the Mountain Parkway, installed as part of the I-64 widening from Exit 94 to Exit 98.
Just to thank all of you--I've edited the list above for SC, WA, MA, and KY. I've also updated AK, ID, ND, VA, NY, CT, and VT on the basis of additional research with signing plans and StreetView.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 14, 2019, 01:38:48 PMSince your first comment only mentioned TOTSOs, I was wondering how all the rigmarole as to what counts as a major interchange or some other more or less ambiguous definition elsewhere in the Manual could neuter the requirement for APLs at a split with an option lane.
It doesn't. But a split is a specific kind of diverge where neither arm has priority over the other, and there are not too many of them. Much of the angst about APLs has to do with multilane exits that are not splits, where the TOTSO configuration is rare. (Besides forgetting about the split case in the initial post you mention, I goofed and wrote
service where I meant to say
system in the follow-up post, and have had to edit accordingly with strike-through.)
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 14, 2019, 03:21:32 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on August 14, 2019, 01:41:41 AMSC’s first APL is about 3 or 4 years old now, on 26 eastbound approaching 77, where an extra lane had been added to 26 beyond this interchange. There are also a couple of new one that have been up less than a year on 77 northbound approaching 20, where once again they added a lane to 77 beyond this interchange.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 14, 2019, 01:58:23 AM
WA = Y (2012)
WSDOT adopted the APL in 2012. First install was on I-5 at I-205 in Vancouver (https://goo.gl/maps/xRXypGfV6D1zH7H47). Second install was literally last week in Tacoma (https://i.imgur.com/rOhQ9z3.jpg).
Quote from: roadman on August 14, 2019, 11:26:51 AMMA is now Yes. APLs were recently installed on I-84 east in Sturbridge approaching I-90/MassPike and on the exit ramps from I-495 to I-90/MassPike. These signs were installed as part of the Legacy Toll Plaza demolition projects. APL signs are also planned to be installed on Route 24 in Randolph approaching I-93, the signs to be installed as part of the current Route 24 Fall River to Randolph sign replacement project. Note that, as a rule, MassDOT continues to use traditional diagrammatics at locations where the number of lanes at the advance sign locations differs from the number of lanes at the exit ramp.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 14, 2019, 12:08:39 PM
Just to thank all of you--I've edited the list above for SC, WA, MA, and KY. I've also updated AK, ID, ND, VA, NY, CT, and VT on the basis of additional research with signing plans and StreetView.
NH is also Yes. APL signs on I-95 northbound (NH Turnpike) at the Spaulding Turnpike were installed about 2011.
Alabama's APLs are on the rare side. This one didn't go up until 2018:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/867/26953471737_66104ae3af_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/H4MA6X)
There are similar ones on I-65, pointing to I-59/20 (or 20/59) which went up around the same time. I can't think of any others right now.
I think New Mexico has some as well.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 12, 2019, 08:51:56 PM
I would like to know, could anyone let me know what year each state adopted APL signage? I think Arizona is the most recent, adopting it in 2018. I believe ADOT initially balked due to the higher sign cost and larger signs, but they eventually came up with a solution with custom smaller arrows.
In the Atlanta area, at least (not sure about the rest of the state), it appears that they started going up in 2014.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 15, 2019, 10:06:53 AMI think New Mexico has some as well.
I have had a look in StreetView and the only example I have found is a sawn-off APL (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.2544234,-106.7273401,3a,75y,329.99h,109.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXZdIwPjOfnqc9GQruEv9Sg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) at I-10/I-25 near Las Cruces (book direction westbound on I-10, actual compass direction northwest-bound).
I know there has been no general agreement to limit the scope of discussion in this way, but I have been focusing on full (not sawn-off) APLs on freeway mainlines since these are the ones covered by the onerous mandatory provisions in § 2E.20 and that also create 90% of the controversy about cost.
NCUTCD GMITC has discussed adding sawn-off APLs to the
MUTCD, so I would expect some mention of them in the upcoming rulemaking. The cost savings would be quite significant since in theory the straight-ahead component of the message can be put on a pull-through sign without lane assignment arrows or be omitted altogether.
NJ is a yes...they used them in the 295/76/42 construction zone, since removed as they were in the way of future phases (installed prior to Oct 2014 per this GSV: https://goo.gl/maps/LKBgDFsXUaCCFLWe8 ). There's also a partial APL on the GSP.
Although DC doesn't count, APLs do exist at the reconfigured I-295/I-695/DC 295 interchange.
Quote from: Henry on August 15, 2019, 02:47:02 PM
Although DC doesn't count, APLs do exist at the reconfigured I-295/I-695/DC 295 interchange.
DC counts, it's just that A) people tend to forget that DC isn't a state, and B) JN Winkler forgot to include it in his list. I'm very familiar with those approaching the 11th St Bridges.
I am not sure about Puerto Rico. I don't recall seeing any in the San Juan metropolitan area nor on PR-22; I don't know about the other freeways and Autopistas.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 15, 2019, 12:21:51 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 15, 2019, 10:06:53 AMI think New Mexico has some as well.
I have had a look in StreetView and the only example I have found is a sawn-off APL at I-10/I-25 near Las Cruces (book direction westbound on I-10, actual compass direction northwest-bound).
Here's one in Albuquerque, back in May of 2017:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4427/36379768020_be48c40089_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XqKPzE)
Quote from: roadman on August 14, 2019, 03:53:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 14, 2019, 11:26:51 AMMA is now Yes. APLs were recently installed on I-84 east in Sturbridge approaching I-90/MassPike and on the exit ramps from I-495 to I-90/MassPike. These signs were installed as part of the Legacy Toll Plaza demolition projects. APL signs are also planned to be installed on Route 24 in Randolph approaching I-93, the signs to be installed as part of the current Route 24 Fall River to Randolph sign replacement project. Note that, as a rule, MassDOT continues to use traditional diagrammatics at locations where the number of lanes at the advance sign locations differs from the number of lanes at the exit ramp.
NH is also Yes. APL signs on I-95 northbound (NH Turnpike) at the Spaulding Turnpike were installed about 2011.
MA 24 APL sign plan:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24plansexitsi932miles.jpg&hash=ae0456eb83c18d96765290142f540fb1fed26745)
OK is yes–I drive under this one every day:
(https://i.imgur.com/DLzz1KL.jpg)
SH-9 WB approaching I-35 in Norman. (This project is long since complete, so of course it's had the cover taken off the arrow since then. They corrected the white Exit Only panels to yellow, too.) I believe this panel was added as a result of a change order; it is one of a few panels in the project that were in FHWA Series, while the rest of them were in Clearview.
Nevada:
The first set of fully MUTCD compliant APLs are the signs on I-80 approaching US 395/I-580 in Reno, which were installed in mid-2012 as part of the I-80 rebuild through Reno-Sparks.
There are a couple signs on I-15 C/D roads between Tropicana Ave & I-215 from the I-15 south design-build project that use APLs, but APLs are only used on the advance signs and not at the actual diverge points. These signs predate the Reno ones, but I don't recall by how much. IIRC, the I-15 south DB project was the first major project in Nevada fully designed after the 2009 MUTCD was adopted.
Can't tell you the exact year when this sign was put in place, but there are APLs in MD:
US 50/ US 301 split in Queenstown, MD:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9790263,-76.1708218,3a,75y,54.87h,96.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seKk-Nfnc1kFzBceE3BFFXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 16, 2019, 06:49:27 AM
OK is yes—I drive under this one every day:
(https://i.imgur.com/DLzz1KL.jpg)
SH-9 WB approaching I-35 in Norman. (This project is long since complete, so of course it's had the cover taken off the arrow since then. They corrected the white Exit Only panels to yellow, too.) I believe this panel was added as a result of a change order; it is one of a few panels in the project that were in FHWA Series, while the rest of them were in Clearview.
Ugh! Wonder who thought placing a white overlay to cover part of a white arrow was a good idea.
Quote from: bob7374 on August 15, 2019, 11:17:50 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 14, 2019, 11:26:51 AMMA is now Yes. APLs were recently installed on I-84 east in Sturbridge approaching I-90/MassPike and on the exit ramps from I-495 to I-90/MassPike. These signs were installed as part of the Legacy Toll Plaza demolition projects. APL signs are also planned to be installed on Route 24 in Randolph approaching I-93, the signs to be installed as part of the current Route 24 Fall River to Randolph sign replacement project. Note that, as a rule, MassDOT continues to use traditional diagrammatics at locations where the number of lanes at the advance sign locations differs from the number of lanes at the exit ramp.
MA 24 APL sign plan:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24plansexitsi932miles.jpg&hash=ae0456eb83c18d96765290142f540fb1fed26745)
This APL (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4778151,-71.2163107,3a,75y,244.31h,86.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUpeQJkJsmfil9_5ySDBHBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in Burlington erected within the last year or two is the only known installation presently in the Greater Boston area.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 30, 2019, 11:13:02 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 15, 2019, 11:17:50 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 14, 2019, 11:26:51 AMMA is now Yes. APLs were recently installed on I-84 east in Sturbridge approaching I-90/MassPike and on the exit ramps from I-495 to I-90/MassPike. These signs were installed as part of the Legacy Toll Plaza demolition projects. APL signs are also planned to be installed on Route 24 in Randolph approaching I-93, the signs to be installed as part of the current Route 24 Fall River to Randolph sign replacement project. Note that, as a rule, MassDOT continues to use traditional diagrammatics at locations where the number of lanes at the advance sign locations differs from the number of lanes at the exit ramp.
MA 24 APL sign plan:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24plansexitsi932miles.jpg&hash=ae0456eb83c18d96765290142f540fb1fed26745)
This APL (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4778151,-71.2163107,3a,75y,244.31h,86.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUpeQJkJsmfil9_5ySDBHBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in Burlington erected within the last year or two is the only known installation presently in the Greater Boston area.
Thanks Bob. I somehow forgot about that one (even though I designed it).