News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Arrow-Per-Lane (APL) signs

Started by cl94, January 12, 2015, 10:39:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Pink Jazz

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.


roadman

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.


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)?
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

J N Winkler

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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

jakeroot

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!


Pink Jazz

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.

fwydriver405

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:


Pink Jazz

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.

mrsman

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.

fwydriver405

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:



Older signage, this former assembly used to be the only indication of Exit 1 before the APL's.

SignBridge

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.

fwydriver405

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.


jakeroot

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.

CardInLex

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.

TheHighwayMan3561

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.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

NWI_Irish96

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?
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%

CardInLex

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

wanderer2575

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.



fwydriver405

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) and Massachusetts (except at 495/90) 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.

Ned Weasel

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.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

Roadsguy

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.
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

Ned Weasel

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.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

SignBridge

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.



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.

SignBridge

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) and Massachusetts (except at 495/90) 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.

wanderer2575

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.



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.

SignBridge

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.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.