Signage for Option Lanes

[webny99]

Inspired by some discussion here, what are your preferences for signing option lanes?
What are the various options (no pun intended)? What works well and what doesn't?

APL's seem to be increasing in popularity, but I still really like this variant. It will be interesting to see what NYSDOT chooses here: The right-center lane will be an option lane to NY 390 North when current construction is complete. New installs nearby, however, are probably an indication of the increasing prominence of the APL sign for option lanes in Upstate NY.

Your thoughts?

[jakeroot]

Everyone knows my opinion so I'm not going to repeat it. But I will say that Minnesota's implementation of down arrow option lane signage is my non-up arrow preference.

[Mergingtraffic]

Even APL signs can be confusing in certain situations...I think an individual/separate sign over each lane works best.

Such as:

                                   EAST
                                     84

EAST                         NORTH                 NORTH
  84                              72                        72

  v                                  v                          v

[US 89]

Even APL signs can be confusing in certain situations...I think an individual/separate sign over each lane works best.

Such as:

                                   EAST
                                     84

EAST                         NORTH                 NORTH
  84                              72                        72

  v                                  v                          v

If I saw that, I'd think the middle lane would take me to an 84/72 concurrency.

[hotdogPi]

Even APL signs can be confusing in certain situations...I think an individual/separate sign over each lane works best.

Such as:

                                   EAST
                                     84

EAST                         NORTH                 NORTH
  84                              72                        72

  v                                  v                          v

If I saw that, I'd think the middle lane would take me to an 84/72 concurrency.

It is a concurrency, even though it only lasts about a mile. (I-84 and CT 72)

[webny99]

Even APL signs can be confusing in certain situations...I think an individual/separate sign over each lane works best.

If I saw that, I'd think the middle lane would take me to an 84/72 concurrency.

It is a concurrency, even though it only lasts about a mile. (I-84 and CT 72)

In which case, he'd think the middle lane would be an extension of the concurrency. I agree that an entire sign per lane is a bit much (some state basically do this with pavement markings, which is preferred to actual signs).

[Mergingtraffic]

Even APL signs can be confusing in certain situations...I think an individual/separate sign over each lane works best.

I think mostly roadgeeks would think of the concurrency..most average drivers would think "ok the middle lane can take me to I-84 West or 72 North"
If I saw that, I'd think the middle lane would take me to an 84/72 concurrency.

It is a concurrency, even though it only lasts about a mile. (I-84 and CT 72)

In which case, he'd think the middle lane would be an extension of the concurrency. I agree that an entire sign per lane is a bit much (some state basically do this with pavement markings, which is preferred to actual signs).

[roadfro]

But I will say that Minnesota's implementation of down arrow option lane signage is my non-up arrow preference.

I concur with this. I remember suggesting this in another thread several years ago...don't know how long Minnesota's been doing this.

[MNHighwayMan]

But I will say that Minnesota's implementation of down arrow option lane signage is my non-up arrow preference.

I concur with this. I remember suggesting this in another thread several years ago...don't know how long Minnesota's been doing this.

As long as I can remember, and probably longer.

[jakeroot]

But I will say that Minnesota's implementation of down arrow option lane signage is my non-up arrow preference.

I concur with this. I remember suggesting this in another thread several years ago...don't know how long Minnesota's been doing this.

WSDOT, who is not the biggest fan of the APL (only one formal use on freeways -- uses them quite a bit on off-ramps and service roads), has apparently turned to the MNDOT style for the new SB I-5 Exit 164 sign (apologies for the dashcam quality). This is the first use of this style in Washington, as far as I know. It was just installed in the last month.



Not strictly relevant: this style of option lane signage does not allow for full-width exit tabs, so a normal tabbed sign had to be used. This is rare outside of SW WA.

[MCRoads]

I prefer the western adaptation of the signs (NM, CO, AZ, UT, etc.). They give a clear and understandable message. Colorado Springs, and surrounding areas, in particular, usually uses an APL at the 1-mile warning, then, at the gore, uses a NM style sign. Very intuitive, very concise.

[paulthemapguy]

APL's lead to a lot of wasted space.  I prefer the down arrows.

[jakeroot]

APL's lead to a lot of wasted space.  I prefer the down arrows.

The problem is the federal guidelines. If the FHWA loosened up, they could be a very good sign. But they are a bit wasteful as is.

[vdeane]

APL's lead to a lot of wasted space.  I prefer the down arrows.

The problem is the federal guidelines. If the FHWA loosened up, they could be a very good sign. But they are a bit wasteful as is.

Pun intended?

[webny99]

APL's lead to a lot of wasted space.  I prefer the down arrows.

The problem is the federal guidelines. If the FHWA loosened up, they could be a very good sign. But they are a bit wasteful as is.

Pun intended?

I think what you're reading as the double-meaning is actually what he meant: APLs could be a very good type of sign if the federal guidelines were loosened.

EDIT: if you replace "they" (referring to the APL's) with "that" (referring to the loosening of guidelines), then it's a pun.

[MCRoads]

APL's lead to a lot of wasted space.  I prefer the down arrows.

The problem is the federal guidelines. If the FHWA loosened up, they could be a very good sign. But they are a bit wasteful as is.

Pun intended?

I think what you're reading as the double-meaning is actually what he meant: APLs could be a very good type of sign if the federal guidelines were loosened.

Agreed. There was no pun, intended or not.

[Revive 755]

I kind of like the partial APL (example from Chicagoland) or the special overhead lane usage sign (former example on I-94 west of Milwaukee).

[MNHighwayMan]

I kind of like the partial APL (example from Chicagoland) or the special overhead lane usage sign (former example on I-94 west of Milwaukee).

Partial APLs are okay. Just say no to whatever that damn thing in Milwaukee was, however.

[jakeroot]

APL's lead to a lot of wasted space.  I prefer the down arrows.

The problem is the federal guidelines. If the FHWA loosened up, they could be a very good sign. But they are a bit wasteful as is.

Pun intended?

I think what you're reading as the double-meaning is actually what he meant: APLs could be a very good type of sign if the federal guidelines were loosened.

Agreed. There was no pun, intended or not.

My grammar on this site has been iffy lately (thanks mostly to voice text). Apologies for the confusing language.

[roadfro]

I kind of like the partial APL (example from Chicagoland) or the special overhead lane usage sign (former example on I-94 west of Milwaukee).

Partial APLs are okay. Just say no to whatever that damn thing in Milwaukee was, however.

If you're going to do a partial APL, then at least fulfill the spirit of them by displaying the shield of the through route...

That Milwaukee implementation though... Given the placement of the next exit's advance guide sign, it's unclear if the option lane continues through, or just through to the next exit. And messy design with big option APL arrow and a down arrow in the same location.

[AsphaltPlanet]

I'm going to add another vote for the way MnDot handles it's option lane signage.  I think it's my favourite approach to signing them as well.

[US 89]

This was the Utah standard until recently, and I think it's still the best way to sign an option lane:



In the past few years, UDOT has started using partial APLs, which aren't bad:



But what I really don't like is this:



It appears that there are two exit-only lanes, where in reality only the right lane is an exit-only lane and the left one is an option lane.

[jakeroot]

But what I really don't like is this:



It appears that there are two exit-only lanes, where in reality only the right lane is an exit-only lane and the left one is an option lane.

Unfortunately, this is the required signage for double-lane exits with an option lane (when the sign is past the gore point). Further proof that the FHWA has not yet nailed option lane signage. APLs (in their current incarnation) are wasteful, down arrows are often confusing or misleading, etc.

[Tom958]

Unfortunately, this is the required signage for double-lane exits with an option lane (when the sign is past the gore point). Further proof that the FHWA has not yet nailed option lane signage. APLs (in their current incarnation) are wasteful, down arrows are often confusing or misleading, etc.

I've mentioned this before: After several years of going all-in on 2009 MUTCD-compliant option lane signage, Georgia DOT has revolted. First, four recently-installed gore-point signs on I-75-85 downtown were modified to take them out of MUTCD compliance (though the upstream signs still comply, with one black-on-yellow arrow and a hidden option lane):

previous condition



Then, similar gore-point signage was installed on I-85 between I-285 and GA 316. Finally, the latest signs on 85 north of 316 go back to the pre-2009 practice of indicating the option lane with a white arrow, including well in advance of the gore:




Oddly, though, I haven't seen similar changes elsewhere in the state, so I dunno WTF. 

[jakeroot]

Unfortunately, this is the required signage for double-lane exits with an option lane (when the sign is past the gore point). Further proof that the FHWA has not yet nailed option lane signage. APLs (in their current incarnation) are wasteful, down arrows are often confusing or misleading, etc.

I've mentioned this before: After several years of going all-in on 2009 MUTCD-compliant option lane signage, Georgia DOT has revolted. First, four recently-installed gore-point signs on I-75-85 downtown were modified to take them out of MUTCD compliance (though the upstream signs still comply, with one black-on-yellow arrow and a hidden option lane):

previous condition
https://i.imgur.com/29hYRkq.jpg

Actually, the before condition was not in compliance either. You can only sign an option lane as an exit only if the sign for the exit is past the gore point. What they put in place is also not compliant. The only real way to sign option lanes is APL or MNDOT. Or, no signage. WSDOT has been opting for no advanced option lane signage, lately. Only advanced warning of an 'exit only', with arrows on the pavement being the only indicator of an option lane.