Inspired by some discussion here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14459.msg2034782#msg2034782), 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7270163,-93.2822296,3a,75y,0.03h,87.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seGNBzpdpTpVNqBy8YCV-rA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). It will be interesting to see what NYSDOT chooses here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1577411,-77.6745116,3a,75y,273.45h,80.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssapjFVie6DahROGOEmXJwg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656): The right-center lane will be an option lane to NY 390 North when current construction is complete. New installs nearby (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.109185,-77.6091201,3a,75y,53.01h,86.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svk_33zxCu-fjgz5cb0pGvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), however, are probably an indication of the increasing prominence of the APL sign for option lanes in Upstate NY.
Your thoughts?
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.
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
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 06, 2018, 02:46:53 PM
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.
Quote from: US 89 on June 06, 2018, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 06, 2018, 02:46:53 PM
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)
Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2018, 03:14:58 PM
Quote from: US 89 on June 06, 2018, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 06, 2018, 02:46:53 PM
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).
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 04:21:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2018, 03:14:58 PM
Quote from: US 89 on June 06, 2018, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 06, 2018, 02:46:53 PM
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).
Quote from: jakeroot on June 06, 2018, 02:41:19 PM
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.
Quote from: roadfro on June 07, 2018, 11:36:27 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 06, 2018, 02:41:19 PM
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. ;-)
Quote from: roadfro on June 07, 2018, 11:36:27 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 06, 2018, 02:41:19 PM
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/1m8TSly.jpg)
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.
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.
APL's lead to a lot of wasted space. I prefer the down arrows.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on June 25, 2018, 06:09:58 PM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 25, 2018, 07:26:07 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on June 25, 2018, 06:09:58 PM
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?
Quote from: vdeane on June 25, 2018, 08:19:02 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 25, 2018, 07:26:07 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on June 25, 2018, 06:09:58 PM
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.
Quote from: webny99 on June 25, 2018, 08:46:08 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 25, 2018, 08:19:02 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 25, 2018, 07:26:07 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on June 25, 2018, 06:09:58 PM
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.
I kind of like the partial APL (example from Chicagoland) (https://goo.gl/maps/b4r4kg4kbDS2) or the special overhead lane usage sign (former example on I-94 west of Milwaukee). (https://goo.gl/maps/F3XFrUd3n762)
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 25, 2018, 08:58:53 PM
I kind of like the partial APL (example from Chicagoland) (https://goo.gl/maps/b4r4kg4kbDS2) or the special overhead lane usage sign (former example on I-94 west of Milwaukee). (https://goo.gl/maps/F3XFrUd3n762)
Partial APLs are okay. Just say no to whatever that damn thing in Milwaukee was, however.
Quote from: MCRoads on June 25, 2018, 08:49:47 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 25, 2018, 08:46:08 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 25, 2018, 08:19:02 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 25, 2018, 07:26:07 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on June 25, 2018, 06:09:58 PM
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.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 25, 2018, 10:04:37 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 25, 2018, 08:58:53 PM
I kind of like the partial APL (example from Chicagoland) (https://goo.gl/maps/b4r4kg4kbDS2) or the special overhead lane usage sign (former example on I-94 west of Milwaukee). (https://goo.gl/maps/F3XFrUd3n762)
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.
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.
This was the Utah standard until recently, and I think it's still the best way to sign an option lane:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/949/40410619330_1a73f7f4c6_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24yWZf3)
In the past few years, UDOT has started using partial APLs, which aren't bad:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4721/40281773042_744b4340e3_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24nyBJj)
But what I really don't like is this:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/824/28344919198_d546125574_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KbK7Xq)
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.
Quote from: US 89 on June 26, 2018, 03:57:41 PM
But what I really don't like is this:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/824/28344919198_d546125574_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KbK7Xq)
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 26, 2018, 04:38:23 PMUnfortunately, 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://www.google.com/maps/@33.7510351,-84.3804468,3a,25.8y,34.19h,99.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxtEa1kdCiRWy1oIfN5YGfw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
(https://i.imgur.com/29hYRkq.jpg?1)
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/9i2PWdc.jpg?1)
Oddly, though, I haven't seen similar changes elsewhere in the state, so I dunno WTF. :hmmm:
Quote from: Tom958 on June 26, 2018, 05:31:41 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 26, 2018, 04:38:23 PMUnfortunately, 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://www.google.com/maps/@33.7510351,-84.3804468,3a,25.8y,34.19h,99.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxtEa1kdCiRWy1oIfN5YGfw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 27, 2018, 02:04:35 AM
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.
Indeed. One problem with the 2009 protocol is that sometimes a bridge prevents the signage from being installed at the proper location. Irritatingly, though, here and in many other places the gantry was installed upstream from where it needs to be for no apparent reason. This spot on 285 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9201181,-84.3216235,3a,75y,86.44h,96.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stqRxmpOjSA9UW0q_wJiaAQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is the most glaring example: to compound the screwup, the gantry was replaced as well as the signage, but it was installed immediately behind the replaced structure, not a couple hundred feet downstream where it belongs.
Pavement markings are used in downtown Atlanta, but nowhere else that I recall. the MUTCD also specifies
four R3-8's (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.76483,-84.3845208,3a,15y,355.11h,92.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFUqmMZi0UUgHhIkTlv2Qaw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), but they're used inconsistently and/or erroneously, and I seriously doubt that drivers even notice them.
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 04:21:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2018, 03:14:58 PM
Quote from: US 89 on June 06, 2018, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 06, 2018, 02:46:53 PM
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).
I don't know how signing something with a pavement marking only is preferable to signing AND marking. Do those areas of the country who do that not get snow, which can quickly render pavement markings invisible? Snow can sometimes obscure signs as well, but you see my point.
Quote from: Tom958 on June 27, 2018, 05:56:52 AM
the MUTCD also specifies four R3-8's (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.76483,-84.3845208,3a,15y,355.11h,92.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFUqmMZi0UUgHhIkTlv2Qaw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), but they're used inconsistently and/or erroneously, and I seriously doubt that drivers even notice them.
Interesting! I definitely don't recall seeing those on any Seattle-area freeways. Are you sure that's not a Georgia MUTCD-supplement thing?
Quote from: SSR_317 on June 27, 2018, 01:00:45 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 06, 2018, 04:21:10 PM
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).
I don't know how signing something with a pavement marking only is preferable to signing AND marking. Do those areas of the country who do that not get snow, which can quickly render pavement markings invisible? Snow can sometimes obscure signs as well, but you see my point.
There's not that many parts of the country where pavement markings are invisible most of the time. Even the snowiest areas of the country plow freeways. The catch is that constant plowing quickly peels away the marking, meaning that they have to be repainted once a year at least.
Illinois, the upper sections of which are pretty damn snowy, uses more than a few of the optional MUTCD markings (freeway edge extensions come to mind), so IDOT/ISTHA must not mind repainting the markings.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 27, 2018, 02:08:21 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on June 27, 2018, 05:56:52 AM
the MUTCD also specifies four R3-8's (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.76483,-84.3845208,3a,15y,355.11h,92.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFUqmMZi0UUgHhIkTlv2Qaw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), but they're used inconsistently and/or erroneously, and I seriously doubt that drivers even notice them.
Interesting! I definitely don't recall seeing those on any Seattle-area freeways. Are you sure that's not a Georgia MUTCD-supplement thing?
Figure 2E-11, page 204 of the 2009 MUTCD edition on my laptop, which has revisions 1 & 2 from May 2012. I guess that's current. I'll go ahead and point out that the inclusion of these goofy little signs in the MUTCD is an admission that the compliant BGS's are inadequate. I'll also mention that the only difference on the MUTCD between an option lane split like we're talking about and a situation where the extra lane is added on the right and the is no option lane... is... the lack of R3-8's. The stupid doth burn, IMO. :clap:
EDIT: Oh, hell. :bigass:
(https://i.imgur.com/8H5Zuc3.png?1)
Quote from: Tom958 on June 27, 2018, 04:27:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 27, 2018, 02:08:21 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on June 27, 2018, 05:56:52 AM
the MUTCD also specifies four R3-8's (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.76483,-84.3845208,3a,15y,355.11h,92.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFUqmMZi0UUgHhIkTlv2Qaw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), but they're used inconsistently and/or erroneously, and I seriously doubt that drivers even notice them.
Interesting! I definitely don't recall seeing those on any Seattle-area freeways. Are you sure that's not a Georgia MUTCD-supplement thing?
Figure 2E-11, page 204 of the 2009 MUTCD edition on my laptop, which has revisions 1 & 2 from May 2012. I guess that's current. I'll go ahead and point out that the inclusion of these goofy little signs in the MUTCD is an admission that the compliant BGS's are inadequate. I'll also mention that the only difference on the MUTCD between an option lane split like we're talking about and a situation where the extra lane is added on the right and the is no option lane... is... the lack of R3-8's. The stupid doth burn, IMO. :clap:
EDIT: Oh, hell. :bigass:
https://i.imgur.com/8H5Zuc3.png
The use of R3-8 seems like completely unnecessary sign spam, especially with
four of them.
Edit: Just noticed that two of them are marked as optional in that diagram. That's improved, but I still think there's got to be a better solution.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 07, 2018, 11:53:13 AM
Quote from: roadfro on June 07, 2018, 11:36:27 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 06, 2018, 02:41:19 PM
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. ;-)
I like the MN method, too, but AFAIK it was tested and found to be inferior to the approved schemes. OTOH, this thread is about preferences, not necessarily about what's best. :-D
I'm impressed with Michigan's partial APL's. Better this type than the ones with two straight arrows, or the one from Utah with no pullthrough shield.
(https://i.imgur.com/r4gv2Gp.jpg)
Quote from: Tom958 on June 28, 2018, 02:18:24 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 07, 2018, 11:53:13 AM
Quote from: roadfro on June 07, 2018, 11:36:27 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 06, 2018, 02:41:19 PM
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. ;-)
I like the MN method, too, but AFAIK it was tested and found to be inferior to the approved schemes. OTOH, this thread is about preferences, not necessarily about what's best. :-D
I'm impressed with Michigan's partial APL's. Better this type than the ones with two straight arrows, or the one from Utah with no pullthrough shield.
https://i.imgur.com/r4gv2Gp.jpg
That is perhaps the cleanest partial APL I have ever seen. Props to Michigan for being a little creative with the arrows, too (I see they are custom to allow for a shorter sign).
Quote from: MCRoads on June 25, 2018, 02:02:52 PM
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.
What's an NM style sign? I looked around Colorado Springs for a bit and din't see anything obvious.I
did find this masterpiece (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8328902,-104.8323965,3a,44.1y,30.6h,92.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMVPT8z6uAmUuqVIkAQtqow!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), though.
Ontario does this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1787988,-79.2984517,3a,75y,275.24h,91.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjMxnI_FUVXbzVptvCg8HLQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at almost every exit along the QEW. Full APL's aren't really needed when there's a regular deceleration lane and an option lane (in other words, no change in the number of through lanes).
^ From a design standpoint, my problem with the above Ontario example is that the exit destination legend sits to the left of the right-curving arrows–and actually, it's closest to a straight ahead arrow that identifies the direction of travel that won't take you to that destination. Analyzed within the American APL signing paradigm, this sign seems to suggest that the through lane goes to Seventh Street, and the two exit lanes go toward some unidentified destination.
So while I understand the concept (i.e. that there is no need to identify all through lanes), I think that either the legend needs to be moved above and/or to the right of the curved arrows. Or alternatively, something needs to be done to the straight ahead (through) arrow to show that it is a possible move but not part of the exit movement–such as the straight ahead arrow shaft and head being outline rather than filled.
When it comes to signing option lanes, any state's method is better than the northern Illinois method, which is not to sign them at all. (This infuriates me.)