Pushing the MUTCD envelope: arrow-per-lane diagrammatics

[pctech]

I'm hoping to see APL BGS in Louisiana eventually. They could have used them in the Baton Rouge I-10 widening project. Some of the exits now have drop and option exit lanes.

Mark

[hbelkins]

Someone requested a photo of the new signage at the US 60/US 65 interchange in Springfield, Mo.

[kphoger]

Thank you, hbelkins.  Somehow, they managed to keep that sign at a reasonable height.

[hbelkins]

There were two more to the west of that interchange. I got pictures but didn't post them, because they look similar to this one and I love the flyovers in the background.

[SignBridge]

Those arrows look smaller than the ones in the Manual. Are they actually smaller or could it be an optical illusion in the photo?

[Brandon]

Here's one with much shorter arrows in Missouri:

[J N Winkler]

Those arrows look smaller than the ones in the Manual. Are they actually smaller or could it be an optical illusion in the photo?

They are actually smaller.  MoDOT advertised the US 60/US 65 project (job number J8P0683C) in February 2009, at a time when draft illustrations and text were available for what is now MUTCD 2009, but not the final product.  The straight-ahead arrows are 42" tall, as opposed to the 72" specified in the manual, the 66" specified in SHSM, or the 60" or 54" used by various state DOTs.

MoDOT has since used the following with arrow-per-lane diagrammatics (all dimensions relate to the straight-ahead arrow--the accompanying side arrows are sized to match shaft width):

*  42" with thin stroke, full shaft, as shown on the US 60/US 65 diagrammatic

*  72" with fat stroke, as shown in the MUTCD

*  42" with fat stroke, cropped shaft, as shown in the picture Brandon posted (side arrows use the same stroke but are left uncropped, so they are the same height as the straight-ahead arrows)

The choice between 72" and either one of the 42" options seems to be driven by the need to keep total sign square footage under a certain value dictated by the limitations of substrate type and mounting method.  I have seen plan sheets where 72" is used on an APL that serves as an advance guide sign and 42" on the next one down the road that serves as an exit direction sign.

[SignBridge]

Those slightly short arrows on the Routes 60-65 sign look reasonable enough. I've always thought the 72-inch arrows in the Manual are overkill,  and take up too much dead-space on the sign.

[Zeffy]

Here's one with much shorter arrows in Missouri:

Am I the only one who thinks that sign is pretty damn ugly?

[SignBridge]

Why are there no destinations shown?

[Alps]

Here's one with much shorter arrows in Missouri:

Am I the only one who thinks that sign is pretty damn ugly?

It's not the greatest, but I do like that it uses up less material/$.

Why are there no destinations shown?

Could probably fit them in on either side of the shield, which has the other benefit of justifying such a wide sign.

[machias]

Here's one with much shorter arrows in Missouri:

Am I the only one who thinks that sign is pretty damn ugly?

I don't find it awful but the thing about the new diagrammatic signs like that is that the angle of the right pointing combined arrow doesn't match the angle of the right only arrows. I've seen that in quite a few places. It's not a big deal but it always catches my eye when I see one of these new signs.

[Brandon]

The first one I've seen in Illinois, put up by an agency in Illinois (ISTHA):



I-355 north at Maple for I-88.  Just put up last week (Thursday or Friday).

[The High Plains Traveler]

^I think the only place I've seen opposite cardinal directions on the same sign (EAST-WEST) is Minnesota, where it's common to see where an interchange formerly had separate exits.

[NE2]

^I think the only place I've seen opposite cardinal directions on the same sign (EAST-WEST) is Minnesota, where it's common to see where an interchange formerly had separate exits.

Wisconsin has (had?) it on I-94 south of Milwaukee.

[Big John]

^^ WI does that if there is not a worthy control city.  There are other instances of this.

[pctech]

There some interchanges here in Louisiana that could benefit using the arrow per lane system.  I like the fact that it shows what the lanes in front are you are going to do vs. down arrows that only show what lane that you're suppose to be in. This can be confusing in complicated interchanges with multiple arrows pointed to the same lane.

[1995hoo]

^I think the only place I've seen opposite cardinal directions on the same sign (EAST-WEST) is Minnesota, where it's common to see where an interchange formerly had separate exits.

I've seen it at one interchange in Virginia, Exit 60 on eastbound I-66, where the signs have the words "NORTH" and "SOUTH" stacked next to a VA-123 shield. Odd thing is, the first advance BGS has it with "NORTH" listed above "SOUTH" and the second one reverses the order. I'd argue the second one is the better way since the southbound ramp comes up first. Also, the first BGS lists the cities in the order of Fairfax and then Vienna, but that's the opposite of the order of cardinal directions on the same sign because Fairfax is to the south and Vienna is to the north.

First sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.86608,-77.323534,3a,75y,98.88h,89.9t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEJULGOlLlKt-XaJy4WJVjQ!2e0  (There are other problems with this assembly)

Second sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.866779,-77.319783,3a,75y,98.88h,89.9t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sW_c1NphK5rkZYYsA9gobOA!2e0


The other place I recall a sign with opposite directions on the same sign is on I-70 in Hagerstown, Maryland, where the signs list I-81 "NORTH & SOUTH":

Westbound: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.612189,-77.782073,3a,75y,321.57h,84.9t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRSWpMzHcDF65R5QG2Jookw!2e0

Eastbound: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.621478,-77.7897,3a,75y,127.68h,87.58t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1syjBp6T6EhY4phd85a1_8Lg!2e0 (Similar to the Virginia sign above, this one says "NORTH & SOUTH" in that order but lists destinations in the reverse order, as Roanoke is to the south.)

It's been a few years since I've used I-81 there, so I looked on Street View and I see the BGSs for I-70 similarly use "EAST & WEST." I assume if you're interested you can find those easily enough using the links above. The southbound sign again has destinations in the reverse order from the cardinal directions.




Regarding arrow-per-lane signs, my wife and I were driving on the Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286) the other day when we passed one that didn't use the legend "EXIT ONLY" for a lane that split off from the road we were on. Upon reflection, I suppose it isn't technically an "exit" because Route 286 exits from itself via a two-lane ramp to curve to the south (map link: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7592568,-77.213637,16z ). In theory, the design of the APL setup ought to tell you that a lane splits off from the route you're following even without the words "EXIT ONLY" because if it's an option lane, you have that two-headed arrow, though of course having the banner provides reassurance. I wonder how many people misunderstand this sort of sign. I tend to discount some of the last-second swerving I see at the two locations where I most often see APL signs (the one noted above and the Springfield Interchange) because (a) I tend to assume some people are just aggressive drivers being assholes and (b) in Springfield I assume some people are following outdated sat-navs rather than the signs.

[DaBigE]

^^ WI does that if there is not a worthy control city.  There are other instances of this.

Yes, this is quite common for interchanges with county highways that are more or less in the middle of nowhere: US 41 interchange with CTH D in Washington County

[roadman]

^I think the only place I've seen opposite cardinal directions on the same sign (EAST-WEST) is Minnesota, where it's common to see where an interchange formerly had separate exits.

The current signs at most entrance ramps to the Mass Pike (except those for Pike exits from other freeways) have "EAST WEST" to the right of the I-90 and MassPike shields.  These cardinals will go away when these signs are replaced under the pending 2015 and 2016 Pike signing projects.

[on_wisconsin]

[bump]

New APL signs on the Madison Beltline:

WisDOT
Very little excess space on this one. The FHWA should allow this particular modification (no extra pull-through arrow) as an option for non-system interchanges in the next MUTCD. IMO

[J N Winkler]

Very little excess space on this one. The FHWA should allow this particular modification (no extra pull-through arrow) as an option for non-system interchanges in the next MUTCD. IMO

This is an instance of what I call "sawn-off" APL diagrammatics.  There is a faction on GMITC that agrees with you.  I am waiting to see if it shows up in the next MUTCD rulemaking, and I am personally not sure what I make of the idea since I remember it being tried as an option in Dewar et al.'s late 1980's/early 1990's study of option lane signing in the greater Toronto area, and being rejected in favor of something else (I think what is now shown in the Ontario Traffic Manual).

[Jim920]

Why exactly was this change made??  The first time I saw something like this was on I-43 North in Milwaukee with rebuild of the Marquette Interchange. http://goo.gl/maps/xSO5n   Personally I think the up arrows look stupid, not just on this sign, but all the examples posted here. WisDOT also installed this sign  http://goo.gl/maps/q3eew  during the same project and it's just before the sign I mention above.  It looks better, does the same job, has way less wasted green space, and doesn't look like a 10 year old designed it.

[Scott5114]

APL signs are designed specifically to handle interchanges with an "option lane", that is, interchanges with two-lane offramps, where the rightmost lane is exit only and the next lane to the left can either exit or continue (substitute "left" for "right" in the case of left exits, of course). The traditional method of signing these is not readily understood by some motorists.

[J N Winkler]

WisDOT also installed this sign  http://goo.gl/maps/q3eew  during the same project and it's just before the sign I mention above.  It looks better, does the same job, has way less wasted green space, and doesn't look like a 10 year old designed it.

This is an example of what some of us call the "MnDOT style" for signing option lanes.  Personally, I like it, but I don't know if it has ever been tested in comparison to APL diagrammatics.