New MUTCD announced

[jakeroot]

Also, the current MUTCD handles exits with option lanes really poorly in my opinion, since it doesn't have a way to indicate an option lane on the big overhead signs in advance of the exit. Nobody reads the little R3-8 lane signs at freeway speeds. I'm also not a fan of how the option lane is signed "exit only" at the ramp itself.

Isn't Utah full of arrow-per-lane signs, which were the effective replacement for down-arrow option lane signage? There's definitely a way to advance-sign an option-lane exit. They're also one of the few states using the sawn-off arrow-per-lane sign, which saves on cost while still being decently informative (from what I've seen/heard).

I certainly don't mind Utah's partial APLs, but the thing is that those were added into Utah's version of the MUTCD. There should be something like that in the federal document.

As for full-size APLs: I'd love to know how this is any more effective than what was there before. The new one is a waste of sign and still isn't easy to read.

Agreed on the sawn-off APL addition. Would be wise!

But your problem doesn't seem to be the lack of a way to sign option lanes, but rather your disapproval of full-width APLs. Being someone who is very publicly in favour of APL signage, even I recognize that some can become gigantic. But that's not because of the up arrows themselves, but how poorly the MUTCD has designated information be laid out on the signs. It's basically a free-for-all with down arrow signage (in terms of where stuff can be placed), but God forbid anyone put a route shield between two up arrows on an APL to save space.

Thing is, at least in my opinion, while they are large, they do seem very effective in minimizing unnecessary lane changes (particularly in areas where auxiliary lanes are common and where lane changes (to exit) are not always necessary). While I would love to see one or two committees study various types of APLs, and not just those introduced in the 2009 MUTCD (which, I agree, can become almost comically large), the usefulness of the current signage is still there, and, realistically, in most cases, the signs are not ridiculously large -- your link is certainly an outlier.

California has some newer APL signs which fit within their 10-foot maximum height, but they have some older ones that I think are really well designed; why designs like these were not considered to be the starting point for the original '09-spec APL, I do not know:

[akotchi]

^^^  To J N's discussion, I think there are standards in Chapter 2D and 2E (for guide signs) that do specify the loop height.  Must not have gotten back to 2A.

[marleythedog]

For APL's why can't each lane have it's own separate sign with route/control city and arrow over each lane?  Actually it'll be less materials used.  Instead of having one huge sign over all lanes, you'd have individual smaller ones over each lane.

An example for a three-lane road with the middle lane being the option lane:

                       North
                       US-27

West               West              North 
I-4                  I-4               US-27

                     Tampa   
Tampa         Jacksonville    Jacksonville

  V                     V                   V

Here's an example from the Ohio thread. It's not great.

The opening of the reconfigured exit ramps at I-670 & I-270 has brought about some exit numbering changes:

10A: I-270 N
10B: SR 161/Easton Way
10C: US 62 E
10D: I-270 S

[US 89]

For APL's why can't each lane have it's own separate sign with route/control city and arrow over each lane?  Actually it'll be less materials used.  Instead of having one huge sign over all lanes, you'd have individual smaller ones over each lane.

An example for a three-lane road with the middle lane being the option lane:

                       North
                       US-27

West               West              North 
I-4                  I-4               US-27

                     Tampa   
Tampa         Jacksonville    Jacksonville

  V                     V                   V

To me, that would suggest the middle lane goes to an I-24/US 27 concurrency.

[MNHighwayMan]

California has some newer APL signs which fit within their 10-foot maximum height, but they have some older ones that I think are really well designed; why designs like these were not considered to be the starting point for the original '09-spec APL, I do not know:

That might be the first California BGS that I have ever really liked.

[jakeroot]

California has some newer APL signs which fit within their 10-foot maximum height, but they have some older ones that I think are really well designed; why designs like these were not considered to be the starting point for the original '09-spec APL, I do not know:

That might be the first California BGS that I have ever really liked.

Yeah, it's nice ain't it!? It works because it's clear (IMO) and thrifty with space. If all APLs were laid out like this (or similar to this) to begin with, I doubt anywhere near as many of us would find them a waste.

[Scott5114]

Another approach to shrinking APL panel size that I believe I posted in one of the illustration thread:



I wonder how this would fare during testing.

[Pink Jazz]

I wonder if Clearview will be mentioned in this edition, since only a handful of states began using it by the 2009 revision, and many more have joined in after that?

Highly doubt it.  The FHWA's evaluation of Clearview post-reinstatement has shown that it is no more legible than the FHWA Standard Alphabets, and that any increase in legibility can be achieved by increasing the size of the lettering.  Considering that the Congress that pushed for Clearview's reinstatement has been gone for about a year now and there has been no real push by the current Congress to adopt the font, I don't see the interim approval lasting much longer.

[DaBigE]

Another approach to shrinking APL panel size that I believe I posted in one of the illustration thread:



I wonder how this would fare during testing.

I'm torn on this. It makes the sign panels much more "efficient" (less wasted fields of green), but adds a decent amount of mounting complexity, and looks kinda tacky/cheap/ugly, IMO.

[jakeroot]

I'm torn on this. It makes the sign panels much more "efficient" (less wasted fields of green), but adds a decent amount of mounting complexity, and looks kinda tacky/cheap/ugly, IMO.

Totally agree. The "holes" in the sign look really odd to me. Plus, it still requires lane-width signs to correspond with the arrows. A regular APL, with a bit more creativity, would be quite a bit easier to mount, and would require a lot less "cutting" (if that's a term for sign construction):



(font is Overpass) (signs are about 110" tall).

[Scott5114]

I feel like this

Another approach to shrinking APL panel size that I believe I posted in one of the illustration thread:



I wonder how this would fare during testing.

I'm torn on this. It makes the sign panels much more "efficient" (less wasted fields of green), but adds a decent amount of mounting complexity, and looks kinda tacky/cheap/ugly, IMO.

It's based on what Ontario does with down arrows on their signage.

I'm torn on this. It makes the sign panels much more "efficient" (less wasted fields of green), but adds a decent amount of mounting complexity, and looks kinda tacky/cheap/ugly, IMO.

Totally agree. The "holes" in the sign look really odd to me. Plus, it still requires lane-width signs to correspond with the arrows. A regular APL, with a bit more creativity, would be quite a bit easier to mount, and would require a lot less "cutting" (if that's a term for sign construction):



(font is Overpass) (signs are about 110" tall).

The problem with this is that it would cause unneeded lane changes (people will invariably think they need the #2 or #3 lanes for I-20, and that the #3 and #4 lanes are for I-59 only). Of course, you could duplicate both shields on both lanes, but that's going to look pretty crowded (and green space is important for readability), and won't work if there are 3+ shields involved.

[jakeroot]

The problem with this is that it would cause unneeded lane changes (people will invariably think they need the #2 or #3 lanes for I-20, and that the #3 and #4 lanes are for I-59 only). Of course, you could duplicate both shields on both lanes, but that's going to look pretty crowded (and green space is important for readability), and won't work if there are 3+ shields involved.

I've created signs that duplicate the shields as well. My exact design here may not work with three shields, but (A) that doesn't mean I can't figure something out, and (B) that's not exactly a common occurrence.; there's many routes in the US with triplexes, but at least from my experience, only the absolute most important routes (one or two) are shown.



I've probably done 100+ redesigns over the years, and only once can I recall deleting an extra shield (not sure which route below):

[Scott5114]

I decided to check and see how Norway handles this (since their approach to things tends to be clean, practical, and totally divorced from the US MUTCD), and their approach is to leave out the middle lane, so they can put the text there.



At first I was wondering what they were smoking, but the more I look at it, the more I'm warming up to it. Something about having the text bracketed between the two up arrows just solidifies the message to me.

[J N Winkler]

A German approach (not sure if it is in RWBA and thus nationwide) is to show the middle lane, but using an upward-pointing arrow with a shorter shaft to leave room for the legend block.

[Scott5114]

That was my first thought upon seeing the Norwegian sign, was that they just took that standard, discovered (possibly through testing) that the tiny middle-lane arrow was unnecessary and could simply be implied, and chose to omit the arrow.

[jakeroot]

I actually like the shrunken center arrow style too. I just prefer having a single up arrow height for consistency's sake. I also try to use "one arrow per lane" if at all possible, and I've seldom (read: never) come across situations where I wasn't able to create some form of APL that where I had to eliminate an arrow. For me, what makes the APL a good option is that it truly represents the approaching situation no matter what angle you're looking from; you count the arrows, and that's the lanes. If there was a missing arrow, I feel that the sign wouldn't be as comprehensive, and therefore starts to miss the point.

I modified the above sign slightly to allow for two shields between both up arrows. I also slightly widened the through arrows to more comfortably fit two shields, changed the interpunct to an ampersand (no idea if I like this or not), and made the sign a more normal 120".

[Scott5114]

MUTCD standard for multiple destinations on one line is a dash. I prefer the British standard of using a comma (which OTA somehow stumbled into using at the "Afton, Vinita/S. Grand Lake" exit on the Will Rogers Turnpike).

[jakeroot]

MUTCD standard for multiple destinations on one line is a dash. I prefer the British standard of using a comma (which OTA somehow stumbled into using at the "Afton, Vinita/S. Grand Lake" exit on the Will Rogers Turnpike).

I've preferred, for the longest time, to use interpuncts as used in British Columbia, which are damn-near the same as dashes/hyphens for this purpose. Commas look good to me too. I tried that right before the ampersand.

[webny99]

California has some newer APL signs which fit within their 10-foot maximum height, but they have some older ones that I think are really well designed; why designs like these were not considered to be the starting point for the original '09-spec APL, I do not know:

That might be the first California BGS that I have ever really liked.

I agree wholeheartedly!
Obviously, this style depends on the control city having few enough characters (preferably 6 or less) to fit between the arrows. That's far from guaranteed: Irondequoit comes to mind as a local example that probably wouldn't work.

[jakeroot]

Obviously, this style depends on the control city having few enough characters (preferably 6 or less) to fit between the arrows. That's far from guaranteed: Irondequoit comes to mind as a local example that probably wouldn't work.

Rare APL without any "EXIT ONLY" stickers. Looks really good.

If you put the city name between the arrows (not my preferred option because of obvious width restrictions), usually you just fudge the arrows left and right a little. Below, the far right arrow is scooted to the right to more comfortably fit "San Francisco":



(the Clearview sign I posted above also does this).

[roadman]

I've mentioned this in other threads, but one of the things I would really like to see in the new MUTCD is minimum attendance and other standards for different categories of Attractions, and not just "regional significance."

[vdeane]

Now there's an interesting catch 22 - you want to get people to your new attraction by getting on the sign, but you'd need people at your new attraction to get on the sign...

[roadman]

Now there's an interesting catch 22 - you want to get people to your new attraction by getting on the sign, but you'd need people at your new attraction to get on the sign...

Attendance standards exist for posting colleges on signs, why not for attractions?  The problem with the current standard is that "regional significance" is too vague and opens agencies up to Warrant #12 claims@@ when requests are denied.  Given that there's only a finite amount of space for putting up signs, there needs to be a better way of determining which attractions are truly eligible for posting on signs.

@@ Warrant 12 = political demand

[jakeroot]

Attendance standards exist for posting colleges on signs, why not for attractions?  The problem with the current standard is that "regional significance" is too vague and opens agencies up to Warrant #12 claims@@ when requests are denied.  Given that there's only a finite amount of space for putting up signs, there needs to be a better way of determining which attractions are truly eligible for posting on signs.

I can see where you're going with this. My issue is that the standards would have to vary significantly from junction to junction, because areas with lots of attractions with lots of attendance would all qualify for the blue signs, and there wouldn't be enough room for everyone. On the other hand, in quiet areas, a small regional park with 100 visitors/day might be busy enough to advertise on the edge of a freeway in that particular region, but would be too quiet to advertise in busier areas.

All told, it's a bit unfair to places that are quieter. The busiest shops in Tacoma are basically all dispensaries (mostly for out of town visitors -- locals have other sources); if those places dragged the "attendance bar" up, the logo signs are just going to be full of cannabis shops. Now, you might say that cannabis shops don't qualify for "attraction" signs, and that's probably true (I don't know the rules). But what exactly qualifies as an attraction is just as vague as the qualifying determination itself; in my mind, it's better just to have a first-come first-serve situation with the attraction signs, as establishing rules would be wicked hard.

Honestly, if politics did get so heavily involved, we'd be better off removing the signs. It's not like lots of people use them anyway (at least from my experience).

[Scott5114]

This is why I've always though the "Attractions" signs were unusual to begin with. Kansas and Oklahoma don't use them at all. If an attraction is important enough to be signed, it just gets put on a brown sign, and if not, it isn't.