AARoads Forum

Yesterday I took a mini road trip to photograph the Northwest Corridor reversible HOT lane project on I-75 and I-575 north of Atlanta. Georgia has had a rogueish approach to APL signage, using them at major interchanges whether they're warranted or not, and not using them where they are warranted. I discovered yesterday that they're getting away from that, though there are some caveats.

If you'd like to see the rest of yesterday's photos plus countless others, they're at Peach State Roads on Facebook.

First, this new conventional sign replaces a rogue APL for a split with no option lane (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8956453,-84.4519279,3a,75y,199.06h,85.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWf3bRuwjJpd0r-dpYv5ogg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). The APL's upstream are still there, for now. The shrouded portion of the pullthrough sign (is it really a pullthrough, then?) pertains to the access ramp to the reversible roadway, which will be closed during the AM rush.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjQAod28.jpg%3F1&hash=6dd16f4e74930888aa94dc4d9131dba4ef4b254d)


Next, this APL replaces quite recent conventional signage on the CD (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8933907,-84.4557179,3a,75y,247.39h,88.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4kIWCidWl1vXdpqsDUuatg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  Note the signage for SunTrust Park, the Braves' new stadium, and the stadium itself beyond. Why the left fork is shown as bending to the left is a mystery to me-- it's unambiguously straight ahead.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkvcSgWR.jpg%3F1&hash=d48d64f82b7f529004baee47a81b70aab6d3504c)


Off the immediate topic, but here's the first signage I've seen for the reversible itself. This is just north of Windy Hill Road.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FEcNCmNe.jpg&hash=f9235fc8546a3bf1da826065b7a33c778f511bbe)

Ha, posted by accident. I'll just split the post-- it'd be too big anyway.

This conventional sign installation replaces a diagrammatic sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9907172,-84.5503409,3a,75y,303.42h,89.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szBxgqJ_Qr5DYCvn-FLuwzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) that I'd suspect was a bit of a landmark for travellers.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F86uNZEI.jpg%3F1&hash=b8f629414d5c584856b3c6e0d811069f4735fd17)

Just beyond, this one used to be one of the few surviving cantilevered signs in metro Atlanta (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.99351,-84.5553457,3a,75y,314.15h,89.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-GhydVdePmcmotPQw4YwRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbzGVFXw.jpg%3F1&hash=ba70355a71ea222196635ccb72697e85e1d6d189)


And, at the split. As you'll soon see, there's an APL-appropriate exit only about 3/4 mile beyond here, and a case could've been made for using an APL here to give sufficient notice, with a conventional sign for 575. Perhaps it was thought that the curvature of the roadways here would make that too confusing.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FotXECDW.jpg%3F1&hash=da64e49f1782cf6fe02a7d601de4192a113943b5)


Or, you could just put the APL only a short distance beyond the split.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgTTJ0ir.jpg%3F1&hash=7756cf8088f11e6b9f3f388ae1a1f92e896fdc42)


NOOOOOO!!!!  :wow: :wow: :wow: Yes, people here drive like this, but the signage ought not encourage it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FciJtkgx.jpg%3F1&hash=57e33a342ff93f477ddc70c6c87123be24755151)


Perfectly good APL here, other than forgetting the exit number. For historical reasons, the three lane exit widens to four lanes well before the split. In the background here or in Streetview (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.89699,-84.4683731,3a,47.3y,134.18h,91.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sz36MOuXnfUTbf_H4RL6mEQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) you can see the four-arrow-for-three-lanes conventional signage.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvQZdYZL.jpg%3F1&hash=3693efb2ef3b76387ed6ecbcfb0594c052d59e38)


And, a rogue APL replacing conventional signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8946419,-84.4654975,3a,52.5y,134.15h,93.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjnqaD3E1yQODgNhVGG7q-w!2e0!5s20160201T000000!7i13312!8i6656). Really, they should've put the APL back where there were still three lanes and used conventional signage here.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FX9OWJnp.jpg%3F1&hash=74fc96b8c3d87e5f16bd7e26bdffd1c29a0ba675)

I believe the one for Windy Hill Road is technically against the MUTCD - I thought only one option lane arrow was permitted on APL signs.

APLs need to go back to the drawing board. I think there need to be some new approaches thought up, because this current method results in large, wasteful signs, and diagrammatic signs, which they replaced, were no better.

California has a solid method for APLs, at least from what I've seen, being that they have a sign height restriction.

Quote from: Zeffy on August 28, 2016, 10:02:00 AM
I believe the one for Windy Hill Road is technically against the MUTCD - I thought only one option lane arrow was permitted on APL signs.

Hence the NOOOOOOO!!!!! I've posted these photos in the order in which I took them, and up until here I'd thought that Georgia finally understood the rules.

Quote from: Zeffy on August 28, 2016, 10:02:00 AMAPLs need to go back to the drawing board. I think there need to be some new approaches thought up, because this current method results in large, wasteful signs, and diagrammatic signs, which they replaced, were no better.

California has a solid method for APLs, at least from what I've seen, being that they have a sign height restriction.

Can't argue with that, but it's a separate issue from understanding and following a consistent protocol, which GDOT seems unable to do.

Quote from: Zeffy on August 28, 2016, 10:02:00 AM
APLs need to go back to the drawing board. I think there need to be some new approaches thought up, because this current method results in large, wasteful signs, and diagrammatic signs, which they replaced, were no better.

The current rules are way too restrictive. The things I'd change:

- permit arrows at all angles, rather than the current "left", "right", and "straight"; This makes it easier to sign multiple splits.
- permit variable sign heights; current regulations require too much stacking of information, which forces signs to be very tall
- following the above, permit the placement of shields between the arrows; this shortens the sign height considerably
- drop the "exit only" plaque requirement; the arrows angled different directions should be enough to portray an "exit only" situation
- permit APLs at splits without option lanes; APLs were invented for option lanes, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be effective in signing drop-lane splits.
- permit the placement of arrows "near" the center of the lane; i.e. drop any requirement that requires arrows to be placed exactly over the center of a lane

I haven't made a sign in a while, but here's several APLs that I've made over the years which illustrate these rules:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGnORLD5.png&hash=3e3f90145406ef0ba3add7fe409fb022edd7147c)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FaM3l7LZ.png&hash=af11ac4818c1e023a0ac976e830c615ffd659f70)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDcxIUMt.png&hash=568eda8c9b453a8b60df3d66b8635f8fd2006271)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fboabf6f.png&hash=842e3e3b79afc412cca2aa35ed1603868fb10c46)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQkw5P3Y.png&hash=7706f24f45c699c7473e36c5f2c17e0408002404)

Quote from: Tom958 on August 28, 2016, 10:35:58 AM

Quote from: Zeffy on August 28, 2016, 10:02:00 AM
APLs need to go back to the drawing board. I think there need to be some new approaches thought up, because this current method results in large, wasteful signs, and diagrammatic signs, which they replaced, were no better.

California has a solid method for APLs, at least from what I've seen, being that they have a sign height restriction.

Can't argue with that, but it's a separate issue from understanding and following a consistent protocol, which GDOT seems unable to do.

I think most of the APLs are just fine. But GDOT is being limited by the current rules, so you end up with some funky signs like the Windy Hill Road sign.

Seems odd that multiple option lanes wouldn't be allowed on APLs... what about areas with multiple nearby splits?  What's the kosher way of signing it?  Or is the MUTCD trying to imply that you shouldn't be using multiple option lanes nearby?  Is it unsafe or something?

This is my 500th post. I'm a US Highway now!  :clap:

Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2016, 07:28:06 PM
Seems odd that multiple option lanes wouldn't be allowed on APLs... what about areas with multiple nearby splits?  What's the kosher way of signing it? 

Just use a vertical arrow there and move the vertical line between the 75 and 285 portions to directly over the arrow. Seems pretty intuitive to me.

Quote from: jakerootI think most of the APLs are just fine. But GDOT is being limited by the current rules, so you end up with some funky signs like the Windy Hill Road sign.

It appears that I've failed utterly in trying to make my point: Aside from whatever issues there are with APL's in general and how they're to be used under the MUTCD, Georgia has had some additional issues due (apparently) to misunderstanding of the rules and poor quality control. What I'm trying to show is that GDOT has improved its grasp of how to do MUTCD signage, both APL and conventional, and has gone to considerable effort and expense to replace relatively recently installed noncompliant signage. Unfortunately, GDOT is not yet immune to brain flatulence, as my last three examples show.

Still, it's an improvement for the agency that's responsible for this:



And this:

Quote from: Tom958 on August 28, 2016, 09:52:39 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on August 28, 2016, 12:16:37 PM
I think most of the APLs are just fine. But GDOT is being limited by the current rules, so you end up with some funky signs like the Windy Hill Road sign.

It appears that I've failed utterly in trying to make my point: Aside from whatever issues there are with APL's in general and how they're to be used under the MUTCD, Georgia has had some additional issues due (apparently) to misunderstanding of the rules and poor quality control. What I'm trying to show is that GDOT has improved its grasp of how to do MUTCD signage, both APL and conventional, and has gone to considerable effort and expense to replace relatively recently installed noncompliant signage. Unfortunately, GDOT is not yet immune to brain flatulence, as my last three examples show.

No, you made your point very clear: Georgia has had difficulty making APLs because of their misunderstanding of the rules, and poor quality control. The way I see it, however, is that Georgia is being put between a rock and a hard place: The MUTCD requires APLs when there's an option lane, but there are many junctions all across Georgia where there are several option lanes in a row, and they must all be, somehow, signed on the same sign. The current design regulations make this exceptionally difficult, hence, my original point: GDOT is being limited by the current rules, so you end up with some funky [looking] signs.

Now, is there actual quality control issues? It certainly seems so: the 285-Exit 34/33 sign in your post above is a clear example of poor quality control (the sign on the right just needs a right-facing arrow -- how a combo straight/right arrow got in there, I have no idea). But other signs, like the 75/285 split several posts up is an example of where Georgia had to, somehow, sign a split using only up arrows. They decided to use combo straight/right arrow, and it looks pretty strange. But you can't effectively sign a split using only one up arrow. This is why the MUTCD should permit unlimited arrow angles, so that multiple splits can be signed on one sign.

Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2016, 07:28:06 PM
Seems odd that multiple option lanes wouldn't be allowed on APLs... what about areas with multiple nearby splits?  What's the kosher way of signing it?  Or is the MUTCD trying to imply that you shouldn't be using multiple option lanes nearby?  Is it unsafe or something?

From discussions I have had with FHWA folks at TRB, part of the reasoning is to reduce the number of option lanes in a compact area. Of course, since many states loved their "dancing arrows" and designed intersections where 4 lanes split into 6 (middle 2 are option), there is no legal way to clearly sign such intersections and rumblings within FHWA are that more guidance and multiple option lanes are a must for APLs.

I think the reality of the APL does not live up to the promise of the APL - just as all the posters above have said.

Yes, it is much easier, in theory, to keep track of lanes where you have one arrow per lane.  Certainly easier than some of the stippled diagrammatic arrows where you have to go and count the lanes.  Certainly easier than seeing signs with more arrows than lanes which was the traditional approach or the approach of dancing arrows.  Yet the reality of very complex interchanges, the kind where more clarity would be most helpful, the APL just doesn't work.

Could you do it at the East LA Interchange?   The Oakland Maze?  Kansas City where so many freeways enter the inner loop?  The Bruckner Interchange in the Bronx?  The Golden Glades Interchange near Miami?  Other really complicated interchanges?  And simply having FHWA tell you not to make such compllicated interchanges is not an answer.  These already exist and there needs to be proper signage so that drivers can get to the destination safely without last minute lane changes.




On the Redesign This thread about a year ago, I've posted the BGS where eastbound I-278 (BQE) meets I-495 (LIE) in western Queens, NY.  Here you have a situation with a three lane freeway:  The left lane forces you to stay on I-278 to Bronx.  The middle lane allows you to go to I-278 Bronx or the ramp on I-495.  The right lane allows you to go to the ramp to I-495.  But that's not all.  Of the two lanes that lead to I-495, you have to make a decision very quickly, the left of the two lanes allows you to go toward Midtown.  Both the left and the right of the two lanes allows you to go Riverhead (Eastern Long Island).  So yes, as currently signed you have a traditional split between 278 vs 495 and then 1/4 mile later a split between 495 west and 495 east.  Each individual split can be signed adequatelly with the current signage or with APLs.  The problem is that there is no way to indicate what lane you need to be in for the second split before you hit the first split. And if you do not know, you will be making a dangerous last minute lane change. wh

This is not a complicated interchange, it is the interchange of two freeways and I am sure that there are many similar interchanges around the counrty where you make an exit to the right to go in either direction of the intersecting freeway.  If each direction had their own lane, no problem.  But split lanes are very common.

Is there any way to indicate before both splits the following ultimate lane division:

Left lane - 278 Bronx

Middle lane - 278 Bronx, 495 Midtown, 495 Riverhead

Right lane - 495 Riverhead.

Oh, and since you already are on 278, the 278 to the Bronx must be considered staying on the road, not making a left turn.


Here are references for the current signage:


https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7307537,-73.926295,3a,75y,45.52h,75.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4B38hK6-sdnwjZJoSOtvHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1


Look like they have added an APL type sign recently, but it still doesn't help the surprise left for those wanting Midtown:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7327198,-73.9249282,3a,75y,45.52h,75.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO5NVM4_P3XYL6FAxZcsNlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1




https://www.google.com/maps/place/Long+Island+City,+Queens,+NY/@40.7328303,-73.9228727,3a,75y,105.46h,71.61t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skPsntIkTsiec0bIwepW1tA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DkPsntIkTsiec0bIwepW1tA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D318.69647%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c2592bc7bab159:0x56156cc4c5ee8e31!8m2!3d40.744679!4d-73.9485424!6m1!1e1

Quote from: mrsman on September 04, 2016, 04:07:41 PM
I think the reality of the APL does not live up to the promise of the APL - just as all the posters above have said.

Yes, it is much easier, in theory, to keep track of lanes where you have one arrow per lane.  Certainly easier than some of the stippled diagrammatic arrows where you have to go and count the lanes.  Certainly easier than seeing signs with more arrows than lanes which was the traditional approach or the approach of dancing arrows.  Yet the reality of very complex interchanges, the kind where more clarity would be most helpful, the APL just doesn't work.

Could you do it at the East LA Interchange?   The Oakland Maze?  Kansas City where so many freeways enter the inner loop?  The Bruckner Interchange in the Bronx?  The Golden Glades Interchange near Miami?  Other really complicated interchanges?  And simply having FHWA tell you not to make such compllicated interchanges is not an answer.  These already exist and there needs to be proper signage so that drivers can get to the destination safely without last minute lane changes.

The issue with the APL is not the arrows. It's the FHWA. They are being far too picky with the design of the signs. If they eased up on the rules, and allowed different arrows, different placement of shields, etc, I think almost any split could be signed...

Quote from: mrsman on September 04, 2016, 04:07:41 PM
[redesign 278/495 split on Long Island]

Is there any way to indicate before both splits[?]

My design seems sufficient, without being overly redundant (both signs are 113" tall):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbYprrU4.png&hash=03ffc65d818ea971a2ff23b5611684e6c1a1fe5c)

At the [second] split:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTeWJAJ8.png&hash=8518d2a9ed095b90e9f4a6f8ff29571cacee6f87)

Well, we could always do more as the Dutch have. This example uses more-curved and less-curved arrows, multiple panels, and even variation in size within a single panel to articulate which lanes go where. Surely all of these ideas were considered in developing our APL standards. Why were they rejected? I can't think of an acceptable answer to that question.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8RxMaB5.jpg%3F1&hash=8081095491d53c9c204d5ddabd3a2f3278f8af95)


Re mrsman's example in Queens, I think there's no way to sign exactly what lane does what in such a limited space (oh: you didn't mention 48th Street!). Nor, IMO, is there a compelling need to. The trickiest part is to ensure that drivers heading for 495 west know to be in the left lane of the offramp, which also means being in or at least moving toward the center lane of 278 before the split. If doing so implies that the right lane of the offramp is the only lane that goes to 495 east, so be it; there'll likely be enough drivers who are familiar with the area and who thus know otherwise to keep overuse of the right lane from becoming a serious problem.

That said, under the current MUTCD, both dancing arrows and having white-on-green and black-on-yellow arrows on the same sign are  banned. An APL is thus the only option for signing the critical option lane. What to do? I see two options: Leave the current signage and beg the FHWA's indulgence, or correctly follow the practices set down in the current MUTCD and hope for the best.

Quote from: Tom958 on September 04, 2016, 08:02:41 PM
Well, we could always do more as the Dutch have. This example uses more-curved and less-curved arrows, multiple panels, and even variation in size within a single panel to articulate which lanes go where. Surely all of these ideas were considered in developing our APL standards.

I'm not totally sure where exactly the idea for up arrows originated, but certainly some European countries had an effect (namely, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands).

I've designed a multi-lane split using similar arrows to the dutch ... catch is, I'm not sure my signs are to scale. They are quite old works:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcmFTmtX.png&hash=45ca393a785c843a56652ef59d22c4ee660f7869)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F68v3Ewe.png&hash=f5e859cffde217cf7c27b06b92fe13e1dd8e6e69)

Quote from: Tom958 on September 04, 2016, 08:02:41 PM
Re mrsman's example in Queens, I think there's no way to sign exactly what lane does what in such a limited space (oh: you didn't mention 48th Street!). Nor, IMO, is there a compelling need to. The trickiest part is to ensure that drivers heading for 495 west know to be in the left lane of the offramp, which also means being in or at least moving toward the center lane of 278 before the split. If doing so implies that the right lane of the offramp is the only lane that goes to 495 east, so be it; there'll likely be enough drivers who are familiar with the area and who thus know otherwise to keep overuse of the right lane from becoming a serious problem.

Only responding to this because you posted your comment only seconds after I posted my designs. Check them out and let me know what you think.

I like your signs jakeroot.  While the first sign may never be as specific as I would like, given the unusual circumstance of allowing the middle lane to go three directions, it does seem to at least let people know: 1) right two lanes to exit to 495, 2) Of the two lanes exiting to 495, keep left for Midtown and keep right for Riverhead.  That is still a lot better than current signage.

And yes the actual lane configuration is more specifed on the second split, but my point in the exercise was informing people to get in the correct lane before the first split occurs.

If I was using the notation of LA area radio traffic reporters (who refer to the left lane as the #1 lane, the next lane to the right as the #2 lane, etc.), seeing your sign would lead me to believe:

#1 lane: 278 East Bronx
#2 lane: 278 East Bronx or 495 West Midtown
#3 lane: 495 East Riverhead

As Tom958 points out, while not exactly precise on what each lane can do, at the very least it gets people in the correct lane to where they need to go.  The only missing information is that it does not let people going to Riverhead know that they may also use the #2 lane.  But this is much less of a problem than having Midtown people in lane #3 who then have to make a last minute change to reach their ramp.

For your Overland Park, KS example, I read the sign as telling me:

#1, #2, #3 - I-435 West
#4 I-435 West or US 69
#5 US 69 or Antioch Road
#6 Antioch Road

[I am less concerned about choosing the correct lane between US 69 N vs US 69 S becauase there appears to be a lot of room to make that choice, unlike the situation in Queens.]

For your Sacramento example, I read the sign as telling me:

#1, #2, #3 - Biz-80 East Reno
#4 Biz-80 East Reno or Biz-80/US 50 West San Francisco
#5 Biz-80/US 50 West San Francisco or US 50 East South Lake Tahoe

[I have lived in Northern California for 3 years and went by this interchange enough times to be familiar enough with it, so that I know what Biz-80 is and am not confused by the Biz-80/US 50 multiplex, although I have forgotten the precise lane assignments.]

Quote from: Tom958 on September 04, 2016, 08:02:41 PM
That said, under the current MUTCD, both dancing arrows and having white-on-green and black-on-yellow arrows on the same sign are  banned. An APL is thus the only option for signing the critical option lane. What to do? I see two options: Leave the current signage and beg the FHWA's indulgence, or correctly follow the practices set down in the current MUTCD and hope for the best.

You have a third option.  Leave the signs as-is and invoke "Engineering Judgement" because there is no adequate way to sign such a complex interchange without using multiple down arrows pointing to a single lane.

@jakeroot: As much as I hate to say it, no, I don't like your signs, at least not as direct alternatives to unsatisfactory situations we see in the contemporary US. You've gone too far in the direction of creating your own format for your designs to be appropriate as alternatives to existing signage. Beyond that, while it's legit to challenge yourself by imposing a Californian height limit on your signs, doing so is an unnecessary impediment to designing good signage where 120 inches isn't a law of nature. The Dutch example I posted makes that very clear, hinting at the folly of excessive uniform height as well as of inadequate uniform height. Finally, both your format and several European ones use multiple shields for the same route, which I disdain for their redundancy in situations where information overload is usually part of the problem at hand. The Dutch example does it out of force of long-established habit and could easily be rectified within their adopted format, but yours does it because of (often) arbitrary space constraints.

Sorry.

I know we all disdain the wasted space on the standard American APL, but your alternative is just too cramped. Contrary to my earlier assertion, a much less vertically challenged version of what you've designed here would do the trick, though a simplified version that doesn't attempt to show that traffic headed for 495 east can use both ramp lanes might be preferable for its greater simplicity.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbYprrU4.png&hash=03ffc65d818ea971a2ff23b5611684e6c1a1fe5c)


@everybody: I remember this classic, which would address the situation in Queens. Would it be too much to imagine something like this, with California-style EXIT ONLY tabs bracketing the right arrow and used with a white down arrow pullthrough, in the next iteration of the MUTCD?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWhvZWNx.jpg%3F1&hash=4b0d09232d5ef20146b70874afe368bcb6a7f52c)

I'm no signing expert, but I find it an interesting topic.  Such a weird balance of art and science (or at least that's my view since I don't know the nitty-gritty). 

One of the other challenges I've experienced on projects is "The Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide sign at the exit shall not be located at or near the theoretical gore." (2E.21.03)  So if you update signs but don't have the money for new trusses, you end up doing pull-through arrows anyway.  I think it will be interesting going forward; will this rule stay?  Many old interchanges have the trusses downstream of the theoretical gore, so when will those start to get updated?

That brings me to my LEAST favorite situation; where an option lane is signed as exit only (since technically the lane exists at the point of the truss).  We talked about that a bit in this thread I started a while back:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16467
I STILL can't fathom how an OPTION lane is supposed to be signed as exit ONLY.

Quote from: Tom958 on September 05, 2016, 08:00:45 AM
Finally, both your format and several European ones use multiple shields for the same route, which I disdain for their redundancy in situations where information overload is usually part of the problem at hand. The Dutch example does it out of force of long-established habit and could easily be rectified within their adopted format, but yours does it because of (often) arbitrary space constraints.

I know we all disdain the wasted space on the standard American APL...

Thank you. The California size constraint is only relevant in one state: California. Otherwise, cramped signs are not the way to go, especially with an aging population that has trouble reading signs as it is. I'd rather have too much green space than not enough. Redundancy on a single sign is discouraged by the MUTCD and having multiple copies of the same shield counteracts any benefits from the restrictions on the number of control cities/destination. Information overload is NOT what we want and the main thing the MUTCD has been trying to eliminate with the new standards.

End rant.

Yep.  I would go so far as to say that California's size constraint make their signs the ugliest in the nation (on a state by state basis) by far.

I know this is sort of going off on a tangent, but why is it that California makes its signs shorter than other states?

Quote from: Tom958 on September 05, 2016, 08:00:45 AM
@jakeroot: As much as I hate to say it, no, I don't like your signs, at least not as direct alternatives to unsatisfactory situations we see in the contemporary US. You've gone too far in the direction of creating your own format for your designs to be appropriate as alternatives to existing signage. Beyond that, while it's legit to challenge yourself by imposing a Californian height limit on your signs, doing so is an unnecessary impediment to designing good signage where 120 inches isn't a law of nature. The Dutch example I posted makes that very clear, hinting at the folly of excessive uniform height as well as of inadequate uniform height. Finally, both your format and several European ones use multiple shields for the same route, which I disdain for their redundancy in situations where information overload is usually part of the problem at hand. The Dutch example does it out of force of long-established habit and could easily be rectified within their adopted format, but yours does it because of (often) arbitrary space constraints.

I appreciate the criticism. Most users seem to be accepting of my APLs, so I'm pretty surprised to find someone who isn't. There's obviously nothing wrong with that -- lots of "older" people are used to the old up/down arrow combination signs that litter the US today, so much so that any alternative is viewed as messy or unnecessary -- but, I do feel that it's necessary to at least defend my designs. So, if you'll allow me.

First of all, I don't necessarily think that I've deviated a lot from the current MUTCD. I use the standard up-arrow width (7.75"), standard shield size, standard typeface (FHWA) and font size, standard exit tab size, etc. The only deviation from the current APL designs is that I've moved some of the items around on the sign, and I've eliminated the vast amounts of green space.

Speaking of green space, that brings me to my second point: I have not imposed any height limit on my signs, but I've never found anything more than 144" (i.e. taller than the width of a standard lane) to be necessary. If it needs to be any taller, it's because there's a need to sign A) a bunch of routes, or B) a bunch of destinations, but most of my designs try to eliminate excessive information, so I rarely need to create tall signs (I rarely use more than one destination, and most of my signs only sign one route per destination). In the Dutch example, the only reason the signs aren't all the same height as the pull-through, is because of the desire to use distance markers, and several different destinations. If you deleted the distances from the sign, and lowered the number of destinations to one or two, the signs would be just as short as my 278/495 designs. Admittedly, the major shortcoming of my designs is the lack of a distance marker. Some of my signs have them, if there's room, but I generally don't use them (signs more than one mile in advance, I would sign like this (http://i.imgur.com/OqS00v4.png)). That said, my intent would be to use APLs only within one mile of a split, so I don't think there'd ever be a reason to use distances (unless multiple exits are signed using one sign).

Quote from: cl94 on September 05, 2016, 08:00:27 PM
Thank you. The California size constraint is only relevant in one state: California. Otherwise, cramped signs are not the way to go, especially with an aging population that has trouble reading signs as it is. I'd rather have too much green space than not enough.

Quote from: Tom958 on September 05, 2016, 08:00:45 AM
I know we all disdain the wasted space on the standard American APL, but your alternative is just too cramped. Contrary to my earlier assertion, a much less vertically challenged version of what you've designed here would do the trick...

Oh, it's too cramped? How do you guys figure that? Is there some sort of "cramp" index that the MUTCD developed? If there is, I'd be happy to redesign any sign to meet those requirements. Too cramped is simply too subjective for me to take seriously. Sorry.

Quote from: Tom958 on September 05, 2016, 08:00:45 AM
Finally, both your format and several European ones use multiple shields for the same route, which I disdain for their redundancy in situations where information overload is usually part of the problem at hand.

Quote from: cl94 on September 05, 2016, 08:00:27 PM
Redundancy on a single sign is discouraged by the MUTCD and having multiple copies of the same shield counteracts any benefits from the restrictions on the number of control cities/destination. Information overload is NOT what we want and the main thing the MUTCD has been trying to eliminate with the new standards.

On the 278/495 sign, I used multiple 495 EAST shields to, the best of my ability, illustrate the middle lane's ability to go east on 495; if I were to make that sign again, I would not use multiple shields. Hell, the 495 East sign would be an entirely separate sign. But, mrsman challenged me to a redesign, so I tried to follow through with that.

In regards to the use of duplicate shields between up arrows, I do this to eliminate excessive "scanning" by drivers. You should be able to look up from your lane at the sign in front, and see if your arrow goes where you want it to. If you're in the far left lane, your eyes pretty much go straight to the 80-East-biz shield. If you're in the right lane, you see the 99/50 shields. It's not meant to be excessively redundant. It's just meant to make it easier to spot the information that you might be looking for, so you can get your eyes back on the road.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpdBcLHp.png&hash=3352a582617df16ec70f4b7fae9128b11c9797c5)

Quote from: compdude787 on September 05, 2016, 08:59:23 PM
I know this is sort of going off on a tangent, but why is it that California makes its signs shorter than other states?

Wind loading. I don't know the exact specifics as to why that's the case. myosh_tino -- our resident California expert -- would know for sure why. It has to do with the design of the sign trusses, though.

The New York contingent here certainly has more experience with these than others, but NYSDOT found a way to get rid of the green space (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6452971,-73.7496533,3a,72.3y,221.05h,87.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so9EzRp-pk-N9N_KnA6VsZg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) without major changes to the design of the sign[/url]. NYSTA has/had a couple examples as well.

Quote from: cl94 on September 05, 2016, 09:13:23 PM
The New York contingent here certainly has more experience with these than others, but NYSDOT found a way to get rid of the green space (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6452971,-73.7496533,3a,72.3y,221.05h,87.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so9EzRp-pk-N9N_KnA6VsZg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) without major changes to the design of the sign. NYSTA has/had a couple examples as well.

That sign doesn't have a destination. And don't tell me that it doesn't need one. Not everyone navigates via shields.

Quote from: johndoe on September 05, 2016, 07:40:41 PM
I'm no signing expert, but I find it an interesting topic.  Such a weird balance of art and science (or at least that's my view since I don't know the nitty-gritty). 

One of the other challenges I've experienced on projects is "The Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide sign at the exit shall not be located at or near the theoretical gore." (2E.21.03)  So if you update signs but don't have the money for new trusses, you end up doing pull-through arrows anyway.  I think it will be interesting going forward; will this rule stay?  Many old interchanges have the trusses downstream of the theoretical gore, so when will those start to get updated?

Unless you're in Georgia, in which case you provide new trusses, then put them at or near the physical gore and make a sign that looks just like those rogue APL's where there is no option lane: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=204.msg2118728#msg2118728 . Here there are three APL signs, two option lane splits, and a grand total of one diverging arrow. In fairness, it may be that the APL's were placed downstream of the existing signs so as not to obstruct them while the new signs were being erected. A case could've been made for going back to conventional signage there, as implied in your old pal Section 2E-8 of the MUTCD, but... no.

Then there's this, which is in its own category: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg2142971#msg2142971 .

Of course, readers of this thread focused on the screwups, but I posted it because I was actually encouraged by what appears to be better comprehension of sign design principles by GDOT. There's still a ways to go, though.

Quote from: johndoeThat brings me to my LEAST favorite situation; where an option lane is signed as exit only (since technically the lane exists at the point of the truss).  We talked about that a bit in this thread I started a while back:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16467
I STILL can't fathom how an OPTION lane is supposed to be signed as exit ONLY.

You and I both. Too bad that this (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.2707285,-90.152346,3a,48.1y,307.56h,97.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2wLsgDsePjrmnjZrCAQPrQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), which I photographed myself in July, is so grossly against the rules.   :rolleyes:

What's really weird, at least here in Georgia, is that there were a few new generation Series E(M) signs that retained the old configuration with one white-on-green arrow and one black-on-yellow. Then, years later, came a tsunami of 2009 MUTCD-compliant monsters. It's as though GDOT had experienced a coup de etat and the forces of suck had triumphed.

However, when that happened, there was a round of signage replacements which also involved replacement of the gantries. Guess what: the new gantries were located just behind the old ones, well upstream of the theoretical gore, and in direct conflict with the MUTCD. In fact, they're actually located correctly for APL's! Question: What's one notch worse that a black-on-yellow arrow for an option lane? Answer: A black-on-yellow arrow for an option lane that's actually over the mainline! And we have them all over the place here.

That sign doesn't need a destination. The Thruway is in a mile and the freeway has a stub ending immediately afterwards. Every non-local would be getting off at the Thruway.

Want one with a destination (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.759143,-73.7641526,3a,75y,34h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNbRFtWoGAETIgUqU1xg8cg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DNbRFtWoGAETIgUqU1xg8cg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D392%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D34.140636%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656)? Fine. Here's another (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0792149,-73.9215165,3a,75y,348.49h,85.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI8-jAmNaoC5kWI9aPlLHvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

My criticisms come from my dealings with the non-engineering public. Space is good for perception, especially from a distance, while closely-spaced lettering and figures confuses people and increases the time required to understand the sign. If the California-style sign was superior or equal, more states would have likely adopted it due to its smaller surface area (and thus lower cost). Want an APL that has a smaller amount of blank space? Cut out the blank space and mount the sign like the New York examples.

Quote from: cl94 on September 05, 2016, 10:12:55 PM
That sign doesn't need a destination. The Thruway is in a mile and the freeway has a stub ending immediately afterwards. Every non-local would be getting off at the Thruway.

They could at least put "Thruway", so you don't have to read the tiny shield text.

Quote from: cl94 on September 05, 2016, 10:12:55 PM
My criticisms come from my dealings with the non-engineering public. Space is good for perception, especially from a distance, while closely-spaced lettering and figures confuses people and increases the time required to understand the sign. If the California-style sign was superior or equal, more states would have likely adopted it due to its smaller surface area (and thus lower cost). Want an APL that has a smaller amount of blank space? Cut out the blank space and mount the sign like the New York examples.

Why does everyone keep bringing up California? I already said that I don't model my signs after CalTrans. I just minimize sign heights in order to minimize green space, so as to reduce the sign's area. I don't think there's any DOT out there that intentionally uses tall signage just for fun.

My problem with the cut-out New York signs is that they bring too much of the background into the sign. When I'm looking for directions, I'm looking for the big green sign in the distance. The less visible green, IMO, the worse off the sign. Don't get me wrong -- both signs are plenty visible. I just think the normal rectangular signage is superior because it's, more or less, easier to spot.

Just out of curiosity: what's the cost for cutting off all that extra signage? Is that even possible with states that use increment panel signs? I'm more familiar with extruded signs here in Washington, but I know that most states use increment panel signs (I believe the extruded panels are what allows New York to use rounded corners like Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina).

Quote from: jakeroot on September 05, 2016, 11:22:29 PM
Why does everyone keep bringing up California? I already said that I don't model my signs after CalTrans. I just minimize sign heights in order to minimize green space, so as to reduce the sign's area. I don't think there's any DOT out there that intentionally uses tall signage just for fun.

My problem with the cut-out New York signs is that they bring too much of the background into the sign. When I'm looking for directions, I'm looking for the big green sign in the distance. The less visible green, IMO, the worse off the sign. Don't get me wrong -- both signs are plenty visible. I just think the normal rectangular signage is superior because it's, more or less, easier to spot.

Just out of curiosity: what's the cost for cutting off all that extra signage? Is that even possible with states that use increment panel signs? I'm more familiar with extruded signs here in Washington, but I know that most states use increment panel signs (I believe the extruded panels are what allows New York to use rounded corners like Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina).

We mentioned California because they're the only US state with signs like that outside of confined spaces. There are certainly problems with the cut-outs as well, but that addresses the legibility issue old people complain about as stuff appears less compact (and I hear that quite a bit for all sorts of applications, not only signs). Honestly, I have no problem with compact signs myself, but I know what the public will complain about.

Increment panels are typically where the rounded corners are found. Extruded panels have the ribs on the back. Major states with increment panels are, as you mentioned below, New York, Virginia, Florida and North Carolina. Of course, there's one extruded sign in Ontario with rounded corners on 401 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7201553,-79.4935908,3a,75y,291.34h,96.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKqlMsrSk7bCAVyT6R4jNNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) that another user and I were actually talking about earlier today. That one must have been a PITA to make. Yeah, New York is able to get away with the cutouts because of how the signs are made. For the unitiated: extruded signs are one giant sheet, while incrementals are a bunch of tiny pieces. A cutout, in the case of an incremental sign, actually reduces assembly time as well as cost.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 05, 2016, 09:02:32 PM

Quote from: compdude787 on September 05, 2016, 08:59:23 PM
I know this is sort of going off on a tangent, but why is it that California makes its signs shorter than other states?

Wind loading. I don't know the exact specifics as to why that's the case. myosh_tino -- our resident California expert -- would know for sure why. It has to do with the design of the sign trusses, though.

I don't know for sure but I believe wind-loading is definitely a factor now.  I am not entirely sure what the justification was back in the day for the 120" height limit other than pure aesthetics combined with the policy that all signs on the same structure (truss or overpass) be the same height.  Perhaps forum user jrouse, a Caltrans employee, can shed some light on these policy decisions.

What I do know is AASHTO recently changed the wind-loading standards making all older trusses no longer in compliance.  They can still be used in the field but the new signs cannot be larger than the sign they're replacing.  Furthermore, the new trusses have been designed to accommodate external exit tabs but because so many of the older trusses are still in use, the spec for mounting the tabs has not been developed yet.

Now I'm sure the simple argument would be to replace all the old trusses with new ones however, due to the size of California's freeway system and sheer number of these old trusses still in service, doing a wholesale replacement would be very, very expensive.

Now with ALL of that said, new signs for the I-680 Express Lane from Dublin north to Walnut Creek appear to be much taller than the 120" maximum.  I also seem to recall someone here posting a photo of a significantly taller overhead sign in southern California.

One would think California would make the spec for external exit tabs (or just steal one from another state; why reinvent the wheel?) so that at least the signs on the new trusses could have proper exit tabs.  It will probably be 50 years before the old trusses are gone, at which point the standards will have changed again, and CA will be in the exact same situation they are in now.

And yes, cramped signs are quite difficult to read.

Quote from: myosh_tino on September 06, 2016, 02:55:55 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 05, 2016, 09:02:32 PM

Quote from: compdude787 on September 05, 2016, 08:59:23 PM
I know this is sort of going off on a tangent, but why is it that California makes its signs shorter than other states?

Wind loading. I don't know the exact specifics as to why that's the case. myosh_tino -- our resident California expert -- would know for sure why. It has to do with the design of the sign trusses, though.

I don't know for sure but I believe wind-loading is definitely a factor now.  I am not entirely sure what the justification was back in the day for the 120" height limit other than pure aesthetics combined with the policy that all signs on the same structure (truss or overpass) be the same height.  Perhaps forum user jrouse, a Caltrans employee, can shed some light on these policy decisions.

What I do know is AASHTO recently changed the wind-loading standards making all older trusses no longer in compliance.  They can still be used in the field but the new signs cannot be larger than the sign they're replacing.  Furthermore, the new trusses have been designed to accommodate external exit tabs but because so many of the older trusses are still in use, the spec for mounting the tabs has not been developed yet.

Now I'm sure the simple argument would be to replace all the old trusses with new ones however, due to the size of California's freeway system and sheer number of these old trusses still in service, doing a wholesale replacement would be very, very expensive.

Now with ALL of that said, new signs for the I-680 Express Lane from Dublin north to Walnut Creek appear to be much taller than the 120" maximum.  I also seem to recall someone here posting a photo of a significantly taller overhead sign in southern California.

I could see wind loading be a factor on the truss design that California uses.  But this begs the question of course, if wind loading is such a problem with the truss design that it uses (and seemingly has used forever), why does it use that truss design?

Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on September 06, 2016, 01:17:01 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on September 06, 2016, 02:55:55 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 05, 2016, 09:02:32 PM

Quote from: compdude787 on September 05, 2016, 08:59:23 PM
I know this is sort of going off on a tangent, but why is it that California makes its signs shorter than other states?

Wind loading. I don't know the exact specifics as to why that's the case. myosh_tino -- our resident California expert -- would know for sure why. It has to do with the design of the sign trusses, though.

I don't know for sure but I believe wind-loading is definitely a factor now.  I am not entirely sure what the justification was back in the day for the 120" height limit other than pure aesthetics combined with the policy that all signs on the same structure (truss or overpass) be the same height.  Perhaps forum user jrouse, a Caltrans employee, can shed some light on these policy decisions.

What I do know is AASHTO recently changed the wind-loading standards making all older trusses no longer in compliance.  They can still be used in the field but the new signs cannot be larger than the sign they're replacing.  Furthermore, the new trusses have been designed to accommodate external exit tabs but because so many of the older trusses are still in use, the spec for mounting the tabs has not been developed yet.

Now I'm sure the simple argument would be to replace all the old trusses with new ones however, due to the size of California's freeway system and sheer number of these old trusses still in service, doing a wholesale replacement would be very, very expensive.

Now with ALL of that said, new signs for the I-680 Express Lane from Dublin north to Walnut Creek appear to be much taller than the 120" maximum.  I also seem to recall someone here posting a photo of a significantly taller overhead sign in southern California.

I could see wind loading be a factor on the truss design that California uses.  But this begs the question of course, if wind loading is such a problem with the truss design that it uses (and seemingly has used forever), why does it use that truss design?

I have wondered the same thing. Buffalo has some of the same wind issues (visit during the winter and you'll see what I mean) and they do large signs just fine. How? Take a look at the back of this APL (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8714724,-78.7898477,3a,75y,197.16h,92.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTzjedv982vjvOYostG9yZw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Lateral bracing provides sign stability. 60+ mph gusts are quite common in the winter and this sign could probably take well over 120.

Quote from: vdeane on September 06, 2016, 01:02:17 PM
One would think California would make the spec for external exit tabs (or just steal one from another state; why reinvent the wheel?) so that at least the signs on the new trusses could have proper exit tabs.  It will probably be 50 years before the old trusses are gone, at which point the standards will have changed again, and CA will be in the exact same situation they are in now.

Except there's one problem.

Quote from: jrouse on August 09, 2015, 12:58:30 PM
The reason why the exit number tabs have been placed in the main sign panel over the years is because Caltrans does not have a standard detail for mounting sign tabs on top of the truss.  This is because many of the sign trusses on the system don't meet the current AASHTO wind load standards, and so Caltrans didn't want to put together a detail that would further violate the standards.  The sign trusses can continue to be used but the sign panel area sizes cannot be increased.  Even though the current sign truss designs do meet the AASHTO wind load standards and are capable of handling tabs, Caltrans still has not developed a standard detail for mounting tabs.

Based on this information from jrouse, the standard detail for mounting an external exit tab can't be used on the older trusses which I suspect is why it hasn't been developed yet.  I can only assume that you won't see external exit tabs until a vast majority of the old trusses are taken out of service.

In a sense, I wish Caltrans would get this done (using external exit tabs) sooner rather than later because I think that will put a stop to all of the funky sign layouts.

But why can't CalTrans use a hypothetical external tab detail on the NEW trusses and continue using bizarro signs on the old trusses?  At least get the ball rolling.  As it is now, 50 years in the future when the last old truss is taken down, CalTrans will probably just continue using internal tabs because "that's how we've always done it".

It's not as if their signs follow anything even remotely resembling a standard, so there's no possibility of confusing anyone.  Honestly, I don't know why they even bother to have a MUTCD, at least for guide signs, since the current method is just "cram the details in wherever they will fit".

Quote from: vdeane on September 06, 2016, 05:38:50 PM
But why can't CalTrans use a hypothetical external tab detail on the NEW trusses and continue using bizarro signs on the old trusses?  At least get the ball rolling.  As it is now, 50 years in the future when the last old truss is taken down, CalTrans will probably just continue using internal tabs because "that's how we've always done it".

It's not as if their signs follow anything even remotely resembling a standard, so there's no possibility of confusing anyone.  Honestly, I don't know why they even bother to have a MUTCD, at least for guide signs, since the current method is just "cram the details in wherever they will fit".

Wait a second, Caltrans used to have panels with separate exit tabs on overhead signs somewhere east of Los Angeles. I actually liked the look of those signs because they looked "normal" with their centered tabs. Did they forget how to do those?

Quote from: upstatenyroads on September 06, 2016, 10:37:50 PM

Quote from: vdeane on September 06, 2016, 05:38:50 PM
But why can't CalTrans use a hypothetical external tab detail on the NEW trusses and continue using bizarro signs on the old trusses?  At least get the ball rolling.  As it is now, 50 years in the future when the last old truss is taken down, CalTrans will probably just continue using internal tabs because "that's how we've always done it".

It's not as if their signs follow anything even remotely resembling a standard, so there's no possibility of confusing anyone.  Honestly, I don't know why they even bother to have a MUTCD, at least for guide signs, since the current method is just "cram the details in wherever they will fit".

Wait a second, Caltrans used to have panels with separate exit tabs on overhead signs somewhere east of Los Angeles. I actually liked the look of those signs because they looked "normal" with their centered tabs. Did they forget how to do those?

I believe jrouse said he does have copies of the old specification but I figure they're no good because...

1. The truss design has changed over the years
2. It no longer adheres to the new wind-loading standards put forth by AASHTO
3. Exit tabs can't be centered per the current MUTCD.

With all that said, I also liked how those signs looked.  It kind of reminds me of Oregon's BGSes.

Around here, exit tabs are mounted to signs, not trusses.  NYSDOT just extends the sign support upwards and mounts the tab to that.  I can see how changing from centered tabs could create spec issues, though.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 05, 2016, 08:59:43 PM
Oh, it's too cramped? How do you guys figure that? Is there some sort of "cramp" index that the MUTCD developed? If there is, I'd be happy to redesign any sign to meet those requirements.

§2E.14¶04 (first sentence), §2E.15

Quote from: jakeroot on August 29, 2016, 01:15:13 PMThe way I see it, however, is that Georgia is being put between a rock and a hard place: The MUTCD requires APLs when there's an option lane, but there are many junctions all across Georgia where there are several option lanes in a row, and they must all be, somehow, signed on the same sign.

Actually, that is not quite true.  The MUTCD requires OAPLs if and only if (1) the major route does a TOTSO and (2) there is an option lane feeding into the movement in question.  For other interchanges with an option lane, the current edition of MUTCD allows diagrammatics not to be used, in which case the option lane must be "hidden" until the gore.

I frankly think GDOT would be much better off sticking to the original approach (which, if memory serves, called for hiding the option lanes) for the areas along I-285 with option lanes in rapid-fire succession.

Quote from: J N Winkler on September 11, 2016, 08:50:05 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on August 29, 2016, 01:15:13 PMThe way I see it, however, is that Georgia is being put between a rock and a hard place: The MUTCD requires APLs when there's an option lane, but there are many junctions all across Georgia where there are several option lanes in a row, and they must all be, somehow, signed on the same sign.

Actually, that is not quite true.  The MUTCD requires OAPLs if and only if (1) the major route does a TOTSO and (2) there is an option lane feeding into the movement in question.  For other interchanges with an option lane, the current edition of MUTCD allows diagrammatics not to be used, in which case the option lane must be "hidden" until the gore.

I think your statement #1, regarding TOTSO, is incorrect:

2009 MUTCD Section 2E.20 p2:

QuoteStandard:
02   "On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs as provided in Sections 2E.21 and 2E.22 shall be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges (see Section 2E.32) that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route (see Figures 2E-4, 2E-5, 2E-8, and 2E-9) and for all splits that include an option lane (see Figures 2E-6 and 2E-10). Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs shall not be used on freeways and expressways for any other types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits and splits that do not have an option lane."

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2016, 06:51:33 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 05, 2016, 08:59:43 PM
Oh, it's too cramped? How do you guys figure that? Is there some sort of "cramp" index that the MUTCD developed? If there is, I'd be happy to redesign any sign to meet those requirements.

§2E.14¶04 (first sentence), §2E.15

Admittedly, I'm having a hard time making sense of that page. If someone wants to take one of my signs and size it up to the standards listed under Chapter 2E, that'd be awesome. Myosh_tino has already scrutinized my previous designs to a great degree, so rest assured that the legends you see are the correct size (the issue here is the green space).

Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2016, 06:25:34 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2016, 06:51:33 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 05, 2016, 08:59:43 PM
Oh, it's too cramped? How do you guys figure that? Is there some sort of "cramp" index that the MUTCD developed? If there is, I'd be happy to redesign any sign to meet those requirements.

§2E.14¶04 (first sentence), §2E.15

Admittedly, I'm having a hard time making sense of that page. If someone wants to take one of my signs and size it up to the standards listed under Chapter 2E, that'd be awesome. Myosh_tino has already scrutinized my previous designs to a great degree, so rest assured that the legends you see are the correct size (the issue here is the green space).

§2E.14¶04 says that the legend must be dimensioned out first and then the panel sized to fit the legend. Caltrans' sign height standard is a clear violation of this section. Following the MUTCD, if the message size + required margins dictates that a sign panel must exceed the theoretical maximum, that is the size the panel must be. It also implies that states that make multiple BGSes on a gantry the same size for uniformity are in the wrong.

§2E.15 provides guidelines for margins and interline spacing. If the upper case letters in a line of legend are x inches tall, the lines of text should be 0.75x inches apart, and the block of text should have x inches of free space on all sides. So if you had a line of text that had 12" capital letters, each line should be 9" apart and have 12" of free space to the left and right, as well as above the top line and below the bottom line.

Quote from: roadfro on September 11, 2016, 04:49:10 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on September 11, 2016, 08:50:05 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on August 29, 2016, 01:15:13 PMThe way I see it, however, is that Georgia is being put between a rock and a hard place: The MUTCD requires APLs when there's an option lane, but there are many junctions all across Georgia where there are several option lanes in a row, and they must all be, somehow, signed on the same sign.

Actually, that is not quite true.  The MUTCD requires OAPLs if and only if (1) the major route does a TOTSO and (2) there is an option lane feeding into the movement in question.  For other interchanges with an option lane, the current edition of MUTCD allows diagrammatics not to be used, in which case the option lane must be "hidden" until the gore.

I think your statement #1, regarding TOTSO, is incorrect:

2009 MUTCD Section 2E.20 p2:

QuoteStandard:
02   "On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs as provided in Sections 2E.21 and 2E.22 shall be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges (see Section 2E.32) that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route (see Figures 2E-4, 2E-5, 2E-8, and 2E-9) and for all splits that include an option lane (see Figures 2E-6 and 2E-10). Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs shall not be used on freeways and expressways for any other types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits and splits that do not have an option lane."

It appears that there's a bit of room for discretion as to what constitutes a major interchange. Getting back in the general direction of the original topic, there's this new APL for a service interchange. Without looking, I'm certain that Barrett Parkway is a principal arterial, though I think it's unlikely that either a large number or a high proportion of drivers who would consider taking that exit are unfamiliar with the area. The current Streetview (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9994744,-84.5615725,3a,75y,318.38h,93.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUf1MQIlWYxNslGcnm2tzZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) shows both the new APL and the previous conventional sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgTTJ0ir.jpg%3F1&hash=7756cf8088f11e6b9f3f388ae1a1f92e896fdc42)

Quote from: roadfro on September 11, 2016, 04:49:10 PMI think your statement #1, regarding TOTSO, is incorrect.

I will concede error to the extent that I neglected to mention splits.  But actually the MUTCD section you quoted is what I rely on when I say that OAPLs are required only at splits with option lanes and multilane exits where the major route follows the exiting movement.  Looking at the relevant provision more closely:

Quote from: 2009 MUTCD Section 2E.20On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs as provided in Sections 2E.21 and 2E.22 shall be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges (see Section 2E.32) that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route (see Figures 2E-4, 2E-5, 2E-8, and 2E-9) and for all splits that include an option lane (see Figures 2E-6 and 2E-10).

When standards for signing at major interchanges were being refined in the mid-1970's according to the positive guidance paradigm, a distinction was drawn among three kinds of movement that were considered to have different characteristics in terms of driver expectancy.  These were:

*  Splits:  the road ahead divides into two, with each side belonging to one route and neither side being obviously more important than the other.  (The traditional MUTCD illustration for this situation is based on the then I-495/I-70S, now I-495/I-270 divide on the Capital Beltway in suburban Maryland, and the traditional stippled-arrow diagrammatic solution for this situation has two arrows moving out to the side.)

*  Multilane exits where major route follows the mainline:  in this case the mainline is clearly differentiated from the exiting movement by more generous geometry, higher lane count, etc.  The left-exit version of this presents more difficulty to the driver than the right-exit version, but in neither case is a driver wishing to follow the major route obliged to prepare to exit.

*  Multilane exits where major route follows the exiting movement:  again, in this case, the mainline is clearly favored by geometry, lane count, etc. but a driver following the major route must prepare to exit.  (This is the TOTSO case.)

Stippled-arrow diagrammatics were introduced in the 1978 MUTCD as the result of a major diagrammatic study (the Mast & Kolsrud study) which was in progress when the 1971 MUTCD was being developed.  The 1971 edition was the last to permit cloverleaf diagrammatics, which Mast & Kolsrud showed to be ineffective, and MUTCD editions between 1978 and 2003 (inclusive) adopted a deliberately permissive policy with regard to stippled-arrow diagrammatics:  they could be used with or without option lanes, they could be used (standard designs were provided) in any of the three situations described above, and they could be used with simple one-lane exits (lane dropped or not) if the exit was on the left or the interchange coincided with a bend in the mainline.  In none of these cases was the use of a diagrammatic required by a shall condition, and a few state DOTs (like Arizona DOT) never used stippled-arrow diagrammatics.

The 2009 edition, in contrast, is much more restrictive.  Diagrammatics of either kind (stippled-arrow or OAPL) can be used only when there is an option lane.  The quoted section above also mentions the new shall conditions for the use of diagrammatics of either kind:  splits (first case described above), and multilane exits where the major route follows the exit (third case described above).  The figures referred to in the quoted section do show cases corresponding to the second case described above (major route follows the mainline), but since through route is not explicitly defined, a state DOT is safe in not providing OAPLs unless the major route actually follows the exiting movement.  This is similar to the way in which MUTCD editions before 2003 (inclusive) permitted the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander method for signing lane drops with option lane (one white arrow on green, one black arrow on yellow) by never explicitly specifying what a multilane exit was.  The figures cited therefore show a mix of required (OAPLs or stippled-arrow diagrammatics must be used) and permissive (OAPLs or stippled-arrow diagrammatics may be used) cases.

They fixed it, presumably when they added SunTrust Park to the sign. I am agog.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FEXc4ecg.jpg%3F1&hash=24096a140edfcb04de51bc97b90defd618f16856)


Previously:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FciJtkgx.jpg%3F1&hash=57e33a342ff93f477ddc70c6c87123be24755151)

I don't like the new result.  It should be clear that the third lane can go to either 75 or 285.  I suggest maybe a Y shaped arrow with both arrows facing nearly perfectly up but both emanating from a single stem, so that it is clear that the third lane can go to two directions.

Honestly, given what's actually available in the MUTCD here, that's probably about as good as you're gonna get. OAPL, Minnesota-style (sort of).

Quote from: Tom958 on August 28, 2016, 08:11:54 AMAnd, at the split. As you'll soon see, there's an APL-appropriate exit only about 3/4 mile beyond here, and a case could've been made for using an APL here to give sufficient notice, with a conventional sign for 575. Perhaps it was thought that the curvature of the roadways here would make that too confusing.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FotXECDW.jpg%3F1&hash=da64e49f1782cf6fe02a7d601de4192a113943b5)

Today it came to my attention that this installation has been changed. Now I want to know if the APL beyond is still there. I'd guess so, but apparently anything can happen. EDIT: Yes, it is.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4Tlm8zD.jpg%3F1&hash=362902842140b3e4e927cb5aa2001934f22ab06d)

Amazing: GDOT has replaced a rogue APL with a correct APL! Embarrassingly, I took this photo way back on August 12, but it didn't click for me what I was seeing until I passed the same spot yesterday. The support post for the former APL is still visible beyond:
(https://i.imgur.com/OMc9EoN.jpg?1)


Here's my photo of the previous condition:
(https://i.imgur.com/YFu4Ox5.jpg?1)


Most of the rogue APL's here are due to APL's being used where there is no option lane. This, however, was a case where the APL was sited too far back and thus bore five arrows instead of four. To correct it involved making a new sign and installing it on a new gantry in front of the old one. There's a similar situation on I-285 southbound approaching I-20 east (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7217441,-84.2369991,3a,75y,189.66h,90.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSsi0u8HNBRi87U2gaTOidw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Maybe it's in line for the same treatment.  :hmmm:

Quote from: Tom958 on September 02, 2017, 11:45:40 AM
Amazing: GDOT has replaced a rogue APL with a correct APL! Embarrassingly, I took this photo way back on August 12, but it didn't click for me what I was seeing until I passed the same spot yesterday. The support post for the former APL is still visible beyond:
(https://i.imgur.com/OMc9EoN.jpg?1)

Would be nice to have a little more space between the left edge of the sign and the left straight arrow...but definitely better than before.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 02, 2017, 12:03:17 PMWould be nice to have a little more space between the left edge of the sign and the left straight arrow...but definitely better than before.

Ah:the reason that it's so cramped on the left side is presumably because there's a left-side exit to the reversible HOT lanes coming up ahead. Beyond, you can see the ramp rising from the median. There'll surely be a conventional sign installed for it right before it opens.

Quote from: roadfro on September 11, 2016, 04:49:10 PM
2009 MUTCD Section 2E.20 p2:

QuoteStandard:
02   "On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs as provided in Sections 2E.21 and 2E.22 shall be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges (see Section 2E.32) that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route (see Figures 2E-4, 2E-5, 2E-8, and 2E-9) and for all splits that include an option lane (see Figures 2E-6 and 2E-10). Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs shall not be used on freeways and expressways for any other types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits and splits that do not have an option lane."

Interesting that I just came across this quote.  There's a sign replacement project in progress on I-696 in Michigan.  There will be APLs where appropriate at exits to other freeways, but not at other exits with an option lane.  I've not understood why this is so, but now I assume it's in compliance with this directive that APLs may be used only at "major" interchanges.

My question is:  Why?  If a "non-major" exit has an option lane, why is an APL prohibited?   What's the point?

(apologies for continuing the drift away from the OP.)

Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 02, 2017, 12:48:28 PM

Quote from: roadfro on September 11, 2016, 04:49:10 PM
2009 MUTCD Section 2E.20 p2:

QuoteStandard:
02   "On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs as provided in Sections 2E.21 and 2E.22 shall be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges (see Section 2E.32) that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route (see Figures 2E-4, 2E-5, 2E-8, and 2E-9) and for all splits that include an option lane (see Figures 2E-6 and 2E-10). Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs shall not be used on freeways and expressways for any other types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits and splits that do not have an option lane."

Interesting that I just came across this quote.  There's a sign replacement project in progress on I-696 in Michigan.  There will be APLs where appropriate at exits to other freeways, but not at other exits with an option lane.  I've not understood why this is so, but now I assume it's in compliance with this directive that APLs may be used only at "major" interchanges.

My question is:  Why?  If a "non-major" exit has an option lane, why is an APL prohibited?   What's the point?

(apologies for continuing the drift away from the OP.)

My guess is that they want the signage to convey the importance of the interchange. Basically, big sign for big interchange, smaller sign for lesser ones. It certainly would explain why they require such large specs for APLs to begin with.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 02, 2017, 12:48:28 PM

My question is:  Why?  If a "non-major" exit has an option lane, why is an APL prohibited?   What's the point?

I'm thinking most minor interchanges that fall into this category would probably be exit ramps with no decal lane, so the right lane 'splits' from itself for the exit. 

Almost every interchange where there's at least one dedicated lane exiting from the mainline, with another lane splitting, falls into the 'major' category.  The APLs were mostly designed for this exit type.

Quote from: ekt8750 on September 02, 2017, 05:28:46 PM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 02, 2017, 12:48:28 PM
My question is:  Why?  If a "non-major" exit has an option lane, why is an APL prohibited?   What's the point?

(apologies for continuing the drift away from the OP.)

My guess is that they want the signage to convey the importance of the interchange. Basically, big sign for big interchange, smaller sign for lesser ones. It certainly would explain why they require such large specs for APLs to begin with.

Which is apparently one thing that Georgia has done in Atlanta. However, there are three approaches to unambiguously major interchanges in Atlanta where there are no option lanes and where APL's are used despite being specifically forbidden.  :clap:  In fairness, I've seen a reference in the MUTCD to maintaining consistency as to type of signage, which is apparently what GDOT was trying to do. I'm to lazy to look it up right now, though.  :D

More in answer to the question at hand, there's this:

QuoteSection 2E.32 Interchange Classification Support:
01 For signing purposes, interchanges are classified as major, intermediate, and minor... Descriptions of these classifications are as follows:
A. Major interchanges are subdivided into two categories: (a) interchanges with other expressways or freeways, ]b]or (b) interchanges with high-volume multi-lane highways, principal urban arterials, or major rural routes where the volume of interchanging traffic is heavy or includes many road users unfamiliar with the area.[/b]

So, "major interchanges" aren't necessarily system interchanges.

It could be that that the decision of APL versus conventional signage at a service interchange with an option lane exit is based on the likelihood that, with conventional signage, a sufficient number of motorists will be confused enough by the option lane being hidden almost right up to the split* to cause operational and possibly safety problems.

Anyway, there's this, at a service interchange that somewhat meets the stated criteria for a major interchange:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgTTJ0ir.jpg%3F1&hash=7756cf8088f11e6b9f3f388ae1a1f92e896fdc42)

*assuming they don't see the S3-8's, if they're even there. In Georgia, they usually aren't.  :no:

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 02, 2017, 06:21:41 PM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 02, 2017, 12:48:28 PM

My question is:  Why?  If a "non-major" exit has an option lane, why is an APL prohibited?   What's the point?

I'm thinking most minor interchanges that fall into this category would probably be exit ramps with no decal lane, so the right lane 'splits' from itself for the exit. 

Almost every interchange where there's at least one dedicated lane exiting from the mainline, with another lane splitting, falls into the 'major' category.  The APLs were mostly designed for this exit type.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about.  There are a few interchanges on I-696 (not with other freeways) that have a dedicated exit-only lane plus an option lane -- for example, at Woodward Avenue (M-1) (https://goo.gl/maps/tKQrag8uFMD2) and at Southfield Road (https://goo.gl/maps/TxXcxHdPePH2) -- but will not have advance APLs because apparently they aren't "major" interchanges.  I just don't understand why such a category matters.  If there's an exit-only lane plus an option lane, which is exactly the configuration for which APLs are designed, why specifically prohibit APLs because of an arbitrary designation that it's an "intermediate" or "minor" interchange?

Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 02, 2017, 11:49:54 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 02, 2017, 06:21:41 PM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 02, 2017, 12:48:28 PM

My question is:  Why?  If a "non-major" exit has an option lane, why is an APL prohibited?   What's the point?

I'm thinking most minor interchanges that fall into this category would probably be exit ramps with no decal lane, so the right lane 'splits' from itself for the exit. 

Almost every interchange where there's at least one dedicated lane exiting from the mainline, with another lane splitting, falls into the 'major' category.  The APLs were mostly designed for this exit type.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about.  There are a few interchanges on I-696 (not with other freeways) that have a dedicated exit-only lane plus an option lane -- for example, at Woodward Avenue (M-1) (https://goo.gl/maps/tKQrag8uFMD2) and at Southfield Road (https://goo.gl/maps/TxXcxHdPePH2) -- but will not have advance APLs because apparently they aren't "major" interchanges.  I just don't understand why such a category matters.  If there's an exit-only lane plus an option lane, which is exactly the configuration for which APLs are designed, why specifically prohibit APLs because of an arbitrary designation that it's an "intermediate" or "minor" interchange?

Is it that they *won't* do it, or they just haven't switched over yet?  There's no requirement for them to change to APLs just because they're permitted.  If there's construction coming up, or a large full-scale sign program in effect, maybe they'll change them at that time.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 03, 2017, 10:06:03 AM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 02, 2017, 11:49:54 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 02, 2017, 06:21:41 PM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 02, 2017, 12:48:28 PM

My question is:  Why?  If a "non-major" exit has an option lane, why is an APL prohibited?   What's the point?

I'm thinking most minor interchanges that fall into this category would probably be exit ramps with no decal lane, so the right lane 'splits' from itself for the exit. 

Almost every interchange where there's at least one dedicated lane exiting from the mainline, with another lane splitting, falls into the 'major' category.  The APLs were mostly designed for this exit type.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about.  There are a few interchanges on I-696 (not with other freeways) that have a dedicated exit-only lane plus an option lane -- for example, at Woodward Avenue (M-1) (https://goo.gl/maps/tKQrag8uFMD2) and at Southfield Road (https://goo.gl/maps/TxXcxHdPePH2) -- but will not have advance APLs because apparently they aren't "major" interchanges.  I just don't understand why such a category matters.  If there's an exit-only lane plus an option lane, which is exactly the configuration for which APLs are designed, why specifically prohibit APLs because of an arbitrary designation that it's an "intermediate" or "minor" interchange?

Is it that they *won't* do it, or they just haven't switched over yet?  There's no requirement for them to change to APLs just because they're permitted.  If there's construction coming up, or a large full-scale sign program in effect, maybe they'll change them at that time.

It is a full-scale sign replacement program currently underway along a 20-mile stretch of freeway, and the plans show they won't be doing APLs at these exits to non-freeways.  Presumably because of the MUTCD directive that APLs can't be used at "intermediate" or "minor" interchanges.  I don't understand the prohibition on that basis.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 03, 2017, 10:57:10 AMIt is a full-scale sign replacement program currently underway along a 20-mile stretch of freeway, and the plans show they won't be doing APLs at these exits to non-freeways.  Presumably because of the MUTCD directive that APLs can't be used at "intermediate" or "minor" interchanges.  I don't understand the prohibition on that basis.

The wording is confusing, but there is no such prohibition:

"On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs... SHALL be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route and for all splits that include an option lane.

"Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs SHALL NOT be used on freeways and expressways for any other types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits (I've seen some of these in Florida!) and splits that do not have an option lane (like the ones I was referring to in metro Atlanta)."

Between "shall" and "shall not" is a gray area that's nominally addressed by a given agency's judgment as to what constitutes a major interchange (but probably involves other factors that don't lend themselves to policy pronouncements).

To further illustrate, here's part of the project map for the I-285-GA400 interchange. Here all of the offramps that meet the "shall" criteria will be signed with APL's, GDOT presumably having decided they were all major, or at least major enough.  :hmmm:
(https://i.imgur.com/zYaFeSM.png?1)

I really hope so.

Quote from: Tom958 on September 03, 2017, 11:56:24 AM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 03, 2017, 10:57:10 AMIt is a full-scale sign replacement program currently underway along a 20-mile stretch of freeway, and the plans show they won't be doing APLs at these exits to non-freeways.  Presumably because of the MUTCD directive that APLs can't be used at "intermediate" or "minor" interchanges.  I don't understand the prohibition on that basis.

The wording is confusing, but there is no such prohibition:

"On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs... SHALL be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route and for all splits that include an option lane.

"Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs SHALL NOT be used on freeways and expressways for any other types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits (I've seen some of these in Florida!) and splits that do not have an option lane (like the ones I was referring to in metro Atlanta)."

Between "shall" and "shall not" is a gray area that's nominally addressed by a given agency's judgment as to what constitutes a major interchange (but probably involves other factors that don't lend themselves to policy pronouncements).

To further illustrate, here's part of the project map for the I-285-GA400 interchange. Here all of the offramps that meet the "shall" criteria will be signed with APL's, GDOT presumably having decided they were all major, or at least major enough.  :hmmm:
(https://i.imgur.com/zYaFeSM.png?1)

I have to say that third APL with the 2 exits looks really nice. It's pretty rare to APLs with multiple exits actually done right.

APL's in Atlanta: the gift that keeps on giving. Just in the last week, what used to be a curved arrow under I-20 east was replaced by the split arrow you see now. There's a story: when the rebuilding of the Downtown Connector was finished in 1989, the lane that goes to I-20 east also continued straight for a thousand feet or so to an exit only lane for Fulton Street/Atlanta Stadium/Turner Field. Long ago, that exit lane was truncated so that it led only to I-20 east, beginning again as an auxiliary lane just beyond the gore... until sometime this week, when the old configuration was restored and the split arrow added to the APL. Annoyingly, the highway was repaved within the last few months, but GDOT hadn't come up with this scheme them, so the old markings have been conspicuously blacked over.  :ded:

Here's the Google Streetview (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7519637,-84.3801986,3a,60y,213.3h,95.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sueDDIYKFfduMyI2q2HAOEg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) if you want to look around.
(https://i.imgur.com/zaDO6nL.jpg?1)


So, that's the what. As for the why: it seems like an odd time to change a lane configuration that's been in place for so many years. As you can see, the way they've signed it is awkward at best, and there's really no way to sign it properly with either APL's or conventional signage due to space constraints, both in terms of close exit spacing and available width.

Given the recent relocation and replacement of that APL I posted about just upthread, I'm wondering whether the objective of this change was to bring these APL's back into nominal compliance with the MUTCD. If so, I'd expect to see reintroduction of the option lane for the 75-85 split on the north side and the rogue APL's leading into it modified similarly to what's been done here.  :clap:

Quote from: Tom958 on September 10, 2017, 09:52:28 PMGiven the recent relocation and replacement of that APL I posted about just upthread, I'm wondering whether the objective of this change was to bring these APL's back into nominal compliance with the MUTCD. If so, I'd expect to see reintroduction of the option lane for the 75-85 split on the north side and the rogue APL's leading into it modified similarly to what's been done here.  :clap:

Ha, they did it sometime this week, I'm told, and did a neat job of it. Photos will be upcoming, possibly tomorrow.

As promised, photos of the Equifax option lane, reintroduced after a hiatus of (I think) about a quarter century. Unlike the last fix I showed you, they did a neat job. The special striping to the left was introduced fairly recently to make it clearer which lanes go to which Interstate-- I was surprised to see a second special stripe added. Gee, I dunno.  Note also the added shield for 85 in the option lane. There's at least one and maybe two other sets of pavement shields like this.
(https://i.imgur.com/FG7L2DR.jpg?1)


A generally successful effort is marred, IMO, by this weird split arrow, which confusingly resembles a gore. Call in the grinder again, please.  :rolleyes:
(https://i.imgur.com/iNTNEvf.jpg?1)

Quote from: Tom958 on September 29, 2017, 09:14:17 PM
As promised, photos of the Equifax option lane...The special striping to the left was introduced fairly recently to make it clearer which lanes go to which Interstate...A generally successful effort is marred, IMO, by this weird split arrow, which confusingly resembles a gore. Call in the grinder again, please. 

https://i.imgur.com/iNTNEvf.jpg?

The same type of gore arrow used in Florida and the UK. I think it would be clearer if there was edge extension markings (the dashed white markings that you must cross to exit a freeway in some states -- Alabama, in addition to many other states, uses the markings). Without the markings, it definitely has the appearance of an errant gore marking.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 29, 2017, 09:55:45 PM

Quote from: Tom958 on September 29, 2017, 09:14:17 PM
As promised, photos of the Equifax option lane...The special striping to the left was introduced fairly recently to make it clearer which lanes go to which Interstate...A generally successful effort is marred, IMO, by this weird split arrow, which confusingly resembles a gore. Call in the grinder again, please. 

https://i.imgur.com/iNTNEvf.jpg?

The same type of gore arrow used in Florida and the UK. I think it would be clearer if there was edge extension markings (the dashed white markings that you must cross to exit a freeway in some states -- Alabama, in addition to many other states, uses the markings). Without the markings, it definitely has the appearance of an errant gore marking.

And given that, I would think that it would lead to accidents or near-misses.  At highway speeds, I would think that I would need to drive between the arrow and the lane line only to discover that the width is less than the width of my car, which would lead me to unnecessarily drive my car partially in the adjoining lane. 

What they should do for clarity is put in a sign in the gore.  I see in GSV that there is a sign for exit 251B in the gore, but IMO a better sign would be a sign indicating 85to the left and 75 to the right.  I understand that this is technically an exit, but given that it is a major freeway split is a more important indication.

^ A regular shared left/thru pavement marking arrow (or a slightly elongated version) would do the trick here.  The current marking does look like the gore point without additional clues for context.

LG-D850

Very recently, GDOT has started using surface road-type arrows on the Downtown Connector, and there are at least three approaching this split. Having already established what pavement arrows are supposed to look like makes this even more confusing.

An interim improvement might also be to extend the straight-arrow shaft past the left-arrow shaft, so that it doesn't have the appearance of a gore. Also, some larger arrow heads would be nice. Both in addition to edge-extension markings across the left-arrow so that it's clear it's an exit.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 15, 2017, 10:04:48 AM
An interim improvement might also be to extend the straight-arrow shaft past the left-arrow shaft, so that it doesn't have the appearance of a gore. Also, some larger arrow heads would be nice. Both in addition to edge-extension markings across the left-arrow so that it's clear it's an exit.

Gravedig! What actually happened is that they ground away the V at the base of the arrows, leaving two separate arrows. This happened within not very long of me and my pals raising the issue on GDOT's Facebook page, though we didn't suggest that specific fix.. Yay, us! And it really is a great improvement.

Quote from: Tom958 on June 09, 2018, 09:14:34 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 15, 2017, 10:04:48 AM
An interim improvement might also be to extend the straight-arrow shaft past the left-arrow shaft, so that it doesn't have the appearance of a gore. Also, some larger arrow heads would be nice. Both in addition to edge-extension markings across the left-arrow so that it's clear it's an exit.

Gravedig! What actually happened is that they ground away the V at the base of the arrows, leaving two separate arrows. This happened within not very long of me and my pals raising the issue on GDOT's Facebook page, though we didn't suggest that specific fix.. Yay, us! And it really is a great improvement.

Yeah, I'd say GDOT is finally getting it about APLS

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7218757,-84.2367399,3a,44.9y,208.61h,87.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srfusi_ZkfrpRtYpujJhlog!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

^^ The honorary names are not needed on the BGS and could have saved some room.

Quote from: jaidenscott316 on August 12, 2023, 10:33:35 PM
Yeah, I'd say GDOT is finally getting it about APLS

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7218757,-84.2367399,3a,44.9y,208.61h,87.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srfusi_ZkfrpRtYpujJhlog!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

I'd say GDOT is not 'getting it' based on this image.

The whole concept of APL is "one arrow per lane". There are five lanes here, but the sign has six arrows–the two in the middle should have been a single split arrow, since the third lane is a true option lane. If there were six lanes here that worked as depicted, then an APL would not have been required.

Quote from: Big John on August 12, 2023, 10:37:47 PM
^^ The honorary names are not needed on the BGS and could have saved some room.

They make it worse and less readable. Aside from the shield and direction, the most valuable pieces of information in the right two sections are hidden on the bottom line of text, indistinguishable from the honorary names that nobody uses or even knows. I lived in Atlanta for four years and I was aware the Ralph David Abernathy Freeway was a thing (mostly because it was on all the freeway signs and there was also a Ralph David Abernathy Blvd near downtown), but this is the first time I've ever heard of that part of 20 being the Purple Heart Freeway.

Quote from: roadfro on August 13, 2023, 04:02:19 PM

Quote from: jaidenscott316 on August 12, 2023, 10:33:35 PM
Yeah, I'd say GDOT is finally getting it about APLS

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7218757,-84.2367399,3a,44.9y,208.61h,87.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srfusi_ZkfrpRtYpujJhlog!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

I'd say GDOT is not 'getting it' based on this image.

The whole concept of APL is "one arrow per lane". There are five lanes here, but the sign has six arrows–the two in the middle should have been a single split arrow, since the third lane is a true option lane. If there were six lanes here that worked as depicted, then an APL would not have been required.

I'd suspect this is GDOT incorrectly trying to apply the MUTCD standard gore-point exit signage, with its "exit-only" designation on an option lane, to an APL. Which is why those changes should have never been in the 2009 MUTCD in the first place.

I'm not even sure what jaidenscott316 is getting at when they say "finally getting it". That sign is six years old, and GDOT has installed many APLs in the time since that are much more "correct" than what was installed in that Decatur example.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 13, 2023, 05:44:59 PM
I'm not even sure what jaidenscott316 is getting at when they say "finally getting it". That sign is six years, and GDOT has installed many APLs in the time since that are much more "correct" than what was installed in that Decatur example.

Was also the first post in this thread in 5 years.

I believe that sign is so not "getting it" that I decided to redesign it, this time in something more resembling of the US instead of one of my fictional standards. I know it's very likely to remind you of jakeroot's signs, and I cannot deny that I've drawn some inspiration from his work (and the works of many other members of the forum at that).
(https://i.imgur.com/i9ebDHM.png)

Quote from: Shedingtonian on August 14, 2023, 07:54:56 PM
I believe that sign is so not "getting it" that I decided to redesign it, this time in something more resembling of the US instead of one of my fictional standards. I know it's very likely to remind you of jakeroot's signs, and I cannot deny that I've drawn some inspiration from his work (and the works of many other members of the forum at that).
(https://i.imgur.com/i9ebDHM.png)

I like it! Nice work!

I might add a bit more green space around the edges, but really good besides that.

Quote from: Shedingtonian on August 14, 2023, 07:54:56 PM
I believe that sign is so not "getting it" that I decided to redesign it, this time in something more resembling of the US instead of one of my fictional standards. I know it's very likely to remind you of jakeroot's signs, and I cannot deny that I've drawn some inspiration from his work (and the works of many other members of the forum at that).
(https://i.imgur.com/i9ebDHM.png)

Redesigns are probably getting off-topic in this thread, but I think all the designs here and in the Redesign This! thread with different-height arrows (e.g. lane 2 in this instance) really look messy and would be more difficult to comprehend at freeway speeds.  Current APL standards may result in a considerable amount of wasted green space, but the signs are easily and quickly interpreted.

Thanks, jakeroot! I did a second version of that sign, but I won't post it here since, as wanderer said, that would be getting a bit too off topic.

Wanderer, I agree with you there. I fixed the different height arrow in the second version.

Probably not news for this thread, but just saw this example: https://maps.app.goo.gl/LCsTy9GpFFsLGyvA9
So they opted for "two through destination arrows" for 285S and 85N

Quote from: johndoe on September 14, 2023, 06:04:35 PMProbably not news for this thread, but just saw this example: https://maps.app.goo.gl/LCsTy9GpFFsLGyvA9
So they opted for "two through destination arrows" for 285S and 85N

How serendipitous. I won't have to post a "before" link-- you already did.

I'd forgotten about this thread, but in mid-March, the above assembly was changed to this monstrosity. As well as replacing the conventional sign for the Buford Highway exit with that APL-themed freak, they removed the split arrow and the curved arrow from the APL, thereby removing the rationale for even having an APL. So much for GDOT getting it.

Trying to make some sense of this: the Buford Highway exit has a fairly long decel lane, and I guess that after all these years someone decided it was long enough to rate EXIT ONLY signage. But they could've used conventional signage like this (https://maps.app.goo.gl/cG6npyD1QU4Qow368) instead of copying something dumb that Alabama did (https://maps.app.goo.gl/wQaZeESUBf3Qb1h28). As for removing the essential features of what had been an MUTCD-compliant APL, I can't imagine what they were thinking.

(https://i.imgur.com/SpKQeA2.jpg)

Quote from: Tom958 on April 24, 2024, 08:17:30 PM

Quote from: johndoe on September 14, 2023, 06:04:35 PMProbably not news for this thread, but just saw this example: https://maps.app.goo.gl/LCsTy9GpFFsLGyvA9
So they opted for "two through destination arrows" for 285S and 85N

How serendipitous. I won't have to post a "before" link-- you already did.

I'd forgotten about this thread, but in mid-March, the above assembly was changed to this monstrosity. As well as replacing the conventional sign for the Buford Highway exit with that APL-themed freak, they removed the split arrow and the curved arrow from the APL, thereby removing the rationale for even having an APL. So much for GDOT getting it.

Trying to make some sense of this: the Buford Highway exit has a fairly long decel lane, and I guess that after all these years someone decided it was long enough to rate EXIT ONLY signage. But they could've used conventional signage like this (https://maps.app.goo.gl/cG6npyD1QU4Qow368) instead of copying something dumb that Alabama did (https://maps.app.goo.gl/wQaZeESUBf3Qb1h28). As for removing the essential features of what had been an MUTCD-compliant APL, I can't imagine what they were thinking.

(https://i.imgur.com/SpKQeA2.jpg)

I mean, I kinda get why they modified this APL for this particular sign set. The curved arrows for I-85 south at this location (where there is an unrelated exit) could potentially lead to some confusion. But that potentially could have been mitigated by including a distance message—or better yet, posting this APL in a place slightly downstream that wouldn't be confused for the unrelated exit to US 23.

The exit to US 23 rightly deserves an exit only panel since that lane drops. It would also be better if they used a dotted line for a pavement marking instead of the typical broken line.

Quote from: roadfro on April 25, 2024, 11:52:48 AMThe exit to US 23 rightly deserves an exit only panel since that lane drops.

This isn't a lane drop, the exit uses a regular deceleration lane. I don't think it would make sense to drop a thru lane right before a major system interchange.

Those are definitely some interesting signs, but most of them are simply one big, fat mess.

Quote from: ran4sh on April 25, 2024, 10:21:00 PM

Quote from: roadfro on April 25, 2024, 11:52:48 AMThe exit to US 23 rightly deserves an exit only panel since that lane drops.

This isn't a lane drop, the exit uses a regular deceleration lane. I don't think it would make sense to drop a thru lane right before a major system interchange.

An added deceleration lane still drops, so an exit only panel isn't out of the question (Nevada DOT will typically sign these with exit only).

Quote from: roadfro on April 26, 2024, 11:26:26 AM

Quote from: ran4sh on April 25, 2024, 10:21:00 PM

Quote from: roadfro on April 25, 2024, 11:52:48 AMThe exit to US 23 rightly deserves an exit only panel since that lane drops.

This isn't a lane drop, the exit uses a regular deceleration lane. I don't think it would make sense to drop a thru lane right before a major system interchange.

An added deceleration lane still drops, so an exit only panel isn't out of the question (Nevada DOT will typically sign these with exit only).

Georgia doesn't normally use decel lanes on freeways, so I checked a couple of places on I-78 in New Jersey and found their decel lanes to be right at half as long as the one in question: 346 feet in NJ vs. 686 in Georgia. If the decel lane was a mile long (https://maps.app.goo.gl/SVBYGkxhdB2vXVSv9), it'd be considered an auxiliary lane in need of EXIT ONLY signage when it's dropped. So, there's a question of at what length one type of lane becomes the other, and GDOT has changed its opinion on the matter, at least at this particular location.

That, however, isn't the obvious issue with this sign. The issue is the fact that GDOT modified two MUTCD-compliant signs to make them noncompliant: the Buford Highway sign with its now-nonstandard EXIT ONLY treatment, and the APL on which the split and curved arrows were replaced with straight ones. WTF were they thinking?

After further consideration, I surmise that there must've been a problem with stupid people thinking that the curved APL arrow for the 85 south et al exit was pointing to the Buford Highway offramp despite there being conventional signage for the Buford Highway exit, and that the different format of the Buford Highway sign contributed to some drivers overlooking it (is that a problem here (https://maps.app.goo.gl/BmKezekVhA9tYscm7)? Or here? (https://maps.app.goo.gl/YZwpT8C5Y3zuJiii8)). That would explain everything GDOT did here. If they could've done it with a wave of their magic wand, they probably would've moved the vertical divider line a foot or so to the left to be directly over the arrow between the 85 north and 85 south legends to give some indication that that's an option lane.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this is that there's no way in hell that a designer would've come up with this initially-- it's the product of unexpectedly bad performance due to unexpectedly bad drivers. All in all, it would've been better for GDOT to have stuck with conventional signage (https://maps.app.goo.gl/n1eNgX63htHt1HSb6). The only advantage of an APL at this point is to show drivers that there's an option lane for the two 85 exits, something that the current sign no longer does.