APL signage installed and later removed

Started by SkyPesos, November 02, 2021, 08:39:58 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

SkyPesos

Thought it may be better to move this to a new thread, as the general APL thread gets cluttered real quick with multiple topics going on. Not sure how common this is, as APLs seem to be the gold standard for signing option lanes nowadays.

Here's my example:
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 28, 2021, 08:30:42 AM
Kind of wondering, what are some examples of APLs that were installed and removed later?

Here's one on I-70 WB at the I-270 exit (exit 232)
2011: Single lane exit, with conventional signage
2012-2015: 2 lane exit with option lane, signed with APL signage. Probably one of the better APLs I've seen with arrow size.
2016-now: Still a 2 lane exit with option lane, changed back to conventional signage. Imo a step backwards, and I think the APL is fine for this interchange, especially considering how new the sign was when it was removed.


Tom958

#1
In Georgia, this mislocated MUTCD-defiant mess was removed and replaced with a correctly-designed and-sited APL.

Also, this unwarranted, noncompliant APL was replaced by the conventional signage that should've been there in the first place.

Off topic but related: the first example was one of six Atlanta-area APLs that were modified to bring them into MUTCD compliance in 2017. The other five really should've had conventional signage, but instead of replacing the APLs, the road was restriped to reintroduce option lanes that had been in place originally but striped away many years earlier. This became this (with another instance upstream) and this became this (with two more instances downstream). It's not really relevant, but I thought bringing back the option lanes was a good idea regardless of signage considerations, and I've wondered whether GDOT agreed or if they did it just to save money while placating the FHWA. One data point is that the restriping was done shortly after repaving and repainting, so this change was obviously conceived and implemented in haste.

There's another sequence of APLs that was removed and replaced, but that was because the lane configurations were changed by a construction project, so that don't count.

Great Lakes Roads


Tom958

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on November 06, 2021, 03:59:03 PM
Here's another one from Georgia, except that this one is at I-285 WB where it meets I-85 near the airport.

February 2016: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6175402,-84.4510825,3a,75y,276.75h,101.63t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stOZ_UYVGXSMlBa_Bro8BoA!2e0!5s20160201T000000!7i13312!8i6656

January 2017: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6175224,-84.4510766,3a,75y,277.83h,96.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slX6qYIikBJNuuAq38hu6zA!2e0!5s20170101T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Ah, how could I have forgotten? It's Georgia's worst signage disaster. It was changed after a motorist got Channel 46's investigative reporter involved due to the constant stream of crashes and near misses. There was an intermediate phase during which the APL was split in two and mounted as two separate signs, which I found hilarious:

May 2016:
https://goo.gl/maps/e29xnUtAXgkXSf5t6

roadfro

Quote from: Tom958 on November 06, 2021, 06:31:26 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on November 06, 2021, 03:59:03 PM
Here's another one from Georgia, except that this one is at I-285 WB where it meets I-85 near the airport.

February 2016: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6175402,-84.4510825,3a,75y,276.75h,101.63t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stOZ_UYVGXSMlBa_Bro8BoA!2e0!5s20160201T000000!7i13312!8i6656

January 2017: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6175224,-84.4510766,3a,75y,277.83h,96.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slX6qYIikBJNuuAq38hu6zA!2e0!5s20170101T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Ah, how could I have forgotten? It's Georgia's worst signage disaster. It was changed after a motorist got Channel 46's investigative reporter involved due to the constant stream of crashes and near misses. There was an intermediate phase during which the APL was split in two and mounted as two separate signs, which I found hilarious:

May 2016:
https://goo.gl/maps/e29xnUtAXgkXSf5t6

The original APL installation here appears to have been problematic for two reasons:
1) The option lane was shown with the through arrow pointing towards exit destination legend (potentially part of the reason why APLs are not supposed depict the downstream splits off a single exit), and
2) The final sign was posted downstream of the theoretical (painted) gore where the exiting lanes had already started splitting off, so at the point of the sign the exiting arrows were not aligned above the lanes they depicted.

If the original APL was a new installation on an existing sign bridge, that was a big design error. Either they should have moved the sign bridge, or taken advantage of the MUTCD provision allowing pull-through and regular exit signage (which is somewhat similar to what they ended up going with in 2017).
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Tom958

#5
Tangential-to-the-topic adventures. Please, somebody: Post something on topic!

Quote from: roadfro on November 07, 2021, 02:44:42 PMIf the original APL was a new installation on an existing sign bridge, that was a big design error. Either they should have moved the sign bridge, or taken advantage of the MUTCD provision allowing pull-through and regular exit signage (which is somewhat similar to what they ended up going with in 2017).

I never thought to check until you mentioned it (or maybe I did and forgot), but the APL was installed about 100 feet behind the previous overhead, presumably to avoid obstructing the old signage while erecting the new. Talk about misplaced priorities. GDOT has long been lackadaisical about aligning arrows over the proper lane, but that was ridiculous.

My reading of that MUTCD provision is that conventional signage could be allowed on a temporary basis, and it could've been approved thusly, but conventional signage is really better at this location because it allows signing of a downstream split. Maybe temporary but never removed.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.