Is Georgia finally getting it about APL's?

[US 89]

^^ 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.

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[US 89]

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.

[Shedingtonian]

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).

[jakeroot]

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).

I like it! Nice work!

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

[wanderer2575]

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).

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.

[Shedingtonian]

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.

[johndoe]

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

[Tom958]

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

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 instead of copying something dumb that Alabama did. As for removing the essential features of what had been an MUTCD-compliant APL, I can't imagine what they were thinking.