Arrow-Per-Lane (APL) signs

Started by cl94, January 12, 2015, 10:39:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

US 89

Quote from: SignBridge on November 22, 2020, 10:06:14 PM
I think you might be misinterpreting that MUTCD section. I believe it refers to one exit that splits into two routes further down the ramp, such as a cloverleaf with a collector-distributor road or a freeway transition that splits for each direction after leaving the original freeway.

If that is the case, then Utah broke from that on its latest signage at the 15/215 south interchange:



kphoger

Quote from: wanderer2575 on November 22, 2020, 09:57:06 PM
Section 2E.21, paragraph 09:  "Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs shall not be used to depict a downstream split of an exit ramp on a sign located on the mainline."

Quote from: SignBridge on November 22, 2020, 10:06:14 PM
I believe it refers to one exit that splits into two routes further down the ramp, such as a cloverleaf with a collector-distributor road or a freeway transition that splits for each direction after leaving the original freeway.

I don't think it was meant to apply to two separate exits from the main road, but again that's just my interpretation.

I think you're right, based on the bolded phrase above.  Within the rule, it is the exit ramp that splits.

Quote from: US 89 on November 23, 2020, 01:03:01 AM
If that is the case, then Utah broke from that on its latest signage at the 15/215 south interchange:




And I think you're right about that as well.  The downstream split of the exit ramp should only be signed at the gore point.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

jakeroot

The FHWA needs to get off their high-horse with these signs. What the hell is wrong with signing a ramp split? If an exit ramp splits in two immediately after it diverges from the mainlines, signing that exit as a single exit without any other indication of a split is daft.

What needs to be allowed is multiple sign panels. For example, if a right lane of a option-lane split (ie the "exit only" lane) diverges immediately after the divergence from the mainline, that lane should be permitted to be displayed on its own panel separate from the other APL panel that shows the option lane. With the same right-hook arrow, of course, but a separate panel.

fwydriver405

Quote from: jakeroot on November 23, 2020, 02:59:52 PM
The FHWA needs to get off their high-horse with these signs. What the hell is wrong with signing a ramp split? If an exit ramp splits in two immediately after it diverges from the mainlines, signing that exit as a single exit without any other indication of a split is daft.

What needs to be allowed is multiple sign panels. For example, if a right lane of a option-lane split (ie the "exit only" lane) diverges immediately after the divergence from the mainline, that lane should be permitted to be displayed on its own panel separate from the other APL panel that shows the option lane. With the same right-hook arrow, of course, but a separate panel.

When you mean by that, do you mean something similar to the signs upstream in this example, at Exit 22 C-B-A in Providence?

jakeroot

Quote from: fwydriver405 on November 23, 2020, 04:15:50 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 23, 2020, 02:59:52 PM
The FHWA needs to get off their high-horse with these signs. What the hell is wrong with signing a ramp split? If an exit ramp splits in two immediately after it diverges from the mainlines, signing that exit as a single exit without any other indication of a split is daft.

What needs to be allowed is multiple sign panels. For example, if a right lane of a option-lane split (ie the "exit only" lane) diverges immediately after the divergence from the mainline, that lane should be permitted to be displayed on its own panel separate from the other APL panel that shows the option lane. With the same right-hook arrow, of course, but a separate panel.

When you mean by that, do you mean something similar to the signs upstream in this example, at Exit 22 C-B-A in Providence?

Not exactly. What I mean is allowing two separate APL panels on the same sign gantry, for when there needs to be clear delineation in which lanes do what, but where a single huge panel may not do the job.

Something like this:


roadfro

Quote from: jakeroot on November 23, 2020, 02:59:52 PM
The FHWA needs to get off their high-horse with these signs. What the hell is wrong with signing a ramp split? If an exit ramp splits in two immediately after it diverges from the mainlines, signing that exit as a single exit without any other indication of a split is daft.

What needs to be allowed is multiple sign panels. For example, if a right lane of a option-lane split (ie the "exit only" lane) diverges immediately after the divergence from the mainline, that lane should be permitted to be displayed on its own panel separate from the other APL panel that shows the option lane. With the same right-hook arrow, of course, but a separate panel.

I think the intent of the MUTCD rule here is to ensure that the arrows depict the conditions at the mainline exit correctly. If you start having double-headed arrows depicting a downstream ramp split along the mainline signage, it could be misinterpreted as being separate mainline exits.

With that said, I don't see anything wrong with sign legend layouts that imply how drivers should position themselves correctly for the downstream ramp split. Like I see nothing wrong with the I-15 South/I-215 example posted just upthread–the arrows show one mainline exit for I-215 in compliance with MUTCD statement, but the legend conveys the fact that the downstream ramp splits and helps position drivers in advance.

There may also be merit to allowing multiple sign panels in complex situations. But you'd also need to balance that with concerns for excess message loading.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

tolbs17

How can one work for US-264 and I-795? Seems like they didn't put one there.

And the eastern end of the Goldsboro bypass also doesn't have one.

The southern end of the Southwest bypass in Greenville has one though

tolbs17


jakeroot

Quote from: tolbs17 on May 07, 2021, 08:08:48 PM
How can one work for US-264 and I-795? Seems like they didn't put one there.

And the eastern end of the Goldsboro bypass also doesn't have one.

The southern end of the Southwest bypass in Greenville has one though

Those pre-date the requirement for APLs. The FHWA does not require signs to be reinstalled immediately after a change to the manual. It's called "grandfathering".

kphoger

Quote from: tolbs17 on July 21, 2021, 06:24:55 PM
No APL sign here? Interesting.

Those signs appear to predate the APL.  Kind of hard to implement something that hasn't been invented yet.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

tolbs17

Quote from: jakeroot on July 21, 2021, 06:27:43 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 07, 2021, 08:08:48 PM
How can one work for US-264 and I-795? Seems like they didn't put one there.

And the eastern end of the Goldsboro bypass also doesn't have one.

The southern end of the Southwest bypass in Greenville has one though

Those pre-date the requirement for APLs. The FHWA does not require signs to be reinstalled immediately after a change to the manual. It's called "grandfathering".
For Goldsboro, it's understandable I say.

US-264 I-795, that part opened in 2003. But when I see I-587 shields, I'm sure those signs will be updated.

Quote from: kphoger on July 21, 2021, 06:28:16 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on July 21, 2021, 06:24:55 PM
No APL sign here? Interesting.

Those signs appear to predate the APL.  Kind of hard to implement something that hasn't been invented yet.
That interchange was constructed in the 90s.

jakeroot

APLs only became part of the MUTCD in 2009. And even then, only signs designed after each stated officially adopted the 2009 MUTCD actually had to feature them. For WA, this was December 2011; we only have two freeway-to-freeway APLs across the whole state (one in Vancouver and one in Tacoma).

MarkF

#137
Here's Hawaii's version of APL signage, on the west end of Interstate H1:


SkyPesos

#138
I found a new partial APL sign on NB I-65 in Indiana last week. I like this as a replacement for dancing arrows (not that INDOT used that many dancing arrows in the first place, looking at you ODOT) to show option lanes, though I do have an issue with the road name centered over the right arrow only, instead of centered relative to the whole sign. Also uses less space as it omits the pullthrough portion, something MoDOT could've done instead of going overkill with full APL signage at exits 220, 222, 224, 228 and 229B.

NWI_Irish96

^^^^^

It's crazy how much that area has grown. I remember when that interchange didn't have any services, not even a single gas station.
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%

Tom958

#140
Here's one of four new APL's at a recently-completed ramp braid-CD complex just south of Atlanta. This assembly is repeated at the one mile mark, where the GA 331 offramp breaks off. Is the I-285 offramp straight ahead? Off to the right? maybe both, as it was before the current project was completed. And does it matter? Either way, it's pretty obvious that traffic bound for 285 needs to be in the right lane. 

I assume that GDOT is riffing off of a practice I've seen in Florida whereby an unnecessary, noncompliant APL is used well in advance of the exit if a lane is to be added downstream to create a two-lane exit with an option lane. A proper APL* is then used after the lane is added. My Florida example is clear enough because the legend is placed correctly in relation to the split arrow, but the EXIT ONLY in the Georgia scheme prevents that, leading to a dog's breakfast effect.

There's no option lane here and thus no warrant for an APL; conventional signage with no arrow would've been the MUTCD-compliant way to go. However, in GDOT's defense, there was a properly warranted, properly designed APL under the earlier setup. Perhaps GDOT felt that the APL was enough of a landmark that removing it could be hazardously confusing to drivers who are familiar with the area.


SkyPesos

#141
Quote from: Tom958 on October 28, 2021, 08:12:46 AM
However, in GDOT's defense, there was a properly warranted, properly designed APL under the earlier setup. Perhaps GDOT felt that the APL was enough of a landmark that removing it could be hazardously confusing to drivers who are familiar with the area.
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

I haven't scoured the state looking for examples, but I think that Florida does this a good bit, as I mentioned in my post today. I wonder if other states do, too.  :hmmm:

I kind of like it, actually.

Quote from: fwydriver405 on November 17, 2020, 10:30:47 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 17, 2020, 10:17:33 PM
I don't know how common it is, but APL signing is only required where there is an option lane involved. It was for that situation that APL signing was designed. Not for a normal exit or a simple lane-drop configuration.

After the rest area a little bit less than 1 mile from that sign assembly, a 5th lane is added as an exit-only lane for exit 1. In that case, between the rest area and Exit 1 NB, the #4 lane is an option lane, and the #5 for Exit 1 only.



tolbs17

Quote from: Tom958 on October 28, 2021, 09:02:50 AM
I haven't scoured the state looking for examples, but I think that Florida does this a good bit, as I mentioned in my post today. I wonder if other states do, too.  :hmmm:

I kind of like it, actually.

Quote from: fwydriver405 on November 17, 2020, 10:30:47 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 17, 2020, 10:17:33 PM
I don't know how common it is, but APL signing is only required where there is an option lane involved. It was for that situation that APL signing was designed. Not for a normal exit or a simple lane-drop configuration.

After the rest area a little bit less than 1 mile from that sign assembly, a 5th lane is added as an exit-only lane for exit 1. In that case, between the rest area and Exit 1 NB, the #4 lane is an option lane, and the #5 for Exit 1 only.


Most states do it. I know North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey definitely do it. They are becoming more common. Maryland on the other hand, apparently not...

jmacswimmer

"Now, what if da Bearss were to enter the Indianapolis 5-hunnert?"
"How would they compete?"
"Let's say they rode together in a big buss."
"Is Ditka driving?"
"Of course!"
"Then I like da Bear buss."
"DA BEARSSS BUSSSS"

tolbs17

Quote from: jmacswimmer on October 28, 2021, 09:25:10 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on October 28, 2021, 09:19:11 AM
Maryland on the other hand, apparently not...

Sure about that:)
Well I haven't been to Maryland since 2016, and from what I can see on the signs from on I-95 from I-895 to I-695, those are all just normal signs with downward pointing arrows.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3229885,-76.5300851,3a,29.6y,217.24h,93.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHdBRQXiBRYf6k1IcXQKdEw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en

SkyPesos

Quote from: tolbs17 on October 28, 2021, 09:19:11 AM
Most states do it. I know North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey definitely do it. They are becoming more common. Maryland on the other hand, apparently not...
Ohio: What's an APL again?

wanderer2575

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.

Shame that a new (and expensive) APL was removed, but the newer conventional signage gets around the restriction that a downstream ramp split cannot be signed on an APL.  Maybe that was causing a problem here.  The newer signage gives more advance guidance of which lane to use for each direction of I-270.

Tom958

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 28, 2021, 08:30:42 AMKind of wondering, what are some examples of APLs that were installed and removed later?

Not what you're looking for, but this one on I-285 in Atlanta is redesigned, refabricated, and relocated from its original non-MUTCD-compliant design and location. The original supports are still standing in this view, and the previous view shows the original setup.

tolbs17

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 28, 2021, 09:44:15 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on October 28, 2021, 09:19:11 AM
Most states do it. I know North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey definitely do it. They are becoming more common. Maryland on the other hand, apparently not...
Ohio: What's an APL again?
Ikr, I don't see any sign there.



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.