AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: APL signage installed and later removed  (Read 2350 times)

SkyPesos

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4418
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Cincinnati, OH/Lafayette, IN
  • Last Login: Today at 05:27:16 PM
APL signage installed and later removed
« on: November 02, 2021, 08:39:58 PM »

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:
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.
Logged
My Fictional Highways

Fundamental Theorem of AARoads - Let "y" represent the elevation above sea level in a certain area. If "Δy" between the highest and lowest values of y equals to 0, it's Illinois.

Tom958

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1226
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Lawrenceville, GA
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 08:37:13 PM
Re: APL signage installed and later removed
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2021, 05:11:14 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2021, 07:24:20 AM by Tom958 »
Logged

Great Lakes Roads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 699
  • Ain't nobody got time for that!!

  • Age: 22
  • Location: La Porte, Indiana
  • Last Login: Today at 04:20:57 PM
Logged

Tom958

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1226
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Lawrenceville, GA
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 08:37:13 PM
Re: APL signage installed and later removed
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2021, 06:31:26 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
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4462
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: May 18, 2022, 03:54:13 PM
Re: APL signage installed and later removed
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2021, 02:44:42 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).
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Tom958

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1226
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Lawrenceville, GA
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 08:37:13 PM
Re: APL signage installed and later removed
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2021, 08:09:27 PM »

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

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).

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.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2021, 05:18:17 AM by Tom958 »
Logged

 


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.