AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Has an MUTCD-level policy on a certain aspect of APL use emerged spontaneously?  (Read 2438 times)

Tom958

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1226
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Lawrenceville, GA
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 08:21:20 AM

A few days ago, I posted about this awkward new APL in Georgia. I thought that it might've been inspired by a practice I'd seen in Florida. Since then, I've discovered that New Hampshire, Michigan, Missouri, and arguably New York have also apparently adopted this convention of using a simple-exit APL as a subtle means of signaling to drivers that an upcoming split will be signed with one or more properly-warranted APLs once an additional lane comes into play downstream. This has happened despite the fact that there's no such sign in the MUTCD, and despite the usual case that a simple arrowless conventional sign should be adequate to direct exiting traffic into the correct lane. To me, it seems unlikely that so many state D'sOT came up with this independently. Was there some discussion and coordination in channels that we're generally not privy to?

I believe that a key reason to follow signage conventions is that doing so communicates useful information even to drivers who couldn't accurately sketch out a proper BGS if their lives depended on it. I see this apparently-emerging convention as a laudable case of design pros exploiting human nature to accomplish a worthwhile purpose, which I think is pretty cool regardless of whether the actual convention is a good idea.

What I'm talking about, from New Hampshire c/o freewaydriver405. This is before the added lane:




And this is after. In this case, the added lane comes from an onramp, but Florida (at least) has used it where the lane is added independently:

« Last Edit: November 06, 2021, 06:05:24 AM by Tom958 »
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4463
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 11:23:54 AM

Even though the signing tactic seems like the advance sign is not MUTCD-compliant, it actually is...

If I had to guess, the signing tactic shown above arises from:
1) the MUTCD requirement to use APL signing on new freeway splits with option lanes
2) the MUTCD APL design criteria standard that an APL sign shall depict the lane layout at the location of the sign
3) either an inference that APL signs must be placed at a 1-mile or 2-mile location, or a desire to not mix differing types of arrows in the sequence of signs for a single interchange (or both).
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13240
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 11:08:01 PM

The NJTA installed them for a new exit on the Garden State Parkway several years ago as well.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/h9k1sfCvjeDeMQBA7
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 14950
  • Nit picker of unprecedented pedantry

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:47:04 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards

The NJTA installed them for a new exit on the Garden State Parkway several years ago as well.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/h9k1sfCvjeDeMQBA7

That's a sawn-off APL, which is a new thing in the MUTCD 11e, but not actually what the OP is looking for. They're talking about a sign upstream of that location, before the exit-only (#8) lane exists, that shows only the #7 lane as an option lane and concealing the later presence of the #8 lane.
Logged

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13240
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 11:08:01 PM

The NJTA installed them for a new exit on the Garden State Parkway several years ago as well.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/h9k1sfCvjeDeMQBA7

That's a sawn-off APL, which is a new thing in the MUTCD 11e, but not actually what the OP is looking for. They're talking about a sign upstream of that location, before the exit-only (#8) lane exists, that shows only the #7 lane as an option lane and concealing the later presence of the #8 lane.

Then, this on DE 1 in Delaware?  (The GSV doesn't show it yet.  The 3D aerial image links used below may or may not work properly, depending on the device/browser being used...)

https://goo.gl/maps/dXZcJrTHFHNxxyPb6

https://goo.gl/maps/vsDrbsBGhd3Cgsmx9


Logged

Tom958

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1226
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Lawrenceville, GA
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 08:21:20 AM

Then, this on DE 1 in Delaware?  (The GSV doesn't show it yet.  The 3D aerial image links used below may or may not work properly, depending on the device/browser being used...)

https://goo.gl/maps/dXZcJrTHFHNxxyPb6

https://goo.gl/maps/vsDrbsBGhd3Cgsmx9


I can see the Streetviews. Yes, the first is what I'm talking about. The second and third have presumably had their third arrow and EXIT ONLY plaques installed by now. Add another state to the list.
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.