From a recent Georgia DOT sign rehabilitation contract covering I-75 in Atlanta (GDOT is in the middle of a multi-year freeway sign upgrade program to get rid of Series D/"GDOT Turkish" for primary destination legend):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2Fc%2Fcd%2FM004425_M004425_0000095_CST.png&hash=70fc3daf7f0e77152ad0e12583fc970345d14e2d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2Fe%2Fe8%2FM004425_M004425_0000045_CSTR.png&hash=c88ca0023c2be43bdaaffa4f21f1ce707c592952)
Apparently Massachusetts will begin using arrow-per-lane designs soon. From the MA supplement to the 2009 MUTCD:
Section 2E.20 Signing for Option Lanes at Splits and Multi-Lane Exits
At present, "Arrow Per Lane" guide signs are not being specified for use on highways within
Massachusetts in order to maintain consistency in sign messages at "optional lane" interchanges on
the freeway system, given the large number of existing "conventional" diagrammatic signs currently
in place.
NOTE: The Department will be phasing in the "Arrow Per Lane" design, within the next ten to
fifteen years, along specific highway corridors as signs are updated during normal replacement. In
the interim, the support structures for any new "conventional" diagrammatic sign installations at
these locations will be designed to accommodate future upgrading to the larger "Arrow Per Lane"
signs.
Why does the leftmost sign on the first sheet need arrows anyway? A pull through with just the control cities would be fine.
I was in the process of drawing the signs in JN Winkler's post when I realized that there are no option lanes in either of the two situations. IIRC, the arrow-per-lane signs were only supposed to be used if there was an option lane as part of the upcoming exit. Also, according to my calculations, the up arrows on the I-75/I-85 pull through are only 48 inches high versus the specified 72 inches.
Another new sign for the 75/85 split already? That one was just replaced a couple years ago, new enough to be Series E(M) and everything. And that's without even going into the ludicrousness of having a single BGS spanning 6+ lanes.
Unless I'm missing something, there's a problem here. Georgia's proposed "arrow per lane" BGSes don't depict any 'optional' exit lanes - which is the only configuration these signs are supposed to be used for.
Plus, these signs illustrate a basic problem with the "arrow per lane" design - they are unnecessarily large for the message they convey. And, if 'arrow per lane' signs are really so much better than the diagrammatic signs they are replacing (as the human factors 'experts' claim), it's interesting to note that only a total of four such signs existed in the entire country (as compared with hundreds of diagrammatics) before the 2009 MUTCD was issued.
Quote from: Eth on March 10, 2013, 10:23:10 AM
Another new sign for the 75/85 split already? That one was just replaced a couple years ago, new enough to be Series E(M) and everything. And that's without even going into the ludicrousness of having a single BGS spanning 6+ lanes.
I wonder if there is a higher than normal accident rate approaching the interchange despite the new signage. Sometimes that is motivation for an engineer to try and improve signage further.
Quote from: roadman on March 10, 2013, 09:10:38 PM
Unless I'm missing something, there's a problem here. Georgia's proposed "arrow per lane" BGSes don't depict any 'optional' exit lanes - which is the only configuration these signs are supposed to be used for.
Wait, I thought they are still allowed as an option when used as illustrated above.
Quote from: on_wisconsin on March 10, 2013, 09:22:24 PMQuote from: roadman on March 10, 2013, 09:10:38 PMUnless I'm missing something, there's a problem here. Georgia's proposed "arrow per lane" BGSes don't depict any 'optional' exit lanes - which is the only configuration these signs are supposed to be used for.
Wait, I thought they are still allowed as an option when used as illustrated above.
No, they aren't--in fact it is a
MUTCD Standard statement that they shall not be used when there are no option lanes. The
MUTCD retains the old stippled-arrow diagrammatics for use on existing freeways but imposes an identical restriction (option lanes only). This is a change from previous editions of the
MUTCD, which allowed stippled-arrow diagrammatics at exits without option lanes.
My theory--assuming that GDOT's traffic people are not oblivious to the option-lane requirement, which I suppose is always at least a distant possibility--is that these installations are a test to determine whether it is really necessary to ban arrow-per-lane diagrammatics at splits without option lanes. GDOT uses many stippled-arrow diagrammatics and under current
MUTCD language these would have to be replaced with arrow-per-lane diagrammatics if those locations were ever reconstructed, but in fact neither kind of diagrammatic is currently used at either of the locations shown above.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 10, 2013, 10:04:58 PM
My theory--assuming that GDOT's traffic people are not oblivious to the option-lane requirement, which I suppose is always at least a distant possibility--is that these installations are a test to determine whether it is really necessary to ban arrow-per-lane diagrammatics at splits without option lanes. GDOT uses many stippled-arrow diagrammatics and under current MUTCD language these would have to be replaced with arrow-per-lane diagrammatics if those locations were ever reconstructed, but in fact neither kind of diagrammatic is currently used at either of the locations shown above.
Only a distant possibility? I just assumed someone saw a big interchange with multi-lane exits and shouted,
Arrow per lane! Seriously, though, if we put our bias aside, is there really any reason not to allow APL in the absence of option lanes? The only thing I don't like are the curvy arrows: I'd prefer straight, angled ones.
I'm still waiting for substantive proof based on actual real-world installations (as opposed to polling people using driving simulators) that the benefits of APL over 'stipple-head arrrow' diagrammatics are great enough to justify the increased size and expense of the much larger panels and structures required for these signs.
Quote from: roadman on March 11, 2013, 10:15:55 AM
I'm still waiting for substantive proof based on actual real-world installations (as opposed to polling people using driving simulators) that the benefits of APL over 'stipple-head arrrow' diagrammatics are great enough to justify the increased size and expense of the much larger panels and structures required for these signs.
Right, but that's a separate debate. The question is whether there's a real reason to allow them on option lane interchanges but not allow them on non—option lane interchanges.
I don't get why the arrow-per-lane would be used in the first place in a non-option situation, even if allowed. Ordinary pull-through and exit lane signs should do the job. I thought that the arrow-per-lane was intended to deal with situations where ordinary signs would require dancing arrows and more than one arrow pointing to the same lane from separate signs, and because the stippled arrows were thought to be too subtle sometimes. If there are no option lanes, then there doesn't seem to be a need for an arrow-per-lane sign at all, allowed or not.
Anyone wanna point out that you don't use "EXIT ONLY" on these particular signs? Besides the obvious "these are the wrong application" and "these are the devil's handicraft."
Technicalities of the MUTCD aside, I see nothing functionally wrong with these signs. They convey the needed message clearly and concisely, if perhaps at an expense of extra panel space.
The only problem I have with "big signs" like these is that they lose their impact if overused. Really, a diagrammatic of any sort should only precede a major interchange. If it's an exit to some urban or suburban arterial that happens to have an option lane, the old method of one plain arrow, one arrow in exit only stripe (now banned, unfortunately) would be preferable because it is lower key. An exit like that should not be emphasized over the others around it just because of a lane striping quirk.
Quote from: Steve on March 11, 2013, 09:52:08 PM
Anyone wanna point out that you don't use "EXIT ONLY" on these particular signs? Besides the obvious "these are the wrong application" and "these are the devil's handicraft."
If an option lane with additional drop lane(s) were present, as with intended use in the MUTCD, you would use EXIT ONLY plaques for the drop lane arrows. Unless I'm missing something...?
Quote from: Duke87 on March 11, 2013, 10:46:53 PM
Technicalities of the MUTCD aside, I see nothing functionally wrong with these signs. They convey the needed message clearly and concisely, if perhaps at an expense of extra panel space.
The only problem I have with "big signs" like these is that they lose their impact if overused. Really, a diagrammatic of any sort should only precede a major interchange. If it's an exit to some urban or suburban arterial that happens to have an option lane, the old method of one plain arrow, one arrow in exit only stripe (now banned, unfortunately) would be preferable because it is lower key. An exit like that should not be emphasized over the others around it just because of a lane striping quirk.
The MUTCD states that APL signs shall be used for all major interchanges/splits with multi-lane exits (with an option lane), and encourages their consideration for similar intermediate interchanges. They are not encouraged for use at service/minor interchanges--the signing method now encourages conventional signing (single arrow in advance but dual arrow at the exit) with lane-use regulatory signing.
I'll note that Nevada DOT has done a major sign replacement on I-80 in Reno since adopting the 2009 MUTCD--they implemented APLs for a major interchange, but still used the old method (of one standard arrow and one exit only arrow) for service interchanges with option lanes.
I like arrow-per-lane replacing diagrammic signs, but I hate it when they replace the old one plain arrow/one exit-only signs.
Quote from: roadfro on March 12, 2013, 03:00:04 AM
Quote from: Steve on March 11, 2013, 09:52:08 PM
Anyone wanna point out that you don't use "EXIT ONLY" on these particular signs? Besides the obvious "these are the wrong application" and "these are the devil's handicraft."
If an option lane with additional drop lane(s) were present, as with intended use in the MUTCD, you would use EXIT ONLY plaques for the drop lane arrows. Unless I'm missing something...?
Hm, they don't seem to cover the case of 3+ lane exits. It seems aesthetically terrible to have the panels beneath every single arrow like that, not to mention confusing. I would really want to see at most one set of panels.
Quote from: Steve on March 12, 2013, 07:06:46 PM
Hm, they don't seem to cover the case of 3+ lane exits. It seems aesthetically terrible to have the panels beneath every single arrow like that, not to mention confusing. I would really want to see at most one set of panels.
I made a very quick mockup of what I think might be a more aesthetically pleasing solution.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/misc/apl.jpg)
don't mind the tilted rectangle and pixelated font. it's a very quick mockup, not a joke at Mexico's expense.
(I googled "arrow per lane sign" and what I started with was one of the first images. I believe the photo belongs to a poster here, but can't remember who.)
That's fine for two arrows. As for the 75/85 example, you've got two multiplexed routes splitting. Really, neither direction is an "exit", so I would just forget about the whole "exit only" thing entirely and put all plain arrows.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 12, 2013, 09:40:26 PM
That's fine for two arrows.
my idea would work for exit-only lanes as well.
Quote from: roadman on March 11, 2013, 10:15:55 AM
I'm still waiting for substantive proof based on actual real-world installations (as opposed to polling people using driving simulators) that the benefits of APL over 'stipple-head arrrow' diagrammatics are great enough to justify the increased size and expense of the much larger panels and structures required for these signs.
Think global. Arrow-per-lane signs have been in use used extensively in other countries for decades so its not exactly a new idea or some sort of grand experiment on our part.
Quote from: realjd on March 16, 2013, 06:32:41 AM
Quote from: roadman on March 11, 2013, 10:15:55 AM
I'm still waiting for substantive proof based on actual real-world installations (as opposed to polling people using driving simulators) that the benefits of APL over 'stipple-head arrrow' diagrammatics are great enough to justify the increased size and expense of the much larger panels and structures required for these signs.
Think global. Arrow-per-lane signs have been in use used extensively in other countries for decades so its not exactly a new idea or some sort of grand experiment on our part.
Perhaps they are not new, but if the existing sign types do a comparable job for less money, what exactly is the benefit of changing to APL? To make German tourists feel at home?
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 16, 2013, 06:35:24 AM
Quote from: realjd on March 16, 2013, 06:32:41 AM
Quote from: roadman on March 11, 2013, 10:15:55 AM
I'm still waiting for substantive proof based on actual real-world installations (as opposed to polling people using driving simulators) that the benefits of APL over 'stipple-head arrrow' diagrammatics are great enough to justify the increased size and expense of the much larger panels and structures required for these signs.
Think global. Arrow-per-lane signs have been in use used extensively in other countries for decades so its not exactly a new idea or some sort of grand experiment on our part.
Perhaps they are not new, but if the existing sign types do a comparable job for less money, what exactly is the benefit of changing to APL? To make German tourists feel at home?
I was making no claim as to their effectiveness or necessity. I merely was arguing that the fact that there aren't many in the US doesn't necessarily mean there is no research, testing, or experience with them.
I don't think OAPL signs as specified in the 2009 Manual will catch on in the US. I think state DOT's will be reluctant to use them because they are gross overkill. There is too much wasted space on the lower portion of the sign. This will require unreasonably huge signs, especially over very wide roadways.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the next MUTCD revision some years down the line, the FHWA modifies the design to a more reasonable format, something like that used on the German Autobahn system. They use similar arrows placed between and beside the legends, making much more efficient use of sign-space.
Having said that, I will also re-state my opinion from earlier discussions that the FHWA created a problem where there wasn't one re: 2 arrows for different directions over an optional lane. The solutions they have come up with including OAPL signing (at major xchanges) and single arrow advance signs with double arrow at the gore point (for intermediate xchanges) are so "flat-footed" that the cure is worse than the disease in my opinion.
I do think something had to be done with the multiple arrows and their "dancing"...in some cases, it becomes very hard to distinguish the intended meaning. That said, something could have been done to design the signs so they weren't so monstrously huge.
APL are catching on to a degree. Nevada has used them in a couple places already--this comes from a state where there was only one diagrammatic arrow prior to 2006 (and none prior to 1994). NDOT has used APLs, but not yet adopted the other new MUTCD standards for multilane exits at intermediate interchanges that were introduced simultaneously with APLs.
I wholeheartedly agree about the intermediate exit solution introduced by the MUTCD, and am glad NDOT stuck with the classic white arrow & only arrow approach (what I believe JN Winkler has termed the "Lunenfeld & Alexander" approach).
Question, when you have a diagrammatic sign such as this where both lanes remain through and only one turns off, does it the arrow-per-lane concept still apply?
(https://www.aaroads.com/midwest/illinois474/i-474_eb_exit_015_04.jpg)
Or would a sign replacement simply consist of separate panels, where one reads "LEFT EXIT" and the other with two down arrows. I have noted that in the Peoria area, many of the conventional guide signs were replaced with Clearview, but that the diagrammatical signs were left in place. The only exception I found thus far is this sign (https://www.aaroads.com/midwest/illinois074/i-074_eb_exit_101_02.jpg).
Quote from: SignBridge on March 23, 2013, 08:42:34 PMI don't think OAPL signs as specified in the 2009 Manual will catch on in the US. I think state DOT's will be reluctant to use them because they are gross overkill. There is too much wasted space on the lower portion of the sign. This will require unreasonably huge signs, especially over very wide roadways.
I am afraid events have already given the lie to your suggestion that OAPL signs won't catch on. Here is the current state of play with regard to OAPL signs, state-by-state, to the best of my knowledge based on signing plans I collect (Y = State DOT uses OAPL; NI = I have no information to indicate whether the state DOT uses OAPL; N = State DOT does not use OAPL or has a policy in place to ensure OAPL is not used):
HI NI
AK NI
WA Y
OR Y
CA Y
NV Y
AZ N
ID N
MT NI
WY NI
UT Y
CO NI
KS Y
NM NI
TX NI
OK Y
LA NI
AR Y
MO Y
IA NI
NE NI
SD Y
ND NI
MN NI (but different strategy used for option lanes at some interchanges)
WI Y
IL Y
IN NI (but as for MN)
MI Y
OH NI
PA Y
WV NI
VA Y
KY Y
TN NI
MS Y
AL NI (but stippled-arrow diagrammatics used extensively; also, as for MN)
GA Y
FL Y
SC NI
NC Y
MD NI
DE NI
NJ NI
PA Y
NY NI
RI NI
MA NI
VT NI
NH NI
ME NI
That is a total of 21 states with some confirmed usage of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics. That is roughly the same number of states that were using Clearview at the same chronological remove (four years) from Clearview's grant of interim approval by FHWA. Also, the ceiling is somewhat lower for arrow-per-lane diagrammatics since they are allowed only at option lanes, and there are bound to be a few states (ND and VT come to mind) which have no interchanges with option lanes.
I think it is totally valid to criticize OAPL signs for wasteful use of sign panel area, but I don't see this fact driving a groundswell of rebellion among state DOTs. The main reason for this is that the
MUTCD shall condition for the use of OAPL is very restricted: only when (1) an option lane is present and (2) the interchange involves a split or the through route exits (TOTSO scenario). I am sure there must be multiple states that have no interchanges meeting this very restrictive criterion.
I think state DOTs actually suffer more from the new restrictions applied to option lane signing in the 2009
MUTCD. It now bans the use of stippled-arrow diagrammatics at interchanges with no option lane, the classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach to signing service interchanges with option lanes (and its several variants as used in KS and AL), and "part-width" arrow-per-lane diagrammatics (which might otherwise be a useful option for service interchanges with option lanes). The only option offered for signing option-lane exits in cases where an OAPL is not used involves arrows "hiding" the option lane.
QuoteI wouldn't be surprised if in the next MUTCD revision some years down the line, the FHWA modifies the design to a more reasonable format, something like that used on the German Autobahn system. They use similar arrows placed between and beside the legends, making much more efficient use of sign-space.
The basic design has already been rejigged. Maximum arrow height on splits is 55" (compare to 22" height of downward-pointing arrow) and on exits is 66" (per
SHSM 2012), down from 72" in the
MUTCD dimensioning table. There is also nothing in the
MUTCD that dictates a top-down structure for legend blocks, which gives designers flexibility to accommodate very wide interchange throats. We are restricted in how far we can go in adapting the German model, partly because the primary route number element on German signs is a cartouche in which the road number appears at a size smaller than the basic height of primary destination legend.
One approach that some state DOTs have tried, notably in MN, IN, and AL, is to locate a downward-pointing option lane arrow immediately underneath a vertical ruled line that separates the straight-ahead and right-hand destination blocks. I do not think this approach has necessarily been ruled out by the 2009
MUTCD, though I believe it now requires a yellow "EXIT ONLY" panel for the arrow that represents the dropped lane. One other approach that has been used elsewhere, notably in South Africa, is an "arrow block" diagrammatic with the straight-ahead and right-hand destinations arranged on either side of an arrow block in the middle of the sign. This approach has the potential to make much more efficient use of sign panel area, but there is no support for it in the
MUTCD. It will also not help at interchanges where designers want to channel traffic that has not yet exited into the correct lanes for a split that is encountered immediately after the exit. In the main Road-Related Illustrations thread, which has since been moved into its own board, I also floated the idea of a diagrammatic with separate arrow blocks showing the lane assignment scenario at each decision point in the sequence in which it is encountered (reading the sign from right to left). This proved to be about as popular as Polish calculator logic.
QuoteHaving said that, I will also re-state my opinion from earlier discussions that the FHWA created a problem where there wasn't one re: 2 arrows for different directions over an optional lane. The solutions they have come up with including OAPL signing (at major xchanges) and single arrow advance signs with double arrow at the gore point (for intermediate xchanges) are so "flat-footed" that the cure is worse than the disease in my opinion.
This is a point which can be (and has been) debated. We have OAPL because none of the existing options for signing lane drops with option lanes hits a home run. Lunenfeld & Alexander studied the approaches that had been tried by the mid-1970's, and came up with the approach that has been diagrammed in the
MUTCD from 1978 to 2003, and is now deprecated. The "option lane hiding" approach comes from the Upchurch study (presented to GMITC around 2005) but its advantage over L&A and classic non-L&A was only incremental. I am not aware of any testing that has been done on the Minnesota approach, while OAPL is supported by tachistoscope research only. Option-lane signing is inherently a difficult problem, and I have seen the same churn among marginal design options repeated elsewhere, notably in Canada, the UK, and Spain. I would venture to say that there seems to be less of it in Germany only because the Germans are not completely oriented toward intuitive design, probably believing that any unavoidable shortcomings in the signing system can be overcome by pushing periodic re-education out to holders of German driving licenses.
Quote from: roadfro on March 24, 2013, 08:09:18 AMI wholeheartedly agree about the intermediate exit solution introduced by the MUTCD, and am glad NDOT stuck with the classic white arrow & only arrow approach (what I believe JN Winkler has termed the "Lunenfeld & Alexander" approach).
Actually, that is the classic
non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach. L&A is basically the same, except the yellow "EXIT ONLY" panel is omitted (all arrows on the advance guide and exit direction signs are white on green), and a pull-through sign with downward-pointing arrows is always used, even at service interchanges. L&A is what was diagrammed in the
MUTCD from 1978 to 2003, although the
MUTCD also permitted the classic non-L&A approach (it all depended on how you chose to interpret the term "multi-lane exit").
Straight L&A is very expensive to do if you have a lot of service interchanges with option lanes, so classic non-L&A became very popular in states like California that have many exits of precisely this type.
Quote from: Alex on March 24, 2013, 11:18:22 AMQuestion, when you have a diagrammatic sign such as this where both lanes remain through and only one turns off, does it the arrow-per-lane concept still apply?
(https://www.aaroads.com/midwest/illinois474/i-474_eb_exit_015_04.jpg)
No. In fact diagrammatics of either type (arrow-per-lane or stippled-arrow) are not permitted. Stippled-arrow diagrammatics used to be allowed at interchanges of this type, but as of
MUTCD 2009 this is no longer true.
QuoteOr would a sign replacement simply consist of separate panels, where one reads "LEFT EXIT" and the other with two down arrows.
This is one option. There is no requirement that downward-pointing arrows be used on the pull-through sign (the sign on right in this hypothetical scenario) at simple left exits, so those arrows could be omitted altogether.
Edit: OH changed to IN (could not find a single example in 3,039 pages of Ohio DOT signing sheets), MI added as Y (I-69 west to Lansing/I-75, US 23 to Detroit and Saginaw). Total count of OAPL-using states remains unchanged.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 24, 2013, 02:13:34 PM
I don't agree with your suggestion that OAPL signs won't catch on, because it is already factually untrue. Here is the current state of play with regard to OAPL signs, state-by-state, to the best of my knowledge based on signing plans I collect (Y = State DOT uses OAPL; NI = I have no information to indicate whether the state DOT uses OAPL; N = State DOT does not use OAPL or has a policy in place to ensure OAPL is not used):
CA Y
I'm not sure if I agree that California has embraced the OAPL signs. As far as I know, Caltrans has not installed a typical arrow-per-lane sign on any of it's freeways yet although Jrouse, on the Pacific Southwest board, said that Caltrans may install one on northbound I-5 at the CA-1 exit south of Mission Viejo.
The only sign I can think of that even remotely resembles an arrow-per-lane sign is the one that JN Winkler has mentioned before on eastbound BL-80/US 50 at the BL-80/US 50/CA-99 interchange in Sacramento...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/bl-080_eb_exit_006a_03.jpg)
This sign was installed sometime in 2011 and while that was after the 2009 MUTCD was released, California didn't officially adopt the new MUTCD until 2012. I suppose this could have been a Caltrans experiment with arrow-per-lane signage but this sign doesn't remotely come close to what a typical APL sign should look like.
With all of that said, if you still want to classify California as using OAPL signs, I think a "Y" with an asterisk is more appropriate.
NJ does not use these, although there have been no sign replacement projects lately.
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 24, 2013, 02:39:36 PMI'm not sure if I agree that California has embraced the OAPL signs. As far as I know, Caltrans has not installed a typical arrow-per-lane sign on any of its freeways yet although Jrouse, on the Pacific Southwest board, said that Caltrans may install one on northbound I-5 at the CA-1 exit south of Mission Viejo.
The only sign I can think of that even remotely resembles an arrow-per-lane sign is the one that JN Winkler has mentioned before on eastbound BL-80/US 50 at the BL-80/US 50/CA-99 interchange in Sacramento...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/bl-080_eb_exit_006a_03.jpg)
This sign was installed sometime in 2011 and while that was after the 2009 MUTCD was released, California didn't officially adopt the new MUTCD until 2012. I suppose this could have been a Caltrans experiment with arrow-per-lane signage but this sign doesn't remotely come close to what a typical APL sign should look like.
In addition to that particular sign (which I think may have been an in-kind replacement of an earlier sign), Caltrans has also experimented with the arrow-per-lane concept elsewhere--notably at the I-5/Calif. 99 split north of Sacramento. This sign was at that location in 2002 and had a nonreflective (forest green) background, so it clearly pre-dates FHWA's unsuccessful first effort to introduce OAPLs in the NPRM that gave rise to the 2003
MUTCD. It is true that none of these signs are vanilla
MUTCD OAPLs, but then very few Caltrans signs look like their vanilla
MUTCD equivalents, so I feel entitled to stretch a point.
Quote from: Steve on March 24, 2013, 03:06:29 PMNJ does not use these, although there have been no sign replacement projects lately.
The only transportation agency in NJ I have known to do pure sign replacements is the NJTA. I have noticed that some agencies which never used to do pure sign replacements (other than by proposal book), such as Illinois DOT, have started to advertise pure sign replacements with accompanying plans that include sign panel detail sheets, but I don't know if NJDOT will participate in this trend anytime soon.
re FL: is that FDOT or only OOCEA? The latter has adopted APL and Clearview, but FDOT is sticking with FHWA fonts.
New York does use APLs...both NYSDOT (there is one on MY 390 South approaching I-490 and one on I-590 South approaching I-390), and the Thruway in the Buffalo area.
Quote from: NE2 on March 24, 2013, 04:55:13 PMre FL: is that FDOT or only OOCEA? The latter has adopted APL and Clearview, but FDOT is sticking with FHWA fonts.
FDOT does use OAPLs--one example being the I-95/Turnpike split (currently being reworked under FPID 41546225201).
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 24, 2013, 05:48:54 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 24, 2013, 04:55:13 PMre FL: is that FDOT or only OOCEA? The latter has adopted APL and Clearview, but FDOT is sticking with FHWA fonts.
FDOT does use OAPLs--one example being the I-95/Turnpike split (currently being reworked under FPID 41546225201).
Per lane arrow signs are already in use in Jacksonville:
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/208481_10151483063932948_1105279264_n.jpg)
JNW, NYSDOT also has at least one OAPL sign on Long Island, on SR-25 at the interchange with I-495 (L.I. Expwy)
That Calif. style OAPL sign pictured up above for Routes 80/99, Reno/Fresno is perfect. A carbon copy of the arrows on some German Autobahn signs. It is intuitive and makes very efficient use of sign-space. Right on!
Anybody notice the error on that Florida sign for NAS Jax? On the exit number plaque, the word left is not black-on-yellow as specified in the MUTCD. How could they make a mistake like that on something so obvious?
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 24, 2013, 04:37:23 PM
In addition to that particular sign (which I think may have been an in-kind replacement of an earlier sign), Caltrans has also experimented with the arrow-per-lane concept elsewhere--notably at the I-5/Calif. 99 split north of Sacramento. This sign was at that location in 2002 and had a nonreflective (forest green) background, so it clearly pre-dates FHWA's unsuccessful first effort to introduce OAPLs in the NPRM that gave rise to the 2003 MUTCD.
I don't ever remember seeing any type of arrow-per-lane signs on northbound I-5 at the CA-99 split north of Sacramento. A quick glance at Google Maps shows that the advance and exit direction signs on I-5 appear to be Caltrans-standard signs with down arrows used on the advance signs and diagonal arrows for the exit direction sign.
Because you mentioned an older forest green sign, I'm wondering if this is the sign you were thinking of?
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/bl-080_wb_exit_006b_01.jpg)
If so, this is on westbound BL-80 at the BL-80/US 50/CA-99 interchange. This appears to be a very old porcelain sign that's probably original to when the freeway was built.
Quote from: SignBridge on March 24, 2013, 08:38:37 PM
That Calif. style OAPL sign pictured up above for Routes 80/99, Reno/Fresno is perfect. A carbon copy of the arrows on some German Autobahn signs. It is intuitive and makes very efficient use of sign-space. Right on!
In this case, the space was used very efficiently but what it the control cities were "Sacramento" and "Bakersfield" instead of "Reno" and "Fresno"? Because the space between the arrows is fixed, control cities with longer names would not fit between the arrows. The only solution is to either use a narrower font (Series D for example) or reduce the letter heights from 16/12 to, say, 13.3/10.
I like this design, think it works better where the highway diverges than the down facing arrows design.
This would work at the 1-10/12/59 (Louisiana) interchange on the westbound direction. The current labeling is confusing to someone who hasn't been through it.
Mark
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 25, 2013, 01:37:41 AMBecause you mentioned an older forest green sign, I'm wondering if this is the sign you were thinking of?
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/bl-080_wb_exit_006b_01.jpg)
If so, this is on westbound BL-80 at the BL-80/US 50/CA-99 interchange. This appears to be a very old porcelain sign that's probably original to when the freeway was built.
I had all but finished composing a post to the effect that this could not be the sign and that the sign I saw definitely had to be on the northbound approach to the I-5/Calif. 99 split, when I remembered that I had photographed the sign in question. Because I was not using a digital camera in 2002 (I did not purchase my first digital P&S until late spring 2003), I had to root through five crates of slide boxes to find the picture. Eventually I did: a transparency in slide box 424 (found in the fifth of five boxes checked) shows this sign:
Overhead arrow-per-lane diagrammatic on Calif. 99 at the Business 80 interchange in the northbound direction (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sacramento,+CA&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Sacramento,+California&ll=38.550733,-121.473835&spn=0.004254,0.009645&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=38.551723,-121.473846&panoid=2kULyEbnbvU3Tf7Rxz7TJQ&cbp=12,356.01,,0,3.81)
The sign in your picture applies to exiting traffic in the opposite direction but the layout is otherwise very similar.
those are button copy signs, not porcelain.
New Hampshire has OAPL signs on I-95 approaching Exit 4 in Portsmouth.
That southbound sign is horrible! Real California sign-salad. Conventional signing with standard down-arrows (if properly formatted) would have been more understandable. The northbound is at least a little better.
There are a couple new OAPL BGS's on I-75 southbound nearing the I-475/US-23 split in Perrysburg. Next time I go down to Bowling Green I'll have to take some pictures of them.
Quote from: Steve on March 24, 2013, 03:06:29 PM
NJ does not use these, although there have been no sign replacement projects lately.
From another thread for others to see. NJ Turnpike Authority is using them. Is this sign a "correct" application? Exit 142C is an exit only lane drop as well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2Fgsp142n_zps8955024d.jpg%3Aoriginal&hash=c58c9c3997c919fe99f80742de03cc0e5d6ca679)
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 10, 2013, 03:43:45 PMFrom another thread for others to see. NJ Turnpike Authority is using them. Is this sign a "correct" application? Exit 142C is an exit only lane drop as well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2Fgsp142n_zps8955024d.jpg%3Aoriginal&hash=c58c9c3997c919fe99f80742de03cc0e5d6ca679)
No. The reason it is not correct is not that the next exit is a simple lane drop, but rather that it fails to include arrows for the through lanes (as required in the 2009
MUTCD). However, the NCUTCD subcommittee that deals with guide signs (GMITC) has proposed a revision to the
MUTCD which would allow the arrows to be omitted for the through lanes under some circumstances. This sign is similar to what GMITC has proposed.
While this installation may not be finished yet, I highly doubt they plan on mounting an additional sign there. If the NJ Turnpike Authority is determined to go MUTCD, they should at least get it right!
I agree with JN, and NJ. The sign is not fully compliant. Besides the arrows for the thru lanes, the "lane-drop" indications must begin with the advance sign, which was not done here. Shame on NJTA or NJDOT for not being a little sharper about that. (Not sure which agency controls that section of the Parkway)
If it's NJDOT, double shame on them. They have a long history of not properly signing lane-drops. Check out I-280 in Kearny at the exit for C.R.508, just before the Turnpike interchange.
BTW, JNW, what do NCUTCD and GMITC stand for? I've never seen those abbreviations before.
Wait, where's there an APL in Oklahoma?
@SignBridge
Thanks for the detailed info and comments.
To add to your list, MassDOT is not presently installing OAPL signs on sign replacement projects, preferring to stick with stipple-headed diagrammatics (I've been told this practice has the blessing of the regional FHWA office, even for projects still in design). However, on new projects with stipple-headed diagrammatic installations where OAPL would be appropriate per the MUTCD, it is now a requirement that the structures be designed to eventually accept the additional loading of the (much) larger OAPL panels.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 10, 2013, 03:43:45 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2Fgsp142n_zps8955024d.jpg%3Aoriginal&hash=c58c9c3997c919fe99f80742de03cc0e5d6ca679)
So does anyone else notice that the 142C isn't aligned to the left edge, but the 142B is aligned to the right edge?
From the looks of things, it probably shouldn't be left-aligned because if I'm reading that next exit correctly, it's a right-hand ramp.
This is sort of like Maryland.
142C should be aligned to the vertical line in the middle IMO.
This mess in Milpitas, CA (photo credit AARoads) could (or could not) benefit from an APL makeover:
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images237/ca-237_eb_exit_009a_03.jpg)
Complicating things is California's love of optional exit lanes. Here's how the four lanes are assigned:
* Lane 1: HOV 880 NB only
* Lane 2: non-HOV 880 NB only
* Lane 3: non-HOV 880 NB, or 880 SB, or Calaveras
* Lane 4: Calaveras, or McCarthy
Quote from: kurumi on April 11, 2013, 11:36:55 AM
This mess in Milpitas, CA (photo credit AARoads) could (or could not) benefit from an APL makeover:
while we're on the topic: redesign the 80 east approach to the MacArthur Maze!
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/i-080_eb_exit_008a_06a.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/i-080_eb_exit_008a_07.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/i-080_eb_exit_008b_03.jpg)
complicating this one is:
* excessive route numbering (80/580 multiplex, "to 24") - at least they didn't bother with 980
* unintuitive directions (80/580 northbound is signed as "80 east, 580 west")
* HOV lanes have been designated and I believe there are some HOV-only ramps as well
* remember, 80/580/880/980/24/13/580/17/101/710 is a safety corridor! cannot let the driver get through here without their knowing that
that middle sign in the second photo may very well be the worst sign in California.
Quote from: kurumi on April 11, 2013, 11:36:55 AM
This mess in Milpitas, CA (photo credit AARoads) could (or could not) benefit from an APL makeover:
Complicating things is California's love of optional exit lanes. Here's how the four lanes are assigned:
* Lane 1: HOV 880 NB only
* Lane 2: non-HOV 880 NB only
* Lane 3: non-HOV 880 NB, or 880 SB, or Calaveras
* Lane 4: Calaveras, or McCarthy
Gotta agree those signs on eastbound 237 are horrible but instead of OAPLs, how about something like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F237-880_alt.png&hash=4e12c20b58e71833523dd9cdf6109e52b81ea75a)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2013, 12:20:27 PM
while we're on the topic: redesign the 80 east approach to the MacArthur Maze!
Here's a drawing I did in a different thread that replaces the sign bridge in your second photo...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F80-880-580_alt.png&hash=5dca33aad75a48b0b13fa9bfc2c5f38356622870)
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 11, 2013, 12:27:54 PM
Here's a drawing I did in a different thread that replaces the sign bridge in your second photo...
increasing the height of each sign makes things a lot more helpful.
I do wonder just how critical "TO 24" is, though. at some point, people have to realize that indeed they must turn south to get to 24. it's not like we can tell them where 13, 238, etc are as well.
(the fact that turning south gets you to
east 580 is an entirely different concern. I'd run 580 down I-238 to end at 880, then extend CA-17 over 880 to CA-262 to CA-238, and then I-580 all the way to San Rafael. an 880-17 multiplex and 80-17 multiplex are not the end of the world; it would be a lot more sensible than that ass-backwards 580/80 renumbering.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2013, 12:50:02 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 11, 2013, 12:27:54 PM
Here's a drawing I did in a different thread that replaces the sign bridge in your second photo...
increasing the height of each sign makes things a lot more helpful.
The extra 20-inches does make layout a hell of lot easier. :)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2013, 12:50:02 PM
I do wonder just how critical "TO 24" is, though. at some point, people have to realize that indeed they must turn south to get to 24. it's not like we can tell them where 13, 238, etc are as well.
While the "TO 24" is not terribly critical, removing it would not have affected my layout of the sign. Perhaps there is some sort of historical importance for CA-24 which lead to it being placed on signs approaching the MacArthur Maze? I seem to recall seeing a Caltrans project that called for some of the signs on I-80 approaching the Maze to be replaced.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 11, 2013, 01:40:13 PMPerhaps there is some sort of historical importance for CA-24 which lead to it being placed on signs approaching the MacArthur Maze?
it was cosigned with US-40A until 1964, between Sacramento and US-395; that's really all I can think of. however, 24 was never routed across the Bay Bridge or anything like that, so in the East Bay it isn't unusually significant. in fact, in the East Bay is where 24 has most of its former routing intact: it's always been the road across the Caldecott Tunnel.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2013, 01:47:47 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 11, 2013, 01:40:13 PMPerhaps there is some sort of historical importance for CA-24 which lead to it being placed on signs approaching the MacArthur Maze?
it was cosigned with US-40A until 1964, between Sacramento and US-395; that's really all I can think of. however, 24 was never routed across the Bay Bridge or anything like that, so in the East Bay it isn't unusually significant. in fact, in the East Bay is where 24 has most of its former routing intact: it's always been the road across the Caldecott Tunnel.
I know CA-24 was the original designation for the route that became U.S. 40 Alternate, some time after WWII if my recall of my map collection is correct. But were they co-signed until 1964? I thought 40A just replaced 24. (Asking the question you always ask of me) Any pictures?
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 24, 2013, 02:13:34 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 23, 2013, 08:42:34 PMI don't think OAPL signs as specified in the 2009 Manual will catch on in the US. I think state DOT's will be reluctant to use them because they are gross overkill. There is too much wasted space on the lower portion of the sign. This will require unreasonably huge signs, especially over very wide roadways.
I am afraid events have already given the lie to your suggestion that OAPL signs won't catch on. Here is the current state of play with regard to OAPL signs, state-by-state, to the best of my knowledge based on signing plans I collect (Y = State DOT uses OAPL; NI = I have no information to indicate whether the state DOT uses OAPL; N = State DOT does not use OAPL or has a policy in place to ensure OAPL is not used):
* * *
CO NI
* * *
Colorado uses them. There are new installations along I-25 in Colorado Springs and Pueblo.
what is OAPL? Overhead arrow-per-lane?
(I shudder to think of a non-overhead install of such a thing. crash!)
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 11, 2013, 02:01:19 PMI know CA-24 was the original designation for the route that became U.S. 40 Alternate, some time after WWII if my recall of my map collection is correct. But were they co-signed until 1964? I thought 40A just replaced 24. (Asking the question you always ask of me) Any pictures?
ya know, all I've got is this, with a strategically poor crop.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19351624i1.jpg)
here, it looks like it was
regular 40 which was signed with 24.
somewhere I saw a map which had 40A and 24 both labeled on the route. might have been a mapo, though. late 40s, 76 or some gas station issue.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2013, 02:14:46 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 11, 2013, 02:01:19 PMI know CA-24 was the original designation for the route that became U.S. 40 Alternate, some time after WWII if my recall of my map collection is correct. But were they co-signed until 1964? I thought 40A just replaced 24. (Asking the question you always ask of me) Any pictures?
ya know, all I've got is this, with a strategically poor crop.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19351624i1.jpg)
here, it looks like it was regular 40 which was signed with 24.
somewhere I saw a map which had 40A and 24 both labeled on the route. might have been a mapo, though. late 40s, 76 or some gas station issue.
Pretty good, though, considering it's a non-suffixed 99. I'll have to dig up an old CA map to see how those routes wound around the capitol.
EDIT: 11th at N Street. This sign should have shown U.S. 99W. 24 to the left would take you over the route that became 40A.
Those BGS freeway signs above are too complicated. (more arrows than lanes) I'go with APL up-facing arrow versions for them.
Mark
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2013, 12:50:02 PM
I do wonder just how critical "TO 24" is, though. at some point, people have to realize that indeed they must turn south to get to 24. it's not like we can tell them where 13, 238, etc are as well.
24 is a more important road than 13, 238, etc. As a route out of the Bay Area eastwards it's almost as important as I-80, and faster at some times of day.
Quote from: kkt on April 11, 2013, 05:38:38 PM
24 is a more important road than 13, 238, etc. As a route out of the Bay Area eastwards it's almost as important as I-80, and faster at some times of day.
I've never paid too much attention to it. I've driven it maybe three times, and each time one of the tunnel bores was closed and there was a horrific down-merge.
It's the final alignment of the Victory Highway. That means something, I guess.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2013, 05:42:28 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 11, 2013, 05:38:38 PM
24 is a more important road than 13, 238, etc. As a route out of the Bay Area eastwards it's almost as important as I-80, and faster at some times of day.
I've never paid too much attention to it. I've driven it maybe three times, and each time one of the tunnel bores was closed and there was a horrific down-merge.
Well, in another 8 months or so the 4th bore should be done and you won't have to worry about that.
Quote from: pctech on April 11, 2013, 03:06:53 PM
Those BGS freeway signs above are too complicated. (more arrows than lanes) I'go with APL up-facing arrow versions for them.
Mark
If you take the signs in combination with the pavement markings, I don't think it's complicated at all. Here's a modified version of the 237-880 exit signs I drew in an earlier post that includes a (crudely) drawn roadway with striping...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F237-880_alt2.png&hash=7ff1fd0e3dbf4067674af3c9505195951f13a0d5)
The fact that the right-most down arrow for I-880 and the left-most down arrow for CA-237 are so close to each other, I don't see how anyone can interpret that those arrows point to two distinct lanes.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 24, 2013, 02:13:34 PM
(list upthread of OAPL-using states, compiled late March 2013)
TX NI
Now:
TX Y
Proof (from TxDOT CCSJ Bexar 0017-10-261, in the July 2013 letting):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2F5%2F55%2F0017-10-261-2173.png&hash=54e4be66faecb7d7aaaee88105024f2d3e4169cb)
Quote from: SignBridge on April 10, 2013, 05:36:47 PMBTW, JNW, what do NCUTCD and GMITC stand for? I've never seen those abbreviations before.
NCUTCD = National committee on uniform traffic control devices. GMITC = Guide and motorist information signs technical committee.
The NCUTCD used to write the
MUTCD before it became a BPR/FHWA publication in the 1960's. It is still active in coordinating the traffic engineering profession's response to changes FHWA's Office of Transportation Operations proposes to make to the
MUTCD, and I believe it also develops suggestions for change for forwarding to FHWA. The NCUTCD has a number of technical subcommittees, each of which handles a particular aspect of the
MUTCD and has responsibility for synthesizing research and empirical observation into suggested
MUTCD revisions. GMITC is the one that handles guide signs.
Main NCUTCD website (http://www.ncutcd.org/)
The individual technical committees used to have websites, but most of them were hosted on a Texas A&M subsite--tcd.tamu.edu--which now seems to have been taken offline. I am not aware that any of the content hosted there is still available elsewhere on the Internet except possibly through the Web Archive.
Per the current NCUTCD membership list, GMITC has 34 members, including several who hold key traffic engineering policy positions at the state DOTs for ten states (LA, IA, MS, MO, UT, NC, TX, WI, FL, and NH). Among this subset of ten, the only one which I have seen associated with serious reservations about the OAPL concept is FL, which however--so far as I can tell--has been using them as diagrammed in the 2009
MUTCD.
Do you know when work is supposed to start on I-35 between 410 North and 410 South? 35 between New Braunfels to the interchange related to your sign is probably my least favorite stretch of road between here and our annual destination in México, and I really don't like the idea of driving it during road construction. I wonder if it will soon be my impetus to buy a TxTag, with which I can easily use the new bypass around the whole mess.
Quote from: kphoger on June 24, 2013, 11:38:30 AMDo you know when work is supposed to start on I-35 between 410 North and 410 South? 35 between New Braunfels to the interchange related to your sign is probably my least favorite stretch of road between here and our annual destination in México, and I really don't like the idea of driving it during road construction. I wonder if it will soon be my impetus to buy a TxTag, with which I can easily use the new bypass around the whole mess.
Bexar 0017-10-261 is the contract covering IH 35 between the two IH 410 interchanges. It has a July letting date, so allowing two to three months for award and issuance of notice to proceed, construction will probably begin around September or October.
Interpersonal comparison of utility is notoriously difficult, but personally I wouldn't spend $40 on SH 130 tolls just to avoid this construction project. A cursory skim of the traffic control plans and a comparison with IH 35 in its current state suggests that the contractor will be expected to maintain the same basic lane count (three each way) through construction, so if you can time your transit of San Antonio for the off-peak, then all you should have to deal with is a reduced speed limit.
Well, I've been putting off getting a TxTag until our current car bites the dust, because they're not transferable. I've been sort of on the fence about the bypass, since we don't have any actual business in San Antonio that couldn't be done elsewhere (supper, specifically, which we usually get in the suburb of Selma). We travel through the area on late Saturday afternoon going southbound, and early Saturday evening going northbound, and traffic is thick but tolerable–not anything to make me avoid the area.
But it wouldn't take much to push me over onto the other side of that fence. I dislike heavy congestion, and I dislike delays to my carefully planned itineraries. It's good to know that they're not planning to reduce the lane count. We'll see where I stand on the issue as time goes on and as construction begins.
Back on topic, though, I've been thoroughly pleased with how Texas signs I-35 along that corridor. I've specifically mentioned the interchange of 35 Southbound and 410 Southbound on the forums as an example of signing large option lane interchanges clearly. When all is said and done, I hope the APL you posted is accompanied by pavement arrows–of the sort that are currently used on the approach to that interchange–and clearly delineated lane assignment stripes as well. I've said it before: this (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=29.475811,-98.404715&spn=0.000966,0.000862&t=k&z=20&layer=c&cbll=29.475811,-98.404971&panoid=NJZPYtpjBML7-TqUj7Qkmg&cbp=12,199.86,,0,13.6) is how it's done, folks. I have high hopes for the interchange to be an APL success story.
As mentioned upthread a bit, Colorado is embracing the arrow-per-lane signage, especially in CDOT Region 2, which is from Colorado Springs southeastward. This one was installed last night and has a similar sign (less the 1/2 mile) just ahead:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frnrcoffeecafe.com%2Fpics%2Foapl.jpg&hash=161d70082442a3efc2d81a1360c09673e816c9df)
Installed overnight with traffic still flowing under it, at that! :-o
Matt Salek of the Highways of Colorado website caught a few more OAPL signs in their natural habitat, too...
http://milepost61.wordpress.com/2013/04/06/region-2-heart-diagrammatics/ (http://milepost61.wordpress.com/2013/04/06/region-2-heart-diagrammatics/)
I'm hoping to see APL BGS in Louisiana eventually. They could have used them in the Baton Rouge I-10 widening project. Some of the exits now have drop and option exit lanes.
Mark
Someone requested a photo of the new signage at the US 60/US 65 interchange in Springfield, Mo.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Floose_pics%2FUS_60-65_arrow_per_lane_sign.jpg&hash=f0bf8282dcea52586d740798e0e7f153a509d96d)
Thank you, hbelkins. Somehow, they managed to keep that sign at a reasonable height.
There were two more to the west of that interchange. I got pictures but didn't post them, because they look similar to this one and I love the flyovers in the background.
Those arrows look smaller than the ones in the Manual. Are they actually smaller or could it be an optical illusion in the photo?
Here's one with much shorter arrows in Missouri:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2325.jpg&hash=e16630e050a1d9cb184f406fcdfdb22ca92160e2) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_2325.jpg.html)
Quote from: SignBridge on July 24, 2013, 08:57:51 PMThose arrows look smaller than the ones in the Manual. Are they actually smaller or could it be an optical illusion in the photo?
They are actually smaller. MoDOT advertised the US 60/US 65 project (job number J8P0683C) in February 2009, at a time when draft illustrations and text were available for what is now
MUTCD 2009, but not the final product. The straight-ahead arrows are 42" tall, as opposed to the 72" specified in the manual, the 66" specified in
SHSM, or the 60" or 54" used by various state DOTs.
MoDOT has since used the following with arrow-per-lane diagrammatics (all dimensions relate to the straight-ahead arrow--the accompanying side arrows are sized to match shaft width):
* 42" with thin stroke, full shaft, as shown on the US 60/US 65 diagrammatic
* 72" with fat stroke, as shown in the
MUTCD* 42" with fat stroke, cropped shaft, as shown in the picture Brandon posted (side arrows use the same stroke but are left uncropped, so they are the same height as the straight-ahead arrows)
The choice between 72" and either one of the 42" options seems to be driven by the need to keep total sign square footage under a certain value dictated by the limitations of substrate type and mounting method. I have seen plan sheets where 72" is used on an APL that serves as an advance guide sign and 42" on the next one down the road that serves as an exit direction sign.
Those slightly short arrows on the Routes 60-65 sign look reasonable enough. I've always thought the 72-inch arrows in the Manual are overkill, and take up too much dead-space on the sign.
Quote from: Brandon on July 24, 2013, 09:25:53 PM
Here's one with much shorter arrows in Missouri:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2325.jpg&hash=e16630e050a1d9cb184f406fcdfdb22ca92160e2) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_2325.jpg.html)
Am I the only one who thinks that sign is pretty damn ugly?
Why are there no destinations shown?
Quote from: Zeffy on July 25, 2013, 06:46:32 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 24, 2013, 09:25:53 PM
Here's one with much shorter arrows in Missouri:
Am I the only one who thinks that sign is pretty damn ugly?
It's not the greatest, but I do like that it uses up less material/$.
Quote from: SignBridge on July 25, 2013, 06:57:46 PM
Why are there no destinations shown?
Could probably fit them in on either side of the shield, which has the other benefit of justifying such a wide sign.
Quote from: Zeffy on July 25, 2013, 06:46:32 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 24, 2013, 09:25:53 PM
Here's one with much shorter arrows in Missouri:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2325.jpg&hash=e16630e050a1d9cb184f406fcdfdb22ca92160e2) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_2325.jpg.html)
Am I the only one who thinks that sign is pretty damn ugly?
I don't find it awful but the thing about the new diagrammatic signs like that is that the angle of the right pointing combined arrow doesn't match the angle of the right only arrows. I've seen that in quite a few places. It's not a big deal but it always catches my eye when I see one of these new signs.
The first one I've seen in Illinois, put up by an agency in Illinois (ISTHA):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3856_zpsf94c1c24.jpg&hash=8173e2b19882c380ad646ad594471a859a7fbf1b) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_3856_zpsf94c1c24.jpg.html)
I-355 north at Maple for I-88. Just put up last week (Thursday or Friday).
^I think the only place I've seen opposite cardinal directions on the same sign (EAST-WEST) is Minnesota, where it's common to see where an interchange formerly had separate exits.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on March 25, 2014, 09:30:07 PM
^I think the only place I've seen opposite cardinal directions on the same sign (EAST-WEST) is Minnesota, where it's common to see where an interchange formerly had separate exits.
Wisconsin has (had?) it on I-94 south of Milwaukee.
^^ WI does that if there is not a worthy control city. There are other instances of this.
There some interchanges here in Louisiana that could benefit using the arrow per lane system. I like the fact that it shows what the lanes in front are you are going to do vs. down arrows that only show what lane that you're suppose to be in. This can be confusing in complicated interchanges with multiple arrows pointed to the same lane.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on March 25, 2014, 09:30:07 PM
^I think the only place I've seen opposite cardinal directions on the same sign (EAST-WEST) is Minnesota, where it's common to see where an interchange formerly had separate exits.
I've seen it at one interchange in Virginia, Exit 60 on eastbound I-66, where the signs have the words "NORTH" and "SOUTH" stacked next to a VA-123 shield. Odd thing is, the first advance BGS has it with "NORTH" listed above "SOUTH" and the second one reverses the order. I'd argue the second one is the better way since the southbound ramp comes up first. Also, the first BGS lists the cities in the order of Fairfax and then Vienna, but that's the opposite of the order of cardinal directions on the same sign because Fairfax is to the south and Vienna is to the north.
First sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.86608,-77.323534,3a,75y,98.88h,89.9t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEJULGOlLlKt-XaJy4WJVjQ!2e0 (There are other problems with this assembly)
Second sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.866779,-77.319783,3a,75y,98.88h,89.9t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sW_c1NphK5rkZYYsA9gobOA!2e0
The other place I recall a sign with opposite directions on the same sign is on I-70 in Hagerstown, Maryland, where the signs list I-81 "NORTH & SOUTH":
Westbound: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.612189,-77.782073,3a,75y,321.57h,84.9t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRSWpMzHcDF65R5QG2Jookw!2e0
Eastbound: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.621478,-77.7897,3a,75y,127.68h,87.58t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1syjBp6T6EhY4phd85a1_8Lg!2e0 (Similar to the Virginia sign above, this one says "NORTH & SOUTH" in that order but lists destinations in the reverse order, as Roanoke is to the south.)
It's been a few years since I've used I-81 there, so I looked on Street View and I see the BGSs for I-70 similarly use "EAST & WEST." I assume if you're interested you can find those easily enough using the links above. The southbound sign again has destinations in the reverse order from the cardinal directions.
Regarding arrow-per-lane signs, my wife and I were driving on the Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286) the other day when we passed one that didn't use the legend "EXIT ONLY" for a lane that split off from the road we were on. Upon reflection, I suppose it isn't technically an "exit" because Route 286 exits from itself via a two-lane ramp to curve to the south (map link: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7592568,-77.213637,16z ).
In theory, the design of the APL setup ought to tell you that a lane splits off from the route you're following even without the words "EXIT ONLY" because if it's an option lane, you have that two-headed arrow, though of course having the banner provides reassurance. I wonder how many people misunderstand this sort of sign. I tend to discount some of the last-second swerving I see at the two locations where I most often see APL signs (the one noted above and the Springfield Interchange) because (a) I tend to assume some people are just aggressive drivers being assholes and (b) in Springfield I assume some people are following outdated sat-navs rather than the signs.
Quote from: Big John on March 26, 2014, 12:21:26 AM
^^ WI does that if there is not a worthy control city. There are other instances of this.
Yes, this is quite common for interchanges with county highways that are more or less in the middle of nowhere: US 41 interchange with CTH D in Washington County (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=43.452599,-88.359879&spn=0.000002,0.001742&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=43.452599,-88.359879&panoid=rAEq0K6jzA01jfV3r-355g&cbp=12,335.88,,0,1.39)
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on March 25, 2014, 09:30:07 PM
^I think the only place I've seen opposite cardinal directions on the same sign (EAST-WEST) is Minnesota, where it's common to see where an interchange formerly had separate exits.
The current signs at most entrance ramps to the Mass Pike (except those for Pike exits from other freeways) have "EAST WEST" to the right of the I-90 and MassPike shields. These cardinals will go away when these signs are replaced under the pending 2015 and 2016 Pike signing projects.
[bump]
New APL signs on the Madison Beltline:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10553617_811309362225459_2388119330104240178_n_zps15a4c9fd.jpg&hash=b7fd927729f1b8761d9c49e18005e6f405a0c531)
WisDOT
Very little excess space on this one. The FHWA should allow this particular modification (no extra pull-through arrow) as an option for non-system interchanges in the next MUTCD. IMO
Quote from: on_wisconsin on August 08, 2014, 12:31:04 PMVery little excess space on this one. The FHWA should allow this particular modification (no extra pull-through arrow) as an option for non-system interchanges in the next MUTCD. IMO
This is an instance of what I call "sawn-off" APL diagrammatics. There is a faction on GMITC that agrees with you. I am waiting to see if it shows up in the next
MUTCD rulemaking, and I am personally not sure what I make of the idea since I remember it being tried as an option in Dewar et al.'s late 1980's/early 1990's study of option lane signing in the greater Toronto area, and being rejected in favor of something else (I think what is now shown in the Ontario Traffic Manual).
Why exactly was this change made?? The first time I saw something like this was on I-43 North in Milwaukee with rebuild of the Marquette Interchange. http://goo.gl/maps/xSO5n Personally I think the up arrows look stupid, not just on this sign, but all the examples posted here. WisDOT also installed this sign http://goo.gl/maps/q3eew during the same project and it's just before the sign I mention above. It looks better, does the same job, has way less wasted green space, and doesn't look like a 10 year old designed it.
APL signs are designed specifically to handle interchanges with an "option lane", that is, interchanges with two-lane offramps, where the rightmost lane is exit only and the next lane to the left can either exit or continue (substitute "left" for "right" in the case of left exits, of course). The traditional method of signing these is not readily understood by some motorists.
Quote from: Jim920 on August 09, 2014, 12:41:18 AMWisDOT also installed this sign http://goo.gl/maps/q3eew during the same project and it's just before the sign I mention above. It looks better, does the same job, has way less wasted green space, and doesn't look like a 10 year old designed it.
This is an example of what some of us call the "MnDOT style" for signing option lanes. Personally, I like it, but I don't know if it has ever been tested in comparison to APL diagrammatics.
Quote from: on_wisconsin on August 08, 2014, 12:31:04 PM
[bump]
New APL signs on the Madison Beltline:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10553617_811309362225459_2388119330104240178_n_zps15a4c9fd.jpg&hash=b7fd927729f1b8761d9c49e18005e6f405a0c531)
WisDOT
Very little excess space on this one. The FHWA should allow this particular modification (no extra pull-through arrow) as an option for non-system interchanges in the next MUTCD. IMO
This appears to be a service interchange, which would not require an APL installation. This falls under section 2E.23, which would allow standard exit only signing (second arrow only on the exit direction sign) in combination with lane use arrow signs/markings.
I actually kinda like this approach, at least at more major interchanges. It still conveys the point, but has much less sign panel waste.
Quote from: Jim920 on August 09, 2014, 12:41:18 AM
Why exactly was this change made?? The first time I saw something like this was on I-43 North in Milwaukee with rebuild of the Marquette Interchange. http://goo.gl/maps/xSO5n Personally I think the up arrows look stupid, not just on this sign, but all the examples posted here. WisDOT also installed this sign http://goo.gl/maps/q3eew during the same project and it's just before the sign I mention above. It looks better, does the same job, has way less wasted green space, and doesn't look like a 10 year old designed it.
The sign in the first link is probably not helped by the fact that it doesn't use the proper arrow design...
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 09, 2014, 10:42:38 AM
Quote from: Jim920 on August 09, 2014, 12:41:18 AMWisDOT also installed this sign http://goo.gl/maps/q3eew during the same project and it's just before the sign I mention above. It looks better, does the same job, has way less wasted green space, and doesn't look like a 10 year old designed it.
This is an example of what some of us call the "MnDOT style" for signing option lanes. Personally, I like it, but I don't know if it has ever been tested in comparison to APL diagrammatics.
We discussed similar setups in this or another thread (I seem to recall myosh making a mockup for a California situation with two option exits in close succession that were better conveyed by this method versus APLs). I like this style as well.