Arrow-Per-Lane (APL) signs

[Rothman]

The Utah ones immediately came to mind...until I saw you mentioned them.

[wanderer2575]

Bumping thread with request ... I'm looking for spots with two closely-spaced interchanges (or downstream ramp splits) where both interchanges / splits are referenced on one arrow per lane (APL) on either full width (FW) or partial-width (PW) variety.  I'm curious if you know of spots that seem to take liberties with these "shall" statements:

MUTCD 2E.40
Standard:
08 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.

MUTCD 2E.42
Standard:
03 The through route and/or destination shall not be displayed on the partial-width Overhead Arrow-perLane guide sign.

This one in Hazel Park, MI defies 2E.40, I think.  I've posted this one before.  Lane 5 is exit-only to I-696; lane 4 is optional to I-696 and then exit-only to 11 Mile Road (the next exit).
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ekXJKEy8QoBJXQ2V7

This one on the westbound leg of the interchange defies 2E.42, but I'm not sure if this is what you mean since there isn't a second interchange following.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2w4McZjJbsYqvwGT8

[Scott5114]

I-15 NB approaching I-11 and I-435 EB in Kansas approaching US-69 are two I can think of where multiple ramps are shown on the same APL.

[roadfro]

Bumping thread with request ... I'm looking for spots with two closely-spaced interchanges (or downstream ramp splits) where both interchanges / splits are referenced on one arrow per lane (APL) on either full width (FW) or partial-width (PW) variety.  

Other interesting variations?

Not closely-spaced interchanges, but examples of two exits within the same interchange where option lanes are involved:

I-15 north approaching I-11/US 95 in Las Vegas, NV (I-515 still shown in this street view)
For this, the three right lanes are all exit only lanes, but the middle of these is an option at the first exit to 11/95 north as the location of the APL. (Conventional signage is used at the second exit to 11/95 south.) 

I-580/US 395 north approaching I-80 in Reno, NV
That this use of APL signage is non-compliant, as there is not an option lane arrow depicted. The first exit has two exit only lanes for 80 east. However, the second exit to 80 west has an exit only lane and an option lane—you can see the option lane is hinted at on the APLs by the upward-arrow positioned directly under the line dividing the 80 west and 395 north information. There are two APL signs on the approach to this interchange, but strangely, APLs are not used and more conventional signs (employing the 2009 MUTCD "hide the option lane" standard) were used at both exit locations: first exit to 80 east; second exit to 80 west.

[SkyPesos]

Bumping thread with request ... I'm looking for spots with two closely-spaced interchanges (or downstream ramp splits) where both interchanges / splits are referenced on one arrow per lane (APL) on either full width (FW) or partial-width (PW) variety.  I'm curious if you know of spots that seem to take liberties with these "shall" statements:

- I-71/75 NB approaching I-71 NB split and 5th St in Cincinnati. Signed with two APLs in advance in KY, then single-panel signs under the bridge. Next full-size signage (and first one on the OH side) is past the exit gore of the I-71 split.
- I-70 WB approaching I-65 NB and Michigan St in Indianapolis. New ramp configuration as a result of the I-65/I-70 North Split reconstruction.

[webny99]

Well, it looks like some of the last diagrammatical signs in the Rochester area will soon be replaced with APL's as part of a signage replacement project on I-490 that appears to include all signage between Exits 6 and 9. The approach to Exit 8 on I-490 WB currently has two diagrammaticals that will presumably be replaced with APL's, and based on the locations of the new gantries, the advance warning sequencing will also be changing from 3/4 mile and 1/4 mile to 1 mile and 1/2 mile - a decent upgrade.

The four remaining diagrammaticals in the Rochester area are all at the I-490/I-590/NY 590 (Can of Worms) junction - and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if those stick around for a while. The 590 ones are easy enough to handle with APL's, but the I-490 ones are a little more complex, so it will be interesting to see how those are handled if/when they ever get around to being replaced - and whether the jarring lack of control cities will be addressed.

[Great Lakes Roads]

Finally, ODOT put up more APL signage within the Columbus region!

(OH 161 WB C-D lanes at the eastern I-270 interchange)

[SignBridge]

Finally, ODOT put up more APL signage within the Columbus region!

(OH 161 WB C-D lanes at the eastern I-270 interchange)

Why are no destinations shown on the new OAPL signs?

[Great Lakes Roads]

Not sure it has been mentioned on here, but there is a new APL signage on I-395 NB in Baltimore that replaced this!

[jakeroot]

Soliciting thoughts:

This extremely busy exit from Interstate 90 westbound to SR-18 near Snoqualmie, WA is a double exit with an option lane. The option lane was added when the diverging diamond was installed last year, but signs were not updated to reflect this except at the split (Street View here - note the sign is wrong as both lanes go to SR-18 and the lane to Snoqualmie Pkwy is added after the exit, causing many cars to needlessly change lanes at the split across the solid white). Advanced signs make no mention of the option lane.

This exit is an Interstate to state highway, and technically not freeway-to-freeway either due to the DDI, though SR-18 is effectively a freeway from I-90 to I-5, with a single substandard (less than four lanes or undivided) section over Tiger Mountain.

When solicited for comment from KIRO-FM last week (read the story here), the state indicated that advanced signs were not included in the project. The radio hosts were not amused by this comment given the $188 million price tag for the project.

My thoughts to you all are whether an APL or partial APL would help with congestion here. Seems to me it certainly would. Only reason not to install it would be to avoid stopped traffic in the option lane.


My conceptual sign that could replace it. References to Snoqualmie Pkwy can be on ground-mounted signs as it not an important maneuver:

[johndoe]

Interesting topic, and this might be the most traffic-detail-specific news story ha!  Assume you're suggesting this sign further upstream?  I thought the rule was 'no APL at gore', which would be my guess for why they changed the sign as they did.  Maybe something like MUTCD Fig 2E-44 was their inspiration (to me I still don't like two exit only arrows there, which could explain their version).  Maybe this site was designed prior to the PWAPL.

For me, their best bet (without adding new structure) would be PWAPL on the next sign to east (near on-ramp from North Bend).  Perhaps that cantilever is so narrow they can't extend the sign over the 2nd lane.  I don't know technical rules about how close to 'over' a lane it must really be.  Even if it's not perfect it seems like it'd help. 

As far as your drawing, I think you can lose the vertical divider and shorten your left arrow.  To my eye the Washington head is too distracting, and the '1 mile' is in wrong spot.

I wonder if anyone has really cheaped out and tried to just replace just the yellow area of existing sign and have 2 tiny little arrow symbols.

Also note the other direction seems to have same thing going on.  It looks like they did some pavement markings to show an option lane - maybe that'd be an easy thing to add for westbound

[Scott5114]

Could you not just do

 WEST [18]   Auburn
  Snoqualmie Pkwy
➚      EXIT ➚ ONLY

If you really want a partial APL, why not just use the one that was added to the 2023 MUTCD?

[riiga]

Excellent sign as always Jake!

[kphoger]

This exit is an Interstate to state highway, and technically not freeway-to-freeway either due to the DDI

Doesn't matter.  It's still a 'major interchange'.

Chapter 2E — Guide Signs — Freeways and Expressways

§ 2E.11 — Interchange Classification

Support:

01 — For signing purposes, interchanges are classified as major, intermediate, and minor ...

A.  Major interchanges are subdivided into two categories:  (a) interchanges with other expressways or freeways, or (b) interchanges with high-volume multi-lane highways, principal urban arterials, or major rural routes where the volume of interchanging traffic is heavy or includes many road users unfamiliar with the area.

Chapter 2E — Guide Signs — Freeways and Expressways

§ 2E.23 — Interchange Advance Guide Signs

Standard:

14 — Interchange Advance guide signs for multi-lane exits having an optional exit lane that also carries the through route at major interchanges and for splits with an option lane shall be Overhead Arrow-per-Lane signs designed in accordance with Sections 2E.39 and 2E.40.

Therefore...

My thoughts to you all are whether an APL or partial APL would help with congestion here. Seems to me it certainly would.

Yep, it's a perfect candidate for an APL according to the MUTCD.

[jakeroot]

Interesting topic, and this might be the most traffic-detail-specific news story ha!  Assume you're suggesting this sign further upstream?  I thought the rule was 'no APL at gore', which would be my guess for why they changed the sign as they did.  Maybe something like MUTCD Fig 2E-44 was their inspiration (to me I still don't like two exit only arrows there, which could explain their version).  Maybe this site was designed prior to the PWAPL.

For me, their best bet (without adding new structure) would be PWAPL on the next sign to east (near on-ramp from North Bend).  Perhaps that cantilever is so narrow they can't extend the sign over the 2nd lane.  I don't know technical rules about how close to 'over' a lane it must really be.  Even if it's not perfect it seems like it'd help. 

As far as your drawing, I think you can lose the vertical divider and shorten your left arrow.  To my eye the Washington head is too distracting, and the '1 mile' is in wrong spot.
...
Also note the other direction seems to have same thing going on.  It looks like they did some pavement markings to show an option lane - maybe that'd be an easy thing to add for westbound

True, it is definitely one of the most technical stories I've seen! I am surprised that WSDOT didn't go to greater lengths to install another new sign structure on I-90 with this project. And then they installed a brand new one right at the gore, where it's hard to use APL signage.

I am with you, I think a partial-width APL would be appropriate here. Hence my design. At the gore they could leave the current sign in place, maybe fudged a bit to indicate both lanes going to SR-18. The point is just to give advance warning of the option lane.

For the record, I did not follow any specific guidelines for my design. I guess the new MUTCD has guidelines but I used a couple of my own ideas from years-past and fudged things around a bit using existing .AI files that I had. I originally had an I-90 pull-through shield on the left before I scrapped it.

I wonder if anyone has really cheaped out and tried to just replace just the yellow area of existing sign and have 2 tiny little arrow symbols.

WSDOT has definitely done that. Most recent example I can think of is southbound I-5 at 320th in Federal Way. The original sign only had the exit-only banner, but when the option lane was installed, they added a white arrow on the left edge and scooted the "EXIT ONLY" message over to accommodate the new arrow.

Before: https://maps.app.goo.gl/eiVEPZQTrJZQnGso6
After: https://maps.app.goo.gl/wYSySexyoEHJ99Dz7

I have not seen it done with advanced signage, only gore-area signage.

[jakeroot]

Could you not just do

 WEST [18]   Auburn
  Snoqualmie Pkwy
➚      EXIT ➚ ONLY

If you really want a partial APL, why not just use the one that was added to the 2023 MUTCD?

Where are you proposing that sign be installed? My partial width APL sign would be installed where the current 1 mile exit sign is, near the on-ramp from North Bend. The new sign at the gore, while wrong, does at least show two lanes. The issue, again, is just the total lack of any advanced signage or markings suggesting an option lane.

Your proposed sign would be fine at the gore area, too. I think. Although I thought everything had to be black-on-yellow when mounted at the gore. Even if WSDOT doesn't care about that.

The MUTCD version of the partial width APL signs would be fine. I'm just not familiar with them, and fudged it together from my existing signs. As I mentioned above, I originally had a pull-through. I also kept the dividing line to better indicate the left lane splitting. It surprises me the 2023 MUTCD doesn't require some indication of the up arrow going somewhere else.

[jakeroot]

Excellent sign as always Jake!

Cheers! It's more MUTCD-style than most of my APLs. And also my first attempt at an APL in a long time. I would still prefer shields between the arrows but I didn't want too much pushback from this crowd.

[jakeroot]

This exit is an Interstate to state highway, and technically not freeway-to-freeway either due to the DDI

Doesn't matter.  It's still a 'major interchange'.

Chapter 2E — Guide Signs — Freeways and Expressways

§ 2E.11 — Interchange Classification

Support:

01 — For signing purposes, interchanges are classified as major, intermediate, and minor ...

A.  Major interchanges are subdivided into two categories:  (a) interchanges with other expressways or freeways, or (b) interchanges with high-volume multi-lane highways, principal urban arterials, or major rural routes where the volume of interchanging traffic is heavy or includes many road users unfamiliar with the area.

Chapter 2E — Guide Signs — Freeways and Expressways

§ 2E.23 — Interchange Advance Guide Signs

Standard:

14 — Interchange Advance guide signs for multi-lane exits having an optional exit lane that also carries the through route at major interchanges and for splits with an option lane shall be Overhead Arrow-per-Lane signs designed in accordance with Sections 2E.39 and 2E.40.

Therefore...

My thoughts to you all are whether an APL or partial APL would help with congestion here. Seems to me it certainly would.

Yep, it's a perfect candidate for an APL according to the MUTCD.

VERY interesting. Thank you for looking more deeply into this. I was not familiar with the exact rules. WSDOT only has two APL installations that I know of, and they're both Interstate to Interstate. Even though there are tons of option-lane exits across the state. So my thought was that they were only required under strict circumstances.

Not to make you do my homework, but clearly you're better at it than me: are those statements new as of 2023? If so, I suspect WSDOT can claim the project was designed before WSDOT adopted the 2023 manual, and therefore isn't relevant to that project unless another major project is done in the area.

It's also possible that WSDOT claims this interchange isn't "major". Even though it very much is under almost any definition of major (minus one requiring, say, fully free-flow ramps).

[kphoger]

Not to make you do my homework, but clearly you're better at it than me: are those statements new as of 2023?

My memory being fuzzy, I expected the answer to be 'yes', but that would be incorrect.  Both the 2009 and 2023 give the option of using a diagrammatic sign instead of APL, but both use 'shall' language.

Chapter 2E — Guide Signs — Freeways and Expressways

§ 2E.32 — Interchange Classification

Support:

01 — For signing purposes, interchanges are classified as major, intermediate, and minor ...

A. — Major interchanges are subdivided into two categories: (a) interchanges with other expressways or freeways, or (b) interchanges with high-volume multi-lane highways, principal urban arterials, or major rural routes where the volume of interchanging traffic is heavy or includes many road users unfamiliar with the area.

Chapter 2E — Guide Signs — Freeways and Expressways

§ 2E.20 — Signing for Option Lanes at Splits and Multi-Lane Exits

Standard:

02 — On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs as provided in Sections 2E.21 and 2E.22 shall be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route and for all splits that include an option lane.

[kphoger]

It's also possible that WSDOT claims this interchange isn't "major". Even though it very much is under almost any definition of major (minus one requiring, say, fully free-flow ramps).

Their not claiming it's 'major' would actually make it a more perfect candidate for a partial-width APL as you envisioned.  Not required, but explicitly an option—although the MUTCD only mentions 'excessive queues' during 'the peak period' as a reason to use one.

See below:

Chapter 2E — Guide Signs — Freeways and Expressways

§ 2E.11 — Interchange Classification

Support:

01 — For signing purposes, interchanges are classified as major, intermediate, and minor ...

B.  Intermediate interchanges are those with urban and rural routes not in the category of major or minor interchanges.

C.  Minor interchanges include those where traffic is local and very light, such as interchanges with land service access roads.  Where the sum of exit volumes is estimated to be lower than 100 vehicles per day in the design year, the interchange is classified as minor.

Chapter 2E — Guide Signs — Freeways and Expressways

§ 2E.42 — Signing for Intermediate and Minor Interchange Multi-Lane Exits with an Option Lane

Support:

01 — Intermediate and minor multi-lane exits might have an operational need for the presence of an option lane for only the peak period during which excessive queues might otherwise develop if the option lane were not available.  In such cases, the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signing described for option lanes in Sections 2E.39 and 2E.40 might not be practical, depending on the level of use of the option lane and the spacing of nearby interchanges.

Guidance:

02 — When full-width Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signing is not practical, as described in Paragraph 1 of this Section, signing for an intermediate or minor interchange that has a multi-lane exit with an option lane that also carries the through route should use a partial-width form of the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane sign ...

Option:

06 — When either full-width or partial-width Overhead Arrow-per-Lane signing is used at existing or non-reconstructed locations where an overhead Exit Direction sign exists at the theoretical gore, and the existing sign support structure is retained, an overhead Exit Direction sign may continue to be used on the existing sign support structure in conjunction with a replacement of the advance signs using the partial-width Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide sign design.

That last paragraph explicitly allows what you were suggesting:  that is, keeping the gore signage as is, but then adding a partial-width APL advance sign.  It even gives an illustration of that option on the next page.

(Note that the 'should' language in ¶2 doesn't mean that non-APL signage ought not be used.  That is explicitly given as an option in ¶5, which I skipped over.)

[Bitmapped]

Finally, ODOT put up more APL signage within the Columbus region!

(OH 161 WB C-D lanes at the eastern I-270 interchange)

Why are no destinations shown on the new OAPL signs?

ODOT stopped signing control cities on the I-275 Cincinnati and I-270 Columbus beltways. I'm not sure what the rationale is for it, but they began to omit control cities on replaced signs about a decade ago.

[fwydriver405]

Soliciting thoughts:

This extremely busy exit from Interstate 90 westbound to SR-18 near Snoqualmie, WA is a double exit with an option lane. The option lane was added when the diverging diamond was installed last year, but signs were not updated to reflect this except at the split (Street View here - note the sign is wrong as both lanes go to SR-18 and the lane to Snoqualmie Pkwy is added after the exit, causing many cars to needlessly change lanes at the split across the solid white). Advanced signs make no mention of the option lane.

This exit is an Interstate to state highway, and technically not freeway-to-freeway either due to the DDI, though SR-18 is effectively a freeway from I-90 to I-5, with a single substandard (less than four lanes or undivided) section over Tiger Mountain.

When solicited for comment from KIRO-FM last week (read the story here), the state indicated that advanced signs were not included in the project. The radio hosts were not amused by this comment given the $188 million price tag for the project.

My thoughts to you all are whether an APL or partial APL would help with congestion here. Seems to me it certainly would. Only reason not to install it would be to avoid stopped traffic in the option lane.


My conceptual sign that could replace it. References to Snoqualmie Pkwy can be on ground-mounted signs as it not an important maneuver:

-IMG SNIPPED-

Could you not just do

 WEST [18]  Auburn
  Snoqualmie Pkwy
➚      EXIT ➚ ONLY

I was going to say, a non-APL solution could be to duplicate this sign at the exit for the advance signage. Down arrows would be used for the advance signage instead of the slanted arrows shown at the exit. SO something like this:

WEST [18]  | Snoqualmie
  Auburn     |    Pkwy
    V            | EXIT V ONLY

This looks like this is a situation where the destinations "split" at the exit to different points... this reminds me of this signage sequence that was installed around the exit renumbering project on I-290 EB to I-190 NB/MA 70 in Worcester:

1 Mile (1.6 km)
About ½ mile (800 m)
At the exit

In both examples, once these movements leaves the mainline, we can see that there are 2 lanes goes to the major route (I-190 in my case, WA 18 in your case), which wasn't indicated in the advance or gore signage in either case. Of course, this probably wouldn't be MUTCD-compliant (at least with the national standard) as 2E.20 says "either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs" are to be used.


Another example I could think of, but this time following closer to the national MUTCD is NH 16 / Spaulding Turnpike where US 4 leaves the mainline in a TOTSO fashion at Exit 6. This is the signage, it is similar for all three except for the distance markings. Same situation as the above two examples, 2 lanes to the major movement... but in this case, there is no mention of the minor movement, Dover Point Rd to Dover on any mainline signage until later on at the ramp (and even then, this movement just says "Dover"). This was discussed in the New Hampshire thread as these only had one control city/destination listed on such signs.

[Great Lakes Roads]

I guess that Louisiana has joined the APL sign club with these installations in New Orleans!