Pushing the MUTCD envelope: arrow-per-lane diagrammatics

[roadfro]

[bump]

New APL signs on the Madison Beltline:

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.

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...

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.

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.