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?