Arrow-Per-Lane (APL) signs

[webny99]

I think I've mentioned this before with regards to APL's... if both directions are high-speed roadways (navigable at freeway speeds), then I prefer Minnesota's approach. The smaller arrows are much neater than the giant oversized ones, with basically no change in the meaning or legibility of the sign. And it avoids the issue of having to point one or both sets of arrows in either a left or right direction in cases like this one where neither roadway really "turns".

[SkyPesos]

Most states do it. I know North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey definitely do it. They are becoming more common. Maryland on the other hand, apparently not...

Ohio: What's an APL again?

Ikr, I don't see any sign there.

There actually are a few one-offs in Columbus and Toledo, but still rare compared to a lot of other states. Rare enough that it's so close to not existing at all.

[jmacswimmer]

Most states do it. I know North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey definitely do it. They are becoming more common. Maryland on the other hand, apparently not...

Ohio: What's an APL again?

Ikr, I don't see any sign there.

There actually are a few one-offs in Columbus and Toledo, but still rare compared to a lot of other states. Rare enough that it's so close to not existing at all.

Likewise with MD...AFAIK, the ones I linked at the US 50/301 eastern split are the only ones in the entire state.  (I just felt like being pedantic and pointing out that Maryland does, in fact, have 3 APL's at least )

[SkyPesos]

Kind of wondering, what are some examples of APLs that were installed and removed later?

Here's one on I-70 WB at the I-270 exit (exit 232)
2011: Single lane exit, with conventional signage
2012-2015: 2 lane exit with option lane, signed with APL signage. Probably one of the better APLs I've seen with arrow size.
2016-now: Still a 2 lane exit with option lane, changed back to conventional signage. Imo a step backwards, and I think the APL is fine for this interchange, especially considering how new the sign was when it was removed.

Shame that a new (and expensive) APL was removed, but the newer conventional signage gets around the restriction that a downstream ramp split cannot be signed on an APL.  Maybe that was causing a problem here.  The newer signage gives more advance guidance of which lane to use for each direction of I-270.

Hmm, never thought of that as a reason for its removal. That may be why there's ground mounted lane split signs telling SB 270 to use the left lane and NB 270 on right lane right after the split from I-70 when the APL was used. They were removed when the APL was removed.

[Tom958]

Most states do it. I know North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey definitely do it. They are becoming more common. Maryland on the other hand, apparently not...

Were talking about two different things-- I should've made a more elaborate post. In places where an extra lane is added, then dropped at a major exit, Florida, New Hampshire, and I don't know who else have been known to place a non-MUTCD-compliant proto-APL like this before the lane is added...



...and a normal APL after. I want to know if other states do that, too.

[CardInLex]

Kentucky has installed this one along I-71. (Sorry, Google Maps won't let me share a direct Streetview link).

https://goo.gl/maps/p92g85RXB83jxQEW6

[Tom958]

Kentucky has installed this one along I-71. (Sorry, Google Maps won't let me share a direct Streetview link).

https://goo.gl/maps/p92g85RXB83jxQEW6

Try this. 

Serendipitously, it's a noncompliant APL used in advance of an added lane, which is my personal area of interest today. There's no proper APL  downstream, though. Just conventional signage.

Noncompliant though it is, it's a big improvement on what was there before.

[wanderer2575]

^^  Really, an APL is non-compliant if a lane is added past the sign?  That's ridiculous if the sign arrows properly correspond to the lane alignment at the point of the sign.

Michigan put in a couple of these with 2017 sign replacements.

Eastbound I-96 at Novi Road:  https://goo.gl/maps/GfSDe9p2rhureYfQ7
Farther along with an added lane from the Novi Road entrance ramp:  https://goo.gl/maps/mXVRKKK6mu6yXnfu6

Eastbound I-696 approaching I-75:  https://goo.gl/maps/rVXpdY98RDo75TzX8
Farther along with an added lane from the Bermuda Street entrance ramp:  https://goo.gl/maps/Wej83fR3e3EGe6f76

[Tom958]

^^  Really, an APL is non-compliant if a lane is added past the sign?  That's ridiculous if the sign arrows properly correspond to the lane alignment at the point of the sign.

Michigan put in a couple of these with 2017 sign replacements.

Eastbound I-96 at Novi Road:  https://goo.gl/maps/GfSDe9p2rhureYfQ7
Farther along with an added lane from the Novi Road entrance ramp:  https://goo.gl/maps/mXVRKKK6mu6yXnfu6

Eastbound I-696 approaching I-75:  https://goo.gl/maps/rVXpdY98RDo75TzX8
Farther along with an added lane from the Bermuda Street entrance ramp:  https://goo.gl/maps/Wej83fR3e3EGe6f76

Thanks for your informative reply!

As for compliance, is there anything like that in the MUTCD? If there is, I missed it. There's no need for it because conventional signage is adequate. All that's needed is to inform drivers who want to exit there that they need to be in the right lane. Conversely, the split arrow with no lane drop describes tens of thousands of exits across the world. Accepting that condition as a warrant for such an elaborate sign would be truly absurd.

[J N Winkler]

As for compliance, is there anything like that in the MUTCD? If there is, I missed it. There's no need for it because conventional signage is adequate. All that's needed is to inform drivers who want to exit there that they need to be in the right lane. Conversely, the split arrow with no lane drop describes tens of thousands of exits across the world. Accepting that condition as a warrant for such an elaborate sign would be truly absurd.

There is definitely no APL diagrammed in the MUTCD that shows just a simple exit.  But I don't know whether a lane gain between such an APL and the exit affects whether the sign is compliant--it would likely require close study of the verbiage to make that determination.  It is unquestionable that an APL showing the gained lane (which is dropped at the exit) does comply, and I'm of the school of thought that an APL sign should be a faithful representation of the lane configuration at its mounting location (positive guidance and all that).

[Tom958]

There is definitely no APL diagrammed in the MUTCD that shows just a simple exit.  But I don't know whether a lane gain between such an APL and the exit affects whether the sign is compliant--it would likely require close study of the verbiage to make that determination.  It is unquestionable that an APL showing the gained lane (which is dropped at the exit) does comply, and I'm of the school of thought that an APL sign should be a faithful representation of the lane configuration at its mounting location (positive guidance and all that).

I agree, especially with the part I bolded.

As of now, my own evolving position is that an APL that depicts a single exit is desirable as a means of drawing attention to an upcoming added-then-dropped-plus-option lane exit, and should be explicitly permitted in the MUTCD. Those agencies that have implemented them without the blessing of the MUTCD are to be commended. 

That new one in Atlanta is still a mess, though.

[ran4sh]

It seems that it would have been possible for GDOT to mount the exit 237 sign farther right (and adjust the arrow so that it remains over the lane) to give them the space needed for the I-285 legend on the APL.

[jakeroot]

It seems that it would have been possible for GDOT to mount the exit 237 sign farther right (and adjust the arrow so that it remains over the lane) to give them the space needed for the I-285 legend on the APL.

I agree with that. The sign does not need to be centered, just the arrow. Scoot the sign to the right, and have the "EXIT ONLY" legend to the right of the arrow.

[plain]

^This is what VDOT did in downtown Petersburg

https://maps.app.goo.gl/yMd27U6gWD88hSLW7

[CardInLex]

Kentucky has installed this one along I-71. (Sorry, Google Maps won't let me share a direct Streetview link).

https://goo.gl/maps/p92g85RXB83jxQEW6

Try this. 

Serendipitously, it's a noncompliant APL used in advance of an added lane, which is my personal area of interest today. There's no proper APL  downstream, though. Just conventional signage.

Noncompliant though it is, it's a big improvement on what was there before.

Thanks! There is another APL upstream from the first one I linked.
https://goo.gl/maps/1J6nXf9fjtMPVeNM7 (Google Maps need to fix their iPad app).

[CardInLex]

Here is another new KYTC APL install for multiple exits on I-264.
https://goo.gl/maps/s12ex7tymMexyzpT6

[wanderer2575]

Here is another new KYTC APL install for multiple exits on I-264.
https://goo.gl/maps/s12ex7tymMexyzpT6

Terrible design.  It's not at all clear that lane 4 is only an option lane to I-64 east and one may remain in it to stay on I-264.

[CardInLex]

Here is another new KYTC APL install for multiple exits on I-264.
https://goo.gl/maps/s12ex7tymMexyzpT6

Terrible design.  It's not at all clear that lane 4 is only an option lane to I-64 east and one may remain in it to stay on I-264.

True, but Lane 4 does drop at the following exit (US 60). To stay on I-264 you must be in lanes 1, 2, or 3 (really 1 or 2 because 3 ends just past the US 60 exit).

[ran4sh]

^This is what VDOT did in downtown Petersburg

https://maps.app.goo.gl/yMd27U6gWD88hSLW7

I wish they would have left the control cities of Atlanta and Miami on there.

[CardInLex]

There's this sawn off APL in Northern KY on I-75/71.

https://goo.gl/maps/dmqg7i7V3QyMJ6gdA

[SkyPesos]

There's this sawn off APL in Northern KY on I-75/71.

https://goo.gl/maps/dmqg7i7V3QyMJ6gdA

That's better than the INDOT example I posted upthread. Still have reassurance signage without taking over the space of multiple lanes.

[CardInLex]

There's this sawn off APL in Northern KY on I-75/71.

https://goo.gl/maps/dmqg7i7V3QyMJ6gdA

That's better than the INDOT example I posted upthread. Still have reassurance signage without taking over the space of multiple lanes.

The example you posted is actually following what's proposed in the new MUTCD. I actually think I prefer it because it doesn't imply you have to be in the option lane to continue on mainline whereas the KY version could make an unsuspecting driver think only that one lane continues on mainline.

[plain]

^This is what VDOT did in downtown Petersburg

https://maps.app.goo.gl/yMd27U6gWD88hSLW7

I wish they would have left the control cities of Atlanta and Miami on there.

A lot of us do, but there's one of each still nearby.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ArmbAHfsow5ukob36
https://maps.app.goo.gl/EKLZbHDzbg8AhdoGA

There's another Atlanta posting on I-95 SB north of Richmond as well.

[SkyPesos]

Really nice seeing all the NKY examples, it seems like a lot more APL have been installed on I-71/75 since the last time I've been on that road. Now if ODOT D8 right across the river can get the memo, that would be great.

[Tom958]

It seems that it would have been possible for GDOT to mount the exit 237 sign farther right (and adjust the arrow so that it remains over the lane) to give them the space needed for the I-285 legend on the APL.

I agree with that. The sign does not need to be centered, just the arrow. Scoot the sign to the right, and have the "EXIT ONLY" legend to the right of the arrow.

Or they could've used conventional signage per the MUTCD.