Arrow-Per-Lane (APL) signs

[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.

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

But it's interstate to interstate. Doesn't it have to be an APL as the split involves an option lane?

[Tom958]

But it's interstate to interstate. Doesn't it have to be an APL as the split involves an option lane?

As Jonathan Winkler pointed out, "There is definitely no APL diagrammed in the MUTCD that shows just a simple exit," and there certainly isn't an MUTCD requirement to use something that's not in the MUTCD.

[jakeroot]

But it's interstate to interstate. Doesn't it have to be an APL as the split involves an option lane?

As Jonathan Winkler pointed out, "There is definitely no APL diagrammed in the MUTCD that shows just a simple exit," and there certainly isn't an MUTCD requirement to use something that's not in the MUTCD.

Understood. I didn't take his comment to mean that APLs were not required prior to both exit lanes being present, however.

Given that it's such an unusual situation, and and that an official interpretation has never been made, I would still assume that an APL would be the best option as it would be a consistent design from the first sign to the last. I'm not sure mixing up and down arrows would be as helpful (I'm not opposed to mixing a series of up or down arrow signs with non-arrow signage, such as a regular guide sign stating "285 Atlanta Bypass, 2 Miles".)

[SkyPesos]

But it's interstate to interstate. Doesn't it have to be an APL as the split involves an option lane?

I don't think so from what I've seen. Example I posted upthread that swapped out APLs for conventional signage

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.

Some more I know of
- I-71 NB approaching I-275 (exit 17)
- I-275 EB approaching I-71 (exit 49)
- I-75 NB approaching I-275 (exit 16)

[roadfro]

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).

JN, your school of thought is spot-on and is already codified in the 2009 MUTCD.

Section 2E.21 Design of Overhead Arrow-per-Lane Guide Signs for Option Lanes
<...>
Standard:
07 Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs used on freeways and expressways shall include one arrow above each lane and shall be designed in accordance with the following criteria:
<...>
H.    The number of lanes displayed on a sign shall correspond to the number of lanes at the location of that sign. An advance sign shall not depict lanes that are added downstream of a sign location.

[mrsman]

But it's interstate to interstate. Doesn't it have to be an APL as the split involves an option lane?

As Jonathan Winkler pointed out, "There is definitely no APL diagrammed in the MUTCD that shows just a simple exit," and there certainly isn't an MUTCD requirement to use something that's not in the MUTCD.

Understood. I didn't take his comment to mean that APLs were not required prior to both exit lanes being present, however.

Given that it's such an unusual situation, and and that an official interpretation has never been made, I would still assume that an APL would be the best option as it would be a consistent design from the first sign to the last. I'm not sure mixing up and down arrows would be as helpful (I'm not opposed to mixing a series of up or down arrow signs with non-arrow signage, such as a regular guide sign stating "285 Atlanta Bypass, 2 Miles".)

I agree.  The sign in Atlanta is very helpful, even if it doesn't meet the requirements of the MUTCD.  It is quite important, particularly for freeway to freeway interchanges to identify early on the correct lane to be at.  The APL's purpose is to avoid  the lane confusion that still exists in many signs.

When you are two miles away, identify to people which lane to be in.  Even if an extra lane gets added later, identify where they are now and then  add a new sign as the new lane comes in.

[Tom958]

Understood. I didn't take his comment to mean that APLs were not required prior to both exit lanes being present, however.

Given that it's such an unusual situation, and that an official interpretation has never been made, I would still assume that an APL would be the best option as it would be a consistent design from the first sign to the last. I'm not sure mixing up and down arrows would be as helpful (I'm not opposed to mixing a series of up or down arrow signs with non-arrow signage, such as a regular guide sign stating "285 Atlanta Bypass, 2 Miles".)

I agree.  The sign in Atlanta is very helpful, even if it doesn't meet the requirements of the MUTCD.  It is quite important, particularly for freeway to freeway interchanges to identify early on the correct lane to be at.  The APL's purpose is to avoid the lane confusion that still exists in many signs.

When you are two miles away, identify to people which lane to be in.  Even if an extra lane gets added later, identify where they are now and then add a new sign as the new lane comes in.

An arrowless conventional sign properly placed toward the right side of the roadway would be plenty adequate to show that traffic wishing to exit to I-285 needs to be in the right lane, with an arrowless pullthrough if needed, which it would be here. That's what I meant by

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

There's no need to invoke MUTCD-defiant down arrows or rogue APL designs with weirdly-displaced legends.

NOW...

What I'm grateful to have discovered by posting here is that, in addition to Florida, New Hampshire and Michigan have also apparently adopted the convention of using a simple-exit APL as a subtle means of signaling to drivers that an upcoming split will be signed with one or more properly-warranted APLs once an additional lane comes into play downstream. This has happened despite the fact that there's no such sign in the MUTCD. To me, it seems unlikely that at least three different state D'sOT came up with this independently. There must've been some discussion in channels that we're generally not privy to.

I believe that a key reason to follow signage conventions is that doing so communicates useful information to drivers who couldn't accurately sketch out a proper BGS if their lives depended on it. I see this apparently-emerging convention as a laudable case of design pros exploiting human nature to accomplish a worthwhile purpose, which I think is pretty cool.

That said, I still think the one in Atlanta is a mess. I reiterate that I think it's likely that they did it that way not so much to follow the emerging convention  as to avoid removing an APL at a location where the public was already accustomed to seeing one.

[ran4sh]

I agree.  The sign in Atlanta is very helpful, even if it doesn't meet the requirements of the MUTCD.  It is quite important, particularly for freeway to freeway interchanges to identify early on the correct lane to be at.  The APL's purpose is to avoid the lane confusion that still exists in many signs.

When you are two miles away, identify to people which lane to be in.  Even if an extra lane gets added later, identify where they are now and then add a new sign as the new lane comes in.

An arrowless conventional sign properly placed toward the right side of the roadway would be plenty adequate to show that traffic wishing to exit to I-285 needs to be in the right lane, with an arrowless pullthrough if needed, which it would be here. That's what I meant by

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

There's no need to invoke MUTCD-defiant down arrows or rogue APL designs with weirdly-displaced legends.

In general I agree that a conventional sign placed toward the right can indicate an upcoming exit on the right. However, there are some states like CA where sometimes a conventional sign is placed toward the left for an exit on the right. So while that solution would work in Georgia and probably most of the country, it might be more confusing if done in California where the sign placement left or right does not have consistent meaning.

[SignBridge]

Any left-hand exits are supposed to be signed as such from the first in the series of advance signs. Absent such indication, all exits would be presumed to be on the right-hand side.

I assume the above poster was referencing California's interchange sequence signs listing distances to the next three exits. For years those were located overhead in the medians of their freeways which I agreed with. Recently California started placing those signs on the right, still overhead. I thought the left side was better so a driver in the left lanes would notice them more readily and be able to start moving over to the right when he saw his exit coming up in a few miles. On California's multi-lane freeways (usually at least four lanes) a driver in the left lanes will be less likely to notice those signs when placed on the right side.

And now back to our discussion of APL's. LOL

[ErmineNotyours]

Following the conventions of APLs, shouldn't the first encountered exit be on the far right, and the next exit be the next sign to the left?  I needed to take this exit and saw this sign today.  I knew they had reconfigured the exit from a standard cloverleaf, so now I wasn't sure what exactly it was.  Luckily the second set of signs made things clear.

(PS for the first link: Looks like we got us a convoy!)

[CardInLex]

This KYTC install highlights the "multiplexed exit"  APL issue. Exit 9A has an option lane, so it's APL. Exit 9B is a cloverleaf but gets put to the left of the thru movements on the APL. Even though the 9B sign's exit tab is on the right and it doesn't feature a "LEFT"  warning, the signs placement to the left of the thru lanes makes drivers think they need to be in the far left lane to exit.

https://goo.gl/maps/BThshd8LWGY1BCFF8

[Tom958]

This KYTC install highlights the "multiplexed exit"  APL issue. Exit 9A has an option lane, so it's APL. Exit 9B is a cloverleaf but gets put to the left of the thru movements on the APL. Even though the 9B sign's exit tab is on the right and it doesn't feature a "LEFT"  warning, the signs placement to the left of the thru lanes makes drivers think they need to be in the far left lane to exit.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/YES3XvrggpfqUsTm9

The issue here is that the designers used an APL for a condition that could and should've been signed conventionally, with a two-lane EXIT ONLY with diagonally upward arrows for 9A and an arrowless sign for 9B. Upstream, a single down arrow EXIT ONLY for 9A with a hidden option lane and another arrowless sign for 9B. Because of the position of this interchange within the area's highway system, I'm gonna say that a large majority of drivers there are familiar enough with the 9A ramp to understand how to make use of the hidden option lane. Others can simply follow the signs.

One caveat might be that the bridge behind would prevent MUTCD-compliant conventional overheads there from being installed at their optimum location. It's hard to believe that would be considered a fatal flaw, but then it's also hard to see how they came up with what they did. 

Of course, they could keep it as-is but add a big yellow RIGHT tab to the 9A sign.

[hbelkins]

I think that sign was installed when the new bridge was opened, and it will probably be replaced when the interchange is rebuilt as part of the I-265 work.

[snowc]

Following the conventions of APLs, shouldn't the first encountered exit be on the far right, and the next exit be the next sign to the left?  I needed to take this exit and saw this sign today.  I knew they had reconfigured the exit from a standard cloverleaf, so now I wasn't sure what exactly it was.  Luckily the second set of signs made things clear.

(PS for the first link: Looks like we got us a convoy!)

The convoy says hey back! 

[SignBridge]

Following the conventions of APLs, shouldn't the first encountered exit be on the far right, and the next exit be the next sign to the left?  I needed to take this exit and saw this sign today.  I knew they had reconfigured the exit from a standard cloverleaf, so now I wasn't sure what exactly it was.  Luckily the second set of signs made things clear.

(PS for the first link: Looks like we got us a convoy!)

Yeah, somebody seriously screwed up. In the first set of signs, they should be reversed. You might consider contacting the agency that erected those signs and point out the error to them. And there's a second issue of inconsistent destinations. The first sign shows Puyallup and the second one shows S. 348 St. They are supposed to be consistent thru the series of signs for an exit.

[CardInLex]

This KYTC install highlights the "multiplexed exit"  APL issue. Exit 9A has an option lane, so it's APL. Exit 9B is a cloverleaf but gets put to the left of the thru movements on the APL. Even though the 9B sign's exit tab is on the right and it doesn't feature a "LEFT"  warning, the signs placement to the left of the thru lanes makes drivers think they need to be in the far left lane to exit.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/YES3XvrggpfqUsTm9

The issue here is that the designers used an APL for a condition that could and should've been signed conventionally, with a two-lane EXIT ONLY with diagonally upward arrows for 9A and an arrowless sign for 9B. Upstream, a single down arrow EXIT ONLY for 9A with a hidden option lane and another arrowless sign for 9B. Because of the position of this interchange within the area's highway system, I'm gonna say that a large majority of drivers there are familiar enough with the 9A ramp to understand how to make use of the hidden option lane. Others can simply follow the signs.

One caveat might be that the bridge behind would prevent MUTCD-compliant conventional overheads there from being installed at their optimum location. It's hard to believe that would be considered a fatal flaw, but then it's also hard to see how they came up with what they did. 

Of course, they could keep it as-is but add a big yellow RIGHT tab to the 9A sign.

A hidden option lane would not do well here. Traffic wanting to go to 265 South really needs to  be in the middle option lane because the right lane drops immediately onto KY 22.

And since this is interstate to interstate wouldn't APL be the most correct option?

[CardInLex]

I think that sign was installed when the new bridge was opened, and it will probably be replaced when the interchange is rebuilt as part of the I-265 work.

This approach is staying the same with the I-Move project so I don't see these signs being replaced.

[Tom958]

I think that sign was installed when the new bridge was opened, and it will probably be replaced when the interchange is rebuilt as part of the I-265 work.

If "the new bridge" means the one over the Ohio River, the sign and the ramp widening that prompted it don't seem to be related as the widened ramp carries traffic moving away from the bridge. And... from what I see, the only improvement for this interchange under the I-Move project is the CD for southbound I-71, which is already finished.

OT, but I'm really at a loss to understand how the 71 north to 265 south movement requires a second lane, but a one-lane loop ramp with (still) a short weaving section over 71 can be adequate in the opposite direction.

A hidden option lane would not do well here. Traffic wanting to go to 265 South really needs to be in the middle option lane because the right lane drops immediately onto KY 22.

I'm writing too much about this. It's likely that the design team had this debate. If so, my side lost, and at worst the result is not so unsatisfactory as to require prompt remediation. However...

I wouldn't call it immediately. The added lane is 3/4 of a mile long. At 1/4 mile in is this nonstandard APL that makes it perfectly clear that 265 traffic needs to be in the left lane, with an additional 1700 feet after the gantry to change lanes before the ramp becomes contiguous with the 265 mainline, then another 1000 feet before the KY 22 ramp starts to diverge. Plenty of room. Also, as I asserted earlier, that movement doesn't seem particularly attractive to long-distance travelers. It's likely that most drivers who use this ramp do so frequently and therefore have the opportunity to learn to use the option lane even though it's hidden, or, if they're not bright enough to figure that out, to start their lane change before the sign informs them that they need to.

All in all, going with conventional signage here would impose a minor inconvenience upon a small number of drivers, IMO likely less than the inconvenience to drivers bound for 841 north who mistakenly believe that their exit, which is only a quarter mile away, is on the left rather than the right.

And since this is interstate to interstate wouldn't APL be the most correct option?

For the split itself, sure. It's the effect on how the next exit is signed that's the problem. The importance of the split is a factor, but it shouldn't dictate the solution entirely at the expense of other factors.

Having said all that, it may well be that the deciding factor in favor of an APL was the fact that the location of the Springdale Road bridge prevents a conventional overhead from being installed at the optimum location. The left black-on-yellow arrow of the EXIT ONLY panel would be confusingly close to the right mainline lane, thereby possibly prompting the very type of panicked, needless lane change that prompted the introduction of hidden option lanes in the first place. Also, the exit for 841 north would've been displaced confusingly to the left. This could've been mitigated by:

Tearing down the bridge and replacing it with one with a longer span over northbound I-71

Tolerating having no right shoulder under the existing bridge and shifting the new lane outboard, or

Building the new half-mile-long auxiliary lane that precedes the split in the median of 71 instead of on the right. Shifted mainlines suck, though.

One last thing: If not for the bridge problem, they could've used something like this to somewhat mitigate the right-lane-goes-to-KY 22 problem. Can't do that with APL's.

[jakeroot]

Wouldn't the absolute easiest fix be to simply ground-mount the sign after the split on the right?

You could also have a non-standard APL where the middle lane shows the straight-on movement as being the next exit, and then have a regular exit sign after that.

[ran4sh]

Or they could just standardize an APL design to use in such situations. Both (1) multiple successive exits from the mainline, and (2) a split that occurs on an exit ramp shortly after it exits from the mainline.

[Tom958]

Wouldn't the absolute easiest fix be to simply ground-mount the sign after the split on the right?

Yeah. And make it huge and super tall so it'd be clearly visible and legible over the APL. 

[wanderer2575]

APLs on the eastbound Ohio Turnpike (I-80), before Youngstown.  Interesting that "Pennsylvania" is abbreviated as "Pa" instead of "PA."

[SkyPesos]

APLs on the eastbound Ohio Turnpike (I-80), before Youngstown.  Interesting that "Pennsylvania" is abbreviated as "Pa" instead of "PA."

Ohio does that a lot. For example, all the "Erie Pa" signs on I-90 EB east of Cleveland.

[machias]

APLs on the eastbound Ohio Turnpike (I-80), before Youngstown.  Interesting that "Pennsylvania" is abbreviated as "Pa" instead of "PA."

Ohio does that a lot. For example, all the "Erie Pa" signs on I-90 EB east of Cleveland.

New York does this as well with Erie Pa, though not consistently (newer signs have Erie PA).  Other states use literary instead of postal abbreviations, I've seen signs in Rhode Island for "Boston Ma" and "Boston Mass" and in Tennessee for "Jackson Miss". The signs aren't going to be mailed, so there's no reason to use postal abbreviations and upper case state abbreviations might be interpreted as something else like a type of roadway or something.

[PurdueBill]

Wouldn't the absolute easiest fix be to simply ground-mount the sign after the split on the right?

You could also have a non-standard APL where the middle lane shows the straight-on movement as being the next exit, and then have a regular exit sign after that.

Could the 841 NB sign have two lines of verbiage at the bottom like
SECOND RIGHT
1/4 MILE
to emphasize that it's not this right exit, but the next one?