Arrow-Per-Lane (APL) signs

[ran4sh]

What's the distinction between "frequently" and "sometimes"? The MUTCD only calls for APLs in specific conditions (i.e. an option lane) while some users on here are using non-option lane exits as evidence of a state "sometimes" or "not" using APLs. Plus many states still have signs from before the 2009 MUTCD that are not yet due to be replaced.

[tolbs17]

And one can easily go here - https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5768427,-74.5771561,3a,89.4y,95.99h,91.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjVNiq8xx9c4eKubg3ttTlA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[J N Winkler]

Idaho got its first set of APL signs at the recently-reconstructed I-84 interchange with I-86 heading EB.

1 mile: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5684206,-113.5445617,3a,75y,83.79h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s60pJWT4wEN0gt7WAG6gVPg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

near the split: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5687575,-113.5341726,3a,15y,82.21h,97.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNW2UZ4iIFPRs363m3GnjmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

at the split: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5691838,-113.5285837,3a,75y,82.21h,97.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9mFPs8weZkhLk5diMWiTRw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Thanks for these--I've updated the list accordingly.

Are we sure about Illinois?  I've seen them used commonly on new Illinois Tollways (ISTHA), but I don't think I've seen any on IDOT freeways.

Illinois DOT uses them.

I would agree that Texas needs to be switched to yellow. You'll find some wacky examples here and there, but in general, Texas does not use them. Most new freeway signage looks somewhat like this.

I wouldn't classify the arrow-block diagrammatics at the first two links as APLs.  In any event, they are specific to the Houston district, where they were used for years (possibly decades) before APLs came on the scene.  Here is a bona fide example of a TxDOT APL:

[webny99]

What's the distinction between "frequently" and "sometimes"? The MUTCD only calls for APLs in specific conditions (i.e. an option lane) while some users on here are using non-option lane exits as evidence of a state "sometimes" or "not" using APLs. Plus many states still have signs from before the 2009 MUTCD that are not yet due to be replaced.

I had been just going off what I knew and what others had posted. It seemed worthwhile to distinguish between states where there's just one or two examples (North Dakota, Idaho) vs. where they're the norm. But if all 44 states that use APL's are doing so on all new installs, maybe it's a pointless distinction.

[webny99]

Also, as far as I know, neither Wyoming nor South Dakota has any option lanes at all, so it's no surprise that there are no APL's in those states.

[ran4sh]

Also, as far as I know, neither Wyoming nor South Dakota has any option lanes at all, so it's no surprise that there are no APL's in those states.

That's true but they could still use APLs if they use them in a non-compliant way like some other states have done. For example Georgia uses APLs for some major interchanges that don't have an option lane, while some other states use APLs to depict an exit as well as a downstream split on the ramp.

[J N Winkler]

Also, as far as I know, neither Wyoming nor South Dakota has any option lanes at all, so it's no surprise that there are no APL's in those states.

South Dakota DOT started putting construction plans online around 2005 and, over the years, I have accumulated about 2300 sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets.  Not one of them is for an APL, but several are for stippled-arrow diagrammatics, including one at Exit 77/41st Street on I-29 southbound in Sioux Falls, which is a high-volume service interchange (not a system interchange) and does have an option lane.  All of this, taken together, makes me suspect a policy decision not to use APLs.

[mrsman]

Here's one. Even has the incorrect # of lanes lol

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

I think that actually is the correct number of arrows, they're just spaced way too tightly. There's 3 arrows over the center and left center lanes; one of them should be over the far left lane.

And the splitting arrow doesn't need the skip lines shown within the arrows!

Haha, I missed that! 

The number of arrows is correct, but the diagrammatic arrow is wrong. The diagrammatic is missing the far left lane.

Now I see what you're talking about, but I'll bet most drivers don't even notice it's a diagrammatic, much less that it has the wrong number of lanes!

The whole point of APL is to be rid of diagrammatic symbols.  How very Oklahoma to still include it (and have it be wrong anyway).

[US 89]

Also, as far as I know, neither Wyoming nor South Dakota has any option lanes at all

Wyoming has at least one option lane in Casper. It is signed with diagrammatics upstream and with down arrows at the actual split.

[webny99]

Good to know. I figured this would be the place to find out if there are option lanes in those states, and it turns out it's a yes for both (although a reaffirmed no for APL's).

[Great Lakes Roads]

Here's an updated map with status changes for ID, TX, KS, and DC. I also demoted PA, as they aren't consistent with their use of APL's.
We're down to 6 states with no known APL's.

I would also demote Nebraska into the yellow spot due to them having one APL location in the whole state, which is I-80 heading WB at the I-76 junction.

[wanderer2575]

APL on the approach to the North Terminal at Detroit Metro Airport:

[johndoe]

I'm no expert on this, but two examples upthread got me interested...apologies as I'm sure this has been touched on before.
I think my question boils down to "what are you supposed to do when you have a 2nd close downstream diverge?  Should one sign attempt to talk about all three paths, or just the gore you're approaching first?" 

So if you want to go to Rockford or Milwaukee the arrow points the same way (straight) ...maybe that diverge happens further downstream but it seems strange to have the same direction.  Is that technically permissible by MUTCD?

This one seems really wacky to me, I don't know that I've ever seen a non-option arrow under the top vertical dividing line.  Is that common?  Here it is in real life: https://www.google.com/maps/@31.7660986,-106.4826269,3a,43.7y,233.12h,97.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8P2mtbDapyg89aetZiR6SQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
So they've done this because lane 3 is going to become an option lane at the next diverge.  Similar to above, it does feel weird to have two different exits denoted with the same arrow, but is that the intent of MUTCD?  On the other hand though, this does make sense about the gore you're approaching (and the downstream sign talks about the next gore).

How do other places deal with the "two diverges" issue?  Is there a "right" and "wrong" way per MUTCD, or is it more art than science?  Is MUTCD going to be changed to deal with this in future? 

So the IL and TX examples above opt to treat the upstream sign as only diagramming the first gore, the very first post in this thread shows a KS example where the single sign diagrams both gores:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9348021,-94.7371684,3a,75y,102.41h,95.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv41xGStk7wOGINtLk7eyGQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[ran4sh]

The MUTCD is deficient on that issue, it says that the sign must not depict more than one split, or a downstream split after a ramp, ignoring that there are situations where this is necessary in order to provide drivers with sufficient advance notice. It might be that since FHWA doesn't support such close interchanges/splits being built, they also don't say anything about how to design signage for such.

Edit

That Kansas example is so tall that most states would never do that. Especially if they also had to include destinations or control cities along with the route markers.

[johndoe]

Here's a four-way APL on I-630 at I-430 near Little Rock. I must say I was pretty impressed by this one. One of the better implementations of the APL that I've seen for what could be a confusing set of exits.

Since the right exit is just a single (non-dropped) lane, I'm not really sure why it even needs to be on that sign.  And why doesn't lane 5 get the "exit only"?  If I'm thinking about this right, they need a downstream sign to show lane 4 isn't truly just through, but through-right to 430N (as you can see in below pic).  I wonder if having a "fourth" direction would be worth potential driver confusion if it saves you a whole extra sign... like a "squished" version of the KS example.  (top is real, bottom is my thought)


If you go a little further west you see a unique sign, I guess for the drivers coming on from the loop ramp? similar to the Minny option lane signs:
https://goo.gl/maps/1MtQXWAgXUB12Gfb7

and then further west the left exit doesn't get "exit only" and number, but right does... (opposite of the earlier sign for some reason)
https://goo.gl/maps/zeZjkuuZNdWAQQVy7

[wanderer2575]

^^  The existing sign (not your modification) correctly shows the lane usage at the point where the sign is located.  This is where the MUTCD needs to get off its high horse about APL design and acknowledge actual lane alignment.

[Scott5114]

Remember the old New Jersey Turnpike arrow? Let's get it, but make it a two-headed Broadway star. Put it under your divider line, and the idea is clear enough, isn't it?

[CardInLex]

Remember the old New Jersey Turnpike arrow? Let's get it, but make it a two-headed Broadway star. Put it under your divider line, and the idea is clear enough, isn't it?

An arrow like this is proposed in the new MUTCD. But it is only mentioned for toll booth splits.

[Tom958]

I'm no expert on this, but two examples upthread got me interested...apologies as I'm sure this has been touched on before.
I think my question boils down to "what are you supposed to do when you have a 2nd close downstream diverge?  Should one sign attempt to talk about all three paths, or just the gore you're approaching first?" 

So if you want to go to Rockford or Milwaukee the arrow points the same way (straight) ...maybe that diverge happens further downstream but it seems strange to have the same direction.  Is that technically permissible by MUTCD?

Rockford-Milwaukee is a bodge resulting from the desire to correctly show the option lane exit to I-190 while providing a shoutout to the i-294 exit on the right less than a mile downstream. It's not compliant, but I suppose that the Feds signed off on it anyway due to the seeming lack of a better option.

Unfortunately, the three straight arrows bear no resemblance to what the lanes actually do: all three lanes continue onto I-90, and the I-294 exit is a simple one-lane right side offramp with a rather inexplicable decel lane. IMO, what should've been done here is to use an APL upstream, but conventional signage at the split: an arrowless pullthrough for I-90, an arrowless EXIT 77 3/4 MILE for I-294, and a sign with two diagonally upward arrows for I-190. Doing that would've eliminated the need to cram too much information into not enough space. Unfortunately, the MUTCD allows that only as a temporary measure.

This one seems really wacky to me, I don't know that I've ever seen a non-option arrow under the top vertical dividing line.  Is that common?  Here it is in real life: https://www.google.com/maps/@31.7660986,-106.4826269,3a,43.7y,233.12h,97.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8P2mtbDapyg89aetZiR6SQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
So they've done this because lane 3 is going to become an option lane at the next diverge.  Similar to above, it does feel weird to have two different exits denoted with the same arrow, but is that the intent of MUTCD?  On the other hand though, this does make sense about the gore you're approaching (and the downstream sign talks about the next gore).

There's nothing at all wrong with this sign. It could be an example in the MUTCD of how to do it.

How do other places deal with the "two diverges" issue?  Is there a "right" and "wrong" way per MUTCD, or is it more art than science?  Is MUTCD going to be changed to deal with this in future? 

So the IL and TX examples above opt to treat the upstream sign as only diagramming the first gore, the very first post in this thread shows a KS example where the single sign diagrams both gores:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9348021,-94.7371684,3a,75y,102.41h,95.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv41xGStk7wOGINtLk7eyGQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

To answer your question snarkily but honestly and accurately, sometimes they just screw it up by making things harder than they actually are. That Kansas mess is an excellent illustration of that. Why did they decide to add the absolutely ordinary left and right turns at the top of an absolutely ordinary service offramp to an APL on the mainline?  Dump that useless crap and do it like this. Problem solved. 

[US 89]

To answer your question snarkily but honestly and accurately, sometimes they just screw it up by making things harder than they actually are. That Kansas mess is an excellent illustration of that. Why did they decide to add the absolutely ordinary left and right turns at the top of an absolutely ordinary service offramp to an APL on the mainline?  Dump that useless crap and do it like this. Problem solved. 

That doesn't solve your problem though, because there is no indication that the third lane from the left is an option lane for I-10 or Mesa St. It's just an up arrow into the divider line. If I were driving through there for the first time I would be avoiding that lane entirely out of uncertainty.

[jakeroot]

I had to go back into my Imgur archives to find how I approached multiple exit lanes on APLs. Basically, I just used two different angles for arrows. Not ideal for sure:

[webny99]

This is just my opinion, but I think Arkansas' approach of straight arrows separated by a partial divider line works just fine.

[Tom958]

That doesn't solve your problem though, because there is no indication that the third lane from the left is an option lane for I-10 or Mesa St. It's just an up arrow into the divider line.

An up arrow directly into the divider line means that the lane splits ahead. I don't see how it could be any clearer, but I guess that's just me.

[jeffandnicole]

That doesn't solve your problem though, because there is no indication that the third lane from the left is an option lane for I-10 or Mesa St. It's just an up arrow into the divider line.

An up arrow directly into the divider line means that the lane splits ahead. I don't see how it could be any clearer, but I guess that's just me.

I would personally go with a dual arrow showing the split.  Too many signs abound where an arrow is located very close to a line, or on the wrong side of the line, to make it very clear this single arrow is supposed to mean the lane will split ahead.

What other signage is used where an arrow purposely is directed into a divider?  APLs are just a different take on other, existing signage, and that message isn't the norm.

[jakeroot]

That doesn't solve your problem though, because there is no indication that the third lane from the left is an option lane for I-10 or Mesa St. It's just an up arrow into the divider line.

An up arrow directly into the divider line means that the lane splits ahead. I don't see how it could be any clearer, but I guess that's just me.

I would personally go with a dual arrow showing the split.  Too many signs abound where an arrow is located very close to a line, or on the wrong side of the line, to make it very clear this single arrow is supposed to mean the lane will split ahead.

What other signage is used where an arrow purposely is directed into a divider?  APLs are just a different take on other, existing signage, and that message isn't the norm.

I believe the "pointing towards a dividing line" way of signing a split is meant to be in reference to the use of a dividing line over a down arrow, which ostensibly has the same meaning.

Here's an example in Seattle, on southbound I-5: https://goo.gl/maps/7JE2QCVtfLfCy8So8

The problem, of course, is that APLs have different design characteristics than down arrows, so trying to jerry-rig a feature from down arrows into an up arrow sign doesn't always work, and I would argue an up arrow pointing towards a line may not be a great idea. That said, if it's already a common design solution, then maybe it's not all that bad of an idea.