Pushing the MUTCD envelope: arrow-per-lane diagrammatics

[OracleUsr]

From the looks of things, it probably shouldn't be left-aligned because if I'm reading that next exit correctly, it's a right-hand ramp.

This is sort of like Maryland.

[NE2]

142C should be aligned to the vertical line in the middle IMO.

[kurumi]

This mess in Milpitas, CA (photo credit AARoads) could (or could not) benefit from an APL makeover:



Complicating things is California's love of optional exit lanes. Here's how the four lanes are assigned:
* Lane 1: HOV 880 NB only
* Lane 2: non-HOV 880 NB only
* Lane 3: non-HOV 880 NB, or 880 SB, or Calaveras
* Lane 4: Calaveras, or McCarthy

[agentsteel53]

This mess in Milpitas, CA (photo credit AARoads) could (or could not) benefit from an APL makeover:

while we're on the topic: redesign the 80 east approach to the MacArthur Maze!





complicating this one is:
* excessive route numbering (80/580 multiplex, "to 24") - at least they didn't bother with 980
* unintuitive directions (80/580 northbound is signed as "80 east, 580 west")
* HOV lanes have been designated and I believe there are some HOV-only ramps as well
* remember, 80/580/880/980/24/13/580/17/101/710 is a safety corridor!  cannot let the driver get through here without their knowing that

that middle sign in the second photo may very well be the worst sign in California.

[myosh_tino]

This mess in Milpitas, CA (photo credit AARoads) could (or could not) benefit from an APL makeover:

Complicating things is California's love of optional exit lanes. Here's how the four lanes are assigned:
* Lane 1: HOV 880 NB only
* Lane 2: non-HOV 880 NB only
* Lane 3: non-HOV 880 NB, or 880 SB, or Calaveras
* Lane 4: Calaveras, or McCarthy

Gotta agree those signs on eastbound 237 are horrible but instead of OAPLs, how about something like this...

while we're on the topic: redesign the 80 east approach to the MacArthur Maze!

Here's a drawing I did in a different thread that replaces the sign bridge in your second photo...

[agentsteel53]

Here's a drawing I did in a different thread that replaces the sign bridge in your second photo...

increasing the height of each sign makes things a lot more helpful.

I do wonder just how critical "TO 24" is, though.  at some point, people have to realize that indeed they must turn south to get to 24.  it's not like we can tell them where 13, 238, etc are as well. 

(the fact that turning south gets you to east 580 is an entirely different concern.  I'd run 580 down I-238 to end at 880, then extend CA-17 over 880 to CA-262 to CA-238, and then I-580 all the way to San Rafael.  an 880-17 multiplex and 80-17 multiplex are not the end of the world; it would be a lot more sensible than that ass-backwards 580/80 renumbering.

[myosh_tino]

Here's a drawing I did in a different thread that replaces the sign bridge in your second photo...

increasing the height of each sign makes things a lot more helpful.

The extra 20-inches does make layout a hell of lot easier.

I do wonder just how critical "TO 24" is, though.  at some point, people have to realize that indeed they must turn south to get to 24.  it's not like we can tell them where 13, 238, etc are as well. 

While the "TO 24" is not terribly critical, removing it would not have affected my layout of the sign.  Perhaps there is some sort of historical importance for CA-24 which lead to it being placed on signs approaching the MacArthur Maze?  I seem to recall seeing a Caltrans project that called for some of the signs on I-80 approaching the Maze to be replaced.

[agentsteel53]

Perhaps there is some sort of historical importance for CA-24 which lead to it being placed on signs approaching the MacArthur Maze?

it was cosigned with US-40A until 1964, between Sacramento and US-395; that's really all I can think of.  however, 24 was never routed across the Bay Bridge or anything like that, so in the East Bay it isn't unusually significant.  in fact, in the East Bay is where 24 has most of its former routing intact: it's always been the road across the Caldecott Tunnel.

[The High Plains Traveler]

Perhaps there is some sort of historical importance for CA-24 which lead to it being placed on signs approaching the MacArthur Maze?

it was cosigned with US-40A until 1964, between Sacramento and US-395; that's really all I can think of.  however, 24 was never routed across the Bay Bridge or anything like that, so in the East Bay it isn't unusually significant.  in fact, in the East Bay is where 24 has most of its former routing intact: it's always been the road across the Caldecott Tunnel.

I know CA-24 was the original designation for the route that became U.S. 40 Alternate, some time after WWII if my recall of my map collection is correct. But were they co-signed until 1964? I thought 40A just replaced 24. (Asking the question you always ask of me) Any pictures?

[The High Plains Traveler]

I don't think OAPL signs as specified in the 2009 Manual will catch on in the US. I think state DOT's will be reluctant to use them because they are gross overkill. There is too much wasted space on the lower portion of the sign. This will require unreasonably huge signs, especially over very wide roadways.

I am afraid events have already given the lie to your suggestion that OAPL signs won't catch on.  Here is the current state of play with regard to OAPL signs, state-by-state, to the best of my knowledge based on signing plans I collect (Y = State DOT uses OAPL; NI = I have no information to indicate whether the state DOT uses OAPL; N = State DOT does not use OAPL or has a policy in place to ensure OAPL is not used):

* * *
CO  NI

* * *

Colorado uses them. There are new installations along I-25 in Colorado Springs and Pueblo.

[agentsteel53]

what is OAPL?  Overhead arrow-per-lane?

(I shudder to think of a non-overhead install of such a thing.  crash!)

[agentsteel53]

I know CA-24 was the original designation for the route that became U.S. 40 Alternate, some time after WWII if my recall of my map collection is correct. But were they co-signed until 1964? I thought 40A just replaced 24. (Asking the question you always ask of me) Any pictures?

ya know, all I've got is this, with a strategically poor crop.



here, it looks like it was regular 40 which was signed with 24.

somewhere I saw a map which had 40A and 24 both labeled on the route.  might have been a mapo, though.  late 40s, 76 or some gas station issue.

[The High Plains Traveler]

I know CA-24 was the original designation for the route that became U.S. 40 Alternate, some time after WWII if my recall of my map collection is correct. But were they co-signed until 1964? I thought 40A just replaced 24. (Asking the question you always ask of me) Any pictures?

ya know, all I've got is this, with a strategically poor crop.



here, it looks like it was regular 40 which was signed with 24.

somewhere I saw a map which had 40A and 24 both labeled on the route.  might have been a mapo, though.  late 40s, 76 or some gas station issue.

Pretty good, though, considering it's a non-suffixed 99. I'll have to dig up an old CA map to see how those routes wound around the capitol.

EDIT: 11th at N Street. This sign should have shown U.S. 99W. 24 to the left would take you over the route that became 40A. 

[pctech]

Those BGS freeway signs above are too complicated. (more arrows than lanes) I'go with APL up-facing arrow versions for them.

Mark

[kkt]

I do wonder just how critical "TO 24" is, though.  at some point, people have to realize that indeed they must turn south to get to 24.  it's not like we can tell them where 13, 238, etc are as well. 

24 is a more important road than 13, 238, etc.  As a route out of the Bay Area eastwards it's almost as important as I-80, and faster at some times of day.

[agentsteel53]

24 is a more important road than 13, 238, etc.  As a route out of the Bay Area eastwards it's almost as important as I-80, and faster at some times of day.

I've never paid too much attention to it.  I've driven it maybe three times, and each time one of the tunnel bores was closed and there was a horrific down-merge.

[NE2]

It's the final alignment of the Victory Highway. That means something, I guess.

[kkt]

24 is a more important road than 13, 238, etc.  As a route out of the Bay Area eastwards it's almost as important as I-80, and faster at some times of day.

I've never paid too much attention to it.  I've driven it maybe three times, and each time one of the tunnel bores was closed and there was a horrific down-merge.

Well, in another 8 months or so the 4th bore should be done and you won't have to worry about that.

[myosh_tino]

Those BGS freeway signs above are too complicated. (more arrows than lanes) I'go with APL up-facing arrow versions for them.

Mark

If you take the signs in combination with the pavement markings, I don't think it's complicated at all.  Here's a modified version of the 237-880 exit signs I drew in an earlier post that includes a (crudely) drawn roadway with striping...



The fact that the right-most down arrow for I-880 and the left-most down arrow for CA-237 are so close to each other, I don't see how anyone can interpret that those arrows point to two distinct lanes.

[J N Winkler]

(list upthread of OAPL-using states, compiled late March 2013)

TX  NI

Now:

TX  Y

Proof (from TxDOT CCSJ Bexar 0017-10-261, in the July 2013 letting):

BTW, JNW, what do NCUTCD and GMITC stand for?  I've never seen those abbreviations before.

NCUTCD = National committee on uniform traffic control devices.  GMITC = Guide and motorist information signs technical committee.

The NCUTCD used to write the MUTCD before it became a BPR/FHWA publication in the 1960's.  It is still active in coordinating the traffic engineering profession's response to changes FHWA's Office of Transportation Operations proposes to make to the MUTCD, and I believe it also develops suggestions for change for forwarding to FHWA.  The NCUTCD has a number of technical subcommittees, each of which handles a particular aspect of the MUTCD and has responsibility for synthesizing research and empirical observation into suggested MUTCD revisions.  GMITC is the one that handles guide signs.

Main NCUTCD website

The individual technical committees used to have websites, but most of them were hosted on a Texas A&M subsite--tcd.tamu.edu--which now seems to have been taken offline.  I am not aware that any of the content hosted there is still available elsewhere on the Internet except possibly through the Web Archive.

Per the current NCUTCD membership list, GMITC has 34 members, including several who hold key traffic engineering policy positions at the state DOTs for ten states (LA, IA, MS, MO, UT, NC, TX, WI, FL, and NH).  Among this subset of ten, the only one which I have seen associated with serious reservations about the OAPL concept is FL, which however--so far as I can tell--has been using them as diagrammed in the 2009 MUTCD.

[kphoger]

Do you know when work is supposed to start on I-35 between 410 North and 410 South?  35 between New Braunfels to the interchange related to your sign is probably my least favorite stretch of road between here and our annual destination in México, and I really don't like the idea of driving it during road construction.  I wonder if it will soon be my impetus to buy a TxTag, with which I can easily use the new bypass around the whole mess.

[J N Winkler]

Do you know when work is supposed to start on I-35 between 410 North and 410 South?  35 between New Braunfels to the interchange related to your sign is probably my least favorite stretch of road between here and our annual destination in México, and I really don't like the idea of driving it during road construction.  I wonder if it will soon be my impetus to buy a TxTag, with which I can easily use the new bypass around the whole mess.

Bexar 0017-10-261 is the contract covering IH 35 between the two IH 410 interchanges.  It has a July letting date, so allowing two to three months for award and issuance of notice to proceed, construction will probably begin around September or October.

Interpersonal comparison of utility is notoriously difficult, but personally I wouldn't spend $40 on SH 130 tolls just to avoid this construction project.  A cursory skim of the traffic control plans and a comparison with IH 35 in its current state suggests that the contractor will be expected to maintain the same basic lane count (three each way) through construction, so if you can time your transit of San Antonio for the off-peak, then all you should have to deal with is a reduced speed limit.

[kphoger]

Well, I've been putting off getting a TxTag until our current car bites the dust, because they're not transferable.  I've been sort of on the fence about the bypass, since we don't have any actual business in San Antonio that couldn't be done elsewhere (supper, specifically, which we usually get in the suburb of Selma).  We travel through the area on late Saturday afternoon going southbound, and early Saturday evening going northbound, and traffic is thick but tolerable–not anything to make me avoid the area.

But it wouldn't take much to push me over onto the other side of that fence.  I dislike heavy congestion, and I dislike delays to my carefully planned itineraries.  It's good to know that they're not planning to reduce the lane count.  We'll see where I stand on the issue as time goes on and as construction begins.

Back on topic, though, I've been thoroughly pleased with how Texas signs I-35 along that corridor.  I've specifically mentioned the interchange of 35 Southbound and 410 Southbound on the forums as an example of signing large option lane interchanges clearly.  When all is said and done, I hope the APL you posted is accompanied by pavement arrows–of the sort that are currently used on the approach to that interchange–and clearly delineated lane assignment stripes as well.  I've said it before:  this is how it's done, folks.  I have high hopes for the interchange to be an APL success story.

[Scott5114]

Wait, where's there an APL in Oklahoma?

[r-dub]

As mentioned upthread a bit, Colorado is embracing the arrow-per-lane signage, especially in CDOT Region 2, which is from Colorado Springs southeastward. This one was installed last night and has a similar sign (less the 1/2 mile) just ahead:

Installed overnight with traffic still flowing under it, at that! 

Matt Salek of the Highways of Colorado website caught a few more OAPL signs in their natural habitat, too...
http://milepost61.wordpress.com/2013/04/06/region-2-heart-diagrammatics/