I got a look at a new sign replacement project for the Sacramento metro area, first mentioned in my other discussion about similar projects in the San Francisco Bay Area and thought it deserved its own topic.
A couple of interesting observations...
* There are no detailed sign drawings in the plans (i.e. legend & shield positioning, arrow placement, etc).
* There appears to be a concerted effort to remove any mention of Business 80 between I-80 in west Sacramento and the CA-99 interchange. All signs that are scheduled for replacement feature US 50 shields.
The plans can be found at http://caltrans.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/03/03-4F7104/plans/.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 21, 2015, 01:59:02 PM
* There appears to be a concerted effort to remove any mention of Business 80 between I-80 in west Sacramento and the CA-99 interchange. All signs that are scheduled for replacement feature US 50 shields.
THAT'S interesting because when the 2008-2009 sign replacement project occurred in this area, much of the westbound signage along that stretch (which has never mentioned US 50, even after the 1982 reroute) mostly became the inaccurate "I-80 West" (replacing at least two correctly signed Business 80 West/San Francisco pullthroughs).
Eastbound, Business 80 and US 50 had retained prominent co-designation as it had from 1982 onwards (I have quite a few examples of that on my Flickr page somewhere) with 99 first being noted via the well-known US 99 sign error along the eastbound WX Freeway.
I recall that the section of 50/Business 80 is mostly known to locals as 50 though, even considering that 50 west of 16th Street is only as old as the 80 Business route is.
From examining the plans, it seems the removal of Business 80 shields is a step designed to reduce message loading. Does this essentially turn Business 80 into a business spur rather than a business loop?
Also notable from the new sign replacement PDF: the removal of "CAPITAL CITY FREEWAY" text along the US 50 stretch (but NOT on the Route 51 stretch which seems to be getting more of it in fact).
Other notes:
- removal of "TO I-80" from the I-5 north pullthrough approaching 50/Business 80/(99)
- Sign AS-102 currently has only US 50/Business 80/Route 99 shields (accurate though); the new sign has a US 50 shield awkwardly aligned slightly diagonal from a Route 99 shield.
- Sign AS-117 is one of the first "USE EXIT XX" examples I can think of in Northern California, in this case replacing the all-text "SOUTH LAKE TAHOE/USE FRESNO EXIT" with "Route 99 Fresno - USE EXIT 518." (The removal of the South Lake Tahoe destination though is a bit confusing - why not simply sign this as US 50/Route 99 Fresno, 2.5 Miles, with a EXIT 518 tab on the top right?)
- I do like the "US 50 to I-80" pullthrough for AS-452 (US 50 westbound at I-5) and honestly think this should have been used all along further east (or a variant like US 50 WEST/Route 99 NORTH to I-5 & WEST I-80)
- Why is the Airport icon being removed from sign AS-209 (and from other similar signs pointing to I-5 north)?
- I always liked the Route 99 NORTH sign (AS-135) on US 50 west approaching 26th Street and am kinda sad to see it go, though at least US 50 being acknowledged is good here.
- From Page 34: I do get the reduction of shield usage from US 50/TO I-80/I-5 to just US 50 (signs AS-80 and AS-93), though I think having an TO I-5 shield with the US 50 West sign would still be helpful. (For that matter, while this is entirely unrealistic of me, part of me wonders if simply signing 99 south for both Fresno & Los Angeles and then having the "I-5/USE EXIT 6A" sign (Sign AS-72) only point to Redding would work too - after all, southbound drivers to LA could get to 5 south just as easily via 4 in Stockton or 120 in Manteca.)
- With the removal of Route 99 shields at the 5/80 interchange in Natomas (page 38), will there be any roadside acknowledgement from 80 to take 5 north to get to 99 north for Yuba City/Marysville? (An aside: I've always felt that the 80/50 split in West Sacramento would be a good spot to let drivers know to take 80 east to get to 5 & 99 north for Redding & Yuba City and 50 east to get to 5 and 99 south for Fresno/LA/Stockton - though those heading to Yuba City from the Bay Area likely took 113 in Davis, and those going to Redding likely already split off at 505 in Vacaville)
- The replacement at sign AS-320 (the current "To Redding/Yuba City 5/99" sign) omits any mention of I-5. For that matter, since 99 is a through route taking the ramp to 50 west, it's odd to see it removed for the replacement 50 West sign at AS-103.
- The current BS-17 sign (Pioneer Bridge eastbound) is where the US 50 control city switches to South Lake Tahoe from Sacramento. Since 5 and 50 (and Route 99) all provide access to city limits once the bridge is crossed, why is this sign being switched to a Sacramento control city for 50 (especially since 5 is the main route into downtown from here)?
- Just like in the 2009 signing project, US 50 east is not given an exit number from I-80 east.
- Will T Street finally get an exit number based off of Route 99 (presumably 298C) rather than off of Business 80 (which has no access at all to that ramp)?
- I wonder if the "US 50 San Francisco" sign placed about 2-3 years ago at 65th Street northbound was a precursor to this new emphasis of 50 west of 99.
- Even though I like freeway names, I do wonder if the Business 80/160 split (sign AS-52) should have Business 80 west signed for "Midtown Sacramento" (as a counterpart to 160 being signed for downtown).
- Speculation on my part: is this a preliminary step for eventually removing all Business 80 references entirely and replacing them with Route 51 references?
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 21, 2015, 01:59:02 PM* There are no detailed sign drawings in the plans (i.e. legend & shield positioning, arrow placement, etc).
This is SOP for District 3, where you get sign elevations and sign layouts with sign sketches but no sign panel detail sheets. District 4 gives you sign panel details and sign layouts without sign sketches; sign elevations are a bit hit and miss (I think the decision rule is based on whether a new truss is installed).
District 4 has traditionally been the worst Caltrans district for pattern-accurate signing sheets; District 3 is much more reliable in this regard. But the one District 4 signing plans set I looked at this morning had pattern-accurate signing sheets, so I am hopeful this will be true of the rest.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 21, 2015, 03:16:08 PM
District 4 has traditionally been the worst Caltrans district for pattern-accurate signing sheets; District 3 is much more reliable in this regard. But the one District 4 signing plans set I looked at this morning had pattern-accurate signing sheets, so I am hopeful this will be true of the rest.
Signing sheets in District 4 have, for the most part, been pattern accurate for a couple of years now. Pattern accurate drawings were used for the new signs installed on I-280 through Cupertino as part of a pavement rehab project.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 21, 2015, 03:32:16 PMSigning sheets in District 4 have, for the most part, been pattern accurate for a couple of years now. Pattern accurate drawings were used for the new signs installed on I-280 through Cupertino as part of a pavement rehab project.
I have seen a few I-80 jobs with placeholder fonts, and for the recent US 101 widenings in Marin and Sonoma Counties, I would say pattern-accuracy has been the exception rather than the rule.
Another thought that just came to mind: Not sure if this is covered in the PDF at all, but currently Exit 95 from I-80 west to Business 80 east lists the Business 80 exit as "TO 99". With the removal of TO Route 99 signage proposed for the westbound Business 80/Route 160 split (sign AS-52), will the motorist be expected to drive 7-8 miles until seeing the first "99 Fresno" pullthrough at P Street in Midtown? (And even if Business 80 is effectively ending as a signed route westbound/southbound at 99 & 50, shouldn't the through lanes connecting it with 99 south get their own exit number)?
I almost feel like the Split should be signed with 80 being given "TO 5/99 NORTH" (as opposed to "5" with no direction) and Business 80 being given "TO 5/99 SOUTH" as opposed to only 99 south.
---
Signs AS-170 & AS-172: Interesting to see the switchover from "TO 99/50/Business 80" to "TO 99/50", wouldn't "50 TO 99" be the more logical phrasing here (which will be used on sign AS-208)?
Sign AS-79 (connector between Route 99 north and Route 51 north/Business 80 east): I do see that T Street is continuing to have its numbering based off of Business 80 and not Route 99, even though the exit is ONLY accessible from Route 99 northbound and should IMO be numbered accordingly. This seems even odder considering that Business 80 as a designation is being entirely removed from signage along US 50 judging from these plans!
Sign AS-70: "99 South Fresno" gets noted here as has been for years. Wouldn't it be logical to have something (even a small roadside sign) noting that 99 north would be accessed via 50 west?
I applaud some of the simplification techniques that Caltrans is trying to implement here with some of the new signage. :clap:
Sacramento's freeway system is essentially a big H.
The left leg is to be known as I-5 and only I-5 on all pull through signage. Redding - Sac - LA
The E-W highway from the I-80/US 50 split to the Nevada state line should simply be known as US 50. No other designation is warranted or desired. SF - Sac - S Lake Tahoe.
The diagonal is of course only I-80. SF-(Sac)-Reno
SR 51 would be best for the 29/30 freeway. But Biz 80 spur is better than having the Biz 80 loop. And of course this freeway is CA 99 south of US 50.
Now, should there be a way to guide people who want to follow CA 99 through this maze? Yes. But on small green sides on the side only. Don't confuse the simplicity of having only 4 designations for 3 highways by unnecessary multiplexing.
For southbound 99: A sign at 99's terminus at I-5 in Natomas: For 99 south Fresno use I-5 south. Another sign in Downtown: For 99 south Fresno use US 50 east.
For northbound 99: A sign approaching US 50: For 99 north Yuba City use US 50 west to I-5 north
No other refrence signs for 99 are needed or wanted.
I had a conversation with the project engineer on this job and I asked him about the lack of a Business 80 designation on US-50. He said it was based on a couple of things. First, it was a desire to simplify things and just sign it as one route and not a multitude of routes. Secondly, more and more people are referring to the joint US-50/Business 80 multiplex as simply US-50. Case in point is the "Fix50" project on a portion of that freeway that was done last year. Another factor was that the legislative descriptions of the route. The legislative description for Route 51 mandates that it be signed as Business 80; the legislative description of Route 50 includes no such requirement. So basically, Business 80 is becoming a Business spur, but there's no plans to update the signing to reflect such a change. As you can see, the Capital City Freeway name will be emphasized on Route 51 and only Route 51. The project engineer also realized there was a need to better sign Route 99 through the break in the route, between the Oak Park Interchange and the junction with I-5 near the airport.
This project is intended to upgrade existing button copy signs with new Type 11 retro reflective sheeting, as well as fix various sign message deficiencies and add exit numbers. I didn't get into a discussion with him about the lack of exit numbers. He did note that there are major improvements eventually planned for I-5 (widening to add HOV lanes and auxiliary lanes) which will result in new signing on that corridor, so it wasn't touched.
An interesting side note: if you look at the plans, you'll notice that it only modifies overhead signs and no ground mounted signs are being touched. I asked the engineer how the freeway entrance sign packages would be handled along the former Business 80 and he said that they have made an agreement with the District 3 sign crew to remove Business 80 shields and replace them with US-50 shields as the overhead signs are replaced. Basically the maintenance crew will follow the contractor. He said the sign crew will probably not get every sign so there will be a few stray Business 80 markers here and there along the corridor, and they'll have to get taken care of by the maintenance forces at a later date or in a separate project.
Hope this answers some of your questions.
iPhone
Myosh, thanks for posting these plans. Interesting that they are keeping the double I-5 shield signs on sheet 20.
Kinda a response to your post, Mrsman, and also some of my responses to the initial PDF posted - some revision ideas I have for what's planned in this Sacramento resigning project.
(Myosh_tino - interesting to compare your take on sign AS-322 from Page 43 from a previous thread. with what is actually in the PDF: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9539.msg2063139#msg2063139 )
Sign AS-70 left side (Page 35) - Route 51/Business 80 West approaching Route 99 south
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fg0iM6Pw.png&hash=f385196752c31dc7c332732b53bb643a39ba2fb7)
Sign AS-52 left side (Page 36) - Route 51/Business 80 West at the split with Route 160
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F61wnZkH.png&hash=2ae1a01236be4cf393803f6fd9bad3084815df87)
Sign AS-320 left side (Page 43) - Route 99 North just past 12th Avenue
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fpb6bhFt.png&hash=bf188df18e309441adddfee62c7c7a0a814aae0c)
Sign BS-5 left side (Page 51) - I-80 east approaching West Capitol Avenue/Exit 81
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlGqKpLi.png&hash=f2081269bf9139c79b710ee8db4e8aaed06eb6af)
Sign AS-117 (Page 23) - I-5/Route 99 South just past West El Camino Avenue
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRag4HRG.png&hash=2421f4afadc6bbcbcd18341abb72677f1f0afb58)
While I like your redesigns, it appears that most of your signs would end up increasing the sign panel size. Since plans call for putting new signs on the old trusses, the new signs cannot be larger than the ones they're replacing due to the change in wind-loading specifications by AASHTO. With that in mind, I tried to incorporate as many of your ideas as possible into my redesigns.
The sign on the left approximates the actual layout of the new signs according to the plans. The sign on the right is my redesign...
Quote from: TheStranger on September 26, 2015, 01:46:50 AM
Sign AS-70 left side (Page 35) - Route 51/Business 80 West approaching Route 99 south
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fg0iM6Pw.png&hash=f385196752c31dc7c332732b53bb643a39ba2fb7)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fd3_Bus80-99pt.png&hash=03916c156a9cb90c814df2412a08fbbcbd64e286)
Adding the second control city is impossible without increasing the width or height of the sign.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 26, 2015, 01:46:50 AM
Sign AS-52 left side (Page 36) - Route 51/Business 80 West at the split with Route 160
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F61wnZkH.png&hash=2ae1a01236be4cf393803f6fd9bad3084815df87)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fd3_Bus80pt.png&hash=3c6023ab983c437c3c15af03db67e65389d76f4b)
Changing the legend to "Midtown Sacramento/Fresno" is not possible without increasing both the height and width of the sign.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 26, 2015, 01:46:50 AM
Sign BS-5 left side (Page 51) - I-80 east approaching West Capitol Avenue/Exit 81
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlGqKpLi.png&hash=f2081269bf9139c79b710ee8db4e8aaed06eb6af)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fd3_80-50pt.png&hash=6005d874f863b362702a6b7895a251f3494440c6)
Adding the exit tab is not a problem although having a guide sign with an exit tab but no arrows is a little unusual (even for Caltrans). Also, adding "South Lake Tahoe" would require increasing the width and height of the sign.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 26, 2015, 04:37:14 AM
Adding the exit tab is not a problem although having a guide sign with an exit tab but no arrows is a little unusual (even for Caltrans). Also, adding "South Lake Tahoe" would require increasing the width and height of the sign.
I based that design (exit-tabbed mainline due to route-exiting-off-itself situations, no down arrows) from these two existing signs at the US 101/I-80 junction:
Start of I-80 East
https://goo.gl/maps/G2GMnh8nG4y
(The "crammed" nature of this one with two control city lines makes me wonder if you could create something like that for the US 50 Sacramento/South Lake Tahoe (Exit 82) sign that fits the existing dimensions)
End of I-80/mainline lanes continue onto US 101 south (ramp to US 101 north/Central Freeway/former I-80 splits from right)
https://goo.gl/maps/dYfDnaB6LCz
---
For your sign AS-52 replacement, I'm curious - if Capital City Fwy wasn't the text there, would "Midtown Sacramento" or "Fresno" be the more ideal control city there?
The bizarre real-life single-line "Sacramento/Fairfield" sign on I-80 east past Route 12 has me imagining that some of these multi-control-city ideas would work with wider signs, i.e. AS-70 as "Route 99 South" followed by "Stockton - Fresno" underneath (in a style reminiscent of northbound Route 55 in Orange County).
Quote from: jrouse on September 26, 2015, 12:29:45 AM
I had a conversation with the project engineer on this job and I asked him about the lack of a Business 80 designation on US-50. He said it was based on a couple of things. First, it was a desire to simplify things and just sign it as one route and not a multitude of routes. Secondly, more and more people are referring to the joint US-50/Business 80 multiplex as simply US-50. Case in point is the "Fix50" project on a portion of that freeway that was done last year. Another factor was that the legislative descriptions of the route. The legislative description for Route 51 mandates that it be signed as Business 80; the legislative description of Route 50 includes no such requirement. So basically, Business 80 is becoming a Business spur, but there's no plans to update the signing to reflect such a change. As you can see, the Capital City Freeway name will be emphasized on Route 51 and only Route 51. The project engineer also realized there was a need to better sign Route 99 through the break in the route, between the Oak Park Interchange and the junction with I-5 near the airport.
This project is intended to upgrade existing button copy signs with new Type 11 retro reflective sheeting, as well as fix various sign message deficiencies and add exit numbers. I didn't get into a discussion with him about the lack of exit numbers. He did note that there are major improvements eventually planned for I-5 (widening to add HOV lanes and auxiliary lanes) which will result in new signing on that corridor, so it wasn't touched.
An interesting side note: if you look at the plans, you'll notice that it only modifies overhead signs and no ground mounted signs are being touched. I asked the engineer how the freeway entrance sign packages would be handled along the former Business 80 and he said that they have made an agreement with the District 3 sign crew to remove Business 80 shields and replace them with US-50 shields as the overhead signs are replaced. Basically the maintenance crew will follow the contractor. He said the sign crew will probably not get every sign so there will be a few stray Business 80 markers here and there along the corridor, and they'll have to get taken care of by the maintenance forces at a later date or in a separate project.
Hope this answers some of your questions.
iPhone
Thank you for your input. It's nice having the inside knowledge that you and other DOT employees provide.
We may certainly not agree with everything the DOT does, but at least we can understand that there is a reason for it.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 27, 2015, 06:51:27 AM
For your sign AS-52 replacement, I'm curious - if Capital City Fwy wasn't the text there, would "Midtown Sacramento" or "Fresno" be the more ideal control city there?
That's a tough one.
My initial thought was neither. "Midtown Sacramento" is simply too long unless letter heights were reduced and "Fresno" is a control city for a different route, although it would eventually be the through route. I would have liked to use "San Francisco" as the control city but because Business 80 shields are being removed along the east-west portion of the route, confusion may arise.
Ultimately, I think the decision to use "Capital City Fwy" is an acceptable one. It's not ideal but I don't think the alternatives are any better (given the constraints of the sign panel size).
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 27, 2015, 02:37:34 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 27, 2015, 06:51:27 AM
For your sign AS-52 replacement, I'm curious - if Capital City Fwy wasn't the text there, would "Midtown Sacramento" or "Fresno" be the more ideal control city there?
That's a tough one.
My initial thought was neither. "Midtown Sacramento" is simply too long unless letter heights were reduced and "Fresno" is a control city for a different route, although it would eventually be the through route. I would have liked to use "San Francisco" as the control city but because Business 80 shields are being removed along the east-west portion of the route, confusion may arise.
My logic for thinking "Fresno" would work...actually has to do with how US 50 west is now going to be signed for "San Francisco" despite the fact it isn't itself going there (and hasn't since 1964), but instead has its through lanes feeding into a route that is (I-80) - which has precedent in many other locations in California, often created by route truncation:
205 and 580 west for San Francisco (used to be 50 as noted above)
120 west for San Francisco (connects to 5, 205, and THEN 580)
99 south for Los Angeles (used to continue to that town)
15 south for Los Angeles through the Mojave Desert (used to be part of 66/91)
80B/51 west is former 99E south (and was built as such in the 1950s/1960s) and thus using Fresno fits in with the examples above.
I do think though that Stockton might honestly be way more useful as a control city for both 5 and 99 in the area (and the section of westbound Business 80/Route 51 between 160 and 50/99) since it is the closest large city on either route for a hundred or more miles before the cities that are the current singular southbound controls (Los Angeles for 5, Fresno for 99). Stockton signs do start popping up for 99 south at Stockton Boulevard near Mack Road.
As for "Midtown" - since Business 80 and 160 are both in city limits at the split near Arden Way, would using the current "Downtown Sacramento" already be too long of a legend for 160 anyway? (i.e. I can see it working with "Business 80 WEST to 99 SOUTH/Midtown" adjacent to "160 SOUTH/Downtown/12th Street" which I might create a mockup of later)
An example of my idea for "Midtown/Downtown" signage at the Business 80 west/160 south split (sign AS-52):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxgM61ZQ.png&hash=f4213fbe581903904191f83795fb5320366ef67a)
---
Since Jrouse mentioned earlier in the thread that part of the goal was improving navigation for those taking 99 from the South Sacramento Freeway up to Natomas, here are some sign ideas towards that goal (not necessarily the same as the real-life project's aim for only one control city and as few shields as possible on overheads) -
AS-117 (I-5 north approaching West El Camino Avenue)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIGqB7UH.png&hash=b3c81f7319046a57002c2b3a11fe41a38e54e0eb)
AS-64 (US 50 approaching I-5 after the Pioneer Bridge)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRXKDwCt.png&hash=3996c0cc4bbeb831a3bcc235ce94fbc2f7fe5cf8)
---
A relevant post I made in the Road Related Illustrations thread from June 2010, my "what did these signs look like in the 70s" concept!
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=575.msg67443#msg67443
Based on that, here's my revision to AS-103 (Route 99 North taking the ramp to 50 West)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FId7kWvx.png&hash=257884ac1aeecda7f24f8493bc5c4d7ba370892c)
To build off of TheStranger's last post, here are 3 drawings I made of the signs at the Bus80-160 interchange...
#1 - Signs according to the plans...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fd3_Bus80-160.png&hash=fc9ae45875004d17611384e23342612b68a72ade)
#2 - Changed Pull-Through to add TO CA-99...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fd3_Bus80-160_alt1.png&hash=bddf1698b007165adbe97c3e7c0550c010b5f0c3)
#3 - Changed Pull-Through to add TO CA-99 and change control city to "Midtown Sacramento"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fd3_Bus80-160_alt2.png&hash=9bda3a95096e4e67473ae1c244b329e7112b8475)
Note: To make things fit, legend on the pull-through sign was reduced to 13.3 UC/10 LC
And speaking of AS-117, hopefully someone at Caltrans noticed an error in the sign plans. The sign for exit 522 has an I-5 shield instead of an I-80 shield.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 28, 2015, 03:36:06 AM
To build off of TheStranger's last post, here are 3 drawings I made of the signs at the Bus80-160 interchange...
As always, your designs look phenomenal!
Something I am wondering which sign AS-52 (Business 80/160) has kinda led me to think about - in what cases does CalTrans sign for downtown (or any other district) with labeling the city the driver is already in, as opposed to leaving that info out to save on legend space?
For instance, "Downtown SF" is a control city on 280 in San Francisco approaching the Alemany Maze, "Downtown San Jose" is used for 280 north past 101 in SJ, but in San Diego, "Downtown" is the single control city for Route 163 south through Balboa Park. In Los Angeles, I don't even think "Downtown" is used but "Los Angeles" as the downtown control legend within city limits (5, 10, 110, 60, 101).
Quote from: jrouse on September 26, 2015, 12:29:45 AM
I had a conversation with the project engineer on this job and I asked him about the lack of a Business 80 designation on US-50. He said it was based on a couple of things. First, it was a desire to simplify things and just sign it as one route and not a multitude of routes. Secondly, more and more people are referring to the joint US-50/Business 80 multiplex as simply US-50. Case in point is the "Fix50" project on a portion of that freeway that was done last year. Another factor was that the legislative descriptions of the route. The legislative description for Route 51 mandates that it be signed as Business 80; the legislative description of Route 50 includes no such requirement. So basically, Business 80 is becoming a Business spur, but there's no plans to update the signing to reflect such a change. As you can see, the Capital City Freeway name will be emphasized on Route 51 and only Route 51. The project engineer also realized there was a need to better sign Route 99 through the break in the route, between the Oak Park Interchange and the junction with I-5 near the airport.
Thank you Joe for the explanation. A question: Is anyone at Caltrans considering requesting a legislative change that would fully eliminate Business 80 from the Streets and Highways Code? While I am a fan of Business 80, cutting the "loop" in half doesn't make sense without signage returning the loop back to the parent route. I guess it could be a spur, but I'd think there would be sign changes to reflect that. So I'd think the most logical outcome to achieve route simplification is to change the Code to eliminate Business 80 and sign the remaining freeway as SR 51 (or change it to SR 305, ha ha).
I would be in favor of eliminating Business 80 altogether, shortening US 50 to CA 99, designating the former section of 50 as I-305, eliminating CA 51 and redisignating it as an extension of I-305 up to E Street with the rest as CA 305. But that may be too much just to keep it simplified.
Quote from: cheungd on September 29, 2015, 04:03:15 PM
I would be in favor of eliminating Business 80 altogether, shortening US 50 to CA 99, designating the former section of 50 as I-305, eliminating CA 51 and redisignating it as an extension of I-305 up to E Street with the rest as CA 305. But that may be too much just to keep it simplified.
305 has never been signed (and is exclusively a FHWA number). Why truncate US 50 from its established post-1982 route between I-80 in West Sacramento and Route 51/Business 80 at the Oak Park Interchange, especially when (as jrouse noted above) 50 is the number most locals currently use to describe that route?
Quote from: TheStranger on September 29, 2015, 06:29:53 PM
Quote from: cheungd on September 29, 2015, 04:03:15 PM
I would be in favor of eliminating Business 80 altogether, shortening US 50 to CA 99, designating the former section of 50 as I-305, eliminating CA 51 and redisignating it as an extension of I-305 up to E Street with the rest as CA 305. But that may be too much just to keep it simplified.
305 has never been signed (and is exclusively a FHWA number). Why truncate US 50 from its established post-1982 route between I-80 in West Sacramento and Route 51/Business 80 at the Oak Park Interchange, especially when (as jrouse noted above) 50 is the number most locals currently use to describe that route?
Isn't part of the reason that Biz 80 was used instead of I-305 because the SR 51 portion of Biz 80 wasn't up to the then-current Interstate standards when they removed I-80? (And still isn't, in some spots.)
What will the exit numbering look like on the SR 51 section in the new signing project? Since the Biz 80 designation is no longer being emphasized on the US 50 overlap, the continuous exit numbers won't make sense...
Quote from: TheStranger on September 28, 2015, 12:08:23 AM
An example of my idea for "Midtown/Downtown" signage at the Business 80 west/160 south split (sign AS-52):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxgM61ZQ.png&hash=f4213fbe581903904191f83795fb5320366ef67a)
Would something along the lines of "S.F. / Fresno" (on one line including the slash and abbreviated San Francisco) work here instead of Midtown? I think the point of this sign is to guide people who want to go into Downtown itself to take 160, but to those who want to take any freeway that emanates from Downtown to take Biz 80.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 28, 2015, 12:08:23 AM
---
Since Jrouse mentioned earlier in the thread that part of the goal was improving navigation for those taking 99 from the South Sacramento Freeway up to Natomas, here are some sign ideas towards that goal (not necessarily the same as the real-life project's aim for only one control city and as few shields as possible on overheads) -
AS-117 (I-5 north approaching West El Camino Avenue)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIGqB7UH.png&hash=b3c81f7319046a57002c2b3a11fe41a38e54e0eb)
Fine
Quote from: TheStranger on September 28, 2015, 12:08:23 AM
AS-64 (US 50 approaching I-5 after the Pioneer Bridge)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRXKDwCt.png&hash=3996c0cc4bbeb831a3bcc235ce94fbc2f7fe5cf8)
Don't follow the mistakes of District 7 and begin removing control cities, as they have done in many places, especially at the Four Level Interchange.
(Signs along US 101 south of the Four Level saying "US 101 to I-5, I-10, CA 60" without conrtol cities replacing the "I-5/I-10 Santa Ana / San Bernardino")
On your sign, South Lake Tahoe (or Placerville, I've seen a lot of signs using both as US 50's control in the Sacramento area when I lived there in the late '90s) should be the control for the left sign. Fresno can be added, but it's not a priority. Redding must be added to the third sign. (I wouldn't even include Yuba City here to limit information overload.)
Quote from: TheStranger on September 28, 2015, 12:08:23 AM
---
A relevant post I made in the Road Related Illustrations thread from June 2010, my "what did these signs look like in the 70s" concept!
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=575.msg67443#msg67443
Based on that, here's my revision to AS-103 (Route 99 North taking the ramp to 50 West)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FId7kWvx.png&hash=257884ac1aeecda7f24f8493bc5c4d7ba370892c)
This one is fine. If you can, it would be nice to include Yuba City as well here, but certainly not required. San Francisco is the more important control here.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 28, 2015, 11:53:23 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 28, 2015, 03:36:06 AM
To build off of TheStranger's last post, here are 3 drawings I made of the signs at the Bus80-160 interchange...
As always, your designs look phenomenal!
Something I am wondering which sign AS-52 (Business 80/160) has kinda led me to think about - in what cases does CalTrans sign for downtown (or any other district) with labeling the city the driver is already in, as opposed to leaving that info out to save on legend space?
For instance, "Downtown SF" is a control city on 280 in San Francisco approaching the Alemany Maze, "Downtown San Jose" is used for 280 north past 101 in SJ, but in San Diego, "Downtown" is the single control city for Route 163 south through Balboa Park. In Los Angeles, I don't even think "Downtown" is used but "Los Angeles" as the downtown control legend within city limits (5, 10, 110, 60, 101).
Los Angeles is mostly used within city limits, but there are a few places where Downtown or Civic Center is used, especially if you are very close to the 4-level:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0723184,-118.2349031,3a,75y,207.09h,73.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZP14vl6hmoVaw4O1nY0epA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Downtown and Civic Center seem to be used as synonyms most of the time. But to my understanding Civic Center refers to the area with government buildings basically centered around 1st/Main. For freeway signs this will lead you to US 101 at either Spring, Broadway, or Los Angeles Street (or from the sign above taking Hill to 1st). Downtown's historic heart is at Broadway/7th, but most people think of Bunker Hill as being the new Downtown as most of the modern skyscrapers are there. Especially from freeway signs, this basically leads you to the area surrounding Figueroa and 6th. So any of the 110 exits to 4th, 6th, or 9th would be considered "Downtown".
Quote from: roadfro on September 30, 2015, 09:16:30 PM
Isn't part of the reason that Biz 80 was used instead of I-305 because the SR 51 portion of Biz 80 wasn't up to the then-current Interstate standards when they removed I-80? (And still isn't, in some spots.)
I don't think 305 was ever considered for signing, but exists to keep the 1960s portion of what was interstate-standards I-80 (from the 50/80 split to about E Street) in the system. The non-standard portion of the old US 99E freeway starts from E Street and continues to I-80 & Watt Avenue near Foothill Farms.
Quote from: roadfro on September 30, 2015, 09:16:30 PM
What will the exit numbering look like on the SR 51 section in the new signing project? Since the Biz 80 designation is no longer being emphasized on the US 50 overlap, the continuous exit numbers won't make sense...
So far...they're still using the Business 80 exit numbers (based on the West Sacramento terminus) looking at the PDF! (It wouldn't be the only example of exit numbers not beginning at 1 from the start of a route - I-380 is like that as well, with its numbers factoring a still-unlikely extension to Pacifica)
Quote from: mrsman
Would something along the lines of "S.F. / Fresno" (on one line including the slash and abbreviated San Francisco) work here instead of Midtown? I think the point of this sign is to guide people who want to go into Downtown itself to take 160, but to those who want to take any freeway that emanates from Downtown to take Biz 80.
I'm almost of the mind that with Business 80 no longer considered a through route beyond midtown as of this signing project, that "Fresno" would be the ideal city to list there (if any cities are used). Having said that...that portion of Business 80 west is primarily local traffic and Midtown is enough of a destination now that it's kinda like the different destinations of "Civic Center" and "Downtown SF" at the 280/101 junction in San Francisco.
Quote from: mrsmanDon't follow the mistakes of District 7 and begin removing control cities, as they have done in many places, especially at the Four Level Interchange.
(Signs along US 101 south of the Four Level saying "US 101 to I-5, I-10, CA 60" without conrtol cities replacing the "I-5/I-10 Santa Ana / San Bernardino")
I only removed the control cities here as a message-loading remedy (the signs in this spot are not large enough to include as much information). Having said that, your example of 101 actually explains my philosophy there:
101 south at the Four-Level is not continuing beyond East Los Angeles, so the nearby routes at the East Los Angeles Interchange (5 south/10 east/60) are themselves the destinations (as opposed to the confusing past signage of it as "5 Santa Ana/10 San Bernardino" as if the first part of the Santa Ana Freeway is either of those routes). Likewise, at the foot of the Pioneer Bridge, drivers there are mostly commuters entering the Sacramento area trying to reach downtown and midtown, where the long-distance destinations aren't as important within the downtown core.
With regards to the question about future signing of Route 51:
I think a legislative fix would be pretty simple. It could be done as part of an omnibus bill that addresses multiple issues. Right now I am not aware of any effort within Caltrans to make such a legislative change.
There is a proposal to do a massive overhaul to virtually all of Route 51, adding 1 or 2 lanes in each direction from J Street northward to eliminate many of the bottlenecks on the corridor and bring things up to standard. The final configuration and scope of improvements has not been determined yet, and it will take millions of dollars and several years and perhaps several projects to do it all. This overhaul could, perhaps, include the elimination of the Business 80 designation. (This proposal stems from a recent study to close the E a Street on ramp onto northbound 51/eastbound Business 80 and move the lane drop near there further north. This proposal was controversial not only because of the ramp closure but also because it didn't really eliminate the bottleneck but only moved it. It led to a request from local officials to do a comprehensive study of all of Route 51 to see what improvements could be made.)
And, yes, the de-designation of Business 80 along the US-50 segment will mean the exit numbers are going to be kind of wacky now. I didn't discuss this with the project engineer but I may talk about it with our exit numbering program manager.
iPhone
Quote from: TheStranger on October 01, 2015, 12:52:43 PM
Quote from: mrsmanDon't follow the mistakes of District 7 and begin removing control cities, as they have done in many places, especially at the Four Level Interchange.
(Signs along US 101 south of the Four Level saying "US 101 to I-5, I-10, CA 60" without conrtol cities replacing the "I-5/I-10 Santa Ana / San Bernardino")
I only removed the control cities here as a message-loading remedy (the signs in this spot are not large enough to include as much information). Having said that, your example of 101 actually explains my philosophy there:
101 south at the Four-Level is not continuing beyond East Los Angeles, so the nearby routes at the East Los Angeles Interchange (5 south/10 east/60) are themselves the destinations (as opposed to the confusing past signage of it as "5 Santa Ana/10 San Bernardino" as if the first part of the Santa Ana Freeway is either of those routes). Likewise, at the foot of the Pioneer Bridge, drivers there are mostly commuters entering the Sacramento area trying to reach downtown and midtown, where the long-distance destinations aren't as important within the downtown core.
The ideal sign on the 101 would have left the control cities up, despite the message loading concerns:
101 to 5/10/60
Santa Ana
San Bernardino
I would explicitly not include the Pomona control despite the mention of 60 on this sign.
At the SB Split: (where the SB freeway splits from the Santa Ana Freeway)
10 East 101 to 5/60
San Bernardino Santa Ana
Pomona
Quote from: jrouse on October 02, 2015, 01:34:20 AM
With regards to the question about future signing of Route 51:
I think a legislative fix would be pretty simple. It could be done as part of an omnibus bill that addresses multiple issues. Right now I am not aware of any effort within Caltrans to make such a legislative change.
There is a proposal to do a massive overhaul to virtually all of Route 51, adding 1 or 2 lanes in each direction from J Street northward to eliminate many of the bottlenecks on the corridor and bring things up to standard. The final configuration and scope of improvements has not been determined yet, and it will take millions of dollars and several years and perhaps several projects to do it all. This overhaul could, perhaps, include the elimination of the Business 80 designation. (This proposal stems from a recent study to close the E a Street on ramp onto northbound 51/eastbound Business 80 and move the lane drop near there further north. This proposal was controversial not only because of the ramp closure but also because it didn't really eliminate the bottleneck but only moved it. It led to a request from local officials to do a comprehensive study of all of Route 51 to see what improvements could be made.)
And, yes, the de-designation of Business 80 along the US-50 segment will mean the exit numbers are going to be kind of wacky now. I didn't discuss this with the project engineer but I may talk about it with our exit numbering program manager.
iPhone
If Biz 80 is removed from US 50, I believe that whatever designation that is left for the 29/30 - Elvas Freeway should be signed as north/south rather than east/west.
I would prefer CA 51. But if Biz 80 remains, it makes sense for this to be north/south as well.
Quote from: mrsman on October 03, 2015, 11:12:13 PM
At the SB Split: (where the SB freeway splits from the Santa Ana Freeway)
10 East 101 to 5/60
San Bernardino Santa Ana
Pomona
Just one problem... there's no way to fit route shields, two lines of legend AND down arrows on a 120-inch tall guide sign panel. I think the down arrows are an important part of these signs due to the complexity of the I-10 East/US 101 South separation in combination with the Mission Road exit. IIRC, those signs were discussed pretty thoroughly and here was my best alternative...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F101s_1e-d_alt.png&hash=a1d1e2b449c9d9b8770b69712c54f86e82125fe3)
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2015, 01:28:13 AM
Just one problem... there's no way to fit route shields, two lines of legend AND down arrows on a 120-inch tall guide sign panel. I think the down arrows are an important part of these signs due to the complexity of the I-10 East/US 101 South separation in combination with the Mission Road exit. IIRC, those signs were discussed pretty thoroughly and here was my best alternative...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F101s_1e-d_alt.png&hash=a1d1e2b449c9d9b8770b69712c54f86e82125fe3)
This all leads me to two questions:
1) Why is the Mission Road exit still being identified as an alternate access for the 5 and 10 freeways? It's not like I've ever seen it used as a major traffic reliever, and it's continued identification on signs seems to be anathema to Caltrans' recent history of removing thru traffic signing from collector-distributor lanes (plus Mission Road isn't a true thru traffic alternative - you have to stop at the signalized intersection at the bottom of the exit ramp to continue into the freeways).
2) Why isnt Pomona the control city on the 10?
Speaking of Mission Road, this must be the only place where I've seen three shields on a freeway entrance shield assembly:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0524681,-118.2265197,3a,75y,39.68h,74.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdjOl7ha0-iKZ09VRBWNHZg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on October 05, 2015, 05:11:24 PM
2) Why isnt Pomona the control city on the 10?
Pomona has never been a control city for the San Bernardino Freeway...even though it passes closer to the heart of that city than the Pomona Freeway/Route 60 does! This does keep in mind that Mission Boulevard in Pomona (around where the 71/10 junction is today) was where 60 originally split off from 10, as opposed to the mid-1960s to present junction in East Los Angeles
(Likewise, the Foothill Freeway actually goes into downtown San Bernardino where the San Bernardino Freeway skirts the southern portion of its namesake city - but the former was only completed as a through route in the last decade!)
Another example of "closer route gets different control city from older, more indirect route" - I-5/Golden State Freeway (old US 99) retained a Los Angeles control city southbound even after the Route 170 portion of the Hollywood Freeway (planned as a US 6 reroute) was finished in the mid-1960s...with the Hollywood Freeway providing a much more direct route to downtown and the civic center area than the Golden State Freeway ever has.
Quote from: andy3175 on October 05, 2015, 11:19:48 PM
Speaking of Mission Road, this must be the only place where I've seen three shields on a freeway entrance shield assembly:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0524681,-118.2265197,3a,75y,39.68h,74.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdjOl7ha0-iKZ09VRBWNHZg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Maybe in California... Freeway entrance assemblies such as this are common for the I-515/US 93/US 95 overlap in the Las Vegas area. Example from AARoads (https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada604/nv-604_nb_at_i-515_03.jpg). There's a ramp on MLK Blvd in Vegas that should have five shields, but it is probably two freeway entrance assemblies.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 06, 2015, 02:13:14 AM
Another example of "closer route gets different control city from older, more indirect route" - I-5/Golden State Freeway (old US 99) retained a Los Angeles control city southbound even after the Route 170 portion of the Hollywood Freeway (planned as a US 6 reroute) was finished in the mid-1960s...with the Hollywood Freeway providing a much more direct route to downtown and the civic center area than the Golden State Freeway ever has.
I figured this setup was in recognition that the Hollywood Freeway was/is chronically congested with people heading to Hollywood and local traffic heading to downtown. By keeping the long-distance traveler on I-5, it sends them around that choke point, and saves them time, even if it's a mile or two longer.
(From the I-5/CA-170 to the Four-Level Interchange is about 16¾ miles via CA-170/US-101, and 18 miles via I-5/CA-110. My experience commuting from Studio City to Long Beach for two years was always take I-5 to/past downtown instead of US-101)
Quote from: DTComposer on October 06, 2015, 02:20:44 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on October 06, 2015, 02:13:14 AM
Another example of "closer route gets different control city from older, more indirect route" - I-5/Golden State Freeway (old US 99) retained a Los Angeles control city southbound even after the Route 170 portion of the Hollywood Freeway (planned as a US 6 reroute) was finished in the mid-1960s...with the Hollywood Freeway providing a much more direct route to downtown and the civic center area than the Golden State Freeway ever has.
I figured this setup was in recognition that the Hollywood Freeway was/is chronically congested with people heading to Hollywood and local traffic heading to downtown. By keeping the long-distance traveler on I-5, it sends them around that choke point, and saves them time, even if it's a mile or two longer.
(From the I-5/CA-170 to the Four-Level Interchange is about 16¾ miles via CA-170/US-101, and 18 miles via I-5/CA-110. My experience commuting from Studio City to Long Beach for two years was always take I-5 to/past downtown instead of US-101)
I can see that logic - the one massive caveat is that trucks can't use the I-5 to 110 route (the old US 6 freeway routing) due to the Arroyo Seco Parkway's truck restriction. (I wonder if the pre-1964 ALT US 66 along Figueroa primarily existed as a truck connector between the Golden State Freeway and the Four-Level) How viable is using 5 to 2 south to 101 south (instead of 170 south to 101 south or 5 south to 10 west)?
Looking at Google Maps's traffic pattern analysis: at 4 PM and 8 AM rush hours, while 5 south is a bit faster between Route 2 and the Four-Level than 101 south is (from its own junctions with Route 2 and 110), 5 starts slowing earlier (at 134 south). Using 5 to get to downtown through the East Los Angeles Interchange and westbound 10/Santa Monica Freeway leads to slowdowns at 8 AM as well. (At both junctures of time, the downtown portion of 110 is a parking lot)
Quote from: roadfro on October 06, 2015, 09:17:28 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on October 05, 2015, 11:19:48 PM
Speaking of Mission Road, this must be the only place where I've seen three shields on a freeway entrance shield assembly:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0524681,-118.2265197,3a,75y,39.68h,74.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdjOl7ha0-iKZ09VRBWNHZg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Maybe in California
That is what I meant. California does not commonly sign more than one route marker on a freeway entrance assembly. When it does happen, it's notable. I've seen more examples of dual and triple route markers on Nevada freeway entrance assemblies.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on October 05, 2015, 05:11:24 PM
This all leads me to two questions:
1) Why is the Mission Road exit still being identified as an alternate access for the 5 and 10 freeways? It's not like I've ever seen it used as a major traffic reliever, and it's continued identification on signs seems to be anathema to Caltrans' recent history of removing thru traffic signing from collector-distributor lanes (plus Mission Road isn't a true thru traffic alternative - you have to stop at the signalized intersection at the bottom of the exit ramp to continue into the freeways).
1) It's main use is to discourage traffic that just entered the freeway from Alameda Street (the actual entrance is at Commercial/Garey) from making quick unnecessary changes to the left in a short distance to reach I-10 east. If the maneuver cannot be made safely, the people should exit at Mission and re-enter after the traffic light.
Another benefit to the entrance at Mission: It provides you with your own lane on either I-10 east or US 101 south. At the Split, the four freeway lanes of US 101 south split to become 2 lanes to I-10 east and 2 lanes to continue to US 101 south to Santa Ana. The Mission Road entrance provides the third lane to each.
Historically, the third lane for each was provided from the transition from San Bernardino to Santa Ana (and vice versa). Before the construction of the East LA Interchange, these were important freeway movements -but now are largely redundant thanks to the routing of I-10 along the Golden State Freeway in this area. The ramp from Santa Ana to San Bernardino is still there and merges in with the Mission Road ramp before becoming the third lane of the eastbound San Bernardino Freeway. The ramp from San Bernardino to Santa Ana has been removed, but portion entering the 101 can still be made out from the satellite view as the beginnings of the exit lane to First Street.
Caltrans has a video showcasing replacement of a yellow lane ends overhead sign and extolling the virtues of retroreflective sheeting on overhead signs (increased visibility, especially at night and reduction electrical consumption since signs need not be lit). Here's the video link:
http://scvtv.com/2016/01/06/caltrans-retro-reflective-signs-increase-safety-reduce-costs/
This particular sign is on the 29-30 section of Business 80 and SR 51. The reporter calls it I-80. The yellow caution sign is posted over what used to be a pull-through sign for I-80 east Reno and Roseville. Dominic Ielati commented that this sign was likely covered up since Business 80 replaced I-80 along what is now SR 51. And the sign replacement project covered it right back up again.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 06, 2015, 02:13:14 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on October 05, 2015, 05:11:24 PM
2) Why isnt Pomona the control city on the 10?
Pomona has never been a control city for the San Bernardino Freeway...even though it passes closer to the heart of that city than the Pomona Freeway/Route 60 does! This does keep in mind that Mission Boulevard in Pomona (around where the 71/10 junction is today) was where 60 originally split off from 10, as opposed to the mid-1960s to present junction in East Los Angeles
(Likewise, the Foothill Freeway actually goes into downtown San Bernardino where the San Bernardino Freeway skirts the southern portion of its namesake city - but the former was only completed as a through route in the last decade!)
I recall seeing a map that showed the San Bernardino Freeway ending its run on I-10 at I-215 then heading north into downtown San Bernardino along I-215. That led me with the impression that the San Bernardino's routing was the US 101/I-10 Connector, I-10 from I-5 to I-215, and I-215 from I-10 to CA 259, and perhaps CA 259 from I-215 to former CA 30 (to give you an idea of the age of this map).
Quote from: andy3175 on January 08, 2016, 12:00:56 AM
The yellow caution sign is posted over what used to be a pull-through sign for I-80 east Reno and Roseville. Dominic Ielati commented that this sign was likely covered up since Business 80 replaced I-80 along what is now SR 51. And the sign replacement project covered it right back up again.
And from that video, here is the money shot:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9kLRJMh.png&hash=c75920f29846242335abea93d752728c935fdb26)
If anyone's still watching this thread, looks like this project is underway!
Have yet to see it with my own eyes but have been informed by a friend that the signs on I-5 are being replaced, Northbound is done, and Southbound is in progress. Now I'm debating whether to fight rush hour traffic to see it immediately after work...
Quote from: underorbit on July 07, 2016, 07:19:48 PM
If anyone's still watching this thread, looks like this project is underway!
Have yet to see it with my own eyes but have been informed by a friend that the signs on I-5 are being replaced, Northbound is done, and Southbound is in progress. Now I'm debating whether to fight rush hour traffic to see it immediately after work...
If you do go, some photos would be greatly appreciated. :nod:
I am all for the sign replacements currently underway along the local Sacramento area freeways. Generally, most of the upgraded overheads look great.
However, I've noticed a great deal of fading and blistering of the protective coating on many of the overhead signs that were recently installed. I sure hope there is some sort of warranty agreement between Caltrans and the contractors for the longevity of the overheads.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 07, 2016, 07:55:57 PM
If you do go, some photos would be greatly appreciated. :nod:
Unfortunately whenever I drive through there, I'm on my own and can't take pictures and I don't have a friend with me who can take the pictures. I'll post some if I can get 'em, but haven't had an opportunity yet.
However, I CAN confirm that they've replaced a bunch of signs by now. Most of them look pretty good, but one has already been tagged with spray paint (right over the "TO 99"), and one is just flat out wrong. It was incorrect in the plans, too. Check Page S-10, which is Page 23 on the PDF. See how there's a 5 shield where there should be an 80 shield on AS-117 (FNBT)? Yeah...that made it onto the final sign, which has now been installed. It's been like that for a week, too.
Quote from: underorbit on August 08, 2016, 08:14:00 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 07, 2016, 07:55:57 PM
If you do go, some photos would be greatly appreciated. :nod:
Unfortunately whenever I drive through there, I'm on my own and can't take pictures and I don't have a friend with me who can take the pictures. I'll post some if I can get 'em, but haven't had an opportunity yet.
However, I CAN confirm that they've replaced a bunch of signs by now. Most of them look pretty good, but one has already been tagged with spray paint (right over the "TO 99"), and one is just flat out wrong. It was incorrect in the plans, too. Check Page S-10, which is Page 23 on the PDF. See how there's a 5 shield where there should be an 80 shield on AS-117 (FNBT)? Yeah...that made it onto the final sign, which has now been installed. It's been like that for a week, too.
That is a grave error. Hopefully someone can get us a pic and then submit it here and on the "Erroneous signs" thread in Traffic Control.
Quote from: mrsman on August 12, 2016, 02:56:09 PM
Quote from: underorbit on August 08, 2016, 08:14:00 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 07, 2016, 07:55:57 PM
If you do go, some photos would be greatly appreciated. :nod:
Unfortunately whenever I drive through there, I'm on my own and can't take pictures and I don't have a friend with me who can take the pictures. I'll post some if I can get 'em, but haven't had an opportunity yet.
However, I CAN confirm that they've replaced a bunch of signs by now. Most of them look pretty good, but one has already been tagged with spray paint (right over the "TO 99"), and one is just flat out wrong. It was incorrect in the plans, too. Check Page S-10, which is Page 23 on the PDF. See how there's a 5 shield where there should be an 80 shield on AS-117 (FNBT)? Yeah...that made it onto the final sign, which has now been installed. It's been like that for a week, too.
That is a grave error. Hopefully someone can get us a pic and then submit it here and on the "Erroneous signs" thread in Traffic Control.
I saw it too and informed the project engineer of the error. He told me that he never even realized he'd made the error when developing the plans, and the other people who checked the plans missed it too. He has asked that the contractor manufacture an I-80 shield overlay that will be applied to the sign.
iPhone
Drove I-5 north through Sac all the way to 99 this afternoon.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 21, 2015, 03:02:41 PM
Also notable from the new sign replacement PDF: the removal of "CAPITAL CITY FREEWAY" text along the US 50 stretch (but NOT on the Route 51 stretch which seems to be getting more of it in fact).
"CAPITAL CITY EXPY" appeared on a sequence sign, along with Business I-80. This one: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5342151,-121.5169471,3a,75y,63.46h,83.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAeWdOq8BhMKsGwMGJK7f2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Otherwise, that text and that shield are gone. What's left is US 50.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 21, 2015, 03:02:41 PM
- removal of "TO I-80" from the I-5 north pullthrough approaching 50/Business 80/(99)
Still there. And the worst part? Approaching the I-80 interchange from the south, the 80 shield is covered with a Caltrans garbage bag. There's construction going on, with nightly closures of the NB-WB ramp, so I would guess that's one reason, but it's kinda terrible to have both that "To 80" sign and then a missing shield at the actual 80 interchange. "You just have to know, bro..."
The new signs look nice though.
Quote from: coatimundi on August 19, 2016, 01:04:08 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 21, 2015, 03:02:41 PM
- removal of "TO I-80" from the I-5 north pullthrough approaching 50/Business 80/(99)
Still there. And the worst part? Approaching the I-80 interchange from the south, the 80 shield is covered with a Caltrans garbage bag. There's construction going on, with nightly closures of the NB-WB ramp, so I would guess that's one reason, but it's kinda terrible to have both that "To 80" sign and then a missing shield at the actual 80 interchange. "You just have to know, bro..."
The new signs look nice though.
The sign approaching the I-80 interchange was installed with an I-5 shield and so it was probably covered to minimize confusion. It will be fixed. See the discussion earlier in the thread.
iPhone
Quote from: jrouse on August 19, 2016, 07:33:09 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 19, 2016, 01:04:08 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 21, 2015, 03:02:41 PM
- removal of "TO I-80" from the I-5 north pullthrough approaching 50/Business 80/(99)
Still there. And the worst part? Approaching the I-80 interchange from the south, the 80 shield is covered with a Caltrans garbage bag. There's construction going on, with nightly closures of the NB-WB ramp, so I would guess that's one reason, but it's kinda terrible to have both that "To 80" sign and then a missing shield at the actual 80 interchange. "You just have to know, bro..."
The new signs look nice though.
The sign approaching the I-80 interchange was installed with an I-5 shield and so it was probably covered to minimize confusion. It will be fixed. See the discussion earlier in the thread.
iPhone
What part of the discussion? The 5 posts on LA-area control cities?
The garbage bag is on the new version of this I-80 sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6133441,-121.5114345,3a,75y,337.9h,86.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skQMR78NtL1RoIp3G97MX9w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The I-5 sign is still there, sans bag.
Quote from: coatimundi on August 19, 2016, 08:55:13 PM
What part of the discussion? The 5 posts on LA-area control cities?
The garbage bag is on the new version of this I-80 sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6133441,-121.5114345,3a,75y,337.9h,86.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skQMR78NtL1RoIp3G97MX9w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The I-5 sign is still there, sans bag.
Relevant discussion below on the erroneous I-5 shield...
Quote from: jrouse on August 12, 2016, 10:15:38 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 12, 2016, 02:56:09 PM
Quote from: underorbit on August 08, 2016, 08:14:00 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 07, 2016, 07:55:57 PM
If you do go, some photos would be greatly appreciated. :nod:
Unfortunately whenever I drive through there, I'm on my own and can't take pictures and I don't have a friend with me who can take the pictures. I'll post some if I can get 'em, but haven't had an opportunity yet.
However, I CAN confirm that they've replaced a bunch of signs by now. Most of them look pretty good, but one has already been tagged with spray paint (right over the "TO 99"), and one is just flat out wrong. It was incorrect in the plans, too. Check Page S-10, which is Page 23 on the PDF. See how there's a 5 shield where there should be an 80 shield on AS-117 (FNBT)? Yeah...that made it onto the final sign, which has now been installed. It's been like that for a week, too.
That is a grave error. Hopefully someone can get us a pic and then submit it here and on the "Erroneous signs" thread in Traffic Control.
I saw it too and informed the project engineer of the error. He told me that he never even realized he'd made the error when developing the plans, and the other people who checked the plans missed it too. He has asked that the contractor manufacture an I-80 shield overlay that will be applied to the sign.
iPhone
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 19, 2016, 09:20:20 PM
Relevant discussion below on the erroneous I-5 shield...
Ah, alright. So that's a 5 shield under the bag. Too bad they got to it before me. Maybe a violent windstorm will pick up and erase their pro fix.
Driving through Downtown Sac last night, I got to watching how many Business 80 shields there actually are around. That'll be tough to fix. I mean, I would assume the plan is to eventually replace them with US 50 shields.
Quote from: coatimundi on August 20, 2016, 02:27:55 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 19, 2016, 09:20:20 PM
Relevant discussion below on the erroneous I-5 shield...
Ah, alright. So that's a 5 shield under the bag. Too bad they got to it before me. Maybe a violent windstorm will pick up and erase their pro fix.
Driving through Downtown Sac last night, I got to watching how many Business 80 shields there actually are around. That'll be tough to fix. I mean, I would assume the plan is to eventually replace them with US 50 shields.
Below is an excerpt from a previous post of mine in this thread which answers that question.
Quote from: jrouse on September 26, 2015, 12:29:45 AM
An interesting side note: if you look at the plans, you'll notice that it only modifies overhead signs and no ground mounted signs are being touched. I asked the engineer how the freeway entrance sign packages would be handled along the former Business 80 and he said that they have made an agreement with the District 3 sign crew to remove Business 80 shields and replace them with US-50 shields as the overhead signs are replaced. Basically the maintenance crew will follow the contractor. He said the sign crew will probably not get every sign so there will be a few stray Business 80 markers here and there along the corridor, and they'll have to get taken care of by the maintenance forces at a later date or in a separate project.
iPhone
iPhone
Quote from: jrouse on August 22, 2016, 01:42:00 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 20, 2016, 02:27:55 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 19, 2016, 09:20:20 PM
Relevant discussion below on the erroneous I-5 shield...
Ah, alright. So that's a 5 shield under the bag. Too bad they got to it before me. Maybe a violent windstorm will pick up and erase their pro fix.
Driving through Downtown Sac last night, I got to watching how many Business 80 shields there actually are around. That'll be tough to fix. I mean, I would assume the plan is to eventually replace them with US 50 shields.
Below is an excerpt from a previous post of mine in this thread which answers that question.
Quote from: jrouse on September 26, 2015, 12:29:45 AM
An interesting side note: if you look at the plans, you'll notice that it only modifies overhead signs and no ground mounted signs are being touched. I asked the engineer how the freeway entrance sign packages would be handled along the former Business 80 and he said that they have made an agreement with the District 3 sign crew to remove Business 80 shields and replace them with US-50 shields as the overhead signs are replaced. Basically the maintenance crew will follow the contractor. He said the sign crew will probably not get every sign so there will be a few stray Business 80 markers here and there along the corridor, and they'll have to get taken care of by the maintenance forces at a later date or in a separate project.
No, they're all over Downtown and Midtown though, on the surface streets. There's even that big overhead on southbound 15th Ave. Then they're also at all the entrance ramps, all the approaches to the freeway... I mean, it's fine to plan to only periodically replace them since it's saves money, but that's only leaving this significant period of disconnection and inconsistent signing. What should maps show? Both, just to cover the bases?
Quote from: coatimundi on August 22, 2016, 02:03:28 AM
No, they're all over Downtown and Midtown though, on the surface streets. There's even that big overhead on southbound 15th Ave. Then they're also at all the entrance ramps, all the approaches to the freeway... I mean, it's fine to plan to only periodically replace them since it's saves money, but that's only leaving this significant period of disconnection and inconsistent signing. What should maps show? Both, just to cover the bases?
From 15th Street southbound...I could imagine Business 80 signage staying a while for one reason:
Even if US 50 is no longer going to be part of the business route, getting on the onramp there would at least take you right away to the southern terminus of the remaining segment of Business 80. (Kinda like how 99 signage where it runs with 50 and I-5 isn't particularly great, but is ubiquitous at the onramps that lead closer to the start of the South Sacramento Freeway)
Conjecture on my part: where I suspect Business 80 signage at ramps will be entirely removed is West Sacramento, where one is still 4-5 miles away from the start of the remaining segment. But the onramps from Riverside and 15th are both close enough to the 99/50/Business 80 junction, could even argue that'll still be the case for the ramp from 5 north to 50 east/99 south.
I made a business trip up to Sacramento yesterday (8/22), using CA 99 north to US 50 east. While there was approach signage on 99 north prior to the Oak Park interchange indicating to use US 50 west for I-5 and the continuation of CA 99, with Yuba City as a control, there was no further signage on the ramp itself (and it's a relatively long ramp); the overhead signage at the ramp split was "East US 50/South Lake Tahoe" and "West US 50/San Francisco". While I understand the desire on the part of District 3 to simplify the signage, a roadside BGS ahead of or somewhere near the split reiterating To I-5 and CA 99 Use West US 50 would be appropriate (no such indication was posted as of yesterday). Even a "To I-5/CA 99" sign with a left-oriented arrow would help!
Quote from: sparker on August 23, 2016, 04:51:08 PM
I made a business trip up to Sacramento yesterday (8/22), using CA 99 north to US 50 east. While there was approach signage on 99 north prior to the Oak Park interchange indicating to use US 50 west for I-5 and the continuation of CA 99, with Yuba City as a control, there was no further signage on the ramp itself (and it's a relatively long ramp); the overhead signage at the ramp split was "East US 50/South Lake Tahoe" and "West US 50/San Francisco". While I understand the desire on the part of District 3 to simplify the signage, a roadside BGS ahead of or somewhere near the split reiterating To I-5 and CA 99 Use West US 50 would be appropriate (no such indication was posted as of yesterday). Even a "To I-5/CA 99" sign with a left-oriented arrow would help!
I remember pointing out earlier in this thread that exact thing - the old signage for the ramp that carries 99 northbound from the South Sacramento Freeway to the westbound WX freeway was way more descriptive in that regard!
https://goo.gl/maps/Dbjq7RtFDmT2
Quote from: TheStranger on August 22, 2016, 06:17:15 AM
Conjecture on my part: where I suspect Business 80 signage at ramps will be entirely removed is West Sacramento
Here ya go; a nice windshield pic from old 84:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8122/29120275672_008c52952b_n.jpg)
And that's really the thing: there are lots of signs like this out there. I think the remnants of Business 80 on roadsides, even with a concerted effort to remove them, will hang around for at least another 10 years, and even then the internet will remember it a lot longer than that.
Yes, it takes a while for the old signage to go away. Some of the signage is simply forgottern and will never be updated.
Business 80 signs on the western half of Cap city freeway are simply called US-50 now.
Anyone know who the contractor is thats doing the sign replacement?
Quote from: WestSide Highway on September 11, 2016, 12:13:12 AMAnyone know who the contractor is that's doing the sign replacement?
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/asc/oap/payments/public/034f7104.htm
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206128125957252&set=gm.10154958845339879&type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206128125957252&set=gm.10154958845339879&type=3&theater)
Now the Business 80 is no longer co-signed with US-50 in this shot at the west end of US-50.
As of September 2016 Business 80 only exists on CA-51.
Quote from: bing101 on September 15, 2016, 03:18:51 PM
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206128125957252&set=gm.10154958845339879&type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206128125957252&set=gm.10154958845339879&type=3&theater)
Now the Business 80 is no longer co-signed with US-50 in this shot at the west end of US-50.
As of September 2016 Business 80 only exists on CA-51.
I went on the surface streets around the WX freeway yesterday and noted that the freeway entrance packages still have Business 80 shields. So apparently the Caltrans sign crew hasn't gotten around to making those changes.
iPhone
Quote from: jrouse on September 15, 2016, 08:53:07 PM
I went on the surface streets around the WX freeway yesterday and noted that the freeway entrance packages still have Business 80 shields. So apparently the Caltrans sign crew hasn't gotten around to making those changes.
I am fairly sure you will let them know, so I am sure those Business 80 signs will get removed soon. I did go through the WX area a year and a half ago to take some of the freeway entrance pictures to have those for posterity (and eventual posting).
Now the question is how long before someone makes the political decision to eliminate the rest of the loop (that's now essentially a spur), presumably by renumbering the route to 51 (or, horrors, 99).
Quote from: andy3175 on September 17, 2016, 02:04:44 AM
Quote from: jrouse on September 15, 2016, 08:53:07 PM
I went on the surface streets around the WX freeway yesterday and noted that the freeway entrance packages still have Business 80 shields. So apparently the Caltrans sign crew hasn't gotten around to making those changes.
I am fairly sure you will let them know, so I am sure those Business 80 signs will get removed soon. I did go through the WX area a year and a half ago to take some of the freeway entrance pictures to have those for posterity (and eventual posting).
Now the question is how long before someone makes the political decision to eliminate the rest of the loop (that's now essentially a spur), presumably by renumbering the route to 51 (or, horrors, 99).
I've always thought the Biz-80 signage confusing and welcome any steps at removing it. I applaud signing 51 along this stretch should Caltrans agree to do it.
The 29/30 should not be 99 as there is no easy way to connect to the section of 99 heading to Yuba City. Maybe a new highway number like 899 to show that it is a connection from 99 to 80.
Was in Sacramento today...
- Business 80 shields remain along W and X Streets, not very surprising (I noticed them around 16th Street and 21st Street). I think there is one Business 80 (no US 50) reassurance shield in West Sacramento heading eastbound.
- The mainline pullthrough on the WX Freeway approaching I-5 that was once signed as "TO I-80 West - San Francisco" is now "US 50 to I-80 WEST" San Francisco, along with a followup sign at the Jefferson Boulevard offramp.
- On the remaining section of Business 80, the ramps to US 50 from Business 80 west are now signed for only 50.
- Near the Amtrak station (about 3 or 4 blocks from the new Golden 1 Center arena for the Sacramento Kings), there's a very new I-5/Route 99/Business 80 overhead sign along I Street that is a replacement-in-kind of an older button copy sign. Not sure if this was added before or after the resigning project that kept US 50 alone along the east-west portion of former I-80/former Business 80 was done.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 28, 2016, 11:18:11 PM
- Near the Amtrak station (about 3 or 4 blocks from the new Golden 1 Center arena for the Sacramento Kings), there's a very new I-5/Route 99/Business 80 overhead sign along I Street that is a replacement-in-kind of an older button copy sign. Not sure if this was added before or after the resigning project that kept US 50 alone along the east-west portion of former I-80/former Business 80 was done.
That was done before the re-signing.