New Guide Signs within Caltrans D7

[myosh_tino]

Traditionally, signs for multi-lane exits either had a distance message *or* down arrows but never both.  I am starting to notice that in some recent signing plans, Caltrans is starting to include both on signs.  Examples in the plans linked to by AndyMax25 include...

* I-5 north sign on page 30
* I-10 east sign on page 37

With that said, there are signs that have a single down arrow and a distance message.  They are mostly older signs like the one below but newer ones may exist.

[Occidental Tourist]

So in your view, it should be Sacramento/Ventura?  Signing both, but not only Sacramento at least until you reach the 101/170 split.  I can see some support for that, but if there is only room for one  city, I think Ventura should be the dominant control city.

I agree with the latter (and with modern message loading standards, Ventura emphasis is not bad).  I do wonder if "TO I-5 NORTH Sacramento use Route 170" signage would be a helpful substitute.

However, on the sign that was in question located on Soto Street, perhaps Sacramento traffic could be directed to a ramp for the Golden State Freeway a few blocks away.

Yeah, a little surprised that 101 would be signed for Sacramento that far south.  I was actually thinking it'd make sense around the Four-Level going north (due to the fact trucks cannot use 110 north past that spot).

But if the control city for the rest of the 101 is Ventura, they ought to be consistent.  Of course, I detest using Ventura as a control city, but that's a whole 'nother argument for another thread.

Out of curiosity, what would you prefer as an alternative to Ventura for the control there - Santa Barbara?  San Jose?  SF?

San Jose.  It's the largest city in the Bay Area and traveling north on the 101, you obviously reach it before San Francisco.  Plus, the control city on 101 south of San Jose isn't Ventura, it's Los Angeles.

[mrsman]

So in your view, it should be Sacramento/Ventura?  Signing both, but not only Sacramento at least until you reach the 101/170 split.  I can see some support for that, but if there is only room for one  city, I think Ventura should be the dominant control city.

I agree with the latter (and with modern message loading standards, Ventura emphasis is not bad).  I do wonder if "TO I-5 NORTH Sacramento use Route 170" signage would be a helpful substitute.

However, on the sign that was in question located on Soto Street, perhaps Sacramento traffic could be directed to a ramp for the Golden State Freeway a few blocks away.

Yeah, a little surprised that 101 would be signed for Sacramento that far south.  I was actually thinking it'd make sense around the Four-Level going north (due to the fact trucks cannot use 110 north past that spot).

But if the control city for the rest of the 101 is Ventura, they ought to be consistent.  Of course, I detest using Ventura as a control city, but that's a whole 'nother argument for another thread.

Out of curiosity, what would you prefer as an alternative to Ventura for the control there - Santa Barbara?  San Jose?  SF?

San Jose.  It's the largest city in the Bay Area and traveling north on the 101, you obviously reach it before San Francisco.  Plus, the control city on 101 south of San Jose isn't Ventura, it's Los Angeles.

As far as what's currently used as control cities on the 101, you have the following southbound from SF:  San Jose, Los Angeles.  Certain big cities along the way may become secondary control cities (like Salinas, SLO, and Santa Barbara).

Nothbound from LA:  Ventura, San Francisco.  Certain big cities along the way may become secondary control cities (like Santa Barbara, SLO, Salinas, and San Jose).

So basically, along most of the way, the control cities are SF northbound and LA southbound.  But while in the metro areas of SF, we don't sign LA as the southbound control, becuase it is usually faster to take I-5 to go all the way to LA.  Likewise, in LA, you don't sign the 101 for SF since it is usually faster to take I-5 to get to SF.  (And even though in LA proper, I-5 is signed as going to Sacramento, once you're in Kern County, you will see a combined SF/Sac control city along the I-5.

[TheStranger]

So basically, along most of the way, the control cities are SF northbound and LA southbound.  But while in the metro areas of SF, we don't sign LA as the southbound control, becuase it is usually faster to take I-5 to go all the way to LA.  Likewise, in LA, you don't sign the 101 for SF since it is usually faster to take I-5 to get to SF.  (And even though in LA proper, I-5 is signed as going to Sacramento, once you're in Kern County, you will see a combined SF/Sac control city along the I-5.

Los Angeles DOES start appearing as a control city at the 85/101 split in Mountain View, approximately 25-30 miles south of SF.  As a comparison, San Francisco appears for the first time as a 101 northbound control at the 101/33 junction in Ventura, a full 60+ miles past downtown LA (but about 30 from the city limits that begin in San Fernando Valley).

For the most part, areas with freeway networks developed before the 1960s really emphasize short-distance controls (i.e. Oakland/Bay Bridge for 80 at the 101/80 split, no mention of Sacramento which is less than 100 miles away at that point, or the "Hollywood" use in downtown Los Angeles on 101 north that seems to be falling out of favor in recent years), while routes constructed in the late 60s/early 70s start to emphasize longer-distance controls (5 south in Sacramento for "Los Angeles" and 99 south marked for "Fresno" with no mention of Stockton; 680 northbound control of "Sacramento"; 805 signed for "Los Angeles" northbound instead of "Chula Vista" or "Mission Valley"; 5 north in Los Angeles being shifted from "Bakersfield" to "Sacramento" in the 1970s due to the West Side Freeway diverging sharply from the historic 99 routing)

101 freeway segments in SF and Los Angeles both predate the shift to long-distance controls, as does specifically 5 on the Golden State and Santa Ana Freeways (originally 99 and 101 respectively).  I know there's been the semi-recent addition of Santa Ana (supplanting Los Angeles) as a northbound control for 5 in Orange County but I wonder if the change towards further signed destinations will ever fully reach the older routes like 101.

Another way of looking at it: for 101, the approach at both ends is "major city/major exurb control reachable within 1 hour" when you are in the major destination cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco, and then "long-distance control" between Mountain View and Ventura.    For 5, due to the long stretch of barely-inhabited land from Castaic to Stockton on the 1970s-build route, controls Sacramento northbound and Los Angeles southbound cover the entire distance between the two cities; when 99/5 ran together along the Golden State Freeway and the West Side Freeway had yet to be completed, the then-control city of Bakersfield was the next major destination reachable 90 minutes from Sylmar (followed by Sacramento as 99's control for the next 200+ miles north).

[myosh_tino]

San Jose DOES start appearing as a control city at the 85/101 split in Mountain View, approximately 25-30 miles south of SF.  As a comparison, San Francisco appears for the first time as a 101 northbound control at the 101/33 junction in Ventura, a full 60+ miles past downtown LA (but about 30 from the city limits that begin in San Fernando Valley).

Wait, don't you mean Los Angeles, not San Jose first appearing as a control city for US 101 at the 85/101 interchange in Mountain View?  San Jose appears as a control city for US 101 on signs approaching the 101/80 interchange near downtown San Francisco. 

[TheStranger]

Wait, don't you mean Los Angeles

I just corrected my post above - I did mean Los Angeles.

Tying into this - San Jose is NEVER used as a long-distance control in California except for 680 south (a route mostly completed late 60s/early 1970s) and 152 west.  It didn't surpass San Francisco in population until the 1990s (around the time the San Jose Sharks NHL team was established) though it has since reached the 1 million mark, only one of three California cities to do so.

[myosh_tino]

Tying into this - San Jose is NEVER used as a long-distance control in California except for 680 south (a route mostly completed late 60s/early 1970s) and 152 west.  It didn't surpass San Francisco in population until the 1990s (around the time the San Jose Sharks NHL team was established) though it has since reached the 1 million mark, only one of three California cities to do so.

That's because San Jose has always played second fiddle to San Francisco.   Case in point is the San Francisco 49ers who play their home games in Santa Clara, a good 40 miles to the south.

[mrsman]

Tying into this - San Jose is NEVER used as a long-distance control in California except for 680 south (a route mostly completed late 60s/early 1970s) and 152 west.  It didn't surpass San Francisco in population until the 1990s (around the time the San Jose Sharks NHL team was established) though it has since reached the 1 million mark, only one of three California cities to do so.

That's because San Jose has always played second fiddle to San Francisco.   Case in point is the San Francisco 49ers who play their home games in Santa Clara, a good 40 miles to the south.

Currently the top 12 cities in CA by population:

Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Bakersfield, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Riverside.

Of course, prominence on BGS is based on size at the time the highways were built, not now.  And the fact that San Jose is so close to SF, it gets largely ignored as being a statewide control.  The same for Oakland and Long Beach.  LA and SF were once the two main cities of the state and these controls will predominate.  You can find roads with a control to LA or SF as much as 500 miles away.

[TheStranger]

Of course, prominence on BGS is based on size at the time the highways were built, not now.  And the fact that San Jose is so close to SF, it gets largely ignored as being a statewide control.  The same for Oakland and Long Beach.  LA and SF were once the two main cities of the state and these controls will predominate.  You can find roads with a control to LA or SF as much as 500 miles away.

I'm just somewhat surprised that in Orange County, Santa Ana became a northbound control city on I-5 (instead of the traditional Los Angeles) in the last 20 years, but San Jose still isn't signed all that much on 101 north until Chualar, 69 miles to the south (as as listed roadside destination - https://www.aaroads.com/california/images100/us-101_nb_exit_326a_01.jpg ) and then not as a primary control city until Exit 329 in Salinas, only 42 miles south of the southern city limit of SJ:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Salinas,+CA/@36.6861351,-121.6507283,3a,60y,336.24h,79.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVRRxIHMmBCDBpYF9w12i0A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x808df8964e61722f:0xa511bb11baed8121!6m1!1e1

[mrsman]

Of course, prominence on BGS is based on size at the time the highways were built, not now.  And the fact that San Jose is so close to SF, it gets largely ignored as being a statewide control.  The same for Oakland and Long Beach.  LA and SF were once the two main cities of the state and these controls will predominate.  You can find roads with a control to LA or SF as much as 500 miles away.

I'm just somewhat surprised that in Orange County, Santa Ana became a northbound control city on I-5 (instead of the traditional Los Angeles) in the last 20 years, but San Jose still isn't signed all that much on 101 north until Chualar, 69 miles to the south (as as listed roadside destination - https://www.aaroads.com/california/images100/us-101_nb_exit_326a_01.jpg ) and then not as a primary control city until Exit 329 in Salinas, only 42 miles south of the southern city limit of SJ:
L
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Salinas,+CA/@36.6861351,-121.6507283,3a,60y,336.24h,79.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVRRxIHMmBCDBpYF9w12i0A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x808df8964e61722f:0xa511bb11baed8121!6m1!1e1

Is San Jose ever singed as a control city on 101 NB without also signing San Francisco? If not, then it's not a primary control.

Also, the districts don't follow the same policies.  I know that I complained about the signing of Santa Ana to the exclusion of Los Angeles on another thread.  It's not good to go LA - Santa Ana - LA as a control.  I have no problem with signing Santa Ana on NB I-5, so long as LA is also singed.

Likewise, unless someone is willing to spend the money on getting rid of all of the SF signs on 101 NB between Ventura and San Jose, there is no reason to introduce San Jose as the control to the exclusion of San Francisco.

[AndyMax25]

With that said, there are signs that have a single down arrow and a distance message.  They are mostly older signs like the one below but newer ones may exist.

Yes I've seen many old original signs in the LA area where an overlay fell off revealing the down arrow.

This brand new sign must have been parroted from the original design plans. This is on 405 south and actually points to the wrong lane.

[coatimundi]

Is San Jose ever singed as a control city on 101 NB without also signing San Francisco? If not, then it's not a primary control.

San Francisco is used along with Salinas in SLO and Monterey Counties.
In SLO: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2863298,-120.6638992,3a,75y,41.36h,89.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1x_ovU-6OlJ3DTzT8hu6HQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
In Soledad: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4211562,-121.3229578,3a,37.5y,225.73h,83.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siqLeLmR_S0NzEbxqxu9YBA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

There are a number of signs for just "San Jose" in the southern Santa Clara Valley: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1180138,-121.6294579,3a,75y,81.24h,81.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shnv9u6PKxxY8IF_25JWyMw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

But, even at the 85 split, "San Francisco" is the only control city. Though that may be because you're already in San Jose at that point.

[SeriesE]

All,

There are several new guide signs proposed along I-5 in and around the East LA Interchange between I-710 and I-10 as part of a larger project.  The link to the plans is below, signs are on sheets 103-140.  I have sent my initial comments below to Caltrans D7, let me know if you have any other comments.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-300704/plans/

• Sign 1A (a) - consider adding SOUTH to the I-5 portion of the sign.  Sheets 103, 127
• Sign 5A (a) - consider adding SOUTH to the I-5 portion of the sign.  Sheets 107, 128
• Sign 8B - consider adding NORTH next to 5 Freeway and WEST next to 10 Freeway.   Sheets 110, 131.
• Signs 14A (a) and 16A (a) - consider removing Soto St from overhead sign to avoid confusion.  Can be added to a new roadside sign.  This will allow for the I-5 shield to be moved to the right and centered above Santa Ana.  Also consider moving EAST to the right side of the CA-60 shield to be consistent.
• Sign 20A - consider adding WEST next to 10 Freeway and EAST next to 60 Freeway.   Sheets 122, 138.
• Sign 22A (a) - consider adding EAST to the I-10 portion of the sign.  Sheets 124, 140.
• For all "pull through" signs, consider raising the cardinal direction text next to the route shield to be consistent with sign standards G24-3 and G24-5.
• Sign S19-1 - consider replacing San Bernardino with "RTE 10/5 SEP"

Found some more issues:
Sign 17B (b): There should be another down arrow to the left of the current one (option lane). Sign 16B (b) correctly shows the lanes to use to exit onto I-10
Sign 3B (a) and 5A (b): Should use down arrows instead of "RIGHT 2 LANES". They're both missing exit numbers too.

[AndyMax25]

New signs along WB Santa Monica freeway at the Lincoln and 4th/5th exits. This was a City of Santa Monica project to properly show the exit lane assignments.

[myosh_tino]

New signs along WB Santa Monica freeway at the Lincoln and 4th/5th exits. This was a City of Santa Monica project to properly show the exit lane assignments.

Andy, is this project you asked for my opinions on with regards to some of the signs?  If so, I do apologize for not getting back to you after the initial contact.  Family and personal issues kind of got in the way along with a ton of spam my Yahoo e-mail account gets which effectively buried your e-mails.

[roadfro]

New signs along WB Santa Monica freeway at the Lincoln and 4th/5th exits. This was a City of Santa Monica project to properly show the exit lane assignments.
(images omitted)

Interesting that the full size up/diagonal exit arrows (type A?) were used on the exit direction signs. California tends to use the shorter shaft (type B?) arrows for practically every application.

[SignBridge]

And that some actually say "EXIT ONLY".

[mrsman]

I still don't understand why the "TO" is needed for the Lincoln Blvd exit.

[TheStranger]

I still don't understand why the "TO" is needed for the Lincoln Blvd exit.

That might have to do with the technicalities of route relinquishment along that portion of Route 1.  (Not that it's particularly a logical thing for navigation - it reminds me of the "TO I-90" signage on the Chicago Skyway)

[Quillz]

I might have already mentioned it, but I noticed that the US-101 shields used on the new US-101/CA-23 BGS use an odd "gullwing" shape, similar to what is seen in Arkansas:



Maybe it's the same contractor.

[Occidental Tourist]

I still don't understand why the "TO" is needed for the Lincoln Blvd exit.

It's not.

Plus there should probably be a slash between the CA-1 shield and Lincoln Blvd, insomuch as access to Lincoln Blvd is both northbound and southbound off this exit.

[AndyMax25]

I still don't understand why the "TO" is needed for the Lincoln Blvd exit.

That might have to do with the technicalities of route relinquishment along that portion of Route 1.  (Not that it's particularly a logical thing for navigation - it reminds me of the "TO I-90" signage on the Chicago Skyway)

That is correct. The TO refers to the Route 1 South part of the sign and not Lincoln Blvd. The portion of Route 1 south of the freeway was relinquished to the City of Santa Monica several years ago. In coordinating with Caltrans on this project, it was decided to keep the route shields with TO in front of them due to the regional significance of PCH.  Otherwise they would technically have to be removed as was done with Route 42 on I-110 and Route 19 on I-105 as discussed in a different thread.  TO reassurance trailblazers have already been in place along Lincoln Blvd since the time of relinquishment.

[Quillz]

I still don't understand why the "TO" is needed for the Lincoln Blvd exit.

That might have to do with the technicalities of route relinquishment along that portion of Route 1.  (Not that it's particularly a logical thing for navigation - it reminds me of the "TO I-90" signage on the Chicago Skyway)

That is correct. The TO refers to the Route 1 South part of the sign and not Lincoln Blvd. The portion of Route 1 south of the freeway was relinquished to the City of Santa Monica several years ago. In coordinating with Caltrans on this project, it was decided to keep the route shields with TO in front of them due to the regional significance of PCH.  Otherwise they would technically have to be removed as was done with Route 42 on I-110 and Route 19 on I-105 as discussed in a different thread.  TO reassurance trailblazers have already been in place along Lincoln Blvd since the time of relinquishment.

See, this is what bothers me. The technical arrangements of when signage can and can't be in place. When the logical thing to do is just sign CA-1, regardless of who owns it/maintains it. I've heard reasons against this, yet frankly, they are all rather weak. I've stated many times before I'm not bothered by relinquishment, except when it creates scenarios that hinder navigation (such as signage not existing, or signage only being "TO" a route).

[AndyMax25]

Here's a cool time lapse of a new truss going up along I-210 at CA-2. Plans for this area were included on this thread

https://twitter.com/caltransdist7/status/1042868513508012032?s=12

[SignBridge]

That was pretty cool to watch. Surprised they used Sacramento for the destination on I-210 West.