District 4/S.F. Bay Area - Major Sign Replacement Projects

[jeffe]

AFAIK, this was one of the last to receive button copy signs, many of which were still quite legible at night even when the signs weren't lit.

I also believe CA-85 was the last location to use closed box beam structures for the overhead signs. 



Caltrans has since removed this design from their standard plans, I believe due to not meeting wind loading standards and difficulty detecting internal corrosion. 

[SignBridge]

What was Caltrans' rationale for using the closed box sign structures? They could not have been very effective for wind movement, which is supposedly an issue in California installations.

[myosh_tino]

AFAIK, this was one of the last to receive button copy signs, many of which were still quite legible at night even when the signs weren't lit.

I also believe CA-85 was the last location to use closed box beam structures for the overhead signs. 

Caltrans has since removed this design from their standard plans, I believe due to not meeting wind loading standards and difficulty detecting internal corrosion.

What was Caltrans' rationale for using the closed box sign structures? They could not have been very effective for wind movement, which is supposedly an issue in California installations.

A couple of notes regarding the box-beam structures...

* I believe signs were not allowed to extend above the top of these structures although exceptions do exist (I-80 in Davis and Vallejo come to mind) so I'm thinking wind-loading was less of an issue.

* Corrosion detection is definitely an issue as it was noted in a policy memo regarding the switch of Type XI sheeting.  I suspect that was the main reason why the box-beam sign truss was removed from Caltrans' Standard Plans.

I agree with jeffe that CA-85 was probably the last freeway to use box-beam for overhead guide signs in California.

Getting back to the sign-replacement project in Santa Clara county, apparently this is NOT a whole-scale replacement.  There are still a number of button-copy signs still left on CA-85.  Most, but not all, of the old porcelain signs on the 1970's portion of 85 (between 101 in Mountain View and 280 in Cupertino) were replaced.  Signs mounted to the CA-82/El Camino Real overpass are the only porcelain signs remaining on 85.

[andy3175]

Every so often, I'll read Mr. Roadshow, who mentioned some of the retroreflective sign replacements in his column yesterday: http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12/11/roadshow-new-reflective-freeway-signs-brighten-the-night/.

The response within his column appears positive.

[coatimundi]

Every so often, I'll read Mr. Roadshow, who mentioned some of the retroreflective sign replacements in his column yesterday: http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12/11/roadshow-new-reflective-freeway-signs-brighten-the-night/.

The response within his column appears positive.

Not to drive the thread too off-topic, but Question 2 in that article reminded me about something that's always bothered me: what's the deal with the "intermittent closures" that Caltrans does? During both a repaving project on SR 1 and a bridge project on SR 68 by me recently (the latter is still ongoing, while the former still has signs up), they put up these signs on the ramps, but rarely had the ramp actually closed. So, when they did close it, it was surprising. It seems like we should, at this point, have some sort of medium to allow at least a day's notice of a closure. Surely that can't be too much to ask. I mean, I've always found the road conditions display online somewhat useless in that respect: you can't do any kind of travel planning more than a few hours in advance, it seems. Wouldn't it be more useful to show planned projects for a given highway over the next week or so?

I don't know...

[kurumi]

... Not to drive the thread too off-topic, but Question 2 in that article reminded me about something that's always bothered me: what's the deal with the "intermittent closures" that Caltrans does? .... but rarely had the ramp actually closed. So, when they did close it, it was surprising. It seems like we should, at this point, have some sort of medium to allow at least a day's notice of a closure...

A related issue that really bugs me is the lack of advance distance notice.

Suppose you're traveling northbound and ahead of you, Caltrans is closing Exit 10, the one you intended to take. The next 3 exits ahead of you are 9, 10, and 13. With advance notice, you could get off at Exit 9 and take surface streets to Exit 10. Instead, there will be a sign after exit 9 -- basically "your exit is closed, too late, keep going" -- and you're stuck doing the extra few miles to backtrack.

Maybe it's apples to oranges, but it seems that CT almost never completely closed interchange ramps back in the day, unless the freeway was being reconstructed (and then the closure was often permanent).