Some thoughts after a visit to California

[myosh_tino]

Just got back from a vacation so here's my mega-reply...

The 55 mph towing speed limit. Why does CA have it when so many other states besides Oregon(I think) don't? It really doesn't make things any safer, especially since the rest of traffic is flying by at 70-80 mph. I don't think that making a trip to the bay area take a miserably long time in the name of alleged safety is worth it.

I believe this was meant to remind drivers that they should be more careful when towing because of the increased dangers (i.e. jack-knifing, increased stopping distance, etc).  It should also be noted that the lane restrictions applied to big rigs also apply to all towing vehicles.  Towing vehicles are to remain the far right lane except to pass which means they are banned from HOV and Express Lanes.

The road quality. Maybe I'm just a pampered Phonecian, but there were many "oh shit!" moments as our van bumped, banged, rattled, and bounced along the freeways, especially in the LA area. I guess I was just so so surprised that such poor pavement conditions were allowed to exist in such a widespread fashion. However there were many times where I found bouncing over the uneven sections of bridges and overpasses to be quite fun, like riding a roller coaster.

That's the difference between asphalt and concrete.  Most of LA's freeways are concrete which has a significantly longer lifespan than asphalt however as it ages, potholes at the "seams" are a significant problem.  I seem to recall that placing asphalt over existing concrete wasn't feasible because there's nothing for the asphalt to adhere to but Caltrans recently repaved a section of US 101 between Palo Alto and Mountain View and they were able to place asphalt over the concrete.  To repave in concrete can be a long process because you would essentially have to remove the old concrete and then install the new concrete but to do that without shutting down the freeway, it has to be done in phases.  One such project is on I-80 in Sacramento where Caltrans is repaving 10 miles of freeway.  Construction began in 2011 and should be done by late 2016.  That's right... almost 6 years to do 10 miles.

Why does California make a curved white line on the right shoulder just before an exit, and then immediately after the exit the white shoulder line is slightly to the right for a short distance? I'm talking about this:https://goo.gl/maps/BBJMbiLbawp It's really annoying for me to look at.

Like Revive 755 said, it's a visual indication of an upcoming freeway exit in areas prone to dense fog.  That would include all costal regions and the central valley.

Things I liked:
Lots of old button copy signage

Enjoy it while it lasts.  Caltrans, probably at the behest of the FHWA, is slowing replacing all of those old button copy signs with new retro-reflective ones.  if you look through this board, you see a number of topics about sign replacement projects in the S.F. Bay Area, Sacramento, the central coast and Los Angeles.

It's just that the speed limit for trucks and any vehicles towing is 55, not that truckers care. Motorists in general do not care about speed limits in California, then they act surprised when there's a wreck on 17.

California is one of the very few states that still have a separate truck speed limit. Since the state has an abnormally high number of collisions involving trucks I wouldn't expect this to change anytime soon.

In 2014, a truck hauling dirt lost control coming down the mountain on CA-17 during the morning commute and plowed into 11 cars, killing one driver before jack-knifing and overturning.  This happened at 8 am which is the peak of the morning commute.

[silverback1065]

Just got back from a vacation so here's my mega-reply...

The 55 mph towing speed limit. Why does CA have it when so many other states besides Oregon(I think) don't? It really doesn't make things any safer, especially since the rest of traffic is flying by at 70-80 mph. I don't think that making a trip to the bay area take a miserably long time in the name of alleged safety is worth it.

I believe this was meant to remind drivers that they should be more careful when towing because of the increased dangers (i.e. jack-knifing, increased stopping distance, etc).  It should also be noted that the lane restrictions applied to big rigs also apply to all towing vehicles.  Towing vehicles are to remain the far right lane except to pass which means they are banned from HOV and Express Lanes.

The road quality. Maybe I'm just a pampered Phonecian, but there were many "oh shit!" moments as our van bumped, banged, rattled, and bounced along the freeways, especially in the LA area. I guess I was just so so surprised that such poor pavement conditions were allowed to exist in such a widespread fashion. However there were many times where I found bouncing over the uneven sections of bridges and overpasses to be quite fun, like riding a roller coaster.

That's the difference between asphalt and concrete.  Most of LA's freeways are concrete which has a significantly longer lifespan than asphalt however as it ages, potholes at the "seams" are a significant problem.  I seem to recall that placing asphalt over existing concrete wasn't feasible because there's nothing for the asphalt to adhere to but Caltrans recently repaved a section of US 101 between Palo Alto and Mountain View and they were able to place asphalt over the concrete.  To repave in concrete can be a long process because you would essentially have to remove the old concrete and then install the new concrete but to do that without shutting down the freeway, it has to be done in phases.  One such project is on I-80 in Sacramento where Caltrans is repaving 10 miles of freeway.  Construction began in 2011 and should be done by late 2016.  That's right... almost 6 years to do 10 miles.

Why does California make a curved white line on the right shoulder just before an exit, and then immediately after the exit the white shoulder line is slightly to the right for a short distance? I'm talking about this:https://goo.gl/maps/BBJMbiLbawp It's really annoying for me to look at.

Like Revive 755 said, it's a visual indication of an upcoming freeway exit in areas prone to dense fog.  That would include all costal regions and the central valley.

Things I liked:
Lots of old button copy signage

Enjoy it while it lasts.  Caltrans, probably at the behest of the FHWA, is slowing replacing all of those old button copy signs with new retro-reflective ones.  if you look through this board, you see a number of topics about sign replacement projects in the S.F. Bay Area, Sacramento, the central coast and Los Angeles.

It's just that the speed limit for trucks and any vehicles towing is 55, not that truckers care. Motorists in general do not care about speed limits in California, then they act surprised when there's a wreck on 17.

California is one of the very few states that still have a separate truck speed limit. Since the state has an abnormally high number of collisions involving trucks I wouldn't expect this to change anytime soon.

In 2014, a truck hauling dirt lost control coming down the mountain on CA-17 during the morning commute and plowed into 11 cars, killing one driver before jack-knifing and overturning.  This happened at 8 am which is the peak of the morning commute.

overlaying asphalt over concrete is a perfectly valid practice, there is something for the asphalt to adhere to, if you do it right. Mill the concrete or rubblize it and you can put asphalt on to without a problem.  The only issue you get when you overlay asphalt over concrete is reflective cracking, when the underlying concrete cracks, causing the asphalt to crack in the same place above.

[jrouse]

One of the things that has always caught me off guard about the pavement conditions in California, is that Caltrans doesn't replace pavements when they do widening projects.  I recall for example driving the recently widened section of CA-60 and I-215 through Riverside County, and being shocked at the poor pavement conditions on such a recently widened stretch of highway.  Where I am from, the DOT would take the opportunity of adding new lanes onto a road as an opportunity to shift traffic off of the old road to resurface the old road.  This doesn't seem to happen in California.  Also, because California uses raised pavement markings as much as they do, there always seems to be tons of pock marks on the roads surface from decades of temporary or former lane configurations.  All that said though, I think Riverside County may have the worst pavement in California.  Just for comparison sake, I'd say that San Diego County has much, much better pavement quality.

You're right.  Cost is a major factor.  So is the challenge with maintaining traffic while rebuilding the road. 

There is a project underway here in Sacramento - the I-80 "across the top" HOV lane project, which will add an HOV lane in each direction - that also includes the complete replacement of the existing lanes.  The right two lanes of the freeway were replaced.  It was badly needed but that work added a considerable amount of time and cost to the project.  The new lanes in the median was completed 2 years ago.  They are almost done with the lane replacement in the westbound direction, which is the last major piece of work.  By the time the work is done, it will have been 5 years since the work began. The project was supposed to have taken 4 years.  There's a few reasons for this.  They were very generous with the number of working days allocated to the project, which didn't really help.  In addition, the prime contractor was short on funds and they couldn't do the work so there were many days when there was little work going on.  With the dry winters we've had here, I think they could have completed the work in less than 4 years had they been able to pay their people to do it.  But they couldn't. They eventually pulled out of the project and turned it over to their sub (and subsequently filed for bankruptcy).  Work had to stop when another construction project took place on US-50 in downtown Sacramento.  That killed one summer construction season.  And they didn't make up for it in the dry winter.  It's just been one thing after another.

Traffic had to be maintained throughout construction, resulting in some median crossovers and narrowed lanes, which have been a nightmare from a traffic perspective.  There really wasn't any other option but to shift traffic around.  The project is too long (~10 miles) to do a full closure and there aren't adequate detour routes (Capital City Freeway/CA-51, anyone?).  On ramps and off ramps have been closed for up to 3 weeks during construction but it's obviously a lot easier to detour ramp traffic versus freeway traffic.

The whole project has been a big headache for those of us who use I-80 regularly.  I, for one, will be glad when it's done.



iPhone

[pumpkineater2]

  The only issue you get when you overlay asphalt over concrete is reflective cracking, when the underlying concrete cracks, causing the asphalt to crack in the same place above.

This is quite common on the freeways here; the expansion joints in the concrete below eventually appear in the asphalt above, and it becomes quite noisy. It seems to me that because of this, ADOT's zealous use of rubberized asphalt to make freeways quieter has sort of backfired on them in a way, however they have been very good about repaving the bad sections.

[Max Rockatansky]

  The only issue you get when you overlay asphalt over concrete is reflective cracking, when the underlying concrete cracks, causing the asphalt to crack in the same place above.

This is quite common on the freeways here; the expansion joints in the concrete below eventually appear in the asphalt above, and it becomes quite noisy. It seems to me that because of this, ADOT's zealous use of rubberized asphalt to make freeways quieter has sort of backfired on them in a way, however they have been very good about repaving the bad sections.

How has it back fired?  I always liked how quiet it made my commutes back in my time in Phoenix rather than hearing a constant kathunk....kathunk....kathunk over the concrete slabs.  Always seemed like the rubberized asphalt held up pretty well in my book.

[jeffandnicole]

  The only issue you get when you overlay asphalt over concrete is reflective cracking, when the underlying concrete cracks, causing the asphalt to crack in the same place above.

This is quite common on the freeways here; the expansion joints in the concrete below eventually appear in the asphalt above, and it becomes quite noisy. It seems to me that because of this, ADOT's zealous use of rubberized asphalt to make freeways quieter has sort of backfired on them in a way, however they have been very good about repaving the bad sections.

It's not the asphalt that's the problem; it's that they didn't properly work on the concrete first.  Even if they keep the concrete there as a base layer, they should work on some of the joint expansions first, which will allow the concrete to expand and contract and do its thing, but no cause the asphalt above it to crack and buckle that often, if at all.

[AsphaltPlanet]

  The only issue you get when you overlay asphalt over concrete is reflective cracking, when the underlying concrete cracks, causing the asphalt to crack in the same place above.

This is quite common on the freeways here; the expansion joints in the concrete below eventually appear in the asphalt above, and it becomes quite noisy. It seems to me that because of this, ADOT's zealous use of rubberized asphalt to make freeways quieter has sort of backfired on them in a way, however they have been very good about repaving the bad sections.

How has it back fired?  I always liked how quiet it made my commutes back in my time in Phoenix rather than hearing a constant kathunk....kathunk....kathunk over the concrete slabs.  Always seemed like the rubberized asphalt held up pretty well in my book.

Yeah, I think Phoenix may have the nicest freeway network in the US.  I don't think there is a freeway network anywhere that has roads as consistently smooth as they are in Phoenix.  It's too bad the rubberized asphalt product that AZDOT uses doesn't work in more varied climates.

[Bobby5280]

I am not a big fan of California's freeway signs. A bunch of them look like dilapidated industrial junk. Some are just worn out and others are patched here and there. They usually put exit tabs into the main sign panel rather than use a separate panel. This often creates some crowded looking sign layouts. I'm not sure if any states elsewhere do that. They also occasionally use some odd looking sign gantries.

Generally speaking I think Texas does a far better job with freeway signs. The sign layouts usually look a lot better. They even use some decorative support pylons for overhead signs on some of the big city freeways and toll roads.

I've always assumed that the state on the interstate shield here was more out of vanity than anything else. Telling you that you should feel lucky that you're here.

That could be true, but the Interstate shield was originally designed and shaped for the state name to be displayed along with relatively smaller numerals.

I really dislike neutered Interstate shields because the numerals are often set too big to fit in the shield comfortably and be properly centered. The motivation seems to be making the shield numerals equal in size to the numerals on US Highway and State Highway shields that may be in the same green sign layout or on the same guide post. One possible solution is using a larger Interstate shield. A lot of states don't even bother co-signing US or State routes along with an Interstate. At any rate the end results on neutered Interstate shields often look terrible. If they really want Interstate shield numerals to be this big then the shield itself should be redesigned to allow more space for the numerals to fit.

[silverback1065]

I am not a big fan of California's freeway signs. A bunch of them look like dilapidated industrial junk. Some are just worn out and others are patched here and there. They usually put exit tabs into the main sign panel rather than use a separate panel. This often creates some crowded looking sign layouts. I'm not sure if any states elsewhere do that. They also occasionally use some odd looking sign gantries.

Generally speaking I think Texas does a far better job with freeway signs. The sign layouts usually look a lot better. They even use some decorative support pylons for overhead signs on some of the big city freeways and toll roads.

I've always assumed that the state on the interstate shield here was more out of vanity than anything else. Telling you that you should feel lucky that you're here.

That could be true, but the Interstate shield was originally designed and shaped for the state name to be displayed along with relatively smaller numerals.

I really dislike neutered Interstate shields because the numerals are often set too big to fit in the shield comfortably and be properly centered. The motivation seems to be making the shield numerals equal in size to the numerals on US Highway and State Highway shields that may be in the same green sign layout or on the same guide post. One possible solution is using a larger Interstate shield. A lot of states don't even bother co-signing US or State routes along with an Interstate. At any rate the end results on neutered Interstate shields often look terrible. If they really want Interstate shield numerals to be this big then the shield itself should be redesigned to allow more space for the numerals to fit.

I think the reason why they look so bad is that the sun ruins them.

[Avalanchez71]

The signs in CA do look much different from the rest of the US.  They are not as bad as the ones down in Mexico.

[Quillz]

I am not a big fan of California's freeway signs. A bunch of them look like dilapidated industrial junk. Some are just worn out and others are patched here and there. They usually put exit tabs into the main sign panel rather than use a separate panel. This often creates some crowded looking sign layouts. I'm not sure if any states elsewhere do that. They also occasionally use some odd looking sign gantries.

I agree with this. I like button copy for the historic aspect, but at this point, most are so dirty/dilapidated to the point that they are simply very hard to read at the speeds of a moving vehicle. The much newer retroreflective signs may not be as historic, but there is no question they are superior when it comes to legibility, and that's what most important.

[Quillz]

I really dislike neutered Interstate shields because the numerals are often set too big to fit in the shield comfortably and be properly centered. The motivation seems to be making the shield numerals equal in size to the numerals on US Highway and State Highway shields that may be in the same green sign layout or on the same guide post. One possible solution is using a larger Interstate shield. A lot of states don't even bother co-signing US or State routes along with an Interstate. At any rate the end results on neutered Interstate shields often look terrible. If they really want Interstate shield numerals to be this big then the shield itself should be redesigned to allow more space for the numerals to fit.

The '61-spec interstate shields had a neutered variation that I think works very well, with 10'' numerals. The main issue I see today is most states use the '70-spec interstate shields and try to cram in 12'' numerals, which means they often have to use extreme horizontal kerning to make the numerals fit. It doesn't look good.

However, I've also seen some states (such as Idaho) simply use Series C numerals instead of Series D, another perfectly fine compromise. This allows for even 11-12'' numerals to fit quite comfortably.

[Bobby5280]

On a 24" tall Interstate shield 10" numerals in Series D work alright whether the shield has the state name or not. Spacing can get a little tight with certain digits, like "22" for example. The '57 spec used 8" numerals. 12" numerals are just too freaking big for the shield. The resulting spacing issues harm legibility, which completely defeats the purpose of making the numerals bigger in the first place. When it comes to legibility the negative "white space" on the shield and sign panels is just as important as the numbers and letters.

I don't mind Series C lettering on 3 digit Interstate shields. I can't recall seeing it used on any 2 digit shields. I think that would look a bit odd.

[myosh_tino]

Just for a little clarification...

'57-spec Interstate shields use 8" numerals on the 24" shield and 12" numerals on the 36" shield.  California's freeway entrance assemblies typically use the 24" shield while reassurance shields (found on the freeway after on-ramps) will be the 36" shield.

Current spec Interstate shields call for 15" numerals on the 36" shield although states that use neutered shield will try to cram 18" numerals into the same shield.

[Quillz]

On a 24" tall Interstate shield 10" numerals in Series D work alright whether the shield has the state name or not. Spacing can get a little tight with certain digits, like "22" for example. The '57 spec used 8" numerals. 12" numerals are just too freaking big for the shield. The resulting spacing issues harm legibility, which completely defeats the purpose of making the numerals bigger in the first place. When it comes to legibility the negative "white space" on the shield and sign panels is just as important as the numbers and letters.

I don't mind Series C lettering on 3 digit Interstate shields. I can't recall seeing it used on any 2 digit shields. I think that would look a bit odd.

Idaho uses it quite a bit for I-84. I've also seen New Mexico use it for I-25. I think it looks and works fine.

[Max Rockatansky]

Personally I've always liked the California Cut-out style US Route signs and the cut-out spade....even I would prefer it be closer to the original design.  For what it's worth it actually gives the state signage some personality you don't really see anywhere else....that and all the older Interstate signs and button copy all over the place.

[Bobby5280]

Current spec Interstate shields call for 15" numerals on the 36" shield although states that use neutered shield will try to cram 18" numerals into the same shield.

That bad practice drives me nuts. I design signs for a living, so details like that bother me more than most people. I don't know why the FHWA allows various states to get away with doing that in their sign shops.

Idaho uses it quite a bit for I-84. I've also seen New Mexico use it for I-25. I think it looks and works fine.

Can you point out some specific locations of 2 digit Interstate shields using Series C numerals? Maybe in Google Maps/Street View? I can't recall seeing any of those on I-25 in New Mexico.

[pumpkineater2]

How has it back fired?  I always liked how quiet it made my commutes back in my time in Phoenix rather than hearing a constant kathunk....kathunk....kathunk over the concrete slabs.  Always seemed like the rubberized asphalt held up pretty well in my book.

Backfired was probably the wrong word to use. I'm just saying that even the rubberized asphalt, the purpose of which was to make the freeways quieter, has still become noisy in many sections across the valley, seemingly sooner than they should, like this: https://goo.gl/maps/dsaVu7caAXn. The kathunk kathunk is still common here, but its certainly not as bad as in other places. Luckily, ADOT has been very good about repaving those sections. The portion of loop 202 in Tempe that was recently widened was getting pretty bad before they repaved it at the end of the project.

I'm not trying to trash on the valley's freeways though, I think we have the best freeway system in the nation.

[Quillz]

Not my photo, but saw many I-84 shields that looked just like that one, between Twin Falls and the Utah border.

[coatimundi]

The portion of loop 202 in Tempe that was recently widened was getting pretty bad before they repaved it at the end of the project.

It was. Especially on the bridges. Those people who paid all that money for those overpriced Town Lake condos must have complained.
I recall the south end of the Price Freeway being pretty rough too, especially right before the 202.
But, here, they build the houses even closer to the freeway, they often have more lanes, and they're lucky if they get a decent sound wall.

[myosh_tino]

There are a couple of interesting I-80 shields in Roseville which is just north of Sacramento.  These shields appear to be properly shaped (unlike than angular shields found on some of California's 2DIs) but use narrower numerals.  I want to say it is 12-inch Series C but I can't be 100% certain.  Here is a link to a Google Map Street View image of the shield in question...

https://goo.gl/maps/8VNzwWK5sLU2

[Quillz]

That's Series C.

[Bobby5280]

Actually those "80" numerals look more like a condensed weight of Helvetica Neue.

[8.Lug]

Tennessee uses the no pedistrian/No non-motorized vehicles regulatory sign in lieu of the CA Freeway Entrance signs.

California uses these signs additionally. Just in case you didn't know you couldn't bring your horsecart onto the freeway from a sprawl exit in Pomona, you must be reminded.

Interesting to poke fun at a seemingly ignorant horsecart operator not knowing what a highway entrance looks like - yet it's somehow perfectly OK for an actual automobile driver to not know what one looks like - and needing a sign to remind them...

[Avalanchez71]

Current spec Interstate shields call for 15" numerals on the 36" shield although states that use neutered shield will try to cram 18" numerals into the same shield.

That bad practice drives me nuts. I design signs for a living, so details like that bother me more than most people. I don't know why the FHWA allows various states to get away with doing that in their sign shops.

Idaho uses it quite a bit for I-84. I've also seen New Mexico use it for I-25. I think it looks and works fine.

Can you point out some specific locations of 2 digit Interstate shields using Series C numerals? Maybe in Google Maps/Street View? I can't recall seeing any of those on I-25 in New Mexico.

Chalk one minor victory up for states rights.