California

[cahwyguy]

Finding evidence of a business route (or, to be more precise, a former routing that has been bypassed) is often easier than finding signage. BR signage often gets placed once -- when the route is first bypassed as a sop to the business community -- and then is never updated or maintained. But evidence, it remains. It remains in the configuration of the on and off ramps, which are often curving away from what once was the main line and curves back. It remains in the nature of the businesses along the route -- often look for main streets, U-court motels, and car dealers. There is often evidence in local signage and road names. If one pays attention, there is often a lot of evidence.

[NE2]

I'm specifically talking about a signed business route. Not a former route that has been bypassed.

[cahwyguy]

I'm specifically talking about a signed business route. Not a former route that has been bypassed.

Most signed (or formerly signed) business routes represent former routes that have been bypassed. They are created as business routes so as to drive traffic back to the businesses on the bypassed portions. About the only exception to this, which was created as a business route for completely different reasons (sort-of) is BR 80 in Sacramento, but even that is in many ways the former I-80 routing that was bypassed when the new I-80 routing was created (which was to be I-180, but, hell, that's another can of works. See my pages if you want to open it).

[NE2]

But not every former route that has been bypassed is a business route...

[silverback1065]

does california 170 extend onto highland ave?  google says it does, but i can find no proof that it's true.

[NE2]

does california 170 extend onto highland ave?  google says it does, but i can find no proof that it's true.

'twas relinquished to the city in 2005-2006: http://cahighways.org/169-176.html#170

[DTComposer]

does california 170 extend onto highland ave?  google says it does, but i can find no proof that it's true.

'twas relinquished to the city in 2005-2006: http://cahighways.org/169-176.html#170

This is the only CA-170 shield I ever recall seeing on Highland:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1094484,-118.3365203,3a,75y,197.97h,77.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBUGoQkLpG-Rn2jWGj5LgTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It's there up until the November 2014 image, then gone in the December 2016 image.

[sparker]

does california 170 extend onto highland ave?  google says it does, but i can find no proof that it's true.

'twas relinquished to the city in 2005-2006: http://cahighways.org/169-176.html#170

This is the only CA-170 shield I ever recall seeing on Highland:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1094484,-118.3365203,3a,75y,197.97h,77.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBUGoQkLpG-Rn2jWGj5LgTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It's there up until the November 2014 image, then gone in the December 2016 image.

As late as 2012 there was a second CA 170 shield, placed on NB Highland Ave. just north of Santa Monica Blvd./CA 2 on a streetlamp standard.  Curiously, there was never, to my knowledge, any trailblazer signage in either direction of CA 2 indicating the presence of CA 170 at Highland.  It's like at one point there was a signage order for that now-relinquished segment of CA 170 that specified a couple of reassurance signs at either end of the segment but nothing else.  If anyone can cast some light on how this came about it certainly would be appreciated!

[andy3175]

I'm specifically talking about a signed business route. Not a former route that has been bypassed.

Most signed (or formerly signed) business routes represent former routes that have been bypassed. They are created as business routes so as to drive traffic back to the businesses on the bypassed portions. About the only exception to this, which was created as a business route for completely different reasons (sort-of) is BR 80 in Sacramento, but even that is in many ways the former I-80 routing that was bypassed when the new I-80 routing was created (which was to be I-180, but, hell, that's another can of works. See my pages if you want to open it).

Just checking that you meant I-880 and not I-180 for this, right? Here are the facts as I understand them: I-80 in Sacramento was relocated onto old I-880 to the north of the city because a project to upgrade what is now SR 51 to Interstate standards was replaced with a light rail project (there's more to that story, but just at a very high level). Old I-80 became part of US 50 and SR 51, signed as Business 80 until recently. Now Business 80 is mostly signed on SR 51 only, and the US 50 portion is signed as US 50.

The Interstate-standard section of US 50 and SR 51 was also given the FHWA designation of I-305, which has not ever been signed and is not legislatively designated in the Streets and Highways Code.

I-180 was considered for the section of I-580 between US 101 in San Rafael and I-80 in Richmond.

[cahwyguy]

I was going from memory; I could very easily have stated the wrong one. You got the idea.

[andy3175]

Changes coming to Manteca Bypass SR 120, including California's first diverging diamond interchange

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archives/142374/

Big changes are coming to the 120 Bypass. Ground could start turning as early as 2018 on three major interchange projects that could cost as much as $85 million. They include:

- California's first diverging diamond interchange at Union Road.
- The creation of a partial cloverleaf interchange at McKinley Avenue.
- A revamp of the 120 Bypass/Highway 99 interchange.

Regional and city officials are hoping to secure federal funding for the 120 Bypass/Highway 99 interchange. It is a major project they will be stressing the regional importance of to federal officials during next month's San Joaquin County One Voice lobbying to Washington, D.C. The city is also seeking federal assistance with the McKinley Avenue interchange.

More on the proposed diverging diamond interchange:

Manteca opted to pursue a diverging diamond interchange for Union Road instead of upgrading the existing structure to a partial cloverleaf. It means motorists getting on and off Union Road at the 120 Bypass will never have to worry about their turn movements being stopped by a red light when Manteca becomes the first California city to employ a diverging diamond interchange.

The diverging diamond design calls for traffic lanes crossing  on either side of the bridge structure so northbound traffic would cross the bridge on the west side instead of the east side with the southbound lanes on the east side instead of the west side. Once they clear the bridge they are switched back.
The on and off ramps along with the flipping of the lanes creates two semi-diamond shaped intersections on either side of the bridge. This eliminates the need for traffic from both directions on Union Road as well as that coming from the 120 Bypass to pass through traffic signals to exit an off ramp or to get into an on ramp. The project will also include ramp meter signals such as now are in place on the Lathrop Road/Highway 99 interchange.

The project will also include Manteca's first separate pedestrian/bicycle bridge across the 120 Bypass to address growing concerns about safety as more and more walkers head across Main Street, Union Road, and Airport Way as housing develops south of the 120 Bypass. None of the existing overpasses have sidewalks or protected bicycle lanes. The diverging diamond design as employed in other states require pedestrians to cross into the middle of the bridge and then cross back to the edge at two signalized intersection.
It would involve building a tunnel under off and on ramps on the east side of the bridge and looping a shared two-lane bicycle/pedestrian path up to the overcrossing where a wall would separate it from the traffic lanes.  The Class I bicycle path would be American with Disabilities compliant. It also would have stairs that would allow walkers wanting to – and able to do so– to take a shortcut bypassing the loop to reach the bridge deck

More on the McKinley interchange ($40 million cost to begin in 2018), which interestingly mentions how a cloverleaf interchange does not require any stops but does not mention weaving and other issues that can cause problems at cloverleaf interchanges:

Manteca's fourth interchange on the 120 Bypass being pursued at McKinley Avenue will be the city's first partial cloverleaf. But in order to save money the city is considering an option that would allow the interior loop onramps to be built at a later date.

That means the initial construction would have all left turns from McKinley Avenue to 120 Bypass onramps go through signalized intersections just as they currently do at the Airport, Union, and Main interchanges. When the loops are completed northbound McKinley Avenue traffic will be able to get onto westbound 120 without going through a traffic signal as would southbound McKinley to eastbound 120.

A full cloverleaf interchange – which is not being proposed – eliminates the need for any traffic signals.

More on the SR 99-120 interchange improvements:

San Joaquin County Council of Governments working with Caltrans District 10 are pushing for a target of 2019 to break ground on a permanent solution designed to reduce carnage on the 120 Bypass caused by traffic backups heading eastbound on the Bypass as it approaches Highway 99.

There are two alternates are being considered for the long-term improvement.

The first could cost as much as $40 million. It would widen the connector to southbound 99 to two lanes, construct braided ramps (that are physically separated from freeway lanes) at the Austin Road interchange and replace the Austin Road crossing to provide an additional southbound 99 through lane. In some instances braided ramps require constructing bridge structures to send traffic above other lanes.

The second would cost upwards of $29 million would widen the connector to two lanes, permanently close Austin Road on and off ramps and replace the Austin Road overcrossing to provide an additional southbound 99 through lane.

[andy3175]

While looking for something else, I found an older (2016) San Jose Mercury News Mr. Roadshow article about the ongoing replacements of guide signs to reflective. I think this has already been posted, but in case anyone missed it, for those who haven't seen the article, here is the link and quote:

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/17/roadshow-why-are-so-many-south-bay-freeway-signs-dark-at-night/

Workers have begun installing hundreds of new retro-reflective signs above Bay Area freeways that throw back the light from headlights of oncoming vehicles much better than the older green reflective signs. (Many of these older signs are dark now for a variety of reasons ranging from copper thieves to burned-out bulbs to state officials not wanting to spend additional money with new signs coming.)

All highways in the South Bay will be covered – 439 new signs are planned – starting with Highway 17 from Highway 9 to I-280 and Highway 85 from 101 to Middlefield Road.
Similar signs are going in at 164 locations on Interstate 80, I-580 and I-680 in Contra Costa County. Ditto 880 in Alameda County and 101 in San Mateo County.

I've passed along Roadshow readers' requests that Caltrans illuminate the dark corridors first.

The move to retro-reflective signs follows tests on Interstate 80 in Sacramento where some drivers complained the new signs were almost too bright.

This new illumination will cost $10,000 per sign on average and should be ready by summer. Crews will also do lighting work on the ramps, closing them from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m., but crews will never close two consecutive ramps.

To view a video, go to https://youtu.be/za_thqHA92I or search for "Caltrans News Flash #60 — Retro-Reflective Signs Increase Safety, Reduce Costs."

[andy3175]

At the risk of being pedantic, here's another pair of articles, the first related to a new sign misspelling:

http://www.kcra.com/article/oops-new-california-highway-signs-misspelled-on-central-coast/10226004

A new sign along Highway 1 in Monterey County, near Sand City, tells drivers that the exit for Seaside and Del "Ray" Oaks is coming up in 1 1/4 miles.

Caltrans officials did not notice the misspelling of Del Rey Oaks until the day after the sign was installed in mid-June.

Another new sign at the exit itself was also misspelled as "Del Ray Oaks."

Fixing the spelling errors will be pricey.

Changing the "a" to an "e" will costs several hundred dollars, Caltrans spokesperson Susanna Cruz said.

To entirely replace the signs, it could cost thousands of dollars.

And the other one shows a green-out overlay to a porcelain-enamel sign that resulted in an error (and is slated for eventual replacement): http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/09/did-you-catch-the-typo-on-the-freeway-sign-in-san-dimas-caltrans-eventually-did/

If you drive the 57 Freeway, you may have noticed a typo on a mileage sign. Near San Dimas, for southbound motorists, an overhead sign gave the distance to the exit for “Corona na Fwy.”

That’s because when a new “Corona” was put up a year ago, a portion of the old “Corona” remained, on a line that was shorter after the 71 emblem was removed. Hence, “Corona na Fwy.”

A reader who works for a local government agency tipped me off to the mistake, which I featured on my blog along with the Google Street View image. He said he likes to think “it is a Caltrans tribute to Sha Na Na.”

Within a few days of my blog post, Caltrans was on the scene. The agency “wanted to let you know that the issue has been fixed,” spokeswoman Yessica Jovel emailed to say. She didn’t know why the 71 emblem had been taken down to begin with but told me the entire sign panel is scheduled to be replaced as part of an upcoming project.

Caltrans, she said, has 32 workers to maintain 150,000 freeway signs in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. This may be why they sometimes don’t seem to look at their signs once they’re done.

[silverback1065]

What is California's real excuse for not using reflective signs?  the old ones look like they've been there since they built the damn highway in the 60s and 70s! Also why don't they post exist numbers on all bgs like every other state does?  When I was in LA 2 weeks ago, it was hard navigating because they barely post exit numbers, how hard is it to add that!

[Max Rockatansky]

What is California's real excuse for not using reflective signs?  the old ones look like they've been there since they built the damn highway in the 60s and 70s! Also why don't they post exist numbers on all bgs like every other state does?  When I was in LA 2 weeks ago, it was hard navigating because they barely post exit numbers, how hard is it to add that!

They probably have been around since then, you're likely looking at either button copy signs or signs with reflective paint.

[silverback1065]

I'd put reflective in quotes, they're completely black at night!

Nexus 6P

[Max Rockatansky]

I'd put reflective in quotes, they're completely black at night!

Nexus 6P

Yeah, they are often pretty burnt out looking three decades on.  Basically my understanding was that they were designed to last a couple decades and probably should have been recoated or had vinyl applied maybe 10-20 years ago.  I have some of the older shields that have the enamel reflective paint with the vinyl numerals.  Usually you can tell because the shield still slightly reflects but the numeral is burnt out.

Daniel hits on this in way more detail why things are different in California on his site, I think it has the answers you are looking for:

http://www.cahighways.org/num-signing.html

[silverback1065]

You can barely read the damn things in broad daylight!

Nexus 6P

[Max Rockatansky]

You can barely read the damn things in broad daylight!

Nexus 6P

  Just missed you with my edit on the previous post.  Check out the link to Daniel's page on cahighways the signage topic, it is actually a pretty interesting read as to why things are the way they are:

http://www.cahighways.org/num-signing.html

[J N Winkler]

What is California's real excuse for not using reflective signs?  the old ones look like they've been there since they built the damn highway in the 60s and 70s! Also why don't they post exist numbers on all bgs like every other state does?  When I was in LA 2 weeks ago, it was hard navigating because they barely post exit numbers, how hard is it to add that!

Whole-signface retroreflectorization has been the standard for warning, regulatory, construction, and independent-mounted route marker signs since at least the 1980's, but for guide signs only since 1998 or so.

Exit numbering has been implemented statewide only since 2002 and initially each exit was considered to be numbered if just one sign in the sequence--advance guide, exit direction, gore--had the exit number.  There are ongoing sign refurbishment contracts that are putting exit numbers on all signs in the sequence, but it will take a while to do all 5,000+ miles of freeway in California.

[sparker]

Changes coming to Manteca Bypass SR 120, including California's first diverging diamond interchange

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archives/142374/

Big changes are coming to the 120 Bypass. Ground could start turning as early as 2018 on three major interchange projects that could cost as much as $85 million. They include:

- California's first diverging diamond interchange at Union Road.
- The creation of a partial cloverleaf interchange at McKinley Avenue.
- A revamp of the 120 Bypass/Highway 99 interchange.

Regional and city officials are hoping to secure federal funding for the 120 Bypass/Highway 99 interchange. It is a major project they will be stressing the regional importance of to federal officials during next month's San Joaquin County One Voice lobbying to Washington, D.C. The city is also seeking federal assistance with the McKinley Avenue interchange.

More on the SR 99-120 interchange improvements:

San Joaquin County Council of Governments working with Caltrans District 10 are pushing for a target of 2019 to break ground on a permanent solution designed to reduce carnage on the 120 Bypass caused by traffic backups heading eastbound on the Bypass as it approaches Highway 99.

There are two alternates are being considered for the long-term improvement.

The first could cost as much as $40 million. It would widen the connector to southbound 99 to two lanes, construct braided ramps (that are physically separated from freeway lanes) at the Austin Road interchange and replace the Austin Road crossing to provide an additional southbound 99 through lane. In some instances braided ramps require constructing bridge structures to send traffic above other lanes.

The second would cost upwards of $29 million would widen the connector to two lanes, permanently close Austin Road on and off ramps and replace the Austin Road overcrossing to provide an additional southbound 99 through lane.

The backup on EB CA 120 is only one of many problems facing this interchange, which was done "on the cheap" back in 1980 when the bypass was configured as a super-2 with alternating passing lanes.  Essentially a trumpet (but looking more like a French horn!) favoring NB 99>WB 120 traffic, it utilizes a single 2-lane bridge for both NB>WB and EB>NB movements with a K-rail down the middle and relatively narrow lanes (I'd guess 10.5-11 feet w/minimal shoulders) -- and one of the wickedest diminishing-radius loops in the state highway system -- which also serves as the continuation of EB CA 120, which jogs one exit north on CA 99.  As this is my normal route when visiting a business partner in Folsom, I've seen more than one truck rollover on this loop (marked at 25 mph suggested speed).   A direct ramp would be more appropriate -- but it seems that an extension of the CA 120 Manteca bypass eastward around the commercial area east of CA 99 is still on the books, so apparently there's been no hurry to upgrade the interchange until a decision is made regarding that potential project, which certainly would affect interchange design. 

But it looks like the traffic issues posed by the interchange's present configuration are pressing enough to prompt some sort of modification action; I would hope that at least improving the loop connection to allow safe traversal at higher speeds would be included within the project plans, if not a directional ramp replacement.

[mrsman]

And the other one shows a green-out overlay to a porcelain-enamel sign that resulted in an error (and is slated for eventual replacement): http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/09/did-you-catch-the-typo-on-the-freeway-sign-in-san-dimas-caltrans-eventually-did/

If you drive the 57 Freeway, you may have noticed a typo on a mileage sign. Near San Dimas, for southbound motorists, an overhead sign gave the distance to the exit for "Corona na Fwy."

That's because when a new "Corona"  was put up a year ago, a portion of the old "Corona"  remained, on a line that was shorter after the 71 emblem was removed. Hence, "Corona na Fwy."

A reader who works for a local government agency tipped me off to the mistake, which I featured on my blog along with the Google Street View image. He said he likes to think "it is a Caltrans tribute to Sha Na Na."

Within a few days of my blog post, Caltrans was on the scene. The agency "wanted to let you know that the issue has been fixed,"  spokeswoman Yessica Jovel emailed to say. She didn't know why the 71 emblem had been taken down to begin with but told me the entire sign panel is scheduled to be replaced as part of an upcoming project.

Caltrans, she said, has 32 workers to maintain 150,000 freeway signs in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. This may be why they sometimes don't seem to look at their signs once they're done.

Mistakes can happen, but my issue with this is for taking down the 71 and leaving in the freeway name.  I thought the trend in Dist. 7 was to remove the freeway names and only keep the numbers, and now they've done the opposite.

In my view, freeway names, numbers, directions, and control cities are all helpful to the motoring public and should all be used to the extent possible.

[silverback1065]

i exclusively refer to all numbered routes as their number, not a fan of the freeway naming convention. 

[kkt]

i exclusively refer to all numbered routes as their number, not a fan of the freeway naming convention. 

I find the names more memorable and longer-lasting than the numbers.

[sparker]

i exclusively refer to all numbered routes as their number, not a fan of the freeway naming convention. 

I find the names more memorable and longer-lasting than the numbers.

In the case of the original (pre-Interstate) Los Angeles freeway layout, the names of the freeways indicated its ultimate (or penultimate) destination: Pasadena, San Bernardino, Santa Ana, (the) Harbor, Hollywood, Ventura -- which made sense.  Even the original Bay Area freeways followed suit in a way:  Bayshore, Eastshore, Southern (across the southern tier of S.F. proper).  When other considerations: honorific, memorialization, etc. came into use, that lessened the impact of names:  OK, Nimitz was applied to the southern Eastshore because it (more or less) provided access to Oakland/Alameda naval facilities -- and MacArthur was applied because it basically traced old MacArthur Blvd., the original US 50 alignment in east Oakland.  But those names didn't assist in delineating [/i]where[/i] the freeway was heading.  OK, the Ronald Reagan Freeway (CA 118) goes somewhere near the Reagan museum, but that's somewhat of an oddity.  The nail in the coffin, at least out here in CA, came when the newscasters, both radio and TV, starter using numbers exclusively to report on traffic conditions and incidents in the early '80's.  And now that they're signing short freeway segments as memorials to fallen LEO's and other local figures, the whole naming concept has been dissipated to the point where it's functionally meaningless.  Route numbers will likely remain the default for the foreseeable future.