New 58 shields on Old Highway 58

[Occidental Tourist]

Not sure what District 8 was thinking, but while travelling on 15 south today approaching Barstow, I saw two new retroreflective BGS's for the Old Highway 58 exit.  Each one had a miner's spade.

Obviously, the current routing of 58 starts several miles west-southwest of Old Highway 58.  Any ideas why this happened?  Reliance on old shop drawings?

[emory]

Haha. Wow. At the very least they could slap a "TO" next to and it would be accurate.

[Rothman]

Perhaps there is some reason to encourage CA 58-bound traffic along that route?

Seems like a stretch and quite weird.

[Henry]

Exactly! How long has that part of CA 58 been rerouted anyway?

[Max Rockatansky]

Funny, I've tried to avoid taking I-15 to/from Las Vegas for so long I've never noticed that before.  The old sign that just said "Old 58" disappears on the GSV after 2008 that weird new one popped up in 2012.  Maybe someone mowed the old BGS down in an accident?

[sparker]

Exactly! How long has that part of CA 58 been rerouted anyway?

The rerouted section of CA 58, including the trumpet interchange with I-15, opened to traffic in the spring of 1997.  Some shields remained on the old 58 alignment north of Barstow for a year or two afterward; the original BGS's on I-15, with 58 shields and Bakersfield as the control city, were replaced almost immediately with "Old 58" mentioned in text only.   

[Quillz]

They'll probably just append a "TO" banner to fix it.

[Max Rockatansky]

They'll probably just append a "TO" banner to fix it.

Probably not since it has been there for five years now.  At minimum it still will actually take you to CA 58 at least. 

[pderocco]

A couple hundred yards before that sign is another that says "58 west Bakersfield use 15 south", as if you were supposed to "use 15 south" in lieu of part of the actual route 58.

[sparker]

They'll probably just append a "TO" banner to fix it.

Probably not since it has been there for five years now.  At minimum it still will actually take you to CA 58 at least. 

A couple hundred yards before that sign is another that says "58 west Bakersfield use 15 south", as if you were supposed to "use 15 south" in lieu of part of the actual route 58.

This seems like the product of miscommunication -- or deliberate stupidity -- on the part of District 8's sign shop.  Regardless of how long the improperly shielded sign has been there, Caltrans needs to at minimum send a crew out with a batch of "greenout" panels to deal with the issue.  Hey, liberal use of greenout has been an agency staple for as long as I can remember -- may as well make proper use of the practice!

[Max Rockatansky]

They'll probably just append a "TO" banner to fix it.

Probably not since it has been there for five years now.  At minimum it still will actually take you to CA 58 at least. 

A couple hundred yards before that sign is another that says "58 west Bakersfield use 15 south", as if you were supposed to "use 15 south" in lieu of part of the actual route 58.

This seems like the product of miscommunication -- or deliberate stupidity -- on the part of District 8's sign shop.  Regardless of how long the improperly shielded sign has been there, Caltrans needs to at minimum send a crew out with a batch of "greenout" panels to deal with the issue.  Hey, liberal use of greenout has been an agency staple for as long as I can remember -- may as well make proper use of the practice!

Why fix it now?  None of us have made it out there to get pictures of it. 

[sparker]

Why fix it now?  None of us have made it out there to get pictures of it. 

I wouldn't worry too much about this!  Even if D8 got a shitload of phone calls about it tomorrow, the glacial rate at which Caltrans attends to signage issues would give every poster based west of Denver ample time to get out there and get a shot!

[Quillz]

They'll probably just append a "TO" banner to fix it.

Probably not since it has been there for five years now.  At minimum it still will actually take you to CA 58 at least. 

Reminds me of a similar scenario with CA-136. It has CA-190 shields posted alongside, without any "TO" banner. Logically, it makes sense since CA-136 leads to CA-190 (and was in fact CA-190 prior to the 1960s). But the signage implies CA-136 is concurrent with CA-190 when they are two different routes.

[Max Rockatansky]

Why fix it now?  None of us have made it out there to get pictures of it. 

I wouldn't worry too much about this!  Even if D8 got a shitload of phone calls about it tomorrow, the glacial rate at which Caltrans attends to signage issues would give every poster based west of Denver ample time to get out there and get a shot!

Hey one positive for me that I mentioned earlier, I now actually have a reason to use I-15 again whenever I'm in Clark County next.  I've actually been curious about the new "Agriculture Station" that is near the state line rather than the one I always drove around on Yermo Road. 

But I don't know, I've seen a lot of long standing errors or missing signage fixed this past year in District 6.  With all that money coming I would imagine D8 would get some funds for errors like this.

[TheStranger]

They'll probably just append a "TO" banner to fix it.

Probably not since it has been there for five years now.  At minimum it still will actually take you to CA 58 at least. 

Reminds me of a similar scenario with CA-136. It has CA-190 shields posted alongside, without any "TO" banner. Logically, it makes sense since CA-136 leads to CA-190 (and was in fact CA-190 prior to the 1960s). But the signage implies CA-136 is concurrent with CA-190 when they are two different routes.

Similar thing happens with signage for I-580 from the I-880/I-238 interchange in Hayward.