AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project  (Read 12950 times)

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2521
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:25:33 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« on: September 21, 2015, 01:59:02 PM »

I got a look at a new sign replacement project for the Sacramento metro area, first mentioned in my other discussion about similar projects in the San Francisco Bay Area and thought it deserved its own topic.

A couple of interesting observations...
* There are no detailed sign drawings in the plans (i.e. legend & shield positioning, arrow placement, etc).

* There appears to be a concerted effort to remove any mention of Business 80 between I-80 in west Sacramento and the CA-99 interchange.  All signs that are scheduled for replacement feature US 50 shields.

The plans can be found at http://caltrans.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/03/03-4F7104/plans/.
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3087
  • Last Login: Today at 12:50:23 PM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2015, 03:02:41 PM »



* There appears to be a concerted effort to remove any mention of Business 80 between I-80 in west Sacramento and the CA-99 interchange.  All signs that are scheduled for replacement feature US 50 shields.

THAT'S interesting because when the 2008-2009 sign replacement project occurred in this area, much of the westbound signage along that stretch (which has never mentioned US 50, even after the 1982 reroute) mostly became the inaccurate "I-80 West" (replacing at least two correctly signed Business 80 West/San Francisco pullthroughs). 

Eastbound, Business 80 and US 50 had retained prominent co-designation as it had from 1982 onwards (I have quite a few examples of that on my Flickr page somewhere) with 99 first being noted via the well-known US 99 sign error along the eastbound WX Freeway.

I recall that the section of 50/Business 80 is mostly known to locals as 50 though, even considering that 50 west of 16th Street is only as old as the 80 Business route is.

From examining the plans, it seems the removal of Business 80 shields is a step designed to reduce message loading.  Does this essentially turn Business 80 into a business spur rather than a business loop?

Also notable from the new sign replacement PDF: the removal of "CAPITAL CITY FREEWAY" text along the US 50 stretch (but NOT on the Route 51 stretch which seems to be getting more of it in fact).

Other notes:

- removal of "TO I-80" from the I-5 north pullthrough approaching 50/Business 80/(99)
- Sign AS-102 currently has only US 50/Business 80/Route 99 shields (accurate though); the new sign has a US 50 shield awkwardly aligned slightly diagonal from a Route 99 shield.
- Sign AS-117 is one of the first "USE EXIT XX" examples I can think of in Northern California, in this case replacing the all-text "SOUTH LAKE TAHOE/USE FRESNO EXIT" with "Route 99 Fresno - USE EXIT 518."  (The removal of the South Lake Tahoe destination though is a bit confusing - why not simply sign this as US 50/Route 99 Fresno, 2.5 Miles, with a EXIT 518 tab on the top right?)

- I do like the "US 50 to I-80" pullthrough for AS-452 (US 50 westbound at I-5) and honestly think this should have been used all along further east (or a variant like US 50 WEST/Route 99 NORTH to I-5 & WEST I-80)

- Why is the Airport icon being removed from sign AS-209 (and from other similar signs pointing to I-5 north)?

- I always liked the Route 99 NORTH sign (AS-135) on US 50 west approaching 26th Street and am kinda sad to see it go, though at least US 50 being acknowledged is good here.

- From Page 34: I do get the reduction of shield usage from US 50/TO I-80/I-5 to just US 50 (signs AS-80 and AS-93), though I think having an TO I-5 shield with the US 50 West sign would still be helpful.  (For that matter, while this is entirely unrealistic of me, part of me wonders if simply signing 99 south for both Fresno & Los Angeles and then having the "I-5/USE EXIT 6A" sign (Sign AS-72) only point to Redding would work too - after all, southbound drivers to LA could get to 5 south just as easily via 4 in Stockton or 120 in Manteca.)

- With the removal of Route 99 shields at the 5/80 interchange in Natomas (page 38), will there be any roadside acknowledgement from 80 to take 5 north to get to 99 north for Yuba City/Marysville?  (An aside: I've always felt that the 80/50 split in West Sacramento would be a good spot to let drivers know to take 80 east to get to 5 & 99 north for Redding & Yuba City and 50 east to get to 5 and 99 south for Fresno/LA/Stockton - though those heading to Yuba City from the Bay Area likely took 113 in Davis, and those going to Redding likely already split off at 505 in Vacaville)

- The replacement at sign AS-320 (the current "To Redding/Yuba City 5/99" sign) omits any mention of I-5.  For that matter, since 99 is a through route taking the ramp to 50 west, it's odd to see it removed for the replacement 50 West sign at AS-103.

- The current BS-17 sign (Pioneer Bridge eastbound) is where the US 50 control city switches to South Lake Tahoe from Sacramento.  Since 5 and 50 (and Route 99) all provide access to city limits once the bridge is crossed, why is this sign being switched to a Sacramento control city for 50 (especially since 5 is the main route into downtown from here)?

- Just like in the 2009 signing project, US 50 east is not given an exit number from I-80 east.

- Will T Street finally get an exit number based off of Route 99 (presumably 298C) rather than off of Business 80 (which has no access at all to that ramp)?

- I wonder if the "US 50 San Francisco" sign placed about 2-3 years ago at 65th Street northbound was a precursor to this new emphasis of 50 west of 99.

- Even though I like freeway names, I do wonder if the Business 80/160 split (sign AS-52) should have Business 80 west signed for "Midtown Sacramento" (as a counterpart to 160 being signed for downtown).

- Speculation on my part: is this a preliminary step for eventually removing all Business 80 references entirely and replacing them with Route 51 references?

Logged
Chris Sampang

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5103
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 02:40:28 PM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2015, 03:16:08 PM »

* There are no detailed sign drawings in the plans (i.e. legend & shield positioning, arrow placement, etc).

This is SOP for District 3, where you get sign elevations and sign layouts with sign sketches but no sign panel detail sheets.  District 4 gives you sign panel details and sign layouts without sign sketches; sign elevations are a bit hit and miss (I think the decision rule is based on whether a new truss is installed).

District 4 has traditionally been the worst Caltrans district for pattern-accurate signing sheets; District 3 is much more reliable in this regard.  But the one District 4 signing plans set I looked at this morning had pattern-accurate signing sheets, so I am hopeful this will be true of the rest.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2521
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:25:33 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2015, 03:32:16 PM »

District 4 has traditionally been the worst Caltrans district for pattern-accurate signing sheets; District 3 is much more reliable in this regard.  But the one District 4 signing plans set I looked at this morning had pattern-accurate signing sheets, so I am hopeful this will be true of the rest.

Signing sheets in District 4 have, for the most part, been pattern accurate for a couple of years now.  Pattern accurate drawings were used for the new signs installed on I-280 through Cupertino as part of a pavement rehab project.
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5103
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 02:40:28 PM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2015, 04:16:05 PM »

Signing sheets in District 4 have, for the most part, been pattern accurate for a couple of years now.  Pattern accurate drawings were used for the new signs installed on I-280 through Cupertino as part of a pavement rehab project.

I have seen a few I-80 jobs with placeholder fonts, and for the recent US 101 widenings in Marin and Sonoma Counties, I would say pattern-accuracy has been the exception rather than the rule.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3087
  • Last Login: Today at 12:50:23 PM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2015, 06:47:22 PM »

Another thought that just came to mind:  Not sure if this is covered in the PDF at all, but currently Exit 95 from I-80 west to Business 80 east lists the Business 80 exit as "TO 99".  With the removal of TO Route 99 signage proposed for the westbound Business 80/Route 160 split (sign AS-52), will the motorist be expected to drive 7-8 miles until seeing the first "99 Fresno" pullthrough at P Street in Midtown?  (And even if Business 80 is effectively ending as a signed route westbound/southbound at 99 & 50, shouldn't the through lanes connecting it with 99 south get their own exit number)?

I almost feel like the Split should be signed with 80 being given "TO 5/99 NORTH" (as opposed to "5" with no direction) and Business 80 being given "TO 5/99 SOUTH" as opposed to only 99 south.

---

Signs AS-170 & AS-172: Interesting to see the switchover from "TO 99/50/Business 80" to "TO 99/50", wouldn't "50 TO 99" be the more logical phrasing here (which will be used on sign AS-208)?

Sign AS-79 (connector between Route 99 north and Route 51 north/Business 80 east): I do see that T Street is continuing to have its numbering based off of Business 80 and not Route 99, even though the exit is ONLY accessible from Route 99 northbound and should IMO be numbered accordingly.  This seems even odder considering that Business 80 as a designation is being entirely removed from signage along US 50 judging from these plans!

Sign AS-70: "99 South Fresno" gets noted here as has been for years.  Wouldn't it be logical to have something (even a small roadside sign) noting that 99 north would be accessed via 50 west?

Logged
Chris Sampang

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1471
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 12:11:07 AM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2015, 03:55:58 PM »

I applaud some of the simplification techniques that Caltrans is trying to implement here with some of the new signage.   :clap:

Sacramento's freeway system is essentially a big H.

The left leg is to be known as I-5 and only I-5 on all pull through signage.  Redding - Sac - LA

The E-W highway from the I-80/US 50 split to the Nevada state line should simply be known as US 50.  No other designation is warranted or desired.  SF - Sac - S Lake Tahoe.

The diagonal is of course only I-80.  SF-(Sac)-Reno

SR 51 would be best for the 29/30 freeway.  But Biz 80 spur is better than having the Biz 80 loop.  And of course this freeway is CA 99 south of US 50.

Now, should there be a way to guide people who want to follow CA 99 through this maze?  Yes.  But on small green sides on the side only.  Don't confuse the simplicity of having only 4 designations for 3 highways by unnecessary multiplexing.

For southbound 99:  A sign at 99's terminus at I-5 in Natomas:  For 99 south Fresno use I-5 south.  Another sign in Downtown:  For 99 south Fresno use US 50 east.

For northbound 99:  A sign approaching US 50:  For 99 north Yuba City use US 50 west to I-5 north

No other refrence signs for 99 are needed or wanted.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2015, 04:13:18 PM by mrsman »
Logged

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 231
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: April 19, 2017, 04:41:08 PM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2015, 12:29:45 AM »

I had a conversation with the project engineer on this job and I asked him about the lack of a Business 80 designation on US-50.  He said it was based on a couple of things.  First, it was a desire to simplify things and just sign it as one route and not a multitude of routes.  Secondly,  more and more people are referring to the joint US-50/Business 80 multiplex as simply US-50.  Case in point is the "Fix50" project on a portion of that freeway that was done last year.  Another factor was that the legislative descriptions of the route.  The legislative description for Route 51 mandates that it be signed as Business 80; the legislative description of Route 50 includes no such requirement.  So basically,  Business 80 is becoming a Business spur, but there's no plans to update the signing to reflect such a change.  As you can see, the Capital City Freeway name will be emphasized on Route 51 and only Route 51.   The project engineer also realized there was a need to better sign Route 99 through the break in the route, between the Oak Park Interchange and the junction with I-5 near the airport.

This project is intended to upgrade existing button copy signs with new Type 11 retro reflective sheeting, as well as fix various sign message deficiencies and add exit numbers.  I didn't get into a discussion with him about the lack of exit numbers.  He did note that there are major improvements eventually planned for I-5 (widening to add HOV lanes and auxiliary lanes) which will result in new signing on that corridor, so it wasn't touched. 

An interesting side note:  if you look at the plans, you'll notice that it only modifies overhead signs and no ground mounted signs are being touched.  I asked the engineer how the freeway entrance sign packages would be handled along the former Business 80 and he said that they have made an agreement with the District 3 sign crew to remove Business 80 shields and replace them with US-50 shields as the overhead signs are replaced.  Basically the maintenance crew will follow the contractor.   He said the sign crew will probably not get every sign so there will be a few stray Business 80 markers here and there along the corridor, and they'll have to get taken care of by the maintenance forces at a later date or in a separate project.

Hope this answers some of your questions.


iPhone
Logged

AndyMax25

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 94
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: April 23, 2017, 11:21:27 AM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2015, 01:41:07 AM »

Myosh, thanks for posting these plans. Interesting that they are keeping the double I-5 shield signs on sheet 20.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3087
  • Last Login: Today at 12:50:23 PM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2015, 01:46:50 AM »

Kinda a response to your post, Mrsman, and also some of my responses to the initial PDF posted - some revision ideas I have for what's planned in this Sacramento resigning project.

(Myosh_tino - interesting to compare your take on sign AS-322 from Page 43 from a previous thread. with what is actually in the PDF: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9539.msg2063139#msg2063139 )

Sign AS-70 left side (Page 35) - Route 51/Business 80 West approaching Route 99 south


Sign AS-52 left side (Page 36) - Route 51/Business 80 West at the split with Route 160


Sign AS-320 left side (Page 43) - Route 99 North just past 12th Avenue


Sign BS-5 left side (Page 51) - I-80 east approaching West Capitol Avenue/Exit 81


Sign AS-117 (Page 23) - I-5/Route 99 South just past West El Camino Avenue


« Last Edit: September 26, 2015, 01:53:29 AM by TheStranger »
Logged
Chris Sampang

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2521
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:25:33 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2015, 04:37:14 AM »

While I like your redesigns, it appears that most of your signs would end up increasing the sign panel size.  Since plans call for putting new signs on the old trusses, the new signs cannot be larger than the ones they're replacing due to the change in wind-loading specifications by AASHTO.  With that in mind, I tried to incorporate as many of your ideas as possible into my redesigns.

The sign on the left approximates the actual layout of the new signs according to the plans.  The sign on the right is my redesign...

Sign AS-70 left side (Page 35) - Route 51/Business 80 West approaching Route 99 south



Adding the second control city is impossible without increasing the width or height of the sign.


Sign AS-52 left side (Page 36) - Route 51/Business 80 West at the split with Route 160



Changing the legend to "Midtown Sacramento/Fresno" is not possible without increasing both the height and width of the sign.


Sign BS-5 left side (Page 51) - I-80 east approaching West Capitol Avenue/Exit 81



Adding the exit tab is not a problem although having a guide sign with an exit tab but no arrows is a little unusual (even for Caltrans).  Also, adding "South Lake Tahoe" would require increasing the width and height of the sign.
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3087
  • Last Login: Today at 12:50:23 PM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2015, 06:51:27 AM »


Adding the exit tab is not a problem although having a guide sign with an exit tab but no arrows is a little unusual (even for Caltrans).  Also, adding "South Lake Tahoe" would require increasing the width and height of the sign.

I based that design (exit-tabbed mainline due to route-exiting-off-itself situations, no down arrows) from these two existing signs at the US 101/I-80 junction:

Start of I-80 East
https://goo.gl/maps/G2GMnh8nG4y
(The "crammed" nature of this one with two control city lines makes me wonder if you could create something like that for the US 50 Sacramento/South Lake Tahoe (Exit 82) sign that fits the existing dimensions)

End of I-80/mainline lanes continue onto US 101 south (ramp to US 101 north/Central Freeway/former I-80 splits from right)
https://goo.gl/maps/dYfDnaB6LCz

---

For your sign AS-52 replacement, I'm curious - if Capital City Fwy wasn't the text there, would "Midtown Sacramento" or "Fresno" be the more ideal control city there? 

The bizarre  real-life single-line "Sacramento/Fairfield" sign on I-80 east past Route 12 has me imagining that some of these multi-control-city ideas would work with wider signs, i.e. AS-70 as "Route 99 South" followed by "Stockton - Fresno" underneath (in a style reminiscent of northbound Route 55 in Orange County).
Logged
Chris Sampang

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1471
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 12:11:07 AM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2015, 08:22:08 AM »

I had a conversation with the project engineer on this job and I asked him about the lack of a Business 80 designation on US-50.  He said it was based on a couple of things.  First, it was a desire to simplify things and just sign it as one route and not a multitude of routes.  Secondly,  more and more people are referring to the joint US-50/Business 80 multiplex as simply US-50.  Case in point is the "Fix50" project on a portion of that freeway that was done last year.  Another factor was that the legislative descriptions of the route.  The legislative description for Route 51 mandates that it be signed as Business 80; the legislative description of Route 50 includes no such requirement.  So basically,  Business 80 is becoming a Business spur, but there's no plans to update the signing to reflect such a change.  As you can see, the Capital City Freeway name will be emphasized on Route 51 and only Route 51.   The project engineer also realized there was a need to better sign Route 99 through the break in the route, between the Oak Park Interchange and the junction with I-5 near the airport.

This project is intended to upgrade existing button copy signs with new Type 11 retro reflective sheeting, as well as fix various sign message deficiencies and add exit numbers.  I didn't get into a discussion with him about the lack of exit numbers.  He did note that there are major improvements eventually planned for I-5 (widening to add HOV lanes and auxiliary lanes) which will result in new signing on that corridor, so it wasn't touched. 

An interesting side note:  if you look at the plans, you'll notice that it only modifies overhead signs and no ground mounted signs are being touched.  I asked the engineer how the freeway entrance sign packages would be handled along the former Business 80 and he said that they have made an agreement with the District 3 sign crew to remove Business 80 shields and replace them with US-50 shields as the overhead signs are replaced.  Basically the maintenance crew will follow the contractor.   He said the sign crew will probably not get every sign so there will be a few stray Business 80 markers here and there along the corridor, and they'll have to get taken care of by the maintenance forces at a later date or in a separate project.

Hope this answers some of your questions.


iPhone

Thank you for your input.  It's nice having the inside knowledge that you and other DOT employees provide.

We may certainly not agree with everything the DOT does, but at least we can understand that there is a reason for it.
Logged

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2521
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:25:33 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2015, 02:37:34 PM »

For your sign AS-52 replacement, I'm curious - if Capital City Fwy wasn't the text there, would "Midtown Sacramento" or "Fresno" be the more ideal control city there? 

That's a tough one.

My initial thought was neither.  "Midtown Sacramento" is simply too long unless letter heights were reduced and "Fresno" is a control city for a different route, although it would eventually be the through route.  I would have liked to use "San Francisco" as the control city but because Business 80 shields are being removed along the east-west portion of the route, confusion may arise.

Ultimately, I think the decision to use "Capital City Fwy" is an acceptable one.  It's not ideal but I don't think the alternatives are any better (given the constraints of the sign panel size).
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3087
  • Last Login: Today at 12:50:23 PM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2015, 07:24:33 PM »

For your sign AS-52 replacement, I'm curious - if Capital City Fwy wasn't the text there, would "Midtown Sacramento" or "Fresno" be the more ideal control city there? 

That's a tough one.

My initial thought was neither.  "Midtown Sacramento" is simply too long unless letter heights were reduced and "Fresno" is a control city for a different route, although it would eventually be the through route.  I would have liked to use "San Francisco" as the control city but because Business 80 shields are being removed along the east-west portion of the route, confusion may arise.

My logic for thinking "Fresno" would work...actually has to do with how US 50 west is now going to be signed for "San Francisco" despite the fact it isn't itself going there (and hasn't since 1964), but instead has its through lanes feeding into a route that is (I-80) - which has precedent in many other locations in California, often created by route truncation:

205 and 580 west for San Francisco (used to be 50 as noted above)
120 west for San Francisco (connects to 5, 205, and THEN 580)
99 south for Los Angeles (used to continue to that town)
15 south for Los Angeles through the Mojave Desert (used to be part of 66/91)

80B/51 west is former 99E south (and was built as such in the 1950s/1960s) and thus using Fresno fits in with the examples above.

I do think though that Stockton might honestly be way more useful as a control city for both 5 and 99 in the area (and the section of westbound Business 80/Route 51 between 160 and 50/99) since it is the closest large city on either route for a hundred or more miles before the cities that are the current singular southbound controls (Los Angeles for 5, Fresno for 99).   Stockton signs do start popping up for 99 south at Stockton Boulevard near Mack Road.

As for "Midtown" - since Business 80 and 160 are both in city limits at the split near Arden Way, would using the current "Downtown Sacramento" already be too long of a legend for 160 anyway?  (i.e. I can see it working with "Business 80 WEST to 99 SOUTH/Midtown" adjacent to "160 SOUTH/Downtown/12th Street" which I might create a mockup of later)
Logged
Chris Sampang

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3087
  • Last Login: Today at 12:50:23 PM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2015, 12:08:23 AM »

An example of my idea for "Midtown/Downtown" signage at the Business 80 west/160 south split (sign AS-52):



---

Since Jrouse mentioned earlier in the thread that part of the goal was improving navigation for those taking 99 from the South Sacramento Freeway up to Natomas, here are some sign ideas towards that goal (not necessarily the same as the real-life project's aim for only one control city and as few shields as possible on overheads) -

AS-117 (I-5 north approaching West El Camino Avenue)


AS-64 (US 50 approaching I-5 after the Pioneer Bridge)



---

A relevant post I made in the Road Related Illustrations thread from June 2010, my "what did these signs look like in the 70s" concept!
http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=575.msg67443#msg67443

Based on that, here's my revision to AS-103 (Route 99 North taking the ramp to 50 West)

« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 03:06:54 AM by TheStranger »
Logged
Chris Sampang

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2521
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:25:33 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2015, 03:36:06 AM »

To build off of TheStranger's last post, here are 3 drawings I made of the signs at the Bus80-160 interchange…

#1 - Signs according to the plans…


#2 - Changed Pull-Through to add TO CA-99…


#3 - Changed Pull-Through to add TO CA-99 and change control city to "Midtown Sacramento"

Note: To make things fit, legend on the pull-through sign was reduced to 13.3 UC/10 LC

And speaking of AS-117, hopefully someone at Caltrans noticed an error in the sign plans.  The sign for exit 522 has an I-5 shield instead of an I-80 shield.
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3087
  • Last Login: Today at 12:50:23 PM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2015, 11:53:23 AM »

To build off of TheStranger's last post, here are 3 drawings I made of the signs at the Bus80-160 interchange…


As always, your designs look phenomenal!

Something I am wondering which sign AS-52 (Business 80/160) has kinda led me to think about - in what cases does CalTrans sign for downtown (or any other district) with labeling the city the driver is already in, as opposed to leaving that info out to save on legend space?

For instance, "Downtown SF" is a control city on 280 in San Francisco approaching the Alemany Maze, "Downtown San Jose" is used for 280 north past 101 in SJ, but in San Diego, "Downtown" is the single control city for Route 163 south through Balboa Park.  In Los Angeles, I don't even think "Downtown" is used but "Los Angeles" as the downtown control legend within city limits (5, 10, 110, 60, 101).
Logged
Chris Sampang

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1159
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: April 23, 2017, 01:30:14 AM
    • AARoads
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2015, 12:57:32 AM »

I had a conversation with the project engineer on this job and I asked him about the lack of a Business 80 designation on US-50.  He said it was based on a couple of things.  First, it was a desire to simplify things and just sign it as one route and not a multitude of routes.  Secondly,  more and more people are referring to the joint US-50/Business 80 multiplex as simply US-50.  Case in point is the "Fix50" project on a portion of that freeway that was done last year.  Another factor was that the legislative descriptions of the route.  The legislative description for Route 51 mandates that it be signed as Business 80; the legislative description of Route 50 includes no such requirement.  So basically,  Business 80 is becoming a Business spur, but there's no plans to update the signing to reflect such a change.  As you can see, the Capital City Freeway name will be emphasized on Route 51 and only Route 51.   The project engineer also realized there was a need to better sign Route 99 through the break in the route, between the Oak Park Interchange and the junction with I-5 near the airport.

Thank you Joe for the explanation. A question: Is anyone at Caltrans considering requesting a legislative change that would fully eliminate Business 80 from the Streets and Highways Code? While I am a fan of Business 80, cutting the "loop" in half doesn't make sense without signage returning the loop back to the parent route. I guess it could be a spur, but I'd think there would be sign changes to reflect that. So I'd think the most logical outcome to achieve route simplification is to change the Code to eliminate Business 80 and sign the remaining freeway as SR 51 (or change it to SR 305, ha ha).
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

cheungd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7
  • Location: Sacramento
  • Last Login: April 23, 2017, 08:44:39 PM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2015, 04:03:15 PM »

I would be in favor of eliminating Business 80 altogether, shortening US 50 to CA 99, designating the former section of 50 as I-305, eliminating CA 51 and redisignating it as an extension of I-305 up to E Street with the rest as CA 305. But that may be too much just to keep it simplified.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3087
  • Last Login: Today at 12:50:23 PM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2015, 06:29:53 PM »

I would be in favor of eliminating Business 80 altogether, shortening US 50 to CA 99, designating the former section of 50 as I-305, eliminating CA 51 and redisignating it as an extension of I-305 up to E Street with the rest as CA 305. But that may be too much just to keep it simplified.

305 has never been signed (and is exclusively a FHWA number).  Why truncate US 50 from its established post-1982 route between I-80 in West Sacramento and Route 51/Business 80 at the Oak Park Interchange, especially when (as jrouse noted above) 50 is the number most locals currently use to describe that route?
Logged
Chris Sampang

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3019
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: Today at 03:59:15 AM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2015, 09:16:30 PM »

I would be in favor of eliminating Business 80 altogether, shortening US 50 to CA 99, designating the former section of 50 as I-305, eliminating CA 51 and redisignating it as an extension of I-305 up to E Street with the rest as CA 305. But that may be too much just to keep it simplified.

305 has never been signed (and is exclusively a FHWA number).  Why truncate US 50 from its established post-1982 route between I-80 in West Sacramento and Route 51/Business 80 at the Oak Park Interchange, especially when (as jrouse noted above) 50 is the number most locals currently use to describe that route?

Isn't part of the reason that Biz 80 was used instead of I-305 because the SR 51 portion of Biz 80 wasn't up to the then-current Interstate standards when they removed I-80? (And still isn't, in some spots.)

What will the exit numbering look like on the SR 51 section in the new signing project? Since the Biz 80 designation is no longer being emphasized on the US 50 overlap, the continuous exit numbers won't make sense...
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1471
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 12:11:07 AM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #22 on: October 01, 2015, 07:47:45 AM »

An example of my idea for "Midtown/Downtown" signage at the Business 80 west/160 south split (sign AS-52):




Would something along the lines of "S.F. / Fresno"  (on one line including the slash and abbreviated San Francisco) work here instead of Midtown?  I think the point of this sign is to guide people who want to go into Downtown itself to take 160, but to those who want to take any freeway that emanates from Downtown to take Biz 80. 

---

Since Jrouse mentioned earlier in the thread that part of the goal was improving navigation for those taking 99 from the South Sacramento Freeway up to Natomas, here are some sign ideas towards that goal (not necessarily the same as the real-life project's aim for only one control city and as few shields as possible on overheads) -

AS-117 (I-5 north approaching West El Camino Avenue)


Fine


AS-64 (US 50 approaching I-5 after the Pioneer Bridge)


Don't follow the mistakes of District 7 and begin removing control cities, as they have done in many places, especially at the Four Level Interchange.
(Signs along US 101 south of the Four Level saying "US 101 to I-5, I-10, CA 60" without conrtol cities replacing the "I-5/I-10 Santa Ana / San Bernardino")

On your sign, South Lake Tahoe (or Placerville, I've seen a lot of signs using both as US 50's control in the Sacramento area when I lived there in the late '90s) should be the control for the left sign.   Fresno can be added, but it's not a priority.  Redding must be added to the third sign.  (I wouldn't even include Yuba City here to limit information overload.)

---

A relevant post I made in the Road Related Illustrations thread from June 2010, my "what did these signs look like in the 70s" concept!
http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=575.msg67443#msg67443

Based on that, here's my revision to AS-103 (Route 99 North taking the ramp to 50 West)


This one is fine.  If you can, it would be nice to include Yuba City as well here, but certainly not required.  San Francisco is the more important control here.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1471
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 12:11:07 AM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #23 on: October 01, 2015, 07:52:45 AM »

To build off of TheStranger's last post, here are 3 drawings I made of the signs at the Bus80-160 interchange…


As always, your designs look phenomenal!

Something I am wondering which sign AS-52 (Business 80/160) has kinda led me to think about - in what cases does CalTrans sign for downtown (or any other district) with labeling the city the driver is already in, as opposed to leaving that info out to save on legend space?

For instance, "Downtown SF" is a control city on 280 in San Francisco approaching the Alemany Maze, "Downtown San Jose" is used for 280 north past 101 in SJ, but in San Diego, "Downtown" is the single control city for Route 163 south through Balboa Park.  In Los Angeles, I don't even think "Downtown" is used but "Los Angeles" as the downtown control legend within city limits (5, 10, 110, 60, 101).

Los Angeles is mostly used within city limits, but there are a few places where Downtown or Civic Center is used, especially if you are very close to the 4-level:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0723184,-118.2349031,3a,75y,207.09h,73.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZP14vl6hmoVaw4O1nY0epA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1


Downtown and Civic Center seem to be used as synonyms most of the time.  But to my understanding Civic Center refers to the area with government buildings basically centered around 1st/Main.  For freeway signs this will lead you to US 101 at either Spring, Broadway, or Los Angeles Street (or from the sign above taking Hill to 1st).  Downtown's historic heart is at Broadway/7th, but most people think of Bunker Hill as being the new Downtown as most of the modern skyscrapers are there.  Especially from freeway signs, this basically leads you to the area surrounding Figueroa and 6th.  So any of the 110 exits to 4th, 6th, or 9th would be considered "Downtown".
« Last Edit: October 01, 2015, 08:01:06 AM by mrsman »
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3087
  • Last Login: Today at 12:50:23 PM
Re: District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #24 on: October 01, 2015, 12:52:43 PM »


Isn't part of the reason that Biz 80 was used instead of I-305 because the SR 51 portion of Biz 80 wasn't up to the then-current Interstate standards when they removed I-80? (And still isn't, in some spots.)

I don't think 305 was ever considered for signing, but exists to keep the 1960s portion of what was interstate-standards I-80 (from the 50/80 split to about E Street) in the system.  The non-standard portion of the old US 99E freeway starts from E Street and continues to I-80 & Watt Avenue near Foothill Farms.
What will the exit numbering look like on the SR 51 section in the new signing project? Since the Biz 80 designation is no longer being emphasized on the US 50 overlap, the continuous exit numbers won't make sense...

So far...they're still using the Business 80 exit numbers (based on the West Sacramento terminus) looking at the PDF!  (It wouldn't be the only example of exit numbers not beginning at 1 from the start of a route - I-380 is like that as well, with its numbers factoring a still-unlikely extension to Pacifica)

Quote from: mrsman
Would something along the lines of "S.F. / Fresno"  (on one line including the slash and abbreviated San Francisco) work here instead of Midtown?  I think the point of this sign is to guide people who want to go into Downtown itself to take 160, but to those who want to take any freeway that emanates from Downtown to take Biz 80. 

I'm almost of the mind that with Business 80 no longer considered a through route beyond midtown as of this signing project, that "Fresno" would be the ideal city to list there (if any cities are used).  Having said that...that portion of Business 80 west is primarily local traffic and Midtown is enough of a destination now that it's kinda like the different destinations of "Civic Center" and "Downtown SF" at the 280/101 junction in San Francisco.

Quote from: mrsman
Don't follow the mistakes of District 7 and begin removing control cities, as they have done in many places, especially at the Four Level Interchange.
(Signs along US 101 south of the Four Level saying "US 101 to I-5, I-10, CA 60" without conrtol cities replacing the "I-5/I-10 Santa Ana / San Bernardino")

I only removed the control cities here as a message-loading remedy (the signs in this spot are not large enough to include as much information).  Having said that, your example of 101 actually explains my philosophy there:

101 south at the Four-Level is not continuing beyond East Los Angeles, so the nearby routes at the East Los Angeles Interchange (5 south/10 east/60) are themselves the destinations (as opposed to the confusing past signage of it as "5 Santa Ana/10 San Bernardino" as if the first part of the Santa Ana Freeway is either of those routes).  Likewise, at the foot of the Pioneer Bridge, drivers there are mostly commuters entering the Sacramento area trying to reach downtown and midtown, where the long-distance destinations aren't as important within the downtown core.

Logged
Chris Sampang

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.