News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

New Guide Signs within Caltrans D7

Started by AndyMax25, May 27, 2015, 11:17:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jakeroot

#50
Quote from: SignBridge on December 07, 2015, 08:58:21 PM
Am I missing something here? The arrows on both the old and new signs appear to me to be centered over the single lane of each route.

In terms of my original question, I was wondering why the new signs themselves, in addition to the arrows, weren't centred.

Of course, I can see why now, per myosh's post, with this is the case.


Quillz

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on December 09, 2015, 02:48:57 PM
Quote from: Quillz on December 09, 2015, 12:41:22 PM
CA-42, the route that just won't die.

I suspect my children will be collecting social security and still encountering SR-19 shields.
Fine with me, it may be unnecessary, but I've always liked CA-19. Hey, it's part of the Long Beach Traffic Circle!

Occidental Tourist

Quote from: Quillz on December 10, 2015, 01:29:43 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on December 09, 2015, 02:48:57 PM
Quote from: Quillz on December 09, 2015, 12:41:22 PM
CA-42, the route that just won't die.

I suspect my children will be collecting social security and still encountering SR-19 shields.
Fine with me, it may be unnecessary, but I've always liked CA-19. Hey, it's part of the Long Beach Traffic Circle!

I have no problem with keeping it, but they should sign it consistently both on the route and on intersecting routes, otherwise it loses a lot of its value as a signed route for motorists.

AndyMax25

SB Golden State Freeway at Glendale Freeway split.

Original


New

roadfro

Interesting that the freeway name was kept, give the Caltrans trend to remove names. But some of these large district sign replacement projects have been carbon copy replacements...
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

AndyMax25


Quote from: roadfro on January 20, 2016, 03:33:52 PM
Interesting that the freeway name was kept, give the Caltrans trend to remove names. But some of these large district sign replacement projects have been carbon copy replacements...
In this case it seems to not have been quite as carbon copy as normal. Notice the freeway name on the North side of the sign was inverted.  Also the direction headings were slightly moved.  Carbon copy would have been nice.

Yes D7 has been very inconsistent when it comes to their new policy of not including the freeway names. It's up to the designer to remember during the review process.

SignBridge

Now let me get this straight: Caltrans (District-7) is inconsistent in their implementation of Caltrans policy?

Yes, remembering that they don't post freeway names on the signs anymore must be really hard for the designers to remember..........

mrsman

Quote from: SignBridge on January 20, 2016, 08:30:47 PM
Now let me get this straight: Caltrans (District-7) is inconsistent in their implementation of Caltrans policy?

Yes, remembering that they don't post freeway names on the signs anymore must be really hard for the designers to remember..........

Being inconsistent is what makes D7 consistent.

Truth be told, there was nothing wrong with the old sign.

AndyMax25

All,

There are several new guide signs proposed along I-5 in and around the East LA Interchange between I-710 and I-10 as part of a larger project.  The link to the plans is below, signs are on sheets 103-140.  I have sent my initial comments below to Caltrans D7, let me know if you have any other comments.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-300704/plans/


  • Sign 1A (a) - consider adding SOUTH to the I-5 portion of the sign.  Sheets 103, 127
  • Sign 5A (a) - consider adding SOUTH to the I-5 portion of the sign.  Sheets 107, 128
  • Sign 8B - consider adding NORTH next to 5 Freeway and WEST next to 10 Freeway.   Sheets 110, 131.
  • Signs 14A (a) and 16A (a) - consider removing Soto St from overhead sign to avoid confusion.  Can be added to a new roadside sign.  This will allow for the I-5 shield to be moved to the right and centered above Santa Ana.  Also consider moving EAST to the right side of the CA-60 shield to be consistent.
  • Sign 20A - consider adding WEST next to 10 Freeway and EAST next to 60 Freeway.   Sheets 122, 138.
  • Sign 22A (a) - consider adding EAST to the I-10 portion of the sign.  Sheets 124, 140.
  • For all "pull through" signs, consider raising the cardinal direction text next to the route shield to be consistent with sign standards G24-3 and G24-5.
  • Sign S19-1 - consider replacing San Bernardino with "RTE 10/5 SEP"

Occidental Tourist

Quote from: AndyMax25 on March 20, 2016, 11:01:56 PM
All,

There are several new guide signs proposed along I-5 in and around the East LA Interchange between I-710 and I-10 as part of a larger project.  The link to the plans is below, signs are on sheets 103-140.  I have sent my initial comments below to Caltrans D7, let me know if you have any other comments.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-300704/plans/


  • Sign 1A (a) - consider adding SOUTH to the I-5 portion of the sign.  Sheets 103, 127
  • Sign 5A (a) - consider adding SOUTH to the I-5 portion of the sign.  Sheets 107, 128
  • Sign 8B - consider adding NORTH next to 5 Freeway and WEST next to 10 Freeway.   Sheets 110, 131.
  • Signs 14A (a) and 16A (a) - consider removing Soto St from overhead sign to avoid confusion.  Can be added to a new roadside sign.  This will allow for the I-5 shield to be moved to the right and centered above Santa Ana.  Also consider moving EAST to the right side of the CA-60 shield to be consistent.
  • Sign 20A - consider adding WEST next to 10 Freeway and EAST next to 60 Freeway.   Sheets 122, 138.
  • Sign 22A (a) - consider adding EAST to the I-10 portion of the sign.  Sheets 124, 140.
  • For all "pull through" signs, consider raising the cardinal direction text next to the route shield to be consistent with sign standards G24-3 and G24-5.
  • Sign S19-1 - consider replacing San Bernardino with "RTE 10/5 SEP"

Some exit numbers on the non-thru route freeway exits would be nice.  Also, the 5 freeway shouldn't be an exit off itself - see sheet 131.  It's time Caltrans finally recognized that the 101 is a left exit off the 5.

AndyMax25

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 21, 2016, 12:26:05 AM
Some exit numbers on the non-thru route freeway exits would be nice.  Also, the 5 freeway shouldn't be an exit off itself - see sheet 131.  It's time Caltrans finally recognized that the 101 is a left exit off the 5.

Thanks Occidental.  Seems like this is a case of the Freeway name system being parroted in the new signs (even though they are removing them).  The 101 through downtown LA is the Santa Ana Freeway, same as I-5.  The original sign (sheet 110) shows an exit from I-5 to I-5 because the name is changing from Santa Ana Freeway to Golden State Freeway while the Santa Ana Freeway stays with the 101.

The same thing is true along SB 101 at the 134 split.  The advanced sign at the Woodman exit shows a 101 exit unto itself because it becomes the Hollywood Freeway.  https://goo.gl/maps/hpFdd74ztiT2

I don't think D7 has a big enough picture to understand or try to modernize the logic.  I'll send it along but not sure how receptive they will be.

mrsman

Quote from: AndyMax25 on March 21, 2016, 01:14:06 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 21, 2016, 12:26:05 AM
Some exit numbers on the non-thru route freeway exits would be nice.  Also, the 5 freeway shouldn't be an exit off itself - see sheet 131.  It's time Caltrans finally recognized that the 101 is a left exit off the 5.

Thanks Occidental.  Seems like this is a case of the Freeway name system being parroted in the new signs (even though they are removing them).  The 101 through downtown LA is the Santa Ana Freeway, same as I-5.  The original sign (sheet 110) shows an exit from I-5 to I-5 because the name is changing from Santa Ana Freeway to Golden State Freeway while the Santa Ana Freeway stays with the 101.

The same thing is true along SB 101 at the 134 split.  The advanced sign at the Woodman exit shows a 101 exit unto itself because it becomes the Hollywood Freeway.  https://goo.gl/maps/hpFdd74ztiT2

I don't think D7 has a big enough picture to understand or try to modernize the logic.  I'll send it along but not sure how receptive they will be.

I think that the best way to represent the interchange on an advanced sign would be something like "Jct (10) West / {101} North" on one line to emphasize that the ramps for both are at one point and that the ramps to I-10 East (San Bernardino Fwy) are another 2 miles further north and are not immediately approaching.  Simply saying 10 Fwy would lead me to believe that the ramps for both 10 East and 10 West are approaching.  But it's not true.

On sheet 111, the sign says "Grand Vista" instead of "Grande Vista"

On Sheet 114, there is a street level sign from Soto saying 101 north Sacramento.  The control city for the 101 should either be "LA Civic Center", "Hollywood", or "Ventura".  There is never a good reason to sign it as Sacramento anywhere.  That just reemphasizes that the 101 Hollywood and the 170 Hollywood are the same freeway and that the 101 Hollywood and the 101 Ventura are different freeways, which apparently is something that Caltrans wants to move away from.


TheStranger

Quote from: mrsman on March 21, 2016, 07:36:49 AM

On Sheet 114, there is a street level sign from Soto saying 101 north Sacramento.  The control city for the 101 should either be "LA Civic Center", "Hollywood", or "Ventura".  There is never a good reason to sign it as Sacramento anywhere.


While I agree overall with the emphasis of the three actual northbound 101 control cities you mentioned, I do think signing 101 north for Sacramento in the Hollywood area makes sense - no reason to force drivers there to skip over to I-5 to head towards Sacramento when 101 to 170 is the absolutely logical way.  It shouldn't be a primary control city, but can be used briefly in much the same way I-5 in Stockton is signed southbound for "San Francisco" for a few miles because it leads towards I-205 west in Tracy.
Chris Sampang

mrsman

Quote from: TheStranger on March 21, 2016, 01:07:43 PM
Quote from: mrsman on March 21, 2016, 07:36:49 AM

On Sheet 114, there is a street level sign from Soto saying 101 north Sacramento.  The control city for the 101 should either be "LA Civic Center", "Hollywood", or "Ventura".  There is never a good reason to sign it as Sacramento anywhere.


While I agree overall with the emphasis of the three actual northbound 101 control cities you mentioned, I do think signing 101 north for Sacramento in the Hollywood area makes sense - no reason to force drivers there to skip over to I-5 to head towards Sacramento when 101 to 170 is the absolutely logical way.  It shouldn't be a primary control city, but can be used briefly in much the same way I-5 in Stockton is signed southbound for "San Francisco" for a few miles because it leads towards I-205 west in Tracy.

So in your view, it should be Sacramento/Ventura?  Signing both, but not only Sacramento at least until you reach the 101/170 split.  I can see some support for that, but if there is only room for one  city, I think Ventura should be the dominant control city.

However, on the sign that was in question located on Soto Street, perhaps Sacramento traffic could be directed to a ramp for the Golden State Freeway a few blocks away.


Occidental Tourist

Quote from: mrsman on March 21, 2016, 02:49:31 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on March 21, 2016, 01:07:43 PM
Quote from: mrsman on March 21, 2016, 07:36:49 AM

On Sheet 114, there is a street level sign from Soto saying 101 north Sacramento.  The control city for the 101 should either be "LA Civic Center", "Hollywood", or "Ventura".  There is never a good reason to sign it as Sacramento anywhere.


While I agree overall with the emphasis of the three actual northbound 101 control cities you mentioned, I do think signing 101 north for Sacramento in the Hollywood area makes sense - no reason to force drivers there to skip over to I-5 to head towards Sacramento when 101 to 170 is the absolutely logical way.  It shouldn't be a primary control city, but can be used briefly in much the same way I-5 in Stockton is signed southbound for "San Francisco" for a few miles because it leads towards I-205 west in Tracy.

So in your view, it should be Sacramento/Ventura?  Signing both, but not only Sacramento at least until you reach the 101/170 split.  I can see some support for that, but if there is only room for one  city, I think Ventura should be the dominant control city.

However, on the sign that was in question located on Soto Street, perhaps Sacramento traffic could be directed to a ramp for the Golden State Freeway a few blocks away.



I recall there's an entrance sign to the 101 on Highland across from the Hollywood Bowl that also uses Sacramento for the control city on 101 north.

But if the control city for the rest of the 101 is Ventura, they ought to be consistent.  Of course, I detest using Ventura as a control city, but that's a whole 'nother argument for another thread.

TheStranger

Quote from: mrsman on March 21, 2016, 02:49:31 PM

So in your view, it should be Sacramento/Ventura?  Signing both, but not only Sacramento at least until you reach the 101/170 split.  I can see some support for that, but if there is only room for one  city, I think Ventura should be the dominant control city.

I agree with the latter (and with modern message loading standards, Ventura emphasis is not bad).  I do wonder if "TO I-5 NORTH Sacramento use Route 170" signage would be a helpful substitute.

Quote from: mrsman on March 21, 2016, 02:49:31 PM



However, on the sign that was in question located on Soto Street, perhaps Sacramento traffic could be directed to a ramp for the Golden State Freeway a few blocks away.



Yeah, a little surprised that 101 would be signed for Sacramento that far south.  I was actually thinking it'd make sense around the Four-Level going north (due to the fact trucks cannot use 110 north past that spot).

Quote from: Occidental TouristBut if the control city for the rest of the 101 is Ventura, they ought to be consistent.  Of course, I detest using Ventura as a control city, but that's a whole 'nother argument for another thread.
Out of curiosity, what would you prefer as an alternative to Ventura for the control there - Santa Barbara?  San Jose?  SF?
Chris Sampang

AndyMax25

Great discussion all.  I will forward the comments to D7.

Here is another set of new signs along I-5; this time near CA-14.  Signs are on sheets 80-92.  Would be great to hear about any possible enhancements to the truck route signage.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-302904/plans/

jeffe

Quote from: AndyMax25 on March 20, 2016, 11:01:56 PM


  • Sign 1A (a) - consider adding SOUTH to the I-5 portion of the sign.  Sheets 103, 127
  • Sign 5A (a) - consider adding SOUTH to the I-5 portion of the sign.  Sheets 107, 128


On signs 3B (a) and 5A (b) I'd say that the "RIGHT 2 LANES" text should be replaced with two down arrows and an ONLY indication to emphasize that those lanes are exit only lanes.  The sign is centered over the lanes, so I'm not sure why text instead of arrows was used here.

Related to this, sign 1A (b) should use up and to the right arrows instead of the current down arrows. An ONLY indication should be added here as well.

Also, I thought the new standard for cardinal directions -- NORTH, etc. -- called for them to be written with the first letter larger than the rest, such as:  NORTH.  I noticed none of these signs follow that convention. 

As others have noted, it would be nice to add exit numbers to the freeway connectors as well; there seems to be enough room to do so.

andy3175

Quote from: jeffe on March 21, 2016, 11:29:07 PM
As others have noted, it would be nice to add exit numbers to the freeway connectors as well; there seems to be enough room to do so.

Is there a concerted effort not to sign exit numbers on freeway to freeway ramps? I've noticed that many replacement/new signs at freeway ramps lack an exit number, but this is not a universal approach.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

mrsman

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 21, 2016, 06:57:32 PM
Quote from: mrsman on March 21, 2016, 02:49:31 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on March 21, 2016, 01:07:43 PM
Quote from: mrsman on March 21, 2016, 07:36:49 AM

On Sheet 114, there is a street level sign from Soto saying 101 north Sacramento.  The control city for the 101 should either be "LA Civic Center", "Hollywood", or "Ventura".  There is never a good reason to sign it as Sacramento anywhere.


While I agree overall with the emphasis of the three actual northbound 101 control cities you mentioned, I do think signing 101 north for Sacramento in the Hollywood area makes sense - no reason to force drivers there to skip over to I-5 to head towards Sacramento when 101 to 170 is the absolutely logical way.  It shouldn't be a primary control city, but can be used briefly in much the same way I-5 in Stockton is signed southbound for "San Francisco" for a few miles because it leads towards I-205 west in Tracy.

So in your view, it should be Sacramento/Ventura?  Signing both, but not only Sacramento at least until you reach the 101/170 split.  I can see some support for that, but if there is only room for one  city, I think Ventura should be the dominant control city.

However, on the sign that was in question located on Soto Street, perhaps Sacramento traffic could be directed to a ramp for the Golden State Freeway a few blocks away.



I recall there's an entrance sign to the 101 on Highland across from the Hollywood Bowl that also uses Sacramento for the control city on 101 north.

But if the control city for the rest of the 101 is Ventura, they ought to be consistent.  Of course, I detest using Ventura as a control city, but that's a whole 'nother argument for another thread.

Along the 101 itself the control city northbound is "Los Angeles" or "Los Angeles Civic Center" until the Union Station area, then the control city signed on the highway is sometimes signed as "Hollywood" and sometimes signed as "Ventura".  From Glendale Blvd north, you only tend to see "Ventura".  I see that the signing of Hollywood is no longer favored.  Ventura definitely seems preferred, especially as they get rid of using nicknames like Hollywood Fwy.

As far as on side streets leading to entrance ramp, most of the existing on-ramps that feature a control city say Ventura.  Here's an example at Rampart/Bellevue in the Silver Lake section of LA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0756472,-118.2730437,3a,75y,138.84h,80.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOALjzCSpgDkH0DNA_2ajEQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

However, there are signs that do say Sacramento, IMO erroneously.  The sign at Soto Street above .  The signs at Alvarado Ave.

As far as Highland Ave goes, it's a special case.  I lived in the area for many years and I always used the Highland Ave entrance to reach the 170, since it puts you on the left lane and use the entrance along Cauhenga to reach the right side of the freeway, especially if I wanted to get off at Universal City or other exits on the eastern side of the SFV.  Trucks are forbidden from using the Highland entrance and are directed to use Cauhenga to reach the freeway.

The Cauhenga entrance has a great compromise sign, featuring both Sacramento and Ventura:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1157911,-118.3363306,3a,75y,342.83h,75.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJPzzEkEwTX_N_xImknVTFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

andy3175

Did you guys notice the slight change in the order of signs within the freeway entrance shield assembly? In the old days, it was (from top to bottom) Freeway Entrance, Route Marker Shield, Directional Banner, and Arrow. Now it appears to be (from top to bottom) Freeway Entrance, Directional Banner, Route Marker Shield, and Arrow. See slide #120 at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-300704/plans/07-300704_plans-pgs%20101-200.pdf.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

mrsman

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 21, 2016, 12:26:05 AM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on March 20, 2016, 11:01:56 PM
All,

There are several new guide signs proposed along I-5 in and around the East LA Interchange between I-710 and I-10 as part of a larger project.  The link to the plans is below, signs are on sheets 103-140.  I have sent my initial comments below to Caltrans D7, let me know if you have any other comments.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-300704/plans/


  • Sign 1A (a) - consider adding SOUTH to the I-5 portion of the sign.  Sheets 103, 127
  • Sign 5A (a) - consider adding SOUTH to the I-5 portion of the sign.  Sheets 107, 128
  • Sign 8B - consider adding NORTH next to 5 Freeway and WEST next to 10 Freeway.   Sheets 110, 131.
  • Signs 14A (a) and 16A (a) - consider removing Soto St from overhead sign to avoid confusion.  Can be added to a new roadside sign.  This will allow for the I-5 shield to be moved to the right and centered above Santa Ana.  Also consider moving EAST to the right side of the CA-60 shield to be consistent.
  • Sign 20A - consider adding WEST next to 10 Freeway and EAST next to 60 Freeway.   Sheets 122, 138.
  • Sign 22A (a) - consider adding EAST to the I-10 portion of the sign.  Sheets 124, 140.
  • For all "pull through" signs, consider raising the cardinal direction text next to the route shield to be consistent with sign standards G24-3 and G24-5.
  • Sign S19-1 - consider replacing San Bernardino with "RTE 10/5 SEP"

Some exit numbers on the non-thru route freeway exits would be nice.  Also, the 5 freeway shouldn't be an exit off itself - see sheet 131.  It's time Caltrans finally recognized that the 101 is a left exit off the 5.

Just notice two quick mistakes on Sheet 118:

Pomona not Pamona

Streetside sign:  I-5 north to Sacramento, not to Santa Ana.

mrsman

Quote from: andy3175 on March 22, 2016, 12:42:25 AM
Did you guys notice the slight change in the order of signs within the freeway entrance shield assembly? In the old days, it was (from top to bottom) Freeway Entrance, Route Marker Shield, Directional Banner, and Arrow. Now it appears to be (from top to bottom) Freeway Entrance, Directional Banner, Route Marker Shield, and Arrow. See slide #120 at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-300704/plans/07-300704_plans-pgs%20101-200.pdf.

Didn't notice it till now.  I like the newer approach better, since it is more consistent with how it is usually signed along the highways with direction above the route marker.

TheStranger

#73
Quote from: mrsman on March 22, 2016, 12:38:25 AM
Along the 101 itself the control city northbound is "Los Angeles" or "Los Angeles Civic Center" until the Union Station area, then the control city signed on the highway is sometimes signed as "Hollywood" and sometimes signed as "Ventura".  From Glendale Blvd north, you only tend to see "Ventura".  I see that the signing of Hollywood is no longer favored.  Ventura definitely seems preferred, especially as they get rid of using nicknames like Hollywood Fwy.

I think the big reason Hollywood is being deprecated is the fact that its usage means a driver on 101 would encounter three completely different primary northbound control cities (Los Angeles Civic Center, Hollywood, Ventura) in the span of less than 10 miles.
Quote from: mrsman on March 22, 2016, 12:38:25 AM
The Cauhenga entrance has a great compromise sign, featuring both Sacramento and Ventura:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1157911,-118.3363306,3a,75y,342.83h,75.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJPzzEkEwTX_N_xImknVTFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

THAT is exactly the idea I had for northbound onramps in Hollywood, very concise.  (TO 170 Sacramento might be slightly more accurate but CalTrans loves the "implied TO" and this does cut down on message loading)

Quote from: andy3175Is there a concerted effort not to sign exit numbers on freeway to freeway ramps? I've noticed that many replacement/new signs at freeway ramps lack an exit number, but this is not a universal approach.

It's very inconsistent:

101/80 split in San Francisco has an exit number, as does 280/1 at both of its junctions, 380 at both of its ends, etc.  But 80 eastbound at 50 in West Sacramento and 50 eastbound at Business 80 and Route 99 in Sacramento do NOT have exit numbers at all.
Chris Sampang

TheStranger

Some comments based on the PDFS:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-300704/plans/07-300704_plans-pgs%20101-200.pdf Page 22, Page 39 - "Cesar Chavez" with no street appellation due to lack of sign space.  In San Francisco, I know CalTrans has signed exits for their Cesar Chavez street with "C Chavez St" as opposed to the name with no street suffix.

Page 30 - should there be arrow-per-lane signage for 101 north (in addition to the obvious I-5 exit number that needs to go here)?  As far as precedent is concerned for I-5 exiting off an older freeway AND having an exit number for the through lanes, there's the 5/99 split in Wheeler Ridge where the 99 through lanes are given one.

Quote from: mrsmanI think that the best way to represent the interchange on an advanced sign would be something like "Jct (10) West / {101} North" on one line to emphasize that the ramps for both are at one point and that the ramps to I-10 East (San Bernardino Fwy) are another 2 miles further north and are not immediately approaching.  Simply saying 10 Fwy would lead me to believe that the ramps for both 10 East and 10 West are approaching.  But it's not true.

To further add to this: Shouldn't 5 north (Golden State Freeway ramp off the Santa Ana Freeway northbound) be signed as 5 NORTH Sacramento/10 EAST San Bernardino here at the East Los Angeles Interchange?  The impression the current signage gives is either "10 Freeway" (which is not helpful as noted) or 10 WEST Santa Monica with no equivalent eastbound exit at that particular junction and no hint of where the eastbound exit might be.

---

On the 5/14 area signage:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-302904/plans/07-302904_plans-pgs%20001-100.pdf

General thought: Now that 210 is complete east of San Dimas, should San Bernardino also be used here as an eastbound control?  (to discourage drivers from going all the way to Boyle Heights to head to San Bernardino)  Other states' DOTs likely would even go with long-distance controls like Indio or Phoenix though that is definitely not CalTrans's urban approach (except maybe in Sacramento).

In addition to the 5/14 split getting exit numbers, Sierra Highway ramp should also be numbered IMO



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.