AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Author Topic: Caltrans gone MUTCD?  (Read 2882 times)

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15887
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 01:45:43 AM
Caltrans gone MUTCD?
« on: December 03, 2017, 10:58:00 AM »

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0157473,-118.487113,3a,37.5y,125.39h,81.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smOP_0bZUPYHHqEn4pUVFWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 In this here GSV image, I see the I-10 east to LA and no mention of the Santa Monica Freeway which is its name and what people from Southern California call the road.

I know in NYC they did the same eliminating expressway names and focusing on the route numbers as the MUTCD does not allow numbers and names together with control cities.  I assume that Caltrans did that here and now posted their latest signs.  I do not remember how this was originally signed, but I distinctly remember the "Santa Monica Fwy" name being on many signs when there in 88, so I am only making a guess this was one of those many signs.

Also,  on another note CA 1 is signed to the right as I-10 officially ends at this interchange and its CA 1that is the remainder of the freeway that goes through the tunnel, however why is CA 1 still allowed to be signed north of here while on Lincoln Boulevard it has to be signed"TO CA 1" due to Caltrans not allowing non state maintained routes to be signed as such?  Is not the PCH inside the Santa Monica City Limits?
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24921
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: Caltrans gone MUTCD?
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2017, 11:25:09 AM »

Gradually a lot of old signage is being replaced by MUCTD compliant stuff.  Even the shields being put up are now highway vinyl as opposed to the baked on paint they used to be.  Most of the new stuff goes up when there is a major reconstruction project I’ve noticed.   There is still plenty of older signage like button-copy and reflective paint BGSs, especially along the 99 corridor.  The freeways still have names from what I’ve seen but usually they are only on the freeway itself. 
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4870
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: March 17, 2024, 07:21:57 PM
Re: Caltrans gone MUTCD?
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2017, 11:51:39 AM »

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0157473,-118.487113,3a,37.5y,125.39h,81.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smOP_0bZUPYHHqEn4pUVFWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 In this here GSV image, I see the I-10 east to LA and no mention of the Santa Monica Freeway which is its name and what people from Southern California call the road.

I know in NYC they did the same eliminating expressway names and focusing on the route numbers as the MUTCD does not allow numbers and names together with control cities.  I assume that Caltrans did that here and now posted their latest signs.  I do not remember how this was originally signed, but I distinctly remember the "Santa Monica Fwy" name being on many signs when there in 88, so I am only making a guess this was one of those many signs.

Also,  on another note CA 1 is signed to the right as I-10 officially ends at this interchange and its CA 1that is the remainder of the freeway that goes through the tunnel, however why is CA 1 still allowed to be signed north of here while on Lincoln Boulevard it has to be signed"TO CA 1" due to Caltrans not allowing non state maintained routes to be signed as such?  Is not the PCH inside the Santa Monica City Limits?

I believe this was brought up in one of the other threads on this board that discussed some of the major Caltrans district resigning projects. Caltrans is indeed de-emphasizing the highway names on freeway signage, especially on intersecting streets and BGSs along other routes, and putting more attention to highway number/direction/destination.


To illustrate, here's the Street View of the overhead BGS in the background of your example in July 2016 versus January 2017. Santa Monica Freeway name removed in favor of I-10 East.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 11:58:14 AM by roadfro »
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

DTComposer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1247
  • Location: San Jose
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:06:38 PM
Re: Caltrans gone MUTCD?
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2017, 09:25:58 PM »

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0157473,-118.487113,3a,37.5y,125.39h,81.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smOP_0bZUPYHHqEn4pUVFWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 In this here GSV image, I see the I-10 east to LA and no mention of the Santa Monica Freeway which is its name and what people from Southern California call the road.

Although I'm sure most people in Southern California know it's the Santa Monica Freeway, in 17 years of living there I rarely heard it referred it to as such outside of traffic reports. It was always "the 10."

Quote
Also,  on another note CA 1 is signed to the right as I-10 officially ends at this interchange and its CA 1that is the remainder of the freeway that goes through the tunnel, however why is CA 1 still allowed to be signed north of here while on Lincoln Boulevard it has to be signed"TO CA 1" due to Caltrans not allowing non state maintained routes to be signed as such?  Is not the PCH inside the Santa Monica City Limits?

If I'm parsing your question correctly, only the Lincoln Boulevard portion was relinquished in Santa Monica. The PCH section (even inside the Santa Monica city limits) is still part of the legislative route.
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1508
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 02:58:36 PM
    • AARoads
Re: Caltrans gone MUTCD?
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2017, 11:52:18 PM »

AndyMax could tell us whether that I-10 sign is a Caltrans or City of Santa Monica placement.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 85
  • Location: SoCal and Salt Lake City
  • Last Login: February 16, 2024, 09:41:31 PM
Re: Caltrans gone MUTCD?
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2017, 09:17:44 PM »

While I always like California's oddball signs, I am actually pleased to see them finally comply with MUTCD.  That old "Santa Monica Freeway" sign looks hideous.  And what's up with those weird left-turn icons?
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 881
  • Last Login: January 07, 2024, 03:25:40 AM
Re: Caltrans gone MUTCD?
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2017, 03:56:33 PM »

While I always like California's oddball signs, I am actually pleased to see them finally comply with MUTCD.  That old "Santa Monica Freeway" sign looks hideous.  And what's up with those weird left-turn icons?

It looks like a classic greenout job: A regulatory sign for a signal cross arm was put over the top of the old left (or down) arrow, likely when they restriped the bridge to create a second turn lane onto the freeway.
Logged

AndyMax25

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 113
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 11:51:32 PM
Re: Caltrans gone MUTCD?
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2017, 07:26:56 PM »

AndyMax could tell us whether that I-10 sign is a Caltrans or City of Santa Monica placement.

This particular overhead sign along with several others on the freeway itself (mostly in the westbound direction) was part of a City sign replacement project.  The sign plans were approved by Caltrans and installed via encroachment permit.  While I always prefer to have the route shield and freeway name shown at interchanges, everything wold not fit.  This was the most clear messaging possible and we went for lane arrows to replace the strange black and white arrows.
Logged

 


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.