News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

California

Started by andy3175, July 20, 2016, 12:17:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Max Rockatansky

Photographed some signage oddities today.

CA 152 Westbound Detour on CA 152 West/CA 33 North.  Oddly CA 33 had a detour in the same place last year also signed on the route:

152CAa by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

Signed County Route G12 without the "G" on US 101/CA 156 in Prunedale:

12GCRa by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

CA 1 Business on Fremont Street in Monterey:

12GCRa by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr



sparker

Now that's the sort of signage error (the county trailblazer shields) I've come to expect from District 4 -- but this is down the road in District 5, which historically has been far more competent in that regard.  Those penta shields need to be returned to whatever sign shop supplied them for warranty replacement!  :pan:

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: sparker on August 25, 2018, 02:57:24 AM
Now that's the sort of signage error (the county trailblazer shields) I've come to expect from District 4 -- but this is down the road in District 5, which historically has been far more competent in that regard.  Those penta shields need to be returned to whatever sign shop supplied them for warranty replacement!  :pan:

The one I thought was really bad was County Route 18 Signed to Jolon from US 101 south near King City when it ought to be G14.   Not only was the G omitted but they didn't even get the right route signed on the BGS.

https://flic.kr/p/VtzH5s

sparker

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2018, 09:22:53 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 25, 2018, 02:57:24 AM
Now that's the sort of signage error (the county trailblazer shields) I've come to expect from District 4 -- but this is down the road in District 5, which historically has been far more competent in that regard.  Those penta shields need to be returned to whatever sign shop supplied them for warranty replacement!  :pan:

The one I thought was really bad was County Route 18 Signed to Jolon from US 101 south near King City when it ought to be G14.   Not only was the G omitted but they didn't even get the right route signed on the BGS.

https://flic.kr/p/VtzH5s

Ouch!  The boys down in SLO must be slipping! -- if they're making the penta county shields themselves, they're screwing up; or if they're letting the counties make the shields, they're not "proofreading" them before sending out the signing crews.  Let's hope it's not because they just don't give a shit these days! 

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: sparker on August 25, 2018, 11:45:10 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2018, 09:22:53 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 25, 2018, 02:57:24 AM
Now that's the sort of signage error (the county trailblazer shields) I've come to expect from District 4 -- but this is down the road in District 5, which historically has been far more competent in that regard.  Those penta shields need to be returned to whatever sign shop supplied them for warranty replacement!  :pan:

The one I thought was really bad was County Route 18 Signed to Jolon from US 101 south near King City when it ought to be G14.   Not only was the G omitted but they didn't even get the right route signed on the BGS.

https://flic.kr/p/VtzH5s

Ouch!  The boys down in SLO must be slipping! -- if they're making the penta county shields themselves, they're screwing up; or if they're letting the counties make the shields, they're not "proofreading" them before sending out the signing crews.  Let's hope it's not because they just don't give a shit these days!

Come to think of it I might try to give D5 a call on the County Route 18 sign.  It seems like a simple error that could lead to a navigational issue.  For what it's worth D5 tends to sign it's County Routes very well from state maintained roadways, that seems like an oversight to me. 

gonealookin

Check out this dimwit who was instructed to use I-80 rather than CA 88 to cross the Sierras, and decided the 20-mile-long no-center-stripe stretch of CA 4 would be a better option for his 73-foot rig.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: gonealookin on August 31, 2018, 11:23:02 AM
Check out this dimwit who was instructed to use I-80 rather than CA 88 to cross the Sierras, and decided the 20-mile-long no-center-stripe stretch of CA 4 would be a better option for his 73-foot rig.

Didn't he wreck at Cadillac Curve?  The twists and turns alone should have deterred that decision (much less the one-lane and 24% downhill grades).

jakeroot

I just returned from a driving trip to Orange County. I noticed while driving around that Caltrans uses local idioms on signs and pavement markings.

For example, this pavement marking indicating "5 FWY" instead of I-5: https://goo.gl/kL3uSv (I think these pre-date the painting of an actual interstate marking, but "I-5" is more legally correct)

Also, on overhead signage "SOUTH 5 FWY" (as opposed to the I-5 at-grade arterial?): https://goo.gl/dmJW4R

I did not notice such idioms on signs or roadway markings anywhere outside of Los Angeles, so I'm guessing this is a local district thing? How long have they done stuff like this?

To be clear, I have no problem with it. I am well aware of LA lingo (I have several family members from the area), but I thought it was odd that Caltrans would use the terms themselves.

sparker

Quote from: jakeroot on September 15, 2018, 02:46:05 PM
I just returned from a driving trip to Orange County. I noticed while driving around that Caltrans uses local idioms on signs and pavement markings.

For example, this pavement marking indicating "5 FWY" instead of I-5: https://goo.gl/kL3uSv (I think these pre-date the painting of an actual interstate marking, but "I-5" is more legally correct)

Also, on overhead signage "SOUTH 5 FWY" (as opposed to the I-5 at-grade arterial?): https://goo.gl/dmJW4R

I did not notice such idioms on signs or roadway markings anywhere outside of Los Angeles, so I'm guessing this is a local district thing? How long have they done stuff like this?

To be clear, I have no problem with it. I am well aware of LA lingo (I have several family members from the area), but I thought it was odd that Caltrans would use the terms themselves.

As far as the Anaheim pavement marking goes, that was probably done by a Disneyland crew (the ones responsible for painting markings on their various parking facilities); I've seen those crews working on the roadway outside the Disneyland Hotel on the numerous occasions I've had to stay there (I used to live in Anaheim, and the city is only too happy to let Disney handle the traffic situation in & around the park as long as they don't overstep their bounds).  Calling it the "5 Freeway" is simply shorthand for the prevailing regional vernacular.  Re the "I-5 (this time with a real shield) Fwy" on the SB BGS at the 5/110 interchange, that's a new idiom to me!  Since D7 hasn't posted freeway names on the various facilities for decades now, it's just possible that since that sign is only a few miles north of the end of the "Golden State Freeway", it's simply a generic I-5 reference.  Coincidentally, that interchange has always been the location of the first mention of Santa Ana as a control city; all preceding references are to Los Angeles -- but that destination shifts to SB CA 110 at the ramps to that freeway about a mile previous to the NB 110 exit where the pull-through sign subject of this discussion is located.   

andy3175

Quote from: sparker on September 16, 2018, 01:32:31 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 15, 2018, 02:46:05 PM
Also, on overhead signage "SOUTH 5 FWY" (as opposed to the I-5 at-grade arterial?): https://goo.gl/dmJW4R
Re the "I-5 (this time with a real shield) Fwy" on the SB BGS at the 5/110 interchange, that's a new idiom to me!  Since D7 hasn't posted freeway names on the various facilities for decades now, it's just possible that since that sign is only a few miles north of the end of the "Golden State Freeway", it's simply a generic I-5 reference.  Coincidentally, that interchange has always been the location of the first mention of Santa Ana as a control city; all preceding references are to Los Angeles -- but that destination shifts to SB CA 110 at the ramps to that freeway about a mile previous to the NB 110 exit where the pull-through sign subject of this discussion is located.   

Given that the newer 110 signs at this interchange on I-5 now refer to CA-110 as a "parkway" (it is the Arroyo Seco Parkway north of downtown LA), perhaps the distinction here is to remind people that 5 is a freeway and at this point 110 is a parkway, which implies a different level of quality.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

jakeroot

I'm certain that I saw other uses of "FWY" next to interstate shields in LA, but I cannot remember where at the moment. Somewhere along the 5, 60, or 710.

sparker

Quote from: andy3175 on September 16, 2018, 11:45:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 16, 2018, 01:32:31 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 15, 2018, 02:46:05 PM
Also, on overhead signage "SOUTH 5 FWY" (as opposed to the I-5 at-grade arterial?): https://goo.gl/dmJW4R
Re the "I-5 (this time with a real shield) Fwy" on the SB BGS at the 5/110 interchange, that's a new idiom to me!  Since D7 hasn't posted freeway names on the various facilities for decades now, it's just possible that since that sign is only a few miles north of the end of the "Golden State Freeway", it's simply a generic I-5 reference.  Coincidentally, that interchange has always been the location of the first mention of Santa Ana as a control city; all preceding references are to Los Angeles -- but that destination shifts to SB CA 110 at the ramps to that freeway about a mile previous to the NB 110 exit where the pull-through sign subject of this discussion is located.   

Given that the newer 110 signs at this interchange on I-5 now refer to CA-110 as a "parkway" (it is the Arroyo Seco Parkway north of downtown LA), perhaps the distinction here is to remind people that 5 is a freeway and at this point 110 is a parkway, which implies a different level of quality.

That makes sense.  All it takes is a trip up the Arroyo Seco to make a driver think "gee -- I'm not on a freeway anymore", particularly when they have to drop to 40 or so to make it around one of the curves.  Likely the only folks who would consider it a "real" freeway would be those who are accustomed to either NYC's BQE (I-278) or Philly's "Surekill" (I-76), both of which feature in part similar curvature and lines of sight. 

roadfro

Quote from: jakeroot on September 15, 2018, 02:46:05 PM
I just returned from a driving trip to Orange County. I noticed while driving around that Caltrans uses local idioms on signs and pavement markings.

For example, this pavement marking indicating "5 FWY" instead of I-5: https://goo.gl/kL3uSv (I think these pre-date the painting of an actual interstate marking, but "I-5" is more legally correct)

Also, on overhead signage "SOUTH 5 FWY" (as opposed to the I-5 at-grade arterial?): https://goo.gl/dmJW4R

I did not notice such idioms on signs or roadway markings anywhere outside of Los Angeles, so I'm guessing this is a local district thing? How long have they done stuff like this?

To be clear, I have no problem with it. I am well aware of LA lingo (I have several family members from the area), but I thought it was odd that Caltrans would use the terms themselves.

I believe there are some instances of state highways in California where a portion of the signed route is on surface streets while another portion is freeway. It wouldn't surprise me if terms like "the 60 freeway" made it local vernacular and subsequently have appeared on signage...

There was some discussion on this board a little while ago about a mass signing projects undertaken in a Caltrans district, wherein it seemed many of the new BGSs removed freeway names and (confusingly) control cities in favor of legends like "10 Freeway". Not sure if that was the LA district or not–there were a couple threads for different Caltrans district signing projects happening concurrently.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

sparker

The part-freeway/part-surface L.A. area state highway routes (of all types) are rapidly disappearing; much of this is due to relinquishments.  The most obvious remaining transition is at the south end of the CA 2 ("Glendale") freeway, where it segues into Glendale Blvd. and subsequently onto Alvarado St., which it uses south to US 101/Hollywood Freeway, where it multiplexes north/west.  And Long Beach has its 7th Street surface west extension of CA 22 to CA 1.  But CA 110 was relinquished along its Pasadena surface stretch as well as its southern extension along Gaffey Street in San Pedro; it only currently exists on the Harbor Freeway and Arroyo Seco Parkway.  And CA 71 is gradually (and excruciatingly!) being upgraded to freeway standards through Pomona, so its situation is (hopefully) temporary.  Otherwise, the routes that are deployed over freeways are strictly freeway, while the routes (as of yet unrelinquished) remaining on surface streets do so exclusively, with the exceptions cited above.   

Common local vernacular (like the infamous "THE 57", "THE 134", and so forth) seems to have started with local radio traffic reports looking for descriptive shortcuts.  When a driver hears that talk every 10 minutes during commute hours, it tends to embed itself in the lexicon -- and that vernacular has been happening since the mid-'70's, when reporters were starting to substitute route numbers for the old freeway names.  But the word "THE", in that context, has yet to appear on BGS's or as bannering! -- so far!   :cheers: 

TheStranger

Just saw this posted in the SF Bay Area Roads, Freeways and Bridges group on FB, a video about how the Bayshore Freeway ended up routed directly through East Palo Alto in the 1950s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjv2sHSKoNE&feature=youtu.be
Chris Sampang

jakeroot

Anyone know of any exceptionally wide roads with permissive left turns? CA seems to use "green arrow only" left turns on a very wide basis.

Looking for something like a permissive left turn across four lanes or something. Three lanes is cool too, since I'm not sure I've seen that either.

skluth

Quote from: jakeroot on October 01, 2018, 02:13:04 PM
Anyone know of any exceptionally wide roads with permissive left turns? CA seems to use "green arrow only" left turns on a very wide basis.

Looking for something like a permissive left turn across four lanes or something. Three lanes is cool too, since I'm not sure I've seen that either.

I remember when I lived in St Louis, the MoDOT rep who would sit in on the Post-Dispatch chats said they were general not permitted in Missouri with more than one turn lane and would require special exemption from MoDOT. Don't know if that is true elsewhere. In the meantime, enjoy this dual 3-lane roundabout near my youngest brother's home in Green Bay.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5383961,-88.0774825,365m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

roadfro

Quote from: jakeroot on October 01, 2018, 02:13:04 PM
Anyone know of any exceptionally wide roads with permissive left turns? CA seems to use "green arrow only" left turns on a very wide basis.

Looking for something like a permissive left turn across four lanes or something. Three lanes is cool too, since I'm not sure I've seen that either.

Granted I don't live in California, but I'm hard pressed to think of any permissive left turns period, let alone any across three or four lanes. I imagine there are some out there, but they seem to be a rarity...
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

jakeroot

#568
Quote from: roadfro on October 03, 2018, 06:13:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 01, 2018, 02:13:04 PM
Anyone know of any exceptionally wide roads with permissive left turns? CA seems to use "green arrow only" left turns on a very wide basis.

Looking for something like a permissive left turn across four lanes or something. Three lanes is cool too, since I'm not sure I've seen that either.

Granted I don't live in California, but I'm hard pressed to think of any permissive left turns period, let alone any across three or four lanes. I imagine there are some out there, but they seem to be a rarity...

Besides the very few cities who have adopted FYAs on a very limited basis, the only place I see permissive lefts is Los Angeles, where many left turns are yield-only or yield-on-green. You do see permissive lefts in CA, but more often than not, they're at small neighborhood signals with only one lane in each direction. I suspect any permissive left across three or four lanes would be in LA-proper.

sparker

^^^^^^^^
Jake's on to something there; the few instances of permissive lefts I can recall remaining on anything over a single lane per direction were in L.A. on some of the N-S arterials, particularly Vermont and Western Avenues, plus much of Normandie Avenue outside the Wilshire district, which has largely been channelized with dedicated lefts due to the exceptionally high level of traffic (much of it looking for parking spots!) in that zone.  Those arterials traverse some of the older neighborhoods in the city; expansion of the streets to accommodate left-turn lanes would be all but impossible, particularly since doing so would likely disturb long-standing bus stops at major intersections, forcing them to move to a mid-block area and drawing the ire of riders who want to transfer between bus lines.  And having seen what happens when the L.A. "Bus Riders' Union" gets its dander up over lesser offenses, this is an occurrence to be avoided.  So the streets in these areas remain as they have been for decades. 

mrsman

Quote from: sparker on October 04, 2018, 01:25:05 AM
^^^^^^^^
Jake's on to something there; the few instances of permissive lefts I can recall remaining on anything over a single lane per direction were in L.A. on some of the N-S arterials, particularly Vermont and Western Avenues, plus much of Normandie Avenue outside the Wilshire district, which has largely been channelized with dedicated lefts due to the exceptionally high level of traffic (much of it looking for parking spots!) in that zone.  Those arterials traverse some of the older neighborhoods in the city; expansion of the streets to accommodate left-turn lanes would be all but impossible, particularly since doing so would likely disturb long-standing bus stops at major intersections, forcing them to move to a mid-block area and drawing the ire of riders who want to transfer between bus lines.  And having seen what happens when the L.A. "Bus Riders' Union" gets its dander up over lesser offenses, this is an occurrence to be avoided.  So the streets in these areas remain as they have been for decades.

Based on the question, is a street considered to be 2 lanes or 3 lanes per direction if there are 2 lanes at all times, but parking restrictions allow for a 3rd lane during rush hours?   In that case, I know of several.

Within the city of Los Angeles, there are many pretty wide streets that allow for permissive lefts.  Many of the signals in the city have long had an aversion to any type of left turn signal, let alone protected only lefts. Venice Blvd. is 3 lanes in each direction, plus bike lanes, and many permissive lefts are allowed.  Example: Venice/Cattaurugs.  Olympic is 3 lanes eastbound and 4 lanes westbound during rush hours, in the stretch between Century City and Sepulveda - most of those intersections are permissive lefts as well, example: Olympic/Veteran.

For nearby suburbs, outside of LA proper, the above notion is generally correct.  But there are many exceptions.  Many cases where a major street (3 lanes at rush hour in each direction) intersects a minor street without protected only left turns.   Examples: Wilshire/Doheny Beverly Hills,  Century/Inglwood in Inglewood, Washington/Commerce Way in Commerce.  I also discovered that the major intersection of El Segundo/Crenshaw in Hawthorne has doghouses in each direction (20 years ago, when I drove by there they even employed simultaneous lagging lefts which is quite rare in LA).

At the same time, many quiet suburbs seem to be exclusively protected only at major streets.  You can wait along time at traffic signals traveling through the SG Valley and the Inland Empire.  Let's hope that the adoption of FYA's will change this outcome.

jakeroot

Thanks for that, mrsman. I realized surfing street view around LA proper, permissive lefts are far more common than not, but the suburbs seem almost frightened to use them. Or, their traffic engineers were trained by Caltrans!

Of the three suburban signals you mentioned, the Commerce one is the most impressive, as it's also by far the newest. Basically, a bit out of character!

That Inglewood signal is rather strange (beyond the lagging left, if that's still a thing), with the mast arm extending to the left past the doghouse. Such a sight is rather unusual in CA. In fact, I don't know of any other situations where that happens. Opposite situation in virtually every other state.

sparker

L.A. got a bit of a windfall in terms of street configuration and capacity when much of the former Pacific Electric interurban empire was removed in the '50's and early '60's.  Streets such as Venice Blvd., Culver, Blvd., and even Santa Monica and San Vicente boulevards originally featured tracks in either the median or embedded in the centers of multilane streets.  As such, these streets exhibited more lateral ROW than usual -- and were among the first to be channelized,, simply because there was the room available to do so.  But in the L.A. basin from downtown out to the beaches at Venice and Santa Monica, most trackage was generally arrayed E-W (with occasional diagonal segments); these are the streets that were "modernized" in terms of pavement marking and signalization.  The one street that featured quite a bit of channelization was Olympic Blvd.; not surprising, as that street was built (as LRN 173) well after most of the other E-W arterials -- and Division of Highways standards prevailed.  However, dedicated (non-permissive) lefts weren't common even there until the late '60's. 

mrsman

I came across the following pdf from the City of Los Angeles DOT website:

http://basic.cityofla.acsitefactory.com/sites/g/files/wph266/f/lacityp_021726.pdf

(It has lead to some confusion on my part about the historic routings of 101 and 66 discussed on another thread, see pp 19-21).

For purposes of this discussion, there is talk of left turn pockets and left turn signalization at pages 77 and 92.

QuoteAs discussed in Part 1, left-turn phasing in Los Angeles was a novelty, in the 1950's and 1960's, due to signal
equipment restrictions and the limited number of continuous raised median islands. By the early
1970's, left-turn phasing became a routine design on State highways and suburban boulevards in areas adjacent
to Los Angeles. However, it would not become a standard feature on Los Angeles' more urban streets due to
the traffic signal operating philosophy that prevailed throughout most of the 1970's.

The philosophy reflected the distinct signal system that
the City of Los Angeles operated. Unlike the Division
of Highways, which operated signals along a few, widely
spaced State Highways, the City of Los Angeles operated
signals throughout a network with signal spacing at approximately
1/4-mile intervals. This type of signal network
allowed 30 mile-per-hour progression to be maintained
in all directions with short (50 to 70 second) cycle
lengths. However, the addition of left turn arrows
would require longer cycle lengths, which, in turn, would
severely compromise progression. This degradation in
progression was avoided by resisting requests to install
left turn arrows.



sparker

^^^^^^^^^
Reading the cited PDF about the early ('26) US 66 routing between Pasadena and Los Angeles, it seemed that before it was finally (pre-parkway) routed along LRN 165/North Figueroa to Colorado in Eagle Rock, then east to Pasadena, some entity other than the Division of Highways (possibly ACSC, the SoCal AAA affiliate, which signed a lot of routes (official & otherwise) back then prior to comprehensive state signage) signed the Fair Oaks/Huntington/Mission/Broadway route as US 66 (with ACSC-tagged shields) between 1926 and about 1930-31.  There are no archival Division records recognizing that route as a state-maintained highway; North Figueroa St. was the closest such facility.   



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.