News:

why is this up in the corner now

Main Menu

errors on freeway signs in SF Bay Area

Started by FredAkbar, November 06, 2019, 11:59:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

FredAkbar

I've noticed two errors on the signs on freeways that tell you the upcoming exits. I actually messaged CalTrans on their portal a year or two ago but they never replied or fixed the errors, so either I reported it wrong, it got lost in the shuffle, or they didn't care enough.

Error 1: on SB 101 in Palo Alto at the Embarcadero Rd underpass, the mileage sign for the various Mountain View exits is wrong, the numbers are about 1.5mi greater than they should be. For example, the sign says 3 1/4 miles to San Antonio, but it's really about 1.7.
image of sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4490448,-122.123359,3a,75y,148.49h,86.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSWohjiu13_16wGZiXtwZ7g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
actual distance: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/37.4489979,-122.1232919/37.4299865,-122.1033511/@37.4371242,-122.1191523,15.12z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0

Error 2: on NB 85 in Mountain View at the Evelyn Ave overpass, the mileage sign for Jct 101 North is wrong, it says 2 1/2 miles but it's more like 1 1/2 at the most. The Shoreline/101 access is basically at the same point where the freeway ends, so it's weird that there is a separate 2 1/2 listed for Jct 101.
image of sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3904327,-122.0684851,3a,75y,357.98h,89.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEHgVcNG_Xxpop0fxM1KwwA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
actual distance: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/37.3908071,-122.0684874/37.4107737,-122.0746596/@37.4020182,-122.075979,15.4z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0
(note: there is a sign about a mile back that more correctly states 1 1/2 miles to the 101 interchange (the "1 1/2 at the most" at Evelyn Ave is more like 0.5-1 if you just count until the freeway starts to split, so *this* sign seems to be correct. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3827957,-122.068085,3a,75y,348.97h,97.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soOKN6e7OSY4TIFkU4gkvsw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 )

I'm curious if there are other errors on freeway signs as well as what the process around fixing them is like.


kurumi

Three flat-out wrong exit numbers, all on I-880 southbound, San Jose:

Brokaw Road, "Exit 4D" (should be exit 5): https://goo.gl/maps/uHn5auKFpft91mscA

First Street, "Exit 389" (should be exit 4A): https://goo.gl/maps/11aLADC8kuCsmxcCA

The Alameda, "Exit 1D" (should be exit 2); FFS the real Exit 1D (Bascom Ave) is on the same sign bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/wxLri1pbZw2MXCe27

With all respect to the hardworking, talented people at Caltrans, tbh I would be astonished if these ever got fixed.
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

FredAkbar

That reminds me, there's some funky stuff going on with the exit numbers on I-380. The entire freeway is only a couple of miles long, and there are only a couple sets of exits--CA-82, I-280, and US-101 depending which direction you're going. But despite this, the exits are all numbered between 5 and 7, including an exit 5, 5A, and 5B all westbound.

Westbound, the CA-82 exit is Exit 5: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6344477,-122.4155785,3a,75y,253.74h,84.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq0hY11wuiO2rhP5cgAzoPw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Then the I-280 interchange about a mile to the west is Exits 5A and 5B: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6295895,-122.428881,3a,75y,257.78h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srknfg_infY2ndsWPTr_UBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Eastbound, the exits similarly start at 5, but at least there's no 5/5A/5B overlap: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6300993,-122.425015,3a,75y,64.11h,97.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6_SSaeg0s01Tzarcmtec1w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

DTComposer

Quote from: FredAkbar on November 07, 2019, 04:30:02 AM
That reminds me, there's some funky stuff going on with the exit numbers on I-380. The entire freeway is only a couple of miles long, and there are only a couple sets of exits--CA-82, I-280, and US-101 depending which direction you're going. But despite this, the exits are all numbered between 5 and 7, including an exit 5, 5A, and 5B all westbound.

Westbound, the CA-82 exit is Exit 5: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6344477,-122.4155785,3a,75y,253.74h,84.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq0hY11wuiO2rhP5cgAzoPw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Then the I-280 interchange about a mile to the west is Exits 5A and 5B: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6295895,-122.428881,3a,75y,257.78h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srknfg_infY2ndsWPTr_UBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Eastbound, the exits similarly start at 5, but at least there's no 5/5A/5B overlap: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6300993,-122.425015,3a,75y,64.11h,97.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6_SSaeg0s01Tzarcmtec1w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This is a remnant of the proposed extension of I-380 to CA-1 in Pacifica (you'll notice hints of this extension in the I-280/I-380 interchange). Cost and environmental concerns have rendered this plan dead for decades, although the route remains part of the legislative definition of 380.

CA-1 would have be exit 1, and Skyline Boulevard/CA-35 would be exit 4, I would guess.

(to me the most fascinating part of this extension is how, because of the terrain, 380 would have crossed over CA-1, then looped back around and met it from the other side:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4483611352/in/album-72157622139053795/
although I do not want to see this built, I can imagine how stunning the views of the coast and ocean would have been as you headed west on 380).

michravera

#4
Quote from: FredAkbar on November 06, 2019, 11:59:30 AM
I've noticed two errors on the signs on freeways that tell you the upcoming exits. I actually messaged CalTrans on their portal a year or two ago but they never replied or fixed the errors, so either I reported it wrong, it got lost in the shuffle, or they didn't care enough.

Error 1: on SB 101 in Palo Alto at the Embarcadero Rd underpass, the mileage sign for the various Mountain View exits is wrong, the numbers are about 1.5mi greater than they should be. For example, the sign says 3 1/4 miles to San Antonio, but it's really about 1.7.
image of sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4490448,-122.123359,3a,75y,148.49h,86.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSWohjiu13_16wGZiXtwZ7g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
actual distance: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/37.4489979,-122.1232919/37.4299865,-122.1033511/@37.4371242,-122.1191523,15.12z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0

Error 2: on NB 85 in Mountain View at the Evelyn Ave overpass, the mileage sign for Jct 101 North is wrong, it says 2 1/2 miles but it's more like 1 1/2 at the most. The Shoreline/101 access is basically at the same point where the freeway ends, so it's weird that there is a separate 2 1/2 listed for Jct 101.
image of sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3904327,-122.0684851,3a,75y,357.98h,89.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEHgVcNG_Xxpop0fxM1KwwA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
actual distance: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/37.3908071,-122.0684874/37.4107737,-122.0746596/@37.4020182,-122.075979,15.4z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0
(note: there is a sign about a mile back that more correctly states 1 1/2 miles to the 101 interchange (the "1 1/2 at the most" at Evelyn Ave is more like 0.5-1 if you just count until the freeway starts to split, so *this* sign seems to be correct. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3827957,-122.068085,3a,75y,348.97h,97.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soOKN6e7OSY4TIFkU4gkvsw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 )

I'm curious if there are other errors on freeway signs as well as what the process around fixing them is like.

To my knowledge, they still haven't fixed the "Exit 1D here" and "Exit 1D 3/4 mile" issue on SB I-880.

roadfro

Quote from: kurumi on November 07, 2019, 01:16:24 AM
The Alameda, "Exit 1D" (should be exit 2); FFS the real Exit 1D (Bascom Ave) is on the same sign bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/wxLri1pbZw2MXCe27

That's pretty egregious.

And can we talk about the horrible layout of the Alameda exit sign? Had they used the two-line exit "plaque", the shield and text might've fit on one line...
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

SeriesE

I-880 north at Dixon Landing Road still marks Mission Boulevard as Exit 12. Mission Blvd has been Exit 12A for a decade by now, and a recent sign replacement project replaced this sign as-is without fixing the problem.

michravera

Quote from: roadfro on November 07, 2019, 10:58:42 AM
Quote from: kurumi on November 07, 2019, 01:16:24 AM
The Alameda, "Exit 1D" (should be exit 2); FFS the real Exit 1D (Bascom Ave) is on the same sign bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/wxLri1pbZw2MXCe27

That's pretty egregious.

And can we talk about the horrible layout of the Alameda exit sign? Had they used the two-line exit "plaque", the shield and text might've fit on one line...

I reported this to Caltrans over two years ago! They got to the distance sign by SJC (perpetually overgrown) much quicker.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: michravera on November 08, 2019, 10:27:54 AM
Quote from: roadfro on November 07, 2019, 10:58:42 AM
Quote from: kurumi on November 07, 2019, 01:16:24 AM
The Alameda, "Exit 1D" (should be exit 2); FFS the real Exit 1D (Bascom Ave) is on the same sign bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/wxLri1pbZw2MXCe27

That's pretty egregious.

And can we talk about the horrible layout of the Alameda exit sign? Had they used the two-line exit "plaque", the shield and text might've fit on one line...

I reported this to Caltrans over two years ago! They got to the distance sign by SJC (perpetually overgrown) much quicker.

I've found that filling out the service reports for coastal Caltrans districts tends really not to go anywhere.  The last one I filled out was for County Route 18 being signed incorrectly in place of G14 on US 101 south in King City.  The answer I got was that "County Route 18"  was in their spec book (which is wrong).  That was the first reply I've gotten outside of District 6 in years. 

jdbx

I think it's safe to say the effort to number exits in California has been a failure.  The legibility and layout of signs have been ruined, and clearly Caltrans pays no mind to the accuracy of the numbering.  There is no consistency to how they are signed either.  In my opinion, the present situation is worse than when there was no exit numbering at all.  It does a disservice to the motoring public because it has made signs harder to read, and navigating by exit # is nearly impossible.  I know I am beating a dead horse, but how hard would it really be to finally adopt the standard every other state does and use a proper tab outside of the legend of the sign?  I have heard all the excuses about wind loading and not having the correct hardware detail.  My own theory is that Caltrans never wanted to number exits in the first place, and the awful way it has been implemented is an example of malicious compliance.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: jdbx on November 08, 2019, 04:04:07 PM
I think it's safe to say the effort to number exits in California has been a failure.  The legibility and layout of signs have been ruined, and clearly Caltrans pays no mind to the accuracy of the numbering.  There is no consistency to how they are signed either.  In my opinion, the present situation is worse than when there was no exit numbering at all.  It does a disservice to the motoring public because it has made signs harder to read, and navigating by exit # is nearly impossible.  I know I am beating a dead horse, but how hard would it really be to finally adopt the standard every other state does and use a proper tab outside of the legend of the sign?  I have heard all the excuses about wind loading and not having the correct hardware detail.  My own theory is that Caltrans never wanted to number exits in the first place, and the awful way it has been implemented is an example of malicious compliance.

Well, the Exit numbers clearly weren't part of the scheme with the original freeways in California.  Much of the signage has been wedged onto existing button-copy/enamel paint BGS signs.  The newer stuff outside the Bay Area is generally way more in line with the typical MUTCD flair. 

TheStranger

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 08, 2019, 04:48:30 PM


Well, the Exit numbers clearly weren't part of the scheme with the original freeways in California.  Much of the signage has been wedged onto existing button-copy/enamel paint BGS signs.  The newer stuff outside the Bay Area is generally way more in line with the typical MUTCD flair. 

There's not that much button copy left out here these days, but the existing sign gantries with the max height restriction do remain (and the retroreflective signs with exit numbering on them reflect this).

in San Francisco, there are still early-2000s retroreflective signs that do not have exit numbers on them that have yet to be replaced, though they are fewer and farther between than before.  In particular, the signage for the Alemany Maze (280/101 junction) and nearby is like this. However, there are examples where every exit is now fully numbered:

- I-80 between US 101 and the Bay Bridge, along the San Francisco Skyway
- northbound US 101 along the Central Freeway
- the 2015-era Presidio Parkway segment of US 101 west of Richardson Avenue
Chris Sampang

DTComposer

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 08, 2019, 04:48:30 PM
Quote from: jdbx on November 08, 2019, 04:04:07 PM
I think it's safe to say the effort to number exits in California has been a failure.  The legibility and layout of signs have been ruined, and clearly Caltrans pays no mind to the accuracy of the numbering.  There is no consistency to how they are signed either.  In my opinion, the present situation is worse than when there was no exit numbering at all.  It does a disservice to the motoring public because it has made signs harder to read, and navigating by exit # is nearly impossible.  I know I am beating a dead horse, but how hard would it really be to finally adopt the standard every other state does and use a proper tab outside of the legend of the sign?  I have heard all the excuses about wind loading and not having the correct hardware detail.  My own theory is that Caltrans never wanted to number exits in the first place, and the awful way it has been implemented is an example of malicious compliance.

Well, the Exit numbers clearly weren't part of the scheme with the original freeways in California.  Much of the signage has been wedged onto existing button-copy/enamel paint BGS signs.  The newer stuff outside the Bay Area is generally way more in line with the typical MUTCD flair. 

At least malicious compliance would indicate some sort of interest and effort on their part, and egregious mistakes regarding navigation and geographical accuracy (i.e. exit mileages being off by over a mile) would be checked before installation, or at least corrected once pointed out.

In my opinion, it is more likely either indifference or incompetence. A lot of these type of errors (layout and geography) pre-date the exit numbering fiasco, and go back to the original mandate to move to retro-reflective signs.



Who would, with any training in traffic engineering, graphic design/layout, or just plain common sense would let this pass - I assume this has to have been seen in several iterations - on the computer display (either in the native software or exported as a graphic file) and a hard paper copy (either individually or on the signing plans), plus being reviewed after the sign was made and before installation. How many people saw this and said, "yeah, this is fine."? And then it was up for at least two months before being replaced.

And yes, you could say that it doesn't affect your basic ability to navigate, but what it also says is a bunch of people either aren't good enough at their jobs or don't give a enough of a s*** to care.

There are at least half a dozen members of this forum who could do better, using their laptops and off-the-counter software.

mrsman

Quote from: DTComposer on November 08, 2019, 08:53:57 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 08, 2019, 04:48:30 PM
Quote from: jdbx on November 08, 2019, 04:04:07 PM
I think it's safe to say the effort to number exits in California has been a failure.  The legibility and layout of signs have been ruined, and clearly Caltrans pays no mind to the accuracy of the numbering.  There is no consistency to how they are signed either.  In my opinion, the present situation is worse than when there was no exit numbering at all.  It does a disservice to the motoring public because it has made signs harder to read, and navigating by exit # is nearly impossible.  I know I am beating a dead horse, but how hard would it really be to finally adopt the standard every other state does and use a proper tab outside of the legend of the sign?  I have heard all the excuses about wind loading and not having the correct hardware detail.  My own theory is that Caltrans never wanted to number exits in the first place, and the awful way it has been implemented is an example of malicious compliance.

Well, the Exit numbers clearly weren't part of the scheme with the original freeways in California.  Much of the signage has been wedged onto existing button-copy/enamel paint BGS signs.  The newer stuff outside the Bay Area is generally way more in line with the typical MUTCD flair. 

At least malicious compliance would indicate some sort of interest and effort on their part, and egregious mistakes regarding navigation and geographical accuracy (i.e. exit mileages being off by over a mile) would be checked before installation, or at least corrected once pointed out.

In my opinion, it is more likely either indifference or incompetence. A lot of these type of errors (layout and geography) pre-date the exit numbering fiasco, and go back to the original mandate to move to retro-reflective signs.



Who would, with any training in traffic engineering, graphic design/layout, or just plain common sense would let this pass - I assume this has to have been seen in several iterations - on the computer display (either in the native software or exported as a graphic file) and a hard paper copy (either individually or on the signing plans), plus being reviewed after the sign was made and before installation. How many people saw this and said, "yeah, this is fine."? And then it was up for at least two months before being replaced.

And yes, you could say that it doesn't affect your basic ability to navigate, but what it also says is a bunch of people either aren't good enough at their jobs or don't give a enough of a s*** to care.

There are at least half a dozen members of this forum who could do better, using their laptops and off-the-counter software.

For those who are interested, here is the freeway sign on GSV showing the proper layout.  I don't know why this was changed in such a hapahazard way.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8050868,-118.1405755,3a,75y,310.74h,91.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUGunAlGEJ-D7ilpjhlN6_w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


michravera

Quote from: jdbx on November 08, 2019, 04:04:07 PM
I think it's safe to say the effort to number exits in California has been a failure.  The legibility and layout of signs have been ruined, and clearly Caltrans pays no mind to the accuracy of the numbering.  There is no consistency to how they are signed either.  In my opinion, the present situation is worse than when there was no exit numbering at all.  It does a disservice to the motoring public because it has made signs harder to read, and navigating by exit # is nearly impossible.  I know I am beating a dead horse, but how hard would it really be to finally adopt the standard every other state does and use a proper tab outside of the legend of the sign?  I have heard all the excuses about wind loading and not having the correct hardware detail.  My own theory is that Caltrans never wanted to number exits in the first place, and the awful way it has been implemented is an example of malicious compliance.

If CalTrans would simply have numbered exits by county and in fractions by gore instead of trying to go statewide by centerline things might have gone smother....

roadfro

Quote from: jdbx on November 08, 2019, 04:04:07 PM
I think it's safe to say the effort to number exits in California has been a failure.  The legibility and layout of signs have been ruined, and clearly Caltrans pays no mind to the accuracy of the numbering.  There is no consistency to how they are signed either.  In my opinion, the present situation is worse than when there was no exit numbering at all.  It does a disservice to the motoring public because it has made signs harder to read, and navigating by exit # is nearly impossible.  I know I am beating a dead horse, but how hard would it really be to finally adopt the standard every other state does and use a proper tab outside of the legend of the sign?  I have heard all the excuses about wind loading and not having the correct hardware detail.  My own theory is that Caltrans never wanted to number exits in the first place, and the awful way it has been implemented is an example of malicious compliance.

Yes, layouts of signs are not always the best with the internal exit tabs, and I agree not having the mechanisms to begin installing external exit tabs at this point (17 years later!) is a bit egregious. But to say the Caltrans' exit numbering has been a failure and navigating by exit number is impossible is an over-dramatization.

Quote from: michravera on November 09, 2019, 10:20:15 PM
If CalTrans would simply have numbered exits by county and in fractions by gore instead of trying to go statewide by centerline things might have gone smother....

Not sure what you mean by "in fractions by gore"... But I don't believe that the process would have been any different with a county-based numbering system. Relying on the postmiles to base the exit numbers on (especially in areas where there are "R" realigned mileages, or realignments of realignments, or milepost equations) would have been more of a nightmare and confusing to the public. Statewide mileage was the way to go (especially for the interstates, which generally got their exit numbers before most other CA highways).
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

stevashe

Quote from: DTComposer on November 08, 2019, 08:53:57 PM
At least malicious compliance would indicate some sort of interest and effort on their part, and egregious mistakes regarding navigation and geographical accuracy (i.e. exit mileages being off by over a mile) would be checked before installation, or at least corrected once pointed out.

In my opinion, it is more likely either indifference or incompetence. A lot of these type of errors (layout and geography) pre-date the exit numbering fiasco, and go back to the original mandate to move to retro-reflective signs.



Who would, with any training in traffic engineering, graphic design/layout, or just plain common sense would let this pass - I assume this has to have been seen in several iterations - on the computer display (either in the native software or exported as a graphic file) and a hard paper copy (either individually or on the signing plans), plus being reviewed after the sign was made and before installation. How many people saw this and said, "yeah, this is fine."? And then it was up for at least two months before being replaced.

And yes, you could say that it doesn't affect your basic ability to navigate, but what it also says is a bunch of people either aren't good enough at their jobs or don't give a enough of a s*** to care.

There are at least half a dozen members of this forum who could do better, using their laptops and off-the-counter software.

If you look closely at that sign you might notice that those "Ave"s are on their own sign panel, so this is definitely an error in construction, not design (i.e. the order of the panels was mixed up). Still pretty bad that this wasn't caught by whoever was supposed to be checking the contractor, (though maybe it was just caught too late and that's why it was fixed later) but this was certainly NOT a design error as you suggest - it had not been seen in several iterations, just once on the actual sign you see here. People seem to be a little too quick to judge Caltrans on here, I think (for the most part) they're doing okay considering limited funding availability and the large amount of red tape that exists in California.

DTComposer

Quote from: stevashe on November 10, 2019, 10:09:58 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on November 08, 2019, 08:53:57 PM
At least malicious compliance would indicate some sort of interest and effort on their part, and egregious mistakes regarding navigation and geographical accuracy (i.e. exit mileages being off by over a mile) would be checked before installation, or at least corrected once pointed out.

In my opinion, it is more likely either indifference or incompetence. A lot of these type of errors (layout and geography) pre-date the exit numbering fiasco, and go back to the original mandate to move to retro-reflective signs.



Who would, with any training in traffic engineering, graphic design/layout, or just plain common sense would let this pass - I assume this has to have been seen in several iterations - on the computer display (either in the native software or exported as a graphic file) and a hard paper copy (either individually or on the signing plans), plus being reviewed after the sign was made and before installation. How many people saw this and said, "yeah, this is fine."? And then it was up for at least two months before being replaced.

And yes, you could say that it doesn't affect your basic ability to navigate, but what it also says is a bunch of people either aren't good enough at their jobs or don't give a enough of a s*** to care.

There are at least half a dozen members of this forum who could do better, using their laptops and off-the-counter software.

If you look closely at that sign you might notice that those "Ave"s are on their own sign panel, so this is definitely an error in construction, not design (i.e. the order of the panels was mixed up). Still pretty bad that this wasn't caught by whoever was supposed to be checking the contractor, (though maybe it was just caught too late and that's why it was fixed later) but this was certainly NOT a design error as you suggest - it had not been seen in several iterations, just once on the actual sign you see here. People seem to be a little too quick to judge Caltrans on here, I think (for the most part) they're doing okay considering limited funding availability and the large amount of red tape that exists in California.

Thank you for pointing that out. I admit my error and rush to judgement...on this sign.

But I stand behind my opinion that on the whole, over the last 10-15 years the new signage has been rife with errors and bad layout - and much of it has little to do with the forcing in of exit tabs. Much, much more than should reasonably be ascribed to "human error."

michravera

Quote from: roadfro on November 10, 2019, 03:31:22 PM
Quote from: jdbx on November 08, 2019, 04:04:07 PM
I think it's safe to say the effort to number exits in California has been a failure.  The legibility and layout of signs have been ruined, and clearly Caltrans pays no mind to the accuracy of the numbering.  There is no consistency to how they are signed either.  In my opinion, the present situation is worse than when there was no exit numbering at all.  It does a disservice to the motoring public because it has made signs harder to read, and navigating by exit # is nearly impossible.  I know I am beating a dead horse, but how hard would it really be to finally adopt the standard every other state does and use a proper tab outside of the legend of the sign?  I have heard all the excuses about wind loading and not having the correct hardware detail.  My own theory is that Caltrans never wanted to number exits in the first place, and the awful way it has been implemented is an example of malicious compliance.

Yes, layouts of signs are not always the best with the internal exit tabs, and I agree not having the mechanisms to begin installing external exit tabs at this point (17 years later!) is a bit egregious. But to say the Caltrans' exit numbering has been a failure and navigating by exit number is impossible is an over-dramatization.

Quote from: michravera on November 09, 2019, 10:20:15 PM
If CalTrans would simply have numbered exits by county and in fractions by gore instead of trying to go statewide by centerline things might have gone smother....

Not sure what you mean by "in fractions by gore"... But I don't believe that the process would have been any different with a county-based numbering system. Relying on the postmiles to base the exit numbers on (especially in areas where there are "R" realigned mileages, or realignments of realignments, or milepost equations) would have been more of a nightmare and confusing to the public. Statewide mileage was the way to go (especially for the interstates, which generally got their exit numbers before most other CA highways).

Call boxes were numbered in tenths (of a mile, I think) by county. That would have made for some 4-digit exit numbers (7 including the county code) in San Bernardino County, but it would have made the alphabetic exits more palatable.

DTComposer

Quote from: michravera on November 15, 2019, 01:07:35 AM
Quote from: roadfro on November 10, 2019, 03:31:22 PM
Quote from: jdbx on November 08, 2019, 04:04:07 PM
I think it's safe to say the effort to number exits in California has been a failure.  The legibility and layout of signs have been ruined, and clearly Caltrans pays no mind to the accuracy of the numbering.  There is no consistency to how they are signed either.  In my opinion, the present situation is worse than when there was no exit numbering at all.  It does a disservice to the motoring public because it has made signs harder to read, and navigating by exit # is nearly impossible.  I know I am beating a dead horse, but how hard would it really be to finally adopt the standard every other state does and use a proper tab outside of the legend of the sign?  I have heard all the excuses about wind loading and not having the correct hardware detail.  My own theory is that Caltrans never wanted to number exits in the first place, and the awful way it has been implemented is an example of malicious compliance.

Yes, layouts of signs are not always the best with the internal exit tabs, and I agree not having the mechanisms to begin installing external exit tabs at this point (17 years later!) is a bit egregious. But to say the Caltrans' exit numbering has been a failure and navigating by exit number is impossible is an over-dramatization.

Quote from: michravera on November 09, 2019, 10:20:15 PM
If CalTrans would simply have numbered exits by county and in fractions by gore instead of trying to go statewide by centerline things might have gone smother....

Not sure what you mean by "in fractions by gore"... But I don't believe that the process would have been any different with a county-based numbering system. Relying on the postmiles to base the exit numbers on (especially in areas where there are "R" realigned mileages, or realignments of realignments, or milepost equations) would have been more of a nightmare and confusing to the public. Statewide mileage was the way to go (especially for the interstates, which generally got their exit numbers before most other CA highways).

Call boxes were numbered in tenths (of a mile, I think) by county. That would have made for some 4-digit exit numbers (7 including the county code) in San Bernardino County, but it would have made the alphabetic exits more palatable.

I think this would hinder rather than help for navigation. First, the more digits, the harder to remember. Second, you'd have duplicate or near-duplicate exit numbers in every adjacent county. For smaller counties, this could add confusion. For example, on US-101, exit 187 in San Mateo County would be Willow Road, but there's an exit 177 in San Francisco (Paul Avenue), 26 miles north. Or exit 301 in San Benito County would be CA-156, but 8 miles away is exit 316 in Santa Clara County (CA-25).

IMO, exit numbers are for letting you know how far away your exit is, not how far away your exit is from the county line. And if you're traveling in the descending direction (i.e., exit numbers get smaller) it would be even less useful.

If I get on the freeway at exit 25, and I know my destination is exit 93, I know it's about 68 miles, regardless of whether it's within the same county or three counties away.

FredAkbar

Bit of a zombie thread here, but some closure to the first issue I mentioned (incorrect distances on SB 101 Embarcadero Rd underpass in Palo Alto): it has been fixed, according to the latest GSV from Feb 2024. In the snapshot before that (Oct 2023) they were still wrong, so it must have been fixed some time in between. The mileages were each reduced by 1.5 miles, and you can even see the different color on the sign, indicating they just patched over the numbers.

Sort of a strange font on the fractions too.

The Ghostbuster

Does the Bay Area have the most error-ridden freeway signs of any metropolitan area in the entire country? It's as if they don't care much about signage accuracy.

Max Rockatansky

Don't know about errors but District 4 probably has the most button copy signs left in the country. 



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.