AARoads Forum

I figured I would start this new topic since I think there will be a lot of cases to post as District 7 will be replacing many guide signs.

Just saw this new advance guide sign for the CA 23 South / Westlake Blvd exit along NB Ventura Freeway (US 101) at the Lindero Canyon Exit.  I'm wondering why they chose to put a horizontal separator line?  This is a completely new structure and sign, it was not a replacement.

The second picture is of the NB gore point sign and third is of the SB advance sign at the Hampshire Rd on-ramp.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstpeterandstpaul.org%2Fimages%2Fimg_9422.jpg&hash=46483ff05502601d0037246faaa57713e88dcf48)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstpeterandstpaul.org%2Fimages%2Fimg_9424.jpg&hash=39c514ff2f547fda97d96095f0859139f838760a)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstpeterandstpaul.org%2Fimages%2Fimg_9427.jpg&hash=12ec00cabf65cca501f5421a893a252137bf91c4)

Hi Andy, I hadn't seen the new SR 23 sign and haven't seen any in the state that use a horizontal line like that. Thank you for sharing.

I could perhaps understand this if CA-23 and Westlake Boulevard were distinct roadways, sorta like how they included the ampersand for the CA-126 "&" Newhall Ranch Road exit from I-5. And perhaps since CA-23 is only southbound on Westlake they were trying to emphasize that?

But mostly I feel like it's just another District 7 lack of design oversight.

That new sign went up about a month ago, IIRC. I figured it was tied to the reconstruction of the Hampshire Road and CA-23 interchange a few miles up.

I don't think the horizontal separator looks that bad, actually. And it was unusual to see a totally new signpost, usually older ones just get greenout.

Quote from: Quillz on May 28, 2015, 01:38:17 AM
That new sign went up about a month ago, IIRC. I figured it was tied to the reconstruction of the Hampshire Road and CA-23 interchange a few miles up.

I don't think the horizontal separator looks that bad, actually. And it was unusual to see a totally new signpost, usually older ones just get greenout.

Yeah, the old sign was attached to the Lindero Canyon overpass. Still, I can't think of any other sign in D7 that has the horizontal separator.

It's a first, I think. I know the US-101/CA-27 signs have a vertical separator (at least on the westbound lanes).

Here are some new signs with double shielding. I believe both locations had original double shields.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F15%2Fd5e7f7605fefc7659072593a3faddb23.jpg&hash=31ff8912b23b2c364176fb120e47bbd5570fb77a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F15%2F6b5b622977bbd2eef85c6a097b28ba13.jpg&hash=49c7c64fc3c17562af39588bc5790899ffc317ba)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F15%2F14d9bf4fbc248b8bbf9caa4d61f486ba.jpg&hash=ad0c1363e0b015b5e89e9318b0058aeb56c55c29)

Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 16, 2015, 01:01:09 AM
Here are some new signs with double shielding. I believe both locations had original double shields.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F15%2Fd5e7f7605fefc7659072593a3faddb23.jpg&hash=31ff8912b23b2c364176fb120e47bbd5570fb77a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F15%2F6b5b622977bbd2eef85c6a097b28ba13.jpg&hash=49c7c64fc3c17562af39588bc5790899ffc317ba)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F15%2F14d9bf4fbc248b8bbf9caa4d61f486ba.jpg&hash=ad0c1363e0b015b5e89e9318b0058aeb56c55c29)

Thanks, Andy. 

I have a question about this for someone in the know:  Does anyone in the sign shop review new signs to determine conformance with the California MUTCD, or is it a fait accompli by the the time it gets there?  I know the 118 sign was originally designed out-of-spec with two shields for some reason (probably due to the lack of control city), but the double-shield on the 110 sign was a greenout job to cover up the former dual route designation of the Harbor Freeway.  At a minimum, somebody should have caught and corrected the 110 sign before it went out.

QuoteThanks, Andy. 

I have a question about this for someone in the know:  Does anyone in the sign shop review new signs to determine conformance with the California MUTCD, or is it a fait accompli by the the time it gets there?  I know the 118 sign was originally designed out-of-spec with two shields for some reason (probably due to the lack of control city), but the double-shield on the 110 sign was a greenout job to cover up the former dual route designation of the Harbor Freeway.  At a minimum, somebody should have caught and corrected the 110 sign before it went out.

While I've seen some replaced signs with significant changes from the old signs, in many cases I've seen "carbon copies" of the old signs. This is why some legacy issues such as double shields remain. But I think there's been direction to get rid of the freeway names whenever possible, and of course in many cases space is made for exit numbers (but not all cases, which I still think is a mistake).

Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 16, 2015, 01:01:09 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F15%2F14d9bf4fbc248b8bbf9caa4d61f486ba.jpg&hash=ad0c1363e0b015b5e89e9318b0058aeb56c55c29)

I did a redesign on the signs in the above photo adding a control city for CA-118 and an exit tab for I-405.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F118-405_alt.png&hash=b46f452405b412770fad17a1583d1b093637379c)

Note: Looking at the this exit in Google Maps, I noticed that you can get to I-405 south from both lanes so I guess my redesign might cause some unnecessary lane changes as drivers wanting to reach I-405 south might think they have to get in the far right lane.

These just went up within the last week along southbound San Diego Freeway I-405.  Some thoughts.

The middle sign at the Century exit was replaced one for one.  Seems like it could have been cleaned up.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F29%2Ff46fd412d7a5577bd3eacbaec650bd93.jpg&hash=b0c467bcb0a9dfc5a921df3b47300ba5e6e99e0c)

Looks like the BOLD setting was left on when designing the 105 east Norwalk heading.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F29%2F0198ac4720e4f7c8558b387c7e44aa95.jpg&hash=6721af11def041af3cd61db3394f86c511112acb)

As noted in other threads, CT has not been including city names on the overhead guide signs approaching an exit. However Manhattan Beach was replaced one for one on both of the Rosecrans exit signs.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F29%2Fe53bfbfcdf1e72dc1ffda2be07346c34.jpg&hash=1fa644277cf1d6654c9128057faa87e7c4ee5e58)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F29%2F39777039f56ad66751694b768eef7a4d.jpg&hash=1caacf92347c5e81f1d09f1be6a40c0eb7fec156)

Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 29, 2015, 10:24:34 PM
The middle sign at the Century exit was replaced one for one.  Seems like it could have been cleaned up.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F29%2Ff46fd412d7a5577bd3eacbaec650bd93.jpg&hash=b0c467bcb0a9dfc5a921df3b47300ba5e6e99e0c)

Doesn't ANYONE look at the signs before replacing to see if they could be made more accurate/efficient/elegant/etc? I've said this before, but I would volunteer my time to do this sort of thing.

That said, here's my amateur attempt at clean-up:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc1.staticflickr.com%2F1%2F712%2F20373032283_cb8ee5a4dd_k.jpg&hash=109dd5ff3860b8e7b0f6b955a446a505eb657715)

These signs were part of a major sign replacement project (Caltrans Project 07-1w2204) that drew a lot of attention (and criticism) from people on these forums due to some funky layouts and the omission of control cities on pull-through signs even though there was plenty of space on the panels.

Although it's late, I took a whack at re-creating all 3 signs following the signing plans and here's what I came up with...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F405s_Exit46_newExist.png&hash=7eab66df9aaf36514ac1bb2891a113772176a93a)

I suspect the odd layout of the middle sign was due to the fact that the existing supports on the overpass were re-used instead of installing new ones and is the reason why the two signs could not be combined.

If it was possible to combine the two signs into a single panel, here's my redesign...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F405s_Exit46_newExistAlt.png&hash=9a9fa95f822081085a41373ac5335ec837a62342)

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 17, 2015, 07:55:04 PM

Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 16, 2015, 01:01:09 AM
Here are some new signs with double shielding. I believe both locations had original double shields.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F15%2Fd5e7f7605fefc7659072593a3faddb23.jpg&hash=31ff8912b23b2c364176fb120e47bbd5570fb77a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F15%2F6b5b622977bbd2eef85c6a097b28ba13.jpg&hash=49c7c64fc3c17562af39588bc5790899ffc317ba)

Thanks, Andy. 

I have a question about this for someone in the know:  Does anyone in the sign shop review new signs to determine conformance with the California MUTCD, or is it a fait accompli by the the time it gets there?  I know the 118 sign was originally designed out-of-spec with two shields for some reason (probably due to the lack of control city), but the double-shield on the 110 sign was a greenout job to cover up the former dual route designation of the Harbor Freeway.  At a minimum, somebody should have caught and corrected the 110 sign before it went out.

Here is the plan sheet for the 110 double shield sign. As mentioned by Myosh, lots of folks on this forum looked at these plans and I actually got Caltrans to make some changes before he signs were fabricated. This particular one did not have any comments. At least it will resemble the original style for at least another 50 years.  Also, I purposely did not comment on keeping the Harbor freeway name on the new signs. We will take what we can get.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F30%2Fe0aac60587ae7e9cb0577b505c0bb7fb.jpg&hash=5a227f1a590ae397f2d5cce3dcfb0b1794d64dda)

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 30, 2015, 05:57:19 AM
If it was possible to combine the two signs into a single panel, here's my redesign...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F405s_Exit46_newExistAlt.png&hash=9a9fa95f822081085a41373ac5335ec837a62342)

I like this version! Very nice and easy to read.

Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 29, 2015, 10:24:34 PM

Looks like the BOLD setting was left on when designing the 105 east Norwalk heading.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F29%2F0198ac4720e4f7c8558b387c7e44aa95.jpg&hash=6721af11def041af3cd61db3394f86c511112acb)

The predecessor signs (from the early 1990s) were oddly faded, so I am glad these got replaced. I think they added some exit numbers to the approach signs for I-105?

Thanks as always Andy for posting these. I really appreciate the updates. There have been few sign replacements anywhere in District 11, except for a few new signs along I-805 north near Sorrento Valley/Mira Mesa Blvd interchange, I-805 south at SR 52, and I-15 northbound at Poway Road/Rancho Penasquitos Blvd. Most of these arrived in the past six months.

Quote from: andy3175 on August 31, 2015, 12:56:24 AM

Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 29, 2015, 10:24:34 PM

Looks like the BOLD setting was left on when designing the 105 east Norwalk heading.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F29%2F0198ac4720e4f7c8558b387c7e44aa95.jpg&hash=6721af11def041af3cd61db3394f86c511112acb)

The predecessor signs (from the early 1990s) were oddly faded, so I am glad these got replaced. I think they added some exit numbers to the approach signs for I-105?

Here is the original sign. Yes I believe these were the originals from when I-105 was completed.  Some of the last button copy signs installed in District 7. IMO they were in decent shape.  In general the red on the older signs kept its color unlike most of the recent signs and the darker green provided better contract and a crisper look.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F30%2F202c22f6bcc77ab90c74b9456e6ba5ac.jpg&hash=bd34532f1c300d78153054f554de65e40ec97cf4)

Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 31, 2015, 01:21:50 AM
Here is the original sign. Yes I believe these were the originals from when I-105 was completed.  Some of the last button copy signs installed in District 7. IMO they were in decent shape.  In general the red on the older signs kept its color unlike most of the recent signs and the darker green provided better contract and a crisper look.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F30%2F202c22f6bcc77ab90c74b9456e6ba5ac.jpg&hash=bd34532f1c300d78153054f554de65e40ec97cf4)

Yes I think it was the loss of the red color that I recall as fading in this general area. The darker green signs, porcelain enamel or not, are becoming less common, but they are still not hard to find on most Southern California freeways.

Whoever noted that exit numbers in California will take decades to be fully signed (another thread) is most likely correct given the current timeframe in which new signs are being placed in the Southland. Exit numbers are much easier to find along rural stretches of freeway, such as I-5 and CA 99 in the Central Valley.

Quote from: andy3175 on August 31, 2015, 12:53:49 AM

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 30, 2015, 05:57:19 AM
If it was possible to combine the two signs into a single panel, here's my redesign...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F405s_Exit46_newExistAlt.png&hash=9a9fa95f822081085a41373ac5335ec837a62342)

I like this version! Very nice and easy to read.

I've always wondered about the wisdom of the signage at this interchange.  The first ramp leads to La Cienega north of Century.  Making a left at the light on LC and then a right on Century West leads right to the Airport.

The second ramp leads you to go further down the  C/D lanes.  The first exit from the C/D ramps leads to LC south of Century, for a right and a right to Century East.  Conceivably, you could take this ramp and then make a left on Century to the Airport, but why??

The third ramp also leads to LC but close to Imperial Highway.  Imperial is less congested than Century, but it is still a long way out of the way to go to reach teh passenger terminals.

I would sign only the Century West exit as leading to LAX.

Quote from: mrsman on September 04, 2015, 03:55:51 PM
The second ramp leads you to go further down the  C/D lanes.  The first exit from the C/D ramps leads to LC south of Century, for a right and a right to Century East.  Conceivably, you could take this ramp and then make a left on Century to the Airport, but why??

This was probably done so you aren't overloading the first exit to La Cienega.  Besides, in either case you have to make a left to get to the airport (left onto La Cienega, right onto Century *or* right onto La Cienega, left onto Century... granted you might have to wait a little longer to make the left onto Century).

Every time I see new signage from Caltrans I have the same reaction. WTF! They just can't seem to get a lot of the basics correct. It's like they're drunk when they do the specs.

Some of the above signs had city names on them like Manhattan Beach. What's up with that? I thought Caltrans' policy was not to include city names with local street names.

There are a number of sign replacement projects within District 4 (San Francisco Bay Area) that are going out to bid over the next couple of weeks.  It'll be interesting to see which signs are being replaced and how those new signs are going to be laid out.  I suspect/fear that a lot of older button copy signs are going to be targeted for replacement.

Quote from: andy3175 on August 31, 2015, 10:59:10 PM

Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 31, 2015, 01:21:50 AM
Here is the original sign. Yes I believe these were the originals from when I-105 was completed.  Some of the last button copy signs installed in District 7. IMO they were in decent shape.  In general the red on the older signs kept its color unlike most of the recent signs and the darker green provided better contract and a crisper look.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F30%2F202c22f6bcc77ab90c74b9456e6ba5ac.jpg&hash=bd34532f1c300d78153054f554de65e40ec97cf4)

Yes I think it was the loss of the red color that I recall as fading in this general area. The darker green signs, porcelain enamel or not, are becoming less common, but they are still not hard to find on most Southern California freeways.

Andy, yes there are still many button copy signs around in the LA area.  What I meant was these particular signs associated the 105 freeway were some of the last new button copy signs to be installed in D7.  Shortly after the completion of the freeway, Caltrans started changing to the current reflective standards.

More strange things going on with this replacement project.  Despite providing comments on this and brining it to CT's attention, they still decided to place some route shields associated with arterial streets on the left side of the sign panel.  I believe the though was that since they now put the freeway route shields on the left side, they wanted to do the same for the arterials.

Inconsistency still looms as other signs not included in the original plans were replaced one for one with the normal configuration having the route shield to the right of the street name. See examples below. 

The Rosecrans/Inglewood/Hawthorne and Inglewood/Hawthorne/Redondo Beach signs was replaced one for one.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F09%2F18%2F17e7d48628d276e104c51227697c94e1.jpg&hash=79cece23e1191e8b1b3197d63e0f7a746ff39dff)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F09%2F18%2F8f0bdd655bb91f41f75ef5e72f49f3d0.jpg&hash=6f40e6c4e0421c11a6e2ef8cb8953676ec805817)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F09%2F18%2F629802a675e29c21cbc2e6e07e179ffb.jpg&hash=455d336d62e7629835b2da74919d8e5386c59f1e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F09%2F18%2F14a91bac70a7e2ff0e1586388236040d.jpg&hash=a59a76883edab0bf8f5c1b2f78cbd06d656491d8)

However, the Hawthorne/Redondo Beach/Artesia and Redondo Beach/Artesia/Crenshaw signs follow this strange new convention.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F09%2F18%2Fdb26f31ce4a59147bae213163f55be01.jpg&hash=09632d3f6c5a70bb28d70c18bea6da4760d2735d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F09%2F18%2F9ce85adb03392143fbe5b07b10c15df7.jpg&hash=242ed7df1ee3161ba3f7d3d476f36b0d86ca5000)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F09%2F18%2Ff0b4021fa7c3f9cf434811cf09d40227.jpg&hash=dd44620424d655a4f95db83c187449fad422a9c6)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F09%2F18%2F042c2034d1728f053735c52dc9274629.jpg&hash=c2e74aa4ed98715f06dde684295104aefad51f77)

That does parse out very oddly to me - on first glance it does give the impression that the Artesia exit would put you on a freeway, and since CA-91 is a freeway for the majority of its length, I would imagine a less-informed motoring public would think the same - then find themselves on three miles of surface street before hitting the freeway.

Is the intention to direct motorists heading towards destinations on the freeway portion of CA-91 (Fullerton, Corona, Riverside, etc.) actually to send them on Artesia Boulevard for three miles, rather than continue on I-405 to I-110 to CA-91?

I know westbound on CA-91 signs direct you onto I-110 south to access I-405, rather than continuing onto Artesia Boulevard, so I wonder why it wouldn't be the same in reverse?

Quote from: DTComposer on September 18, 2015, 10:26:01 AM
That does parse out very oddly to me - on first glance it does give the impression that the Artesia exit would put you on a freeway, and since CA-91 is a freeway for the majority of its length, I would imagine a less-informed motoring public would think the same - then find themselves on three miles of surface street before hitting the freeway.

Is the intention to direct motorists heading towards destinations on the freeway portion of CA-91 (Fullerton, Corona, Riverside, etc.) actually to send them on Artesia Boulevard for three miles, rather than continue on I-405 to I-110 to CA-91?

I know westbound on CA-91 signs direct you onto I-110 south to access I-405, rather than continuing onto Artesia Boulevard, so I wonder why it wouldn't be the same in reverse?

Before 1997, CA 91 was signed as a state highway along Artesia Blvd between PCH and Vermont.  The signage on the freeway was never changed to take into account the relinquishment of the surface street portion.

I agree that CA 91 should not be signed here and that at the 405/110 interchange there should be signs guiding I-405 traffic to use I-110 to reach the 91 freeway to Riverside.

Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2015, 02:13:44 PM
Before 1997, CA 91 was signed as a state highway along Artesia Blvd between PCH and Vermont.  The signage on the freeway was never changed to take into account the relinquishment of the surface street portion.

Despite relinquishment, there are still a decent amount of 91 signs remaining on that stretch of Artesia Boulevard as of 2014.

The retention of the 91 signs on 405 in the replacement project sharply contrasts with the removal of all references to Route 209 in San Diego.

Quote from: TheStranger on September 18, 2015, 02:16:54 PM

Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2015, 02:13:44 PM
Before 1997, CA 91 was signed as a state highway along Artesia Blvd between PCH and Vermont.  The signage on the freeway was never changed to take into account the relinquishment of the surface street portion.

Despite relinquishment, there are still a decent amount of 91 signs remaining on that stretch of Artesia Boulevard as of 2014.

The retention of the 91 signs on 405 in the replacement project sharply contrasts with the removal of all references to Route 209 in San Diego.

With the 91 there's LOTS of issues.  They are:
(1) as you point out, still signing Artesia Blvd as a state highway even though it's been relinquished and the western terminus of the route was moved two miles east.
(2) with the new configuration of the southbound signs, they imply through ambiguity (as the old sign did) that the southbound 405 exit will let you go either direction on Artesia Blvd.  It won't, it's eastbound only (westbound traffic for Artesia has to get off at Redondo Beach Blvd.)
(3) many years ago, the northbound exit from the 405 to Artesia allowed traffic to go either eastbound or westbound, and then the exit was reconfigured to allow turns only onto westbound Artesia.  The freeway signs were never updated to reflect this change, and resultantly, the old northbound signs all simply listed "Artesia Blvd."   The new signs recently installed northbound simply parroted the old signs and once again fail to identify that northbound traffic can only go westbound.

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 18, 2015, 03:08:48 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on September 18, 2015, 02:16:54 PM

Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2015, 02:13:44 PM
Before 1997, CA 91 was signed as a state highway along Artesia Blvd between PCH and Vermont.  The signage on the freeway was never changed to take into account the relinquishment of the surface street portion.

Despite relinquishment, there are still a decent amount of 91 signs remaining on that stretch of Artesia Boulevard as of 2014.

The retention of the 91 signs on 405 in the replacement project sharply contrasts with the removal of all references to Route 209 in San Diego.

With the 91 there's LOTS of issues.  They are:
(1) as you point out, still signing Artesia Blvd as a state highway even though it's been relinquished and the western terminus of the route was moved two miles east.
(2) with the new configuration of the southbound signs, they imply through ambiguity (as the old sign did) that the southbound 405 exit will let you go either direction on Artesia Blvd.  It won't, it's eastbound only (westbound traffic for Artesia has to get off at Redondo Beach Blvd.)
(3) many years ago, the northbound exit from the 405 to Artesia allowed traffic to go either eastbound or westbound, and then the exit was reconfigured to allow turns only onto westbound Artesia.  The freeway signs were never updated to reflect this change, and resultantly, the old northbound signs all simply listed "Artesia Blvd."   The new signs recently installed northbound simply parroted the old signs and once again fail to identify that northbound traffic can only go westbound.

It's unfortunate. I brought up all of these issues in a face to face meeting I had with the group in charge of this project. I submitted comments in writing and went through the plans sheet by sheet with them. I explained how the northbound off ramp was reconfigured and the inconsistency of the southbound signage.  Not sure what else could have been done. I'm sure it would take another 12-18 months to get overlays installed.

Quote from: AndyMax25 on September 18, 2015, 06:14:51 PM

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 18, 2015, 03:08:48 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on September 18, 2015, 02:16:54 PM

Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2015, 02:13:44 PM
Before 1997, CA 91 was signed as a state highway along Artesia Blvd between PCH and Vermont.  The signage on the freeway was never changed to take into account the relinquishment of the surface street portion.

Despite relinquishment, there are still a decent amount of 91 signs remaining on that stretch of Artesia Boulevard as of 2014.

The retention of the 91 signs on 405 in the replacement project sharply contrasts with the removal of all references to Route 209 in San Diego.

With the 91 there's LOTS of issues.  They are:
(1) as you point out, still signing Artesia Blvd as a state highway even though it's been relinquished and the western terminus of the route was moved two miles east.
(2) with the new configuration of the southbound signs, they imply through ambiguity (as the old sign did) that the southbound 405 exit will let you go either direction on Artesia Blvd.  It won't, it's eastbound only (westbound traffic for Artesia has to get off at Redondo Beach Blvd.)
(3) many years ago, the northbound exit from the 405 to Artesia allowed traffic to go either eastbound or westbound, and then the exit was reconfigured to allow turns only onto westbound Artesia.  The freeway signs were never updated to reflect this change, and resultantly, the old northbound signs all simply listed "Artesia Blvd."   The new signs recently installed northbound simply parroted the old signs and once again fail to identify that northbound traffic can only go westbound.

It's unfortunate. I brought up all of these issues in a face to face meeting I had with the group in charge of this project. I submitted comments in writing and went through the plans sheet by sheet with them. I explained how the northbound off ramp was reconfigured and the inconsistency of the southbound signage.  Not sure what else could have been done. I'm sure it would take another 12-18 months to get overlays installed.

Well, you tried.  And you work with them and still couldn't get the issue fixed.  God knows I've never even gotten the courtesy of a response when I've tried to raise these types of issues with District 7's or District 12's offices.

Quote from: AndyMax25 on September 18, 2015, 09:34:30 AM
Andy, yes there are still many button copy signs around in the LA area.  What I meant was these particular signs associated the 105 freeway were some of the last new button copy signs to be installed in D7.  Shortly after the completion of the freeway, Caltrans started changing to the current reflective standards.

Yes. The first time I saw any reflective signs in California (around 1999 or so) were on SR 94 when the MLK Fwy signs were placed in San Diego, followed by SR 99 through Fresno. I-10 along the Santa Monica Freeway, and in the vicinity of I-80/US 101 in San Francisco. These areas are notable today for having reflective signs but no or retrofitted exit numbers, which weren't introduced until 2002.

You can see this on the Santa Monica Freeway, where Caltrans added several roadside signs with exit numbers to allow for minimum exit numbering compliance (i.e., one advance sign and one gore point sign with the exit number). But it's much less common to see the exit numbers on the overhead guide signs, since they were generally placed before 2002 and after 1999.

The last sets of button copy signs I saw installed were on portions of then-newly completed freeways, including: SR 241 in Orange County, eastern and western stubs of SR 56 in San Diego, SR 15 through City Heights portion of San Diego (transit center signs were added later, which resulted in some reflective signs added along this segment), and a segment of SR 99 (I think) near Hammett Road.

LA will have button copy signs for many years to come, unless someone dumps a huge pile of cash into the sign replacement budget. Right now, most sign replacements I've seen have been attached to specific road improvement projects (such as new signs generally seen along I-710 between I-405 and I-10, I-5 between SR 39 and I-710, I-5 between SR 134 and SR 14, and I-405 through Sepulveda Pass leading south to near SR 90 and I-105. While there are some contracts coming out for sign replacements as standalone projects, the budget has not provided for them in large scale over the past decade.

It's no accident that sign replacements have been slow to come, since California's budget was abysmal for much of the past 6-10 years. And sign replacement is likely not the top priority for scarce state general funds. But I do expect the sign replacements to keep coming, and eventually long-standing button copy stretches of highway will see replacement. I'd measure that completion to occur in the span of decades, not years, unless spending picks up.

So those of you wishing to see button copy still in use in the wild, California is still a good place to visit.

Thanks Andy for posting these pictures. I have no idea why the state route shields have moved from right to left, nor am I sure why SR 91 is posted between I-405 and I-110. But I do enjoy seeing the changes and then trying to figure out why the signs say what they say.

Huh???
This is the SB 101 at the Mulholland/Valley Circle off-ramp.
Maybe the City put these up? I've never seen green regulatory signs.  Anyone have any ideas or thoughts?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F09%2F29be64eb4f1ed1aba61e054faf48114d.jpg&hash=df96e713808887414d562628be7faba3fc6761a9)

Quote from: AndyMax25 on October 10, 2015, 12:30:52 AM
Huh???
This is the SB 101 at the Mulholland/Valley Circle off-ramp.
Maybe the City put these up? I've never seen green regulatory signs.  Anyone have any ideas or thoughts?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F09%2F29be64eb4f1ed1aba61e054faf48114d.jpg&hash=df96e713808887414d562628be7faba3fc6761a9)

Maybe they need cardinal directions? It seems like each arrow is for each lane, and that may correspond to the "arrow per lane" concept we've seen on much larger guide signs. The "ONLY" probably should be in yellow? Or not used at all? If the sign were just saying "ONLY" and not the street name, I'd agree with these being white rather than green. But with the street names, I think they become guide signs with green as the proper color. Just my initial impression without being familiar with this interchange.

Quote from: andy3175 on October 10, 2015, 06:11:09 AM

Quote from: AndyMax25 on October 10, 2015, 12:30:52 AM
Huh???
This is the SB 101 at the Mulholland/Valley Circle off-ramp.
Maybe the City put these up? I've never seen green regulatory signs.  Anyone have any ideas or thoughts?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F09%2F29be64eb4f1ed1aba61e054faf48114d.jpg&hash=df96e713808887414d562628be7faba3fc6761a9)

Maybe they need cardinal directions? It seems like each arrow is for each lane, and that may correspond to the "arrow per lane" concept we've seen on much larger guide signs. The "ONLY" probably should be in yellow? Or not used at all? If the sign were just saying "ONLY" and not the street name, I'd agree with these being white rather than green. But with the street names, I think they become guide signs with green as the proper color. Just my initial impression without being familiar with this interchange.

This is an incorrect application of a concept introduced in the 2009 MUTCD: Overhead destination/lane use signs (sign code D15-1). These are basically guide and lane use control signs. For this case, the green guide and street name elements are correct, but the "ONLY" and arrows should be the standard black-on-white lane use sign style.

Quote from: roadfro on October 10, 2015, 04:37:02 PM

Quote from: andy3175 on October 10, 2015, 06:11:09 AM

Quote from: AndyMax25 on October 10, 2015, 12:30:52 AM
Huh???
This is the SB 101 at the Mulholland/Valley Circle off-ramp.
Maybe the City put these up? I've never seen green regulatory signs.  Anyone have any ideas or thoughts?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F09%2F29be64eb4f1ed1aba61e054faf48114d.jpg&hash=df96e713808887414d562628be7faba3fc6761a9)

Maybe they need cardinal directions? It seems like each arrow is for each lane, and that may correspond to the "arrow per lane" concept we've seen on much larger guide signs. The "ONLY" probably should be in yellow? Or not used at all? If the sign were just saying "ONLY" and not the street name, I'd agree with these being white rather than green. But with the street names, I think they become guide signs with green as the proper color. Just my initial impression without being familiar with this interchange.

This is an incorrect application of a concept introduced in the 2009 MUTCD: Overhead destination/lane use signs (sign code D15-1). These are basically guide and lane use control signs. For this case, the green guide and street name elements are correct, but the "ONLY" and arrows should be the standard black-on-white lane use sign style.

Roadfro, thanks that makes sense. I think the old setup was cleaner at this location with the street names and arrows on a traditional guide sign on the shoulder.

The old and the new. NB 405 side roadway at Manchester.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F24%2F2e7d9fcd96820cbb2a9308dc63dde1af.jpg&hash=be8abee615635b60fe5d600a4d3dd3e36e7d5d85)

Quote from: AndyMax25 on October 24, 2015, 09:18:34 PM
The old and the new. NB 405 side roadway at Manchester.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F24%2F2e7d9fcd96820cbb2a9308dc63dde1af.jpg&hash=be8abee615635b60fe5d600a4d3dd3e36e7d5d85)

I really wish Los Angeles County would assign a route number to La Cienega Blvd, as it's an effective shortcut from I-405 to I-10. N1-N9 are taken so maybe calling it LA County Route N11.

Quote from: emory on October 26, 2015, 01:12:15 AM

I really wish Los Angeles County would assign a route number to La Cienega Blvd, as it's an effective shortcut from I-405 to I-10. N1-N9 are taken so maybe calling it LA County Route N11.

Agreed.  I beleive that all limited access roadways (freeways, expressways, parkways) should have some type of highway number to aid in navigation.  La Cienega would be a great candidate, since there is a small freeway portion in the Baldwin Hills and it will highlight its utility as a 405-10 shortcut.

It should also have control cities like a freeway.  Southbound, LA Airport is a great control until La Tijera.  Then use Long Beach to highlight that the road leads to the 405.  (N11) SOUTH to 405 SOUTH Long Beach.  Northbound, there should be two controls:  West Hollywood and Los Angeles that should be signed all the way to the 10 freeway.

Quote from: mrsman on October 26, 2015, 12:11:50 PM

Quote from: emory on October 26, 2015, 01:12:15 AM

I really wish Los Angeles County would assign a route number to La Cienega Blvd, as it's an effective shortcut from I-405 to I-10. N1-N9 are taken so maybe calling it LA County Route N11.

Agreed.  I beleive that all limited access roadways (freeways, expressways, parkways) should have some type of highway number to aid in navigation.  La Cienega would be a great candidate, since there is a small freeway portion in the Baldwin Hills and it will highlight its utility as a 405-10 shortcut.

It should also have control cities like a freeway.  Southbound, LA Airport is a great control until La Tijera.  Then use Long Beach to highlight that the road leads to the 405.  (N11) SOUTH to 405 SOUTH Long Beach.  Northbound, there should be two controls:  West Hollywood and Los Angeles that should be signed all the way to the 10 freeway.

I've always found it odd how Highland Avenue - a very short connector to Hollywood - received 170 signage (which may have finally been removed in the last few years)...while the La Cienega Boulevard freeway that would have been part of that 170 extension corridor has never been given a signed route number.

Quote from: TheStranger on October 26, 2015, 12:28:16 PM

Quote from: mrsman on October 26, 2015, 12:11:50 PM

Quote from: emory on October 26, 2015, 01:12:15 AM

I really wish Los Angeles County would assign a route number to La Cienega Blvd, as it's an effective shortcut from I-405 to I-10. N1-N9 are taken so maybe calling it LA County Route N11.

Agreed.  I beleive that all limited access roadways (freeways, expressways, parkways) should have some type of highway number to aid in navigation.  La Cienega would be a great candidate, since there is a small freeway portion in the Baldwin Hills and it will highlight its utility as a 405-10 shortcut.

It should also have control cities like a freeway.  Southbound, LA Airport is a great control until La Tijera.  Then use Long Beach to highlight that the road leads to the 405.  (N11) SOUTH to 405 SOUTH Long Beach.  Northbound, there should be two controls:  West Hollywood and Los Angeles that should be signed all the way to the 10 freeway.

I've always found it odd how Highland Avenue - a very short connector to Hollywood - received 170 signage (which may have finally been removed in the last few years)...while the La Cienega Boulevard freeway that would have been part of that 170 extension corridor has never been given a signed route number.

While Highland was part of 170 for a very long time, the signage for 170 along Highland did not really exist until about 2000.  I don't see the point of signing 170 here, as it is all sufrace street.

The old and the new. SB CA-110 at US-101 four level interchange, transition road split.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F12%2F06%2F4fe50c314733c6e88fe3a7698965c6b1.jpg&hash=3f7630497009f4cd1cbbb94fb4771ad7710e52b1)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F12%2F06%2F329e81f5169f1a947c123668bf9a8540.jpg&hash=0e46ab49f7d99c34d95f1c018d2ed032abf7797e)

Quote from: AndyMax25 on December 06, 2015, 07:45:14 PM
The old and the new. SB CA-110 at US-101 four level interchange, transition road split.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F12%2F06%2F4fe50c314733c6e88fe3a7698965c6b1.jpg&hash=3f7630497009f4cd1cbbb94fb4771ad7710e52b1)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F12%2F06%2F329e81f5169f1a947c123668bf9a8540.jpg&hash=0e46ab49f7d99c34d95f1c018d2ed032abf7797e)

I'm glad they're changing those Santa Ana Freeway signs. The fact that they've been labeled as I-5 South is completely inaccurate.

Thanks for the update on CA 110 south at US 101. I believe this replacement is an improvement over the old sign. I never did care for I-5 south being signed from the Four-Level southward on US 101. The "US 101 to I-5, I-10, CA 60" sign is more accurate.

Why are the arrows off-center in both of the new signs? I know there used to be two lanes in each direction before they removed one from both, but that's an excuse for the old sign, not the new one. Obviously they are using the old anti-graffiti plates, but I would think those are relatively cheap and could be wrapped around a new, more centrally-located sign.

Then again, I don't really see an issue with the off-center arrows. It just seems to me that they could have centered them relatively easily. Plenty of signs are off-center from the lanes they represent, but that's usually because of other signs.

Also, I'm nitpicking. The new signs are still a great addition.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 06, 2015, 11:39:31 PM
Why are the arrows off-center in both of the new signs? I know there used to be two lanes in each direction before they removed one from both, but that's an excuse for the old sign, not the new one. Obviously they are using the old anti-graffiti plates, but I would think those are relatively cheap and could be wrapped around a new, more centrally-located sign.

Then again, I don't really see an issue with the off-center arrows. It just seems to me that they could have centered them relatively easily. Plenty of signs are off-center from the lanes they represent, but that's usually because of other signs.

Also, I'm nitpicking. The new signs are still a great addition.

The simple answer is money (of course).

To me it appears the new signs were sized to have the same dimensions as the old ones so Caltrans could reuse the existing mounting hardware (a common Caltrans practice).  To move the signs so the down-arrows were centered on the signs is not a trivial task.  It would require that new mounting hardware be installed on the overpass, redoing the electrical systems (conduit, junction boxes, etc) and reinstalling the anti-graffiti shields.  This would also require more labor to do the above tasks and probably could not be done in a single overnight closure.

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. What puzzles me is why those ramps were changed from 2-lane to single lane at all. Also the wrong style arrow was used on the original Santa Ana sign.

Quote from: AndyMax25 on October 24, 2015, 09:18:34 PM
The old and the new. NB 405 side roadway at Manchester.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F24%2F2e7d9fcd96820cbb2a9308dc63dde1af.jpg&hash=be8abee615635b60fe5d600a4d3dd3e36e7d5d85)

FYI, a recently-installed retroreflective replacement (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9917187,-118.1745536,3a,75y,148.3h,81.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4AoeoF2EHkqkXncsnuy5zA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) of an interchange sequence sign on the 710 south includes an SR-42 shield.

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. What puzzles me is why those ramps were changed from 2-lane to single lane at all. Also the wrong style arrow was used on the original Santa Ana sign.

I think it's an ADT issue combined with the lack of capacity on the southbound 101.  In the afternoon rush, most of the traffic transitioning from the 110 to the 101 south is coming from the 110 north.  Thus, the 110 north gets preference with two lanes of traffic on the transition road to the 101 south versus the one lane for the 110 south (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bell,+CA/@34.0607441,-118.248351,191m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x80c2ce94f2f96f91:0x10aef4a05636241a!6m1!1e1).  Also involved is the Temple/Hope Street onramp to the 101 south, which merges into the (now combined) 110 transition road to the 101 south (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bell,+CA/@34.0592094,-118.2464843,187m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x80c2ce94f2f96f91:0x10aef4a05636241a!6m1!1e1).  Two lanes of traffic from the 110 north, plus one lane from the 110 south, plus one lane from Temple/Hope, all merge into two lanes of the 101 south, one of which shortly turns into an exit-only lane at Broadway. 

I can't find ADT data on the 110 south interchange, but I suspect low ADT combined with the need to handle all the lanes of traffic merging into scarce real estate is the reason the 110 south transition lanes were pared from two lanes to one.

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on December 07, 2015, 09:54:23 PM

Quote from: AndyMax25 on October 24, 2015, 09:18:34 PM
The old and the new. NB 405 side roadway at Manchester.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F24%2F2e7d9fcd96820cbb2a9308dc63dde1af.jpg&hash=be8abee615635b60fe5d600a4d3dd3e36e7d5d85)

FYI, a recently-installed retroreflective replacement (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9917187,-118.1745536,3a,75y,148.3h,81.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4AoeoF2EHkqkXncsnuy5zA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) of an interchange sequence sign on the 710 south includes an SR-42 shield.

CA-42, the route that just won't die.

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.

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.

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!

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.

SB Golden State Freeway at Glendale Freeway split.

Original
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160120%2F6d31e1da91495f88485aad10550417fb.jpg&hash=db116b9663ca6fd18416b3e7359a67c824a18f1a)

New
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160120%2Fbb847c05b4cc59c582de927701ee6cb7.jpg&hash=3eefb12156e5f2d9fc3897d9031ed0c1f6d1c75f)

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...

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.

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..........

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.

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"

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.

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 (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.

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 (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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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/

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Traditionally, signs for multi-lane exits either had a distance message *or* down arrows but never both.  I am starting to notice that in some recent signing plans, Caltrans is starting to include both on signs.  Examples in the plans linked to by AndyMax25 include...

* I-5 north sign on page 30
* I-10 east sign on page 37

With that said, there are signs that have a single down arrow and a distance message.  They are mostly older signs like the one below but newer ones may exist.

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_sb_exit_395a_01.jpg)

Quote from: TheStranger on March 21, 2016, 07:27:48 PM

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?

San Jose.  It's the largest city in the Bay Area and traveling north on the 101, you obviously reach it before San Francisco.  Plus, the control city on 101 south of San Jose isn't Ventura, it's Los Angeles.

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 23, 2016, 06:43:46 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on March 21, 2016, 07:27:48 PM

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?

San Jose.  It's the largest city in the Bay Area and traveling north on the 101, you obviously reach it before San Francisco.  Plus, the control city on 101 south of San Jose isn't Ventura, it's Los Angeles.

As far as what's currently used as control cities on the 101, you have the following southbound from SF:  San Jose, Los Angeles.  Certain big cities along the way may become secondary control cities (like Salinas, SLO, and Santa Barbara).

Nothbound from LA:  Ventura, San Francisco.  Certain big cities along the way may become secondary control cities (like Santa Barbara, SLO, Salinas, and San Jose).

So basically, along most of the way, the control cities are SF northbound and LA southbound.  But while in the metro areas of SF, we don't sign LA as the southbound control, becuase it is usually faster to take I-5 to go all the way to LA.  Likewise, in LA, you don't sign the 101 for SF since it is usually faster to take I-5 to get to SF.  (And even though in LA proper, I-5 is signed as going to Sacramento, once you're in Kern County, you will see a combined SF/Sac control city along the I-5.

Quote from: mrsman on March 23, 2016, 11:05:30 PM

So basically, along most of the way, the control cities are SF northbound and LA southbound.  But while in the metro areas of SF, we don't sign LA as the southbound control, becuase it is usually faster to take I-5 to go all the way to LA.  Likewise, in LA, you don't sign the 101 for SF since it is usually faster to take I-5 to get to SF.  (And even though in LA proper, I-5 is signed as going to Sacramento, once you're in Kern County, you will see a combined SF/Sac control city along the I-5.

Los Angeles DOES start appearing as a control city at the 85/101 split in Mountain View, approximately 25-30 miles south of SF.  As a comparison, San Francisco appears for the first time as a 101 northbound control at the 101/33 junction in Ventura, a full 60+ miles past downtown LA (but about 30 from the city limits that begin in San Fernando Valley).

For the most part, areas with freeway networks developed before the 1960s really emphasize short-distance controls (i.e. Oakland/Bay Bridge for 80 at the 101/80 split, no mention of Sacramento which is less than 100 miles away at that point, or the "Hollywood" use in downtown Los Angeles on 101 north that seems to be falling out of favor in recent years), while routes constructed in the late 60s/early 70s start to emphasize longer-distance controls (5 south in Sacramento for "Los Angeles" and 99 south marked for "Fresno" with no mention of Stockton; 680 northbound control of "Sacramento"; 805 signed for "Los Angeles" northbound instead of "Chula Vista" or "Mission Valley"; 5 north in Los Angeles being shifted from "Bakersfield" to "Sacramento" in the 1970s due to the West Side Freeway diverging sharply from the historic 99 routing)

101 freeway segments in SF and Los Angeles both predate the shift to long-distance controls, as does specifically 5 on the Golden State and Santa Ana Freeways (originally 99 and 101 respectively).  I know there's been the semi-recent addition of Santa Ana (supplanting Los Angeles) as a northbound control for 5 in Orange County but I wonder if the change towards further signed destinations will ever fully reach the older routes like 101.

Another way of looking at it: for 101, the approach at both ends is "major city/major exurb control reachable within 1 hour" when you are in the major destination cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco, and then "long-distance control" between Mountain View and Ventura.    For 5, due to the long stretch of barely-inhabited land from Castaic to Stockton on the 1970s-build route, controls Sacramento northbound and Los Angeles southbound cover the entire distance between the two cities; when 99/5 ran together along the Golden State Freeway and the West Side Freeway had yet to be completed, the then-control city of Bakersfield was the next major destination reachable 90 minutes from Sylmar (followed by Sacramento as 99's control for the next 200+ miles north).

Quote from: TheStranger on March 24, 2016, 12:26:34 PM
San Jose DOES start appearing as a control city at the 85/101 split in Mountain View, approximately 25-30 miles south of SF.  As a comparison, San Francisco appears for the first time as a 101 northbound control at the 101/33 junction in Ventura, a full 60+ miles past downtown LA (but about 30 from the city limits that begin in San Fernando Valley).

Wait, don't you mean Los Angeles, not San Jose first appearing as a control city for US 101 at the 85/101 interchange in Mountain View?  San Jose appears as a control city for US 101 on signs approaching the 101/80 interchange near downtown San Francisco. 

Quote from: myosh_tino on March 24, 2016, 05:11:04 PM
Wait, don't you mean Los Angeles

I just corrected my post above - I did mean Los Angeles.

Tying into this - San Jose is NEVER used as a long-distance control in California except for 680 south (a route mostly completed late 60s/early 1970s) and 152 west.  It didn't surpass San Francisco in population until the 1990s (around the time the San Jose Sharks NHL team was established) though it has since reached the 1 million mark, only one of three California cities to do so.

Quote from: TheStranger on March 24, 2016, 07:27:16 PM
Tying into this - San Jose is NEVER used as a long-distance control in California except for 680 south (a route mostly completed late 60s/early 1970s) and 152 west.  It didn't surpass San Francisco in population until the 1990s (around the time the San Jose Sharks NHL team was established) though it has since reached the 1 million mark, only one of three California cities to do so.

That's because San Jose has always played second fiddle to San Francisco. ;-)  Case in point is the San Francisco 49ers who play their home games in Santa Clara, a good 40 miles to the south.

Quote from: myosh_tino on March 25, 2016, 02:39:30 AM

Quote from: TheStranger on March 24, 2016, 07:27:16 PM
Tying into this - San Jose is NEVER used as a long-distance control in California except for 680 south (a route mostly completed late 60s/early 1970s) and 152 west.  It didn't surpass San Francisco in population until the 1990s (around the time the San Jose Sharks NHL team was established) though it has since reached the 1 million mark, only one of three California cities to do so.

That's because San Jose has always played second fiddle to San Francisco. ;-)  Case in point is the San Francisco 49ers who play their home games in Santa Clara, a good 40 miles to the south.

Currently the top 12 cities in CA by population:

Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Bakersfield, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Riverside.

Of course, prominence on BGS is based on size at the time the highways were built, not now.  And the fact that San Jose is so close to SF, it gets largely ignored as being a statewide control.  The same for Oakland and Long Beach.  LA and SF were once the two main cities of the state and these controls will predominate.  You can find roads with a control to LA or SF as much as 500 miles away.

Quote from: mrsman on March 25, 2016, 05:53:12 PM

Of course, prominence on BGS is based on size at the time the highways were built, not now.  And the fact that San Jose is so close to SF, it gets largely ignored as being a statewide control.  The same for Oakland and Long Beach.  LA and SF were once the two main cities of the state and these controls will predominate.  You can find roads with a control to LA or SF as much as 500 miles away.

I'm just somewhat surprised that in Orange County, Santa Ana became a northbound control city on I-5 (instead of the traditional Los Angeles) in the last 20 years, but San Jose still isn't signed all that much on 101 north until Chualar, 69 miles to the south (as as listed roadside destination - https://www.aaroads.com/california/images100/us-101_nb_exit_326a_01.jpg ) and then not as a primary control city until Exit 329 in Salinas, only 42 miles south of the southern city limit of SJ:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Salinas,+CA/@36.6861351,-121.6507283,3a,60y,336.24h,79.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVRRxIHMmBCDBpYF9w12i0A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x808df8964e61722f:0xa511bb11baed8121!6m1!1e1

Quote from: TheStranger on March 25, 2016, 07:51:01 PM

Quote from: mrsman on March 25, 2016, 05:53:12 PM

Of course, prominence on BGS is based on size at the time the highways were built, not now.  And the fact that San Jose is so close to SF, it gets largely ignored as being a statewide control.  The same for Oakland and Long Beach.  LA and SF were once the two main cities of the state and these controls will predominate.  You can find roads with a control to LA or SF as much as 500 miles away.

I'm just somewhat surprised that in Orange County, Santa Ana became a northbound control city on I-5 (instead of the traditional Los Angeles) in the last 20 years, but San Jose still isn't signed all that much on 101 north until Chualar, 69 miles to the south (as as listed roadside destination - https://www.aaroads.com/california/images100/us-101_nb_exit_326a_01.jpg ) and then not as a primary control city until Exit 329 in Salinas, only 42 miles south of the southern city limit of SJ:
L
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Salinas,+CA/@36.6861351,-121.6507283,3a,60y,336.24h,79.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVRRxIHMmBCDBpYF9w12i0A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x808df8964e61722f:0xa511bb11baed8121!6m1!1e1

Is San Jose ever singed as a control city on 101 NB without also signing San Francisco? If not, then it's not a primary control.

Also, the districts don't follow the same policies.  I know that I complained about the signing of Santa Ana to the exclusion of Los Angeles on another thread.  It's not good to go LA - Santa Ana - LA as a control.  I have no problem with signing Santa Ana on NB I-5, so long as LA is also singed.

Likewise, unless someone is willing to spend the money on getting rid of all of the SF signs on 101 NB between Ventura and San Jose, there is no reason to introduce San Jose as the control to the exclusion of San Francisco.

Quote from: myosh_tino on March 22, 2016, 02:33:30 PM

With that said, there are signs that have a single down arrow and a distance message.  They are mostly older signs like the one below but newer ones may exist.

Yes I've seen many old original signs in the LA area where an overlay fell off revealing the down arrow.

This brand new sign must have been parroted from the original design plans. This is on 405 south and actually points to the wrong lane.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160330%2Faa6fdba3cea6fca782dac55c9901a731.jpg&hash=a9d2e56014039b19d0483f9f2a084443248374d9)

Quote from: mrsman on March 27, 2016, 12:25:38 AM
Is San Jose ever singed as a control city on 101 NB without also signing San Francisco? If not, then it's not a primary control.

San Francisco is used along with Salinas in SLO and Monterey Counties.
In SLO: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2863298,-120.6638992,3a,75y,41.36h,89.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1x_ovU-6OlJ3DTzT8hu6HQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
In Soledad: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4211562,-121.3229578,3a,37.5y,225.73h,83.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siqLeLmR_S0NzEbxqxu9YBA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

There are a number of signs for just "San Jose" in the southern Santa Clara Valley: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1180138,-121.6294579,3a,75y,81.24h,81.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shnv9u6PKxxY8IF_25JWyMw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

But, even at the 85 split, "San Francisco" is the only control city. Though that may be because you're already in San Jose at that point.

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"

Found some more issues:
Sign 17B (b): There should be another down arrow to the left of the current one (option lane). Sign 16B (b) correctly shows the lanes to use to exit onto I-10
Sign 3B (a) and 5A (b): Should use down arrows instead of "RIGHT 2 LANES". They're both missing exit numbers too.

New signs along WB Santa Monica freeway at the Lincoln and 4th/5th exits. This was a City of Santa Monica project to properly show the exit lane assignments.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20170105%2F6c0fdcb0187d20a843b2cf0e28f57da2.jpg&hash=14e59ad33c4f69120bab67b919776eca9e5369e6)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20170105%2Fe9538708094a7e119718d465b3c32e90.jpg&hash=1819f3e21d68ee82e0af56508eb1612fa4bed49b)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20170105%2F36ca1b6add23d298a3cf42da3085e257.jpg&hash=97d3f21315b1802db46a7884c52242a7e6982b0c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20170105%2F9f1f1c0971836b73466dbd14b0be6027.jpg&hash=7c85d9e0555b78149d2cc9fb2ba4de9f8bfc08e5)

Quote from: AndyMax25 on January 05, 2017, 03:59:06 PM
New signs along WB Santa Monica freeway at the Lincoln and 4th/5th exits. This was a City of Santa Monica project to properly show the exit lane assignments.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20170105%2F6c0fdcb0187d20a843b2cf0e28f57da2.jpg&hash=14e59ad33c4f69120bab67b919776eca9e5369e6)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20170105%2Fe9538708094a7e119718d465b3c32e90.jpg&hash=1819f3e21d68ee82e0af56508eb1612fa4bed49b)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20170105%2F36ca1b6add23d298a3cf42da3085e257.jpg&hash=97d3f21315b1802db46a7884c52242a7e6982b0c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20170105%2F9f1f1c0971836b73466dbd14b0be6027.jpg&hash=7c85d9e0555b78149d2cc9fb2ba4de9f8bfc08e5)

Andy, is this project you asked for my opinions on with regards to some of the signs?  If so, I do apologize for not getting back to you after the initial contact.  Family and personal issues kind of got in the way along with a ton of spam my Yahoo e-mail account gets which effectively buried your e-mails.

Quote from: AndyMax25 on January 05, 2017, 03:59:06 PM
New signs along WB Santa Monica freeway at the Lincoln and 4th/5th exits. This was a City of Santa Monica project to properly show the exit lane assignments.
(images omitted)

Interesting that the full size up/diagonal exit arrows (type A?) were used on the exit direction signs. California tends to use the shorter shaft (type B?) arrows for practically every application.

And that some actually say "EXIT ONLY".

I still don't understand why the "TO" is needed for the Lincoln Blvd exit.

Quote from: mrsman on January 16, 2017, 07:35:11 AM
I still don't understand why the "TO" is needed for the Lincoln Blvd exit.

That might have to do with the technicalities of route relinquishment along that portion of Route 1.  (Not that it's particularly a logical thing for navigation - it reminds me of the "TO I-90" signage on the Chicago Skyway)

I might have already mentioned it, but I noticed that the US-101 shields used on the new US-101/CA-23 BGS use an odd "gullwing" shape, similar to what is seen in Arkansas:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/AR/AR19610652i1.jpg)

Maybe it's the same contractor.

Quote from: mrsman on January 16, 2017, 07:35:11 AM
I still don't understand why the "TO" is needed for the Lincoln Blvd exit.

It's not.

Plus there should probably be a slash between the CA-1 shield and Lincoln Blvd, insomuch as access to Lincoln Blvd is both northbound and southbound off this exit.

Quote from: TheStranger on January 16, 2017, 05:49:56 PM

Quote from: mrsman on January 16, 2017, 07:35:11 AM
I still don't understand why the "TO" is needed for the Lincoln Blvd exit.

That might have to do with the technicalities of route relinquishment along that portion of Route 1.  (Not that it's particularly a logical thing for navigation - it reminds me of the "TO I-90" signage on the Chicago Skyway)

That is correct. The TO refers to the Route 1 South part of the sign and not Lincoln Blvd. The portion of Route 1 south of the freeway was relinquished to the City of Santa Monica several years ago. In coordinating with Caltrans on this project, it was decided to keep the route shields with TO in front of them due to the regional significance of PCH.  Otherwise they would technically have to be removed as was done with Route 42 on I-110 and Route 19 on I-105 as discussed in a different thread.  TO reassurance trailblazers have already been in place along Lincoln Blvd since the time of relinquishment.

Quote from: AndyMax25 on January 19, 2017, 07:36:37 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on January 16, 2017, 05:49:56 PM

Quote from: mrsman on January 16, 2017, 07:35:11 AM
I still don't understand why the "TO" is needed for the Lincoln Blvd exit.

That might have to do with the technicalities of route relinquishment along that portion of Route 1.  (Not that it's particularly a logical thing for navigation - it reminds me of the "TO I-90" signage on the Chicago Skyway)

That is correct. The TO refers to the Route 1 South part of the sign and not Lincoln Blvd. The portion of Route 1 south of the freeway was relinquished to the City of Santa Monica several years ago. In coordinating with Caltrans on this project, it was decided to keep the route shields with TO in front of them due to the regional significance of PCH.  Otherwise they would technically have to be removed as was done with Route 42 on I-110 and Route 19 on I-105 as discussed in a different thread.  TO reassurance trailblazers have already been in place along Lincoln Blvd since the time of relinquishment.

See, this is what bothers me. The technical arrangements of when signage can and can't be in place. When the logical thing to do is just sign CA-1, regardless of who owns it/maintains it. I've heard reasons against this, yet frankly, they are all rather weak. I've stated many times before I'm not bothered by relinquishment, except when it creates scenarios that hinder navigation (such as signage not existing, or signage only being "TO" a route).

Here's a cool time lapse of a new truss going up along I-210 at CA-2. Plans for this area were included on this thread

https://twitter.com/caltransdist7/status/1042868513508012032?s=12

That was pretty cool to watch. Surprised they used Sacramento for the destination on I-210 West.

Here's a picture of the old sign.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2023647,-118.2187114,3a,75y,11.28h,72.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seDTLNNXZ79qmftZq9z_SbA!2e0!5s20161201T000000!7i13312!8i6656

The westbound control on the 210 was San Fernando for a long time.  A number of years ago, Caltrans decided to use Sacramento, since San Fernando was not on the list of control cities.  In the same way that the control for I-405 north and CA-170 north use Sacramento as a control since they end at I-5 northbound, even though they obviously don't go all the way to Sac, I-210 west is similarly signed as going to Sac.

FWIW, I feel San Fernando is a better control city for 210 (and 405 for that matter).

Oh, and to be clear, the gantry is at the CA-2 freeway where it ends, not the 210.  The CA-2 designation joins I-210 east for one exit and then continues on Angeles Crest Highway.  Three lanes essentially form a left exit onto I-210 west.

Quote from: mrsman on September 21, 2018, 05:07:48 PM
Here's a picture of the old sign.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2023647,-118.2187114,3a,75y,11.28h,72.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seDTLNNXZ79qmftZq9z_SbA!2e0!5s20161201T000000!7i13312!8i6656

The westbound control on the 210 was San Fernando for a long time.  A number of years ago, Caltrans decided to use Sacramento, since San Fernando was not on the list of control cities.  In the same way that the control for I-405 north and CA-170 north use Sacramento as a control since they end at I-5 northbound, even though they obviously don't go all the way to Sac, I-210 west is similarly signed as going to Sac.

FWIW, I feel San Fernando is a better control city for 210 (and 405 for that matter).

Oh, and to be clear, the gantry is at the CA-2 freeway where it ends, not the 210.  The CA-2 designation joins I-210 east for one exit and then continues on Angeles Crest Highway.  Three lanes essentially form a left exit onto I-210 west.

I agree re the control cities. D7 has been very strict with that old map they reference. The president was set long ago when 405 and other highways said Bakersfield. In recent times, other districts have been more sensible with their choice of control cities.

Thanks for pointing our the proper location. I just realized today that the sign was on the CA-2 mainline.