News:

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

Main Menu

District 3/Sacramento - Sign Replacement Project

Started by myosh_tino, September 21, 2015, 01:59:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jrouse

With regards to the question about future signing of Route 51:

I think a legislative fix would be pretty simple.  It could be done as part of an omnibus bill that addresses multiple issues.  Right now I am not aware of any effort within Caltrans to make such a legislative change.

There is a proposal to do a massive overhaul to virtually all of Route 51, adding 1 or 2 lanes in each direction from J Street northward to eliminate many of the bottlenecks on the corridor and bring things up to standard.  The final configuration and scope of improvements has not been determined yet, and it will take millions of dollars and several years and perhaps several projects to do it all.  This overhaul could, perhaps, include the elimination of the Business 80 designation.  (This proposal stems from a recent study to close the E a Street on ramp onto northbound 51/eastbound Business 80 and move the lane drop near there further north.  This proposal was controversial not only because of the ramp closure but also because it didn't really eliminate the bottleneck but only moved it.  It led to a request from local officials to do a comprehensive study of all of Route 51 to see what improvements could be made.)

And, yes, the de-designation of Business 80 along the US-50 segment will mean the exit numbers are going to be kind of wacky now.  I didn't discuss this with the project engineer but I may talk about it with our exit numbering program manager.


iPhone


mrsman

#26
Quote from: TheStranger on October 01, 2015, 12:52:43 PM

Quote from: mrsmanDon't follow the mistakes of District 7 and begin removing control cities, as they have done in many places, especially at the Four Level Interchange.
(Signs along US 101 south of the Four Level saying "US 101 to I-5, I-10, CA 60" without conrtol cities replacing the "I-5/I-10 Santa Ana / San Bernardino")

I only removed the control cities here as a message-loading remedy (the signs in this spot are not large enough to include as much information).  Having said that, your example of 101 actually explains my philosophy there:

101 south at the Four-Level is not continuing beyond East Los Angeles, so the nearby routes at the East Los Angeles Interchange (5 south/10 east/60) are themselves the destinations (as opposed to the confusing past signage of it as "5 Santa Ana/10 San Bernardino" as if the first part of the Santa Ana Freeway is either of those routes).  Likewise, at the foot of the Pioneer Bridge, drivers there are mostly commuters entering the Sacramento area trying to reach downtown and midtown, where the long-distance destinations aren't as important within the downtown core.

The ideal sign on the 101 would have left the control cities up, despite the message loading concerns:

101 to 5/10/60
Santa Ana
San Bernardino

I would explicitly not include the Pomona control despite the mention of 60 on this sign.

At the SB Split: (where the SB freeway splits from the Santa Ana Freeway)

10 East                         101 to 5/60
San Bernardino              Santa Ana
                                    Pomona

mrsman

Quote from: jrouse on October 02, 2015, 01:34:20 AM
With regards to the question about future signing of Route 51:

I think a legislative fix would be pretty simple.  It could be done as part of an omnibus bill that addresses multiple issues.  Right now I am not aware of any effort within Caltrans to make such a legislative change.

There is a proposal to do a massive overhaul to virtually all of Route 51, adding 1 or 2 lanes in each direction from J Street northward to eliminate many of the bottlenecks on the corridor and bring things up to standard.  The final configuration and scope of improvements has not been determined yet, and it will take millions of dollars and several years and perhaps several projects to do it all.  This overhaul could, perhaps, include the elimination of the Business 80 designation.  (This proposal stems from a recent study to close the E a Street on ramp onto northbound 51/eastbound Business 80 and move the lane drop near there further north.  This proposal was controversial not only because of the ramp closure but also because it didn't really eliminate the bottleneck but only moved it.  It led to a request from local officials to do a comprehensive study of all of Route 51 to see what improvements could be made.)

And, yes, the de-designation of Business 80 along the US-50 segment will mean the exit numbers are going to be kind of wacky now.  I didn't discuss this with the project engineer but I may talk about it with our exit numbering program manager.


iPhone

If Biz 80 is removed from US 50, I believe that whatever designation that is left for the 29/30 - Elvas Freeway should be signed as north/south rather than east/west.

I would prefer CA 51.  But if Biz 80 remains, it makes sense for this to be north/south as well.

myosh_tino

Quote from: mrsman on October 03, 2015, 11:12:13 PM
At the SB Split: (where the SB freeway splits from the Santa Ana Freeway)

10 East                         101 to 5/60
San Bernardino              Santa Ana
                                    Pomona

Just one problem... there's no way to fit route shields, two lines of legend AND down arrows on a 120-inch tall guide sign panel.  I think the down arrows are an important part of these signs due to the complexity of the I-10 East/US 101 South separation in combination with the Mission Road exit.  IIRC, those signs were discussed pretty thoroughly and here was my best alternative...

Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

Occidental Tourist

Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2015, 01:28:13 AM

Just one problem... there's no way to fit route shields, two lines of legend AND down arrows on a 120-inch tall guide sign panel.  I think the down arrows are an important part of these signs due to the complexity of the I-10 East/US 101 South separation in combination with the Mission Road exit.  IIRC, those signs were discussed pretty thoroughly and here was my best alternative...



This all leads me to two questions:
1) Why is the Mission Road exit still being identified as an alternate access for the 5 and 10 freeways?  It's not like I've ever seen it used as a major traffic reliever, and it's continued identification on signs seems to be anathema to Caltrans' recent history of removing thru traffic signing from collector-distributor lanes (plus Mission Road isn't a true thru traffic alternative - you have to stop at the signalized intersection at the bottom of the exit ramp to continue into the freeways).
2) Why isnt Pomona the control city on the 10?

andy3175

Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

TheStranger

#31
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on October 05, 2015, 05:11:24 PM
2) Why isnt Pomona the control city on the 10?
Pomona has never been a control city for the San Bernardino Freeway...even though it passes closer to the heart of that city than the Pomona Freeway/Route 60 does!  This does keep in mind that Mission Boulevard in Pomona (around where the 71/10 junction is today) was where 60 originally split off from 10, as opposed to the mid-1960s to present junction in East Los Angeles

(Likewise, the Foothill Freeway actually goes into downtown San Bernardino where the San Bernardino Freeway skirts the southern portion of its namesake city - but the former was only completed as a through route in the last decade!)

Another example of "closer route gets different control city from older, more indirect route" - I-5/Golden State Freeway (old US 99) retained a Los Angeles control city southbound even after the Route 170 portion of the Hollywood Freeway (planned as a US 6 reroute) was finished in the mid-1960s...with the Hollywood Freeway providing a much more direct route to downtown and the civic center area than the Golden State Freeway ever has.
Chris Sampang

roadfro

Quote from: andy3175 on October 05, 2015, 11:19:48 PM
Speaking of Mission Road, this must be the only place where I've seen three shields on a freeway entrance shield assembly:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0524681,-118.2265197,3a,75y,39.68h,74.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdjOl7ha0-iKZ09VRBWNHZg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Maybe in California... Freeway entrance assemblies such as this are common for the I-515/US 93/US 95 overlap in the Las Vegas area. Example from AARoads. There's a ramp on MLK Blvd in Vegas that should have five shields, but it is probably two freeway entrance assemblies.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

DTComposer

Quote from: TheStranger on October 06, 2015, 02:13:14 AM
Another example of "closer route gets different control city from older, more indirect route" - I-5/Golden State Freeway (old US 99) retained a Los Angeles control city southbound even after the Route 170 portion of the Hollywood Freeway (planned as a US 6 reroute) was finished in the mid-1960s...with the Hollywood Freeway providing a much more direct route to downtown and the civic center area than the Golden State Freeway ever has.

I figured this setup was in recognition that the Hollywood Freeway was/is chronically congested with people heading to Hollywood and local traffic heading to downtown. By keeping the long-distance traveler on I-5, it sends them around that choke point, and saves them time, even if it's a mile or two longer.

(From the I-5/CA-170 to the Four-Level Interchange is about 16¾ miles via CA-170/US-101, and 18 miles via I-5/CA-110. My experience commuting from Studio City to Long Beach for two years was always take I-5 to/past downtown instead of US-101)

TheStranger

Quote from: DTComposer on October 06, 2015, 02:20:44 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on October 06, 2015, 02:13:14 AM
Another example of "closer route gets different control city from older, more indirect route" - I-5/Golden State Freeway (old US 99) retained a Los Angeles control city southbound even after the Route 170 portion of the Hollywood Freeway (planned as a US 6 reroute) was finished in the mid-1960s...with the Hollywood Freeway providing a much more direct route to downtown and the civic center area than the Golden State Freeway ever has.

I figured this setup was in recognition that the Hollywood Freeway was/is chronically congested with people heading to Hollywood and local traffic heading to downtown. By keeping the long-distance traveler on I-5, it sends them around that choke point, and saves them time, even if it's a mile or two longer.

(From the I-5/CA-170 to the Four-Level Interchange is about 16¾ miles via CA-170/US-101, and 18 miles via I-5/CA-110. My experience commuting from Studio City to Long Beach for two years was always take I-5 to/past downtown instead of US-101)

I can see that logic - the one massive caveat is that trucks can't use the I-5 to 110 route (the old US 6 freeway routing) due to the Arroyo Seco Parkway's truck restriction.  (I wonder if the pre-1964 ALT US 66 along Figueroa primarily existed as a truck connector between the Golden State Freeway and the Four-Level)  How viable is using 5 to 2 south to 101 south (instead of 170 south to 101 south or 5 south to 10 west)?

Looking at Google Maps's traffic pattern analysis: at 4 PM and 8 AM rush hours, while 5 south is a bit faster between Route 2 and the Four-Level than 101 south is (from its own junctions with Route 2 and 110), 5 starts slowing earlier (at 134 south).  Using 5 to get to downtown through the East Los Angeles Interchange and westbound 10/Santa Monica Freeway leads to slowdowns at 8 AM as well.  (At both junctures of time, the downtown portion of 110 is a parking lot)
Chris Sampang

andy3175

Quote from: roadfro on October 06, 2015, 09:17:28 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on October 05, 2015, 11:19:48 PM
Speaking of Mission Road, this must be the only place where I've seen three shields on a freeway entrance shield assembly:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0524681,-118.2265197,3a,75y,39.68h,74.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdjOl7ha0-iKZ09VRBWNHZg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Maybe in California


That is what I meant. California does not commonly sign more than one route marker on a freeway entrance assembly. When it does happen, it's notable. I've seen more examples of dual and triple route markers on Nevada freeway entrance assemblies.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

mrsman

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on October 05, 2015, 05:11:24 PM


This all leads me to two questions:
1) Why is the Mission Road exit still being identified as an alternate access for the 5 and 10 freeways?  It's not like I've ever seen it used as a major traffic reliever, and it's continued identification on signs seems to be anathema to Caltrans' recent history of removing thru traffic signing from collector-distributor lanes (plus Mission Road isn't a true thru traffic alternative - you have to stop at the signalized intersection at the bottom of the exit ramp to continue into the freeways).


1)  It's main use is to discourage traffic that just entered the freeway from Alameda Street (the actual entrance is at Commercial/Garey) from making quick unnecessary changes to the left in a short distance to reach I-10 east.  If the maneuver cannot be made safely, the people should exit at Mission and re-enter after the traffic light.

Another benefit to the entrance at Mission:  It provides you with your own lane on either I-10 east or US 101 south.  At the Split, the four freeway lanes of US 101 south split to become 2 lanes to I-10 east and 2 lanes to continue to US 101 south to Santa Ana.  The Mission Road entrance provides the third lane to each.

Historically, the third lane for each was provided from the transition from San Bernardino to Santa Ana (and vice versa).  Before the construction of the East LA Interchange, these were important freeway movements -but now are largely redundant thanks to the routing of I-10 along the Golden State Freeway in this area.  The ramp from Santa Ana to San Bernardino is still there and merges in with the Mission Road ramp before becoming the third lane of the eastbound San Bernardino Freeway.  The ramp from San Bernardino to Santa Ana has been removed, but portion entering the 101 can still be made out from the satellite view as the beginnings of the exit lane to First Street.

andy3175

Caltrans has a video showcasing replacement of a yellow lane ends overhead sign and extolling the virtues of retroreflective sheeting on overhead signs (increased visibility, especially at night and reduction electrical consumption since signs need not be lit). Here's the video link:

http://scvtv.com/2016/01/06/caltrans-retro-reflective-signs-increase-safety-reduce-costs/

This particular sign is on the 29-30 section of Business 80 and SR 51. The reporter calls it I-80. The yellow caution sign is posted over what used to be a pull-through sign for I-80 east Reno and Roseville. Dominic Ielati commented that this sign was likely covered up since Business 80 replaced I-80 along what is now SR 51. And the sign replacement project covered it right back up again.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Bickendan

Quote from: TheStranger on October 06, 2015, 02:13:14 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on October 05, 2015, 05:11:24 PM
2) Why isnt Pomona the control city on the 10?
Pomona has never been a control city for the San Bernardino Freeway...even though it passes closer to the heart of that city than the Pomona Freeway/Route 60 does!  This does keep in mind that Mission Boulevard in Pomona (around where the 71/10 junction is today) was where 60 originally split off from 10, as opposed to the mid-1960s to present junction in East Los Angeles

(Likewise, the Foothill Freeway actually goes into downtown San Bernardino where the San Bernardino Freeway skirts the southern portion of its namesake city - but the former was only completed as a through route in the last decade!)
I recall seeing a map that showed the San Bernardino Freeway ending its run on I-10 at I-215 then heading north into downtown San Bernardino along I-215. That led me with the impression that the San Bernardino's routing was the US 101/I-10 Connector, I-10 from I-5 to I-215, and I-215 from I-10 to CA 259, and perhaps CA 259 from I-215 to former CA 30 (to give you an idea of the age of this map).

Kniwt

Quote from: andy3175 on January 08, 2016, 12:00:56 AM
The yellow caution sign is posted over what used to be a pull-through sign for I-80 east Reno and Roseville. Dominic Ielati commented that this sign was likely covered up since Business 80 replaced I-80 along what is now SR 51. And the sign replacement project covered it right back up again.

And from that video, here is the money shot:


underorbit

If anyone's still watching this thread, looks like this project is underway!

Have yet to see it with my own eyes but have been informed by a friend that the signs on I-5 are being replaced, Northbound is done, and Southbound is in progress. Now I'm debating whether to fight rush hour traffic to see it immediately after work...

myosh_tino

Quote from: underorbit on July 07, 2016, 07:19:48 PM
If anyone's still watching this thread, looks like this project is underway!

Have yet to see it with my own eyes but have been informed by a friend that the signs on I-5 are being replaced, Northbound is done, and Southbound is in progress. Now I'm debating whether to fight rush hour traffic to see it immediately after work...

If you do go, some photos would be greatly appreciated.  :nod:
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

Concrete Bob

I am all for the sign replacements currently underway along the local Sacramento area freeways.  Generally, most of the upgraded overheads look great. 

However, I've noticed a great deal of fading and blistering of the protective coating on many of the overhead signs that were recently installed.   I sure hope there is some sort of warranty agreement between Caltrans and the contractors for the longevity of the overheads. 


underorbit

Quote from: myosh_tino on July 07, 2016, 07:55:57 PM
If you do go, some photos would be greatly appreciated.  :nod:

Unfortunately whenever I drive through there, I'm on my own and can't take pictures and I don't have a friend with me who can take the pictures. I'll post some if I can get 'em, but haven't had an opportunity yet.

However, I CAN confirm that they've replaced a bunch of signs by now. Most of them look pretty good, but one has already been tagged with spray paint (right over the "TO 99"), and one is just flat out wrong. It was incorrect in the plans, too. Check Page S-10, which is Page 23 on the PDF. See how there's a 5 shield where there should be an 80 shield on AS-117 (FNBT)? Yeah...that made it onto the final sign, which has now been installed. It's been like that for a week, too.

mrsman

Quote from: underorbit on August 08, 2016, 08:14:00 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 07, 2016, 07:55:57 PM
If you do go, some photos would be greatly appreciated.  :nod:

Unfortunately whenever I drive through there, I'm on my own and can't take pictures and I don't have a friend with me who can take the pictures. I'll post some if I can get 'em, but haven't had an opportunity yet.

However, I CAN confirm that they've replaced a bunch of signs by now. Most of them look pretty good, but one has already been tagged with spray paint (right over the "TO 99"), and one is just flat out wrong. It was incorrect in the plans, too. Check Page S-10, which is Page 23 on the PDF. See how there's a 5 shield where there should be an 80 shield on AS-117 (FNBT)? Yeah...that made it onto the final sign, which has now been installed. It's been like that for a week, too.

That is a grave error.  Hopefully someone can get us a pic and then submit  it here and on the "Erroneous signs" thread in Traffic Control.

jrouse

Quote from: mrsman on August 12, 2016, 02:56:09 PM
Quote from: underorbit on August 08, 2016, 08:14:00 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 07, 2016, 07:55:57 PM
If you do go, some photos would be greatly appreciated.  :nod:

Unfortunately whenever I drive through there, I'm on my own and can't take pictures and I don't have a friend with me who can take the pictures. I'll post some if I can get 'em, but haven't had an opportunity yet.

However, I CAN confirm that they've replaced a bunch of signs by now. Most of them look pretty good, but one has already been tagged with spray paint (right over the "TO 99"), and one is just flat out wrong. It was incorrect in the plans, too. Check Page S-10, which is Page 23 on the PDF. See how there's a 5 shield where there should be an 80 shield on AS-117 (FNBT)? Yeah...that made it onto the final sign, which has now been installed. It's been like that for a week, too.

That is a grave error.  Hopefully someone can get us a pic and then submit  it here and on the "Erroneous signs" thread in Traffic Control.

I saw it too and informed the project engineer of the error.  He told me that he never even realized he'd made the error when developing the plans, and the other people who checked the plans missed it too.  He has asked that the contractor manufacture an I-80 shield overlay that will be applied to the sign.


iPhone

coatimundi

Drove I-5 north through Sac all the way to 99 this afternoon.

Quote from: TheStranger on September 21, 2015, 03:02:41 PM
Also notable from the new sign replacement PDF: the removal of "CAPITAL CITY FREEWAY" text along the US 50 stretch (but NOT on the Route 51 stretch which seems to be getting more of it in fact).

"CAPITAL CITY EXPY" appeared on a sequence sign, along with Business I-80. This one: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5342151,-121.5169471,3a,75y,63.46h,83.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAeWdOq8BhMKsGwMGJK7f2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Otherwise, that text and that shield are gone. What's left is US 50.

Quote from: TheStranger on September 21, 2015, 03:02:41 PM
- removal of "TO I-80" from the I-5 north pullthrough approaching 50/Business 80/(99)

Still there. And the worst part? Approaching the I-80 interchange from the south, the 80 shield is covered with a Caltrans garbage bag. There's construction going on, with nightly closures of the NB-WB ramp, so I would guess that's one reason, but it's kinda terrible to have both that "To 80" sign and then a missing shield at the actual 80 interchange. "You just have to know, bro..."

The new signs look nice though.

jrouse

Quote from: coatimundi on August 19, 2016, 01:04:08 AM

Quote from: TheStranger on September 21, 2015, 03:02:41 PM
- removal of "TO I-80" from the I-5 north pullthrough approaching 50/Business 80/(99)

Still there. And the worst part? Approaching the I-80 interchange from the south, the 80 shield is covered with a Caltrans garbage bag. There's construction going on, with nightly closures of the NB-WB ramp, so I would guess that's one reason, but it's kinda terrible to have both that "To 80" sign and then a missing shield at the actual 80 interchange. "You just have to know, bro..."

The new signs look nice though.

The sign approaching the I-80 interchange was installed with an I-5 shield and so it was probably covered to minimize confusion. It will be fixed.  See the discussion earlier in the thread. 


iPhone

coatimundi

Quote from: jrouse on August 19, 2016, 07:33:09 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 19, 2016, 01:04:08 AM

Quote from: TheStranger on September 21, 2015, 03:02:41 PM
- removal of "TO I-80" from the I-5 north pullthrough approaching 50/Business 80/(99)

Still there. And the worst part? Approaching the I-80 interchange from the south, the 80 shield is covered with a Caltrans garbage bag. There's construction going on, with nightly closures of the NB-WB ramp, so I would guess that's one reason, but it's kinda terrible to have both that "To 80" sign and then a missing shield at the actual 80 interchange. "You just have to know, bro..."

The new signs look nice though.

The sign approaching the I-80 interchange was installed with an I-5 shield and so it was probably covered to minimize confusion. It will be fixed.  See the discussion earlier in the thread. 


iPhone

What part of the discussion? The 5 posts on LA-area control cities?

The garbage bag is on the new version of this I-80 sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6133441,-121.5114345,3a,75y,337.9h,86.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skQMR78NtL1RoIp3G97MX9w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The I-5 sign is still there, sans bag.

myosh_tino

Quote from: coatimundi on August 19, 2016, 08:55:13 PM

What part of the discussion? The 5 posts on LA-area control cities?

The garbage bag is on the new version of this I-80 sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6133441,-121.5114345,3a,75y,337.9h,86.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skQMR78NtL1RoIp3G97MX9w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The I-5 sign is still there, sans bag.

Relevant discussion below on the erroneous I-5 shield...

Quote from: jrouse on August 12, 2016, 10:15:38 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 12, 2016, 02:56:09 PM
Quote from: underorbit on August 08, 2016, 08:14:00 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 07, 2016, 07:55:57 PM
If you do go, some photos would be greatly appreciated.  :nod:

Unfortunately whenever I drive through there, I'm on my own and can't take pictures and I don't have a friend with me who can take the pictures. I'll post some if I can get 'em, but haven't had an opportunity yet.

However, I CAN confirm that they've replaced a bunch of signs by now. Most of them look pretty good, but one has already been tagged with spray paint (right over the "TO 99"), and one is just flat out wrong. It was incorrect in the plans, too. Check Page S-10, which is Page 23 on the PDF. See how there's a 5 shield where there should be an 80 shield on AS-117 (FNBT)? Yeah...that made it onto the final sign, which has now been installed. It's been like that for a week, too.

That is a grave error.  Hopefully someone can get us a pic and then submit  it here and on the "Erroneous signs" thread in Traffic Control.

I saw it too and informed the project engineer of the error.  He told me that he never even realized he'd made the error when developing the plans, and the other people who checked the plans missed it too.  He has asked that the contractor manufacture an I-80 shield overlay that will be applied to the sign.


iPhone
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.