multilane exit signage on freeways

[deathtopumpkins]

And to be perfectly honest, I find that sign hideous.

-The separated exit number and suffix make it seem like the "A" is part of something else, while not separating them made the "A" seem attached to the "73," as it's exit 73A--one complete exit.

-I don't get the dual I-43 shields. Is this standard in the '09 MUTCD, and if so, does anyone know the intended benefit of using two identical shields with the cardinal direction in between?

-And now the arrows... they're thinner and appear to have smaller heads than the old-fashioned downward-pointing arrows, making them have a less profound impact in my opinion, and in this situation particularly, I think the message could be even better conveyed by removing the upward-pointing arrows altogether and just using a black-on-yellow diagonal arrow in between the "EXIT" and "ONLY," (to make the fact that that lane IS exit only more clear, as the diagonal arrow implies a simple exit with no lane drop, and the little exit only panel seems just a tad small and shoved-in-the-corner to me) and a white-on-green arrow to the left of that. Having the upward-pointing pull-through arrows creates an awful lot of blank sign space, and really does not seem to be necessary in this situation, with just the one single exit.

[TheStranger]

-I don't get the dual I-43 shields. Is this standard in the '09 MUTCD, and if so, does anyone know the intended benefit of using two identical shields with the cardinal direction in between?

While I can't answer whether the dual shielding is in the 09 MUTCD, I do recall that it came about as a byproduct of California's US route decomissioning - during the 1950s and early 1960s, many Interstates were co-signed with a US highway and post-1964, the old US shield would usually be replaced with a second shield for the same Interstate, the most notable examples being I-80/US 40 and I-5/US 101.  Ultimately CalTrans continued the "doubling" for large pull-throughs...

...though I didn't know this had become a practice elsewhere!

[shoptb1]

-I don't get the dual I-43 shields. Is this standard in the '09 MUTCD, and if so, does anyone know the intended benefit of using two identical shields with the cardinal direction in between?

The use of dual-shields on large pull-throughs is also seen in Michigan on I-75 and I-94 in the Detroit area.  I think it's kind of cool, along with their underlining of cardinal directions.

[roadfro]

-The separated exit number and suffix make it seem like the "A" is part of something else, while not separating them made the "A" seem attached to the "73," as it's exit 73A--one complete exit.

Separating the letter from the number is new in the 2009 MUTCD manual. This was done primarily to avoid mistaking letters for numbers when the number and letter are adjacent (particularly the "B" can look like an "8", with halation at night). I believe the requirements state that the space should be at least one-half the letter height...the picture shows a full-width space.

-I don't get the dual I-43 shields. Is this standard in the '09 MUTCD, and if so, does anyone know the intended benefit of using two identical shields with the cardinal direction in between?

This is not a MUTCD standard.

-And now the arrows... they're thinner and appear to have smaller heads than the old-fashioned downward-pointing arrows, making them have a less profound impact in my opinion, and in this situation particularly, I think the message could be even better conveyed by removing the upward-pointing arrows altogether and just using a black-on-yellow diagonal arrow in between the "EXIT" and "ONLY," (to make the fact that that lane IS exit only more clear, as the diagonal arrow implies a simple exit with no lane drop, and the little exit only panel seems just a tad small and shoved-in-the-corner to me) and a white-on-green arrow to the left of that. Having the upward-pointing pull-through arrows creates an awful lot of blank sign space, and really does not seem to be necessary in this situation, with just the one single exit.

This is the way Nevada does it. I agree with this assessment.

[myosh_tino]

one old outline shield left in the state ... the ones in Ventura County are all gone, too.  (There are a few scattered ones from the late 1990s.)

Make that two.  I took this picture today...


This sign is located on a bridge that spans the Caltrain tracks and links CA-82/El Camino Real to Coleman Ave/De La Cruz Blvd in Santa Clara, CA.  I'm not sure who maintains the signs.

[agentsteel53]

I had totally forgotten about that one!  I used to pass by it a lot when I lived in the area, as it was on the way from work to the airport, avoiding rush hour on the 101.

Is that actually an old gantry?  I know CA experimented with some retroreflective signs in 1966 or so, but I had thought those were all surface-mount, not overhead.

if it is from the 60s, there are is very likely to be date stamps on the backs of the signs. 

[myosh_tino]

Is that actually an old gantry?  I know CA experimented with some retroreflective signs in 1966 or so, but I had thought those were all surface-mount, not overhead.

if it is from the 60s, there are is very likely to be date stamps on the backs of the signs. 

I suspect the gantry and signs are original to the construction of the overpass but I'm really not sure.  Unfortunately, there is little to no shoulder and no sidewalk so getting a close-up look at the back of the signs (looking for a date stamp) is not something I am able to do.

De La Cruz, Coleman Ave and this connector roadway form a mini trumpet interchange and all the signs at the various separations are new ones installed about a year or so ago.  They are reflective don't look like typical Caltrans signs.

Agentsteel53, I have a higher resolution photo of that sign if you're interested.  Let me know.

[agentsteel53]

yes, I see in the background what look like standard recent signs.  can you please email the big version? shields@aaroads.com thanks!

[TheStranger]

Is that actually an old gantry?  I know CA experimented with some retroreflective signs in 1966 or so, but I had thought those were all surface-mount, not overhead.

if it is from the 60s, there are is very likely to be date stamps on the backs of the signs. 

I suspect the gantry and signs are original to the construction of the overpass but I'm really not sure.  Unfortunately, there is little to no shoulder and no sidewalk so getting a close-up look at the back of the signs (looking for a date stamp) is not something I am able to do.

Is there a sidewalk nearby on El Camino?  Maybe with a longer lens, you'd be able to capture the datestamps while safely at the lower level of the junction.

[agentsteel53]

El Camino is in the wrong direction to see the backs of the signs.  Maybe stand on the railroad tracks? 

[myosh_tino]

El Camino is in the wrong direction to see the backs of the signs.  Maybe stand on the railroad tracks? 

Given the number of deaths on the Caltrain tracks in 2009... 19 (including 2 on New Years Eve), I don't think that's a good idea. 

[deathtopumpkins]

-The separated exit number and suffix make it seem like the "A" is part of something else, while not separating them made the "A" seem attached to the "73," as it's exit 73A--one complete exit.

Separating the letter from the number is new in the 2009 MUTCD manual. This was done primarily to avoid mistaking letters for numbers when the number and letter are adjacent (particularly the "B" can look like an "8", with halation at night). I believe the requirements state that the space should be at least one-half the letter height...the picture shows a full-width space.

Well that actually makes sense then!