ODOT has been installing new overhead signs along I-5 in central Portland. They don't seem to have a lot of changes — some better-marked "exit only" yellow tape for the 405 exits mostly. Sadly, it looks like they will be putting up those oversized up-facing arrows on I-5 Northbound at the 84 split on the Marquam Bridge.
I'm curious if Portland Airport survives as a control city on 84 Eastbound or if it just gets the airport symbol. No other control city changes are obvious... Seattle, The Dalles, Beaverton, St. Helens all stand alone.
I too dislike the One Arrow Per Lane of the new MUTCD.
I think an APL would work great here. The MUTCD no longer permits the advance signing of option lanes with down arrows. Seeing as this split has an option lane, it makes sense.
I have no problem with APL's but the new sign on the Marquam Bridge has much too tall arrows for I-5 North as well as too much "green" space between Seattle and the arrows. I suspect that the extra space will be used on the incomplete portion of the sign for Portland Airport and The Dalles to fit under the I-84 / U.S. 30 shields.
Personally I think this sign would have looked better if the completed left half had Vancouver Wa. above Seattle as a local control city destination and arrows of equal height to those for I-84.
At least that pathetic little shieldless pull through that simply reads "Seattle LEFT LANES" is going away.
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on September 17, 2015, 07:38:34 PM
I have no problem with APL's but the new sign on the Marquam Bridge has much too tall arrows for I-5 North as well as too much "green" space between Seattle and the arrows. I suspect that the extra space will be used on the incomplete portion of the sign for Portland Airport and The Dalles to fit under the I-84 / U.S. 30 shields.
Personally I think this sign would have looked better if the completed left half had Vancouver Wa. above Seattle as a local control city destination and arrows of equal height to those for I-84.
At least that pathetic little shieldless pull through that simply reads "Seattle LEFT LANES" is going away.
In your defense, the current design standards for APLs do create a ton of green space that I find unnecessary, but I still prefer them just in terms of their function.
For the MUTCD-standard APL, I would also use two destinations for the through-route, just to fill space.
Do you have a photo of the new sign? I can't find anything online (I'm sure there are plan sheets online, but I've never understood how to access them).
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2015, 07:56:32 PM
Do you have a photo of the new sign? I can't find anything online (I'm sure there are plan sheets online, but I've never understood how to access them).
I did manage to take a pic while I was at the Tillikum Crossing last Saturday. The old sign and the new one are close together. A part of the new sign (I-84 and control cities) aren't on the post.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi57.tinypic.com%2F2crxehc.jpg&hash=14f59ffa20de0f9dbf434899f28e75938a0ea382)
Quote from: BloonsTDFan360 on September 18, 2015, 12:10:54 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2015, 07:56:32 PM
Do you have a photo of the new sign? I can't find anything online (I'm sure there are plan sheets online, but I've never understood how to access them).
I did manage to take a pic while I was at the Tillikum Crossing last Saturday. The old sign and the new one are close together. A part of the new sign (I-84 and control cities) aren't on the post.
Oh my. Maybe it's the angle, but that sign does indeed seem really tall. When I find some free time, I'll take a whack at a redesign.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 18, 2015, 12:21:25 AM
Quote from: BloonsTDFan360 on September 18, 2015, 12:10:54 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2015, 07:56:32 PM
Do you have a photo of the new sign? I can't find anything online (I'm sure there are plan sheets online, but I've never understood how to access them).
I did manage to take a pic while I was at the Tillikum Crossing last Saturday. The old sign and the new one are close together. A part of the new sign (I-84 and control cities) aren't on the post.
Oh my. Maybe it's the angle, but that sign does indeed seem really tall. When I find some free time, I'll take a whack at a redesign.
No, that looks par for the course if the I-84 portion of the sign has two control points like the old sign (Portland Airport / The Dalles).
For comparison, here is an APL sign from the Reno area...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fs6xPo.jpg&hash=c23a551340dff991ef20357e3dc434ea94765fc3)
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 18, 2015, 02:28:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 18, 2015, 12:21:25 AM
Quote from: BloonsTDFan360 on September 18, 2015, 12:10:54 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2015, 07:56:32 PM
Do you have a photo of the new sign? I can't find anything online (I'm sure there are plan sheets online, but I've never understood how to access them).
I did manage to take a pic while I was at the Tillikum Crossing last Saturday. The old sign and the new one are close together. A part of the new sign (I-84 and control cities) aren't on the post.
Oh my. Maybe it's the angle, but that sign does indeed seem really tall. When I find some free time, I'll take a whack at a redesign.
No, that looks par for the course if the I-84 portion of the sign has two control points like the old sign (Portland Airport / The Dalles).
For comparison, here is an APL sign from the Reno area...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fs6xPo.jpg&hash=c23a551340dff991ef20357e3dc434ea94765fc3)
Yeah, APLs are huge...
For a further comparison of an APL's size: Look at the next APL sign downstream in the background in this picture–it's identical to the one in the foreground. Then look at the adjacent sign bridge for the opposite direction. The gray rectangle on the right side (as viewed in the photo) of that sign bridge is the back of a full-size variable message sign.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2015, 07:56:32 PMDo you have a photo of the new sign? I can't find anything online (I'm sure there are plan sheets online, but I've never understood how to access them).
Oregon DOT puts construction plans online now, but does not maintain availability in arrears. The contract you want has the title "2014 Interstate Sign Replacement Project" and the sign panel detail sheets (for which ODOT does not routinely provide dimensions other than the outer panel measurements) are S-drawings S-14768 through S-14783. As an example, the "Seattle LEFT LANES" sign mentioned upthread is sketched on S-14782.
Probably the easiest way of getting hold of the sign detail sheets is to go through ODOT's S-drawings database. You can definitely search by S-drawing number range, and I believe it is also possible to search by project title. Unfortunately, direct linking to the drawings is not possible given the way the EDMS is set up. Entry point:
https://zigzag.odot.state.or.us/uniquesigfd2a32e33625a8ceee8667530c75a96c60a4830821db1e46c556f11ec2bed2e5/uniquesig0/TrafficPlans/
Be sure to click "Continue to the logon page with limited site functionality" because the gubbin the site tries to install will do absolutely nothing for a person who does not have credentials linked to an Oregon DOT employee ID. You will then land on a search page, and to search S-drawings choose "Sign" as the traffic plan discipline.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 19, 2015, 10:36:22 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2015, 07:56:32 PMDo you have a photo of the new sign? I can't find anything online (I'm sure there are plan sheets online, but I've never understood how to access them).
<clipped>
Awesome JN. Thanks for the information. Now I just have to figure out how to access WSDOTs sign plans. But given the info here, I think I might be able to figure it out.
A much deserved "Thank You" to JN on providing a method of accessing sign plans in Oregon. :clap:
Using this method, I was able to find the sign plan for the APL in BloonsTDFan360's photo. It's the 1/2 mile advance guide sign (drawing number S-14771) and it is a beast of a sign measuring 16 ft 6 in tall by 47 feet wide. The APL at the actual exit is 2 feet shorter (14' 6" by 47').
Jakeroot, Myosh_tino--you're welcome.
As far as I know, Oregon DOT is the only agency that attempts to get all of its signing sheets into a single continuous numbered series that covers all ODOT projects statewide. This is partial compensation for how they dismember plans sets for archiving: roadway plans (including traffic control plans; they are called "V-Files"), bridges, signing, signals, and illumination are all stored in separate "silos."
WSDOT keeps its recent lets online:
ftp://ftp.wsdot.wa.gov/contracts/
"Recent" means the last five years for sure, and probably as far back as 7-10 years. WSDOT contract numbers are assigned in loosely chronological order and the current series is up to the low 8000's or so (as-builts from this series have "01" prefixed for compatibility with earlier numbering series). Unlike ODOT, WSDOT rarely, if ever, does pure signing contracts. Most sign replacements occur as part of 4R work, widening, communications upgrades, and so on. It helps to know when the last contract was that touched the signing you are interested in; the contract number can then be found by looking at the descriptions in the letting lists or the folder names.
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on September 17, 2015, 07:38:34 PM
Personally I think this sign would have looked better if the completed left half had Vancouver Wa. above Seattle as a local control city destination and arrows of equal height to those for I-84.
Totally. You could put "Vancouver / Seattle" on I-5 north signs in Portland and get 3 cities for the space of 2!
Quote from: NickCPDX on September 21, 2015, 12:17:33 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on September 17, 2015, 07:38:34 PM
Personally I think this sign would have looked better if the completed left half had Vancouver Wa. above Seattle as a local control city destination and arrows of equal height to those for I-84.
Totally. You could put "Vancouver / Seattle" on I-5 north signs in Portland and get 3 cities for the space of 2!
Unfortunately Vancouver isn't an approved control city, but perhaps Seattle/Vancouver, B.C.?
Not approved by whom?
I finally got a good look at the now completed sign on the Marquam bridge this afternoon and it does NOT have "Portland Airport" as a control destination. Instead the sign reads "The Dalles" and then underneath in rather small text that did not look quite right to me, "1/2 MILE". The whole thing just does not look quite right to me but again, I still think it is better that the pathetic little "Seattle LEFT LANES" pull through that it replaced.
Quote from: TEG24601 on September 21, 2015, 03:34:38 PM
Quote from: NickCPDX on September 21, 2015, 12:17:33 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on September 17, 2015, 07:38:34 PM
Personally I think this sign would have looked better if the completed left half had Vancouver Wa. above Seattle as a local control city destination and arrows of equal height to those for I-84.
Totally. You could put "Vancouver / Seattle" on I-5 north signs in Portland and get 3 cities for the space of 2!
Unfortunately Vancouver isn't an approved control city, but perhaps Seattle/Vancouver, B.C.?
Would the B.C. be required? Ambiguity isn't wrong if it's still accurate...
Quote from: Bickendan on September 21, 2015, 07:32:14 PM
Not approved by whom?
Good question. Vancouver is used as a control city on SR-14 along its entire length in WA (as it's the obvious control city, Portland would be a little odd). Vancouver (WA) should absolutely be a control city on I-5 north in Portland (along with Seattle of course being the primary one). I also think Gresham should be a control city on I-84 East. Beaverton and Tigard get good signage on the freeways in Portland, I think other nearby cities should also be represented (Vancouver and Gresham being the two obvious choices). I'm not advocating the removal of Seattle or The Dalles as control cities (although you could argue Boise should be I-84's control city, but it's so far away that The Dalles is a reasonable choice), just additions of suburbs.
Here's my attempt at control cities:
I-5 NB - between MM 288 in Oregon and MM 9 in Washington
Hayden Island
Vancouver
Seattle
(I put Spokane here)
I-5 NB - MM 9 to MM 23
Seattle
Spokane
Vancouver B. C.
Squamish
I-5 SB - MM 24 - MM 12
Vancouver
Astoria
Portland
I-5 SB - between MM 11 in Washington to Oregon State Line
Camas/Astoria
Beaverton
I-84/Hood River
I-5 SB - Oregon State Line to MM 290
Salem
Mount St. Helens
Downtown Portland
I-84 EB - I-5 to MM 26
Gresham
Hood River
Salt Lake City
I-84 EB - MM 27 to MM 49
Hood River
Boise
Salt Lake
I-84 WB - MM 51 to MM 24
Portland Airport
Vancouver
Seattle
I-84 WB - MM 23 to I-5
Portland
Beaverton
Tigard/Mt. St. Helens
I-405 NB - I-5 to MM 2
Beaverton
St. Helens
Seattle
I-405 NB - MM 3 to I-5
Vancouver
Seattle
Vancouver B. C.
I-405 SB - I-5 to MM 3
Tigard
Beaverton
Gresham
I-405 SB - MM 2 to I-5
Gresham
Portland Airport
Salem
Yeah, they're really unlogical at some places.
For I-84 east bound control cities in Oregon, I would use The Dalles, Boise, followed by Pendleton, Boise, La Grande, Boise, Ontario, Boise, Caldwell, Boise. (Baker City does not seem important enough to me to justify a control designation but I would not be totally opposed to it being included between La Grande and Ontario.)
For I-84 west bound I would have Ontario, Portland, (from Boise), La Grande, Portland, Pendleton, Portland, The Dalles, Portland.
I am aware that we may be straying close to being "off topic" so I will refrain from including my I-5 control city proposals here.
Noticed I put Gresham way too far...on I-84. Whoops.
Just for kicks, here is a drawing of the APL based on the sign drawing I got from the ODOT website...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-84-30_apl.png&hash=cbdada3aaca70162faf30cd7aecec302fb01f015)
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 23, 2015, 07:56:38 PM
Just for kicks, here is a drawing of the APL based on the sign drawing I got from the ODOT website...
Interesting that they chose not to center and slightly raise the exit tab, the norm for Oregon (as I'm sure you're aware).
Quote from: jakeroot on September 24, 2015, 12:47:36 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 23, 2015, 07:56:38 PM
Just for kicks, here is a drawing of the APL based on the sign drawing I got from the ODOT website...
Interesting that they chose not to center and slightly raise the exit tab, the norm for Oregon (as I'm sure you're aware).
To be fair, the plans did not call for the tab to be raised slightly above the main sign panel but the plans did call for the tab to be right-justified.
ODOT has recently switched to right-alignment for newer signs. Most of the signs on US-26 near Sylvan and I-405 reflect that.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on September 24, 2015, 02:08:06 AM
ODOT has recently switched to right-alignment for newer signs. Most of the signs on US-26 near Sylvan and I-405 reflect that.
Damn. What a shame. I always liked the center/raised tab. I think I first noticed this new theme on the I-405 left exit towards US-30, which is raised (good) but is the MUTCD-compliant style (bad) which is in my opinion, far too tall.
I like the center alignment as well, particularly since ODOT likes to use metal single-posts for their signs (which I'm a fan of). Symmetry is always nice, which is why I liked WSDOT internal tabs.
Oregon has moved into the MUTCD world. One of the I-205 interchanges has a left bannered tab on it.
I guess if Minnesota and Connecticut can so can Oregon.
Although California still does not use external tabs (except for a few isolated cases), they too have joined in the practice of adding a LEFT plaque on their internal exit tabs. Here are two sign drawings I made based on signing plans obtained from the Caltrans website...
First, the "stacked" exit tab...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fd4-505S-80Eadv.png&hash=74db4697d2b39543f6cd628bbba7ef881a0e50af)
And the "inline" exit tab...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fd4_580w-80w.png&hash=18f7352e84419c57a9b8390dc5d67d7eb3a3f9e8)
Does anybody know the reason why ODOT keeps on denying the existence of Exit 299B southbound? I've never seen an exit tab there, except for a couple months 2004-ish when a orange temporary panel was installed over the old sign labelling it Exit 299B. With this project I was expecting the new sign to look more like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fty6NRcN.png&hash=51ac614a29f79f44b68f55643a844d5fbb87ff34)
Instead, ODOT designed this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrO0ifsw.png&hash=8193c014a304d7ad57ee71f820924366be28421d)
:confused:
I can understand omitting the number where space is an issue, but this is the sign placed at the Mt. Hood Freeway ghost ramp, where there's plenty of overhead space. It just makes no sense.