CA 180 Braided Freeway ramp project in Fresno, CA.

[Roadmapfan66]

I have read an article about the CA 180 Braided Freeway ramp project in Fresno, CA. in the Fresno Bee on Monday of this past week, does anyone have any insight to this?  It would be much better to have that project completed late in the year to prevent weaving.  ---SCP

EDIT: Changed icon. --roadfro

[jrouse]

This project will eliminate the weaving caused by the closely spaced junctions of CA-180 with CA-168 and CA-180 with CA-41.  I believe that, upon completion, motorists on WB CA-168 will be able to connect directly with CA-41 without having to get onto CA-180, and motorists coming from CA-41 will be able to connect directly with CA-168 without having to get onto CA-180. 

When the CA-180 freeway was built, there was space provided for these connections but they were not built, probably due to a lack of funds. 

This project is being done using design-build.  Specs and other materials can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/designbuild/fresno-rfp.htm

[andy3175]

This article indicates the braided ramp project is now complete:

http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/Caltrans-Completes-Segment-of-SR-180/24349/

Earlier in 2014, Caltrans completed another significant transportation improvement for Fresno motorists who regularly travel the busy traffic maze between State Routes 180, 41 and 168 a less stressful, safer commute.

The SR-180 Braided Ramps Project added two braided connectors that allow motorists to use new designated lanes between interchanges to safely merge into freeway traffic. These connectors are identified as "braided ramps"  since one connector goes over the other, similar to a braid. This section along SR-180, with an average annual daily traffic count that often surpasses 150,000 vehicles, is a principal artery for the Fresno area.

Additional information is found at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/projects/sr180braidedramps/.

[flowmotion]

Looks like Google Street View is already on the job. At least some of the signage (but not all?) is of the new 'up arrow' style:

https://goo.gl/maps/5NUFt

[roadfro]

Looks like Google Street View is already on the job. At least some of the signage (but not all?) is of the new 'up arrow' style:

https://goo.gl/maps/5NUFt

I'm starting to think Caltrans is on to something here with their unique arrow-per-lane signing style...This is at least the second application of "Caltrans APL" pointed out on this forum, and it doesn't look half bad.

Caltrans APL uses different (shorter) up arrows, so that all the necessary APL elements can fit on the panel while still conforming to Caltrans' 120" maximum sign height. Where this will break down is if there is a longer destination name, or if becomes necessary to sign multiple destinations/shields on one panel. Otherwise, it's a great way to make APL signing more reasonable (read: less sign panel area) than vanilla MUTCD.

[mrsman]

Looks like Google Street View is already on the job. At least some of the signage (but not all?) is of the new 'up arrow' style:

https://goo.gl/maps/5NUFt

I'm starting to think Caltrans is on to something here with their unique arrow-per-lane signing style...This is at least the second application of "Caltrans APL" pointed out on this forum, and it doesn't look half bad.

Caltrans APL uses different (shorter) up arrows, so that all the necessary APL elements can fit on the panel while still conforming to Caltrans' 120" maximum sign height. Where this will break down is if there is a longer destination name, or if becomes necessary to sign multiple destinations/shields on one panel. Otherwise, it's a great way to make APL signing more reasonable (read: less sign panel area) than vanilla MUTCD.

And I think that that's exactly the point.  APL signs are great, because it should be easy to tell when you're driving where  your lane will let you go, as opposed to doing something along the lines of counting lanes while your driving.  And of course, with so many existing signs in CA being shorter, it's much more cost-effective if the new signage meets those specs.

In Georgia, they also sign APL signs, even when there is no option lane.   While technically not allowed by the national MUTCD, I don't have a problem with it because the signs are very legible.

[myosh_tino]

Looks like Google Street View is already on the job. At least some of the signage (but not all?) is of the new 'up arrow' style:

https://goo.gl/maps/5NUFt

I'm starting to think Caltrans is on to something here with their unique arrow-per-lane signing style...This is at least the second application of "Caltrans APL" pointed out on this forum, and it doesn't look half bad.

Caltrans APL uses different (shorter) up arrows, so that all the necessary APL elements can fit on the panel while still conforming to Caltrans' 120" maximum sign height. Where this will break down is if there is a longer destination name, or if becomes necessary to sign multiple destinations/shields on one panel. Otherwise, it's a great way to make APL signing more reasonable (read: less sign panel area) than vanilla MUTCD.

I don't think multiple shields and longer destination names are going to be an issue as you can simply make the signs wider.  I figure that Caltrans' approach to arrow-per-lane signage can accommodate 2 lines of legend given the examples we have in the Fresno area.  However, including a distance message with two lines of legend does result in some cramming.  Here's an advanced APL guide sign from a signing plan for a project near the CA-99/CA-152 junction near Chowchilla that shows the above problem...



If you take the distance message out of the equation, the sign lays out quite nicely...



While I've guestimated that the up-arrows used in the 41-180-168 braided ramps project to be 45 inches tall, the arrows in the above signing plan are only 42 inches tall.  I've developed both for my sign making library but would really like to know if an official spec for these arrows exist.

Note: Just for the heck of it, I tried drawing the 1 mile advance arrow-per-lane sign following the signing plan I posted above...

[Occidental Tourist]

I don't think multiple shields and longer destination names are going to be an issue as you can simply make the signs wider.  I figure that Caltrans' approach to arrow-per-lane signage can accommodate 2 lines of legend given the examples we have in the Fresno area.  However, including a distance message with two lines of legend does result in some cramming.  Here's an advanced APL guide sign from a signing plan for a project near the CA-99/CA-152 junction near Chowchilla that shows the above problem...



If you take the distance message out of the equation, the sign lays out quite nicely...



While I've guestimated that the up-arrows used in the 41-180-168 braided ramps project to be 45 inches tall, the arrows in the above signing plan are only 42 inches tall.  I've developed both for my sign making library but would really like to know if an official spec for these arrows exist.

Note: Just for the heck of it, I tried drawing the 1 mile advance arrow-per-lane sign following the signing plan I posted above...

Here's the current sign
it's fairly new, so it's kind of strange they are replacing it already.

[myosh_tino]

Here's the current sign
it's fairly new, so it's kind of strange they are replacing it already.

If you advance the GMSV camera a couple of shots, you can see the foundations for the new truss... http://goo.gl/maps/5Gucb

[roadfro]

Note: Just for the heck of it, I tried drawing the 1 mile advance arrow-per-lane sign following the signing plan I posted above...

I wonder how it would look if the distance message was placed between the arrows. This would avoid the vertical spacing issue, but might not look all that great.

The only thing I don't like is that the exiting portion of the shared lane arrow looks incredibly weird (compared to the curved arrow). It looks like this is done to avoid having the arrowheads touch. Are these Caltrans arrows using a thicker shaft, or is it just because the arrows are shorter? Would a diagonally stemmed arrow look better?...that would be more in line with a typical exit direction sign.

[Occidental Tourist]

The only thing I don't like is that the exiting portion of the shared lane arrow looks incredibly weird (compared to the curved arrow). It looks like this is done to avoid having the arrowheads touch. Are these Caltrans arrows using a thicker shaft, or is it just because the arrows are shorter? Would a diagonally stemmed arrow look better?...that would be more in line with a typical exit direction sign.

I think this might be the most sexually suggestive comment ever written on a roadgeek forum.

[roadfro]

^ I think you're reading way too much into that...

[myosh_tino]

Note: Just for the heck of it, I tried drawing the 1 mile advance arrow-per-lane sign following the signing plan I posted above...

I wonder how it would look if the distance message was placed between the arrows. This would avoid the vertical spacing issue, but might not look all that great.

The only thing I don't like is that the exiting portion of the shared lane arrow looks incredibly weird (compared to the curved arrow). It looks like this is done to avoid having the arrowheads touch. Are these Caltrans arrows using a thicker shaft, or is it just because the arrows are shorter? Would a diagonally stemmed arrow look better?...that would be more in line with a typical exit direction sign.

I am not sure if the Caltrans' arrows have thicker shafts because the sign plan only shows that the up-arrow is 21" wide by 42" tall and I do not have the sign plans for the 180-41-168 braided ramp project.  I did notice the oddly shaped arrowheads used on both curved arrows.  As for what I did when developing my version of the Caltrans APL arrows, I used an 8" shaft which is slightly wider than the FHWA spec (7.75") along with a standard arrowhead.

I took a stab at the suggested modifications (moving the distance message down and the diagonal arrow) and here's what I came up with...

[Caboosey]

Here are some aerial photos I took on April 26, 2015.