New Guide Signs within Caltrans D7

[mrsman]

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.

[TheStranger]

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.

[Occidental Tourist]

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.

[AndyMax25]

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.

[Occidental Tourist]

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.

[andy3175]

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.

[AndyMax25]

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?

[andy3175]

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?

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.

[roadfro]

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?

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.

[AndyMax25]

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?

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.

[AndyMax25]

The old and the new. NB 405 side roadway at Manchester.

[emory]

The old and the new. NB 405 side roadway at Manchester.

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.

[mrsman]

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.

[TheStranger]

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.

[mrsman]

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.

[AndyMax25]

The old and the new. SB CA-110 at US-101 four level interchange, transition road split.

[emory]

The old and the new. SB CA-110 at US-101 four level interchange, transition road split.

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.

[andy3175]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[myosh_tino]

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.

[SignBridge]

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.

[Occidental Tourist]

The old and the new. NB 405 side roadway at Manchester.

FYI, a recently-installed retroreflective replacement of an interchange sequence sign on the 710 south includes an SR-42 shield.

[Occidental Tourist]

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.  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.  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.

[Quillz]

The old and the new. NB 405 side roadway at Manchester.

FYI, a recently-installed retroreflective replacement of an interchange sequence sign on the 710 south includes an SR-42 shield.

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

[Occidental Tourist]

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

I suspect my children will be collecting social security and still encountering SR-19 shields.