New CA tollway entry ramp signing

[stevashe]

Regardless of any confusion over the meaning of "free" in freeway, I do think Jake's sign would be better with the middle line of "freeway" cut out as it seems redundant to say "toll road" and "freeway". It's also also worth noting that Caltrans sometimes uses signs that simply say "Toll Crossing Entrance" for ramps that lead directly to toll bridges, again leaving out the term "freeway", so a sign simply stating "Toll Road Entrance" would follow that precedent.

To my surprise, while poking around in streetview for an example a toll bridge entrance sign, I found that the sign for the ramp just north of the Golden Gate Bridge has exactly what I proposed with the "Toll" on a yellow panel! https://goo.gl/maps/fNzfHh6dKhF2Fmc19

Here's an older example without the yellow banner as well: https://goo.gl/maps/PHbyszv4nsNjq44z9

[jakeroot]

Here in Washington, I believe the term "FREEWAY" would have to remain on the sign, as limited access highways are legally coined "freeways" under WAC 468-34-110; "toll road" nor "toll crossings" are not legal terms here, so they couldn't be used on signs exclusive from "freeway" IMO. But this may not be the case in California.

Personally, I don't consider using "toll road" and "freeway" on the same sign to be that confusing. They are not mutually exclusive; many (all?) of our nation's toll roads are also freeways; "toll road" is not unlike "Interstate": a designation given to the freeway in question, even if that designation is informal (as it is in those states where Interstates are simply the branding for a state route).

Here's two more alternatives (latter arising to contextually separate "freeway" from "toll road"):

It wouldn't be too great of a stretch [for East-coasters] to hear "freeway" and draw the conclusion that the route must be free, since it says so in the name, and it's not a "turnpike".

But it doesn't say so in the name. In the case of roads, "freeways" are roads that are "free of intersecting movements" (the adjective form of "free"). People potentially screw the pooch here by using "free" in its adverb form (word that modifies/qualifies an adjective, et al), by assuming that "freeway" means "way that is free of charge", which is incorrect.

[mrsman]

Another related thing to think about is whether there should be special signage for on-ramps to a toll bridge in the opposite direction of a toll.

For instance, at the last on-ramp to the Golden Gate Bridge in SF.  You are entering a freeway.  There is no exit before the bridge.  You don't have to pay the toll, but if this were a mistake and you have to turn back, you will pay the toll in the reverse direction.

Should there be a special sign for that?

-----

As an example of freeway last exit signs for this situation, see this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6060494,-74.0781243,3a,75y,99.65h,89.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLagFI5Pe7G5xbb8xEzlMIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This is the last exit in Staten Island before hitting the Verrazzano Bridge.  Currently, no toll is charged in this direction.  But it is valuable to be warned that this is the last exit before the bridge, becuase if you want to return to Staten Island after crossing the bridge you will be paying a toll (and this is a very expensive toll).

Of course NY doesn't do freeway entrance signs.  But if there were a sign at an entrance just downstream from this point, how should it be worded?  maybe "freeway entrance" with a yellow background sign on the next line "No exit before bridge"

[heynow415]

Another related thing to think about is whether there should be special signage for on-ramps to a toll bridge in the opposite direction of a toll.

For instance, at the last on-ramp to the Golden Gate Bridge in SF.  You are entering a freeway.  There is no exit before the bridge.  You don't have to pay the toll, but if this were a mistake and you have to turn back, you will pay the toll in the reverse direction.

Should there be a special sign for that?

-----

As an example of freeway last exit signs for this situation, see this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6060494,-74.0781243,3a,75y,99.65h,89.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLagFI5Pe7G5xbb8xEzlMIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This is the last exit in Staten Island before hitting the Verrazzano Bridge.  Currently, no toll is charged in this direction.  But it is valuable to be warned that this is the last exit before the bridge, becuase if you want to return to Staten Island after crossing the bridge you will be paying a toll (and this is a very expensive toll).

Of course NY doesn't do freeway entrance signs.  But if there were a sign at an entrance just downstream from this point, how should it be worded?  maybe "freeway entrance" with a yellow background sign on the next line "No exit before bridge"

The Golden Gate Bridge is "special" in a number of ways, including that it is operated by an independent district.  However, for State operated toll bridges there usually is signage as you suggest.  For example, approaching the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge from the west (no toll this direction) https://goo.gl/maps/CjMFWvzZsKxq2GVP7  there is a sign advising that a toll crossing entrance is approaching (and that it is the free direction).  Further down there are signs for the upcoming exit that it is the last exit. 

[mrsman]

Another related thing to think about is whether there should be special signage for on-ramps to a toll bridge in the opposite direction of a toll.

For instance, at the last on-ramp to the Golden Gate Bridge in SF.  You are entering a freeway.  There is no exit before the bridge.  You don't have to pay the toll, but if this were a mistake and you have to turn back, you will pay the toll in the reverse direction.

Should there be a special sign for that?

-----

As an example of freeway last exit signs for this situation, see this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6060494,-74.0781243,3a,75y,99.65h,89.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLagFI5Pe7G5xbb8xEzlMIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This is the last exit in Staten Island before hitting the Verrazzano Bridge.  Currently, no toll is charged in this direction.  But it is valuable to be warned that this is the last exit before the bridge, becuase if you want to return to Staten Island after crossing the bridge you will be paying a toll (and this is a very expensive toll).

Of course NY doesn't do freeway entrance signs.  But if there were a sign at an entrance just downstream from this point, how should it be worded?  maybe "freeway entrance" with a yellow background sign on the next line "No exit before bridge"

The Golden Gate Bridge is "special" in a number of ways, including that it is operated by an independent district.  However, for State operated toll bridges there usually is signage as you suggest.  For example, approaching the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge from the west (no toll this direction) https://goo.gl/maps/CjMFWvzZsKxq2GVP7  there is a sign advising that a toll crossing entrance is approaching (and that it is the free direction).  Further down there are signs for the upcoming exit that it is the last exit.

Thank you for that.  I am a big fan of the "free direction" panel that is listed there.  It definitely tells a driver what he needs to know.

I see that some of the other exit signs say "last exit in Marin County" in yellow.  But this sign gives it the proper context, when you leave Marin County you will do so on a bridge to Contra Costa County.  That bridge is a toll bridge, that happens to be free in your direction of travel.  But should you wish to return, you will pay.

I guess the follow up question should be whether there should be any special signage at the final entrance before the bridge, where you cannot exit once you enter.  Yes, there is one sign saying "Richmond Bridge Only", but the unique toll aspects of the bridge are not mentioned.  [Granted, this entrance is probably low traffic, and most people who pass through understand how the bridge is tolled, but the point of the thread's discussion is whether the freeway entrance signage should acknowledge the free direction of the toll bridge at the point of entrance.]

Here is GSV:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9431491,-122.4805613,3a,75y,57.71h,78.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGm4QVwfUSFWXKHYsDGA6pg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DGm4QVwfUSFWXKHYsDGA6pg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D293.8434%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

[jakeroot]

^^^

I forgot to mention that in Tacoma, on westbound WA-16, there is a sign for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge that says "NO TOLL THIS DIRECTION". To the best of my knowledge, all other toll facilities in Washington are in both directions, so this (so far) has been WSDOT's only opportunity to utilise this signage:

[heynow415]

Thank you for that.  I am a big fan of the "free direction" panel that is listed there.  It definitely tells a driver what he needs to know.

I see that some of the other exit signs say "last exit in Marin County" in yellow.  But this sign gives it the proper context, when you leave Marin County you will do so on a bridge to Contra Costa County.  That bridge is a toll bridge, that happens to be free in your direction of travel.  But should you wish to return, you will pay.

I guess the follow up question should be whether there should be any special signage at the final entrance before the bridge, where you cannot exit once you enter.  Yes, there is one sign saying "Richmond Bridge Only", but the unique toll aspects of the bridge are not mentioned.  [Granted, this entrance is probably low traffic, and most people who pass through understand how the bridge is tolled, but the point of the thread's discussion is whether the freeway entrance signage should acknowledge the free direction of the toll bridge at the point of entrance.]

Here is GSV:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9431491,-122.4805613,3a,75y,57.71h,78.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGm4QVwfUSFWXKHYsDGA6pg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DGm4QVwfUSFWXKHYsDGA6pg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D293.8434%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

The curiosity was killing me so I GSV'ed the last eastbound/no toll onramp before the San Mateo Bridge in Foster City and it does have advisory signage:  https://goo.gl/maps/VWxRDj1rvLgKGD4G7  Same goes for the First St entrance to the Bay Bridge in SF:  https://goo.gl/maps/F4XB987tsG9CJxJs5  These ramps obviously see a lot more traffic than the San Quentin/RSR ramp and the Foster City ramp is set back a ways from the SM bridge so it might not be apparent that you're immediately getting on the bridge like you are with the San Quentin onramp to the RSR bridge, hence the signage there and not at RSR.  The Main St. ramp was recently reconstructed but even looking at historic GSV images there was no sign for the ramp before so it's not like it was forgotten with the reconstruction.

The Bay Bridge one is interesting but understandable because you can technically return westbound on the bridge for free as long as you only go as far as Treasure Island in between the two bridge spans, but unless you live on Treasure Island, there's no reason for that maneuver.  And I suppose it can be debated as to why these are guidance/directional signage (white on green) instead of warning or regulatory color schemes.

[roadfro]

And I suppose it can be debated as to why these are guidance/directional signage (white on green) instead of warning or regulatory color schemes.

Well, the "toll crossing entrance" sign is meant to emulate the "freeway entrance" signs, which are white on green. That's not a regulatory or warning message, so the sign is green on white to give that guidance. One could argue that the "toll" part of the message could be black on yellow, but other than that these are fine.

[mrsman]

And I suppose it can be debated as to why these are guidance/directional signage (white on green) instead of warning or regulatory color schemes.

Well, the "toll crossing entrance" sign is meant to emulate the "freeway entrance" signs, which are white on green. That's not a regulatory or warning message, so the sign is green on white to give that guidance. One could argue that the "toll" part of the message could be black on yellow, but other than that these are fine.

But those signs are in the non-toll direction.  So they really don't need to warn you of a toll with a yellow sign, instead they warn you that you are on a toll crossing that just happens to be free in your direction of travel.  So the current signage is fine.

[theroadwayone]

Just noticed this today.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5829966,-117.6095953,3a,74.2y,37.53h,90.58t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZpxNabNYBUBoTl02oPqPCQ!2e0!5s20200201T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

[KEK Inc.]

I made a sign several years ago similar to Caltrans for toll road entrances.

[kphoger]

I like this!  It completely removes the ambiguity of the term "FREEWAY" but still accomplishes both goals:  (1) alert everyone that there's a huge grade-separated highway down that ramp, (2) alert drivers that the highway isn't free of charge.

[jakeroot]

I like this!  It completely removes the ambiguity of the term "FREEWAY" but still accomplishes both goals:  (1) alert everyone that there's a huge grade-separated highway down that ramp, (2) alert drivers that the highway isn't free of charge.

Thanks. This was my attempt to design a sign for states where "FREEWAY" isn't a requirement. Here in WA, "FREEWAY" is a legally-coded term (see 3-D) and WSDOT requires "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" signs to be posted (WA traffic manual, section 2.19, #7). So this design wouldn't fly here, especially since current signage still shows "FREEWAY" even when the route requires a toll payment, but my other alternative (the other sign in the same post) would probably work good for those states with similar rules (where the roads might be classified as "TOLL ROAD FREEWAYS", as weird as that may sound). Ultimately, it may be preferable to forgo any references to "ROAD" and simply use the term "TOLL FREEWAY".

I still stand by my earlier point that, in those states where "freeway" is used regularly to describe grade-separated roads, there is no association with "free of charge" (if you asked someone, they wouldn't say it's a "free road" that is also "free of intersections"). To me, it's like the difference between fastbacks and hatchbacks: both are hatchbacks, but not all hatchbacks are fastbacks. In the same way, "freeways" and "toll roads" are both freeways, but not all freeways are toll roads — the terms are not mutually exclusive.

[jakeroot]

As a possible alternative for those states where "FREEWAY" is a requirement, simply not using the term "TOLL ROAD" might be an option.

The term "TOLL FREEWAY" is technically not the same as "FREEWAY" as far as legalese is concerned, but at least the word "FREEWAY" is there:

[Verlanka]

"Toll Freeway" sounds like an oxymoron. "Toll Way" sounds much better.

[jakeroot]

"Toll Freeway" sounds like an oxymoron. "Toll Way" sounds much better.

It's not an oxymoron. "Freeway" = "way that is not controlled by other roads", not "way that is free of charge". "Free" has multiple meanings.

Also, for the third (err, fourth?) time on this page alone: I have to keep the word "FREEWAY" on the sign because it is required by WSDOT to be used at on-ramps leading to a "fully controlled limited access highway of four or more traffic lanes with the opposing traffic lanes separated by a median strip of arbitrary width." (WAC 468-34-110 #3-D).

I can't get rid of "freeway" because it's still a freeway, it just requires a toll (perhaps also making it a "toll road" or a "toll freeway"). I don't mind just saying "Tollway" but that's not a "thing". For those states where entrance signage is looser, "Tollway" (or similar) would be fine, hence my proposals up-thread. The ones that say "freeway" are for usage in Washington State.

[skluth]

"Toll Freeway" sounds like an oxymoron. "Toll Way" sounds much better.

It's not an oxymoron. "Freeway" = "way that is not controlled by other roads", not "way that is free of charge". "Free" has multiple meanings.

Toll freeway is an excellent example of an oxymoron, for precisely the reasoning you gave. Oxymorons are nothing more than phrases that sound contradictory but aren't, like jumbo shrimp (because shrimp has multiple meanings). I appreciate that readers here mostly do understand that freeway does not mean free of charge.

[kphoger]

I think it would also be possible to amend the legal requirement to include either 'TOLLWAY' or 'FREEWAY'.

[jakeroot]

"Toll Freeway" sounds like an oxymoron. "Toll Way" sounds much better.

It's not an oxymoron. "Freeway" = "way that is not controlled by other roads", not "way that is free of charge". "Free" has multiple meanings.

Toll freeway is an excellent example of an oxymoron, for precisely the reasoning you gave. Oxymorons are nothing more than phrases that sound contradictory but aren't, like jumbo shrimp (because shrimp has multiple meanings). I appreciate that readers here mostly do understand that freeway does not mean free of charge.

I guess I see your point. It's an oxymoron for those who incorrectly interpret the meaning of "free" in this context. It's not for us, since we know the correct meaning. It's unfortunate to me that so many people assume that "freeway" means "way that doesn't cost money", but it is what it is.

I think it would also be possible to amend the legal requirement to include either 'TOLLWAY' or 'FREEWAY'.

It definitely should. For as much as I understand the "true" meaning of "freeway", confusion could easily be avoided by allowing new wording on those signs.

[mrsman]

That's right.  The signage is not for US, it is for the average driver.  And people that aren't as focused on roads as we are would assume that freeway means free of charge.  It's the wrong assumption, but it's a common assumption.

[CtrlAltDel]

The previous discussion notwithstanding, I think that the best signage would be something along the lines of what I've put together below. While people might get a bit confused about the potential oxymoron here, I think the "Toll" bit and the "Freeway Entrance" bit taken together are clear enough. Plus this setup matches the general gist of the MUTCD with regard to toll routes.

[skluth]

Toll freeway is an excellent example of an oxymoron, for precisely the reasoning you gave. Oxymorons are nothing more than phrases that sound contradictory but aren't, like jumbo shrimp (because shrimp has multiple meanings). I appreciate that readers here mostly do understand that freeway does not mean free of charge.

I guess I see your point. It's an oxymoron for those who incorrectly interpret the meaning of "free" in this context. It's not for us, since we know the correct meaning. It's unfortunate to me that so many people assume that "freeway" means "way that doesn't cost money", but it is what it is.

I do get where you're coming from. I'm a vet and get irritated when people claim military intelligence is an oxymoron. It is from a certain viewpoint, mostly on the far left but a surprising number on the far right too.

[rte66man]

That's right.  The signage is not for US, it is for the average driver.  And people that aren't as focused on roads as we are would assume that freeway means free of charge.  It's the wrong assumption, but it's a common assumption.

Which was the point in my original post.  The vast majority of readers of AARoads know the difference. The average driver does not.

[don1991]

Funny too because the trend lately has been a giant state route shield and smaller "Freeway Entrance" sign.  The new Hinkley Freeway and the freeway portion of the Kramer Junction Bypass both have giant "CA-58" shields.

That 241 shield looks way too small and out of scale to the rest of the assembly, same with the TOLL banner.  I agree that it looks very cluttered.  I think maybe it would look cleaner if the TOLL and 241 shield were combined into a monosign OR modified shield like they do in other states.  A great example would be Florida, where there is no mistaking whether a state highway is tolled or not.

[don1991]

Maybe the signage is a candidate for "Redesign This" in the Illustrations board and we can get some feedback from those who don't frequent this regional forum.

Without going into too much detail with shields and arrows, my first thought was something like this:

For use in California, I wonder if "Freeway Entrance" signage is required for freeway facilities based on California having a defined freeway & expressway system...

I like it your sign design Jake, but it also has a bit of wordplay dichotomy between "road" and "freeway". Perhaps "Tollway Entrance" (with "tollway" getting the black on yellow treatment) could work for these situations, assuming such meets any California legal requirements?

I think that is exactly right.  Back East, a lot of the first limited access highways opened as tolled facilities.  Many of these were given the name "turnpike", which in the very name suggests that there is a barrier where a toll is collected.  It wouldn't be too great of a stretch for them then to hear "freeway" and draw the conclusion that the route must be free, since it says so in the name, and it's not a "turnpike".

Out here, the only limited access highways where tolls were collected tended to be the toll bridges.  I don't know of any example of a non-bridge freeway collecting a toll until the Orange County toll roads opened in the 1990's.  I have never heard anybody refer to any of those roads as a turnpike either.  Any 4+ lane road with no signals or cross traffic is a freeway to Californians.

That's right.  This is why most of the current entrance signs for the toll roads don't even have the word "freeway" anywhere near them.  And that's why freeway does have a popular perception of being free of charge in California.  And when highway names were popular, you can utilize Santa Ana Freeway or Long Beach Freeway on roads that were in fact free, but the names of the OC toll roads were "San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor" and "Foothill Transportation Corridor", etc.

I like Jake's sign.  My only suggestion is to remove the middle line.  So you have a green sign that says "TOLL ROAD / ENTRANCE", with ENTRANCE in white lettering and "TOLL ROAD" in black lettering with a yellow background.

I prefer the term "Toll Freeway".  It would be good for people to understand that "freeway" means free of conventional access and traffic signals / stop signs, not free of tolls.  I don't like "Toll Road" because "road" is a broader term that does not make clear that the road is a freeway. In California, a road becomes a freeway by a special act of the legislature.  A roadway can be part of the "freeway and expressway" system but not be a freeway.  The legislature designates a route as a freeway, though this can also allow an interim expressway or Super-2 to be built as well (for example, CA-178 in eastern Bakersfield for many years - there were roadside signs stating freeway control of access even though the route was really a 2-lane expressway).  In order for the road to be built, Caltrans executes freeway agreements with local counties and cities.

For example, there was a new interchange built along CA-99 at CA-113.  There is no "freeway entrance" sign added to the CA-99 shield at the entrance from CA-113 to CA-99.  Same with the two interchanges along US-395 at CA-203 and Crowley Lake.  There are a handful of other examples as well.

"Tollway" is common in a lot of states - including Texas.