Interesting new California style of freeway junction exit number signing

[CentralCAroadgeek]

I've seen those signs as well. I just don't like the fact that the optional exit lane isn't in a white-on-green arrow.

[myosh_tino]

My eyes are burning.  I grew up in San Jose, and I remember those exits quite vividly.  

Did these atrocities reach Hellyer Rd and Story Rd/I-280/I-680?  

No and thank goodness.  The Story Road, I-280/I-680 and Hellyer Road exits were not part of this particular project however, there is supposed to be a new 280/680 advance guide sign for northbound 101.

I've seen those signs as well. I just don't like the fact that the optional exit lane isn't in a white-on-green arrow.

I'm wondering if the black-on-yellow arrow was used because of the elimination of the white-on-green down arrow in the 2009 MUTCD?  California didn't adopt the new MUTCD until early 2012 but this project's plans were published in 2010.

[flowmotion]

      I, ^{for one}, think you

are _being muchtoo particular

                   ^{about this}. As _long as the information

is there,

      who _{cares how} it is presented?

Love, Caltrans

Needs more greenout!

[vdeane]

I'm currently of the opinion that CA shouldn't have adopted the MUTCD at all - then they could have adopted Quebec-style exit number signing, which has the advantage of actually fitting on CA signs.

[SignBridge]

I agree with virtually all the above comments. If you're interested in the "option-lane" signing issue, you should go over to the General Highway Talk section, Traffic Control sub-section, thread on MUTCD Gripes. Good discussion and graphics on the last pages.

Re: the black-on-yellow option lane arrow. I don't think it specifically has to do with the new standard in the 2009 Manual. The way I see it, either the engineer made a mistake in the specs, or they are experimenting with this design for some reason. But I agree it creates confusion. You'd seem to associate it with the exit-only lane. It does look weird. If I lived in Calif. I might write to Caltrans about it.

[myosh_tino]

Ready for some more California sign layout hilarity?  My drawing below is based on the sign plan for a new weigh station on I-80 in Cordelia, CA.  Because of it's proximity to the I-80/CA-12 interchange in Fairfield, the exit gets these new signs...

Hmmm... where should I start... I guess the first thing that caught my eye was the unusual layout of the I-80 pull through.  I think the designed wanted to include down arrows but when the exit sequence sign was included on the structure, that made putting down arrows rather difficult unless you wanted them "dancing".  Couple that with putting both control cities on the same line and you've got one rather oddly laid out sign.  The CA-12 advance guide sign also puts both control cities on the same line however, compared to the existing sign, this one is a bit of an improvement.

If I were designing these signs here's how I would have done it...

[agentsteel53]

I've never seen such a terribly laid out pull-through.  it reminds me of the JUNCTION 99 1 1/2 MILES sign northbound at the 5/99 split in Wheeler Ridge, but is oh so much worse!

[myosh_tino]

If California were to follow the 2009 MUTCD to the letter, then the I-80/CA-12 sign I drew earlier might look something like this...


That's right.  I-80 eastbound is going to be 7 lanes wide... 5 through lanes, one option lane and one exit only lane.

[SignBridge]

Doesn't Caltrans seem to take that pesky MUTCD as more of a suggestion than a requirement? Seems like California's own signing style has lingered on for many years.......

[Takumi]

Doesn't Caltrans seem to take that pesky MUTCD as more of a suggestion than a requirement?

Many states use their own MUTCD or have their own supplement to it, but few if any others vary their standards as much as Caltrans. Personally, I wish more states would use at least the CA-style US shield.

[Brandon]

If California were to follow the 2009 MUTCD to the letter, then the I-80/CA-12 sign I drew earlier might look something like this...


That's right.  I-80 eastbound is going to be 7 lanes wide... 5 through lanes, one option lane and one exit only lane.

That's an improvement over the current signage, IMHO.  One could even use three I-80 shields with it as in:
EAST/{80} Sacramento EAST/{80} Fairfield EAST/{80}

[myosh_tino]

If California were to follow the 2009 MUTCD to the letter, then the I-80/CA-12 sign I drew earlier might look something like this...


That's right.  I-80 eastbound is going to be 7 lanes wide... 5 through lanes, one option lane and one exit only lane.

That's an improvement over the current signage, IMHO.  One could even use three I-80 shields with it as in:
EAST/{80} Sacramento EAST/{80} Fairfield EAST/{80}

I disagree.  I think there is too much wasted space on the sign which is a by-product of the arrow-per-lane signs.  The original signs...

...are more than adequate although the layout of the CA-12 exit sign leaves much to be desired.

[KEK Inc.]

CalTrans cares more about keeping the signs at a consistent height than legibility at times, but I like myosh's design (which follows CalTrans standard) much more than the 2009 MUTCD arrow-per-lane.  I think the arrow-per-lane is good in some applications where multiple different lanes actually go to different things, but that's about it.

[SignBridge]

Is there a specific reason Caltrans insists on height uniformity? Is it related to wind-load? In the Northeast there is no such height uniformity, and I assume they design for wind-load here also. New York State in particular, designs each sign's height and width for its specific legend and pretty much follows the examples shown in the Manual. One display can have 3 signs all different heights. I've never thought there was any problem with the appearance of those displays.

[Brandon]

SignBridge, it's a load of BS, the wind loading argument, and related to something internal.  IDOT (Illinois) District 1 does the same thing for most of their signage, but uses taller signs.

[Scott5114]

Wind loading is their rationale for lack of correct exit tabs, not signs. Some states just insist on making the signs all the same height for some reason. Presumably it is meant to be aesthetically pleasing that all signs are the same size, but honestly, I think that whatever aesthetic value you get there is more than offset by the fact that is usually results in signs with too little or too much blank space. Following the spacing guidelines in the MUTCD to determine the size of a sign panel results in nice, balanced-looking signs. Trying to force the legend in one sign to fit in the space provided, not so much.

[myosh_tino]

Wind loading is their rationale for lack of correct exit tabs, not signs. Some states just insist on making the signs all the same height for some reason. Presumably it is meant to be aesthetically pleasing that all signs are the same size, but honestly, I think that whatever aesthetic value you get there is more than offset by the fact that is usually results in signs with too little or too much blank space. Following the spacing guidelines in the MUTCD to determine the size of a sign panel results in nice, balanced-looking signs. Trying to force the legend in one sign to fit in the space provided, not so much.

...and yet the 2009 MUTCD now requires the use of arrow-per-lane signage for multi-lane exits with an option lane.  A style of signage that IMO has way too much blank space... especially when there are 3 or more through lanes.

With regards to the wind-loading argument, when a truss sign bridge is used (the most common structure used on California's freeways), the sign panels are mounted on a frame which is then mounted on the truss.  If signs are made smaller than the truss, the frame will have to be mounted in such a way that wind-loading does become a factor because of a lack of mounting points on the truss.  The same can be said for mounting a sign that's too tall.  Too much of the sign panel would be exposed above the truss.  FWIW, here's a diagram I drew up awhile ago that explains the relationship between the truss's depth and the sign panel height...

[J N Winkler]

...and yet the 2009 MUTCD now requires the use of arrow-per-lane signage for multi-lane exits with an option lane.  A style of signage that IMO has way too much blank space... especially when there are 3 or more through lanes.

Actually, the MUTCD does not require arrow-per-lane diagrammatics, or indeed any other type of diagrammatic, except for multilane exits at major interchanges which have an option lane and a TOTSO for the through route.  For all other multilane exits with an option lane, the diagrammatics are optional, not mandatory.  (Remember our discussion on this point in SkyscraperCity?)  There is, for example, no danger of an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic being placed at the I-80/SR 12 interchange.

In regard to the observation about sign panels being mounted to a removable sign panel frame which is then connected to the truss, this applies to formed panel signs.  I think there is more flexibility in mounting laminated-panel signs, which Caltrans also uses extensively as overheads.  I believe the 1970's exit numbering experiment used overhead-mounted laminated-panel signs (center tabs); some early exit tab retrofits in District 2 (northern reaches of I-5) were applied to ground-mounted laminated-panel signs (right-hand tabs).  (I think these retrofitted signs have since been replaced, or at any rate a contract calling for their replacement has been advertised sometime in the last three or four years.)

Where sign aesthetics are concerned, I think situations where one sign panel has a small amount of legend while an adjacent sign panel has a large amount lead to ugly results, regardless of whether design rules call for uniform panel height.

[SignBridge]

TOTSO?

I'm with myosh; too much blank space on OAPL signs. BTW, the first one has appeared in my part of Long Island. Westbound NY-25 (Jericho Tpk) at the I-495 (L.I. Expwy.) interchange.

Why is there no chance of OAPL signs being used at Calif's I-80/SR-12 interchange? Looking at the map it looks like it could be a major or heavily used intermediate interchange that would require that type sign or diagrammatic if there is an option lane. Though I thought the old signs pictured did the job well enough, except for the screwy arrangement of the legend on the SR-12 sign. What city was shown before the Suisun City panel was added?

[myosh_tino]

Why is there no chance of OAPL signs being used at Calif's I-80/SR-12 interchange? Looking at the map it looks like it could be a major or heavily used intermediate interchange that would require that type sign or diagrammatic if there is an option lane.

Because the arrow-per-lane signs would exceed the current maximum guide sign height for overhead signs in California which is 120 inches (10 feet).  The arrows I used are 66 inches tall which would only leave 54 inches for the shields and legend.  IIRC, the arrow-per-lane signs I drew for the I-80/CA-12 exit were somewhere around 14 feet tall.

[KEK Inc.]

Nevada and Arizona uses similar sign bridges, and they don't restrict the sign height like CalTrans does. 

[J N Winkler]

TOTSO?

British roadgeeking term--"Turn off to stay on"--used for situations where a route follows an exit.

Why is there no chance of OAPL signs being used at Calif's I-80/SR-12 interchange? Looking at the map it looks like it could be a major or heavily used intermediate interchange that would require that type sign or diagrammatic if there is an option lane.

There is in fact no requirement to use an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic at the SR 12 exit.  It can be used, as indeed it can be used at any other exit with an option lane, but the requirement to use is actually quite narrowly defined (in § 2E.20 of the 2009 MUTCD):

*  Major interchange--Check.

*  Has an option lane--Check.

*  Is a split, or is a TOTSO for the through route--No.  Hash mark.

Caltrans can use an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic if it wishes but, for the reasons Myosh_tino cites, it will not so wish.

[SignBridge]

Ah yes, the height issue again. So are there currently NO overhead diagrammatic signs used anywhere in California?

From what you guys have said, it sounds like Caltrans keeps the sign height uniform so as to keep the mounting hardware as simple and standard (and low cost) as possible. I guess they think that's more important than the issue of cramming the legend onto the signs every which way they do. And that's probably why they won't go with separate exit number tabs either. 'Cause it would require more mounting hardware. They might have a point there. States that use the full width of the sign panel for exit number tabs  might do that for the same reason. Mounting hardware maybe costs more than additional sign surface?

[J N Winkler]

Ah yes, the height issue again. So are there currently NO overhead diagrammatic signs used anywhere in California?

That is not quite true.  Caltrans has arrow-per-lane diagrammatics in District 3 (notably on Business 80, and I think also on SR 99 north of Sacramento).  But they pre-date the MUTCD versions and are designed on somewhat different principles.

I think technical concerns about mounting hardware are quite insignificant compared to the added sign square footage, which comes at a substantial extra cost.  The height requirements are also related to truss depths, so replacement of the entire sign structure would also come into play.

[CentralCAroadgeek]

If you thought the layout of those 210 and 215 signs were bad, take a look at these two signs...


Original Sign... from the AARoads Gallery


Original Sign... from the AARoads Gallery

These signs are part of the 101-Tully Road interchange rebuild project in San Jose and were recently installed.  The drawings I made come pretty close to what is out there.  The first thing I noticed was the squeezing in of "Yerba Buena Rd" (13.3/10 legend and on two lines no less... ugh!) around a black-on-yellow arrow.  The problem is, that arrow points to an option lane.  Caltrans uses the same arrow on the Tully Road advance guide sign and, once again, that is an option lane.  I thought the use of the black-on-yellow arrow was a sign goof until I got a look at the signing plan for the project and realized it was NOT a goof... the black-on-yellow arrow was in the signing plan!  This is also the first time I've seen the use of the new 26-inch EXIT ONLY plaques (old ones were 20 inches).

I'm not really sure what the engineer was smoking when he/she designed these signs but I believe the use of a black-on-yellow arrow for an option lane is a big mistake and will lead to driver confusion.  In the past, a white-on-green down arrow was used for option lanes.

As for the layout of the Capitol Expwy advance guide sign, because traffic wanting to get to Yerba Buena Rd must use the Capitol Expwy exit, it is necessary to include it on the overhead sign but laying out a sign with that long a road name isn't easy.  I guess the old sign was about as good at it can be but the way Caltrans used two lines kind of irks me.

The actual signs: