News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Imperial/Coachella Valley highway signing

Started by Occidental Tourist, June 29, 2023, 03:08:04 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Occidental Tourist

I took a day trip to Yuma today. Two things stood out:

First, on both the Riverside County (District 8) and Imperial County (District 11) sides of the Coachella Valley/Imperial Valley corridor, I saw way more signing of concurrencies on reassurance shields than I've seen just about anywhere else in California.  From the 78/86 merge from just south of Salton City to their divergence just west of Brawley, there were dual reassurance shields posted after almost every intersection with the highway:



Given California's policy of being apathetic to signing what are effectively concurrencies, the number of dual reassurance shields I saw along that one stretch was ridiculous.  And as I shared in another thread, the 86 expressway is posted as an 86/111 concurrency from 66th Avenue north to I-10, with dual reassurance shields on it as well.  Here's an example:



Second, District 11 seems fairly consistent in how it posts highway termini.  Thus, where CA 186, 98, and 115 terminate at I-8, no cardinal directions are listed on interchange signs for those highways from I-8.  Thus, e.g., even though CA 115 only travels north from I-8, there is no "north"  designation for 115's interchange from I-8.  Rather, just "115"  is listed at the interchange. And 98 heads only west from I-8, yet, its interchange signs had no west cardinal direction on them.  Presumably, this implicitly signals to motorists that there is only one 115 interchange and one 98 interchange and motorists should not expect a "115 south"  or an "98 east"  interchange preceding or following their other interchanges with I-8.

By contrast, where one direction of a highway exits another in one direction at one point and in the opposite direction at another point, cardinal directions are conspicuously used.  For example, CA 78 west exits 86 northwest of where 78 east exits 86, and in each instance, cardinal directions are included for the 86/78 interchanges at those respective locations where 78 diverges from 86.

BUT, at the I-8 interchange with CA 7, "south"  is included on every 7 interchange sign on I-8, even though 7's northern terminus is at I-8 and there is no "7 north"  further down the interstate.  I wonder if this means that Caltrans, or at least District 11, is contemplating an expansion of the CA 7 designation north from I-8, either along a new corridor, or, as I suspect, along existing highways once those highways are upgraded to full expressway status, i.e., the CA 111 corridor north of I-8, the Brawley Bypass, and the 86 expressway.  I would think having a conspicuous commercial route from I-10 to the Mexico border designated with one highway number like CA-7 fits in with the intent of CANAMEX, SAFETEA-LU, and other interregional transportation corridor designations.


Max Rockatansky

#1
I've found the quality of multiplex signage greatly varies upon the Caltrans District.  District 6 for the most part tends to sign multiplexes very well (example: CA 204 and CA 99 Business).

Regarding the "CA 7 south,"  is there a County Route S32 north to accompany that anywhere?  As presently defined CA 7 is complete as legislatively defined.  I'd be more curious to see where D11 presently stands on signing Letter County Routes.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.