FHWA-spec exit gore signage going up in Los Angeles

[mcmc]

In the past few weeks, I've noticed that nearly all of the California-style exit gore signage on the I-10 freeway between I-405 and Downtown has been replaced with FHWA standard exit gore signage. I spotted the first sign on one of the I-10 to I-405 exits back in the spring. It seems that in the last month, this entire stretch of the 10 has had its signs replaced.

What's going on? Is this a new Caltrans spec?

I don't have photos of the I-10 resigning, I was tooling around Google Maps and spotted a similar replacement on I-5 way up in Northern California, south of Mt. Shasta.

You'll see in the GSV from Northern California that the new sign is moved back some distance from the gore point. The same is true of the signs on the 10 Freeway. Those signs are so far back that they stood out to me as improperly placed. Again: New policy/spec?

April 2018:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9963011,-122.4180621,3a,59.2y,80.31h,93.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIGLt3_LgMYRxB8jJUjzNGA!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656

August 2016:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9963011,-122.4180621,3a,59.2y,80.31h,93.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIGLt3_LgMYRxB8jJUjzNGA!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656

[mcmc]

A quick Google search turned up these documents from Caltrans from way back in 2015:

EXIT GORE SIGNAGE Memo, 8/12/2015 (PDF) 
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/policy/Exit-Gore-Signs-memo.pdf

EXIT GORE SIGN OPTIONS, w/white on green colored sign graphics (PDF)
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tcd/docs/Exit-Gore-Sign-color.pdf

OTHER DOCUMENTS:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tcd/exit-gore.html

Has anyone else seen the FHWA-spec exit gore signs go up in other areas? And when did you see them? From an aesthetic perspective, it's weird to see FHWA-spec exit gore signs in California.

[Techknow]

I thought I have seen some on CA 99. It turns out there are FHWA-spec exit signs there and they have been there since 2014.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.9838731,-120.086256,3a,75y,127.16h,83.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXkQHMNncMgkbsQBz9dZuWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[MarkF]

Here's one on southbound I-5 at CA 74 in San Juan Capistrano

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5042515,-117.6592123,3a,75y,179.2h,108.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBA-2F9pzYxKL9j4esnPYeg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

BTW, this topic came up a couple of years ago, see:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4883.msg2175825#msg2175825

[jeffe]

As noted in the Caltrans HQ memo linked by mcmc, there are basically four options given to the individual Caltrans districts for dealing with exit gore signs:

• Use a FHWA standard sign mounted on two posts placed 200 feet downstream from the Caltrans standard location.
• Keep the sign in the standard position but use a steel post with a quick change base.
• Keep the sign in the standard position but use a wood post with a metal sleeve foundation to allow for faster changeouts.
• Increase the visibility of the exit sign by adding reflectors to the post

Districts 1, 2, and 3 (basically everything from Sacramento north) and Districts 6 and 10 (the Central Valley) are using option 1.  Hence the large number of FHWA standard signs on CA-99 in the Central Valley and I-5 north of Sacramento.

Districts 4 and 7 (SF Bay Area and Los Angeles) are using option 2.  These districts are more urban and it may be more difficult to move the sign away from the gore point.  District 4 briefly used option 4, implemented by placing a blank yellow diamond sign near the base of the sign post, before moving to the metal posts.  Based on those new signs on I-10, it sounds like District 7 may be moving towards option 1.

Districts 5 and 11 (the central coast and San Diego) seem to favor option 3.  Most of the exit signs along US-101 in District 5 were replaced with wood post signs anchored in a metal sleeve placed in a concrete foundation.  San Diego tends to specify using a wood post with a wedge shaped shim to keep the sign anchored in a concrete foundation.

These changes are being implemented to reduce the exposure of Caltrans crews to live traffic when an exit sign has to be replaced.

[AndyMax25]

Yes I have seen the ones on the Santa Monica Freeway. I will post a pic soon because the one at the Crenshaw ramp was absurdly placed well past the gore point.  It's about half way between the gore point and the overcrossing.

[AndyMax25]

Here are some photos. The new placement doesn't make any sense to me. Might as well not have them at all. This is westbound on I-10

[skluth]

Here are some photos. The new placement doesn't make any sense to me. Might as well not have them at all. This is westbound on I-10

Holy crap! That's just awful. I'd probably assume those signs were for an upcoming exit just after the bridge if I were driving through there.

[formulanone]

Here are some photos. The new placement doesn't make any sense to me. Might as well not have them at all. This is westbound on I-10

Holy crap! That's just awful. I'd probably assume those signs were for an upcoming exit just after the bridge if I were driving through there.

Regarding those exit signs...

https://youtu.be/vhe3vSe-mmw

[roadfro]

Here are some photos. The new placement doesn't make any sense to me. Might as well not have them at all. This is westbound on I-10

Hard to tell, but that might actually follow the spec linked above. The spec shows that the old 1-post signs are situated just at the physical gore, whereas the new FHWA 2-post signs are shown following ±150 feet from a contrasting surface treatment area at the physical gore and then situated another ±50 feet beyond that. (A quick MUTCD search interestingly reveals that there does not appear to be a standard for placement of the gore signs.)

Even if these do follow the spec though, they are seriously misplaced. The spec sheet seems to be a bit more typical example of rural exit ramp configurations, or at least newer construction in urban areas. For cases like those pictured, with rapid elevation difference between mainline and ramp, placing the exit gore sign 200 feet back from the nose of the physical gore seems quite excessive.  Even putting the sign halfway back through the contrasting paved island surfaces would be better, or maybe using the traditional CA exit gore sign & placement with quick-change sign bases would have been a better approach for these instances.

[jeffe]

Yeah, it appears that those signs DO meet the new spec.  I've seen the signs in person, and when driving at freeway speeds the visibility does seem somewhat "better" than it appears from the still pictures.

Having said that, given the visual clutter in an urban environment, it would be better to mount the signs closer to the gore point.

With exit 11, there's a streetlight in the gore and a single post sign could be placed on it.  As it is right now, the streetlight blocks the visibility of the sign. 

Exit 10 is a passible application of the downstream sign placement.

As others have noted, Exit 9 is a bit ridiculous given the elevation change at the sign placement.

Is district 7 (LA) the only urban district to use the downstream placement?  As far as I know, district 4 (SF Bay Area) is keeping the signs at the normal location but using quick change posts.

[AndyMax25]

Here are some photos from the eastbound side.

[myosh_tino]

That's awful.

It makes me wonder why Caltrans abandoned their usual single-post gore signage, which can be placed closer to the actual gore point, in favor of the FHWA-standard signs that were placed in very inappropriate locations.

[vdeane]

Even with the FHWA-standard signs, there's enough room to post them in an appropriate spot... the Byzantine-Latino Quarter sign proves it!  CalTrans is just being stupid because if they did it right, the FHWA might start demanding that they do OTHER things right, like external exit tabs, or not cramming a ton of stuff onto a sign that's significantly smaller than it's supposed to be to satisfy some "all signs must be the same height" mandate.

[JUHSD-rvalencia]

Caltrans District 4 in my area seems they've recently used FHWA Series D "M" (bold) with mismatching retroreflectivity and Telespar breakaway square metal posts instead of the usual wood ones on some replacement signs like for example I-280 in Daly City and the exit numbers, which brings to my attention that has Caltrans' quality of attention to detail gone bonkers? To be honest, some people could do better on attention to detail like me. It kinda seems ugly when the visual appeal has gone negative than before, and that it would have violated Caltrans' original technical guidelines for signage practices. I think all these corruption needs to stop and that it has be true California quality. The Telespar steel posts look ugly to me, the FHWA-style ones do not fit with California-specs and that wood posts should be always used. BTW does anyone have friends who work for Caltrans?

Wood post with mismatching retroreflectivity and exit 414B is supposed to be on a 3 digit exit sign, not on a one or two-digit one. Found on U.S. 101/CA 92 interchange, San Mateo/Foster City



Same as before, but on exit 47A, I-280 in Daly City with a Telespar post.

[mrsman]

It's frustrating to see all of the changes that caltrans is doing for the worse.  Moving the exit sign locations in this manner provides no benefits to the public.  And this is on top of my other complaints on signage including removing city names from Street exits and removing the names of freeways that are well-known.  And throwing in the new fetish that caltrans has for roundabouts and we see that the whole agency has gone completely bonkers.

I am all for the safety of the highway workers but they need to find a way to keep the exit Gore signs at the exit Gore.

Nexus 5X

[heynow415]

It's frustrating to see all of the changes that caltrans is doing for the worse.  Moving the exit sign locations in this manner provides no benefits to the public.  And this is on top of my other complaints on signage including removing city names from Street exits and removing the names of freeways that are well-known.  And throwing in the new fetish that caltrans has for roundabouts and we see that the whole agency has gone completely bonkers.

I am all for the safety of the highway workers but they need to find a way to keep the exit Gore signs at the exit Gore.

Nexus 5X

I couldn't agree more.  I have become increasingly frustrated with the trend of removing lights from gantry signs.  I suppose it's on the theory that retroreflective signs shouldn't need supplemental lights but my observation is that while modern headlights are much brighter they are also aimed or provided with a cutoff feature so as to not blind oncoming drivers (raised pickup trucks notwithstanding).  As a result, there isn't much light to reflect off the overhead signs as opposed to side-of-the-road signs that are more within headlights' reach.  If you're familiar with an area it really doesn't matter but if you're not it can really be hazardous, particularly zipping along at 65+. 

Without lights it seems like they are also removing the maintenance decks which probably helps in thwarting taggers from climbing up and redecorating.  However, with modern LED lighting it seems like sign lighting could be provided without the deck since the frequency of relamping goes down precipitously with the longevity of LED.    I'm sure it helps cut Caltrans' electric bill and maintenance costs but it seems like at a minimum overhead signs at decision points (exits/gores) the signs should be lit.  My recollection from Arizona is that their signs are lit from above with a davit-style arm on which the luminaire is mounted with no maintenance deck.  That design also addresses the "dark skies" concerns by not having lighting randomly shining upwards.     

[roadfro]

^ If Caltrans is using the right type of reflective sheeting for overhead BGSs, then unlit signs should not be an issue.

When Nevada DOT reconstructed I-80 through Reno-Sparks several years ago, all overhead signs were replaced with new signs & structures without lighting. The exception was the really big new APL signs at US 395 interchange and any signs located along curves (where there wouldn't be enough headlight distance to illuminate the sign for long enough)–those now have LED lights lit from above. But all the new signs are sufficiently legible. This seems to have been an experiment that paid off, as several one-off sign replacements along US 395/I-580 since then have been with upgraded sheeting and had lights & catwalk infrastructure removed.

[don1991]

^ If Caltrans is using the right type of reflective sheeting for overhead BGSs, then unlit signs should not be an issue.

When Nevada DOT reconstructed I-80 through Reno-Sparks several years ago, all overhead signs were replaced with new signs & structures without lighting. The exception was the really big new APL signs at US 395 interchange and any signs located along curves (where there wouldn't be enough headlight distance to illuminate the sign for long enough)–those now have LED lights lit from above. But all the new signs are sufficiently legible. This seems to have been an experiment that paid off, as several one-off sign replacements along US 395/I-580 since then have been with upgraded sheeting and had lights & catwalk infrastructure removed.

Generally the reflective sheeting works.  I still like how Arizona does lighting on their signs - the downward facing lights to reduce "light pollution" rather than the upward facing lights that we are used to in California.  As long as the sign can be seen.....

One problem is that some of the lettering on the reflective signs appears to wear off and/or be affected by graffiti removal.  So it loses some of its reflective nature.

[don1991]

Yes I have seen the ones on the Santa Monica Freeway. I will post a pic soon because the one at the Crenshaw ramp was absurdly placed well past the gore point.  It's about half way between the gore point and the overcrossing.

I am OK with either type, though I kind of liked our unique vertical rectangles.  One thing I do not like is the exit numbers on the sign itself.  I would prefer that we add it in the upper right-hand corner of the sign like most other states do, instead of taking up part of the upper right portion of the sign itself.

Overall, I'm just happy to have the numbers, though.  It makes it so much easier to gauge mileage remaining on a road trip, rather than rely on periodic distance signs.

[M3100]

Overall, I'm just happy to have the numbers, though.  It makes it so much easier to gauge mileage remaining on a road trip, rather than rely on periodic distance signs.

Yep, and it also helps to tell if you are headed in the right direction (are the numbers getting closer to "your exit number" or not...)

[kendancy66]

Overall, I'm just happy to have the numbers, though.  It makes it so much easier to gauge mileage remaining on a road trip, rather than rely on periodic distance signs.

Yep, and it also helps to tell if you are headed in the right direction (are the numbers getting closer to "your exit number" or not...)

Having the green mile markers would make that even easier.  Then drivers might then realize how those exit numbers are calculated too

[JUHSD-rvalencia]

Does anyone think Caltrans needs to be reformed to true "California-quality"? I think it helps improve visual appeal to what we want and like the most.

[roadfro]

Does anyone think Caltrans needs to be reformed to true "California-quality"? I think it helps improve visual appeal to what we want and like the most.

What do you mean by this?

[JUHSD-rvalencia]

To the point where they should always never fool around using wrong retro-reflectivity level and the density of the FHWA series fonts used on exit signs as well as forbidding the use of three/four-digit exit signs when there's a one/two-digit exit (i.e. exit 25 on CA SR 92 in Hayward) or vice versa (i.e. exit 47A on Interstate 280 in Daly City and exit 414B on U.S. 101 in San Mateo), and that it should be abided by Caltrans original technical specs before they recently began using FHWA shenanigans. Even the use of FHWA gore points along with the double post exit signs should be phased out and banned, too. Also, the square steel posts used on exit signs in gore points should be wood only. Anyone have more suggestions? I'd be happy to reply. BTW on some areas like Alemany Maze and the Bay Bridge near Treasure Island, there are FHWA-style highway speed limit signs (small numbers) as supposed to the normal ones (large numbers) used in general. I won't mean to offend people, but I think we need to hire people who pays a lot of attention to detail who is really qualified to work for Caltrans if they die-hard want to.