AARoads Forum

Caltrans updated the standard plans on 16 April 2021 to now include external exit tabs. It's plan S122 and they are officially called an Exit Plaque.

All of the overhead sign structures have been redesigned.  There used to be separate sign structures for standard signs and CMSs.  These have been consolidated into a new sign structure called the Versatile Truss.

The Versatile Truss comes in three different heights, or frame depths -- 60, 72, and 120 inches tall.  These allow for a maximum sign height of 80, 180, and 240 inches, respectively.

Placing a 240 inch sign on a 120 inch structure will of course have considerable overhang.  The sign panel will be centered vertically on the structure, as the overhang is designed to be equal above and below the sign structure.

This will lead to much larger sign panels being available for use on California freeways.  They will also look different because the sign panels will extend below the bottom of the sign structure as they do in some other states.

You have some example images of this update? Want to see how the new BGS design compares to what I see in other states.

it's not April 1

Quote from: SkyPesos on April 18, 2021, 12:07:11 PM
You have some example images of this update? Want to see how the new BGS design compares to what I see in other states.

I haven't seen any of these new sign structures out in the wild yet, but here is some info from the standard plans:
(https://i.imgur.com/lh9zpcC.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/flRC062.png)

The updated standard plans are available here: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/locked_2018-entire-revised-standard-plans-260-sheets-april-2021-a11y.pdf (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/locked_2018-entire-revised-standard-plans-260-sheets-april-2021-a11y.pdf).  The versatile truss plans start on page 222 of that PDF.

All of the examples show sign panels of equal height; I don't see anywhere that makes that a requirement though.

Quote
The Versatile Truss is a new truss design. It replaces the changeable message sign
(CMS) overhead sign truss. The Versatile Truss can accommodate sign panels (up to 240
inches tall), exit plaques (up to 60 inches tall), changeable message signs (CMS), and
extinguishable message signs (EMS).

The original standard overhead truss on Standard Plan sheets S1 through S22 will remain
available in the Standard Plans during a limited transition period. Projects should begin to
callout the Versatile Truss as soon as possible. The original Standard Plan truss will
eventually be discontinued from the Standard Plans.

Source: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/engineering/documents/standardplanuserguides/versatile-truss/20200112-versatiletrussug_a11y.pdf (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/engineering/documents/standardplanuserguides/versatile-truss/20200112-versatiletrussug_a11y.pdf)

Are these mirrored for some reason or will all the exit number plaques be on the left -_-

I was kind of liking how the exit tabs in-sign were getting messed up like this:

https://flic.kr/p/2kMKL2N

Quote from: Alps on April 18, 2021, 05:14:35 PM
Are these mirrored for some reason or will all the exit number plaques be on the left -_-

I think the left mounted exit plaques are there to show a maximum wind loading situation.  The left side plaques will be twice as tall as a right plaques to allow for a LEFT plaque to be placed above the exit number.

(https://i.imgur.com/Kxkjiri.png)

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 18, 2021, 05:28:53 PM
I was kind of liking how the exit tabs in-sign were getting messed up like this:
https://flic.kr/p/2kMKL2N

Haha, yeah that sign looks great  :p 
The FHWA has given a hard no to using in-sign exit tabs:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/reqdetails.asp?id=359

^^^

Even more reason why Exit 23.9 is the best thing to happen Interstate 15 and Zzyzx in decades.  Really MUTCD adherence and California (both Caltrans and the DOH) have never really ever seen eye to eye on much of anything.  That's why it totally wouldn't shock me if the left Exit tab as illustrated above is real.

FWIW the above statement shouldn't be taken as a complaint by me about MUTCD adherence in California.  I love interesting and weird signs, California has certainly been a treasure trove over the years.

Digging a little deeper, it looks like right exits will have right aligned plaques and left exits will have left aligned plaques.  No center aligned plaques here. :p

Quote
Exit number (E1-5P) plaques should be added to placed above and abutting the top righthand edge of the sign for an exit to the right.
Standard:
Because road users might not expect an exit to the left and might have difficulty in
maneuvering to the left, a left exit number (E1-5bP) plaque (see Figure 2E-22) shall be
added to placed above and abutting the top left-hand edge of the sign for all left-hand exits
(see Figures 2E-14 and 2E-15). The word LEFT on the E1-5bP plaque shall be a black
legend on a yellow rectangular sign panel and shall be centered above the word EXIT.

Source: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/ctcdc/july-9-2020/final-ctcdc-july9-2020-agenda-a11y.pdf (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/ctcdc/july-9-2020/final-ctcdc-july9-2020-agenda-a11y.pdf) (Page 14)

Quote from: jeffe on April 18, 2021, 07:37:43 PM
The FHWA has given a hard no to using in-sign exit tabs:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/reqdetails.asp?id=359

In that case the FHWA needs to start looking at Washington, Illinois, etc. (As far as I know, Georgia no longer has any left-exit signs with in-sign exit numbers.)

Quote from: ran4sh on April 18, 2021, 11:16:47 PM

Quote from: jeffe on April 18, 2021, 07:37:43 PM
The FHWA has given a hard no to using in-sign exit tabs:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/reqdetails.asp?id=359

In that case the FHWA needs to start looking at Washington, Illinois, etc. (As far as I know, Georgia no longer has any left-exit signs with in-sign exit numbers.)

Also Michigan, which uses both. From what I heard, full length tabs in Michigan are installed on signs that are shorter than the gantry's height, while those taller use side tabs.

But what about wind loading?

Wow!!  It only took ~20 years since California started numbering exits to actually start doing it right.  The way exit tabs were jammed into signs while keeping existing legends looked awful, especially in urban areas where message loading within the sign was already pretty high.

I can't wait to see the first new design on a versatile truss out in the wild.

Quote from: jdbx on April 19, 2021, 03:45:49 PM
Wow!!  It only took ~20 years since California started numbering exits to actually start doing it right.  The way exit tabs were jammed into signs while keeping existing legends looked awful, especially in urban areas where message loading within the sign was already pretty high.

I can't wait to see the first new design on a versatile truss out in the wild.

(https://i.imgur.com/OiOmu2W.jpg)

That's an example of an external exit tab, but the OP is also about 240-inch height signs. I'm guessing that Caltrans hasn't installed any of those yet.

Quote from: SkyPesos on April 18, 2021, 11:22:39 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on April 18, 2021, 11:16:47 PM
In that case the FHWA needs to start looking at Washington, Illinois, etc. (As far as I know, Georgia no longer has any left-exit signs with in-sign exit numbers.)

Also Michigan, which uses both. From what I heard, full length tabs in Michigan are installed on signs that are shorter than the gantry's height, while those taller use side tabs.

The easy way to fix that problem for Michigan is to only make signs with height that is equal to or more than the gantry height even if that results in blank space on the sign.

(Or just make the sign normally. Plenty of states allow a sign to be shorter than the gantry, such as NC)

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 19, 2021, 06:42:24 PM

Quote from: jdbx on April 19, 2021, 03:45:49 PM
I can't wait to see the first new design on a versatile truss out in the wild.

(https://i.imgur.com/OiOmu2W.jpg)

Great photo of external exit plaques Occidental!

However, the sign structure in that photo is actually a standard sign truss and not a versatile truss. 


Standard Sign Truss:
(https://i.imgur.com/xqD3jsd.png)
The verticals and diagonals are attached directly to the top and bottom chord.


Versatile Sign Truss:
(https://i.imgur.com/A5QdpcP.png)
With a versatile sign truss the verticals and diagonals are attached to a gusset plate, which it in turn attached to the top and bottom chords.

Closeup of the Gusset Plate:
(https://i.imgur.com/Krupe0j.png)

I don't think there are any versatile sign trusses installed yet, but anyone please send along a photo if you see one!

So the only thing Caltrans needed to solve their "wind loading" problems is a feature that's been a part of the standard KDOT gantry since before I was born??

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 19, 2021, 06:42:24 PM

Quote from: jdbx on April 19, 2021, 03:45:49 PM
Wow!!  It only took ~20 years since California started numbering exits to actually start doing it right.  The way exit tabs were jammed into signs while keeping existing legends looked awful, especially in urban areas where message loading within the sign was already pretty high.

I can't wait to see the first new design on a versatile truss out in the wild.

(https://i.imgur.com/OiOmu2W.jpg)

Of course the "ONLY" is still a problem  :rolleyes:

I may be one of the few that likes CalTrans' internal exit tabs, but given how it can lead to cramped and ultimately 'busy' signage, the new external designs are welcome, especially if the CA 57 at CA 91 BGS shown above is anything to go by.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 19, 2021, 09:25:30 PM
So the only thing Caltrans needed to solve their "wind loading" problems is a feature that's been a part of the standard KDOT gantry since before I was born??

I still think the wind loading explanation is a bit of BS. Nevada DOT has had a standard truss design nearly identical to Caltrans' for ages, and NDOT has had external tabs for years as well as signs taller than 120" for at least a couple decades...

Quote from: Bickendan on April 20, 2021, 03:29:39 AM
I may be one of the few that likes CalTrans' internal exit tabs, but given how it can lead to cramped and ultimately 'busy' signage, the new external designs are welcome, especially if the CA 57 at CA 91 BGS shown above is anything to go by.

I like them too, but the picture of the new exit tabs looks just as good. Only loss here is it'll no longer be unique.

Wow, this is quite an update.

For the life of me, I don't know of any situation where a 20 foot tall sign is going to be needed in California.  I know there are some in other states but those mostly revolve around some monstrous diagrammatic signs.  I believe California's Express Lane signs that display the current toll are 150" in height.  Heck, even the FHWA example APL is less than 180 inches in height.  I guess CalTrans over-engineered the 120" versatile truss so it can accommodate whatever weird requirements the FHWA hands down next.  I do hope the policy of all signs on a truss be of the same height will remain.  With them going to external tabs, I think it will drastically improve sign layouts.

As a connoisseur of all-things CalTrans, I'm in the process of adding this truss to my sign-making library.  I just completed the 120" truss (capable of holding a max-height guide sign of 240") but I'm still working on the 60" and 72" versions.

Quote from: myosh_tino on April 20, 2021, 07:14:56 PM
Wow, this is quite an update.

For the life of me, I don't know of any situation where a 20 foot tall sign is going to be needed in California.  I know there are some in other states but those mostly revolve around some monstrous diagrammatic signs.  I believe California's Express Lane signs that display the current toll are 150" in height.  Heck, even the FHWA example APL is less than 180 inches in height.  I guess CalTrans over-engineered the 120" versatile truss so it can accommodate whatever weird requirements the FHWA hands down next.  I do hope the policy of all signs on a truss be of the same height will remain.  With them going to external tabs, I think it will drastically improve sign layouts.

As a connoisseur of all-things CalTrans, I'm in the process of adding this truss to my sign-making library.  I just completed the 120" truss (capable of holding a max-height guide sign of 240") but I'm still working on the 60" and 72" versions.

The LA, SF, and Sacto areas all have complicated enough interchanges that I can see 20' happening. As a sign designer, I find that normal messages are in the 12'-13' range, so it doesn't take a whole lot.

Mixed feelings on 240" signs. It can make layout less cluttered, but I don't want it if that brings those ugly MUTCD APL signs to California.

(Note: reason for not liking APL signs is the large amount of blank space)

OK, so here is my version of the new versatile truss design that Caltrans released earlier this week.  The differences between the old and new versions are quite interesting.

First, the current truss design...

Now the new truss design...

Main differences in the new design include beefier chords and vertical and diagonal components.  The thickness of the chord was increased from 6 inches to 8 inches.  The vertical and diagonal components were also increased from 3 inches to 5.  Looking at the new standard plans, these trusses can handle 100 MPH wind speeds and there are soil parameters that must be met before this type of structure can be installed.

Finally, here's a sample I whipped up using the new truss, a 120-inch tall BGS and a 240-inch tall BGS.

One thing I've noticed in the 101 sign upgrade/replacement project in San Mateo County is that the new exit signs seem to be a foot taller than the trusses (so not entirely flush with the truss like the Route 92 sign in your example, myosh_tino).  Like the bottom is still on the truss but the top sticks out a bit.

Quote from: TheStranger on April 21, 2021, 03:28:52 PM
One thing I've noticed in the 101 sign upgrade/replacement project in San Mateo County is that the new exit signs seem to be a foot taller than the trusses (so not entirely flush with the truss like the Route 92 sign in your example, myosh_tino).  Like the bottom is still on the truss but the top sticks out a bit.

That sounds about right.

The current truss, which has a 106" Frame Depth, can accommodate a 100", 110" or 120" tall sign panel.  The 100" sign panel is flush with the horizontal truss members (Caltrans calls these "chords").  The 110" and 120" sign panels are flush on the bottom but do extend above the top of the truss.

Edit: Looking at my reply, I know 106 != 100 but I believe the sign panels are flush with the top of the bottom chord which just happens to be 6 inches.  That's why if you look at my previous drawings, you can see the bottom chord below the sign panel.  For example...

As noted before, I'm going through AARoads as part of my California Highways update pass. I saw the following

Quote from: myosh_tino on April 20, 2021, 07:14:56 PM
As a connoisseur of all-things CalTrans, I'm in the process of adding this truss to my sign-making library.  I just completed the 120" truss (capable of holding a max-height guide sign of 240") but I'm still working on the 60" and 72" versions.

As I'm not mapping the user name to the real world, where (by chance) is this sign-making library or website? Such things are incredibly useful when I'm having to make little maps for the site.

(And I'll note that my old standby, https://shields-up.net/, seems to be having some problems of late with error messages about fields not being set, but I can usually get it to work).

Daniel

Quote from: cahwyguy on May 15, 2021, 01:58:13 PM
As noted before, I'm going through AARoads as part of my California Highways update pass. I saw the following

Quote from: myosh_tino on April 20, 2021, 07:14:56 PM
As a connoisseur of all-things CalTrans, I'm in the process of adding this truss to my sign-making library.  I just completed the 120" truss (capable of holding a max-height guide sign of 240") but I'm still working on the 60" and 72" versions.

As I'm not mapping the user name to the real world, where (by chance) is this sign-making library or website? Such things are incredibly useful when I'm having to make little maps for the site.

(And I'll note that my old standby, https://shields-up.net/, seems to be having some problems of late with error messages about fields not being set, but I can usually get it to work).

Daniel

For shields, why not just use the shields from Wikimedia Commons? They're designed using real fonts and standards, so they look just like the real thing the vast majority of the time (any error comes from the DOT not following their own published standards).

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 15, 2021, 03:32:06 PM
For shields, why not just use the shields from Wikimedia Commons? They're designed using real fonts and standards, so they look just like the real thing the vast majority of the time (any error comes from the DOT not following their own published standards).

Because they don't generate the shield with the number in it. I generally grab that and then do some resizing and editing when clarifying planning maps and such. But if you have a link, I'll look at it for the future. I used to use the shield generator that AAroads had; alas, that has gone away.

Quote from: cahwyguy on May 15, 2021, 03:36:04 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 15, 2021, 03:32:06 PM
For shields, why not just use the shields from Wikimedia Commons? They're designed using real fonts and standards, so they look just like the real thing the vast majority of the time (any error comes from the DOT not following their own published standards).

Because they don't generate the shield with the number in it. I generally grab that and then do some resizing and editing when clarifying planning maps and such. But if you have a link, I'll look at it for the future. I used to use the shield generator that AAroads had; alas, that has gone away.

Sure they do, they're just pre-generated by a bot (or a human editor) and saved to their server. They have a shield for pretty much every extant highway and many decommissioned ones. You just have to download them, and you can have the server resize them to whatever size you want before you download.

How to get shields from Wikimedia Commons:
1) Go to the Wikipedia page for the target route (e.g. "California State Route 1") and click the shield in the infobox at the top right of the page. For California in particular, you can go to the state-detail page (e.g. "Interstate 5 in California" or "U.S. Route 101 in California") to get Caltrans-spec signs.
2) You will be taken to a page with a name like "File:California 1.svg". (Once you've done this for one highway of a type, you can bookmark this page and change the number in the URL to save some time; all highways in the same system generally have a consistent file name scheme.)
3) This page will have links to PNGs in multiple resolutions below the large displayed image, and you can choose whichever you like; right-click the link and save to disk.
4) If you don't see the exact resolution you want, click on one of the options (which one doesn't matter). In the URL bar, change the pixel width (e.g. "230px" to whatever width you like. Height will be calculated automatically. Download to disk and enjoy.

If, for some reason, Wikipedia doesn't have a shield that you need pre-generated (which is rare, especially in the more populous states and states with smaller highway systems), you can make your own. You can download an SVG template (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Highway_shield_templates_of_the_United_States) from Commons, which has an editable placeholder text object, already set in the Roadgeek fonts. Download the source SVG by right-clicking and saving the "original file" link on the file page, open it in Inkscape (https://inkscape.org), change the text, and export to PNG. If this is a real highway that is missing (i.e. it's not a fantasy number), you can also request a shield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Shields_task_force/Requests) be made.

Some toll road shields are not available due to copyright reasons, but those probably wouldn't be in something like Shields Up either.

I'll save it for the future, although truthfully, using shields-up is much less involved. Plus (rant on) I tend not to like Wikipedia for highway pages -- I think in many ways they have pulled the hobby away from the roadgeeks, and resulted in a drop of the number of high quality highway sites as things migrate into wikipedia (rant off). But that's just my perspective as one of the OG highway sites (www.cahighways.org, since around 1992).

But it doesn't answer the original question:

Quote from: myosh_tino on April 20, 2021, 07:14:56 PM
As a connoisseur of all-things CalTrans, I'm in the process of adding this truss to my sign-making library.  I just completed the 120" truss (capable of holding a max-height guide sign of 240") but I'm still working on the 60" and 72" versions.

As I'm not mapping the user name to the real world, where (by chance) is this sign-making library or website?

Quote from: cahwyguy on May 15, 2021, 04:54:55 PM
I'll save it for the future, although truthfully, using shields-up is much less involved. Plus (rant on) I tend not to like Wikipedia for highway pages -- I think in many ways they have pulled the hobby away from the roadgeeks, and resulted in a drop of the number of high quality highway sites as things migrate into wikipedia (rant off). But that's just my perspective as one of the OG highway sites (www.cahighways.org, since around 1992).

What makes you think that the people that write highway pages for Wikipedia aren't roadgeeks themselves? There's actually been a bit of a culture war on Wikipedia in the past because the greater Wikipedia community didn't want to let roadgeeks in and wanted to delete all of their content. The roadgeeks basically had to fight for the right to exist there and ended up winning. The Wikipedia road editors are a nice bunch of people and a few of them are even on this forum. (Case in point, I'm one of them; if you've ever read an article about a highway in Oklahoma, you've read my work.)

I'd submit that without Wikipedia you'd still see the same number of high quality sites declining because that's true in all hobbyist circles, even those that Wikipedia doesn't cover, like fandom groups. The technical ability of the average Internet user has gone down over the years. Now instead of setting up a site and using that to publish information interesting to you, people just post it to Facebook or Twitter. Of course, it's a lot harder to find anything good or permanent on Facebook and Twitter.

The Wikipedia shields have actually had an impact in a way that isn't quite so obvious–causing accurate shields to appear in places where they wouldn't before. Now when you search for any random highway on Google Image Search, you can get an accurate shield from Wikipedia, so that's what people do when they're making a custom map or advertisement and need a highway shield graphic. The number of gross-looking shields drawn up by non-roadgeek graphic designers has declined over the years as a result.

Quote from: cahwyguy on May 15, 2021, 04:54:55 PM
But it doesn't answer the original question:

Quote from: myosh_tino on April 20, 2021, 07:14:56 PM
As a connoisseur of all-things CalTrans, I'm in the process of adding this truss to my sign-making library.  I just completed the 120" truss (capable of holding a max-height guide sign of 240") but I'm still working on the 60" and 72" versions.

As I'm not mapping the user name to the real world, where (by chance) is this sign-making library or website?

I'm pretty sure it's in a PowerPoint file on his hard drive.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 15, 2021, 07:16:59 PM
I'd submit that without Wikipedia you'd still see the same number of high quality sites declining because that's true in all hobbyist circles, even those that Wikipedia doesn't cover, like fandom groups. The technical ability of the average Internet user has gone down over the years. Now instead of setting up a site and using that to publish information interesting to you, people just post it to Facebook or Twitter. Of course, it's a lot harder to find anything good or permanent on Facebook and Twitter.

Yeah, I remember when there used to be a forum for just about everything.  These days, if you want to find discussions on anything fandom related and it's not something actively trending on Facebook and Twitter, you're pretty much stuck with Reddit.  Especially now that Google has changed their algorithm to very heavily favor news articles and official sources, finding any hobby website, road-related or otherwise, isn't easy, even when they still exist.

Quote from: vdeane on May 16, 2021, 12:09:23 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 15, 2021, 07:16:59 PM
I'd submit that without Wikipedia you'd still see the same number of high quality sites declining because that's true in all hobbyist circles, even those that Wikipedia doesn't cover, like fandom groups. The technical ability of the average Internet user has gone down over the years. Now instead of setting up a site and using that to publish information interesting to you, people just post it to Facebook or Twitter. Of course, it's a lot harder to find anything good or permanent on Facebook and Twitter.

Yeah, I remember when there used to be a forum for just about everything.  These days, if you want to find discussions on anything fandom related and it's not something actively trending on Facebook and Twitter, you're pretty much stuck with Reddit.  Especially now that Google has changed their algorithm to very heavily favor news articles and official sources, finding any hobby website, road-related or otherwise, isn't easy, even when they still exist.

And Reddit is not ideal either because the voting mechanism causes most of their forums to become echo chambers where you're penalized for having an opinion contradictory to the popular opinions on there.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 15, 2021, 07:16:59 PM

Quote from: cahwyguy on May 15, 2021, 04:54:55 PM
I'll save it for the future, although truthfully, using shields-up is much less involved. Plus (rant on) I tend not to like Wikipedia for highway pages -- I think in many ways they have pulled the hobby away from the roadgeeks, and resulted in a drop of the number of high quality highway sites as things migrate into wikipedia (rant off). But that's just my perspective as one of the OG highway sites (www.cahighways.org, since around 1992).

What makes you think that the people that write highway pages for Wikipedia aren't roadgeeks themselves? There's actually been a bit of a culture war on Wikipedia in the past because the greater Wikipedia community didn't want to let roadgeeks in and wanted to delete all of their content. The roadgeeks basically had to fight for the right to exist there and ended up winning. The Wikipedia road editors are a nice bunch of people and a few of them are even on this forum. (Case in point, I'm one of them; if you've ever read an article about a highway in Oklahoma, you've read my work.)

I'd submit that without Wikipedia you'd still see the same number of high quality sites declining because that's true in all hobbyist circles, even those that Wikipedia doesn't cover, like fandom groups. The technical ability of the average Internet user has gone down over the years. Now instead of setting up a site and using that to publish information interesting to you, people just post it to Facebook or Twitter. Of course, it's a lot harder to find anything good or permanent on Facebook and Twitter.

The Wikipedia shields have actually had an impact in a way that isn't quite so obvious–causing accurate shields to appear in places where they wouldn't before. Now when you search for any random highway on Google Image Search, you can get an accurate shield from Wikipedia, so that's what people do when they're making a custom map or advertisement and need a highway shield graphic. The number of gross-looking shields drawn up by non-roadgeek graphic designers has declined over the years as a result.

Quote from: cahwyguy on May 15, 2021, 04:54:55 PM
But it doesn't answer the original question:

Quote from: myosh_tino on April 20, 2021, 07:14:56 PM
As a connoisseur of all-things CalTrans, I'm in the process of adding this truss to my sign-making library.  I just completed the 120" truss (capable of holding a max-height guide sign of 240") but I'm still working on the 60" and 72" versions.

As I'm not mapping the user name to the real world, where (by chance) is this sign-making library or website?

I'm pretty sure it's in a PowerPoint file on his hard drive.

Not quite.

My sign-making library is a collection of Photoshop files.  I do not have an automated method of building my signs.  Everything is done by hand.

I made a video on how I make my signs and put it up on YouTube...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA7bLhDOnOY

Quote from: vdeane on May 16, 2021, 12:09:23 AM
Yeah, I remember when there used to be a forum for just about everything.  These days, if you want to find discussions on anything fandom related and it's not something actively trending on Facebook and Twitter, you're pretty much stuck with Reddit.  Especially now that Google has changed their algorithm to very heavily favor news articles and official sources, finding any hobby website, road-related or otherwise, isn't easy, even when they still exist.

Then I'm lucky that my site ( https://www.cahighways.org) seems to come up very high in the search rankings, as I'm sure does Gribblenation and AAroads. I know that I still have pages of link directories to other road related sites ( https://www.cahighways.org/othlinks.html ). If you still have a road site out there, please make sure I know about it. If you're in the links list, make sure the reference is correct; if you are not in the list, send me the requisite information. If the few well ranked sites legitimately link to other road sites, it raises them up. We're a community; let's work together (and now I sound like Adam in his Junction #2 podcast ... which is a good thing).

Daniel

Need to separate the bemoaning of the loss of the glory days of the Internet out of this thread.

There's a new DDI on CA-120 in Manteca.  I'm not sure if it's finished yet, but I wonder if they replaced the BGS on the freeway with this new spec.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on May 16, 2021, 03:43:29 PM
There's a new DDI on CA-120 in Manteca.  I'm not sure if it's finished yet, but I wonder if they replaced the BGS on the freeway with this new spec.

I highly doubt it.

I've been keeping my eye on newly advertised projects on the Caltrans website over the past couple of weeks and haven't run across any that are using the new truss.  Also, keep in mind that the current truss is still approved by Caltrans.

Quote from: cahwyguy on May 15, 2021, 04:54:55 PM
I'll save it for the future, although truthfully, using shields-up is much less involved. Plus (rant on) I tend not to like Wikipedia for highway pages -- I think in many ways they have pulled the hobby away from the roadgeeks, and resulted in a drop of the number of high quality highway sites as things migrate into wikipedia (rant off). But that's just my perspective as one of the OG highway sites (www.cahighways.org, since around 1992).

But it doesn't answer the original question:

Quote from: myosh_tino on April 20, 2021, 07:14:56 PM
As a connoisseur of all-things CalTrans, I'm in the process of adding this truss to my sign-making library.  I just completed the 120" truss (capable of holding a max-height guide sign of 240") but I'm still working on the 60" and 72" versions.

As I'm not mapping the user name to the real world, where (by chance) is this sign-making library or website?

A slightly easier way to get shields from wikipedia for you may be to go to the list pages:

    Interstates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Interstate_Highways_in_California

    U.S. Routes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Routes_in_California

    CA State Routes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_highways_in_California

From there you can just scroll down to the shield you need in the table and [right click]>"Save Image As..." to save it for later, or [right click]>"Copy Image" then paste directly into an image editor.

This is the method I've been using and it works great, and is pretty painless. The only caveat is that the images here are quite small, so you may want to use the method Scott gave if you need a larger version and not just a map marker.

Quote from: myosh_tino on May 16, 2021, 04:20:03 PM

Quote from: KEK Inc. on May 16, 2021, 03:43:29 PM
There's a new DDI on CA-120 in Manteca.  I'm not sure if it's finished yet, but I wonder if they replaced the BGS on the freeway with this new spec.

I highly doubt it.

I've been keeping my eye on newly advertised projects on the Caltrans website over the past couple of weeks and haven't run across any that are using the new truss.  Also, keep in mind that the current truss is still approved by Caltrans.

What about the new exit tabs? Seen any that specs them recently?

Quote from: SeriesE on May 20, 2021, 04:54:43 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on May 16, 2021, 04:20:03 PM

Quote from: KEK Inc. on May 16, 2021, 03:43:29 PM
There's a new DDI on CA-120 in Manteca.  I'm not sure if it's finished yet, but I wonder if they replaced the BGS on the freeway with this new spec.

I highly doubt it.

I've been keeping my eye on newly advertised projects on the Caltrans website over the past couple of weeks and haven't run across any that are using the new truss.  Also, keep in mind that the current truss is still approved by Caltrans.

What about the new exit tabs? Seen any that specs them recently?

As far as I know, this example from earlier in the thread is the only one out in the field so far, and was probably an experiment. It'll likely be the only one for a while, since the new specs only just came out, and engineering design for any project that isn't very small takes months to years, then we have to wait for construction.

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 19, 2021, 06:42:24 PM

Quote from: jdbx on April 19, 2021, 03:45:49 PM
Wow!!  It only took ~20 years since California started numbering exits to actually start doing it right.  The way exit tabs were jammed into signs while keeping existing legends looked awful, especially in urban areas where message loading within the sign was already pretty high.

I can't wait to see the first new design on a versatile truss out in the wild.

(https://i.imgur.com/OiOmu2W.jpg)

Quote from: stevashe on May 20, 2021, 04:10:51 PM
A slightly easier way to get shields from wikipedia for you may be to go to the list pages:

    Interstates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Interstate_Highways_in_California

    U.S. Routes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Routes_in_California

    CA State Routes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_highways_in_California

From there you can just scroll down to the shield you need in the table and [right click]>"Save Image As..." to save it for later, or [right click]>"Copy Image" then paste directly into an image editor.

This works for standalone route markers but not for guide sign shields as those specs are different from the standalone shields.  I'll post some examples later when I get the time.

Quote from: stevashe on May 20, 2021, 07:09:15 PM

Quote from: SeriesE on May 20, 2021, 04:54:43 PM
What about the new exit tabs? Seen any that specs them recently?

As far as I know, this example from earlier in the thread is the only one out in the field so far, and was probably an experiment. It'll likely be the only one for a while, since the new specs only just came out, and engineering design for any project that isn't very small takes months to years, then we have to wait for construction.

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 19, 2021, 06:42:24 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/OiOmu2W.jpg)

It should be noted that while the FHWA-spec exit tabs are new to California, they're not new to the rest of the country.  There is also a project that replaces the overhead signs on eastbound CA-91 before I-5 and that project also makes use of the FHWA-spec external exit tabs.  Once again, when I get time, I'll draw those signs and post them here.  It seems to me that Orange County (Caltrans District 12) is the only one that's been "experimenting" with the external tabs.

Quote from: myosh_tino on May 16, 2021, 04:20:03 PM

Quote from: KEK Inc. on May 16, 2021, 03:43:29 PM
There's a new DDI on CA-120 in Manteca.  I'm not sure if it's finished yet, but I wonder if they replaced the BGS on the freeway with this new spec.

I highly doubt it.

I've been keeping my eye on newly advertised projects on the Caltrans website over the past couple of weeks and haven't run across any that are using the new truss.  Also, keep in mind that the current truss is still approved by Caltrans.

Fast forward two and a half months later, I think I've found the first use of the new truss in a Caltrans project.  The project is located on I-80 in-and-around Truckee.  New overhead sign structures are planned to be installed at Donner Pass Road and the Central Truckee exit off of eastbound I-80.  Signs on these new structures are vertically centered on the truss and feature external exit tabs.  I spent a few minutes drawing one of the new signs following the project plan...


FWIW, this is a 110" sign panel on a 72" truss.


Oddly enough, the rest of the signs along I-80 within the project area are also being replaced but feature internal exit tabs because they're being installed on existing trusses.

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 19, 2021, 12:56:51 AM

Quote from: myosh_tino on May 16, 2021, 04:20:03 PM

Quote from: KEK Inc. on May 16, 2021, 03:43:29 PM
There's a new DDI on CA-120 in Manteca.  I'm not sure if it's finished yet, but I wonder if they replaced the BGS on the freeway with this new spec.

I highly doubt it.

I've been keeping my eye on newly advertised projects on the Caltrans website over the past couple of weeks and haven't run across any that are using the new truss.  Also, keep in mind that the current truss is still approved by Caltrans.

Fast forward two and a half months later, I think I've found the first use of the new truss in a Caltrans project.  The project is located on I-80 in-and-around Truckee.  New overhead sign structures are planned to be installed at Donner Pass Road and the Central Truckee exit off of eastbound I-80.  Signs on these new structures are vertically centered on the truss and feature external exit tabs.  I spent a few minutes drawing one of the new signs following the project plan...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F80w_Exit184-new.png&hash=9609d9b2529314c56ce6f3ffce06a138c2359a06)

FWIW, this is a 110" sign panel on a 72" truss.


Oddly enough, the rest of the signs along I-80 within the project area are also being replaced but feature internal exit tabs because they're being installed on existing trusses.

The federal MUTCD spec exit only plaque is really ugly. Maybe I'm just not used to it haha.

Quote from: SeriesE on August 19, 2021, 11:19:28 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 19, 2021, 12:56:51 AM
Fast forward two and a half months later, I think I've found the first use of the new truss in a Caltrans project.  The project is located on I-80 in-and-around Truckee.  New overhead sign structures are planned to be installed at Donner Pass Road and the Central Truckee exit off of eastbound I-80.  Signs on these new structures are vertically centered on the truss and feature external exit tabs.  I spent a few minutes drawing one of the new signs following the project plan...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F80w_Exit184-new.png&hash=9609d9b2529314c56ce6f3ffce06a138c2359a06)

FWIW, this is a 110" sign panel on a 72" truss.


Oddly enough, the rest of the signs along I-80 within the project area are also being replaced but feature internal exit tabs because they're being installed on existing trusses.

The federal MUTCD spec exit only plaque is really ugly. Maybe I'm just not used to it haha.

Agreed, I don't get why there's such a big margin on the left and right sides. You can see it's at least 50% more than the margin on the main sign itself!

Quote from: myosh_tino on May 20, 2021, 09:17:08 PMIt should be noted that while the FHWA-spec exit tabs are new to California, they're not new to the rest of the country.  There is also a project that replaces the overhead signs on eastbound CA-91 before I-5 and that project also makes use of the FHWA-spec external exit tabs.  Once again, when I get time, I'll draw those signs and post them here.  It seems to me that Orange County (Caltrans District 12) is the only one that's been "experimenting" with the external tabs.

They have been cropping up for a few months now, but I think most of the installations so far are to be ground-mounted.  A few examples, starting with last April 13 and working forward:

*  12-0Q3104:  SR 91 Exit 24 overhead exit direction sign for I-5 southbound/Santa Ana (30" high, FHWA spec).  (This is the Orange County SR 91 sign refurbishment you mentioned, I think.)

*  04-3Q3904:  I-580 Exit 12 supplementary guide sign for Point Isabel Regional Park (12" high, Caltrans spec, replacing a graffiti-damaged sign with a strip-style tab (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9093605,-122.3217865,3a,21.8y,163.75h,89.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQPfbUiR2irinlsN1YnXR6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)).

*  01-366004:  US 101 Exit 709 Indianola Cutoff ground-mounted advance guide and exit direction signs (30" high, FHWA spec).

*  01-0F2404:  US 101 Exit 769 Klamath/Terwer Valley ground-mounted exit direction sign (18" high, presumably Caltrans spec).  (This is the "Tour thru tree" exit.)

District 2 (adjacent to District 1 in northern California) retrofitted exit tabs to ground-mounted guide signs on I-5 in 2002 when Calnexus was new, but I think those were done to the old Caltrans exit tab spec from the early 1970's.

I'm really happy to hear about the new truss design.  Now that it (combined with some pressure from FHWA) is closing the book on the era of bitten-out tabs, I suspect some nostalgia for them will start to surface.

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 19, 2021, 11:52:21 PM
I'm really happy to hear about the new truss design.  Now that it (combined with some pressure from FHWA) is closing the book on the era of bitten-out tabs, I suspect some nostalgia for them will start to surface.

Nostalgia?  Maybe but not from me.

When I heard Caltrans was going to implement exit numbering I was kind of glad they chose to do it differently... something uniquely Californian... by using internal "tabs".  To me, personally, exit numbers were not important because I navigate freeway exits by street names or route numbers.  Even today, most traffic reports in the metro areas still rely on street names to pinpoint where accidents or backups are occurring rather than exit numbers (or mile markers, which Caltrans has not implemented as of yet).

However, after seeing the consequences of internal exit tabs... trying to shoehorn in the exit tab resulting in weird/funky/odd sign layouts, I'm glad they're moving towards external tabs.  Hopefully that will infuse some sanity into the way signs are laid out going forward.

With all that said though, I'm still not changing my opinion on APLs.  I think the sign panels are too tall and there's too much wasted space.  Thankfully, from what I have read, APLs are only going to be used at freeway-to-freeway exits in California.

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 20, 2021, 10:18:31 PM
Even today, most traffic reports in the metro areas still rely on street names to pinpoint where accidents or backups are occurring rather than exit numbers (or mile markers, which Caltrans has not implemented as of yet).

In the Seattle area, traffic reports use the street names too, and I suspect this is the case in most cities. I only really hear exit numbers or mileposts being used for incidents in rural areas where the street names are not as well known (and therefore less useful).

Coming back from the dead here (I always lurk but haven't posted anything here since 2015) to report that a reconstruction project on US-101 in Carpinteria has added some new BGSes with external exit tabs

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/HODTbqs8gHTpvuP9Jhv3ZE2QLBvVgmVIsJrfboaEQZgAgTB_rKsltbtEGWdIPiQU43rsbAhjff-Wr3pQQ_dCE8BSBfKbFkKQ0yO4imrykcXEDhhpHAcbMznP4Fqc14lzyAWEpclEnisUlzlYd9Jd5umn6tsM3R3luDZ2AL4xyOVxVBwqPa0pkq54YN4CH_5fPX3S-FzEZdP97qnoOw9SDz1dFZs9tqxwdVEyKtx6ZE2B2kL2mQcixIb5loxTfUvy02O-wWkrVConae1Aj4TGFMKpD3_cSumU1iJYMkCe3iiWdTFmKNYvazHq7sQH5LZbuQpRE3ctqg0ievQ5_Tzq4PS934apYn2I5kd7DM5Yps8VfvDSAGvDeAPsGs1UsrY-4tuvByDHu1Ktq2sLMYjdh4mBhxuRDltop_l57T7i_Lkekj5yj9-mNKvGvXWkNy8fb4uo06bWmaaVQg-kfSwazkweakfEJjkfILkyvBfjpAn2ofC3-oy7_Y6aTt5SUOgQP4dFyCEr3OHXx_FFw-4peRgdwmvOvTX-v0RIAAJ79WE63GTgUiqePjpjHGwPruyLQ1yE6J7tPbE4kvqsf-JBbxq0_cLlFO-6aSShZlNUFOeOWjQu5eV8Dvjf16H2-fQKK4xB3GSdqjRkS68qIWHiukCpI82Hg8eQEZmFrWOcZvf5vJPIz-taz3HZVWaUCseN2HkUbTov7cTNtviKsD-1OT0fgg=w2595-h1946-no?authuser=0)

There's several more signs like this along that stretch of road, so it looks like something that will be sticking around in California now

I'm assuming that whole gantry is brand new also?

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 04, 2022, 06:08:23 PM
I'm assuming that whole gantry is brand new also?

Judging by pre-2017 Street View footage (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.399645,-119.5141685,3a,90y,127.18h,90.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1soDgwN8pSSfrkVq4OQAMLhg!2e0!5s20150401T000000!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.399645,-119.5141685,3a,90y,127.18h,90.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1soDgwN8pSSfrkVq4OQAMLhg!2e0!5s20150401T000000!7i13312!8i6656)), this is the very first gantry at this exit! It used to be a sign on the ground before this one

Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on January 04, 2022, 06:16:00 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 04, 2022, 06:08:23 PM
I'm assuming that whole gantry is brand new also?

Judging by pre-2017 Street View footage (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.399645,-119.5141685,3a,90y,127.18h,90.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1soDgwN8pSSfrkVq4OQAMLhg!2e0!5s20150401T000000!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.399645,-119.5141685,3a,90y,127.18h,90.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1soDgwN8pSSfrkVq4OQAMLhg!2e0!5s20150401T000000!7i13312!8i6656)), this is the very first gantry at this exit! It used to be a sign on the ground before this one

Got it, that makes sense then.  Apparently Caltrans (maybe someone can expound on this) used internal exit tabs on existing gantries so it doesn't alter the wind load capacity.  A new gantry would be designed with a wind load factoring then external tab into the design.

Wow. If I didn't know better, I'd have no clue those were Caltrans signs. They look...normal.

Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on January 04, 2022, 05:52:12 PM
Coming back from the dead here (I always lurk but haven't posted anything here since 2015) to report that a reconstruction project on US-101 in Carpinteria has added some new BGSes with external exit tabs

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/HODTbqs8gHTpvuP9Jhv3ZE2QLBvVgmVIsJrfboaEQZgAgTB_rKsltbtEGWdIPiQU43rsbAhjff-Wr3pQQ_dCE8BSBfKbFkKQ0yO4imrykcXEDhhpHAcbMznP4Fqc14lzyAWEpclEnisUlzlYd9Jd5umn6tsM3R3luDZ2AL4xyOVxVBwqPa0pkq54YN4CH_5fPX3S-FzEZdP97qnoOw9SDz1dFZs9tqxwdVEyKtx6ZE2B2kL2mQcixIb5loxTfUvy02O-wWkrVConae1Aj4TGFMKpD3_cSumU1iJYMkCe3iiWdTFmKNYvazHq7sQH5LZbuQpRE3ctqg0ievQ5_Tzq4PS934apYn2I5kd7DM5Yps8VfvDSAGvDeAPsGs1UsrY-4tuvByDHu1Ktq2sLMYjdh4mBhxuRDltop_l57T7i_Lkekj5yj9-mNKvGvXWkNy8fb4uo06bWmaaVQg-kfSwazkweakfEJjkfILkyvBfjpAn2ofC3-oy7_Y6aTt5SUOgQP4dFyCEr3OHXx_FFw-4peRgdwmvOvTX-v0RIAAJ79WE63GTgUiqePjpjHGwPruyLQ1yE6J7tPbE4kvqsf-JBbxq0_cLlFO-6aSShZlNUFOeOWjQu5eV8Dvjf16H2-fQKK4xB3GSdqjRkS68qIWHiukCpI82Hg8eQEZmFrWOcZvf5vJPIz-taz3HZVWaUCseN2HkUbTov7cTNtviKsD-1OT0fgg=w2595-h1946-no?authuser=0)

There's several more signs like this along that stretch of road, so it looks like something that will be sticking around in California now

I can't see the picture.

Can't see the photo either. Looks like it might be linked to a private Google Photo?

I'm glad there's more of this, but it seems to vary greatly on Caltrans district to district. I reported in the CA catch-all thread that the I-580 Exit 12 supplementary guide sign has yet to be replaced (still has graffiti). This weekend my family and I went shopping at Livermore and I also noticed there were 3 more brown BGSes with internal exit tabs on I-580. So maybe District 4 hasn't caught on yet.

I happened to have showed the photo to someone else over Messenger, so I was able to rehost it.
(https://i.imgur.com/C7yClTh.png)

The signs are also visible in the latest streetview: https://goo.gl/maps/NSjBM42cqhte6Gyh7

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 04, 2022, 11:44:55 PM
I happened to have showed the photo to someone else over Messenger, so I was able to rehost it.
(https://i.imgur.com/C7yClTh.png)

The main sign being shorter than the gantry height looks sloppy

Quote from: SeriesE on January 06, 2022, 04:16:54 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 04, 2022, 11:44:55 PM
I happened to have showed the photo to someone else over Messenger, so I was able to rehost it.
(https://i.imgur.com/C7yClTh.png)

The main sign being shorter than the gantry height looks sloppy

Given Caltrans' past inclination for undersized signs and less-than-ideal sign layouts, I can more than forgive these sign panels not being as tall as the truss... These are gold standard in comparison to much of their past work.

This might actually be related to Caltrans' wind loading standards...

Quote from: roadfro on January 06, 2022, 10:39:49 PM

This might actually be related to Caltrans' wind loading standards...

Yeah, this sign truss is of the previous design (note there are no gusset plates) before the versatile truss was introduced and it doesn't meet the current wind loading standards.

Some projects were designed with external tabs before the versatile truss was available.  They all use this reduced panel design to meet wind loading standards.

Given the long lead time to design these projects, it will probably be a while until we see a project constructed that was initiated after the current sign and truss standards were introduced.

For example, the plans to widen US-101 between Novato and Petaluma use the versatile truss, but the sign panels still have internal tabs.

There's another external tab sign at CA-57 S signed for Lincoln Avenue.

Quote from: SeriesE on January 06, 2022, 04:16:54 PM
The main sign being shorter than the gantry height looks sloppy

Sign gantry height is supposed to have no bearing on the size of a sign panel. If it does, the sign is incorrectly laid out. According to MUTCD, sign panel size is dictated by the legend+margins and nothing else.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 18, 2022, 02:43:44 PM

Quote from: SeriesE on January 06, 2022, 04:16:54 PM
The main sign being shorter than the gantry height looks sloppy

Sign gantry height is supposed to have no bearing on the size of a sign panel. If it does, the sign is incorrectly laid out. According to MUTCD, sign panel size is dictated by the legend+margins and nothing else.

California's convention is to have the sign equal or taller than the gantry height, so that's why I felt it looked off when the sign is shorter than the gantry.

Quote from: SeriesE on January 18, 2022, 03:46:13 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 18, 2022, 02:43:44 PM

Quote from: SeriesE on January 06, 2022, 04:16:54 PM
The main sign being shorter than the gantry height looks sloppy

Sign gantry height is supposed to have no bearing on the size of a sign panel. If it does, the sign is incorrectly laid out. According to MUTCD, sign panel size is dictated by the legend+margins and nothing else.

California's convention is to have the sign equal or taller than the gantry height, so that's why I felt it looked off when the sign is shorter than the gantry.

California's convention is against the MUTCD.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 18, 2022, 03:49:32 PM

Quote from: SeriesE on January 18, 2022, 03:46:13 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 18, 2022, 02:43:44 PM

Quote from: SeriesE on January 06, 2022, 04:16:54 PM
The main sign being shorter than the gantry height looks sloppy

Sign gantry height is supposed to have no bearing on the size of a sign panel. If it does, the sign is incorrectly laid out. According to MUTCD, sign panel size is dictated by the legend+margins and nothing else.

California's convention is to have the sign equal or taller than the gantry height, so that's why I felt it looked off when the sign is shorter than the gantry.

California's convention is against the MUTCD.

Are you sure? The MUTCD certainly prescribes minimum standards for sign dimensions, but I'm fairly certain there's no rule prohibiting exceeding them. And California is certainly not the only state to use taller signs than necessary for aesthetic reasons.

Quote from: stevashe on January 18, 2022, 04:09:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 18, 2022, 03:49:32 PM

Quote from: SeriesE on January 18, 2022, 03:46:13 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 18, 2022, 02:43:44 PM

Quote from: SeriesE on January 06, 2022, 04:16:54 PM
The main sign being shorter than the gantry height looks sloppy

Sign gantry height is supposed to have no bearing on the size of a sign panel. If it does, the sign is incorrectly laid out. According to MUTCD, sign panel size is dictated by the legend+margins and nothing else.

California's convention is to have the sign equal or taller than the gantry height, so that's why I felt it looked off when the sign is shorter than the gantry.

California's convention is against the MUTCD.

Are you sure? The MUTCD certainly prescribes minimum standards for sign dimensions, but I'm fairly certain there's no rule prohibiting exceeding them. And California is certainly not the only state to use taller signs than necessary for aesthetic reasons.

There are definitely other agencies (I wanna say Ohio has adopted this now) that will make all signs on the same gantry the same height.

Quote from: Alps on January 18, 2022, 07:20:47 PM

Quote from: stevashe on January 18, 2022, 04:09:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 18, 2022, 03:49:32 PM

Quote from: SeriesE on January 18, 2022, 03:46:13 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 18, 2022, 02:43:44 PM

Quote from: SeriesE on January 06, 2022, 04:16:54 PM
The main sign being shorter than the gantry height looks sloppy

Sign gantry height is supposed to have no bearing on the size of a sign panel. If it does, the sign is incorrectly laid out. According to MUTCD, sign panel size is dictated by the legend+margins and nothing else.

California's convention is to have the sign equal or taller than the gantry height, so that's why I felt it looked off when the sign is shorter than the gantry.

California's convention is against the MUTCD.

Are you sure? The MUTCD certainly prescribes minimum standards for sign dimensions, but I'm fairly certain there's no rule prohibiting exceeding them. And California is certainly not the only state to use taller signs than necessary for aesthetic reasons.

There are definitely other agencies (I wanna say Ohio has adopted this now) that will make all signs on the same gantry the same height.

I feel like much of California's past convention on older signage has been that the sign height dictates the truss depth of the sign bridge... With every sign on the structure is the same height. But then if any sign on the gantry needs a change of legend later, it has to fit within the confines of the original sign.

I think this is starting to change with new sign and structure standards... But it's gonna take a long time to see a lot of significant changes in the field.


Count Nevada as one of those agencies where all signs on a gantry are typically the same height. There's a few one-off exceptions, but that's typically the rule...

Quote from: stevashe on January 18, 2022, 04:09:08 PM
Are you sure? The MUTCD certainly prescribes minimum standards for sign dimensions, but I'm fairly certain there's no rule prohibiting exceeding them. And California is certainly not the only state to use taller signs than necessary for aesthetic reasons.

Quote from: 2009 MUTCD §2E.14
Standard:
04 For all freeway and expressway signs that do not have a standardized design, the message dimensions shall be determined first, and the outside sign dimensions secondarily.

So deciding "all of our signs are going to be 90" tall" (or whatever) before the message dimensions have been determined is against the MUTCD. Deciding "all of the signs on this gantry are going to be the same height" before the message dimensions have been determined is against the MUTCD.

Now if you make the all of the signs equal to the maximum sign height, yeah, it's better than if you make them all too small and cram too much message onto one panel. But either way, it's equally wrong according to the rules, and making the signs too big is wasteful of materials and looks dumb.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 19, 2022, 02:46:49 AM

So deciding "all of our signs are going to be 90" tall" (or whatever) before the message dimensions have been determined is against the MUTCD.

I agree, California does this and it's wrong.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 19, 2022, 02:46:49 AMDeciding "all of the signs on this gantry are going to be the same height" before the message dimensions have been determined is against the MUTCD.

Now if you make the all of the signs equal to the maximum sign height, yeah, it's better than if you make them all too small and cram too much message onto one panel. But either way, it's equally wrong according to the rules, and making the signs too big is wasteful of materials and looks dumb.

Disagree. It's the same thing as states that use larger-than-standard signs in other cases, such as Wisconsin's arrows for route markers. FHWA has never really cared if a state exceeds the sign standards.

Case in point Georgia, Illinois, Texas, Michigan, etc all have provisions for BGS to be larger than necessary while still complying with minimum sign message and spacing standards. If the FHWA wanted signs to be the exact size for a standard then they would have cracked down on some of these states, but they clearly don't care.

Quote from: ran4sh on January 19, 2022, 01:12:54 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 19, 2022, 02:46:49 AM

So deciding "all of our signs are going to be 90" tall" (or whatever) before the message dimensions have been determined is against the MUTCD.

I agree, California does this and it's wrong.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 19, 2022, 02:46:49 AMDeciding "all of the signs on this gantry are going to be the same height" before the message dimensions have been determined is against the MUTCD.

Now if you make the all of the signs equal to the maximum sign height, yeah, it's better than if you make them all too small and cram too much message onto one panel. But either way, it's equally wrong according to the rules, and making the signs too big is wasteful of materials and looks dumb.

Disagree. It's the same thing as states that use larger-than-standard signs in other cases, such as Wisconsin's arrows for route markers. FHWA has never really cared if a state exceeds the sign standards.

Case in point Georgia, Illinois, Texas, Michigan, etc all have provisions for BGS to be larger than necessary while still complying with minimum sign message and spacing standards. If the FHWA wanted signs to be the exact size for a standard then they would have cracked down on some of these states, but they clearly don't care.

They haven't even cracked down on states taking decades to convert to mile-based exit numbers. They don't care in general.

It's worth noting that the MUTCD language in § 2E.14 does not actually mandate the use of uniform criteria for space padding, so Caltrans can claim it is complying on the basis that it is choosing truss depth (and thus the height of all signs on the structure) according to the height of the tallest legend block on the signs.

Plus, as has been noted, other state DOTs have their own ways of fudging the criteria.  For example, we're all used to three-quarters capital letter height for interline space padding, but Minnesota DOT allows this to vary from half to full capital letter height.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 19, 2022, 02:46:49 AM

Quote from: stevashe on January 18, 2022, 04:09:08 PM
Are you sure? The MUTCD certainly prescribes minimum standards for sign dimensions, but I'm fairly certain there's no rule prohibiting exceeding them. And California is certainly not the only state to use taller signs than necessary for aesthetic reasons.

Quote from: 2009 MUTCD §2E.14
Standard:
04 For all freeway and expressway signs that do not have a standardized design, the message dimensions shall be determined first, and the outside sign dimensions secondarily.

So deciding "all of our signs are going to be 90" tall" (or whatever) before the message dimensions have been determined is against the MUTCD. Deciding "all of the signs on this gantry are going to be the same height" before the message dimensions have been determined is against the MUTCD.

Now if you make the all of the signs equal to the maximum sign height, yeah, it's better than if you make them all too small and cram too much message onto one panel. But either way, it's equally wrong according to the rules, and making the signs too big is wasteful of materials and looks dumb.

The sentence you quoted only says that the message dimensions must be determined first, but I don't see how enlarging the height a sign after making sure there is enough room for the message violates this standard. As I said before, this standard ensures that the minimum size of the sign must be enough to fit the message and any required margins, but does not prohibit increasing said margins.

And I disagree with you, I think a short sign next to a tall one can look a bit sloppy sometimes, though it depends on the proportions :P

Different sign sizes only look sloppy to me if they're vertically centered. If the bottoms of them are aligned, it looks much more orderly.

Just seeing this; it's about time they switched! The in-set ones looked silly and childish..

Quote from: tolbs17 on March 04, 2022, 09:50:42 PM
Just seeing this; it's about time they switched! The in-set ones looked silly and childish..

How are you defining "childish?"   If you're here to complain about how Caltrans doesn't follow the MUTCD like North Carolina does then please leave.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2022, 09:53:55 PM

Quote from: tolbs17 on March 04, 2022, 09:50:42 PM
Just seeing this; it's about time they switched! The in-set ones looked silly and childish..

How are you defining "childish?"   If you're here to complain about how Caltrans doesn't follow the MUTCD like North Carolina does then please leave.

Not complaining. It was just odd that they were in-set of the sign. It was childish the put the exit numbers in-set the sign.

Quote from: tolbs17 on March 04, 2022, 09:57:26 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2022, 09:53:55 PM

Quote from: tolbs17 on March 04, 2022, 09:50:42 PM
Just seeing this; it's about time they switched! The in-set ones looked silly and childish..

How are you defining "childish?"   If you're here to complain about how Caltrans doesn't follow the MUTCD like North Carolina does then please leave.

Not complaining. It was just odd that they were in-set of the sign. It was childish the put the exit numbers in-set the sign.

I stand by my previous statement, please refrain from your nonsensical posts on this board.  Most of us here actually care about quality content and not spam.  "Childish"  isn't going to fit well with the serious threads and posts.

Also, if you had read up thread you would have noticed the wind loading issue with external tabs. 

When I was a child I put the tabs on the outside, so I don't really see how inset tabs are "childish".

Maybe putting tabs for left exits on the right. I did that a lot as a child.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2022, 10:01:47 PM

Quote from: tolbs17 on March 04, 2022, 09:57:26 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2022, 09:53:55 PM

Quote from: tolbs17 on March 04, 2022, 09:50:42 PM
Just seeing this; it's about time they switched! The in-set ones looked silly and childish..

How are you defining "childish?"   If you're here to complain about how Caltrans doesn't follow the MUTCD like North Carolina does then please leave.

Not complaining. It was just odd that they were in-set of the sign. It was childish the put the exit numbers in-set the sign.

I stand by my previous statement, please refrain from your nonsensical posts on this board.  Most of us here actually care about quality content and not spam.  "Childish"  isn't going to fit well with the serious threads and posts.

Also, if you had read up thread you would have noticed the wind loading issue with external tabs. 

I happen to agree that inset exit tabs look childish compared to external ones. Come at me.

Quote from: Alps on March 05, 2022, 01:12:57 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2022, 10:01:47 PM

Quote from: tolbs17 on March 04, 2022, 09:57:26 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2022, 09:53:55 PM

Quote from: tolbs17 on March 04, 2022, 09:50:42 PM
Just seeing this; it's about time they switched! The in-set ones looked silly and childish..

How are you defining "childish?"   If you're here to complain about how Caltrans doesn't follow the MUTCD like North Carolina does then please leave.

Not complaining. It was just odd that they were in-set of the sign. It was childish the put the exit numbers in-set the sign.

I stand by my previous statement, please refrain from your nonsensical posts on this board.  Most of us here actually care about quality content and not spam.  "Childish"  isn't going to fit well with the serious threads and posts.

Also, if you had read up thread you would have noticed the wind loading issue with external tabs. 

I happen to agree that inset exit tabs look childish compared to external ones. Come at me.

I mean hey, I think they look like total shit without external exit tabs.  But neither of us are posting empty calorie Google Street Views all of the forum are we?

"Childish" is not a category I would personally use for guide signs--even badly designed ones--but I do think the phaseout of bitten-out and strip-style tabs in favor of external tabs improves the aesthetics.

Driving around this weekend on I-680 where all of the gantries are monotube, it got me to wondering if we are ever going to see external exit tabs on monotube gantries.  I hope so, some of the signs in my area are busy and cluttered-looking with the internal exit tab.

Quote from: jdbx on March 07, 2022, 04:02:10 PM
Driving around this weekend on I-680 where all of the gantries are monotube, it got me to wondering if we are ever going to see external exit tabs on monotube gantries.  I hope so, some of the signs in my area are busy and cluttered-looking with the internal exit tab.

Not exit tabs per se, but the recent I-15 Express Lanes Project involved a series of monotube gantry sign installations with external "LEFT" tabs: https://goo.gl/maps/4QzchdLAnADbidiC9 (https://goo.gl/maps/4QzchdLAnADbidiC9)

Oh, and then there's this in SF with an external exit tab, although this was installed well before this new standard: https://goo.gl/maps/7z1ncTTkPaspnYwPA (https://goo.gl/maps/7z1ncTTkPaspnYwPA)

Saw a couple of new external exit tabs today, both for left-exits.

One is along I-580 eastbound at Buchanan Street in Albany, where an internal-tab sign had been replaced with a smaller sign for the street name legend, and an external Left Exit above it, but still with the gantry backing it.  Didn't get a photo.

I asked my dad to photograph the next one we saw, at I-80 west approaching Harrison Street exit in SF, and this is what it looks like:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51935853585_b7156c5616_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2n8oPRt)_DSC8137e (https://flic.kr/p/2n8oPRt) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51935313658_4323c67a51_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2n8m4mo)_DSC8138 (https://flic.kr/p/2n8m4mo) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr

Unrelated: I "like"  :pan: the "Br" thrown on to Golden Gate as an obvious later edit.

Quote from: TheStranger on March 13, 2022, 06:17:29 AM
Saw a couple of new external exit tabs today, both for left-exits.

One is along I-580 eastbound at Buchanan Street in Albany, where an internal-tab sign had been replaced with a smaller sign for the street name legend, and an external Left Exit above it, but still with the gantry backing it.  Didn't get a photo.

I asked my dad to photograph the next one we saw, at I-80 west approaching Harrison Street exit in SF, and this is what it looks like:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51935853585_b7156c5616_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2n8oPRt)_DSC8137e (https://flic.kr/p/2n8oPRt) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51935313658_4323c67a51_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2n8m4mo)_DSC8138 (https://flic.kr/p/2n8m4mo) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr

I noticed that same sign this past Saturday driving into SF for the Warriors game.  I guess this sign looks better than the previous inset tab, although there is something somewhat wrong with the aesthetic of the tab looking nearly as big as the sign itself.  For comparison:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7854186,-122.3917414,3a,75y,247.12h,91.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY17K5b_VAuL37huL3cfAMg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I like how that is clearly an exit tab on one of the old gantries. Yet it hasn't blown over.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 14, 2022, 05:26:10 PM
I like how that is clearly an exit tab on one of the old gantries. Yet it hasn't blown over.

I've never understood the wind loading excuse when LA had external exit tabs for decades and they didn't get blown away

Quote from: TheStranger on March 13, 2022, 06:17:29 AM
Saw a couple of new external exit tabs today, both for left-exits.

One is along I-580 eastbound at Buchanan Street in Albany, where an internal-tab sign had been replaced with a smaller sign for the street name legend, and an external Left Exit above it, but still with the gantry backing it.  Didn't get a photo.

I asked my dad to photograph the next one we saw, at I-80 west approaching Harrison Street exit in SF, and this is what it looks like:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51935853585_b7156c5616_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2n8oPRt)_DSC8137e (https://flic.kr/p/2n8oPRt) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51935313658_4323c67a51_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2n8m4mo)_DSC8138 (https://flic.kr/p/2n8m4mo) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr

So much blank space on that exit tab.

The federal MUTCD can't make up its mind about blank space/margins.

Some has too much blank space (around the text in exit tabs, APL signs, non-cutout US route signs) while others have not enough (number size in interstate/US route shields)

The number size issue is 100% on the states. The MUTCD-spec interstate shield has plenty of space.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/I-80.svg/240px-I-80.svg.png)

Some states make the numbers bigger than this. That's where the space issues come from.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 14, 2022, 09:11:40 PM
The number size issue is 100% on the states. The MUTCD-spec interstate shield has plenty of space.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/I-80.svg/240px-I-80.svg.png)

Some states make the numbers bigger than this. That's where the space issues come from.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/images/fig2e_05.gif These 3 digit shields look very cramped to me (or were the example figures from the MUTCD not accurate to the specs, which is possible?)

They're not accurate, no. According to the 2004 Standard Highway Signs book, three-digit shields are supposed to use Series C.

When it comes to the Interstate shield, there is often a tradeoff between having digits at consistent height and position and using an alphabet series with high legibility per unit of letter height.

Quote from: SeriesE on March 15, 2022, 02:37:45 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 14, 2022, 09:11:40 PM
The number size issue is 100% on the states. The MUTCD-spec interstate shield has plenty of space.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/I-80.svg/240px-I-80.svg.png)

Some states make the numbers bigger than this. That's where the space issues come from.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/images/fig2e_05.gif These 3 digit shields look very cramped to me (or were the example figures from the MUTCD not accurate to the specs, which is possible?)

They look fine to me. Some states default to D, some default to C, some do it number by number. NJDOT commonly uses D as shown.

It's good to hear that Caltrans is finally getting its act together, because I never liked the fact that it had unnumbered exits for many years, nor the exit tabs integrated into the signs. If anything, I'd rather have sequential exit numbering than no numbers at all.

In most cases, the internal exit numbers weren't all that bad. But whenever they tried to fit in an internal tab within the same space as a sign panel that already had a lot of legend/shields/arrows, it could get fairly ugly quickly. I am glad they are starting to incorporate external tabs though.

Quote from: Henry on March 16, 2022, 12:32:08 PM
It's good to hear that Caltrans is finally getting its act together, because I never liked the fact that it had unnumbered exits for many years, nor the exit tabs integrated into the signs. If anything, I'd rather have sequential exit numbering than no numbers at all.

Unfortunately, they're only placing exit numbers on certain freeways that were built after they decided to put in exit numbers. So, for example, CA-33 in Ventura, which was built before this change, does not have exit numbers, nor does it have any in the official CalTrans records.

The MUTCD requires exit numbers on all freeways, full stop. So eventually Caltrans will be required to add them, the same way they were obliged to fix the exit tabs. It's only a matter of when FHWA decides to show their teeth on that particular provision of the MUTCD.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 17, 2022, 12:30:47 PM
The MUTCD requires exit numbers on all freeways, full stop. So eventually Caltrans will be required to add them, the same way they were obliged to fix the exit tabs. It's only a matter of when FHWA decides to show their teeth on that particular provision of the MUTCD.

Isn't like 85% of California's freeway system already covered under exit numbering though? (after 21 years of the CalNEXUS program)

That's higher than other states that only number exits off Interstates and major freeways for instance.  Not perfect, but I don't know if CalTrans will ever prioritize this beyond what they are already doing.

Quote from: TheStranger on March 17, 2022, 06:13:26 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 17, 2022, 12:30:47 PM
The MUTCD requires exit numbers on all freeways, full stop. So eventually Caltrans will be required to add them, the same way they were obliged to fix the exit tabs. It's only a matter of when FHWA decides to show their teeth on that particular provision of the MUTCD.

Isn't like 85% of California's freeway system already covered under exit numbering though? (after 21 years of the CalNEXUS program)

That's higher than other states that only number exits off Interstates and major freeways for instance.  Not perfect, but I don't know if CalTrans will ever prioritize this beyond what they are already doing.

Not necessarily, if the "other" state's Interstates make up more than 85% of the total freeway system.

Quote from: RZF on March 17, 2022, 11:28:16 AMUnfortunately, they're only placing exit numbers on certain freeways that were built after they decided to put in exit numbers. So, for example, CA-33 in Ventura, which was built before this change, does not have exit numbers, nor does it have any in the official CalTrans records.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 17, 2022, 12:30:47 PMThe MUTCD requires exit numbers on all freeways, full stop. So eventually Caltrans will be required to add them, the same way they were obliged to fix the exit tabs. It's only a matter of when FHWA decides to show their teeth on that particular provision of the MUTCD.

I think that before FHWA starts chasing down Caltrans for not numbering five exits on the short freeway length of SR 33 in Ojai, the hammer will come down on Kansas DOT, which does not number exits on non-Interstate freeways at all and has no (known) plans to begin, despite having close to 200 centerline miles of them.

Quote from: RZF on March 17, 2022, 11:28:16 AM
Unfortunately, they're only placing exit numbers on certain freeways that were built after they decided to put in exit numbers. So, for example, CA-33 in Ventura, which was built before this change, does not have exit numbers, nor does it have any in the official CalTrans records.

I don't believe this is correct.  Cal-NExUS was started in 2002 and very few state route numbered freeways were built after that.  Plus, the Arroyo Seco Parkway, among others, had exit numbers added to it under Cal-NExUS and it was built 30 years before the Ojai Freeway.

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 25, 2022, 04:23:37 AM

Quote from: RZF on March 17, 2022, 11:28:16 AM
Unfortunately, they're only placing exit numbers on certain freeways that were built after they decided to put in exit numbers. So, for example, CA-33 in Ventura, which was built before this change, does not have exit numbers, nor does it have any in the official CalTrans records.

I don't believe this is correct.  Cal-NExUS was started in 2002 and very few state route numbered freeways were built after that.  Plus, the Arroyo Seco Parkway, among others, had exit numbers added to it under Cal-NExUS and it was built 30 years before the Ojai Freeway.

The Ojai Freeway doesn't have exit numbers.  Here is a photo album I shot last June:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/FheMeP

Does anyone actually know why the Ojai Freeway doesn't have exit numbers?

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 25, 2022, 12:34:46 PM
Does anyone actually know why the Ojai Freeway doesn't have exit numbers?

My assumption always has been that it just simply is a low priority freeway compared to everything else in Southern California.  I don't think there has ever been anything regarding putting exit numbers on the Ojai Freeway in any CTC meeting minutes. 

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 25, 2022, 12:36:28 PMMy assumption always has been that it just simply is a low priority freeway compared to everything else in Southern California.  I don't think there has ever been anything regarding putting exit numbers on the Ojai Freeway in any CTC meeting minutes.

I certainly wouldn't expect it to be a high priority for actual installation of exit number signs.  However, when exit numbers were introduced in 2002, they were roughed in and tabulated for nearly all freeways.  I've looked at the exit numbering policy and can't see a provision under which SR 33 wouldn't qualify for exit numbers.  This makes me suspect a technical and totally non-obvious reason, such as it being built as a freeway without actually being legally designated as such.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 25, 2022, 12:59:26 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 25, 2022, 12:36:28 PMMy assumption always has been that it just simply is a low priority freeway compared to everything else in Southern California.  I don't think there has ever been anything regarding putting exit numbers on the Ojai Freeway in any CTC meeting minutes.

I certainly wouldn't expect it to be a high priority for actual installation of exit number signs.  However, when exit numbers were introduced in 2002, they were roughed in and tabulated for nearly all freeways.  I've looked at the exit numbering policy and can't see a provision under which SR 33 wouldn't qualify for exit numbers.  This makes me suspect a technical and totally non-obvious reason, such as it being built as a freeway without actually being legally designated as such.

Certainly possible, much of the Ojai Freeway opened during December 1956.  That would pre-date the Freeway & Expressway System by several years. 

That said, Daniel does have the Ojai Freeway in the Freeway & Expressway System as designated in 1959.  This would include the unbuilt portion north from the current end of the Ojai Freeway to Ojai:

https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE033.html

Looking at the signage in my albums they pretty much all appear (at least northbound) too small to accommodate internal exit tabs.  I assume that means at some point the entire gantries will likely be up for replacement given the whole wind loading shenanigans stated above (this is a known Santa Ana Wind area).   Most of the signage appears to be late era button-copy designs.  I can see that being something pretty cost prohibitive to replace given the button-copy gantries probably are still within its designed service life. 

As TheStranger pointed out in the catch-all thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18416.msg2746234#msg2746234), Caltrans has replaced left exit signs on I-80 West in San Francisco with new signs that feature external left exit tabs. You read this right! Despite other signs on US 101 being replaced, all other new signs still have internal exit tabs.

Take note of the truss that these new signs are on and what they look like on GSV. I don't think they have changed, or maybe the truss on the first photo has changed slightly to support the left exit tab. The brown thing on the first photo next to the exit tab is a smudge on my car's windshield.

(https://i.imgur.com/BsACLdO.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/CJePGww.jpg)

An external tab I saw earlier in the month at I-5/Route 120 in Lathrop, it's been around for maybe 2+ years? 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52144755710_9c16632a09_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nrRvbf)_DSC6141 (https://flic.kr/p/2nrRvbf) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr

On the same drive, saw this external tabbed roadside sign on 99 north:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52144271191_4a3b569830_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nrP29t)_DSC6175c (https://flic.kr/p/2nrP29t) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr

Quote from: TheStranger on June 13, 2022, 04:48:58 PM
An external tab I saw earlier in the month at I-5/Route 120 in Lathrop, it's been around for maybe 2+ years? 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52144755710_9c16632a09_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nrRvbf)_DSC6141 (https://flic.kr/p/2nrRvbf) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr

On the same drive, saw this external tabbed roadside sign on 99 north:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52144271191_4a3b569830_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nrP29t)_DSC6175c (https://flic.kr/p/2nrP29t) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr

It's been around for at least seven years, having first been reported by myosh_tino (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16152.msg2084142#msg2084142). The Woodbridge Road BGS and exit tab has been around since at least 2007 !

It's a little interesting to compare these two tabs with the ones posted throughout this thread, it seems newer tabs are bigger

Hate that SECOND RIGHT, though.  :ded:

Those left exit tabs are ginormous! They seem much wider and a bit taller than necessary.

Quote from: roadfro on June 14, 2022, 12:28:34 AM
Those left exit tabs are ginormous! They seem much wider and a bit taller than necessary.

Federal MUTCD spec signs are not known for space efficiency.

Quote from: SeriesE on June 14, 2022, 02:20:43 AM

Quote from: roadfro on June 14, 2022, 12:28:34 AM
Those left exit tabs are ginormous! They seem much wider and a bit taller than necessary.

Federal MUTCD spec signs are not known for space efficiency.

I wonder how hard the aluminum companies are lobbying for those standards.

Didn't get a photo of it today, but the Century Freeway/I-105 has a very unusual external tab setup:

- Retroreflective signs on the overheads with no exit tabs originally, probably dating to the mid-early 2000s

- Exit tabs...on the vertical portion of the gantry, as opposed to above the sign.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9123794,-118.1795208,3a,28.7y,109.89h,86.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sh4gn35gaSJVCHiLa9fSQ9A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dh4gn35gaSJVCHiLa9fSQ9A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D2.1535583%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

I-210 has a couple of those in Sylmar.

Saw this external tab sign on Route 55 southbound in Orange!

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52184834963_dae4097d93_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvoVkR)_DSC8800c (https://flic.kr/p/2nvoVkR) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr

External tabs sighted on Friday on US 101 northbound in the Santa Barbara area, when me and my friend drove up from Orange County back home to the Bay:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52190967056_7be294f903_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvWmcA)_DSC9002 (https://flic.kr/p/2nvWmcA) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52190966971_c63c9be8d6_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvWmb8)_DSC9004 (https://flic.kr/p/2nvWmb8) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52191221804_1b0dda60eb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvXDVN)_DSC9008 (https://flic.kr/p/2nvXDVN) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr

Quote from: TheStranger on June 28, 2022, 10:20:19 PM
Didn't get a photo of it today, but the Century Freeway/I-105 has a very unusual external tab setup:

- Retroreflective signs on the overheads with no exit tabs originally, probably dating to the mid-early 2000s

- Exit tabs...on the vertical portion of the gantry, as opposed to above the sign.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9123794,-118.1795208,3a,28.7y,109.89h,86.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sh4gn35gaSJVCHiLa9fSQ9A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dh4gn35gaSJVCHiLa9fSQ9A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D2.1535583%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

That is a very weird setup, though not entirely unique. I-210 also has this arrangement near it's west terminus at I-5: https://goo.gl/maps/gX6euJKA6qcWuepv7

Quote from: TheStranger on July 03, 2022, 01:42:19 PM
External tabs sighted on Friday on US 101 northbound in the Santa Barbara area, when me and my friend drove up from Orange County back home to the Bay:

Nice of you to have also traveled on US 101 recently (I drove north on it from Paso Robles after clinching Highway 1 through Big Sur on Friday.) I didn't notice any new signs or exit tabs in MoCo. The incorrect county route signage on two BGSes (Referring to County Route 15/18 with the G region missing) are still there even. Seems like District 7 is putting up external exit tabs unlike District 5.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6468082,-121.3763803,3a,37.5y,215h,96.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQhh3OnbRL9OJU6j25o64_A!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Here's a recent one on I-80 in Sacramento with the "new" Caltrans truss system (the LEFT exit to Light Rail Stations) at Exit 94.

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on July 16, 2022, 04:20:27 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6468082,-121.3763803,3a,37.5y,215h,96.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQhh3OnbRL9OJU6j25o64_A!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Here's a recent one on I-80 in Sacramento with the "new" Caltrans truss system (the LEFT exit to Light Rail Stations) at Exit 94.

Looks almost like a MnDot assembly, minus the maint gantry... 

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on July 16, 2022, 04:20:27 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6468082,-121.3763803,3a,37.5y,215h,96.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQhh3OnbRL9OJU6j25o64_A!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Here's a recent one on I-80 in Sacramento with the "new" Caltrans truss system (the LEFT exit to Light Rail Stations) at Exit 94.

So I wasn't imagining things...

I was on my way home back to the S.F. Bay Area from Reno when I saw this.  It made me do a double-take as it was totally unexpected (but not enough to make me take the next exit so I could backtrack to see it again).  I did see an upcoming project on eastbound CA-237 where the new truss is to be used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRzZJO4VrMI

While I couldn't find an updated streetview image on this section of the project, the new southbound auxiliary lane on I-15 between exits 91 and 90 features the first new updated Caltrans external exits tabs on monotube gantries!

^
Capped from above:
(https://i.imgur.com/lA3VBkA.png)
OT: Ten years ago this half of this thread would be full of semi-toxic rage about how CalTrans is destroying Americana (or something about rust/ US 66)...

Quote from: on_wisconsin on July 29, 2022, 12:21:57 AM
OT: Ten years ago this half of this thread would be full of semi-toxic rage about how CalTrans is destroying Americana (or something about rust/ US 66)...

Of course, ten years ago would have been back when everything was button copy and we had really yet to see the depths of suck that the bitten-out exit tabs would end up causing. Once the button copy was gone, there was nothing left worth being protective over.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 01:47:27 PM

Quote from: on_wisconsin on July 29, 2022, 12:21:57 AM
OT: Ten years ago this half of this thread would be full of semi-toxic rage about how CalTrans is destroying Americana (or something about rust/ US 66)...

Of course, ten years ago would have been back when everything was button copy and we had really yet to see the depths of suck that the bitten-out exit tabs would end up causing. Once the button copy was gone, there was nothing left worth being protective over.

To be fair, 2009-2010 was when Sacramento first got a ton of retroreflective overhead BGS signage with internal tabs + exit number gore point signage (the pre-2020 single-post ones similar to the older, pre-number gore signage).

SF basically had exit numbers added for the first time ever on much of the Bayshore Freeway portion of US 101 this past year.  But a lot of the signage in town has already been retroreflective since 2000 or so, i.e. the portion of I-280 that still doesn't much in the way of number signing between Route 1 and Mariposa Street.

I was looking at Max's article (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/11/interstate-5-in-sacramento-river-canyon.html) on I-5 through the Sacramento River Canyon when I found... external exit tabs!!!!

Check his article for the photos, but northbound exits 685, 687, 689, 690 all have external exit tabs.

How old are these external exit tabs? Very old, I can see them in GSV since 2007.

Quote from: Techknow on August 12, 2022, 02:07:57 AM
I was looking at Max's article (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/11/interstate-5-in-sacramento-river-canyon.html) on I-5 through the Sacramento River Canyon when I found... external exit tabs!!!!

Check his article for the photos, but northbound exits 685, 687, 689, 690 all have external exit tabs.

How old are these external exit tabs? Very old, I can see them in GSV since 2007.

Those are post-mounted signs and not overhead signs, so those aren't as remarkable. Some Caltrans districts just added external tabs to existing post-mounted signs when the CalNExUS project started off in the mid-2000s as a quick, cheap way to get some exit numbers on the ground quickly without replacing signs.

The question is, why didn't they do external exit tabs on all post-mounted signs, considering it was cheaper, and wind loading isn't as much of a concern for a post-mounted sign?

Quote from: roadfro on August 12, 2022, 11:34:34 AM
Those are post-mounted signs and not overhead signs, so those aren't as remarkable. Some Caltrans districts just added external tabs to existing post-mounted signs when the CalNExUS project started off in the mid-2000s as a quick, cheap way to get some exit numbers on the ground quickly without replacing signs.

I see, I didn't know that was done in the past. That makes a lot of sense, TheStranger also posted external exit tabs in this topic that can also be seen in GSV circa 2007. It appears to have been done inconsistently though, like the exit tab experiment in LA at I-210 I think.

Scott5114 brings a good point too!

You've got a whole history of exit numbers at https://www.cahighways.org/num-exitnum.html

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 17, 2022, 12:30:47 PM
The MUTCD requires exit numbers on all freeways, full stop. So eventually Caltrans will be required to add them, the same way they were obliged to fix the exit tabs. It's only a matter of when FHWA decides to show their teeth on that particular provision of the MUTCD.

With that said, I'm curious as to if or when the FHWA will require CALTRANS to start installing standard mileposts on its highways in lieu of the current county postmile system the state currently uses. I recall that there are stretches of CA-58 and CA-14 in the Mojave area that use the green mileposts we're all familiar with, but those are the only two stretches of road I've seen them on in California.

Quote from: abqtraveler on August 19, 2022, 09:20:17 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 17, 2022, 12:30:47 PM
The MUTCD requires exit numbers on all freeways, full stop. So eventually Caltrans will be required to add them, the same way they were obliged to fix the exit tabs. It's only a matter of when FHWA decides to show their teeth on that particular provision of the MUTCD.

With that said, I'm curious as to if or when the FHWA will require CALTRANS to start installing standard mileposts on its highways in lieu of the current county postmile system the state currently uses. I recall that there are stretches of CA-58 and CA-14 in the Mojave area that use the green mileposts we're all familiar with, but those are the only two stretches of road I've seen them on in California.

I seem to recall CalTrans also has MUTCD-style standard milepost signs on US 6.

I think CalTrans has no desire to do standard mileposts whatsoever. They finally gave in on exit numbering, but I think they'd balk a little more on the mileposts...that would be an even more significant expense. Although they could gradually implement both...Nevada uses a system similar to California's county postmiles on all highways, but also uses the MUTCD standard mileposts on interstates (current practice is to use the enhanced mileposts with shields).

Quote from: roadfro on August 19, 2022, 11:33:35 AM

Quote from: abqtraveler on August 19, 2022, 09:20:17 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 17, 2022, 12:30:47 PM
The MUTCD requires exit numbers on all freeways, full stop. So eventually Caltrans will be required to add them, the same way they were obliged to fix the exit tabs. It's only a matter of when FHWA decides to show their teeth on that particular provision of the MUTCD.

With that said, I'm curious as to if or when the FHWA will require CALTRANS to start installing standard mileposts on its highways in lieu of the current county postmile system the state currently uses. I recall that there are stretches of CA-58 and CA-14 in the Mojave area that use the green mileposts we're all familiar with, but those are the only two stretches of road I've seen them on in California.

I seem to recall CalTrans also has MUTCD-style standard milepost signs on US 6.

I think CalTrans has no desire to do standard mileposts whatsoever. They finally gave in on exit numbering, but I think they'd balk a little more on the mileposts...that would be an even more significant expense. Although they could gradually implement both...Nevada uses a system similar to California's county postmiles on all highways, but also uses the MUTCD standard mileposts on interstates (current practice is to use the enhanced mileposts with shields).

Considering the fact that it is 20 years after CalNEXUS was announced and even now we do not have truly consistent exit numbering everywhere....  even if they declared an intention to begin installing MUTCD mileposts today, I would not expect that job to be complete within my lifetime, and I am "only" 43.

Quote from: abqtraveler on August 19, 2022, 09:20:17 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 17, 2022, 12:30:47 PM
The MUTCD requires exit numbers on all freeways, full stop. So eventually Caltrans will be required to add them, the same way they were obliged to fix the exit tabs. It's only a matter of when FHWA decides to show their teeth on that particular provision of the MUTCD.

With that said, I'm curious as to if or when the FHWA will require CALTRANS to start installing standard mileposts on its highways in lieu of the current county postmile system the state currently uses. I recall that there are stretches of CA-58 and CA-14 in the Mojave area that use the green mileposts we're all familiar with, but those are the only two stretches of road I've seen them on in California.

I doubt it. There are plenty of states that don't have any form of mileposts on conventional roads at all (e.g. Oklahoma). Other states have mileposts but don't use standard milepost signage for them (like Kansas) or all mileage signage is based on an internal reference scheme not really meant for public use (Texas).

If there's a change mandating the use of milemarkers on all roads, California wouldn't be the only state affected.

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 19, 2022, 07:13:39 PM

Quote from: abqtraveler on August 19, 2022, 09:20:17 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 17, 2022, 12:30:47 PM
The MUTCD requires exit numbers on all freeways, full stop. So eventually Caltrans will be required to add them, the same way they were obliged to fix the exit tabs. It's only a matter of when FHWA decides to show their teeth on that particular provision of the MUTCD.

With that said, I'm curious as to if or when the FHWA will require CALTRANS to start installing standard mileposts on its highways in lieu of the current county postmile system the state currently uses. I recall that there are stretches of CA-58 and CA-14 in the Mojave area that use the green mileposts we're all familiar with, but those are the only two stretches of road I've seen them on in California.

I doubt it. There are plenty of states that don't have any form of mileposts on conventional roads at all (e.g. Oklahoma). Other states have mileposts but don't use standard milepost signage for them (like Kansas) or all mileage signage is based on an internal reference scheme not really meant for public use (Texas).

If there's a change mandating the use of milemarkers on all roads, California wouldn't be the only state affected.

Nevada uses both Mile Markers and Postmiles also.  I see no need to remove the Postmiles in any scenario where Mile Markers become common in California. 

Quote from: roadfro on August 19, 2022, 11:33:35 AM

Quote from: abqtraveler on August 19, 2022, 09:20:17 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 17, 2022, 12:30:47 PM
The MUTCD requires exit numbers on all freeways, full stop. So eventually Caltrans will be required to add them, the same way they were obliged to fix the exit tabs. It's only a matter of when FHWA decides to show their teeth on that particular provision of the MUTCD.

With that said, I'm curious as to if or when the FHWA will require CALTRANS to start installing standard mileposts on its highways in lieu of the current county postmile system the state currently uses. I recall that there are stretches of CA-58 and CA-14 in the Mojave area that use the green mileposts we're all familiar with, but those are the only two stretches of road I've seen them on in California.

I seem to recall CalTrans also has MUTCD-style standard milepost signs on US 6.

Not sure about US 6 but the green mileposts on CA-58 were removed in 2016 at the request of the local Caltrans district.  IIRC the reason was they were too confusing for local law enforcement and the CHP when it came to locating incidents on the highway.

But then in late 2020, these appeared on a 3.5 mile stretch of CA-17 from the Santa Clara/Santa Cruz county line to just before the Lexington Reservoir...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fca17-milemarker.jpg&hash=1f2a347ac765d28605b75b3cd5b3008e0a50d62f)

Link to that particular discussion: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27944.0

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 19, 2022, 08:55:57 PM
Not sure about US 6 but the green mileposts on CA-58 were removed in 2016 at the request of the local Caltrans district.  IIRC the reason was they were too confusing for local law enforcement and the CHP when it came to locating incidents on the highway.

But then in late 2020, these appeared on a 3.5 mile stretch of CA-17 from the Santa Clara/Santa Cruz county line to just before the Lexington Reservoir...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fca17-milemarker.jpg&hash=1f2a347ac765d28605b75b3cd5b3008e0a50d62f)

Link to that particular discussion: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27944.0

Those signs may be green and use the standard enhanced milepost design, but they're still displaying the mileage from the county line, so they're really just re-skinned post miles rather than true mileposts. (For reference the total mileage at that picture is around 15.4)

^ Route mileage resetting at county lines is not unprecedented.  US 41 in Kentucky resets at county lines, as seen in the exit numbers around Henderson, and NY 5's mile markers on the Skyway only include Erie County mileage.

Quote from: jeffe on April 18, 2021, 07:55:15 PM
Digging a little deeper, it looks like right exits will have right aligned plaques and left exits will have left aligned plaques.  No center aligned plaques here. :p

Except, uh, Caltrans *has* been installing center aligned plaques, for some reason. I recently came across these two brand new side-mounted signs along US-101 in Santa Barbara County:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52308807275_8ad30c4fe6_k.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52307555277_7f31e46d36_k.jpg)

Quote from: joshI5 on August 24, 2022, 01:38:50 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52307555277_7f31e46d36_k.jpg)

Exhibit A of why I don't like the excess padding in MUTCD spec exit tabs. The minimum width of the sign is much larger. When the sign gets too narrow, the tab is going to be as wide as the regular sign, so that the visual hint of the left/right exit tabs won't work.

At least with the older California-spec tabs (when mounted separately), the sign can be much narrower before the same issue shows up.

Quote from: joshI5 on August 24, 2022, 01:38:50 PM

Quote from: jeffe on April 18, 2021, 07:55:15 PM
Digging a little deeper, it looks like right exits will have right aligned plaques and left exits will have left aligned plaques.  No center aligned plaques here. :p

Except, uh, Caltrans *has* been installing center aligned plaques, for some reason. I recently came across these two brand new side-mounted signs along US-101 in Santa Barbara County:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52308807275_8ad30c4fe6_k.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52307555277_7f31e46d36_k.jpg)

I suspect they installed those exit tabs that way to utilize the existing sign supports for the exit tab, rather than having to add more steel posts to connect the exit tab to the main sign panel if it were right-aligned like in most other states.  Needless to say, there are a lot of states that have a lot of center-aligned exit tabs, although the latest MUTCD appears to frown upon center-aligned exit tabs.

It's not just the latest MUTCD that contains a recommendation for right exits to use right-side exit tabs. It's the latest three or four editions. Maybe five.

Quote from: abqtraveler on August 30, 2022, 08:42:36 AM

Quote from: joshI5 on August 24, 2022, 01:38:50 PM

Quote from: jeffe on April 18, 2021, 07:55:15 PM
Digging a little deeper, it looks like right exits will have right aligned plaques and left exits will have left aligned plaques.  No center aligned plaques here. :p

Except, uh, Caltrans *has* been installing center aligned plaques, for some reason. I recently came across these two brand new side-mounted signs along US-101 in Santa Barbara County:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52308807275_8ad30c4fe6_k.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52307555277_7f31e46d36_k.jpg)

I suspect they installed those exit tabs that way to utilize the existing sign supports for the exit tab, rather than having to add more steel posts to connect the exit tab to the main sign panel if it were right-aligned like in most other states.  Needless to say, there are a lot of states that have a lot of center-aligned exit tabs, although the latest MUTCD appears to frown upon center-aligned exit tabs.

Yup, it looks kind of cheesy like they were doing it on-the-cheap, but I still prefer this to the internal tabs.  I never liked the internal tabs and will say good riddance to see them go, no matter what not-quite-standard form that may take, such as this.

Quote from: SeriesE on August 24, 2022, 02:54:08 PM
Exhibit A of why I don't like the excess padding in MUTCD spec exit tabs. The minimum width of the sign is much larger. When the sign gets too narrow, the tab is going to be as wide as the regular sign, so that the visual hint of the left/right exit tabs won't work.

Sometimes, it's just unavoidable though, even if there isn't padding in the tab. Not California, but Exhibit B (https://goo.gl/maps/umYHT3596Q57F9Zb6).

But I totally agree with you on the exit tab padding that seems to be common as of late. It's crept in to Nevada in a few spots recently, and it just seems unnecessary.

Am I the only one who doesn't care about the alignment of the exit tab?  Doesn't matter one bit to me.

Are you saying that pedantry is unacceptable on a roadgeek board? At long last, sir, have you no sense of decency?

Quote from: kphoger on September 01, 2022, 02:55:11 PM
Am I the only one who doesn't care about the alignment of the exit tab?  Doesn't matter one bit to me.

If the exit tab alignment was consistently followed based on the side of the exit, then there's no need for those stupid LEFT plaques/tabs for left exits that have been popping up recently.

Quote from: SeriesE on September 02, 2022, 01:20:58 AM

Quote from: kphoger on September 01, 2022, 02:55:11 PM
Am I the only one who doesn't care about the alignment of the exit tab?  Doesn't matter one bit to me.

If the exit tab alignment was consistently followed based on the side of the exit, then there's no need for those stupid LEFT plaques/tabs for left exits that have been popping up recently.

I am extremely skeptical that drivers have any concept of the reasoning behind exit tab placement.

To answer kphoger: I couldn't care less. WSDOT continues to install full-width centered exit tabs (that are, design wise, seemingly part of the main sign panel), and they're as readable and intuitive as any exit tab out there. WSDOT uses an inset "LEFT" banner to the left of the exit and number, and that works perfectly in the extremely rare occasion of a left exit (at least in WA).

Quote from: SeriesE on September 02, 2022, 01:20:58 AM

Quote from: kphoger on September 01, 2022, 02:55:11 PM
Am I the only one who doesn't care about the alignment of the exit tab?  Doesn't matter one bit to me.

If the exit tab alignment was consistently followed based on the side of the exit, then there's no need for those stupid LEFT plaques/tabs for left exits that have been popping up recently.

Nope.  Watching Caltrans try to figure out whether to place left, right, or center exit tabs for an exit with diverging ramps is like watching the opening of History of The World, Part I.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 02, 2022, 01:31:16 AM
WSDOT uses an inset "LEFT" banner to the left of the exit and number, and that works perfectly in the extremely rare occasion of a left exit (at least in WA).

That's my preference as well if LEFT has to be used. However, this has been officially banned in the latest MUTCD revision. LEFT needs to be in its own line above the exit number.

Quote from: SeriesE on September 02, 2022, 01:20:58 AM

Quote from: kphoger on September 01, 2022, 02:55:11 PM
Am I the only one who doesn't care about the alignment of the exit tab?  Doesn't matter one bit to me.

If the exit tab alignment was consistently followed based on the side of the exit, then there's no need for those stupid LEFT plaques/tabs for left exits that have been popping up recently.

Am I the only one who doesn't care about LEFT plaques?  Don't bother me one bit.

Quote from: kphoger on September 02, 2022, 09:40:43 AM

Quote from: SeriesE on September 02, 2022, 01:20:58 AM

Quote from: kphoger on September 01, 2022, 02:55:11 PM
Am I the only one who doesn't care about the alignment of the exit tab?  Doesn't matter one bit to me.

If the exit tab alignment was consistently followed based on the side of the exit, then there's no need for those stupid LEFT plaques/tabs for left exits that have been popping up recently.

Am I the only one who doesn't care about LEFT plaques?  Don't bother me one bit.

The old Caltrans internal tabs didn't bother me either, but it did bother a lot of people on this forum and FHWA.  :spin:

Quote from: SeriesE on September 02, 2022, 11:32:13 AM

The old Caltrans internal tabs didn't bother me either, but it did bother a lot of people on this forum and FHWA.  :spin:

I'm 100% on board with your point of view too.

What amuses me is how CalTrans in SF has installed the new external tabs for two I-80 left exits westbound into SF (complete with the LEFT label above the exit number) but in the last few months, ALSO has installed new internal-tabbed signs on US 101/Bayshore Freeway just a mile or two from that same area!

I'm not a fan of LEFT worded tabs myself but that only works with a properly aligned tab on every sign. Too often that doesn't happen, and that gave us what we have now.

Quote from: TheStranger on September 03, 2022, 01:40:00 PM
What amuses me is how CalTrans in SF has installed the new external tabs for two I-80 left exits westbound into SF (complete with the LEFT label above the exit number) but in the last few months, ALSO has installed new internal-tabbed signs on US 101/Bayshore Freeway just a mile or two from that same area!

If Caltrans is anything, they're consistently inconsistent.

Quote from: Alps on September 03, 2022, 10:50:52 PM
I'm not a fan of LEFT worded tabs myself but that only works with a properly aligned tab on every sign. Too often that doesn't happen, and that gave us what we have now.

Or you get the states that insist on using centered or full-width tabs...

When 99.5% of your freeway exits on the right, there is really nothing to be gained from justified exit tabs. The half dozen left exits can have those "LEFT"  plaques to the left of "EXIT" .

I get why the FHWA is mental about this. Some states have a ridiculous number of left exits. Washington is not one of those states.

Quote from: cl94 on September 03, 2022, 11:12:28 PM
Or you get the states that insist on using centered or full-width tabs...

Speaking of which, there was a period where the exit tab was full width like this (as an alternative implementation):
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4482066,-121.9215058,3a,75y,352.25h,83.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sR8Aa9GfNS2FDSYcs2FGHuA!2e0!5s20160201T000000!7i13312!8i6656

This pretty much functions like a full width tab but with context of which side the exit is on. I wonder if the people from other states had beef with this design.

I've seen Caltrans use signs like that in a few places. They're not my favorite because I'm not a fan of the borderless dead space in the upper left, it just looks sloppy.

Also I'd say this is really just a modified version of the internal tab design (since it's the same exact design, just with the main sign border drawn below the exit tab instead of at the outside edge of the sign).

Quote from: SeriesE on September 06, 2022, 02:55:25 PM

Quote from: cl94 on September 03, 2022, 11:12:28 PM
Or you get the states that insist on using centered or full-width tabs...

Speaking of which, there was a period where the exit tab was full width like this (as an alternative implementation):
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4482066,-121.9215058,3a,75y,352.25h,83.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sR8Aa9GfNS2FDSYcs2FGHuA!2e0!5s20160201T000000!7i13312!8i6656

This pretty much functions like a full width tab but with context of which side the exit is on. I wonder if the people from other states had beef with this design.

I personally don't care for that approach when I've seen it in other states. It does nothing to differentiate the silhouette of the sign between left and right exits, which is useful in certain low-light situations.

The one time I passed through downtown Columbus, it was on I-70 westbound near sunset. They had a bunch of signs like that at the time, and it made lane choice noticeably more challenging since I couldn't tell the difference between left- and right-tabbed signs as easily as I was accustomed to.

Quote from: jakerootI get why the FHWA is mental about this. Some states have a ridiculous number of left exits. Washington is not one of those states.

Oklahoma has a few left exits on its Interstates, some of which can be real doozies.

The one I hate the most is in the Tulsa area, Exit 221 on WB I-44 going out the SW side of Tulsa.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.076141,-96.0527673,3a,75y,236.29h,94.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBVojKs_FSkQH01FNVGLl8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

That exit really sucks because it can be very deceptive if your brain is running the slightest bit on auto-pilot. On two different occasions driving through there I've mistakenly gone left when I should have gone right. I was really pissed off the second time I did it. You have to drive 4 miles down OK-66 (and thru 5 traffic signals) to get another crack at getting on the I-44 turnpike Westbound. One problem is the left exit for OK-66 is 2 lanes wide; it shifts downward and to the left under a bridge. It looks like that's where the Interstate is going. Plus there is a right exit ramp for 57th W. Avenue. The two main lanes for I-44 follow in the direction of that right exit ramp. The highway split looks like the Interstate goes to the left when it really goes right. The signs are the critical clue, but the three different panels aren't big at all and they're all crammed close together.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 08, 2022, 03:31:59 PM

Quote from: jakerootI get why the FHWA is mental about this. Some states have a ridiculous number of left exits. Washington is not one of those states.

Oklahoma has a few left exits on its Interstates, some of which can be real doozies.

The one I hate the most is in the Tulsa area, Exit 221 on WB I-44 going out the SW side of Tulsa.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.076141,-96.0527673,3a,75y,236.29h,94.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBVojKs_FSkQH01FNVGLl8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

That exit really sucks because it can be very deceptive if your brain is running the slightest bit on auto-pilot. On two different occasions driving through there I've mistakenly gone left when I should have gone right. I was really pissed off the second time I did it. You have to drive 4 miles down OK-66 (and thru 5 traffic signals) to get another crack at getting on the I-44 turnpike Westbound. One problem is the left exit for OK-66 is 2 lanes wide; it shifts downward and to the left under a bridge. It looks like that's where the Interstate is going. Plus there is a right exit ramp for 57th W. Avenue. The two main lanes for I-44 follow in the direction of that right exit ramp. The highway split looks like the Interstate goes to the left when it really goes right. The signs are the critical clue, but the three different panels aren't big at all and they're all crammed close together.

So many things wrong with that area:
1. Lack of short and thick dashed line to the right of lane 1 to indicate an exiting lane
2. Guidance sign for exit 221B not using up arrows and lack of "exit only" plaques
3. Guidance sign for exit 221A posted too early. It either needs to be removed or that particular sign should have "1/4 mile" instead of the up arrow. Main exit guidance sign should be posted at the gore of exit 221A.

And dancing arrows.  Yuck.

On the bright side of things ODOT and/or OTA are in the early stages of construction to modernize that interchange as well as widen I-44 in that area. I think the end result will be WB OK-66 no longer having a left exit off WB I-44, but rather a 2-lane exit to the right with a new overpass to go over I-44 to get to New Sapulpa Road. I haven't seen the final schematic, but I'm wondering if that existing right exit to 57th W Avenue will get eliminated by the new OK-66 off ramp and overpass.

The I-40/I-44 interchange in OKC has four left exit ramps. They're in close proximity to right exit ramps. At least that interchange isn't as confusing, but traffic weaving conflicts are an issue. That interchange is pretty old and should be replaced with a modern 4-level directional stack design.

Of course that particular interchange design probably dates to when US-66 into Sapulpa was the through movement, and bearing right would put you on the brand-new unnumbered Turner Turnpike. What is an Interstate?

I drove to Santa Cruz today and found another left exit external exit tab on CA 1/CA 17 at the "fishhook" interchange! It's also on GSV since this September, but the prior streetview to that was in 2019 so it's unclear when new signs were installed.

Compared to the left exit tabs in I-80 in SF, the LEFT yellow area is centered and the sign has rounded corners. These small differences could have to do with this sign being in Caltrans District 5

(https://i.imgur.com/DDRJV8G.jpg)

Wow. That is hideous.

What's wrong with it?  I think it looks nicer than what's been typical in the past of CalTrans signage.

It's not a perfect layout by any means (too short a panel for the "Ocean St Beaches" message; cramped line spacing). But the overhead sign definitely looks a lot better than a bunch of the patch-job looking junk all too plentiful on California's highways.

Quote from: vdeane on November 21, 2022, 12:43:46 PM
What's wrong with it?  I think it looks nicer than what's been typical in the past of CalTrans signage.

The exit tab is hideously oversized, for one thing. Way wider than it needs to be. It's hard to tell, but I think the text on the tab is larger than standard as well.

Quote from: roadfro on November 21, 2022, 10:11:17 PM

Quote from: vdeane on November 21, 2022, 12:43:46 PM
What's wrong with it?  I think it looks nicer than what's been typical in the past of CalTrans signage.

The exit tab is hideously oversized, for one thing. Way wider than it needs to be. It's hard to tell, but I think the text on the tab is larger than standard as well.

I noticed the same things. Everything about it seems way oversized.

I wasn't sure what to think of it because I haven't seen much examples of left exit external tabs so I decided to do some research...

Here are some photos of left exit external tabs at the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.msg2358384#msg2358384)

Looking at those photos especially the I-95/I-276 split, I think those signs got a lot of things right. I do think the Exit 442 tab is oversized, but the "LEFT" text is still aligned with the "EXIT" text which makes it better than the internal left exit tabs I have seen. But the sign right below could have been better. The yellow exit rectangle shape should have taken up the whole width of the sign, and the CA 1 sign has the same problem too.

So... baby steps I guess?

Quote from: Techknow on November 22, 2022, 09:52:38 PM
I wasn't sure what to think of it because I haven't seen much examples of left exit external tabs so I decided to do some research...

Here are some photos of left exit external tabs at the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.msg2358384#msg2358384)

Looking at those photos especially the I-95/I-276 split, I think those signs got a lot of things right. I do think the Exit 442 tab is oversized, but the "LEFT" text is still aligned with the "EXIT" text which makes it better than the internal left exit tabs I have seen. But the sign right below could have been better. The yellow exit rectangle shape should have taken up the whole width of the sign, and the CA 1 sign has the same problem too.

So... baby steps I guess?

I don't recall California having adopted the federal MUTCD, so I don't think full-width exit/only plaques would be appropriate. California's inset exit only plaques look a little better in my opinion anyways, I like having a single color for the sign border.

When you are referring to the other internal left exit tabs, could you provide an example? Do you mean the square ones, where it says "LEFT" and then "EXIT" below that, and the exit number below that? Or a wider one where it says "LEFT EXIT xxx" all in one line? I think the latter example, where everything is one line, is still my preference. The MUTCD-style left exit tabs look stupid, they're like the same height as some guide signs.

Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2022, 10:31:28 PM
I don't recall California having adopted the federal MUTCD, so I don't think full-width exit/only plaques would be appropriate. California's inset exit only plaques look a little better in my opinion anyways, I like having a single color for the sign border.

Yeah that's a good point that Caltrans deviates from the federal MUTCD, although they last updated their MUTCD 18 months ago. I haven't look at it yet but I like to see how it describes exit tab implementations.

Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2022, 10:31:28 PM
When you are referring to the other internal left exit tabs, could you provide an example? Do you mean the square ones, where it says "LEFT" and then "EXIT" below that, and the exit number below that? Or a wider one where it says "LEFT EXIT xxx" all in one line? I think the latter example, where everything is one line, is still my preference. The MUTCD-style left exit tabs look stupid, they're like the same height as some guide signs.

When I said "I haven't seen much examples of left exit external tabs" I meant the left exit external tabs on I-80 in San Francisco (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29046.msg2746237#msg2746237). Those and this one on CA 1 are the only external exit tabs I ever seen in California and they are the square-like ones that use two lines of text. The I-95 photos I linked also show tabs of that variety.

Having said that I have been to other states and D.C. in my life and yes there are external exit tabs there... but I wasn't obsessed about exit tabs like I am now.

Quote from: Techknow on November 22, 2022, 11:30:46 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2022, 10:31:28 PM
When you are referring to the other internal left exit tabs, could you provide an example? Do you mean the square ones, where it says "LEFT" and then "EXIT" below that, and the exit number below that? Or a wider one where it says "LEFT EXIT xxx" all in one line? I think the latter example, where everything is one line, is still my preference. The MUTCD-style left exit tabs look stupid, they're like the same height as some guide signs.

When I said "I haven't seen much examples of left exit external tabs" I meant the left exit external tabs on I-80 in San Francisco (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29046.msg2746237#msg2746237). Those and this one on CA 1 are the only external exit tabs I ever seen in California and they are the square-like ones that use two lines of text. The I-95 photos I linked also show tabs of that variety.

Having said that I have been to other states and D.C. in my life and yes there are external exit tabs there... but I wasn't obsessed about exit tabs like I am now.

I thought you were referring to other internal left exit tabs that you've seen, unless this was a mistake:

Quote from: Techknow on November 22, 2022, 09:52:38 PM
... but the "LEFT" text is still aligned with the "EXIT" text which makes it better than the internal left exit tabs I have seen.

I thought every state had to adopt the MUTCD, but have been free to add their own huge supplements to it.

Quote from: Rothman on November 23, 2022, 06:51:49 AM
I thought every state had to adopt the MUTCD, but have been free to add their own huge supplements to it.

Then we should trade California for that part of Canada where everyone lives.  Then we could get rid of the unacceptably long 80/90 concurrency.  I don't know how you guys can even sleep at night.  This solution is obvious.  I think this is needed.

Quote from: kphoger on November 23, 2022, 10:13:40 AM

Quote from: Rothman on November 23, 2022, 06:51:49 AM
I thought every state had to adopt the MUTCD, but have been free to add their own huge supplements to it.

Then we should trade California for that part of Canada where everyone lives.  Then we could get rid of the unacceptably long 80/90 concurrency.  I don't know how you guys can even sleep at night.  This solution is obvious.  I think this is needed.

I can only sleep after I drink heavily.  Having knowledge about what needs to be done to break up the I-80/I-90 concurrency and not acting weighs on the soul after awhile.

Quote from: Rothman on November 23, 2022, 06:51:49 AM
I thought every state had to adopt the MUTCD, but have been free to add their own huge supplements to it.

I don't think there has ever been a requirement that a state adopt any MUTCD (federal or state), but for obvious reasons, it's in their best interest to do so.

There are states, like Washington, or Arizona, that have adopted the federal MUTCD but have their own supplement (either in-line modifications, like Alaska, or a literal extra document(s) like in Washington State). But there are other states, like California, that literally have their own MUTCD ("California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices") that is, by and large, substantially similar to the federal MUTCD, but is fundamentally different in numerous ways. Not so different that drivers are confused when they travel in California compared to other parts of the US, but different enough that we, and the engineers who put it together, will notice and, in some cases, appreciate.

Quote from: jakeroot on November 24, 2022, 04:57:53 AM

Quote from: Rothman on November 23, 2022, 06:51:49 AM
I thought every state had to adopt the MUTCD, but have been free to add their own huge supplements to it.

I don't think there has ever been a requirement that a state adopt any MUTCD (federal or state), but for obvious reasons, it's in their best interest to do so.

There are states, like Washington, or Arizona, that have adopted the federal MUTCD but have their own supplement (either in-line modifications, like Alaska, or a literal extra document(s) like in Washington State). But there are other states, like California, that literally have their own MUTCD ("California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices") that is, by and large, substantially similar to the federal MUTCD, but is fundamentally different in numerous ways. Not so different that drivers are confused when they travel in California compared to other parts of the US, but different enough that we, and the engineers who put it together, will notice and, in some cases, appreciate.

There is a requirement for states to adopt the national MUTCD or a state supplement, at least according to this page on their website:

Quote from: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/state_info/index.htm
MUTCDs & Traffic Control Devices Information by State

The 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Edition was published on December 16, 2009. The adopted changes were effective on January 15, 2010. 23 CFR provides the States with a 2-year period from the effective date to adopt the MUTCD. Therefore, by January 15, 2012 States were required to have adopted the National Manual or have a State MUTCD/supplement that is in substantial conformance with the National Manual. The role of our 52 FHWA Division Offices (50 States plus Puerto Rico and Washington D.C.) is to review any State MUTCD or supplement to determine if it is in substantial conformance with the National MUTCD. [23CFR 655.603(b)]

I didn't go reading through the Code of Federal Regulations to confirm, but I've understood that the adoption/substantial conformance requirement is tied to distribution of federal highway funding. So I guess it's not a strict requirement, but states risk losing funding if they don't.

Quote from: roadfro on November 25, 2022, 01:27:02 PM
I didn't go reading through the Code of Federal Regulations to confirm, but I've understood that the adoption/substantial conformance requirement is tied to distribution of federal highway funding. So I guess it's not a strict requirement, but states risk losing funding if they don't.

That's more or less what I was getting at when I said "...for obvious reasons, it's in their best interest to do so". If a state chooses to go it their own, well, they are totally free to do that. But they shouldn't expect a cent from federal coffers.

I think a bigger issue might actually be states putting themselves in an actionable position by doing things their own way. If Texas decided to adopt Vienna regulatory signage, they certainly could...nothing is physically stopping them. But if an accident were to occur, the state could be found liable for failing to install FHWA-approved signage, which they are required to do. Court cases like that are ultimately what could force a state's hand in the end.

I just saw these new exit tabs on CA-91 in Buena Park (CA-39 interchange).

Quote from: jakeroot on November 25, 2022, 07:08:03 PM

Quote from: roadfro on November 25, 2022, 01:27:02 PM
I didn't go reading through the Code of Federal Regulations to confirm, but I've understood that the adoption/substantial conformance requirement is tied to distribution of federal highway funding. So I guess it's not a strict requirement, but states risk losing funding if they don't.

That's more or less what I was getting at when I said "...for obvious reasons, it's in their best interest to do so". If a state chooses to go it their own, well, they are totally free to do that. But they shouldn't expect a cent from federal coffers.

I think a bigger issue might actually be states putting themselves in an actionable position by doing things their own way. If Texas decided to adopt Vienna regulatory signage, they certainly could...nothing is physically stopping them. But if an accident were to occur, the state could be found liable for failing to install FHWA-approved signage, which they are required to do. Court cases like that are ultimately what could force a state's hand in the end.

Sure, but it doesn't sound like this has been an issue for California.

Most of California's deviations from the federal manual are to guide signage and route markers. It'd be pretty hard to make a case that someone got in a wreck because of an internal exit tab or a cutout US route marker.

Indeed. And I was referring specifically to cases where states were installing signage and/or markings that were not approved by the FHWA; California has received approval for everything that they do, so they should be shielded from any legal action.

So these signs went up on southbound CA-85 in south San Jose a few weeks ago.  I believe this is the first installation of the new versatile truss in Santa Clara County.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F85s_VersTruss.png&hash=003cc63f541fa6190718987bd1eae4fa7e7cee55)

Interesting to note the HOV-to-HOV connector ramp is signed with an exit number even though during Caltrans' initial roll out of exit numbering in California, these types of ramps were not supposed to numbered.

Quote from: myosh_tino on November 27, 2022, 02:48:45 PM
So these signs went up on southbound CA-85 in south San Jose a few weeks ago.  I believe this is the first installation of the new versatile truss in Santa Clara County.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F85s_VersTruss.png&hash=003cc63f541fa6190718987bd1eae4fa7e7cee55)

Interesting to note the HOV-to-HOV connector ramp is signed with an exit number even though during Caltrans' initial roll out of exit numbering in California, these types of ramps were not supposed to numbered.

I wonder if anyone can estimate the size of the exit tab from this picture

- sign for right exit
- on right side of the gantry
- with arrow pointing right

Clearly the arrow needs to go on the left edge of the sign. Great going, Caltrans.

Quote from: SeriesE on November 27, 2022, 03:49:54 PM
I wonder if anyone can estimate the size of the exit tab from this picture

They look to be identical to the federal 2012 spec for exit tabs to me. If so that would make them 132" × 30".

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 27, 2022, 04:11:16 PM
- sign for right exit
- on right side of the gantry
- with arrow pointing right

Clearly the arrow needs to go on the left edge of the sign. Great going, Caltrans.

I think that arrow is supposed to be centered over the far right lane.

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 27, 2022, 04:11:16 PM

Quote from: SeriesE on November 27, 2022, 03:49:54 PM
I wonder if anyone can estimate the size of the exit tab from this picture

They look to be identical to the federal 2012 spec for exit tabs to me. If so that would make them 132" × 30".

I agree 100%.

Quote from: myosh_tino on November 27, 2022, 02:48:45 PM
So these signs went up on southbound CA-85 in south San Jose a few weeks ago.  I believe this is the first installation of the new versatile truss in Santa Clara County.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F85s_VersTruss.png&hash=003cc63f541fa6190718987bd1eae4fa7e7cee55)

Interesting to note the HOV-to-HOV connector ramp is signed with an exit number even though during Caltrans' initial roll out of exit numbering in California, these types of ramps were not supposed to numbered.

Oh wow... I was on CA 85 last week but exited on CA 17 to Santa Cruz (where I got my left exit external tab photo!).

I don't have a photo of this location before the signs got replaced, but I do have a photo of the BGS past it (after exit 1C) so I be curious to see how it has changed (besides any new exit tabs, whether or not the whole BGS has US 101 which I thought was redundant): https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11212.msg2667421#msg2667421

If it were not for the confirmation that the exit tabs are FHWA-spec signs, I would have said they look too big compared to Caltrans' internal exit tabs (or maybe the internal exit tabs are too small for the last 20 years?)

The Exit 1A sign seems to have the same text placement as the exit 2B sign on I-80 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29046.msg2746237#msg2746237) which makes sense to me b/c both are in Caltrans District 4

Your HOV sign observation is interesting too b/c in my old photo the HOV sign isn't numbered so it's possible Caltrans is setting another new precedent for themselves?

Quote from: myosh_tino on November 27, 2022, 05:51:36 PM
I think that arrow is supposed to be centered over the far right lane.

That's not how exit direction signs are supposed to work...

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 27, 2022, 09:51:27 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on November 27, 2022, 05:51:36 PM
I think that arrow is supposed to be centered over the far right lane.

That's not how exit direction signs are supposed to work...

I thought there was something in the MUTCD where arrows on overhead signs were supposed to be positioned above the center of the lane but I guess I'm mistaken.

As for an alternative reason why this was done, the old sign had the arrow in the same position (lower left corner).
GMSV of old signs... https://goo.gl/maps/NBWXYVX5z4KVumwG9 (https://goo.gl/maps/NBWXYVX5z4KVumwG9)

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 27, 2022, 09:51:27 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on November 27, 2022, 05:51:36 PM
I think that arrow is supposed to be centered over the far right lane.

That's not how exit direction signs are supposed to work...

They're using MUTCD-spec exit tabs, so they had to get a little "Caltrans-y" with the signs somehow...!

Agreed that the arrow is likely centered over the lane in this context, which Caltrans is want to do fairly frequently even when a standard exit direction sign and arrow would suffice.


The HOV exit sign leaves a lot to be desired. They're still using the full height diamond symbol instead of a smaller diamond and "HOV EXIT" banner above. Also, they didn't really need to display the HOV rules in that banner, which needlessly crowds that sign.

Also interesting that they left the "North" off of the exit 1B sign, when it was there before.


If Caltrans now has a sign gantry that can be flexible with sign heights and wind loading, they shouldn't be afraid to use slightly larger signs so that sign legends can be designed without being cramped. Everything on this assembly seems cramped except the exit tabs (which have too much space given the low number).

Quote from: myosh_tino on November 27, 2022, 09:59:06 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 27, 2022, 09:51:27 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on November 27, 2022, 05:51:36 PM
I think that arrow is supposed to be centered over the far right lane.

That's not how exit direction signs are supposed to work...

I thought there was something in the MUTCD where arrows on overhead signs were supposed to be positioned above the center of the lane but I guess I'm mistaken.

Not sure that there's anything in the current MUTCD, except on multi-lane exits. I think something like that may have been proposed for the MUTCD, based on what I remember of some discussion here. (I never actually reviewed the whole proposed manual to submit comments, as I had planned.)

The new MUTCD proposed requiring arrow placement to the right of the legend on overhead signs and below it on ground-mounted signs. No official reasoning was given, but it was theorized that it may have been to prevent confusing an exit direction arrow for a lane-assignment arrow on overhead signs, and prevent brush from obscuring the arrow on ground-mounted signs.

J.N. Winkler and I (as well as I think Richard Moeur if I remember right) left comments objecting to the change. Mine is rooted in a belief that arrow-below-legend layouts aesthetically suck, but I believe all three of us actually commented to the effect that this would mostly serve to limit engineers' flexibility in choosing a sign layout suitable for a given situation.

So here's the first time I've ever encountered left exit tabs indicating a break in the double-white lines for a carpool lane:

(https://i.imgur.com/HEzNSKP.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/pXpELot.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/AMbhXYA.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/YVj3J5r.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/xFoOU45.jpg)

It's like watching an elderly family member who just learned how to use Microsoft Word proudly showing off her first ever church bulletin, clip art and all. Grandma finally figured out how to use the exit tab function of SignCAD and now she wants to use it on everything...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F85s_VersTruss.png&hash=003cc63f541fa6190718987bd1eae4fa7e7cee55)

That's just too much crap on one overhead gantry. I mean, damn. One of the most basic rules in sign design is you include only so many elements in a layout. If there are too many pieces of information to read then whole layout can turn into visual static that is actually easier to ignore.

BTW, the old overhead sign it replaced wasn't any better either.

First, that whole thing should have been divided up into at least three separate signs. The major exit messages for US-101 South to Los Angeles and US-101 North to San Francisco should be alone on one overhead sign. The US-101 HOV left exit message should be on another pole structure, in the median at left and in a different location. The exit sign for Great Oaks Blvd could have been handled with a ground mounted sign off to the right. The same goes for Bernal Road.

The other thing I really can't stand about these signs: the sign panels aren't big enough for their messages. The layout elements are crammed in there however they can fit. That's all because they're trying to make everything work on one single overhead gantry structure. They can't stick "North" to the right of the US-101 shield on the San Francisco panel because there is no room for it. So they just omitted the element. The old sign had "North" listed above the US-101 shield, but I think that might violate current design rules.

In general Caltrans uses sign panels that aren't tall enough on lots of sign structures. Aside from the importance of negative space around the lettering and other elements the cramped layouts can have portions literally blocked by features on the sign structure, like those flood lights on catwalks mounted under an overhead sign panel.

I guess there is some kind of philosophy at work with these sign panels. It appears they have some rules against really big or tall green sign panels. Because maybe that would be ugly? Unfortunately so many freeway signs in California just look terrible because the sign layouts look cramped and disorganized.

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 28, 2022, 08:50:35 PM
It's like watching an elderly family member who just learned how to use Microsoft Word proudly showing off her first ever church bulletin, clip art and all. Grandma finally figured out how to use the exit tab function of SignCAD and now she wants to use it on everything...

To be fair, I've seen this other places too, so it isn't just a California weirdness. Utah's HOT lane on I-15 is full of this kind of thing.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 28, 2022, 11:15:40 PM
I guess there is some kind of philosophy at work with these sign panels. It appears they have some rules against really big or tall green sign panels. Because maybe that would be ugly? Unfortunately so many freeway signs in California just look terrible because the sign layouts look cramped and disorganized.

California has previously had strict wind-loading requirements which meant, at max, 120-inch sign panels. I think many signs were shorter, can't confirm though.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 28, 2022, 11:15:40 PM
The old sign had "North" listed above the US-101 shield, but I think that might violate current design rules.

WOAH WOAH hold up, what?! I've never heard this.

Quote from: US 89 on November 28, 2022, 11:31:32 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 28, 2022, 08:50:35 PM
It's like watching an elderly family member who just learned how to use Microsoft Word proudly showing off her first ever church bulletin, clip art and all. Grandma finally figured out how to use the exit tab function of SignCAD and now she wants to use it on everything...

To be fair, I've seen this other places too, so it isn't just a California weirdness. Utah's HOT lane on I-15 is full of this kind of thing.

Washington State too. Any left exit without an inset left exit message (eg Northbound I-5 Exit 167 for Mercer Street in Seattle (https://goo.gl/maps/hD1smFdXvfo9zLX89)) got a left exit tab. This resulted in almost every HOV sign having a LEFT tab. It looks insanely ridiculous, especially since WSDOT does not use external exit tabs, so now all these single-panel signs have an extra LEFT tab on them.

California also has their ridiculous "all sign panels on a gantry must be the same size" policy (in the button copy era it was always 90"), which doesn't do them any favors.

Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2022, 03:24:27 AMWashington State too. Any left exit without an inset left exit message (eg Northbound I-5 Exit 167 for Mercer Street in Seattle (https://goo.gl/maps/hD1smFdXvfo9zLX89)) got a left exit tab.

But wouldn't this be the exact situation where the MUTCD calls for using a LEFT tab...

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 29, 2022, 04:48:39 AM
California also has their ridiculous "all sign panels on a gantry must be the same size" policy (in the button copy era it was always 90"), which doesn't do them any favors.

That's just a waste of materials and taxpayer money, particularly for signs with short street or destination names.

Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2022, 03:24:27 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 28, 2022, 11:15:40 PM
The old sign had "North" listed above the US-101 shield, but I think that might violate current design rules.

WOAH WOAH hold up, what?! I've never heard this.

I've not heard anything to this effect.

Quote from: abqtraveler on November 29, 2022, 09:31:02 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 29, 2022, 04:48:39 AM
California also has their ridiculous "all sign panels on a gantry must be the same size" policy (in the button copy era it was always 90"), which doesn't do them any favors.

That's just a waste of materials and taxpayer money, particularly for signs with short street or destination names.

More often than not, it was a conservation of materials. Sign legends and layouts were often crammed to fit the 90" or 120" height (whatever the truss and wind loading standards were) across the gantry when some of the signs could've been designed taller with adequate legend spacing/padding. Caltrans was not afraid to use shorter signs across the gantry (especially on two-sign gantries at an exit direction location) if they could make it work.

Quote from: jakerootWOAH WOAH hold up, what?! I've never heard this.

I can't quote anything specific in the MUTCD, but listing the cardinal direction to the right of a highway marker on a big green sign seems like a rule. I can't recall seeing any cardinal directions listed above (or below) a route shield on any new big green signs. That might explain why "North" is missing on that US-101 to San Franciso sign panel. There is physically enough space on that panel for "North" above the US-101 shield. They just chose not to place the word there.

Quote from: Scott5114California also has their ridiculous "all sign panels on a gantry must be the same size" policy (in the button copy era it was always 90"), which doesn't do them any favors.

It really doesn't help when they choose a common height for all panels that isn't tall enough for the messages.

It looks like they're using a one size fits all width for the exit tab panels. The panels in the photo are a little too wide for "Exit 1A" messages; they look like they would accomodate an "Exit 299B" style message. BTW, I just hate that Left Exit tab design with "left" in a yellow box. I would just make the whole tab yellow so "left exit" can work as a proper phrase.

Quote from: abqtravelerThat's just a waste of materials and taxpayer money, particularly for signs with short street or destination names.

In Caltrans case they seem to be doing things on the cheap, which means specifying a shorter common height for all sign panels on the gantry and constraining panel widths too. I'm used to seeing too much copy crammed into an inadequate sized panel or space when it involves commercial signs for businesses. Highway signs should be expected to uphold some kind of consistent standard.

QuoteMore often than not, it was a conservation of materials. Sign legends and layouts were often crammed to fit the 90" or 120" height (whatever the truss and wind loading standards were) across the gantry when some of the signs could've been designed taller with adequate legend spacing/padding.

And then there's "short skirt" things like this:

https://goo.gl/maps/cj2nTNomjcMaKiZ37

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 29, 2022, 01:56:13 PM
It looks like they're using a one size fits all width for the exit tab panels. The panels in the photo are a little too wide for "Exit 1A" messages; they look like they would accomodate an "Exit 299B" style message. BTW, I just hate that Left Exit tab design with "left" in a yellow box. I would just make the whole tab yellow so "left exit" can work as a proper phrase.

Unless someone can measure the panel size and prove otherwise, that seems to be the spec as defined in the federal MUTCD.

I do agree with you the tabs are too wide. Just next state over, the Nevada spec exit tabs look much better because there's no excessive padding.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 29, 2022, 04:53:15 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2022, 03:24:27 AMWashington State too. Any left exit without an inset left exit message (eg Northbound I-5 Exit 167 for Mercer Street in Seattle (https://goo.gl/maps/hD1smFdXvfo9zLX89)) got a left exit tab.

But wouldn't this be the exact situation where the MUTCD calls for using a LEFT tab...

WSDOT doesn't seem to do external LEFT tabs unless the exit doesn't have a number, or it was added after the sign was already made. Exit signs in WA are all inset and centered, so the design I linked to is in-keeping with design practices (MUTCD be-damned).

Quote from: roadfro on November 29, 2022, 01:14:32 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2022, 03:24:27 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 28, 2022, 11:15:40 PM
The old sign had "North" listed above the US-101 shield, but I think that might violate current design rules.

WOAH WOAH hold up, what?! I've never heard this.

I've not heard anything to this effect.

*breathes sighs of relief*

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 29, 2022, 01:56:13 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2022, 03:24:27 AM
WOAH WOAH hold up, what?! I've never heard this.

I can't quote anything specific in the MUTCD, but listing the cardinal direction to the right of a highway marker on a big green sign seems like a rule. I can't recall seeing any cardinal directions listed above (or below) a route shield on any new big green signs. That might explain why "North" is missing on that US-101 to San Franciso sign panel. There is physically enough space on that panel for "North" above the US-101 shield. They just chose not to place the word there.

I've never heard of the cardinal direction placement being any more than a judgement based on panel size and proximity of nearby legend.

This decently new sign in Tacoma, WA has both adjacent and "stacked" cardinal directions: https://goo.gl/maps/vRyESjAJQhVXnsHk6

WSDOT overall has a lot of new signs with "stacked" cardinal directions.

Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2022, 07:11:59 PM

Quote from: roadfro on November 29, 2022, 01:14:32 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2022, 03:24:27 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 28, 2022, 11:15:40 PM
The old sign had "North" listed above the US-101 shield, but I think that might violate current design rules.

WOAH WOAH hold up, what?! I've never heard this.

I've not heard anything to this effect.

*breathes sighs of relief*

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 29, 2022, 01:56:13 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2022, 03:24:27 AM
WOAH WOAH hold up, what?! I've never heard this.

I can't quote anything specific in the MUTCD, but listing the cardinal direction to the right of a highway marker on a big green sign seems like a rule. I can't recall seeing any cardinal directions listed above (or below) a route shield on any new big green signs. That might explain why "North" is missing on that US-101 to San Franciso sign panel. There is physically enough space on that panel for "North" above the US-101 shield. They just chose not to place the word there.

I've never heard of the cardinal direction placement being any more than a judgement based on panel size and proximity of nearby legend.

This decently new sign in Tacoma, WA has both adjacent and "stacked" cardinal directions: https://goo.gl/maps/vRyESjAJQhVXnsHk6

WSDOT overall has a lot of new signs with "stacked" cardinal directions.

I think it might be something more mundane like they forgot to put it in the new sign or they chose to not put it in because both US-101 directions can be accessed via the exit

Quote from: ClassicHasClassAnd then there's "short skirt" things like this:

https://goo.gl/maps/cj2nTNomjcMaKiZ37

That overhead gantry does look pretty ridiculous. The HOV 2+ panel is the only thing that looks acceptable. But the choice to have the bottom edges of the sign panels positioned a few feet above the catwalk level is an admission those catwalks and external flood lamps do obstruct sign messages.

With Caltrans shifting to green panels covered with type III high intensity reflective sheeting the external flood lights and catwalks would no longer be necessary.

Quote from: SeriesE on November 29, 2022, 06:25:22 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 29, 2022, 01:56:13 PM
It looks like they're using a one size fits all width for the exit tab panels. The panels in the photo are a little too wide for "Exit 1A" messages; they look like they would accomodate an "Exit 299B" style message. BTW, I just hate that Left Exit tab design with "left" in a yellow box. I would just make the whole tab yellow so "left exit" can work as a proper phrase.

Unless someone can measure the panel size and prove otherwise, that seems to be the spec as defined in the federal MUTCD.

I do agree with you the tabs are too wide. Just next state over, the Nevada spec exit tabs look much better because there's no excessive padding.

Yes and no. That is a federal spec tab...but the federal spec includes a number of different tab widths to accommodate different exit number widths. In this case, Caltrans seems to be using one of the wider ones when a narrower one would do.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 17, 2022, 12:30:47 PM
The MUTCD requires exit numbers on all freeways, full stop. So eventually Caltrans will be required to add them, the same way they were obliged to fix the exit tabs. It's only a matter of when FHWA decides to show their teeth on that particular provision of the MUTCD.

Or what, they lose federal funding that CA 33 never got in the first place?

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 19, 2022, 08:55:57 PM

Quote from: roadfro on August 19, 2022, 11:33:35 AM

Quote from: abqtraveler on August 19, 2022, 09:20:17 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 17, 2022, 12:30:47 PM
The MUTCD requires exit numbers on all freeways, full stop. So eventually Caltrans will be required to add them, the same way they were obliged to fix the exit tabs. It's only a matter of when FHWA decides to show their teeth on that particular provision of the MUTCD.

With that said, I'm curious as to if or when the FHWA will require CALTRANS to start installing standard mileposts on its highways in lieu of the current county postmile system the state currently uses. I recall that there are stretches of CA-58 and CA-14 in the Mojave area that use the green mileposts we're all familiar with, but those are the only two stretches of road I've seen them on in California.

I seem to recall CalTrans also has MUTCD-style standard milepost signs on US 6.

Not sure about US 6 but the green mileposts on CA-58 were removed in 2016 at the request of the local Caltrans district.  IIRC the reason was they were too confusing for local law enforcement and the CHP when it came to locating incidents on the highway.

But then in late 2020, these appeared on a 3.5 mile stretch of CA-17 from the Santa Clara/Santa Cruz county line to just before the Lexington Reservoir...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fca17-milemarker.jpg&hash=1f2a347ac765d28605b75b3cd5b3008e0a50d62f)

Link to that particular discussion: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27944.0

If you're gonna use that sign, don't put 0 at the county line. If you hadn't told me, I would have thought that sign was in southern Scotts Valley.

Quote from: SeriesE on August 24, 2022, 02:54:08 PM

Quote from: joshI5 on August 24, 2022, 01:38:50 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52307555277_7f31e46d36_k.jpg)

Exhibit A of why I don't like the excess padding in MUTCD spec exit tabs. The minimum width of the sign is much larger. When the sign gets too narrow, the tab is going to be as wide as the regular sign, so that the visual hint of the left/right exit tabs won't work.

At least with the older California-spec tabs (when mounted separately), the sign can be much narrower before the same issue shows up.

That one is also noticeably off-center to the left without being aligned to either edge of the sign.

Quote from: kphoger on September 01, 2022, 02:55:11 PM
Am I the only one who doesn't care about the alignment of the exit tab?  Doesn't matter one bit to me.

I like the ones that spell out "right" or "left" so I know if it's one of those annoying exits where I have to get over way ahead.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 03, 2022, 11:23:17 PM
When 99.5% of your freeway exits on the right, there is really nothing to be gained from justified exit tabs. The half dozen left exits can have those "LEFT"  plaques to the left of "EXIT" .

I get why the FHWA is mental about this. Some states have a ridiculous number of left exits. Washington is not one of those states.

I still like to know for sure if I'm coming up to one of the 1/2 of 1%.  How hard it is to spell it out either way?

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 29, 2022, 10:27:05 PM

Quote from: SeriesE on November 29, 2022, 06:25:22 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 29, 2022, 01:56:13 PM
It looks like they're using a one size fits all width for the exit tab panels. The panels in the photo are a little too wide for "Exit 1A" messages; they look like they would accomodate an "Exit 299B" style message. BTW, I just hate that Left Exit tab design with "left" in a yellow box. I would just make the whole tab yellow so "left exit" can work as a proper phrase.

Unless someone can measure the panel size and prove otherwise, that seems to be the spec as defined in the federal MUTCD.

I do agree with you the tabs are too wide. Just next state over, the Nevada spec exit tabs look much better because there's no excessive padding.

Yes and no. That is a federal spec tab...but the federal spec includes a number of different tab widths to accommodate different exit number widths. In this case, Caltrans seems to be using one of the wider ones when a narrower one would do.

I'd probably use the narrowest one up to 9C/99 and one more digit than FMUTCD on the other widths if I worked in Caltrans' sign department

Quote from: bootmii on December 04, 2022, 02:41:06 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 17, 2022, 12:30:47 PM
The MUTCD requires exit numbers on all freeways, full stop. So eventually Caltrans will be required to add them, the same way they were obliged to fix the exit tabs. It's only a matter of when FHWA decides to show their teeth on that particular provision of the MUTCD.

Or what, they lose federal funding that CA 33 never got in the first place?

Just because something isn't an interstate doesn't mean it doesn't get federal funding.  The freeway part of CA 33 is on the NHS, and the remainder is all federal aid eligible.

Quote from: kkt on December 04, 2022, 03:04:55 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 03, 2022, 11:23:17 PM
When 99.5% of your freeway exits on the right, there is really nothing to be gained from justified exit tabs. The half dozen left exits can have those "LEFT"  plaques to the left of "EXIT" .

I get why the FHWA is mental about this. Some states have a ridiculous number of left exits. Washington is not one of those states.

I still like to know for sure if I'm coming up to one of the 1/2 of 1%.  How hard it is to spell it out either way?

I'm just saying that they don't need to scream it at you. A "LEFT"  legend against a yellow background should be sufficient no matter if it's above or adjacent to the "EXIT"  legend.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 04, 2022, 11:03:30 PM

Quote from: kkt on December 04, 2022, 03:04:55 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 03, 2022, 11:23:17 PM
When 99.5% of your freeway exits on the right, there is really nothing to be gained from justified exit tabs. The half dozen left exits can have those "LEFT"  plaques to the left of "EXIT" .

I get why the FHWA is mental about this. Some states have a ridiculous number of left exits. Washington is not one of those states.

I still like to know for sure if I'm coming up to one of the 1/2 of 1%.  How hard it is to spell it out either way?

I'm just saying that they don't need to scream it at you. A "LEFT"  legend against a yellow background should be sufficient no matter if it's above or adjacent to the "EXIT"  legend.

I agree with this. There's really no need for a two-line exit tab. A left-aligned one-line exit tab with yellow "LEFT" panel before the word "EXIT" would convey the same information with less wasted sign area.

I would imagine the reason they went with a two-line tab is because, with a one line tab, it is too easy to get into a situation where the tab is wider than the main panel is. (LEFT EXIT 149A ... Jones)

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 07, 2022, 07:43:44 AM
I would imagine the reason they went with a two-line tab is because, with a one line tab, it is too easy to get into a situation where the tab is wider than the main panel is. (LEFT EXIT 149A ... Jones)

I'm not sure about that. If it were an issue of the exit tab potentially being too wide, they should allow for the "LEFT" legend to be placed either next to or above, not always next to.

And if size was really an issue, why not experiment with alternative design options? Such as (a) exit tabs with black-on-yellow text to symbolize a left exit, or even (b) replacing the words with a symbol pointing left or right?

I'm pretty sure I read that the FHWA specifically wanted the "LEFT" legend to be stacked for improved recognition of the condition. Still, I'm insanely skeptical it makes any difference.

I wouldn't be surprised if the extra height of having "LEFT" on top helps to draw attention to it as well.

Quote from: vdeane on December 08, 2022, 12:54:33 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the extra height of having "LEFT" on top helps to draw attention to it as well.

Most likely. But then, of course it would stand to reason that if we made every sign a hundred feet tall, of course no one would miss it.

Exaggerating slightly less: as much as I love APLs, I'm sure the extra sign area plays a role there, too.

I feel like there's a certain art in sign design that's being completely disregarded when it comes to LEFT exit tabs.

I've always felt like the real best practice would be to use the independent "LEFT" tab (which is intended for unnumbered left exits) and stack it on top of a standard exit tab.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 08, 2022, 07:53:22 PM
I've always felt like the real best practice would be to use the independent "LEFT" tab (which is intended for unnumbered left exits) and stack it on top of a standard exit tab.

I would have assumed this was already allowed.

I think it's a good interim solution, but I feel the best long-term solution is something that doesn't involve literally spelling out "LEFT". Something with color, or a symbol. Something else that doesn't require our highway signs to have top edges that look more like a mountain range.

I honestly wish they just posted the exit numbers in the gore and posts of the gantry, like they do on the signs with really short truss heights. It would've allowed for more button copy signs to stay up and still have exit numbering. Really pisses me off when they replace button copy that has more lifespan to it/in good condition, only to leave the most decrepit, discolored sign you have ever seen.  :banghead:

I just came back from a trip to Lake Tahoe and saw several external exit tabs, here they are! These are all dashcam photos that I don't mind sharing, the GPS coordinates basically geolocate them on any Maps application.

Honestly these exit tabs are like the ones I have seen from other posters and those that I have posted myself, and they all look oversized and more or less terrible. I have yet to see an exit tab like the one discovered on CA 57 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29046.msg2598665#msg2598665)

All of them were in I-80 going westbound:

Exit 184 at Truckee

(https://i.imgur.com/zMHCchi.jpeg)

Exit 94 at Sacramento (it was posted here first! (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29046.msg2755246#msg2755246))

(https://i.imgur.com/U3TPDcc.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/PKONcst.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/rtKllQ7.jpeg)

Exits 14B and 15 at Richmond

(https://i.imgur.com/Hdf6oJ5.jpeg)

The Donner Pass Road one I think may be a completely new installation, so that somewhat makes sense.

Most of the others are interesting in that there are external exit tabs on what appear to be existing gantries. It looks like they may have reduced the size of existing signs to add exit tabs, so that external tabs can be used without significant difference to the wind loading of the sign structure. But that last Light Rail Stations sign has that huge tab on an undersized gantry that the signs don't appear (and really couldn't get) any smaller, so I wonder how that came to pass.

Quote from: roadfro on February 05, 2024, 11:31:52 AM
The Donner Pass Road one I think may be a completely new installation, so that somewhat makes sense.

That one and the stand-alone Light Rail Stations sign are new and use the new versatile truss where the sign panel is centered on the truss.  All the other ones are mounted to an existing gantry which I thought was a no-no

Quote
But that last Light Rail Stations sign has that huge tab on an undersized gantry that the signs don't appear (and really couldn't get) any smaller, so I wonder how that came to pass.

That exit tab is almost as tall as the sign.  And yes, I too am wondering how that was allowed to happen.

The main panel of the Carlson and Cutting signs aren't using the full 120" height of the gantry (I'm eyeballing the Carlson sign as only being 56" or so high). Given that, their wind loading calculations must have shown that the sign was fine to be mounted to an existing gantry.

Quote from: roadfro on February 05, 2024, 11:31:52 AM
The Donner Pass Road one I think may be a completely new installation, so that somewhat makes sense.

.

It is. Several new gantries went up in the Truckee area in 2023, all of which have external tabs. I have a feeling that will be the standard from District 3 moving forward given how many new installs I have seen in the past year.

I still think the wind loading stuff seems like a bunch of BS used to excuse an unwillingness to change, given that Nevada uses the same damn gantries with external tabs and tall signs in some pretty windy locations.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Quote from: cl94 on February 07, 2024, 02:15:20 AM
I still think the wind loading stuff seems like a bunch of BS used to excuse an unwillingness to change, given that Nevada uses the same damn gantries with external tabs and tall signs in some pretty windy locations.

(personal opinion emphasized)

I've also thought the wind loading rationale was also bunk, for the exact same reason.

All the same, I can understand finding a rationale not to alter existing/programmed sign gantries for external exit tabs of all things.  I don't see much more than nominal value, I would imagine some at Caltrans feel the same way.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 07, 2024, 11:56:12 AM
All the same, I can understand finding a rationale not to alter existing/programmed sign gantries for external exit tabs of all things.  I don't see much more than nominal value, I would imagine some at Caltrans feel the same way.

I totally get that, and agree with you there as well. I had no problem CalTrans' implementation of internal exit tabs as a stopgap solution, because at least it was something.

But it's also kinda ridiculous that it took nearly 20 years after beginning the Cal-NExUS exit numbering program for external exit tabs to make it into California. And that wind loading was the excuse, when Nevada has been using the same trusses with external exit tabs without issue as long as I've been alive...

Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2022, 08:08:15 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 08, 2022, 07:53:22 PM
I've always felt like the real best practice would be to use the independent "LEFT" tab (which is intended for unnumbered left exits) and stack it on top of a standard exit tab.

I would have assumed this was already allowed.

Not to get too off-topic and/or if this is what you're talking about, but Massachusetts (since the mid 2000s) and I think Michigan (https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/d4a1825/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1024x768+0+0/resize/880x660!/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Flegacy%2Fsites%2Fwemu%2Ffiles%2F201904%2Fapproaching_ann_arbor_flickr.jpg) too use this "LEFT" exit tab style - stacked above the normal exit tab.

However, MassDOT actually removed some of those tabs in the summer of 2023 in the eastern part of the state (example on MA 24 before (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma24signs321b.jpg), after (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma24signs723b.jpg)) - no official reasoning has been given, but could be attributed to a sign falling down on I-93 in Dec 2022 (https://www.wcvb.com/article/video-shows-highway-sign-crashing-down-hit-by-suv-on-i-93-in-somerville/42363887), which did prompt DOT to erect smaller signs on that stretch of I-93 (before (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i93signsvl521a.jpg), after (https://i.ibb.co/ypvCC8n/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-07-28-a-15-43-06-0400.png)).

Some of the left exit tabs have actually returned after their removal, but with reinforced brackets on the tab (before (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5230703,-70.9822122,3a,75y,237.91h,105.29t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSf_tvaf2lt5xLx3V9hFTLg!2e0!5s20220501T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), after (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5230821,-70.9821756,3a,29.6y,233h,105.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGPdhU-oO_aXLYuG6fTHKtA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)).

Thanks all for these insights about the trusses and the signs. My road trip that day was full of rain and high winds thanks to an atmospheric river. I later read that winds in the Sierras topped out at 165 MPH. I don't know how strong the winds were around Donner Summit/I-80 that time, but I'm convinced the (versatile) trusses and signs were engineered to be robust enough against such weather. I don't have much understanding yet about the wind loading context but I can educate myself on it

As for the "oversized" external exit tabs I saw, they might make sense to me. I became curious as to what exit tabs looked like outside of California, and it looks like some states have big external tabs (lots of examples in the Road Sign UNO thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25062.0)) while other states use tabs the size of "internal" exit tabs seen on Caltrans BGSes, and of course some states use internal exit tabs too. Honestly, having only driven around or lived in California save for a few exceptions, I was so used to how small and squished the internal exit tabs are that my expectations of the external exit tabs appearing here and there are kinda off.

All states are supposed to use 30-inch height exit tabs, because that's what the MUTCD specifies. However, this standard is only 2 decades old, in the mid-00s the standard was 24-inch height. Since there are numerous signs that were installed and/or designed before the change, that is why those signs have smaller looking tabs.

Thought of this thread last night as I was going home on I-80 in San Francisco:

The large left exit external tab for the westbound advance Harrison Street overhead sign on the Bay Bridge has fallen off!

SM-S901U1

Saw two new signs on I-605 north today using the Versatile Truss and external exit tabs: Lower Azusa Road and Live Oak Avenue exits

Found one in SoCal (San Diego) on I-8 eastbound at exit 15. Might be the first one in the San Diego region.

Before (Aug 2022) (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7798404,-116.9832733,3a,15y,61.77h,97.52t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sHu-DmnA3yvB5cy2wH1SNlw!2e0!5s20220801T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-7.520604127402791%26panoid%3DHu-DmnA3yvB5cy2wH1SNlw%26yaw%3D61.774150385147856!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)

There's one in the new Solano I-80 express lanes project at Manuel Campos Pkwy in Fairfield (at least eastbound, wasn't traveling the other direction).

I was driving on CA-4 over the weekend between I-680 and Cummings Skyway and it looks like a safety project is underway between Martinez and Hercules, replacing guardrail and adding lighting. They also have replaced a number of overhead signs and added external exit tabs.  What was interesting to me is that I believe these new signs are still being mounted to the legacy overhead structures, not using the new versatile truss. I think the signs look clean, and much better than internal tabs.

I snapped a few photos, sorry if they aren't in the best of focus.

(https://i.imgur.com/paiKacJ.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8LsHB6v.jpeg)
(https://imgur.com/x3uIUmH.jpeg)
(https://imgur.com/ARqQgnR.jpeg)

Quote from: jdbx on April 07, 2025, 01:16:15 PMWhat was interesting to me is that I believe these new signs are still being mounted to the legacy overhead structures, not using the new versatile truss.

But what about the wind loading?