You have some example images of this update? Want to see how the new BGS design compares to what I see in other states.
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.
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
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.
The FHWA has given a hard no to using in-sign exit tabs:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/reqdetails.asp?id=359
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 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.)
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.
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.
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: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)
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 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.
Wow, this is quite an update.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.
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.
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.
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 noted before, I'm going through AARoads as part of my California Highways update pass. I saw the followingAs 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).
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.
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.
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: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'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.
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.
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.But it doesn't answer the original question: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.
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.
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'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: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?
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.
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?
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)
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.
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.(https://i.imgur.com/OiOmu2W.jpg)
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.
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...(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/80w_Exit184-new.png)
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.
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...(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/80w_Exit184-new.png)
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.
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.
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.
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).
I’m assuming that whole gantry is brand new also?
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
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 tabsI can't see the picture.
(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 happened to have showed the photo to someone else over Messenger, so I was able to rehost it.
(https://i.imgur.com/C7yClTh.png)
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
This might actually be related to Caltrans' wind loading standards...
The main sign being shorter than the gantry height looks sloppy
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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.
They haven't even cracked down on states taking decades to convert to mile-based exit numbers. They don't care in general.
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.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.
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.
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.14Standard:
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.
Just seeing this; it's about time they switched! The in-set ones looked silly and childish..
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.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.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.
I happen to agree that inset exit tabs look childish compared to external ones. Come at me.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.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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.
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 like how that is clearly an exit tab on one of the old gantries. Yet it hasn't blown over.
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
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.
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.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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.