California

[emory]

Interesting. I could see the reasoning for it being on the entrance ramps from 84, as it would guide drivers to the corresponding segment, especially since the 880 section used to be continuous.
I don't really get why Caltrans is so against multiplexes. This is a situation where it could be quite useful.

There are multiplexes all over California, but they're usually not for long distances or for more than two routes. Whether or not Caltrans chooses to sign them appears to be based on whatever Caltrans feels like doing. They sign CA 2 down US 101 in Hollywood, but they don't sign I-10 down I-5 near downtown LA, nor did they sign CA 170 down US 101 before it was truncated. Just don't expect Caltrans to multiplex an interstate and a US highway for over 50 miles or have a freeway with three route designations.

CA 33 multiplexes several times on its near 300 mile trek Ventura to Tracy. None of them are in the definition of Route 33, but it's actively signed across them all.

[coatimundi]

33 is a funny road. If you go look at the area around Santa Nella, that I posted a StreetView link to earlier in the thread, it's signed onto 152 east but, if you look at the I-5 interchange, it's signed only for eastbound and is left off of the westbound sign for northbound I-5, while it's left out entirely for southbound I-5. Past that, it's really sparingly signed, even for reassurance markers. A lot of it seems like it should be turned over for county maintenance in several places, where it largely functions as a local road, but I would guess it's probably another instance of the county not wanting it. I use it sometimes on busy weekends to avoid I-5, when that road gets crowded with Angelenos in Chevy Tahoes.

But I wasn't trying to assert that California has no multiplexes. The 49/108 multiplex in Stanislaus is both signed and official, and there are a few others. It's just the question of what defines a multiplex? Is it a sign, or is it the legal definition? I was just saying that the legally defined multiplexes are rare in California, even where they would be pretty useful. Most other states are not hesitant at all about keeping multiplexes both signed and defined, but California seems mostly adverse to the whole idea.

=====
So, back to the Redwood Highway, I wanted to sort of lead to the bias that we have now regarding routing decisions. I think we look at the choices made in that respect in a modern context as rational and reasoned, as in the way much of the interstate system was conceived. However, prior to about WWII, the country was much more corrupt. There are plenty of examples of railroads being routed based on bribes, lobbying or just favortism. Not that this didn't exist during the interstate system's planning, but it was certainly less extensive. My point was going to be that it's very possible that the Redwood Highway was put onto what is now 199 was either due to a town's or individual's or group's lobbying, and that could have even been the road's original owner. Maybe it was even some sort of spite against Oregon, if they had just completed their coastal route. But, then again, it could be that it was more reasoned than that; that California saw the benefit of bringing the highway into the more populated parts of Southern Oregon and away from the coast. Who knows.

[TheStranger]

I was just saying that the legally defined multiplexes are rare in California, even where they would be pretty useful.

No concurrency is truly "legally defined" as far as I know; for any one given segment of state-maintained/state-defined road, only one route number is legally defined on it, with the secondary route of the concurrency broken up into segments that begin and end at the other defined road.

(i.e. US 101 is only in 2 segments statewide, while roads that are co-signed with it like Route and Route 84 break up into segments whenever they piggyback onto 101)

[cahwyguy]

There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.

[coatimundi]

There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.

But that would dictate that, in the example above, SR 33 should get precedence over 152. I think the definition actually gives 33 the break there. Maybe there's an exception for what are obviously more important roads?

And I don't think there's actually a break in the definition of 108 for the multiplex with 49. There's just a break for the unconstructed portion.

[sdmichael]

There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.

But that would dictate that, in the example above, SR 33 should get precedence over 152. I think the definition actually gives 33 the break there. Maybe there's an exception for what are obviously more important roads?

And I don't think there's actually a break in the definition of 108 for the multiplex with 49. There's just a break for the unconstructed portion.

Route 108 does have a break. Route 49 is postmiled along the 49/108 section.

[emory]

No concurrency is truly "legally defined" as far as I know; for any one given segment of state-maintained/state-defined road, only one route number is legally defined on it, with the secondary route of the concurrency broken up into segments that begin and end at the other defined road.

The freeway concurrency between CA 57 and CA 60 in Diamond Bar is not acknowledged in either route's legal definition, so there's an instance of a concurrency with no broken route. Exit signs follow CA 60 mileposts.

[Quillz]

There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.

But that would dictate that, in the example above, SR 33 should get precedence over 152. I think the definition actually gives 33 the break there. Maybe there's an exception for what are obviously more important roads?

And I don't think there's actually a break in the definition of 108 for the multiplex with 49. There's just a break for the unconstructed portion.

I think it's probably an exception in that specific instance. Another example is with 33/166, I believe 166 mile markers are posted, as it's the original, older road, while 33 was tacked on as an extension to replace US-399.

[cahwyguy]

No concurrency is truly "legally defined" as far as I know; for any one given segment of state-maintained/state-defined road, only one route number is legally defined on it, with the secondary route of the concurrency broken up into segments that begin and end at the other defined road.

The freeway concurrency between CA 57 and CA 60 in Diamond Bar is not acknowledged in either route's legal definition, so there's an instance of a concurrency with no broken route. Exit signs follow CA 60 mileposts.

Well, it once did have that discontinuity. From my pages (you're seeing my raw format, folks):

%STARTSEG

From Route 5 near Santa Ana to Route 210 near San Dimas.

As of November 24, 2002, the portion from I-10 to I-210/Route 210 was signed as Route 57. Previously, this segment had been signed as part of I-210.

%HIST1964

In 1963, this segment was defined as the segment "Route 5 near Santa Ana to Route 210 near Route 10 and Pomona, passing near Industry." Note that the Route 210 referred to in this segment is the former I-10/I-210 junction in Pomona, not the current I-210/Route 57 junction in San Dimas.

In 1965, Section 1371 split this into two segments: "(b) Route 5 near Santa Ana to Route 60 near Industry. (c) Route 60 near Industry to Route 210 near Route 10 and Pomona."

In 1998, AB 2388 (Chapter 221) recombined these segments, and renumbered former Route 210 between the I-10 (near Pomona) to the I-210/Former Route 30 jct (near San Dimas) portion as Route 57, creating the current definition.

So it did have the discontinuity when it was defined in the post 1964 numbering, but the legislature screwed that up when they adjusted it for the change in terminus of Route 210.

[coatimundi]

There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.

But that would dictate that, in the example above, SR 33 should get precedence over 152. I think the definition actually gives 33 the break there. Maybe there's an exception for what are obviously more important roads?

And I don't think there's actually a break in the definition of 108 for the multiplex with 49. There's just a break for the unconstructed portion.

Route 108 does have a break. Route 49 is postmiled along the 49/108 section.

You're right.
I noticed in the 49/120 multiplex also, that 49 gets the break instead of 120.
I'm not sure about this "ascending number" rule.

[Quillz]

There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.

But that would dictate that, in the example above, SR 33 should get precedence over 152. I think the definition actually gives 33 the break there. Maybe there's an exception for what are obviously more important roads?

And I don't think there's actually a break in the definition of 108 for the multiplex with 49. There's just a break for the unconstructed portion.

Route 108 does have a break. Route 49 is postmiled along the 49/108 section.

You're right.
I noticed in the 49/120 multiplex also, that 49 gets the break instead of 120.
I'm not sure about this "ascending number" rule.

My take is it's more of a guideline or a convention than any actual rule and thus it's frequently ignored. Perhaps the route that was signed/built first gets priority, who knows.

[Exit58]

The freeway concurrency between CA 57 and CA 60 in Diamond Bar is not acknowledged in either route's legal definition, so there's an instance of a concurrency with no broken route. Exit signs follow CA 60 mileposts.

The Pomona Freeway was defined when US 60 was still in existence in California. US 60 also stuck around after the 1964 renumbering (although in that area not for very long). So it's possible that the 57/60 concurrency is simply following the post miles of the pre-freeway alignment (I can't recall if the milage along the freeway is realigned or not as I believe most/all routes still follow the post miles of their '64 routing) thus giving US (SR) 60 preference over SR 57.

[coatimundi]

So it's possible that the 57/60 concurrency is simply following the post miles of the pre-freeway alignment

Good point, and I hadn't thought how that would affect it. But I think the point there was regarding the existence of a concurrency/multiplex in the state route system as opposed to one route having discontinuity as multiplexes seem to normally in the state. Obviously they wouldn't actually post both postmiles (that would be so confusing) though.

I was thinking about it yesterday, and I know I've seen dual milemarkers on an interstate before, but definitely not in California. It may have been either 75/640 in Knoxville or 74/465 in Indianapolis. But I would hope that California would never put up two sets of milemarkers or postmiles. It's just too much.

[jrouse]

New subject:  Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices?  In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield.  I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5).  I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now. 

I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento.  As I noted in my latest post in that thread,  those shields have not been replaced yet.


iPhone

[sdmichael]

New subject:  Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices?  In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield.  I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5).  I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now. 

I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento.  As I noted in my latest post in that thread,  those shields have not been replaced yet.


iPhone

I have not yet noticed in Southern California. Funny about the placement of the direction sign. I prefer it above for US and Interstate shields, below for State shields. It just looks cleaner that way, in California. I will see if I can find some in Districts 7-12 with the new placement.

[roadfro]

New subject:  Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices?  In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield.  I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5).  I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now. 

I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento.  As I noted in my latest post in that thread,  those shields have not been replaced yet.

I haven't noticed. Interesting though... Perhaps it's another way Caltrans is starting to get a little more in conformance with the national MUTCD...?

[myosh_tino]

New subject:  Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices?  In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield.  I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5).  I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now. 

I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento.  As I noted in my latest post in that thread,  those shields have not been replaced yet.

I've noticed a couple of instances in the S.F. Bay Area where the directional banner is above the route shield on the Freeway Entrance assemblies but the vast majority of the ones I see, including some new ones at the I-880/Stevens Creek Blvd interchange, follow the old/existing standard with the directional banner below the route shield.

Here's an assembly on eastbound Mission Blvd/CA-262 at the on-ramp to north I-680...

...that has the directional banner above the shield (note the oddly shaped neutered I-680 shield with larger than normal numerals).

[Occidental Tourist]

New subject:  Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices?  In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield.  I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5).  I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now. 

I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento.  As I noted in my latest post in that thread,  those shields have not been replaced yet.

I've noticed a couple of instances in the S.F. Bay Area where the directional banner is above the route shield on the Freeway Entrance assemblies but the vast majority of the ones I see, including some new ones at the I-880/Stevens Creek Blvd interchange, follow the old/existing standard with the directional banner below the route shield.

Here's an assembly on eastbound Mission Blvd/CA-262 at the on-ramp to north I-680...

...that has the directional banner above the shield (note the oddly shaped neutered I-680 shield with larger than normal numerals).

Jesus, look at that messed-up shield!

[andy3175]

New subject:  Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices?  In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield.  I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5).  I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now. 

I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento.  As I noted in my latest post in that thread,  those shields have not been replaced yet.


iPhone

I have not yet noticed in Southern California. Funny about the placement of the direction sign. I prefer it above for US and Interstate shields, below for State shields. It just looks cleaner that way, in California. I will see if I can find some in Districts 7-12 with the new placement.

I have seen this on I-15 in San Bernardino County; I think it is becoming increasingly common. I will have to remember to photograph one of these to share next time I see one.

FWIW, I think SDMichael is right about the aesthetics of banner placement for Interstate and US route markers vs. state markers.

[andy3175]

With the November election not far off, several California counties are planning transportation sales tax increases including the following:

- Contra Costa County (Measure X) - http://keepcontracostamoving.net/
- Los Angeles County (Measure M) - http://thesource.metro.net/tag/measure-m/
- Placer County (Measure M) - http://keepplacermoving.com/
- Sacramento County (Measure B) - http://www.sacramentogo.com/
- San Diego County (Measure A) - http://measure.sandag.org/
- San Luis Obispo County (Measure J-16)
- Santa Clara County (Measure B) - http://www.vta.org/envision-silicon-valley/envision-silicon-valley
- Santa Cruz County (Measure D) - http://www.votescount.com/Home/UpcomingElections/November8,2016PresidentialGeneralElection/LocalMeasuresontheballot/MeasureDCountyTransportationTaxMeasure.aspx
- Stanislaus County (Measure L) - http://www.stanislaus-localroadsfirst.com
- Ventura County (Measure AA) - http://keepvcmoving.org/

The web page links provide additional project information for each county. Notable items I noted in reviewing these pages include transit improvements (bus and rail), interchange upgrades, and additional road capacity in certain areas. Notable road projects in the list include (not a complete list):

- Vasco Road/Byron Highway Corridor
- I-680/SR 4 interchange improvements
- Improvements to multiple LA Freeways, including portions of I-5, I-105, I-405, I-710
- High Desert Corridor (E-220)
- Placer Parkway (SR 70-99 to SR 65)
- Bus 80/SR 51 Capital City Fwy Bus/Carpool Lanes & Operational Improvements (P Street — Watt)
- Capital Southeast Connector (I-5 Hood-Franklin Road to SR 99 to US 50 Silva Valley Parkway)
- Express and Carpool Lanes on San Diego's I-5, SR 52, SR 78, and SR 94
- Carpool Connectors at San Diego's I-5/SR 78, I-15/SR 78, SR 52/I-805, SR 94/SR 15; SR 94/I-805, and I-805/SR 15
- Missing Freeway Connectors at San Diego's I-5/SR 56, I-5/SR 78, and SR 94/SR 125
- SR 85 Corridor Improvements
- Improvements to Santa Clara County Expressway Network (reference 2040 plan at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/rda/plans/expyplan2040/Pages/study.aspx)
- SR 132 Expressway from I-5 to Modesto
- Improvements to US 101 in SLO and Ventura Counties
- Improvements to SR 118

[coatimundi]

So I don't how I always missed this (probably it being shaded), but I just happened to notice it a couple of weeks ago on a burrito run and got the picture this morning. I don't think I've seen another shield on any of the other business routes in my area, but this seems to be one of the few overall shields for the state business routes.
It's on southbound Del Monte just past Highway 1, in northern Seaside.

[Max Rockatansky]

Speaking of shields on Business routes, this is literally the only fully signed "Historic State Highway" I ever recall seeing in the entire state:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2983551,-120.7053286,3a,37.5y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9VZM30jovQfyGvI96MHhLQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

[sparker]

With the November election not far off, several California counties are planning transportation sales tax increases including the following:
- Los Angeles County (Measure M) - http://thesource.metro.net/tag/measure-m/
- High Desert Corridor (E-220)

As this particular corridor has portions in both Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, does this measure address the corridor portion east of the L.A. county line as well -- since San Bernardino County is not at present considering a dedicated tax increase to address this project? 

And -- although it's been attached to this corridor at least since the 2005 SAFETEA-LU act, exactly what is the significance -- or derivation of -- the "E-220" designation?  Placeholder?  PPP project number?.... or simply something as mundane as the order that the concept was formulated (e.g., Item #220 on someone's agenda).  If anyone out there has a definitive answer, please supply it! 

[Occidental Tourist]

New subject:  Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices?  In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield.  I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5).  I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now. 

I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento.  As I noted in my latest post in that thread,  those shields have not been replaced yet.


iPhone

I have not yet noticed in Southern California. Funny about the placement of the direction sign. I prefer it above for US and Interstate shields, below for State shields. It just looks cleaner that way, in California. I will see if I can find some in Districts 7-12 with the new placement.

I have seen this on I-15 in San Bernardino County; I think it is becoming increasingly common. I will have to remember to photograph one of these to share next time I see one.

FWIW, I think SDMichael is right about the aesthetics of banner placement for Interstate and US route markers vs. state markers.

One more confirmation about implementation by Caltrans.  The new Freeway Entrance sign assembly for the entrance to the 22 Freeway from Studebaker Road in Long Beach has the directional banner above the shield.

[coatimundi]

Walking back to the hotel in Downtown Fresno this evening and spotted this gem. Obviously city maintained. If I'm not mistaken, we have:
- Wrong size
- Wrong font
- Wrong placement of "California"

https://flic.kr/p/LwkP5A