California

[djsekani]

I've seen this around the thread before, but can't remember where, what program did you use to make those BGS's?  I'd like to make some of my own!

All of my signs are laid out by hand using Photoshop.  I don't know of any single program that will do all of this for you automatically.

Everything you see in the above 3 signs (route shields, arrows, exit tabs, etc) was made by me following specs from the Caltrans website.

To see how I put my signs together, check out this video I created and uploaded to YouTube...

Myosh, you really are a talent!  I wonder if anyone who does videogames with highways could use them?  At least with you on the job, the signs would be accurate in all aspects!

Rick

I'm pretty sure there are enough road geeks playing Cities Skylines that would be interested in this.

[emory]

Detour sign near Calexico shows an erroneous shield for "Interstate 111."

[sparker]

Detour sign near Calexico shows an erroneous shield for "Interstate 111."

Great!  Pull the shield off the sign, put it in a FedEx flatpack, and send it to NDOT with the note "in case you ever need this!" 

[nexus73]

Detour sign near Calexico shows an erroneous shield for "Interstate 111."

Great!  Pull the shield off the sign, put it in a FedEx flatpack, and send it to NDOT with the note "in case you ever need this!" 

At the end of the road is a sign saying "You should have bought a squirrel!"...LOL!

Rick

[kkt]

Detour sign near Calexico shows an erroneous shield for "Interstate 111."

Great!  Pull the shield off the sign, put it in a FedEx flatpack, and send it to NDOT with the note "in case you ever need this!" 

[Techknow]

CA 1 at Mud Creek will reopen at July 20 at 11 AM. The ribbon cutting ceremony will take place at Ragged Point Inn.

It took 14 months to rebuild the road there after the May mudslide, and over 18 months since it closed around February or March last year. Hooray!

Announcement Link

[Max Rockatansky]

CA 1 at Mud Creek will reopen at July 20 at 11 AM. The ribbon cutting ceremony will take place at Ragged Point Inn.

It took 14 months to rebuild the road there after the May mudslide, and over 18 months since it closed around February or March last year. Hooray!

Announcement Link

I'm planning on being out there that weekend or some time the week after.  I'm planning on heading northward from Cambria.

[Techknow]

Just announced by Caltrans today, CA 1 will actually open tomorrow at 10 AM! The ribbon cutting ceremony will still take place on Friday.

http://dot.ca.gov/dist05/paffairs/monterey/traffic_advisory_mud_creek_roadway_reopens_wednesday_7.18.18.pdf

[Alex]

Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?

[jrouse]

Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?

Yes, it's been relinquished between Industrial Parkway and I-580

[sparker]

Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?

Application for relinquishment of CA 238 inside the city limits of Hayward posted 11/09; CTC approved it in 07/10, with the usual codicil that signage to the remaining portions of CA 238/I-238 be maintained*.  But, as per usual, there has been no follow-through on this; there seem to be no 238 reassurance signs on either Foothill or Mission Blvd. between I-580 and Driscoll Ave. in Fremont except for a couple of trailblazers at the short CA 84 multiplex in Niles.  From Industrial Parkway (at the south Hayward city limits) south to I-680, the entire stretch of CA 238 lies within the city of Fremont.  Contrast this to CA 84, which takes a rather convoluted surface-street path across that city (right through its "old town" section) and is well-marked throughout by shields, trailblazers, and small/medium green signs.  For some reason, Caltrans D4 has functionally forgotten about CA 238.

*thanks to D. Faigin/californiahighways.org for this info   

[TheStranger]

Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?

Application for relinquishment of CA 238 inside the city limits of Hayward posted 11/09; CTC approved it in 07/10, with the usual codicil that signage to the remaining portions of CA 238/I-238 be maintained*.  But, as per usual, there has been no follow-through on this; there seem to be no 238 reassurance signs on either Foothill or Mission Blvd. between I-580 and Driscoll Ave. in Fremont except for a couple of trailblazers at the short CA 84 multiplex in Niles.  From Industrial Parkway (at the south Hayward city limits) south to I-680, the entire stretch of CA 238 lies within the city of Fremont.  Contrast this to CA 84, which takes a rather convoluted surface-street path across that city (right through its "old town" section) and is well-marked throughout by shields, trailblazers, and small/medium green signs.  For some reason, Caltrans D4 has functionally forgotten about CA 238.

*thanks to D. Faigin/californiahighways.org for this info   

In comparison...as of last month when I drove through there, the signage for Route 238 from I-238 in Castro Valley is still up!  (Compare to, as an example, former Route 160 through midtown/downtown Sacramento, no longer acknowledged on the BGSes along US 50)

[sparker]

Yeah -- Exit BGS's from both ends of original CA 238, at I-238/580 on the north and at I-680 at the south end, still feature CA 238 shields; it's the actual facility in between that lacks signage.  

[Quillz]

Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?

Application for relinquishment of CA 238 inside the city limits of Hayward posted 11/09; CTC approved it in 07/10, with the usual codicil that signage to the remaining portions of CA 238/I-238 be maintained*.  But, as per usual, there has been no follow-through on this; there seem to be no 238 reassurance signs on either Foothill or Mission Blvd. between I-580 and Driscoll Ave. in Fremont except for a couple of trailblazers at the short CA 84 multiplex in Niles.  From Industrial Parkway (at the south Hayward city limits) south to I-680, the entire stretch of CA 238 lies within the city of Fremont.  Contrast this to CA 84, which takes a rather convoluted surface-street path across that city (right through its "old town" section) and is well-marked throughout by shields, trailblazers, and small/medium green signs.  For some reason, Caltrans D4 has functionally forgotten about CA 238.

*thanks to D. Faigin/californiahighways.org for this info   

What is also weird is when signage is maintained, how it's maintained. Sometimes I'll see something like "TO CA-x," other times I'll just see the shield. The latter is preferred, because again, navigation is most important, and whether or not Caltrans maintains the actual routing is unnecessary. Must be based on the district. CA-1 through Santa Monica often has the "TO" banner, some other routes are signed in places that I know the local governments maintain them.

[silverback1065]

Yeah -- Exit BGS's from both ends of original CA 238, at I-238/580 on the north and at I-680 at the south end, still feature CA 238 shields; it's the actual facility in between that lacks signage.

it's california, they're terrible at signing their highways

[oscar]

Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?

Application for relinquishment of CA 238 inside the city limits of Hayward posted 11/09; CTC approved it in 07/10, with the usual codicil that signage to the remaining portions of CA 238/I-238 be maintained. 

But the language of the codicil in the Streets and Highway Code is unusual:

For the relinquished former portion of Route 238, the City of Hayward shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 238 or to the state highway system, as applicable.

So the requirement is not for continuity of CA 238 signage, but rather for pointers directing Hayward travelers to return to some part of the state highway system. "To" I-880, I-680, I-580, CA 84, or CA 92 signs would serve that purpose.

There is similar language for the authorized relinquishments within Hayward of parts of CA 92 and CA 185.

[sparker]

Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?

Application for relinquishment of CA 238 inside the city limits of Hayward posted 11/09; CTC approved it in 07/10, with the usual codicil that signage to the remaining portions of CA 238/I-238 be maintained. 

But the language of the codicil in the Streets and Highway Code is unusual:

For the relinquished former portion of Route 238, the City of Hayward shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 238 or to the state highway system, as applicable.

So the requirement is not for continuity of CA 238 signage, but rather for pointers directing Hayward travelers to return to some part of the state highway system. "To" I-880, I-680, I-580, CA 84, or CA 92 signs would serve that purpose.

There is similar language for the authorized relinquishments within Hayward of parts of CA 92 and CA 185.

Yikes!  Southbound, that would, if taken at its linguistic extreme, mean directing traffic to SB I-880, adding to the congestion that's pretty much granted from 6 a.m. to at least 8 p.m. weekdays.  Just to provide an alternate route, it would seem fitting to actually direct traffic south along Mission to the existing section of CA 238 that starts at the Hayward city limits at Industrial Parkway just to avoid shunting it over to I-880.  But the failure to do so, along with the lack of reassurance shields on CA 238 in the city of Fremont, seems to indicate that this segment of state highway will be the next to be relinquished, consigning the non-Interstate part of 238 to the "dustbin".  If this indeed occurs, it'll be ironic that the single most inappropriately-numbered Interstate segment will be the last portion of its numerical route to survive! 

[cahwyguy]

As I was working on the map for Route 185 in the last day or two (look online; I've uploaded through 189, and done through 190), if you were on Mission, that's Route 185 not 238. I've got some detail on that on the Route 185 map. Route 185 was relinquished back to Hayward from Route 92 to A street (if memory serves correct), and then just last year, from A street for a few blocks more.

[sparker]

Historically, the Mission/Jackson/Foothill intersection at the south end of downtown Hayward was the junction point of CA 92, CA 185, and CA 238; the first two terminated at that intersection as well.  238, north-to-south, came down Foothill, traversed downtown and curved SW to the intersection; there it turned SE onto Mission toward Fremont.  CA 92 proceeded SW on Jackson toward the San Mateo bridge, while CA 185 came in on the northern extension of Mission that eventually became East 14th Street in San Leandro and Oakland.  CA 92 was relinquished east of I-880 several years ago after the rebuilding of the 92/880 interchange -- part of the rationale for that rebuild was to expedite/shunt through traffic intended for I-580 east onto I-880 north and thence to I-238 east so as to remove any through traffic from Hayward streets.  The last CA 185 relinquishment truncated the route just south of its interchange with I-238 (at the San Lorenzo/Hayward city line), taking it completely off Hayward arterials.  And, as has been cited earlier, CA 238 no longer exists along Foothill and Mission boulevards within Hayward city limits.  It's pretty obvious that all this is a purely symbiotic activity:  Caltrans would rather not maintain city streets, and Hayward wants through traffic, particularly of the commuter variety, to detour around the downtown area (which it is attempting to redevelop).  The city has established a partial one-way couplet on Foothill (NB) and Mission (SB) just north of the Jackson intersection; the convoluted nature of the traffic patterns has helped stymie any "straggler" traffic still trying to get from the San Mateo bridge to EB I-580 in Castro Valley (and vice-versa) by making the former shortcut difficult to navigate -- and that strategy seems to be working.  At this point the primary cause of congestion in Hayward is traffic heading to and from Cal State East Bay (formerly CSU Hayward), perched on the hillside east of South Mission Blvd.     

[DTComposer]

It's pretty obvious that all this is a purely symbiotic activity:  Caltrans would rather not maintain city streets, and Hayward wants through traffic, particularly of the commuter variety, to detour around the downtown area (which it is attempting to redevelop).  The city has established a partial one-way couplet on Foothill (NB) and Mission (SB) just north of the Jackson intersection; the convoluted nature of the traffic patterns has helped stymie any "straggler" traffic still trying to get from the San Mateo bridge to EB I-580 in Castro Valley (and vice-versa) by making the former shortcut difficult to navigate -- and that strategy seems to be working.  At this point the primary cause of congestion in Hayward is traffic heading to and from Cal State East Bay (formerly CSU Hayward), perched on the hillside east of South Mission Blvd.     

I'm not disputing that the goal is to get through traffic off Hayward streets to help downtown revitalization, but why then did they leave Foothill and Mission as 4 to 6-lane arterials? The one-way portion of Foothill is 5 lanes, plus turn lanes! When I have used Jackson/Foothill as a shortcut between the San Mateo Bridge and I-580, the portion through downtown is actually the freest-flowing (many cars going 45-50 mph) - that's not conducive to a downtown district. Heck, Foothill is still enough of a through route that it took me several trips before I even noticed the real downtown is along B Street.

I feel like what they really should do is make both streets 4 lanes max (2 each way) in the downtown district, use the extra room for landscaping/bike lanes/parklets/etc., beef up the alternative routes into/out of downtown (A Street/Redwood Road, D Street/Winton Avenue), then encourage/force all CSUEB traffic out Harder Road to Jackson/I-880 (I'm assuming the student traffic is not high from the Castro Valley area, and students from points northeast are now being directed to the Contra Costa campus).

IMO not building out CA-238 as a freeway is one of the biggest blunders in Bay Area highway history. There's not much more they can do to the Nimitz and its continual congestion has reached L.A.-type levels.

[sparker]

It's pretty obvious that all this is a purely symbiotic activity:  Caltrans would rather not maintain city streets, and Hayward wants through traffic, particularly of the commuter variety, to detour around the downtown area (which it is attempting to redevelop).  The city has established a partial one-way couplet on Foothill (NB) and Mission (SB) just north of the Jackson intersection; the convoluted nature of the traffic patterns has helped stymie any "straggler" traffic still trying to get from the San Mateo bridge to EB I-580 in Castro Valley (and vice-versa) by making the former shortcut difficult to navigate -- and that strategy seems to be working.  At this point the primary cause of congestion in Hayward is traffic heading to and from Cal State East Bay (formerly CSU Hayward), perched on the hillside east of South Mission Blvd.     

I'm not disputing that the goal is to get through traffic off Hayward streets to help downtown revitalization, but why then did they leave Foothill and Mission as 4 to 6-lane arterials? The one-way portion of Foothill is 5 lanes, plus turn lanes! When I have used Jackson/Foothill as a shortcut between the San Mateo Bridge and I-580, the portion through downtown is actually the freest-flowing (many cars going 45-50 mph) - that's not conducive to a downtown district. Heck, Foothill is still enough of a through route that it took me several trips before I even noticed the real downtown is along B Street.

I feel like what they really should do is make both streets 4 lanes max (2 each way) in the downtown district, use the extra room for landscaping/bike lanes/parklets/etc., beef up the alternative routes into/out of downtown (A Street/Redwood Road, D Street/Winton Avenue), then encourage/force all CSUEB traffic out Harder Road to Jackson/I-880 (I'm assuming the student traffic is not high from the Castro Valley area, and students from points northeast are now being directed to the Contra Costa campus).

IMO not building out CA-238 as a freeway is one of the biggest blunders in Bay Area highway history. There's not much more they can do to the Nimitz and its continual congestion has reached L.A.-type levels.

The originally adopted CA 238 freeway alignment (adopted back when it was still SSR 9) was about 2 blocks east of Foothill, essentially behind the rear-parking area for the downtown businesses along Foothill and would have isolated the residential area to the east from the business district.  Heading south, it sat at the bottom of the hill below (then) CSUH before cutting across Mission Blvd and angling SSE through the eastern portion of Union City before assuming a pathway directly alongside BART, eventually ending at I-680 at the bottom of the Sunol Grade hill.  The downtown Hayward and Union City sections were the most controversial circa 1971-72; both residents of the east side of Hayward and Latino activists in Union City sued the then-Division of Highways; initially to force a relocation of the freeway but, when the Division demurred, claiming the adopted route was the only reasonable alternative, to permanently enjoin the freeway's construction and rescind the adopted route.  The Hayward suit was dropped in favor of the Union City one, which cited discrimination against minorities among its complaints; it eventually won in court with a permanent injunction against construction in the general CA 238 corridor.  While the adoption recission wasn't a part of the court order, the Division -- by this time embedded within the new Caltrans -- saw the "writing on the wall" and rescinded the alignment themselves.  Although there were properties acquired -- primarily in southwest Hayward and Union City -- for the construction (originally slated for lettings in 1975-76), they were eventually sold under the Gianturco management of Caltrans.  The combination of a very disruptive alignment and, well, being in the wrong place at the wrong time vis-a-vis the '70's freeway backlash (spreading east from S.F.) doomed CA 238 -- which, IMO, if fully constructed would have likely gained Interstate status at a later date (probably a I-480 relocation). 

As far as the physical configuration of the former state alignments through Hayward are concerned, it's likely that what's on the ground now won't last; "road diets" on both Foothill and Mission (at least north of the "5-point"/Jackson intersection) will likely be deployed in the next 5 years or so, depending upon availability of funds.  The last time I was through there a few months back the downtown shopping area along Foothill had undergone a major "facelift" (it dated from the early '50's); I wouldn't at all be surprised to see the existing Foothill/Mission one-way couplet extended several blocks north prior to instituting some sort of physical overhaul including dedicated bus lanes. 

[roadman65]

When I was small and watched the mega comedy It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World I always remembered that scene toward the end where the ramp leading to the fictional Santa Rosita Park was (the place with the Big W where the money that the cast was chasing was buried) as looking similar to the California Incline in Santa Monica.

After researching the 1963 movie and where the scenes were filmed, I was actually correct.  The ramp where Spencer Tracy along with his Black Ford Falcon were parked was indeed the California Incline.   However, lots have changed as at the time of production, there were no stop lights at either end of the California Incline.
https://goo.gl/maps/cN87esW6KT12

The parapet though remains as it did in 1963 over 55 years ago.

One thing that the producers did then is took a bunch of location shots from various places in Southern California and made it all look like it was in one place.  The park scenes were filmed at Palos Verdes, several miles away, but when edited in the film, the California Incline was looked to be the entrance to the park in the film.  Other notes are that the boat marina located less than five minutes away from the fictional Santa Rosita Park was in Oxnard some two hours away from Santa Monica.

I am guessing that the old building in the finale where the male cast members all were trapped on the runaway ladder was in Downtown Long Beach with the building being used as a back drop is long demolished.  I cannot find any record of where that was filmed, but some of the other shots with it were indeed in Long Beach.

[sparker]

When I was small and watched the mega comedy It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World I always remembered that scene toward the end where the ramp leading to the fictional Santa Rosita Park was (the place with the Big W where the money that the cast was chasing was buried) as looking similar to the California Incline in Santa Monica.

After researching the 1963 movie and where the scenes were filmed, I was actually correct.  The ramp where Spencer Tracy along with his Black Ford Falcon were parked was indeed the California Incline.   However, lots have changed as at the time of production, there were no stop lights at either end of the California Incline.
https://goo.gl/maps/cN87esW6KT12

The parapet though remains as it did in 1963 over 55 years ago.

One thing that the producers did then is took a bunch of location shots from various places in Southern California and made it all look like it was in one place.  The park scenes were filmed at Palos Verdes, several miles away, but when edited in the film, the California Incline was looked to be the entrance to the park in the film.  Other notes are that the boat marina located less than five minutes away from the fictional Santa Rosita Park was in Oxnard some two hours away from Santa Monica.

I am guessing that the old building in the finale where the male cast members all were trapped on the runaway ladder was in Downtown Long Beach with the building being used as a back drop is long demolished.  I cannot find any record of where that was filmed, but some of the other shots with it were indeed in Long Beach.

And the opening "speeding car" scene with the late Jimmy Durante (that ends when he literally "kicks the bucket") was filmed on the series of horseshoe curves on CA 74 as it rises into the San Jacinto mountains southwest of Palm Desert and La Quinta.  Actually, not a hell of a lot has changed with that highway over the years (the guardrails have been improved, but the alignment is essentially the same).   

[roadman65]

Yellow lines now are the norm as back in the 60's white center lines were seen in the 1963 movie.   Another thread is current about white lines.  Goes to show how the MUTCD has changed over the decades.  In the 70's Skyline Drive in VA and other park roads were allowed then to use the white center which now all roads must use yellow.

[pderocco]

When I was small and watched the mega comedy It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World I always remembered that scene toward the end where the ramp leading to the fictional Santa Rosita Park was (the place with the Big W where the money that the cast was chasing was buried) as looking similar to the California Incline in Santa Monica.

After researching the 1963 movie and where the scenes were filmed, I was actually correct.  The ramp where Spencer Tracy along with his Black Ford Falcon were parked was indeed the California Incline.   However, lots have changed as at the time of production, there were no stop lights at either end of the California Incline.

There are several sites that have lots of then/now pictures from that movie. Here's one:

http://www.themoviedistrict.com/its-a-mad-mad-mad-mad-world-1963/